Another Bad-News Day, For "conservatives"

[Mr. Shaman]

So, more murders committing murder, in your view is a plus for the country?

When they're murdering for The State, it seems quite acceptable, to "conservatives".


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In your view, what has "porky limbaugh" said that qualifies as 'hate radio'?

The subjects are unlimited......

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Typically, the unconstrained view of man, believes that man is capable of rising to near perfection. That simply by educating and behavior modification, can be made better than we are. Further, the unconstrained view, typically does not hold onto absolutes, or a defined belief in right and wrong.

Ah, yes......Absolutes....those simple, little excuses that help justify the suspension of all rational-thought.

The Bush Years certainly were quite the endorsement for Absolutes.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But either way, I am of the overall though that if the death penalty is to be used, that the guilty party be subjected to punishment at the earliest possible time.

Ah, yes......who needs that, there unlimited-appeal mess, huh?

So.....how many days/months/years would be a reasonable-number???

​

 

[Andy]

Ya' wanna compare murder-rates, do ya'??

Fine. Let's do so.....in The U.S.!!!!!!

Whatta shame your columnist forgot to present these figures.

​

These figures are not actually all that relevant for a number of reasons.

First, it doesn't take into account how well the Death Penalty is enforced. For example, laughably California has a death penalty law. But it's rarely enforced, as to be nearly irrelevant. Since 1976, California has only executed 13 capital punishment convicts.

Keep in mind this graph only shows homicides in one CA city. California, has had more than 4,000 homicides in a single year. So 13 executions in 33 years, isn't likely to stem the sea of roughly 99,000 homicides in that time frame.

Second, it doesn't consider that perhaps one reason states with low murder rates, don't have death penalty laws, is because they have low murder rates to begin with. It is possible that when states start to have higher murder rates, they tend to get tougher penalties for murder.

It's interesting that of all the states without the death penalty, Michigan has the highest murder rate. That's interesting because Michigan is as we speak, considering enacting the death penalty.

Third, it doesn't take into account that our system is so slow to punish criminals, as to make it nearly irrelevant as a deterrence. The last criminal in California to be executed, was Clarence Ray. Clarence committed murder in 1974, and was convicted of triple murder 1981. Of course he didn't get executed until 2006, 32 years after his first murder, and 25 years after his other three murders.

Fourth, the cite also doesn't take into account that the people executed, are multiple time murderers, that should have been dealt with at the start, which would have lowered murder rates.

Clarence Ray was a robber, who had some people find out what he did. He premeditated murder of his son's girlfriend who found out, first with poison, and when that didn't work, strangled her and tossed her in a near by river, never to be seen again. This was his first murder, and conviction.

At this point, he should have been put to death. But that was not done.

While in prison, Clarence Ray met, and conspired with another prison inmate Billy Ray Hamilton, who he offered to pay $25,000 to murder all the witnesses that testified against him at trial. Billy Ray Hamilton, found one of the witnesses working at a store, killed him, and his co-workers with a sawed-off shotgun. Hamilton was given money, and the weapon, as well as directions to the work of the witness, by Clarence Ray's son and girlfriend, both of whom should also be put to death, but will not.

Billy Ray Hamilton, by the way, never received just punishment for the brutal murders. He died of natural causes, after being on death row for 27 years.

In this case, and many others, if the death penalty had been properly executed when the first murder had taken place, 3 people would not have been murdered, and 2 more would not have been wounded.

In short, because of the frugal enforcement of the death penalty, the lazy speed at the enforcement, the multiple time offenders, and the cause and effect relationship of the death penalty to the murder rates... makes your little site and spreadsheet completely meaningless on it's own.

 

[Andy]

The subjects are unlimited......

​

Well I went to your Mediamatters, one of the most left wing idiot sites on the web, but I couldn't find anything hateful on Limbaugh. The latest whine fest, seems to be about Rush calling a Gloria Rodriguez of CNN, an "Info-Babe". Oooooo... how horrible. How hateful! Calling a girl a babe, is amazingly hateful. Not like Clinton saying he couldn't possibly have slept with Flowers because she has small boobs. That's way nicer.

Now, unless you have something specific to mention in support of your ignorant claim, let's move on, shall we?

 

[Andy]

.....Especially for the innocent-ones, right?




No.....we pretty-much leave such sophomoric-responses up to Dead-O-Heads and other such "conservatives". (As you've demonstrated.)

​

Innocent?
The first link on the site was to Betty Beets. Do you know what Betty Beets did? She told her son and daughter she was going to murder her husband, and she did. They eventually cracked and informed the police, but years after the murder. She openly stated she did it to collect life insurance, and to sell off property of his, and collect his pension.

More over, she killed her fourth husband, whose remains were found in her garage. She also tried to kill her second husband, but he escaped only wounded.

The second was Shaka Sankofa. This is from Wiki:
Shaka Sankofa was convicted of Bobby Grant Lambert's murder, which occurred at night in the parking lot of a Safeway supermarket. Although he denied committing the murder he admitted that at the time of Lambert's death he was on a week-long spree of armed robberies, assaults, attempted murders and one rape. He was captured after a 57-year-old woman he had kidnapped, raped and tortured gained control of his gun and held it on him. She then called police.

Here you would complain about supposed tortures at gitmo, while you'd release a man who raped and tortured a 57 year old woman? What kind of sick scum bag are you?

And the list goes on and on...

Now I don't know what planet you are living on in your liberal world, but that is far from innocent. If you think these horrid murderers are all innocent, then you are an idiot of the highest order.

 

[Andy]

Suuuuuuure......let's do your lil' dance.....

I thought "conservatives" were Pro-Life?​

Pro life means that we respect the human life so much, that one who does not respect human life, should be put to death.

Nearly all death row inmates are people who committed murder multiple times. Just like I documented in the other post, if they had been put to death for the first murder, fewer innocent people would have been killed.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Ya' wanna compare murder-rates, do ya'??

Fine. Let's do so.....in The U.S.!!!!!!

Whatta shame your columnist forgot to present these figures.

​

No the columnist actually didn't forget to present those figures. He was talking about the skew of those figures. The same graph you showed me is the same graph used by the Times. Not only that but it used the exact same verifying factors. Maybe you should read the entire article concentrate on what the article is saying, and then write your response. In order to get an accurate perception of the murder rates in states, with or without the death penalty, you have to look at more than just population figures. Because if you don't do that 2 out of the 3 cities in the country with the highest murder rates don't have the death penalty. (Detroit and Washington D.C.....and that doesn't fit your agenda.) So before you try to push your studies, graphs, and polls on me please read the factors of qualification. Oh and FYI....***One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions.

***"The List: Murder Capitals of the World", 09/08, Foreign Policy Magazine

 

[PLC1]

The death penalty has again reared its head in a bill in Alaska. I dont think it has any viability in this legislative session, as there are more than enough things on the Legs plates, including actually accepting the stimulus money that the Governor shamefully said basically no to it for her own gain and grandstanding as an actual Conservative.

But either way, I am of the overall though that if the death penalty is to be used, that the guilty party be subjected to punishment at the earliest possible time. Meaning, that if there is no question as the guilt of the defendant, there seems little reason to drag on the process of delivering the punishment.

While I have some concerns about the death penalty overall, if we are going to have it as an option, we might as well use it concisely.

Absolutely. If it's going to be used at all, it should be used right away. Allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades doesn't serve anyone well.

The problem is that there are a lot of convicts who were convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. We've already discussed the innocence project, for example.

John Grisham wrote a compelling novel about a true story of two innocent men who were on death row for years before being exonerated. It's called, strangely enough, The Innocent Man.

I used to be totally in favor of the death penalty before examining what is actually being done. Anyone who takes a close, non partisan look, takes off the conservative vs. liberal blinders, will come to the conclusion that the death penalty is simply a bad idea, regardless of ideology.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Absolutely. If it's going to be used at all, it should be used right away. Allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades doesn't serve anyone well.

The problem is that there are a lot of convicts who were convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. We've already discussed the innocence project, for example.

John Grisham wrote a compelling novel about a true story of two innocent men who were on death row for years before being exonerated. It's called, strangely enough, The Innocent Man.

I used to be totally in favor of the death penalty before examining what is actually being done. Anyone who takes a close, non partisan look, takes off the conservative vs. liberal blinders, will come to the conclusion that the death penalty is simply a bad idea, regardless of ideology.

Please share....what is being done? I would love to know, and perhaps take off the "blinders".

 

[PLC1]

Please share....what is being done? I would love to know, and perhaps take off the "blinders".

Um... allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades?
Convicting people of crimes that they haven't committed?
Spending more on the death penalty than we would on life in prison?

Didn't I already mention all of the above?

Are you familiar with the innocence project?

And, try reading that Grisham novel I mentioned. It is a novel, to be sure, but the story he tells actually happened.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Um... allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades?
Convicting people of crimes that they haven't committed?
Spending more on the death penalty than we would on life in prison?

Didn't I already mention all of the above?

Are you familiar with the innocence project?

And, try reading that Grisham novel I mentioned. It is a novel, to be sure, but the story he tells actually happened.

As far as "allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades." Many times that can be due to the appeals process. However, if you have a problem serving the time then don't commit the crime. (not to be funny). I can understand what your saying about convicting innocent people, but I don't think that happens as much as you think. I tell you what cost the tax payers more money than the death row, or life in prison. Then number of illegals that are taken up space in our prisons. That is the much larger strain on the budget of the prison system.

This may sound harsh, and I'm sure I will probably catch some flack for this statement. Oh well.......If we went ahead and delivered on the sentence of execution for those that it applies to we could save money and space on death row. I'm talking about cases where there is no doubt at all. DNA, witness's, HARD EVIDENCE. If these things are there then why wait, and why do we need to have all these appeals. If you kill someone you deserve to die. The person you killed didn't have a chance to appeal, why should the convict get that opportunity.

I'll check out your grisham suggestion.

 

[Andy]

Um... allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades?
Convicting people of crimes that they haven't committed?
Spending more on the death penalty than we would on life in prison?

Didn't I already mention all of the above?

Are you familiar with the innocence project?

And, try reading that Grisham novel I mentioned. It is a novel, to be sure, but the story he tells actually happened.

First, I have a problem with novels being used as evidence. Yes, supposedly it was about an actual event. The issue is time distorts the evidence. There's generally a reason of some sort, as to why people write stories about events, rather than documentaries. Normally it's because the factual evidence is pretty damning, and writing a novel means you can make up whatever you want.

The Da Vinci Code was an example of this. Most of the evidence in the movie (one of the most boring movies ever btw) was real. But in a documentary, you'd have to examine all the evidence, and realize it was just made up.

Second, people languishing on death row, is our fault, not the penalties fault.

Third, the theory that the cost for the death penalty(DP) vs life without parole (LWP), is dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst.

For example they take the average yearly cost to incarcerate a LWP inmate, verses the average yearly cost to incarcerate a DP person. Problem is, not all LWP inmates are in the maximum security prisons, while all of the DP inmates are. If the death penalty was removed, would those DP inmates be in cheaper cells? Of course not. When you compare the cost of incarceration of DP inmates to equal LWP inmates, the cost is much closer.

Another way is that they combine cost of prior trials for multiple time offenders. Clarence Ray for example, would have the cost and incarceration from his first murder, wrapped into the cost of his second trial and other 3 murders, even though the he didn't get the death penalty in the first trial.

Further, many of the claims of high cost, inflate the cost of appeals and retrials, by trying to claim the cost of retrial will be the same as the original trial. But that's not so. The police department and prosecution, does not have to completely investigate the entire case again for each appeal and retrial.

Finely, they also include the cost of unlimited appeals and the years on years of incarceration, that are not a problem of the DP, but of the appeals process. If a person is convicted of a capital punishment offense, and given the DP, they should never be able to appeal it continuously for the next 35 years, like Billy Ray Hamilton, until he dies of natural causes.

Interestingly, under the changes from habeas corpus reform laws, the estimated average time for someone to spend on death row, should be around 8 years tops. When you start making cost estimates based on this time frame, and on limited appeals, DP cases cost a fraction of LWP cases over the long term.

Fourth, convicting people who are innocent is something that shouldn't be used as a reason to not enforce the law. Now I do agree that we should have laws that are much tougher on witnesses that make false testimony against people. In my opinion, if you knowingly lie against someone in a death penalty case, you are in effect trying to murder them using the legal system. If it comes out that you did lie under oath, in a death penalty case, you should be tried for attempted murder. But beyond that, if we are going to remove penalties under the lame excuse that it might be used against someone innocent, then we have to eliminate all penalties. Being a convicted felon can arguably ruins ones entire life, as well as lose 30 years behind bars. That's so wrong, we should eliminate prison sentences.

And finely, I have a huge issue with the Innocence Project, and their DNA methods. I have caught this crowd on a number of occasions trying to free people who were guilty as hell. I'll give two examples.

Remember back in the 90s a woman was jogging through central park, when she got jumped by a gang. She was raped repeatedly for hours. Then they attempted to beat her to death. Amazingly she actually survived the attempted murder, and was discovered half dead by an off duty security guard or something, I can't remember. She was so badly beaten, that she doesn't remember anything from before she was revived. Her entire life gone. She had to relearn who all her relatives and friends are.

One gang member was doing the attempted murder, and was given life without parole. About 10 years later, they did some DNA testing and found the evidence left on the girl, wasn't his DNA. Based on this, they claimed he was innocent, and tried to get him released. What they completely ignored was that he never said, nor did anyone else say, that he raped the girl. The other gang members raped her. He was the one that said she's seen all of us, we have to kill her, and then proceeded to strangle her. But this was lost on the "innocences" crowd.

Another example, that I don't remember as well was a guy who went on a rape and murder spree. He raped and murdered a number of girls, and when caught was given the death penalty. About 8 years later, but before his execution, they did DNA testing on some pubic hair that was found on the victim girl. Of course it did not match his. Based on this, they tried to have him released. Problem is, during the trial, the hair was never a significant part of the evidence. The hair was from a female, and likely from one of his other victims. Meanwhile, the rest of the evidence against him was pretty concrete, including witnesses.

See, it's pretty easy to years later, when the facts are not as clear, and the witnesses no longer around, to examine some random bit of evidence and make a claim that so and so was innocent. But most of these claims are not as clear cut as their proponents would like to portray.

 

[PLC1]

As far as "allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades." Many times that can be due to the appeals process. However, if you have a problem serving the time then don't commit the crime. (not to be funny).

They should do the time: Life in prison. That's a worse punishment anyway.
But yes, they languish on death row for decades due mostly to the appeals process.

I can understand what your saying about convicting innocent people, but I don't think that happens as much as you think. I tell you what cost the tax payers more money than the death row, or life in prison. Then number of illegals that are taken up space in our prisons. That is the much larger strain on the budget of the prison system.

The Innocence Project has exonerated over 200 people so far. It happens a lot more often than any of us would like to think. As for illegals, that's a whole other issue. If the government were doing its job, we would have very few illegals in prison or anywhere else. That's the same government that wants to carry out the death penalty, BTW.

This may sound harsh, and I'm sure I will probably catch some flack for this statement. Oh well.......If we went ahead and delivered on the sentence of execution for those that it applies to we could save money and space on death row. I'm talking about cases where there is no doubt at all. DNA, witness's, HARD EVIDENCE. If these things are there then why wait, and why do we need to have all these appeals. If you kill someone you deserve to die. The person you killed didn't have a chance to appeal, why should the convict get that opportunity.

Yes, if we could be certain, and carry out the death penalty quickly, then it might have some merit. The problem is, we are often not certain, are sometimes wrong, and never carry out the death penalty quickly.

I'll check out your grisham suggestion.

Do. It's not only a real eye opener, but a page turner as well, and might give you some tips about what not to do if you're ever falsely accused of a crime.

Posted by Andy

See, it's pretty easy to years later, when the facts are not as clear, and the witnesses no longer around, to examine some random bit of evidence and make a claim that so and so was innocent. But most of these claims are not as clear cut as their proponents would like to portray.

In the case of rape especially, DNA evidence is iron clad and irrefutable. It is not easy to spring someone from prison after they've been convicted, but it has happened many times.

Of course, the vast majority of prisoners are there for crimes that they did commit, and most likely committed a lot more that they weren't convicted for. A vast majority is far from certainty, however.

Fourth, convicting people who are innocent is something that shouldn't be used as a reason to not enforce the law. Now I do agree that we should have laws that are much tougher on witnesses that make false testimony against people. In my opinion, if you knowingly lie against someone in a death penalty case, you are in effect trying to murder them using the legal system. If it comes out that you did lie under oath, in a death penalty case, you should be tried for attempted murder. But beyond that, if we are going to remove penalties under the lame excuse that it might be used against someone innocent, then we have to eliminate all penalties. Being a convicted felon can arguably ruins ones entire life, as well as lose 30 years behind bars. That's so wrong, we should eliminate prison sentences.

An innocent person can be released from prison. A dead person, however, will remain dead whether or not he/she was innocent.

Of course, enforcing the law is important. Unfortunately, the government in which you seem to have so much faith does not enforce that law very fairly much of the time.