Like The Death Penalty? Vote Republican

Red state versus Blue state. Cruel versus kind. Backwards looking versus forward looking. Strident versus compassionate. Gloomy versus cheerful. Stingy versus generous.

The Red Blue divide. A book I was reading recently argues this divide first appeared in the Sacco - Vancetti case in 1927. Two men most likely innocent but mob-ruled into the death sentence by unscrupulous projectors and a stacked anti-anarchist jury.
See en.wikipedia.org...

In a close 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that as in the bliblical eye for an eye, a state cannot impose death unless the culprint had himself caused a death. As usual, the REPUBLICAN Hard Core Four voted FOR DEATH! You know who they are. CJ Roberts, AJ Alito, AJ Scalia and the wayward mongrel AJ Thomas.

You should keep in mind that MCCAIN promises MORE of the same kind of judicial appointees if he gains the presidency. That alone ought to be sufficient reason for thinking people NOT to vote for McCain.

Republican John McCain called the ruling "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."

Possible McCain Vice Presidential selection, Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called the ruling "incredibly absurd," "a clear abuse of judicial authority"

Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican.

Texas Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Wednesday that most Texans believe the death penalty is "an appropriate form of punishment for repeat child molesters.

In South Carolina, Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster said states could ultimately fight Wednesday's ruling by waiting for a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma officials said they weren't ready to give up, and would "certainly look at what options we have."

Four states besides Louisiana permit it for child rape — Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.

Nationwide, only two men have been sentenced to death for sexually abusing children - both in Louisiana. Both men will get new sentences.
news.yahoo.com...

What more evidence of the Red Blue divide do you need. Republicans thnk medieval, Democrats think futuristic. Vote Progressive November 4.

[edit on 6/26/2008 by donwhite]

The death penalty is a bit of a misnomer - Most inmates sit on death row for decades before being executed. Mob-style lynchings don't happen anymore.

That said I am against it for humanistic reasons. Even if someone has committed heinous crimes, I still believe that we should be "better" than them and not allow them the dignity of a painless death. Better to let them live in prison like a caged animal. Taking away someone's life is worse than taking away someone's lifestyle, no matter how worse their new prison one may be.

Uh, I don't know how to tell you this, but Barack Obama is pro-death penalty in some cases. Granted, he tiptoes around it, but ultimately, he indicated it just yesterday that he does indeed support it:

www.iht.com...

[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]

I am against the death penalty except in extreme cases - and those are very rare. An extreme case would be that it was absolutely necessary in order to secure the safety of prison workers or other prisoners .. or the safety of America (like if the perp had friends who would take hostages and kill them if the govt didn't let the perp go).

That being said - I do have a quote to share, from the other point of view. It comes from the movie 'Batman Begins'

"Criminals thrive on societies indulgence of 'understanding'"

hmmmm .... that's true ....

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
The death penalty is a bit of a misnomer - Most inmates sit on death row for decades before being executed. Mob-style lynchings don't happen anymore.

That said I am against it for humanistic reasons. Even if someone has committed heinous crimes, I still believe that we should be "better" than them and not allow them the dignity of a painless death. Better to let them live in prison like a caged animal. Taking away someone's life is worse than taking away someone's lifestyle, no matter how worse their new prison one may be.

I agree, letting someone die, releases them from having to live with the guilt of what they have done for the rest of their natural lives. I think that they should be kept alive and given only that which is needed to survive. No tv, no cigarettes, food kept to a minimum, no visitors, no socializing. They get nothing but the haunting thoughts of why they are there. To me the death penalty is a cop out. Maybe if people saw what barely living did to a person, it would be a real deterrent.

Originally posted by donwhite
Red state versus Blue state. Cruel versus kind. Backwards looking versus forward looking. Strident versus compassionate. Gloomy versus cheerful. Stingy versus generous.

This is so ludicrious it's almost not even worth arguing. ALMOST. Do you really believe that most/all conservatives are cruel, backwards looking, strident, gloomy, and stingy? Do you really believe that all liberals are kind, forward looking, compassionate, cheerful, and generous?? I change my mind, it's not worth arguing because it's about the stupidest statement I've ever read.

reply to post by Vor78

Uh, I don't know how to tell you this, but Barack Obama is pro-death penalty in some cases. Granted, he tiptoes around it, but ultimately, he indicated it just yesterday that he does indeed support it:

I have noted that. Unfortunately it is like GUNS. You cannot run a winning campaign in 'God Bless America' and be against the Death Penalty or our GUN madness. Sweet Jesus!

45 people have been murdered in Jacksonville so far this year - 110 in 2007 - and 41 by guns. Yet no one in public office dares to say GUNS. It is as dumb or maybe dumber than our studied avoidance of a sensible DRUG policy. TOO much RED state thinking.


[edit on 6/26/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


The problem with gun control is that the overwhelming majority of 75 milliion or more gun owners will never commit a crime and as such, they see no reason that their rights should be abridged due to the actions of the criminal element. Its not just a Republican issue, either. Its a loser among Dems and Independents in the country's heartland as well.

I haven't seen the poll numbers on it, but I suspect that the pro-death penalty issue has much weaker numbers in the general electorate than 2nd amendment rights, but particularly on the left half of the political spectrum. I think the anti position here is much stronger for this issue in a general election, simply because it fractures the public along party lines, instead of fracturing the party itself.

The US illegal drug policy? Yeah, in this conservative's mind, it's idiotic and overemphasized. All it does is toss relatively harmless pot smokers in prison where they come out as hardened criminals. Many on the right are beginning to wake up to this fact, too, as well as the burden it places on the legal system from a financial standpoint.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]

reply to post by Rook1545

I think that they should be kept alive and given only that which is needed to survive. No tv, no cigarettes, food kept to a minimum, no visitors, no socializing. They get nothing but the haunting thoughts of why they are there. To me the death penalty is a cop out. Maybe if people saw what barely living did to a person, it would be a real deterrent.

I think I detect some hyperbole in your frustration over such egregious wrong-doers. As I have posted elsewhere, torture does not dishonor the victim, it dishonors the torturer. In one way or another the victim will ultimately be relieved of his evil doer, but the perpetrator will always be that, the perpetrator. People who can do that are sick. I'm not sure they can respond to treatment. But it is disconcerting that so many Americans including our president approve of torture. But that's Texas for you.

A society is best known by how it treats the helpless among it. To be magnanimous - to show magnanimity - means to be kind towards a person who cannot reciprocate.


[edit on 6/26/2008 by donwhite]

I'll have to agree with BlueTriangle here.

Your presumption that all Democrats are forward thinking and all Republicans are backward thinking only shows me that I should take nothing you say seriously.

Honestly, how forward thinking and enlightened is it to group an entire cross section of America into that type of class?

Please...

And by the way, I am a Conservative who happens to support the death penalty. And by no means am I backward or medieval in my thinking.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


I agree. I just heard on the radio a few days ago that liberals are probably the most stingy when it comes to giving to charity, and when they do, it's usually something like, "St Elmo's School for elite, snobby kids", rather than UNICEF or World Vision.

reply to post by vor78

The problem with gun control is that the overwhelming majority of 75 million or more gun owners will never commit a crime and as such, they see no reason that their rights should be abridged due to the actions of the criminal element.

A long time ago most guns used by criminals were circulated on the street and originated from home burglaries or store break-ins. In 2000 I heard the number 80 million gun owners with 280 million guns. Assuming that was true then, surely we have now reached GUN NIRVANA with 303 million guns, ONE per person, on average. Say thank you, NRA.

It just seems so irrational that any society is willing to accept 28,000 dead people every year due to guns. And so blasé about it. It’s like, “so what?” It must be due to some contagious variety of mad cow disease afflicting people? Our brains have turned into sponges?

I haven't seen the poll numbers on it, but I suspect that the pro-death penalty issue has much weaker numbers in the general electorate than 2nd amendment rights, but particularly on the left half of the political spectrum.

California - largest state - has the most people on Death Row. But I believe it has executed on 7 or 8 since the Death Penalty was re-instituted by the Supreme Court. Texas OTOH has executed more than 400 people in the same time frame. Bush43 did 154. Recall Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger LOST his Austrian citizenship, had his name removed from a hometown stadium and was asked to return a signet ring when he ordered his FIRST execution?

All I can say about those 2 states is TX has much more deterrence than CA. But not less crime.

The US illegal drug policy? Yeah, in this conservative's mind, it's idiotic and overemphasized. All it does is toss relatively harmless pot smokers in prison where they come out as hardened criminals. Many on the right are beginning to wake up to this fact, too, as well as the burden it places on the legal system from a financial standpoint.

The last 11 years of my working life saw me in the office of s small business that employed from 7 to 20 people depending on the time of the year. The most complicated thing my company did was drive a truck. The owner - my employer - was willing to hire an ex-convict. Some worked out, some did not. We did not keep records but I know from talking that it is very hard for an ex-con to get a job. Even driving a truck.

We do not practice FORGIVENESS and restoration to full citizenship and acceptance to people who have “done their time.” For convicts, their time is never done. We just keep shooting ourselves in the foot. But OTOH America is the most outwardly religious country in the Western World.

reply to post by donwhite


Society shouldn't accept 28,000 citizens dead yearly, but it also raises an individual freedoms issue and self-defense issue. Should 75-80 million law-abiding citizens be punished for the acts of a few idiots? That's also unacceptable, IMO. Stiffer penalties for gun related crimes (with no early parole) and increased emphasis on owner education and safety are the only reasonable answer, I think. We're probably going to disagree on the solution to this issue...

As for criminal 'forgiveness', yes, I agree 100%. Once a sentence is complete, that criminal should have a clean slate, his/her debt to society being fully paid. As you indicate, that is not the case and it is a stigma that follows them the rest of their lives. Undoubtedly, this is completely unfair.








[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by donwhite

 

Society shouldn't accept 28,000 citizens dead yearly, but it also raises an individual freedoms issue and self-defense issue. Should 75-80 million law-abiding citizens be punished for the acts of a few idiots? That's also unacceptable, IMO. Stiffer penalties for gun related crimes (with no early parole) and increased emphasis on owner education and safety are the only reasonable answer, I think. We're probably going to disagree on the solution to this issue...

As for criminal 'forgiveness', yes, I agree 100%. Once a sentence is complete, that criminal should have a clean slate, his/her debt to society being fully paid. As you indicate, that is not the case and it is a stigma that follows them the rest of their lives. Undoubtedly, this is completely unfair.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]

The problem therein lies in "Once a sentence is complete ..." because many are paroled on good behavior or other such BS reasons long before they should be. I think a clean slate is only warranted when they serve the full time they were sentenced originally.

reply to post by sos37


Agreed. That's the reason for my 'no early parole' qualification with regards to gun laws. I should expand that to all felonies, as I do not support early parole in those cases (I'm a little more forgiving of misdemeanors). In all cases, once a criminal has served his full sentence, his debt to society should be considered paid in full. Unfortunately, that's never the case.

Originally posted by donwhite
It just seems so irrational that any society is willing to accept 28,000 dead people every year due to guns. And so blasé about it. It’s like, “so what?” It must be due to some contagious variety of mad cow disease afflicting people? Our brains have turned into sponges?

How many people are killed in DUI accidents? I don't see them outlawing booze, or even cars.

I own guns. Most of my friends do. (I'm in PA; you know, the state where we cling to our guns and Bibles). None of us have shot anyone; why should I be restricted on owning a gun?

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Rook1545

 

I think that they should be kept alive and given only that which is needed to survive. No tv, no cigarettes, food kept to a minimum, no visitors, no socializing. They get nothing but the haunting thoughts of why they are there. To me the death penalty is a cop out. Maybe if people saw what barely living did to a person, it would be a real deterrent.

I think I detect some hyperbole in your frustration over such egregious wrong-doers. As I have posted elsewhere, torture does not dishonor the victim, it dishonors the torturer. In one way or another the victim will ultimately be relieved of his evil doer, but the perpetrator will always be that, the perpetrator. People who can do that are sick. I'm not sure they can respond to treatment. But it is disconcerting that so many Americans including our president approve of torture. But that's Texas for you.

A society is best known by how it treats the helpless among it. To be magnanimous - to show magnanimity - means to be kind towards a person who cannot reciprocate.


[edit on 6/26/2008 by donwhite]

I was never implying torture. I was saying give the bare minimum that the Red Cross or whoever deems allowable for a human to live on. Prison should not be Club Med. Or if we are going to keep allowing them to live in a way that are not entitled to, make them work for it. Where I live there is a ton of jobs that can't be filled, and things like road construction projects costing too much for the local government to keep up with. Why not make these people give back to the society.

reply to post by donwhite


I own 7 different rifles, and 3 handguns. Not a single one of them has lept out of the gun rack, loaded itself, and shot someone. You might want to start putting the responsibility for committing crimes on the criminal that commits it, rather than shift blame to an inanimate object. It makes no sense, at all.

They should outlaw airplanes, when they crash they kill people.

They should outlaw cars, becuase people get killed in them.

They should outlaw Beer, becuase people get drunk and die in accidents.

They should outlaw smoking, becuase people have no idea that they might get cancer from it.

They should institute building codes to not allow electricity in bathrooms, because people are dumb enough to bring their radio in the bath tub with them.

They should outlaw snowboards, snowboarders killed 2 people in ski accidents on Mt. Hood last year.


Or maybe they should just outlaw stupid people all together. And by that I mean, get rid of people who think that a car, a gun, or a cigarette is responsible for someones death. When it takes a person's choice and physical movements to operate all of the above.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by aravoth]

reply to post by Jerico65

Originally posted by donwhite
It just seems so irrational that any society is willing to accept 28,000 dead people every year due to guns.

How many people are killed in DUI accidents? I don't see them outlawing booze, or even cars.

It is usually agreed today that somewhat fewer than 50% of highway deaths involve alcohol. This was not always the case. Around 1980 a lady got mad when her child was killed by a DUI and the coroner ruled it “Accidental” death. She ultimately founded the MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Over the next 10-20 years that group was able to apply legal pressure to courts, prosecutors, judges and police until the number of DUI has been reduced significantly.

When MADD came on the scene, the DUI legal limit was .15% BA. Blood alcohol. Today it is generally .08% and many states are about to lower that to .06%. I would support lowering it to 0.00%.

The absolute numbers of DUI deaths have held steady over the past decade despite the huge increase in the number of cars and drivers on US roads. Whereas DUI was once acceptable - or tolerated - in much of society, today it is more nearly akin to smoking in public. It is not PC!

I own guns. Most of my friends do. (I'm in PA; you know, the state where we cling to our guns and Bibles). None of us have shot anyone; why should I be restricted on owning a gun?

We are in a quandary. I don’t believe anyone is happy over the number of gun related deaths. I don’t think people are willing to surrender their guns when the tv is filled with drive-by shootings and reports of armed assaults. On today's tv I saw a man filling his car at a gas station when a drive-by shooter hit him 2-3 times. He is now in the hospital in critical condition. 6/26/08. People like me point out this does not happen in Finland. Or Poland. Or in many other countries.

If the US had an annual death toll of 28,000 from the anopheles mosquito I am sure as anything the public would have long ago demanded the Federal government intervene and 1) find out how this is happening and 2) how to stop it, then 3) to go to work and STOP it. It would be One, Two and Three! Of this I feel sure.

I think what people like me want to see is some serious discussions among the movers and shakers of our country about how to reduced the number of deaths due to guns. We should begin to talk without having the outcomes determined before we get the inputs started. I suggest a Commission because the issue is too hot for Congress to handle.


[edit on 6/26/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by vor78

Society shouldn't accept 28,000 citizens dead yearly, but it also raises an individual freedoms issue and self-defense issue. Should 75-80 million law-abiding citizens be punished for the acts of a few idiots? That's also unacceptable, IMO. Stiffer penalties for gun related crimes (with no early parole) and increased emphasis on owner education and safety are the only reasonable answer, I think. We're probably going to disagree on the solution to this issue...

It’s more than a FEW idiots. I believe the US has about 2 million people in custody. Only a rich nation with misdirected priorities can afford that. It is hard to prove that stiffer penalties, or longer sentences without parole reduce crime. There are enough variations in numbers from state to state that arguments from either side can point to “fact” or “statistics” to support their preconceived POV. Very few criminals hold group discussions debating various crimes and related punishments. It is just not done.

Besides, we have already done both. By 1990 most states add 5 years to any crime committed with a firearm. Most states limit parole eligibility in the higher degree felonies - Class A and Class B - by requiring service of 50% of the sentence. Lower degree felonies - Class C or Class D - may be eligible for parole afer serving as little as 20% in non-violent first offender cases. High class felony second offenders are often required to serve 85% of sentence which can amount to a life sentence. Third offenders in some states can be sentenced to life in prison.

The problem is: prisons are overcrowded. Prisons are under staffed. Little or no useful vocational training is offered. Very little to none of social or psychological counseling is provided. Health care, dental care is skimpy to say the best you can about it. Prisoners are turned out of prison with little or no money. No home. No job. And not much sympathy.

SIMPLE FIX. The best and quickest thing we could do for prisoners and ourselves would be to FREE half of those now in prison and KEEP the same staff and the budget where it is now. We could realistically expect to see a reformed person begin coming out of our prisons. We would have a fighting chance to turn a maladjusted social misfit into a contributing citizen.

[edit on 6/26/2008 by donwhite]