To err on the side of life he says, what a joke?

Recently while watching the news I saw President Bush speaking about the Terri Schiavo case and heard him say in these matters it is always best to err on the side of life. Now for those words to spill so easily from his lips are just sickening when one knows he has the highest kill rate of any governor in history. There is plenty of proof lots ( at least 25) of condemned prisoners went to their deaths only to be proven innocent to late but President Bush had no problem to NOT err on the side of life as governor.

www.ledgeofliberty.com...
With 152 executions under his belt as Governor of Texas; should we be really be surprised to learn that during a 1999 Talk Magazine interview, our President, then Governor, mocked a woman after he condemned her to death? Puckering his lips, feminizing his eyes, and letting out in a desperate squeak, “please don't kill me!"

Not the words of a nefarious cartoon villain, but the words of our President. It was during his time as Governor; George Bush executed more prisoners than any governor in U.S. history, averaging 1 execution every nine days, with as many as 7 executions per month, and occasionally 2 executions per day. These statistics put whole countries to shame. George Bush executed the first woman in Texas since the 1860’s, executed the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the rehabilitated, and statistically 9 innocent people.

Originally posted by goose
Recently while watching the news I saw President Bush speaking about the Terri Schiavo case and heard him say in these matters it is always best to err on the side of life. Now for those words to spill so easily from his lips are just sickening when one knows he has the highest kill rate of any governor in history. There is plenty of proof lots ( at least 25) of condemned prisoners went to their deaths only to be proven innocent to late but President Bush had no problem to NOT err on the side of life as governor.

Oh and lets not forget Bush had no reservations about sending young American Men and Women To die In Iraq when they didn't have to. Oh yeah he's really pro-life. PFFFTTT!!!! Gimme a break, he makes me want to puke.

Umm,

It is my understanding that THE FREEKING JURY DECIDES. Peer choice. Sure, he could issue a stay of execution. That would only be going AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The people who decided death was the appropriate punishment.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Umm,

It is my understanding that THE FREEKING JURY DECIDES. Peer choice. Sure, he could issue a stay of execution. That would only be going AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The people who decided death was the appropriate punishment.

What jury? No jury was involved in this case, just individual judges who decided that congress had no right to make laws.

That bill passed allowing review of the case in situations like Terri Schaivo's was truely a bi-partisan effort, both dems and reps were for it. Apparently, though, the judge would have voted it down, so he chose to ignore it...

The best part about this is we may get to see a judge impeached, because reading some comments from many senators and representatives, both sides are pretty pissed about their law being ignored.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Umm,

It is my understanding that THE FREEKING JURY DECIDES. Peer choice. Sure, he could issue a stay of execution. That would only be going AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The people who decided death was the appropriate punishment.

There are many lawyers and many high profile lawyers (Barry Scheck, the late Johnny Cochran ) working to free people who have been wrongfully convicted. There are also many movies based on true stories about this. There is also a move called The Thin Blue Line, you might want to do some studying on this issue before assuming that just because someone has been convicted means their guilty, many people have been murdered by the state and afterward the proof of their innocence was found.

Originally posted by goose
There are many lawyers and many high profile lawyers (Barry Scheck, the late Johnny Cochran ) working to free people who have been wrongfully convicted. There are also many movies based on true stories about this. There is also a move called The Thin Blue Line, you might want to do some studying on this issue before assuming that just because someone has been convicted means their guilty, many people have been murdered by the state and afterward the proof of their innocence was found.

Wow, I thought it was freaky when Jesse Jackson and Sean Hannity agreed on something...But Junglejake and goose? This is getting wierd...

Bush is anything but pro life... for every Person he 'saves' i.e Terry Schiavo, thousands and thousands have died as a direct result of him or his policies... i guess he feels agreeing to allow Terry to continue to live as a vegetable completey useless and suffering, is redemtpion for all the other lives he's ignored and allowed to go...

Here is a study done proving the point that many people are wrongfully convicted. Also a list of other websites on the subject.

truthinjustice.org...
The study identified 199 murder exonerations, 73 of them in capital cases. It also found 120 rape exonerations. Only nine cases involved other crimes. In more than half of the cases, the defendants had been in prison for more than 10 years
www.truthinjustice.org...
www.cluesonline.com...
members.tripod.com...

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Seapeople
Umm,

It is my understanding that THE FREEKING JURY DECIDES. Peer choice. Sure, he could issue a stay of execution. That would only be going AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The people who decided death was the appropriate punishment.

What jury? No jury was involved in this case, just individual judges who decided that congress had no right to make laws.

That bill passed allowing review of the case in situations like Terri Schaivo's was truely a bi-partisan effort, both dems and reps were for it. Apparently, though, the judge would have voted it down, so he chose to ignore it...

The best part about this is we may get to see a judge impeached, because reading some comments from many senators and representatives, both sides are pretty pissed about their law being ignored.

Buddy, pay more attention. He was referring to court cases in texas, WHERE JURY"S DID DECIDE. The terry schiavo issues is comepletely different than that.

The issue is not the conviction of the accused. The issue is the use of the death penalty. To err on the side of life would be to incarcerate someone for life not to excute them running the risk that they are innocent and have falsely convicted. To support the death penalty and to say that you believe society should err on the side of life are two mutually exclusive positions that cannot be entertained rationally at the same time without becoming a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways unless your ignorant and havent thought it through or your just a bald faced opportunistic liar.

ignorance, on an incalcuable number of counts.

what exactly, is the difference between life in prison and the death penalty? youre going to die in prison anyway, innocent or no? i see no argument.

second, its bOld, not bald faced liar.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Buddy, pay more attention. He was referring to court cases in texas, WHERE JURY"S DID DECIDE. The terry schiavo issues is comepletely different than that.

lol sorry, got Schaivo on the brain.

So you believe that if 12 people get together they have the right to kill someone, assuming they all agree? What the heck are we persecuting gangs for, then? Even if everyone agrees on something, that doesn't make it true. When you kill someone, you can't take it back. If new evidence comes to light after the criminal's killed, what can be done besides kill another person and say sorry about killing someone innocent?

Any kind of state sponsored murder (I'm not talking war here, that's a whole different issue) of an individual is wrong in my eyes. It's something that can't be taken back. Typically, death sentances are given to those who murder, yet two wrongs don't make a right. Especially since it's impossible to be 100% positive someone is guilty. However, even if we were able to know that someone is 100% guilty, how does killing them rehabilitate them? Personally, I don't believe anyone is beyond hope and help. To kill them is to say they cannot be helped, and they will be this way no matter what is done. That's just not true. I've seen too many people who were really screwed up turn their lives around to think that anyone has gone too far to come back.

On the topic of people being wrongly convicted, there was a recent case where a prosecutor, the coroner, and another lacky were found to have falsified evidence and testimony which put 1,000 innocent Americans in prison over some twenty years time.

The will of the people....?

I dont even know where to begin...
Are you seriously sugesting that life in prison is the same as the death penalty. You really dont see a difference between the two?
The difference is with life in prison you can still be proven innocent and subsequently released back to society. It could be fifty years later but your still free. Now with death penalty on the other hand well last I checked there is no parole or pardon from death. Once your gone your gone.

PS Its bald faced liar.

The death penalty isn't supposed to be rehabilitation. It means someone did something so wrong that they must be punished with death.

Anywho, it is my opinion you must "err" on the side of the law in all cases. We have known this type of thing could happen, yet we complain about this situation. The Republican run-everything has done nothing to prevent things like this from happening. I think this is more political driven than anything for the Republicans. After all, they don't want to lose the Evangelical Right...the roughly 15% that voted for them.

Sadly, the only thing this situation is going to change is that more people will have living wills...which is a big step, but there is still more that can be changed. The top two will probably never support or allow active euthanasia. That is a shame. They wanted to cry about the suffering and pain that Terri was going to go through, yet they will do nothing to help those who will be in this same situation.

But ultimately, the only hypocrisy I see is the one in the above paragraph. Bush believes that all people found guilty must pay. And, with the sheer amount of appeals and roughly eight to ten years from being imprisoned until death, I think he has serious doubt to their innocence.