For a known Regressive jurist to coddle convicted murderers and side with the Ninth "Circus" is completely predictable. Understandable, no, but completely predictable. But to question the safety of a lethal drug? Maybe I'm unclear on the concept. It just seems logical that a drug administered to fulfill a condemned prisoner's death sentence would be, by necessity, unsafe. If the drug were safe, it would have difficulty achieving its stated purpose, now wouldn't it? God help us, what has happened to our brains! Educated jurists speculating on whether or not lethal drugs are safe for their intended use is a sure sign our system has abandoned all sanity and common sense.
Anthony Hager on Elana Kagen's first SCOTUS decision. The court was hearing a case on the safety of a lethal injection drug. How exactly did this court case make it to the Supreme Court? Seriously, a lethal injection drug is unsafe? Uh, yeah, it is meant to kill you, of course it is unsafe.
I am not an advocate for the death penalty, matter of fact I strongly oppose it. That being said, what a complete waste of resources to bring this to the high court.
You can read full article here.
Posts
5 comments:
I am an advocate for the death penalty. I believe if we use it on the worst of the worst frequently and publicly and painfully, we will see less of "the worst of the worst". As long as we coddle them, we will continue to get those types.
There is no evidence that is the case. Other parts of the world have public beheadings, you don't see the numbers of them going down. In the US, some of the states that have the death penalty have some of the highest murder rates.
That is one of the reasons that I am opposed to it. To say that it stops people doesn't hold water. It is simply used as method of retribution and revenge. Not a good enough reason to take the chance on killing an innocent person. Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord.
We disagree on this. I beliedve that society has a right...even a responsiblity to avenge their citizens.
"(S)ome of the states that have the death penalty have some of the highest murder rates." This is a myth perpetuated by the anti-capital puinishment crowd, similar to the arguments against concealed-carry. All that aside, the recidivism rate amongst those subjected to the death penalty is Zero.
Deekeman:
6 out of the 10 top murder rates in cities are all in states that have the death penalty. Granted some don't use it too often.
If it were truly stopped people there would be virtually no murder in Texas. They certainly are not shy about using it.
The reason you don't commit murder isn't because you are worried about the death penalty; at least I hope not. Many murders are crimes of passion, in that case nothing is going to stop it. Also, how many think that they are just simply too smart to get caught? Do you really think that gangbangers care about the death penalty? If they were worried about dying they wouldn't be in a gang.
As for the gun comparision, it is apples and oranges. DC is the perfect example, the gun laws became less strigent and DC is now not even in the top ten for murders committed. Crime has decreased, no death penalty in the district.
The main reason I am against it is because it is a political decision on who gets charged with death penalty cases. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be charged with a death penalty case. The state has unlimited resources and the defendant does not. That stacks the odds against the accused. If it was done fairly, OJ would have faced death and he didn't. It was a political decision. We can't decide who lives or dies based on politics. We either do it fairly or don't do it all.
We have had instances where death row inmates have been shown to be not guilty of crime after spending years on death row and had the luck of updated DNA testing that showed they didn't commit the crime. Do you really think that killing a person who didn't commit the crime is ok? It can happen, and until it we can be 100% certain that it will never happen, we shouldn't be doing something that we can take back.
I know all the arguments. I just hold the opposite view on them.
I hope we agree to disagree on this.
Let me add that if the criteria is that the system has to be perfect, it should be perfect in all cases. If it cannot be perfect in all cases, we should punish no one. After all, one of the arguments against the death penalty is that "life in prison is a more harsh penalty".
That said, I appreciate your postings and comments, but on this I will not be convinced otherwise.
Post a Comment