Recently at a Republican debate, one of the biggest applause lines of the night was the mere mention that Perry had executed over 200 people as governor. It seems that instead of viewing the death penalty as a somber and unfortunate duty of the state, the crowd issued a disgusting gleeful response at Texas' hardline approach. I can't think of the last time I was so sickened.
Why did Perry fire the investigators who were about to present their case for the man's innocence? Was an innocent man executed? If wrongdoing was found to have happened, what should happen to Perry (this is all hypothetical. A governor who executes an innocent man will never have to actually deal with any consequences outside of politics)?
(Oh, and as a sidenote to reinforce the shocking republican response issues, in the new debate tonight when the moderator asked "What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?" people in the crowd yelled out "yeah!" Absolutely amoral and disgusting. It just shocks me that people can be so gleefully abhorrent. The base that they are pandering to doesn't care about anything but ideology.)
Texas has always had a penchant for the Death penalty, and comedian Ron White once said about Texas, "Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. My state's putting in the express lane."
And on your side note, it further shows why im disgusted with my own party. But notice how most of the people who support are conservatives, and where i come from conservatives are usually religious zealots. And they claim how "all is our lords plans"
Heh, I have a friend who said something similar to this. I don't think most people appreciate that believing in an ideology is much easier than being able to put that sort of ideology into practice. Could those same people, when holding a syringe for a lethal injection, and seeing the man that they are supposed to kill, feel so enthusiastic? Or if they were working in a hospital and were faced with a dying man who needed urgent medical care, could they seriously look at him and refuse? For some perhaps the answer matches the ideology, but for most I doubt it.
"Killing isn't as easy as the innocent believe"
-Albus Dumbledore to Draco Malfoy (Harry Potter, The Half-Blood Prince)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Texas has always had a penchant for the Death penalty, and comedian Ron White once said about Texas, "Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. My state's putting in the express lane."
And on your side note, it further shows why im disgusted with my own party. But notice how most of the people who support are conservatives, and where i come from conservatives are usually religious zealots. And they claim how "all is our lords plans"
It further shows me that the Tea Party are rapidly becoming more socially conservative driven since the fall of the neoconservative movement and less fiscally conservative and more anti-tax. I think I read Foreign Policy or some similar magazine that got it right that the Tea Party was indeed very Jacksonian.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I consider Rick Perry the worst thing possible for the republicans right now. Republicans need someone like Romney, who can pull conservatives, along with Liberals/Moderates who aren't satisfied with Obama. Perry, on the other hand? If he somehow gets the nomination, I would put my House against him winning. Non-Christians, Moderates, Liberals, Social Liberals Fiscal-Conservatives, and dissenting liberals can't stand how decisively Christian he and his policies are.
I don't think that's what the discussion is about though.
Is it about Death Penalty? Then I'll interject my 2-cents. I feel it's nigh impossible to guarantee justice when lives are on the line. How often have innocent men had to plea guilty to avoid the death penalty? I was ambivalent about the issue, but reading The Crucible really pushed my opinion (which, I admit, may be considered biases).
I consider Rick Perry the worst thing possible for the republicans right now. Republicans need someone like Romney, who can pull conservatives, along with Liberals/Moderates who aren't satisfied with Obama. Perry, on the other hand? If he somehow gets the nomination, I would put my House against him winning. Non-Christians, Moderates, Liberals, Social Liberals Fiscal-Conservatives, and dissenting liberals can't stand how decisively Christian he and his policies are.
I don't think that's what the discussion is about though.
Is it about Death Penalty? Then I'll interject my 2-cents. I feel it's nigh impossible to guarantee justice when lives are on the line. How often have innocent men had to plea guilty to avoid the death penalty? I was ambivalent about the issue, but reading The Crucible really pushed my opinion (which, I admit, may be considered biases).
This.
The Death Penalty? I disagree with it in certain cases. I highly disagree with the way Texas goes about executing people just 'cause they can'. The fact that all of the "Christian Tea Party Goodie Goodie" cheered when Perry said this pisses me off to no end.
As far as the real issue of the DP, I think that in extreme cases (Mass/Serial Killers) should get the DP, not someone who was convincted of one murder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Arcadic View Post
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
I'm a bit surprised there were a number of outbursts. Usually, the audience of a debate is asked to refrain from commenting.
The coma issue is typical conservative double standards. Everyone has a right to life, until I have to pay for it. If others have to pay for it, that's fine though.
I do have a question relating to the view that such a punishment is "unreversable." Isn't every miscarriage of justice irreversible? Isn't it just a matter of scale?
I've been saying all of this since about halfway through Bill Clinton's presidency. The republicans and their pandering to the extreme right, along with their intrinsically divisive approach to politics under the Rove-trained republican infrastructure is disgusting.
Problem is it's not just a lot of the upper leadership. It's actually all their pages and staff and the christian law school grads, and young college republicans who literally make up their internal political machine. Rove's ugly DNA is on everything.
Ideology over competence. Prior to GW, I was open to voting for either party. I still technically would, but I review any republican conservative with extreme suspicion and a little hatred. I'm still pragmatic, by the tea party, and all the conservative institutions (e.g. fox news) and their supporters, are loathsome to me.
Remember back in 2008 when the republican prez candies were in the primary and being each asked to pledge allegiance to creationism and disavow evolution? ****ing hilarious.
It's a joke and a distraction. It allows him to seem tough while avoiding real issues (in the grand scheme of things likely to affect the majority of americans). And it appeals to 'low-information' voters.
It's a joke and a distraction. It allows him to seem tough while avoiding real issues (in the grand scheme of things likely to affect the majority of americans). And it appeals to 'low-information' voters.
This, exactly. Fox knows Perry can never win, so does the RNC, so the RNC and Fox are just coordinating all of the best possible face time for perry until a new winnable republican flavor comes along. So they do things like this to hype up the lower-end of their base supporters.
The problem with the death penalty (and I say this as a former supporter) is that it costs more to execute than to incarcerate which given the extreme cost of incarceration is saying something.
If you want to use capital punishment it MUST be swift because otherwise its pointless. The problem (and benefit) of our justice system is that it takes a while to prove someone is really guilty.
There are a TON of people who plead down simply because they can't make a good defense. I forgot what show it was, but I thought thier depiction of the "public defender" as "public plea bargain assitance" to be pretty accurate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
It's a joke and a distraction. It allows him to seem tough while avoiding real issues (in the grand scheme of things likely to affect the majority of americans). And it appeals to 'low-information' voters.
The GOP cult of Ayn Rand is both revealing and mystifying. On the one hand, Rand's tough guy, every-man-for-himself posturing is a natural fit because it puts a philosophical gloss on the latent sociopathy so prevalent among the hard right. On the other, Rand exclaimed at every opportunity that she was a militant atheist who felt nothing but contempt for Christianity. Apparently, the ignorance of most fundamentalist "values voters" means that GOP candidates who enthuse over Rand at the same time they thump their Bibles never have to explain this stark contradiction. And I imagine a Democratic officeholder would have a harder time explaining why he named his offspring "Marx" than a GOP incumbent would in rationalizing naming his kid "Rand."
Randal Howard Paul[6] was born on January 7, 1963 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul. Paul's father is a physician and U.S. Representative of Texas's 14th congressional district. The middle child of five, his siblings are Ronald "Ronnie" Paul Jr., Lori Paul Pyeatt, Robert Paul and Joy Paul-LeBlanc.[7] Paul was baptized in the Episcopal Church[8] and became a Christian as a teenager.[9] Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".[9][12][13]
Considering that Obama went by Barry for a time and then shifted to Barrack later in life, it stands to reason that "Randal->Randy->Rand" did not coerce him into taking Ayn Rand's name. It's another section of where I question people trying to be "middle of the road" without genuflecting into their own ego and thus spin off into a diatribe.
As an aside, since Nixon people ran hard left/right in their primary and then shift to a centrist message in the general as that's when the die hards (including the whackies) come out to play is during the primaries.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
"Killing isn't as easy as the innocent believe"
-Albus Dumbledore to Draco Malfoy (Harry Potter, The Half-Blood Prince)
Actually, there is one quote more fitting from another fantasy epos:
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
It's my favourite argument against death penalty. I honestly can not understand any person who favors the death of another human being just to satisfy his/her lust for revenge. There is nothing more cruel and inhuman than the state sentencing someone to death. I would not want to live in such a state.
The problem with the death penalty (and I say this as a former supporter) is that it costs more to execute than to incarcerate which given the extreme cost of incarceration is saying something.
What a fascinating statistic, I've never heard that before. You wouldn't happen to have a source on that so I can throw it around during parties, would you?
The problem with the death penalty (and I say this as a former supporter) is that it costs more to execute than to incarcerate which given the extreme cost of incarceration is saying something.
I dont believe its the cost of execution, its the cost of appeals and legal fees that keep the cost of executions up. Lawyers will find any way they can to get another shot in court and thats what costs the tax payers. If the appeals were limited to 1 or 2 and only with new evidence the costs would go down and the money argument would go away.
In reality, a buck for a bullet is much cheaper then what we pay daily and yearly to keep someone who should be put to death, but leave it to lawyers and politicians to screw that system up too.
The state should of course not kill people who have already been neutralised as threats but the reason to that there are so many appeals allowed is an at worst half-assed attempt at decreasing the amount of innocent people killed. So if you want to make it easier for the state to kill criminals you want to make it easier for the state to also kill innocents.
...and how long should those 'innocents' have to prove their innocents? Months? Years? Decades?
If a system is put in place with limited appeals, I have no problem putting to death those found guilty in a court of law.
If a person gets cancer, do they want to keep that cancer around? Or do they want to rid themselves of that cancer? I feel the same with human cancer. We need to get rid of them, not keep them around.
You want the state to have the power to kill the citizens it finds undesirable and since no court system is perfect this would inevitably result in killing those who have no relation to whatever reason they are killed for. You don't hold this view because some criminals have, like, superpowers and are thus impossible to contain but because of simple moralistic bloodthirst.
Your beliefs demand the deaths of innocents for no particular gain at all. You should be pretty careful about condemning others as diseases.
Nice dance, you still have not answered the original question.
...and how long should those 'innocents' have to prove their innocents? Months? Years? Decades?
As for condemning others as diseases, if the shoe fits...
Perry is the greasiest politician I've seen in a long time, and this is no different. The guy has a good chance to win the primary, but I doubt he could win president. It's looking more and more like the conservative crazies are trying to shoot their presidential hopes in the foot again, especially since they feel Obama has no way to possibly win. McCain lost because of the hard right stance, and any other republican will as well.
Of course, Obama drew a hard left stance in the primaries and then went centrist for the race. Then again, I never wanted the guy for how much I end up defending him.
If a person gets cancer, do they want to keep that cancer around? Or do they want to rid themselves of that cancer? I feel the same with human cancer. We need to get rid of them, not keep them around.
The world economy is in the ****ter and probably won't come out of it for a long time. Obama inherited HELL in 2008. Remember it was SO bad, that Bush was pushing through his multibillion dollar stimulus and was already talking bailouts DURING HIS LAME DUCK months! If there had been any way to avoid establishing that the economy was heading for the tubes BEFORE Obama took over, it would have been smart to NOT pass such things.
Putting that in motion (and cementing for history and the short-memoried public that the top politicians ALL KNEW that we were on the edge of the cliff BEFORE Obama was sworn in) is one thing that Bush did that I really, really respect.
If I were pondering a presidential run, I would certainly be afraid to inherit 2012... though I guess that might be a very GOOD time to be president, on the small chance that the economy perks up by 2015 or so...
As a person that backs the death penalty as an last resort measure (face it some crimes just deserve it).
the technology that we have now are fixing issues that we didn't have before more so dna evidence. it has allowed people to go free because their DNA was not found at the crime scene.
we are getting to the point that DNA evidence is becoming the standard requirement for a death senence.
Obama inherited HELL in 2008.
yes while he inherited a problem he only made it worse not better.
more news out that the poverty rate is higher than it was in the 50's.
that is going to cost obama big time.
i think even if they did put perry up there people are fed up with obama and the economy will be his downfall.
There's also the principle of not allowing the state to judge a citizen unworthy of life.
that is why it is up to a jury not the state. the jury decides on whether or not there is enough evidence to convict a person.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
You are ignoring the innocent deaths that would necessarily follow from allowing the court system to end lives. Like, that's why there are appeals. That's why people sit on death row for years. You're upset that people aren't killed fast enough when the reason it takes so much time is to at least somewhat decrease the amount of innocents killed by the state. You have to acknowledge that your desire to see this process sped up will result in more innocents being killed. I don't think the state should risk this at all because the actual benefit of some criminals being dead as opposed to incarcerated for life is nonexistent. There's also the principle of not allowing the state to judge a citizen unworthy of life.
I did not say eliminate appeals, I said limit them and they can only be used in a situation where new evidence is found that had been previously unknown.
As for the innocents, if those innocents didnt put themselves in a situation or position to be seen as a possible criminal on death row, how innocent are they really? Add into the mix DNA testing and some of the advancements of CSI abilities and very few innocents would be put to death.
The world economy is in the ****ter and probably won't come out of it for a long time. Obama inherited HELL in 2008. Remember it was SO bad, that Bush was pushing through his multibillion dollar stimulus and was already talking bailouts DURING HIS LAME DUCK months! If there had been any way to avoid establishing that the economy was heading for the tubes BEFORE Obama took over, it would have been smart to NOT pass such things.
I mentioned this the other day. Little bush started the stimulus/bailout mess but Obama gets nailed to the cross when he continues it.
If a person gets cancer, do they want to keep that cancer around? Or do they want to rid themselves of that cancer? I feel the same with human cancer. We need to get rid of them, not keep them around.
The issue for me is not whether we want to get rid of the 'cancer' but whether there is actually a malign cancer to begin with.
If a doctor tells me that I have cancer and they need to amputate my leg in order to get rid of it, I will want enough second opinions to confirm that I really have cancer. And if I got my leg amputated and it turns out that I really did not have cancer there would be hell to pay.
I am for the death penalty in theory but reject it in practice since I find the probability of a miscarriage of justice too high.
As for the innocents, if those innocents didnt put themselves in a situation or position to be seen as a possible criminal on death row, how innocent are they really? Add into the mix DNA testing and some of the advancements of CSI abilities and very few innocents would be put to death.
THAT is your argument? Really?! I can not believe my eyes. Yeah, why having a judiciary anyways?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/08/1014595/-Rick-Perry-had-an-innocent-man-executed,-and-should-be-made-to-answer
Why did Perry fire the investigators who were about to present their case for the man's innocence? Was an innocent man executed? If wrongdoing was found to have happened, what should happen to Perry (this is all hypothetical. A governor who executes an innocent man will never have to actually deal with any consequences outside of politics)?
(Oh, and as a sidenote to reinforce the shocking republican response issues, in the new debate tonight when the moderator asked "What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?" people in the crowd yelled out "yeah!" Absolutely amoral and disgusting. It just shocks me that people can be so gleefully abhorrent. The base that they are pandering to doesn't care about anything but ideology.)
And on your side note, it further shows why im disgusted with my own party. But notice how most of the people who support are conservatives, and where i come from conservatives are usually religious zealots. And they claim how "all is our lords plans"
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething Spicy"Killing isn't as easy as the innocent believe"
-Albus Dumbledore to Draco Malfoy (Harry Potter, The Half-Blood Prince)
It further shows me that the Tea Party are rapidly becoming more socially conservative driven since the fall of the neoconservative movement and less fiscally conservative and more anti-tax. I think I read Foreign Policy or some similar magazine that got it right that the Tea Party was indeed very Jacksonian.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I don't think that's what the discussion is about though.
Is it about Death Penalty? Then I'll interject my 2-cents. I feel it's nigh impossible to guarantee justice when lives are on the line. How often have innocent men had to plea guilty to avoid the death penalty? I was ambivalent about the issue, but reading The Crucible really pushed my opinion (which, I admit, may be considered biases).
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
This.
The Death Penalty? I disagree with it in certain cases. I highly disagree with the way Texas goes about executing people just 'cause they can'. The fact that all of the "Christian Tea Party Goodie Goodie" cheered when Perry said this pisses me off to no end.
As far as the real issue of the DP, I think that in extreme cases (Mass/Serial Killers) should get the DP, not someone who was convincted of one murder.
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
The coma issue is typical conservative double standards. Everyone has a right to life, until I have to pay for it. If others have to pay for it, that's fine though.
I do have a question relating to the view that such a punishment is "unreversable." Isn't every miscarriage of justice irreversible? Isn't it just a matter of scale?
Problem is it's not just a lot of the upper leadership. It's actually all their pages and staff and the christian law school grads, and young college republicans who literally make up their internal political machine. Rove's ugly DNA is on everything.
Ideology over competence. Prior to GW, I was open to voting for either party. I still technically would, but I review any republican conservative with extreme suspicion and a little hatred. I'm still pragmatic, by the tea party, and all the conservative institutions (e.g. fox news) and their supporters, are loathsome to me.
Remember back in 2008 when the republican prez candies were in the primary and being each asked to pledge allegiance to creationism and disavow evolution? ****ing hilarious.
The following is a facinating essay about the state of the Republican party (warning, it is long, but DEFINITELY worth the read):
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152305/confessions_of_a_gop_operative_who_left_%22the_cult%22%3A_3_things_everyone_must_know_about_the_lunatic-filled_republican_party/?page=1
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This, exactly. Fox knows Perry can never win, so does the RNC, so the RNC and Fox are just coordinating all of the best possible face time for perry until a new winnable republican flavor comes along. So they do things like this to hype up the lower-end of their base supporters.
If you want to use capital punishment it MUST be swift because otherwise its pointless. The problem (and benefit) of our justice system is that it takes a while to prove someone is really guilty.
There are a TON of people who plead down simply because they can't make a good defense. I forgot what show it was, but I thought thier depiction of the "public defender" as "public plea bargain assitance" to be pretty accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
Considering that Obama went by Barry for a time and then shifted to Barrack later in life, it stands to reason that "Randal->Randy->Rand" did not coerce him into taking Ayn Rand's name. It's another section of where I question people trying to be "middle of the road" without genuflecting into their own ego and thus spin off into a diatribe.
As an aside, since Nixon people ran hard left/right in their primary and then shift to a centrist message in the general as that's when the die hards (including the whackies) come out to play is during the primaries.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Actually, there is one quote more fitting from another fantasy epos:
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
It's my favourite argument against death penalty. I honestly can not understand any person who favors the death of another human being just to satisfy his/her lust for revenge. There is nothing more cruel and inhuman than the state sentencing someone to death. I would not want to live in such a state.
What a fascinating statistic, I've never heard that before. You wouldn't happen to have a source on that so I can throw it around during parties, would you?
I dont believe its the cost of execution, its the cost of appeals and legal fees that keep the cost of executions up. Lawyers will find any way they can to get another shot in court and thats what costs the tax payers. If the appeals were limited to 1 or 2 and only with new evidence the costs would go down and the money argument would go away.
In reality, a buck for a bullet is much cheaper then what we pay daily and yearly to keep someone who should be put to death, but leave it to lawyers and politicians to screw that system up too.
...and how long should those 'innocents' have to prove their innocents? Months? Years? Decades?
If a system is put in place with limited appeals, I have no problem putting to death those found guilty in a court of law.
If a person gets cancer, do they want to keep that cancer around? Or do they want to rid themselves of that cancer? I feel the same with human cancer. We need to get rid of them, not keep them around.
Nice dance, you still have not answered the original question.
...and how long should those 'innocents' have to prove their innocents? Months? Years? Decades?
As for condemning others as diseases, if the shoe fits...
Of course, Obama drew a hard left stance in the primaries and then went centrist for the race. Then again, I never wanted the guy for how much I end up defending him.
Like I stated above...
Putting that in motion (and cementing for history and the short-memoried public that the top politicians ALL KNEW that we were on the edge of the cliff BEFORE Obama was sworn in) is one thing that Bush did that I really, really respect.
If I were pondering a presidential run, I would certainly be afraid to inherit 2012... though I guess that might be a very GOOD time to be president, on the small chance that the economy perks up by 2015 or so...
the technology that we have now are fixing issues that we didn't have before more so dna evidence. it has allowed people to go free because their DNA was not found at the crime scene.
we are getting to the point that DNA evidence is becoming the standard requirement for a death senence.
yes while he inherited a problem he only made it worse not better.
more news out that the poverty rate is higher than it was in the 50's.
that is going to cost obama big time.
i think even if they did put perry up there people are fed up with obama and the economy will be his downfall.
that is why it is up to a jury not the state. the jury decides on whether or not there is enough evidence to convict a person.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I did not say eliminate appeals, I said limit them and they can only be used in a situation where new evidence is found that had been previously unknown.
As for the innocents, if those innocents didnt put themselves in a situation or position to be seen as a possible criminal on death row, how innocent are they really? Add into the mix DNA testing and some of the advancements of CSI abilities and very few innocents would be put to death.
I mentioned this the other day. Little bush started the stimulus/bailout mess but Obama gets nailed to the cross when he continues it.
The issue for me is not whether we want to get rid of the 'cancer' but whether there is actually a malign cancer to begin with.
If a doctor tells me that I have cancer and they need to amputate my leg in order to get rid of it, I will want enough second opinions to confirm that I really have cancer. And if I got my leg amputated and it turns out that I really did not have cancer there would be hell to pay.
I am for the death penalty in theory but reject it in practice since I find the probability of a miscarriage of justice too high.
THAT is your argument? Really?! I can not believe my eyes. Yeah, why having a judiciary anyways?