May 9, 2009
"A new Texas? Ohio's death penalty examined"
The title of this post is the title of this article in The Ohio State University's campus newspaper, The Lantern. The article interviews the author of a new book on Ohio's death penalty, Andrew Welsh-Huggins, who will be the featured speaker at an even in which I will be participating later today. Here are the basics and one of the Q&A passages:
The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity will be hosting a panel discussion titled "Perspectives on Ohio's Death Penalty," Saturday. The event will be in Saxbe Auditorium in Drinko Hall from 2 to 4 p.m. One of the panelists, Andrew Welsh-Huggins, recently published a book on the death penalty in Ohio, called "No Winners Here Tonight: Race, Politics, and Geography in One of the Country's Busiest Death Penalty States." He took some time to be interviewed by The Lantern....
TL: The subtitle of your book, "Race, Politics, and Geography in One of the Country's Busiest Death Penalty States," may be a surprising title for many readers, as it is not widely realized that Ohio has one of the most active death chambers in the U.S. Can you tell us how Ohio's use of the death penalty compares with other states?
AWH: What took people by surprise was that Ohio executed seven people in 2004, making us the second-highest executor that year, only after Texas, the perennial leader. In the next few years, Ohio often had the second or third busiest death chambers and seems to always be in the top five. Right now there are already four people scheduled to die.
More information about this death penalty event can be accessed in this news release from the Kirwan Institute. More information about the book "No Winners Here Tonight: Race, Politics, and Geography in One of the Country's Busiest Death Penalty States" can be accessed at this publisher webpage.
May 9, 2009 at 08:00 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "A new Texas? Ohio's death penalty examined":
The event is sponsored by the university. Have you no pride in the craft of education by your exclusion of any opposing viewpoint? How would it harm the students to hear about the dose-response curve? The hundreds of extra-judicial, summary death penalties taking place in Ohio every year? And about the utter failure of the criminal to protect the public or to prevent the incarceration of harmless, innocent people?
Why must every speaker have the same pro-criminal, left wing, rent seeking agenda?
If you cannot handle the slightest rebuttal, should you rethink and repent your wrongful views?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 9, 2009 10:10:19 AM
Professor, I think you could do a bit more to raise the level of discourse here.
Posted by: S.cotus | May 9, 2009 11:28:06 AM
Maybe he doesn't want to interfere with the occasional comic relief?
Posted by: Mark#1 | May 9, 2009 11:52:51 AM
Prof. Berman: I agree with the comments by Scotus and Mark1.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 9, 2009 12:17:45 PM
Left this message in the student paper, to try to undo the damage of the criminal lover, rent seeking lawyer, lying propaganda.
"Repeal of the death penalty grants absolute immunity to all crimes after the first murder. It grants the lawyer client a license to kill with no possible punishment. This book and symposium are offensive to crime victims."
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 9, 2009 2:56:02 PM
I would like to have student Truth Squads established in all colleges. These would be volunteer students who would audit the classes of identified ideologue professors. Teachers would be selected for bias. All group identity courses would be included per se, as would any course containing the word, "critical," in its description. These are pure propaganda exercises.
If a professor teaches in a balanced way, the teacher should be left alone. Those who do not present a balance of views or of facts should be identified and targeted.
Student volunteers then audit the classes without grades. They file a grievance for every unfair utterance and every instance of suppression of student disagreement. If the administration refuses to remove the unbalanced ideologue, direct action to disrupt the propaganda should be taken, such as loud interruptions of the stream of propaganda. I am guessing, this would be necessary in only 1 or 2% of teachers. If they are driven out by continual grievances, so much the better.
In law school, loud pounding of Mao's Little Red Book on the desks should follow the utterance of any supernatural, Medieval garbage doctrine. The chant, "False Medieval Garbage," should go up if the pounding does not stop the relentless indoctrination. These garbage utterances violate the Establishment Clause. The same should take place for all other statements that contain claims that cannot be verified to exist in nature or that further the Rent Seeking of the lawyer profession. I would guess, there would be pounding the entire class in most instances. When these fail to correct the criminal cult indoctrinator, there should be immunity granted for the lofting of aged vegetables and eggs. Garbage for garbage.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 10, 2009 7:03:00 AM
SC. I truly don't know why you post here. Your erudite, compassionate, and insightful comments need to find an outlet where they can be heard by the broad masses of society. Why take on the criminal cult enterprise straight on; go over their heads and address the true power in any age: the great mass of men. Frankly, people who post to this blog are beneath you; they don't deserve you. I don't deserve you. Stop messing with the academics in their effete ivory towers; abandon the hoi oligoi and embrace the hoi poli! Yes, I know you love the lawyer, but just think of millions and millions of people loving the lawyer along with you. Everyone loves a good orgey.
Yes, it's true that the sun here will shine less brightly in your absence; the day will be more gloomy when you are gone. But it's a small price to pay for opportunity for the awesome power of your presence to bask those who need you most: everyman. Let us have the honor of giving you as a gift to all the world. Go! I say go! Fulfill your destiny! Let your name be echoed throughout the ages. Supremacy Claus. Let the wee babes in their cribs mumble it to their mothers. Supremacy Claus. Let the nun in her prayers say it aloud. Supremacy Claus. Let the lifting chorus of the assembled democracies of the world sing it from ages onto ages. Supremacy Claus. Go! I say go! The moment is at hand; the stars are aligned. The angels wait with bated breath for the promise of the ages to come to pass. The collective breath of the people has been held so long they are all in danger of turning blue. Tarry here no longer. Dwaddle in our decadence no more. The moment awaits. Go! Go! I say go!
Posted by: Daniel | May 10, 2009 10:42:31 AM
Daniel: Please address the subject of this posting.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 10, 2009 10:58:13 AM
SC. Your humility overcomes me. I thought that *you* were the subject. The greatest of the great do not realize how great they are, thus demonstrating true greatness.
I repeat, go oh perfect one. Fulfill thy destiny.
Posted by: Daniel | May 10, 2009 1:02:13 PM
Daniel: It is not a false humility. Imagine an average warrior of today, with today's military tools. Land him against the greatest warriors of 1250 AD. A slaughter ensues, where a single ordinary warrior takes out a castle and its people, in a few minutes. Is that greatness? No that is a mismatch of eras.
Any person with an ordinary high school education of today can intellectually destroy the topmost lawyers on the Supreme Court, and in the legislatures. It is a total mismatch of eras.
We no longer are held hostage to the supernatural in our era.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 10, 2009 4:13:40 PM
Right message, wrong messenger award of the day goes to the person who calls himself Supreme Court of the United States, who writes, "Professor, I think you could do a bit more to raise the level of discourse here."
As regular readers of the blog are painfully aware, prior to the arrival of "Supremacy Claus," the one who now objects to the level of discourse was the single largest contributor to its degradation, with frequent use of argumentum ad hominem and with attacks on nonlawyers equally and oppositely as offensive as the other S.C.'s attacks on lawyers.
Yes, our host could indeed do a bit more to raise the level of discourse. Banning both "Supremacy Claus" and "S.cotus" would do much.
Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | May 11, 2009 11:28:46 AM
There is an old saying (well, old in internet time): Don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: Anon | May 11, 2009 12:28:56 PM
Supremacy Claus, what is your purpose for posting? Far be it from me to be an enforcer of civility here, but it seems that you have a pattern of simply ranting about lawyerdom etc. etc., which people simply do not take seriously If your goal is to simply disrupt commentary, I wish you'd be honest about it. If your goal is to show people that you can say outrageous things, then you've succeeded. I think there's a spot for people like you to comment here. The legal system should be open to critiques from non-lawyers, and lawyers should answer honest criticism. Yours doesn't seem to be that.
You seem to want a place at this metaphorical table. Constantly breaking wind precludes you from an invitation.
Like I said, far be it from me to demand decorum, but SC, I think your posts simply are not worth your time. No one is really paying attention to them.
As for S.cotus, even when he posted stuff about the law, it typically wasn't all that insightful. That coupled with his boorishness made for tedium. As much as S.cotus wishes, snark is not a synonym for erudition.
Posted by: federalist | May 11, 2009 3:18:08 PM
Federalist: Ad hominem attack beats trying to rebut a point about the total failure of every goal of every law subject. Personal attack is the way of the cult.
As a lawyer, why don't you leave our country alone? I don't have to ask, what is your purpose. It is rent seeking.
Here is an idea. Start obeying the Establishment Clause, and stop spouting supernatural doctrines.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 11, 2009 9:39:22 PM
Why compare with Texas? Doesn't each state have enough to present without the additional commentary?
Posted by: Concerned Texan | Jul 21, 2009 3:08:05 PM