Jeb's obviously aligning himself with the forces of evil (libs) - a clear RINO candidate with this latest (in)action. We should probably douse them all with gasoline, light 'em on fire in whatever town square's nearest to their incarceration facility. God's on our side, praise Jesus, Kirk out.

For many death penalty opponents, the argument of cruel and unusual punishment is a means to an end. My primary reason for opposing the death penalty is the inconsistency of our judicial system... yet, if I can sway a few people with a lesser argument, I will. It's a means to an end. The easiest way to stop capital punishment is to invoke the constitution. There are many people who believe that "found guilty by a jury of one's peers," is an absolute measure of guilt. It is not. Our judicial system has proven time and again that innocent people are erroneously found guilty on a fairly regular basis. Take, for instance, that a prosecutor's career is based largely on his or her ability to win cases. Also, consider that death penalty cases are some of the most emotionally charged cases found in any court of law. If our system of incarceration could not virtually guarantee the safety of the public, then I might grudgingly approve of capital punishment, but that is not the case. Our maximum security prisons virtually guarantee that escape is all but impossible and that, once incarcerated, risk to the public is negligible. The ultimate goal of the judicial system is to maintain an orderly and secure society. Life imprisonment for the worst of the worst achieves that goal as effectively as capital punishment does. It also guarantees that, if an innocent person finds him or herself wrongfully convicted, they will have a lifetime to prove their innocence. But, since some of you just won't listen to this argument... arguing a secondary point such as constitutionality is often the best course of action.

Furthermore, you can cite a thousand death penalty cases and describe those crimes in vivid detail and you know what... the vast majority of them probably are guilty. Yet, if one in a thousand... or even if one in ten thousand, is innocent, then the entire system is dysfunctional and life imprisonment is the better solution. Capital punishment and life imprisonment both achieve the same goal.

Capital punishment and life imprisonment both achieve the same goal.

Not for the "eye for an eye" crowd. Those folks would love the Taliban way of handling such affairs,...after a brief trial the judge gives a family member of the victim an AK-47 (assuming he doesn't take blood money) and lets him plugs 2 bullets in the back of the excused skull. And the whole community gets to watch. How fun.

No, you're both just plain wrong on this, silly libs. Anybody who is on death row is *guilty*. Period. If they ended up on death row, they must be guilty. That's how it works. End habeus corpus now - it's a waste of taxpayer's dollars to determine if these corrupt, fradulent "humans" are guilty over and over again.

Same thing in Iraq. If you pick up a weapon, you're a terrorist. There's no such thing as a "civil war" in Iraq, and no silly "insurgency." They're all terrorists.

The same goes for the body count figures, too. Whether it's 30,000, 100,000 or 650,000 dead, they all deserved to die because they must be terrorists - no such thing as "collateral" damage. A dead Iraqi is a dead terrorist. A dead American soldier is a hero, and a dead journalist is a traitor, so let's not bother investigating (why were they out in the field gathering information? they should have been in the Green Zone, transcribing Pentagon press releases.)

I love it when libs tell cons how they'd love things to be......and as incorrectly as always.

Libes would rather let everyone out of jail and mental institutions and disarm the public. Sounds just as asinine as amaramanahram's stupid anti-conservative inanities.

.....except libs already cleared out the mental instutitions. My current work-place is on the property that used to be a large state-run mental facility with thousands of patients....let out 20-somthing years ago by good ole Mikey "Look at me in the tank" Dukakis.

The liberals' record on capital punishment is laughable. While they have no objection to mass murder by cuddly commies like Stalin, Castro, Mao, and their other "team players," who have a tendency to kill people for disagreeing with them, they vociferously object to the execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and those who chose more than one from column A and B.

The notion here is that one out of a million of these "might" be innocent. Yet they cannot come up with even a handful of AMERICANS who have actually been executed that were proven innocent. On the other hand, several of their pet projects--like the Rosenbergs and Sacco and Vanzetti were later proven undeniably guilty.

JNE admits here that his objection is one of trust. He does not trust "the system" (at least he didn't say "the man") to work properly--though he gives no example of a time when it did not. And he further admits that the constitutional claims of the anti-capital-punishment crowd is just so much smoke and mirrors--a "means to an end." (I thought the end DIDN'T justify the means? What happened to that?) But, like all liberals, they are willing to lie in order to win the argument, the vote, any kind of power--and the life of a multiple murderer on the theory that somewhere there "might" be someone who isn't actually guilty, who somehow slips through the cracks of the multiple appeals/free lawyers for felons program that the ACLU has turned the prison process into.

What's funny here, too, is that when the governor of Texas (later President of the United States) presided over the DEATH PENALTY for the men who killed James Byrd, the liberals didn't even have the decency to say "thank you." Yet, they didn't object to the fact that Bush had engaged in the evil process of capital punishment--they objected that he wouldn't sign into a law the criminalization of the thoughts in their heads (hate crime legislation." In other words, they were unsatisfied with the ultimate penalty, because the crime itself wasn't held to enough public opprobrium.

This is the liberal concept of punishment--extreme loss of reputation and (thanks, Quakers, this one worked like a charm) plenty of time to "think about what you've done." For liberals, criminals are just big, unruly kids, who need a "time out."

For conservatives, kids are kids, and adults are adults. And when you cross that line you become responsible to the state for your actions. And if you take a life, your life is forfeit. Game over.

More confusingly, they are willing to kill 1.5 million undeniably innocent unborn children every year because they are "unwanted," but not to execute a few hundred violent murderers convicted in aggravated circumstances (you don't get death for silly mistakes), on the theory that one in a million MIGHT be innocent.

Save the people you know haven't done anything yet, and leave the guilty to their just punishments.

Libes would rather let everyone out of jail and mental institutions and disarm the public.

The liberals' record on capital punishment is laughable. While they have no objection to mass murder by cuddly commies like Stalin, Castro, Mao, and their other "team players," who have a tendency to kill people for disagreeing with them, they vociferously object to the execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and those who chose more than one from column A and B.

Sarge, Kerry

As always you have penchant for spouting bullshit. You don't see this liberal advocating any of this. In fact the last time I checked, I didn't have a problem with capital punishment. And I am not alone.

what about hanging or a firing squad? what ever happened to those tried and true methods?

its fine for libs to starve Terry Schiavo to death but a scum bag criminal lives for a half hour and the State is guilty of brutality.

As always you have penchant for spouting bullshit. You don't see this liberal advocating any of this. In fact the last time I checked, I didn't have a problem with capital punishment. And I am not alone.

Dude....I posted bullshit to counter your bullshit. I don't see any "conservatives" looking to execute anyone Taliban style no matter how many times your "I hate conservatives" brain can conjur it up.....paint the conservatives to be just like the Taliban......how original...haven't heard THAT one before from some other asshole. That was just another incorrect whiney thing to say about people whose ideology differs from your own.

ALTHOUGH.....it WAS Mikey "Look at me in the tank" Dukakis that shut down the Commonwealth's mental institutions and let all the allegedly non-violent freaks out in the 80's. ONLY good thing about that was that my company was able to buy the land on the cheap to build our research and manufacturing facilities.

Sarge,

Look at the post directly above yours...I quote from your conservative friend Ben Rhodes

"what about hanging or a firing squad? what ever happened to those tried and true methods?"

And if I am correct you'd love to throw the appeals process out the window...how different does that leave you from the Taliban.

1 - The Taliban let the victims family dispense justice. 2 - The Taliban let the public watch

Opps I forgot, there are witnesses to Americas executions.

So that leaves only one difference...#1

And you say I am spouting bullshit about what?

Ahmanrah,

what is the Taliban's constitution like? Do they guarantee right to an attorney and due process?

and where in the US justice sytem does the family of the victim dispense justice? so how is the Taliban like American justice again?

firing squads and hangings were used throughout US history until some liberal weenies decided it was cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone by means other than drugs. Is the chair still around any more at least?

Kerry,

I don't think criminals who commit murder need a "time out" as you say. You're putting words where they never were. You and I see the criminal justice system differently. You see it as a means to punish the unlawful. I see it as a means to bring order and security to society. The feelings of the criminal, and the victim(s) for that matter, are irrelevent to the bigger picture.

I have given examples in the past where the evidence indicated a strong possibility of innocence. You chose not to listen. Is there rock solid evidence that an innocent person has been put to death? No, not that I currently know of... yet there is convincing evidence nonetheless. Any person with even a small measure of common sense would see that the possibility for mistake exists. The system by which a defendent is convicted is the same, whether it's a capital punishment case or not... and there is more than ample proof that wrongful convictions have occurred in non-capital cases.

I am not willing to jeapordize innocent life to support a system of punishment that is unnecessary.

It is also not deceitful to promote an argument that achieves a goal similar to your own so long as the argument has merit. It is a means to an end... and sometimes the end does justify the means. Life is not restricted by meaningless sayings. For all the heinous acts committed by Al Capone, he was ultimately convicted not on murder or conspiracy... he was convicted on tax evasion. The Feds couldn't prove the one, so the resorted to the other. The end justified the means.

"The notion here is that one out of a million of these "might" be innocent. Yet they cannot come up with even a handful of AMERICANS who have actually been executed that were proven innocent."

Also, this argument is rather specious. The criminal justice system has NEVER revisited a capital punishment case once execution has been carried out. Since a conviction of guilt will never be overturned except in a court of law, and being that the courts will not revisit these cases... it's virtually impossible prove someone innocent post-execution. Yes, there have been a couple independent investigations... one conducted by a governor..., which supported a guilty verdict in each case. Yet, we're talking about a handful of such investigations amid thousands of executions.

BenRhodes... I argued alongside Kerry and Steve in support of not removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube. I am also, contrary to Kerry's generalizations, pro-life. Such arguments are put forth in the spirit of misdirection, and not related to the subject at hand.

seems to me the argument is on what constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment and not the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. Its just a matter of time before incarceration itself is declared "cruel and unusual".

if you can't execute a person by puting them to sleep then there is no lethal form that can be used.

"It is also not deceitful to promote an argument that achieves a goal similar to your own so long as the argument has merit. It is a means to an end... and sometimes the end does justify the means. Life is not restricted by meaningless sayings. For all the heinous acts committed by Al Capone, he was ultimately convicted not on murder or conspiracy... he was convicted on tax evasion. The Feds couldn't prove the one, so the resorted to the other. The end justified the means."

Wait a minute. "The ends justify the means" indicates that the means involved require justification. In other words, the means are suspect without the worthy end to support them.

But I can't imagine a situation in which you have to justify a prosecution for tax evasion. Tax evasion deserves prosecution. It was just luck that Capone could be caught at it and that the penalty for it is harsh.

Ben,

Seems you weren't reading my post. I am talking specifically about the Taliban position on capital punishment as it relates to how extremist conservatives would handle the same matter.

Many conservatives would just as soon dispense with alot of the rights afforded prisoners, in particular the appeals process. This leaves (read it clearly), one major difference between them and the Taliban, who allow them victims relatives to dispense justice. I'm sure some in America would consider this aspect of their judicial process a positive and not negative. Who better to get the job done than yourself right...

Now if actually read that all, you'll know I said nothing of what you accused me of.

Kerry,

Oh and reason Johnny, myself and others worry about that 1 in Million person wrongly caught in the judicial system, is that if stop caring about the flaws in the system that led to that mistake, you could easily stop caring about alot of things, and soon the number might be 1 in 1000, which frankly is unacceptable, and probably closer to the true number of innocent people in the system.

ahmanrah,

where in conservative doctrine does it say we want to dispense with the appeals process? Sarge already gave the correct response about your "just like the Taliban" declaration. It is actually amusing because, you, like so many of yur ilk are actually fascinated with conservatives, and it pisses you off.

anyway, you perhaps are talking about the death sentence appeal I assume. Appeals for the death sentence are automatic. so they receive at least a second levle review. That is not the case with findings of guilt or innocence where appeals courts do not have to accept appeals.

I strongly support the appeals process for questions of culpability. However, at the sentencing phase you are already guilty. and I am NOT opposed to the appeals. I do think they certainly do become bothersome and unneccessary.

Anyway, your ascertion that conservatives only differ in their judicial philosophy with the Taliban on one point is absurd, and frankly just really stupid.

Ben,

Then I guess all the whining I hear about money wasted on death row inmates is just a figment of my imagination. Especially since that money equates directly to keeping them alive.

I couldn't possibly be confusing conservatives with liberals now could I, since we don't think twice about wasting money.

Hmmmm....

yes, that is correct. we should dispense justice swiftly.

"what about hanging or a firing squad? what ever happened to those tried and true methods?"

Nice try, resident asshole. He's talking about the method of execution.....and your tying it to Taliban style execution is just an incorrect ad hominem.......and your floundering is asinine. You know, there wsa a problem with lethal injection this time....why not go back to a firing squad or hangin'.

And if I am correct you'd love to throw the appeals process out the window...how different does that leave you from the Taliban.

Wow.....as always, when you put dipshit words in other people's mouths, the only thing you can and will always be is an ignorant ass. You are wrong. Period! I would, however, make the appeals process quicker than 20 friggin' years. Got any more asinine beliefs you wanna ascribe to me? SUuuuure you do.

You forgot #3....Taliban had kangaroo trials....if at all....and carried out SUMMARY execution. What's that? You've got nothing to say but "I hate conservatives!!?"

There you go......use the term "extremist conservative" and Taliban in the same sentence. There it is.....we're like the Taliban.

Grow up, little child.

"There you go......use the term "extremist conservative" and Taliban in the same sentence. There it is.....we're like the Taliban."

This is the site where anyone with liberal beliefs is branded a communist,a terrorist sympathizer, and a traitor, isn't it ?

Methinks Sarge doth protest too much.

Personally, I don't compare conservatives with the Taliban, but conservatives are quick to cry "Foul!" when their own tactics are used against them.

The reason the Feds targeted Capone was for violating prohibition law, organized crime and murder. They spent years trying to prove their case, but they were repeatedly unsuccessful.

Ok, now compare this to my argument about the possibility of innocent people wrongfully executed. As I have said, I don't have the evidence to undeniably prove this has occurred. It doesn't take a leap of faith to realize the possibility exists, but I just can't prove it convincingly enough for the pro-death camp.

Now, since Elliot Ness and his crew couldn't prove their case against Al Capone, they decided to try a different avenue. Tax evasion. It wasn't as glamorous a case as they'd hoped, but it was provable and the sentence would put Capone away for life.

Likewise, the Constitutionality of capital punishment isn't the source of my opposition, but it is an effective argument nonetheless. It's valid and it's provable and, unlike my own argument, the courts have to listen to arguments of Constitutional breach.

For Elliot Ness, proving tax evasion was a means to an end. It achieved the desired result by removing a murderer and notorious crime boss from the streets.

Just like the Taliban

Gimme a freakin' break.

This is the site where anyone with liberal beliefs is branded a communist,a terrorist sympathizer, and a traitor, isn't it ?

I don't speak for others on this site and I don't brand liberals as communists, terrorist sympathizers, or traitors......unless they show that they are.....and I don't see very many commies on this site or traitors or terrorist sympathizers (except Jew-hating Hamas/Hezbollah/Fatah backers that don't seem to mind THAT terrorism).

The ass has a nice illogic tactic going on of ascribing an incorrect ideology to a group he dislikes and then comparing it to a heinous group to try to make a non-point and it will never work because the truth is the absolute defense.

The DP isn't a Constitutional issue at all. It's fully Constitutional and any clause to ban "cruel and unusual punishment" was written to rid the government of burning at the stake, wheel torture, crucifiction and such methods of "torture to death over a longer period than necessary to kill a person"...not hangin', firing squads, or the other kinder-gentler needle-in-the-arm methods used today.

?Afterall, people get stuck on the 8th Amendment and the "cruel and unusual" clause....and forget to read the 5th Amendment.

.......nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The government cannot deprive you of your LIFE without the process of the law that you are due.......that process is dictated as a "speedy and public trial".....not 20+ years of appeals.

"Due process" is (according to the Constitution, not the 9th Circus):

Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner

Right to be present at the trial

Right to an impartial jury

Right to be heard in one's own defense

Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior

Taxes may only be taken for public purposes

Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes

Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated

yes, that is correct. we should dispense justice swiftly.

Ben,

So now you are against the appeals process, but before you were for it. Make up your mind.

So you've ultimately proven my point, but you shift what you believe when it gets to stick subject. Nice.

Wow.....as always, when you put dipshit words in other people's mouths, the only thing you can and will always be is an ignorant ass. You are wrong. Period! I would, however, make the appeals process quicker than 20 friggin' years. Got any more asinine beliefs you wanna ascribe to me? SUuuuure you do.

Sarge,

For a group of people like you and Kerry who just assume that everbody in the criminal justice system is guilty....tell me exactly what is holding you back from dispensing summary justice, besides the very "slow" process you oppose? Huh?

"The government cannot deprive you of your LIFE without the process of the law that you are due.......that process is dictated as a 'speedy and public trial'.....not 20+ years of appeals."

This is true, except that the defendant has a legal right to waive this. A speedy and public trial was designed in favor of the defense so that he/she wouldn't languish in prison for 20 years before receiving a trial.

Capital punishment is also completely and utterly irreversible once executed (obviously). As such, any trial seeking the death penalty must be conducted slowly and methodically in order to minimize the chance for error. It doesn't make sense to have back to back trials and appeals because it leaves little time for investigations to uncover new evidence. Sometimes that takes years.

The Constitution also does not make a distinction as to what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. You're making an assumption that this only means burning at the stake, etc, but the Constitution makes no such clarification. Many people find the act of taking someone's life cruel and unusual punishment in itself, regardless of how it is done. I personally find electrocution and hanging to be grotesque. The subject is open to interpretation by design. If the concensus of the time determines a method of execution to be cruel and unusual, then the Constitution allows for that.

"tell me exactly what is holding you back from dispensing summary justice, besides the very "slow" process you oppose? Huh?"

First, tell me what you mean by "summary justice."

Thanks.

ahmanrah,

I haven't contradicted by support for the appeals process. I said justice should be dispensed quickly. there is no contradiction there.

Well I guess you have no problem with a 20 year appeals process than...because the point shouldn't be quickness, it should be correctness. And if correctness takes 5 years, 20 years, or 100 years, that should be what we strive for, and not give into the urge to pull the trigger because we are itching to do so. So which is it Ben, do you strive for correctness, or in the name of expediency are you simply going to set an arbitrary deadline so that you can satisfy that urge to pull trigger, based on a pre-conceived notion of guilt before innocence.

Kerry,

I think we all know what "summary justic" is. Just admit it, you would just as soon treat death row inmates as you would potential terrorists, assume they are all guilty, and then march them out back and finish the job quickly, rather than waste all that tax payer money trying to sort out the guilty from the innocent.

Ah ahmanrah, how wise, how thoughtful, how full of crap. Yes, Mumia,who has been tried and convicted in a court of law, has been able to extend his stay here on earth by lo these twenty five years since his conviction. I live near Philly, and for years I have had to hear about this piece getting celebrities and other useful idiots to rally for him. Martin Sheen admitted that he didn't know the facts of the case, he is just against the death penalty. So Daniel Falkners' widow, Maureen, who was in her twenties at the time of his death, and who has never remarried, has to live her life fighting the anti-capital punishment crowd, and now, a motion for a new trial. All because of libs like you. I hope you are proud.

Lisa,

You just don't get it do you. You point out the high profile blowhards as if you are making a point about every death row inmate, but you aren't. Poster boys are rarely the reality, they are the exception.

If you were honest about the situation you'd also recognize the people release from prison based on the modern ability to test DNA, but you don't, which only goes more to proving my point.

You are just as committed to the opposite side of the issue as Martin Sheen, and I suspect you've spent equal amount thinking about the credibility of your positions.

I find it tremendously amusing when people claim a bloodthirst on the part of those who advocate capital punishment. Examine the history. When there are changes from one form of execution to another in the civilized West, is it so that we can torture people more, or get them out of the way faster, or make them suffer for the things they have done in a way that is akin to what their victims suffered?

No. Every change in methods of execution has been predicated on making it MORE humane to the executed criminal.

We aren't interested in rushing through an injustice. We aren't interested in torturing the guilty. We aren't interested in what you have described as "summary justice."

But when a defendant has been convicted by a jury, denied on multiple appeals, had every chance to prove himself wrongly convicted, when the physical evidence is overwhelming, and the accused actually confessed to the killing, when they revel in the details of their evil--when these things happen, there is no relevance to the "what if he's innocent" argument.

For those who are blanketly against capital punishment, there are no deserving convicted. For them, it matters not even that SOME of their celebrated causes don't even want their help! They don't even want to execute people who would like to CHOOSE to be executed!

I don't know the numbers that have been executed in American history, but the pro-criminal crowd can't even come up with a handful of people who have been proven to have been wrongly executed. So that argument is entirely hypothetical, insubstantial, and ridiculous.

Ahmanrah, I invite you. Educate us. Who are the convicted and executed criminals who went to their deaths innocent?

I'll wait.

Ahmanrah,

what is the cliche? Perfection is the enemy of progress. 20 years or 100 to ajudicate a case whether it is a trial or to impose a sentence is not justice, or even desirable. You are the stereotypical liberal whiner. If our society can't achieve perfection, it is bad.

by the way, summary justice is making a judicial determination WITHOUT the legal procedures including a formal trial. It is a decision made by a judge alone and NOT a jury. This of course is NOT what apparently you thought it meant. but what else is new?

For a group of people like you and Kerry who just assume that everbody in the criminal justice system is guilty....tell me exactly what is holding you back from dispensing summary justice, besides the very "slow" process you oppose? Huh?

ahmanrah...when assholes like you keep putting INCORRECT words in other people's mouths, it just shows that you have nothing to say. Got any more incorrect things you wanna ascribe to me? SUUUUURrre you do. I't s a ll you got. Big fat strawmen. Hint: assholes like you like to make shit up like "For a group of people like you and Kerry who just assume that everbody in the criminal justice system is guilty" because you have nothing factual to say so you have to tell me what my ideology is instead of simply asking me. Great tactic. ie) Since you fully support raping women, what've you got against raping men?

However, I'll answer your stupid fucking question. What is stopping me from supporting summary execution/justice? ....a support of trials by jury as proscribed by the Constitution....don't even know what a summary execution is do you, dumbass?

Really, is THAT all you have? Incorrectly telling me what I think and then bashing me for the incorrect belief ascribed to me by you?

Kerry, once again, no person executed in this country has ever been found innocent after the fact because the US Judicial System does NOT revist such cases.

But, if you want a name of someone who was likely innocent... then Jesse Tafero is a good one to start with.

"Kerry, once again, no person executed in this country has ever been found innocent after the fact because the US Judicial System does NOT revist such cases."

Are you telling me that, with all the importance the pro-criminal crowd puts on this issue, they can't find ONE person to sponsor the investigation of a person suspected of being innocent?

You have to be joking. Give it to some college kids at Northwestern or something. I'm sure there must be someone who'd like to really do the research.

Because, see, it does work the other way. People that the whole of the liberal world thought were innocent--like the Rosenbergs--have ways of being discovered unequivocally guilty, even without the help of the US Justice system.

JNE, as always, I respect your opinion in this matter and agree in that SOME cases might offer up enough uncertainty so as to disallow capital punishment.

Of course, there are also SOME cases that are clean and clear-cut with certainty of guilt and they have no business sitting on DR for 20+ years.

Are you telling me that, with all the importance the pro-criminal crowd puts on this issue, they can't find ONE person to sponsor the investigation of a person suspected of being innocent?

Kerry,

Nice little biased slant there. How about the "pro-innocent" who couldn't give a crap about the criminals. For people like you who would sacrifice the innocent, to ensure the conviction of the guilty, you probably don't see a difference and don't give a crap.

Didn't know Christians were into human sacrifice...for the good of society. I thought we had elevated ourselves above our pagan ancestors. Guess I was wrong.

But when a defendant has been convicted by a jury, denied on multiple appeals, had every chance to prove himself wrongly convicted, when the physical evidence is overwhelming, and the accused actually confessed to the killing, when they revel in the details of their evil--when these things happen, there is no relevance to the "what if he's innocent" argument.

Kerry,

I guess I need to make my point clearer. There are many conservatives that don't approve of a lengthly appeals process, even though that process might ensure that an innocent person is not executed. Tell me if I am wrong. If you can't. Then I have proven the point I have been making all along.

Perfection is the enemy of progress

Ben,

I disagree. Striving for perfection is what drives progress. Living with the status quo (because its the easy thing to do) is what stops it.

ahmanrah, I AM making a point about all death row inmates when I speak about Mumia. So then, who ARE the people released from death row because of DNA? Do tell. Please. As far as my commitment to the "opposite side of the issue" , you don't know where I stand on it because I haven't said. Oh yeah, you "suspect" wrongly about how much about the case I am familiar with as opposed to Sheen knowing NOTHING. I said before, I live near Philly, and I have heard about Mumia for YEARS.

Lisa,

I am sure you know all about Mumia. People who are biased toward one side of an issue tend to latch onto poster boys. That makes absolute sense, when your view of reality is more important that reality itself.

There are plenty of people convicted of violent crimes who were released from prison based on DNA evidence. Rape cases being the most prevalent obviously, because of the nature of the crime and the indisputable evidence that can be left behind.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/press/archive.php

Lisa,

here is a specific example of someone released from deathrow because of DNA evidence.

http://www.learnersonline.com/weekly/archive2001/week35/index.htm

Just goes to show your statement and thoughts about all death row inmates is faulty.

Adding to that, Lisa: when you're in prison you've got no income, and you're probably deeply in debt due to legal fees. If you're like most defendants, you're from a poor family. Our constitution says that the state will provide legal representation to defend against the state's prosecution. Most of the time that defense is a complete joke - you see a LegalAid lawyer for five minutes during arraignment, then see them on your court dates. No counter investigation, no research. You're screwed, and basically at the mercy of the well-educated prosecutor and his budget for making a case against you.

Now, I know - you'll say I'm playing the "victim card" again. All that means to me is that YOU think, once arrested, the accused is as good as guilty - right? I don't claim that the defendant is a victim, you did. But they are entitled to decent representation, and most don't get it.

Nowhere is this more prevalent and obvious than in capital cases. If you're accused, you're locked up, and you've got no income, and no way to participate in your defense. Screwed. For the truly innocent, it's a travesty. If you've got any honesty about the criminal justice system, you'll admit that the accused need support. "Justice" has a slippery definition in America, and there are no guarantees that the truth will be reached. It's the case the prosecutor presents vs. the case your own representation presents. Who's got the time and budget to make a better case? You know. But I know you probably didn't read this far...

Sorry, Plaus, not buying it. The "accused" get far too much support in today's criminal justice system. It is the TRUE victims of the crimes that get screwed. No, I don't believe that the accused are guilty simply because they have been charged. So, wrong. You claim victim hood for defendants in your entire post. You don't see that? Wow. Yes, justice CAN sometimes have a slippery definition, even WHEN the truth is reached. O.J. Simpson comes to mind.

The "accused" get far too much support in today's criminal justice system. It is the TRUE victims of the crimes that get screwed. No, I don't believe that the accused are guilty simply because they have been charged.

Lisa,

I love this comment. You say one thing and then contradict yourself in the next sentence.

If you truely believed the accused weren't guilty simply because they were charged, then you couldn't possibly make the statement that the accused get to much support. Because if there is an accused person in the prison that is in fact innocent he is hardly getting the complete support he needs, because he is still in prison. So the only way you can possibly support your first statement is to automatically make the assumption that all accused are guilty. And the fact that you don't lump the innocent accused as victims, also says alot.

You role your eyes Lisa, but your own words betray what you really believe.

""But when a defendant has been convicted by a jury, denied on multiple appeals, had every chance to prove himself wrongly convicted, when the physical evidence is overwhelming, and the accused actually confessed to the killing, when they revel in the details of their evil--when these things happen, there is no relevance to the "what if he's innocent" argument.""

"Kerry,

I guess I need to make my point clearer. There are many conservatives that don't approve of a lengthly appeals process, even though that process might ensure that an innocent person is not executed."

But that has nothing to do with what you just quoted. I never said I object to the appeals process. What I object to is the claim that capital punishment should never be used. I think there is a place for capital punishment in the spectrum of options for the justice system, and to eliminate it--on any basis, let alone the false claim that innocent people are being executed--is foolish and, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

And if anyone read my previous statements, I don't have a problem with the death penalty being used, as long as it is assured that innocent people aren't being killed.

You say the claim of innocent people being executed is false, but you give no evidence to basis that claim, even though I can point to dozens of examples of people who have been convicted of every felony in the book who were eventually found to be innocent....even after 20+ years in prison. That includes people sitting on death row. So unless you can prove nobody sitting on death row is innocent, don't make such claims.

By the way, on a newsy-note, I understand that, having lost his appeals process, Saddam Hussein will now die sometime in the next 30 days.

Anybody (other than Ramsey Clark)have a problem with that?

No problem at all, because his guilt is obvious, but I doubt any of us would want Iraq's legal system.

[quote}"...the false claim that innocent people are being executed... -- Kerry[/quote]

Kerry, so you are saying the Criminal Justice system is beyond error? That it is guaranteed that EVERY man or woman sent to death row is, in fact, guilty beyond all possibility of error? As Sarge once pointed out, an acquital does not guarantee innocence and neither does a conviction guarantee guilt.

[quote]To eliminate it is...in my opinion, unconstitutional. -- Kerry[/quote]

The Constitution provides no absolute regarding capital punishment, one way or the other. It would not be unConstitutional to remove capital punishment from the books and you very well know it.

No, JNE, you miss my point.

If the state--which is charged with the punishment of state-crime criminals, such as murderers and rapists--determines that it wishes to have the option of executing its condemned prisoners, the federal government should have a compelling interest to say otherwise.

So far, I don't see one. And neither does the Court. That's why we still have capital punishment (since 1976).

The fact that the criminal justice system cannot guarantee guilt is a pretty compelling argument. Yours is the easy side of this argument since all you have to do is deny that such mistakes are possible. I'm not defending murderers and rapists. I'm defending the integrity of our criminal justice system. If the criminal justice system makes an error and executes ONE innocent person, then the system is a failure. Earlier you made the following statement:

"Are you telling me that, with all the importance the pro-criminal crowd puts on this issue, they can't find ONE person to sponsor the investigation of a person suspected of being innocent?

You have to be joking. Give it to some college kids at Northwestern or something. I'm sure there must be someone who'd like to really do the research."

I've already told you that research has been done and that the evidence is pretty compelling. Jesse Tafero was convicted on the exact same evidence that Sonia Jacobs was... namely the testimony of Walter Rhodes. Tafero and Jacobs both had clean records. Neither Tafero nor Jacobs tested positive for gunpowder residue. Rhodes did. In 1982, Rhodes recanted his previous testimony and confessed to having committed both murders. Due to this evidence, Jacobs was finally commuted and she was released from prison. Tafero was executed by electrocution. The chair malfunctioned. Flames shot six inches out from Tafero's head, but he still lived. In all, it took three jolts of electricity and 13.5 minutes to execute Tafero. I can't think of a more hideous way to die, and the fact that Tafero was probably an innocent man sickens me.

I will never, ever support the death penalty when there are alternative and equally effective solutions to safeguard this country and it's citizens. For those of you who, like you, choose to support the death penalty... Tafero will always be guilty because his innocence doesn't fit into your cozy little realm of denial. And you have that luxury because the criminal justice system will never revisit the case.

"In all, it took three jolts of electricity and 13.5 minutes to execute Tafero. I can't think of a more hideous way to die..."

My, you have a small imagination.

Why don't you ask some of your friends on death row some of the interesting ways they thought up to kill people. I guarantee you it would take less than a minute for them to think up something far more hideous, that took FAR more time.

Spending thirteen and a half minutes of your life trying to die is a lot easier than spending several hours tied up and tortured and begging for your life, not knowing whether the sadist you're trying to reason with is likely to kill you, rape you, cut pieces off your body, rape your corpse, eat your brain out of your head--or just mercifully laugh at you and shoot you in the head to put you out of your misery.

Regardless of whether Tafero was innocent, the fact that you can't IMAGINE anything worse just makes me glad you're not a detective or a Supreme Court justice (though you might be quite pleasant as a murderer!)

"The fact that the criminal justice system cannot guarantee guilt is a pretty compelling argument."

By that logic, we shouldn't punish anyone for anything, because we can never be sure they really deserve to be punished.

After all, everyone in prison is innocent. Just ask them.