« George Will assails "abuse of criminal law for capricious bullying" in whale of federal tale | Main | Ralph Nader urges Obama and Romney to discuss "the prison-industrial complex" »

July 29, 2012

"Against death penalty? Then debate Colorado"

The title of this post is the headline of this potent commentary by Jonah Goldberg. Here are excerpts:

In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colo., slaughter, the question went forth on all of the political chatter shows: “Will this reopen the debate over gun control?” ... [But] the gun debate flashed for the briefest of moments, like a round of heat lightning that fails to herald a storm, and then disappeared.

Instead, the conversation has moved to other familiar topics. What to do about the mentally ill? How much blame does our violent popular culture deserve? Etc. These are good questions. But you know what debate seems conspicuously absent: Should we execute James Holmes?

Death penalty opponents are fairly mercenary about when to express their outrage. When questions of guilt can be muddied in the media; when the facts are old and hard to look up; when the witnesses are dead; when statistics can be deployed to buttress the charge of institutional racism: These are just a few of the times when opponents loudly insist the death penalty must go.

But when the murderer is white or racist or his crimes so incomprehensibly ugly, the anti-death-penalty crowd stays silent. If your long-term goal is to abolish the death penalty, you want to pick your cases carefully. But the simple fact is, if the death penalty is always wrong, it’s wrong in the politically inconvenient cases, too.

The standards of newspaper writing and civic discourse require that we call Holmes the “alleged” culprit in this horrific slaughter. That’s fine, but if the facts are what we’ve been told they are, then we know this man is guilty and the jury will not have a hard time saying so.

We don’t know whether or not he’s mentally ill, but odds are he isn’t. Indeed, criminologists and psychiatrists will tell you that most mass murderers aren’t insane. But the public debate is already caught up in a familiar tautology. What Holmes did was an act of madness, therefore he must be a madman. And if he’s a madman, we can’t execute him because he’s not responsible for his actions. And if he’s not responsible, then “society” must be. And we can’t execute a man for society’s sins. So: Cue the debate about guns, and funding for mental health, and the popular culture.

Well, I say enough. I favor the death penalty. I don’t support killing insane or mentally disabled people who are truly not responsible for their actions, but I don’t believe that committing an “act of madness” necessarily makes you a madman. But committing an act of wanton evil makes you an evil man. Evil and madness are not synonyms. Societies that cannot distinguish between the two are destined to get more of both.

If the death penalty is always wrong, let us have an argument about James Holmes, a man many Americans are aware of, informed about and interested in. Let us hear why the inequities of the criminal justice system require his life be spared.

That won’t happen. It won’t happen in part because nobody on the Sunday talk shows wants to debate the death penalty when the case for it is strong. They like cases that “raise troubling questions about the legitimacy of the death penalty,” not cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty. But it also won’t happen because death penalty opponents understand that when the murderer is unsympathetic, the wise course is to hold your tongue until the climate improves.

It remains an open question whether Colorado will seek the death penalty. Prosecutors know that doing so would add years and millions of dollars because opponents have so gummed up the legal works. That way they can complain about the outrageous costs of a mechanism they themselves have worked to make prohibitively expensive. I say, let us give Holmes a fair trial. If convicted, execute him swiftly. If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live.

Recent related posts (with lots of comments):

July 29, 2012 at 03:42 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2016768e6b4fc970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Against death penalty? Then debate Colorado":

Comments

"I say, let us give Holmes a fair trial. If convicted, execute him swiftly. If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live."

Because Todd Willingham was innocent!!!

How's that? Todd Willingham has nothing to do with this case?

Oh.

Well if that's what you think, YOU'RE A NAZI. Just ask CCDC, claudio, peter or any of the regular crew of Holier Than Thou abolitionists.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 29, 2012 4:37:16 PM

Executing James Homes would be wrong for the same reasons that executing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Steven Hayes would be wrong. It's nothing more than an act of retribution, and that's what everything will always boil down to. Goldberg, Otis, Scheidegger and everybody else on the far right will go on and on about deterrence, incapacitation, etc. Our side will go on and on about innocence, injustice, etc. All of that stuff is ammo in our respective arsenals, and both sides know that. What this fight has always been about, and will always be about, is whether killing somebody as a matter of retribution, for nothing more than the sake of retribution, is a legitimate societal goal. That's it, and that's all of it.

Posted by: The Death Penalty Sucks. | Jul 29, 2012 5:26:54 PM

News flash! The media affirms trial by media and its presumption of guilt before trial. It's good $.

Posted by: George | Jul 29, 2012 5:39:17 PM

The "presumption of guilt before trial..."

It has zip to do with "presumption" but a lot to do with knowledge. Anyone who doesn't know that Holmes did it has lost touch with reality.

Not that this should be a surprise. Abolitionism lost touch with reality long ago.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 29, 2012 5:45:39 PM

TDPS --

"Goldberg, Otis, Scheidegger and everybody else on the far right..."

We Romney contributors are always happy to learn we're on the "far right." Of course those supporting the DP are at least 60% of the population. So your view is that 60% is "far right"???!!!

"...will go on and on about deterrence, incapacitation, etc."

Thanks so much, but I'll decide what I'll say; you won't.

As it happens, no one execution is going to have any very measurable deterrent value. And Holmes is likely (although not certain) to be incapacitated in a super secure facility, if that's where he winds up.

No, the reason to execute this guy is simple, and boils down to the one word you omit from your post -- justice.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 29, 2012 5:54:55 PM

Having discussions about who "deserves" to live is creepy.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 29, 2012 6:02:32 PM

I oppose the death penalty, but am not part of the 'abolitiionist movement" for the very reasons Mr. Goldberg states. It is not about who 'he' is, but who 'I am.' I will not concede to allowing what James Holmes did to be a reason or an excuse for participating in killing. As a citizen in a state that kills, I am a participant when the state kills.

Posted by: Mary | Jul 29, 2012 6:11:49 PM

Scott --

"Having discussions about who 'deserves' to live is creepy."

Not as creepy as walking through the morgue in Aurora.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 29, 2012 6:12:34 PM

Mary: But you are responsible for the 17,000 murders and millions of violent crimes your siding with the criminal. They are year after year, with the foreseeability of planetary orbits, that the sun will rise in the East. By your protecting criminals, those victims are your victims.

However, because you are a government dependent parasite, you side with the criminal that generates government make work. The victim generates nothing and may rot. Your views mask an economic self interest, and all abolitionists are arguing in bad faith, until they can utter the V word. None can without choking.

For a lousy, low pay government job, they will idly allow millions of victimizations. That makes them morally reprehensible. Claudio is a government employee, as are all the abolitionist lawyers here. Bill is a former government employee, and is arguing against his own economic interest, thus in good faith.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 29, 2012 7:23:46 PM

The Death Penalty Sucks> What's wrong with retribution? Most of SCOTUS's recent8th Amendment jurisprudence is based on it.

Posted by: Steve Erickson | Jul 29, 2012 7:48:26 PM

SC: I am no more or less a government dependent parasite than anyone else, including you. I have no problem uttering 'victim.' I may be a government parasite, but my livelihood does not depend on my ability to exploit victims. My only economic interest is how much of my tax dollars are diverted to feeding a system that feeds on exploiting tragedy.

Posted by: Mary | Jul 29, 2012 8:07:31 PM

Mr. Bill wrote: "Abolitionism lost touch with reality long ago."

If you mean we lost touch with the presumption of innocence then yes, we lost touch with the reality of the Constitution long ago because the presumption of innocence goes to the heart of a fair trial, which of course includes sentencing.

Justice Scalia was on Foxnews today and said (rush transcript?):

You shouldn't believe what you read about about.

Internal court proceedings because the reporter who reports that is either -- lying.

Which can be done with impunity because as you know we don't responded it's it's the tradition of commonly judges to lay back and take it you've you've you don't respond in the press corps being.

That reporter had the information from someone who was breaking.

The oath of confidentiality.

Which means that's an unreliable person.

That means that the government agents that leak trial by media "news" are unreliable as well and should be impeached during trial.

Defense: Shooting Suspect Was Seeing Psychiatrist

By COLLEEN SLEVIN and NICHOLAS RICCARDI Associated Press
DENVER July 28, 2012 (AP)

The former graduate student accused in the deadly Colorado movie theater shooting was being treated by a psychiatrist at the university where he studied, the first indication that he may have sought help before the rampage that killed 12 people and wounded 58.

Attorneys for James Holmes, 24, made the disclosure in a court motion Friday as they sought to discover the source of leaks to some media outlets that he sent the psychiatrist a package containing a notebook with descriptions of an attack.

So I've never offered any opinion on if James Holmes deserves the DP or not.

Posted by: George | Jul 29, 2012 9:01:25 PM

Mary: You are the first person in this blog to be able to say the V word without choking. Are you a lawyer?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 29, 2012 9:20:48 PM

George --

Do you honestly have any doubt whatever that James Holmes was the shooter?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 29, 2012 9:25:45 PM

SC: I am not a lawyer - not even a legal assistant/secretary. I'm a citizen who cares.

Posted by: Mary | Jul 29, 2012 9:57:12 PM

Then I'll say it, Mr. Goldberg. We should not execute James Holmes.

Posted by: Guy | Jul 29, 2012 11:21:40 PM

TDPS stated: "It's nothing more than an act of retribution, and that's what everything will always boil down to."

Your entire premise is based upon the above statement. The problem? You provide absolutely no evidence to support that "It's nothing more than an act of retribution." If this were a court of law, the judge would laugh you out of courtroom.

It is as silly as my basing the argument in support of the DP on, "Abolitionists get a sick perverted pleasure from seeing innocent people getting slaughtered by criminal thugs." Do you?

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 29, 2012 11:46:20 PM

Mary,

You are missing the point. Both the DP and abolition results in the death of people. If support of the DP makes you complicit in the deaths of the criminals, opposition to it makes you complicit in the deaths of innocents killed by those who could have been made incapable of killing.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 29, 2012 11:50:45 PM

I normally vote Democratic and I'm most certainly not on the far right. However, Holmes deserves to be executed. He has amply demonstrated that there is absolutely no reason he should continue to live.

Posted by: alpino | Jul 30, 2012 6:29:03 AM

Mary was able to utter the V word, and in writing. However, "I am not a lawyer - not even a legal assistant/secretary. I'm a citizen who cares."

I am pointing out that my discovery stands. No lawyer can pronounce the V word without choking.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 30, 2012 6:37:39 AM

The Killing in Aurora demonstrates again the death penalty is NOT a deterrent for crime, and this is the end of this foolish theory. The only reason for the death penalty now is REVENGE and Americans are very selective about it. The following is what I wrote 11 years ago.

Forlì, 11th April 2001
Dear Sirs,
If Timothy McVeigh "deserve" to be killed by the United States of America, does the United States of America "deserve" to kill Timothy McVeigh?
There are many good practical reasons to be against the death penalty: because it is an expensive, racist, class related, not working, brutal violation of human rights, because it kills the innocents, the poor, the mad, because capital punishment means that those without the capital get the punishment.
Quite all those good reasons do not fit with McVeigh, who is the racist terrorist who (18th April 1995) killed 168 persons at Oklahoma City.
If the earth were flat and the death penalty were just there will be no people who "deserve" to die more than Timothy McVeigh. But the earth is not flat and the death penalty is not just and above all the United States does not "deserve" to kill him because there is not state, any state, which has the right to kill in cold blood. That is one of the many reasons for which Europe is a "death penalty free land".
USA is the lone western country, which still kill people. It stays with countries like Communist China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. .
It is time the United States comes in the civilized part of the world.
But do not forget there is a good practical reason against the execution of McVeigh: i.e. it is stupid and dangerous to kill a terrorist.
The bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City was a revenge for Waco, and now McVeigh wants to die and become a "martyr".
Be sure that sooner or later someone will try to revenge him.

Posted by: Claudio Giusti | Jul 30, 2012 11:36:52 AM

Claudio stated: "The Killing in Aurora demonstrates again the death penalty is NOT a deterrent for crime, and this is the end of this foolish theory."

How so? Your theory appears to be that if a deterrent does not work EVERY time, then it is not effective (Nirvana Fallacy). Even worse (for you), is that it can be used equally to dismiss any punishment at all for any crime. Someone in for LWOP killed again, so it is not a deterrent. Holmes broke gun control laws, so they are not a deterrent. We could go on forever.


Claudio stated: "The only reason for the death penalty now is REVENGE and Americans are very selective about it."

Like TDPS, you like to make broad claims about why people support the DP, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Your entire theory is based on a faulty (or at least unproven) premise. Like I said to TDPS, it is no different than me saying, "Abolitionists get a sick perverted pleasure from seeing innocent people getting slaughtered by criminal thugs." Do you?

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 30, 2012 12:09:27 PM

TarlsQtr --

I would only add that, if the DP is not a deterrent, then imprisonment is even less of one, since imprisonment is handed out for murder vastly more frequently than the DP and -- lo, and behold -- we still have this awful massacre!

Maybe we should hand out fines and a good talking-to. Those have not yet been tried out as a "deterrent" to murder. I'll bet they'd get a lot more approval from Claudio than anything else this country tries.

Honestly, the argument against the DP on the basis that it did not deter Murder X is the most blockheaded argument you see on this thread, save only the argument that we should legalize drugs because "they grow in the ground."

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 30, 2012 12:29:00 PM

patetici ...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/research-death-penalty#Dete

Posted by: Claudio Giusti | Jul 30, 2012 12:55:04 PM

Thanks Bill,

I brought myself to a chuckle thinking about what would have happened if I used that "logic" on my dad 30 years ago. "So, dad, spanking/grounding me is foolish because that punishment was in place and I back-talked you anyway."

Ouch...

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 30, 2012 1:03:16 PM

I think the argument is that the existence of the death penalty provides no further deterrent than LWOP sentences. It is obvious that one point of contention is whether this is true.

Posted by: Tim Holloway | Jul 30, 2012 1:18:18 PM

Italy is without death penalty and Lwop, but homicides dropped from 2000 in 1991 to 500 last year

Posted by: Claudio Giusti | Jul 30, 2012 1:22:40 PM

Tim Holloway stated: "I think the argument is that the existence of the death penalty provides no further deterrent than LWOP sentences."

Let's go to the tapes...

TDPS: "It's nothing more than an act of retribution, and that's what everything will always boil down to."

Claudio stated: "The Killing in Aurora demonstrates again the death penalty is NOT a deterrent for crime, and this is the end of this foolish theory. The only reason for the death penalty now is REVENGE and Americans are very selective about it."

Neither of those comments can be described as in the same zip code as your interpretation of them.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 30, 2012 1:23:31 PM

TartlsQtr,
My reference was to the posts from you and Bill regarding deterrence that were made just a few entries before my post. In fact, the entry immediately before my entry on deterrence was about your wishing you told dad that spanking/grounding you was not a deterrent. Skip the entry that proceeded that and there are two entries, one from you and one from Bill, talking about deterrence.
So, yes go to those tapes. You kind of forgot those? Your indication that I was referencing anything other than that is silly on your part and you know it.

Posted by: Tim Holloway | Jul 30, 2012 3:15:49 PM

And let's go back to the tapes again.

ALL of my posts except two have been in direct response to comments made by TDPS and Claudio, specifically, their comments above. One of the exceptions was to Mary, which you are obviously not referring to. The other was to Bill, whose post also was referring to Claudio's comment.

In other words, our comments must be read in the context of what they responded to. Your indication that I was referencing anything other than that is silly on your part and you know it.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 30, 2012 3:26:49 PM

Claudio stated: "Italy is without death penalty and Lwop, but homicides dropped from 2000 in 1991 to 500 last year"

And you think this means what?

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 30, 2012 3:27:40 PM

means the death penalty is NOT a deterrent

Posted by: Claudio Giusti | Jul 30, 2012 3:54:00 PM

Okay, you can have the last word on anyone being silly other than what can be inferred from your own words and what people might think of them.
That being said, the obvious point I was making if you connect a few simple dots with the following questions (which I don't expect you to answer here, but feel free to do so). What do you belief to be the main argument that DP opponents normally make in reference to deterrence and the death penalty? Do you believe that argument is something along the lines of the DP not providing any additional deterrence beyond LWOP (or perhaps other lengthy sentences)? Or do you think the argument is something else? Remember, arguments on deterrence not arguments related to retribution.
Is the argument essentially what I said: "I think the argument is that the existence of the death penalty provides no further deterrent than LWOP sentences."
Or is the mainstream argument on deterrence and the DP some other argument in a different "zip code?" Can you honestly state that the it appeared I was "interpret[ing]" something other than what is normally considered the DP opponents' position with respect to deterrence?
Also, it was obvious from the post that I was not asking anyone to agree with the argument or think it is valid. It was obvious that I said that was the argument. I stated: "It is obvious that one point of contention is whether this is true."

Posted by: Tim Holloway | Jul 30, 2012 4:01:32 PM

Mr. Bill:

George --

"Do you honestly have any doubt whatever that James Holmes was the shooter?"

Let's rephrase that. Do think I should decide on a death sentence based on media reports?

The government claims the news reports are unreliable in this case. (TalkLeft links to the response filing.)

These factual errors lead the People to believe that there may not even be a "law enforcement source" leaking" confidential information and that the media is getting information from hoaxers, fraudsters, or maybe from nobody at all by creating fake "law enforcement sources" out of whole cloth. To put it bluntly, the People are extremely dubious of the media assertions that "law enforcement sources" exist.

Per Justice Scalia's words, a government agent that violates his/her oath of office is also unreliable.

So either source is unreliable. How can anyone decide life and death situations based on unreliable sources? Of course by your question you want me to hurry up and convict him and pronounce a death sentence based on media reports. No thanks. That is why we have trials.

Posted by: George | Jul 30, 2012 5:24:42 PM

George --

Me: "Do you honestly have any doubt whatever that James Holmes was the shooter?"

You: "Let's rephrase that..."

No, let's not rephrase that. Let's answer that. It's not a question about what the sentence should be or even about the outcome of the trial. It's not a question about media reports concerning his psychiatrist, or leaks, or whether the prosecutor is bumbler or a villain, or the reliability of the press, in this case or generally.

It just goes to the facts of what happened in the theater that night before the cops or the prosecutor or the media ever showed up.

Do you honestly have any doubt whatever that James Holmes was the shooter?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 30, 2012 6:20:24 PM

"But when the murderer is white or racist or his crimes so incomprehensibly ugly, the anti-death-penalty crowd stays silent."

This is why no one at all said anything when Timothy McVeigh was in the dock. Other than those, Gore Vidal just the most well know perhaps, who did.

Same red meat, different day. Let's take abortion. Do abortion opponents focus on rape victims? No, they do not. They take easier cases than that. This doesn't mean abortion opponents are silent even then. It's a harder case, so less are absolutist about things or are less vocal. It's dishonest to say they are silent though. Same here.

If the death penalty only existed for the most extreme cases like this, it would be quite different from the actual practice in place here just as if abortion was only allowed in cases of rape or life of the woman. I don't think a person strongly against abortion generally is wrong because s/he is not absolutist about it. Of course, many against abortion don't want to criminalize it, thinking it a moral decision like divorce or not accepting Jesus.

The system will not just allow the "obviously right" cases though. The system in place will -- according to those against the death penalty -- cause problems in many other cases. Also, they might say that simply put, the state executing people is wrong. On balance, it is not worth if given the hazy case for deterrence. We can punish him some other way. Many think this person might be too deranged (though we simply don't know at this stage,even the op-ed says so) not to be liable enough for the death penalty. Likewise, some think abortion is wrong, even in cases like rape though there it's a person making the decision, not the state, so it is not the same thing exactly.

Meanwhile, like those accepting of obscenity laws but critical of not being allowed to say the "f" word on t.v., absolutism is not necessary to target the death penalty in any number of lesser cases. Most people executed not mass murders of this sort.

Posted by: Joe | Jul 30, 2012 7:56:23 PM

Joe --

"Same red meat, different day."

Do you think that's a little flippant and dismissive toward DP supporters, and makes light of this Aurora massacre?

The problem we're having just now is not with DP backers, who had zip to do with this atrocity. The problem is with James Holmes.

Let's try to stay on the basics of this case.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 30, 2012 8:25:53 PM

Italy has a lively death penalty practice. They so hypocritical they call it something else. If a victim dies in the hospital from an injury in an Italian prison, it counted as a hospital death not as a prison death. The Italian criminal justice system just has no credibility.

There is also a lively death penalty going for courageous judges investigating the Mafia.

http://www.everyonegroup.com/EveryOne/MainPage/Entries/2011/6/15_Italian_Prisons__Overcrowding,_Cases_of_Suicide,_Rape_and_Violence.html

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 30, 2012 10:41:41 PM

It is fascinating just reading how much a question like this provokes both sides of the argument.
As a (non-Italian) European I think it is silly and thorougly unhelpful to narrow down comparisons on criminal justice in Italy and USA. It is a very simple fact that Europe as a whole has managed to survive (more or less) over half of a century without the death penalty and, hold your breath, hasn't drown in vicious murders, mass killings, terrorism and the rest of the crimes typically linked to DP. Much to the contrary, if you wish to do comparisons, compare crime rates, murder rates, imprisonment rates, etc. But my point about the "lack" of DP: it can be done. Easy.
Which is a totally different question than the one about whether it should be done. And, make no mistake, I wholeheartedly believe the world should move on without this ancient ritual. I say ritual, because the DP infers more religious and moral content than any other type of punishment and much more than a legal/scientific/scholarly content. I know punishment in itself holds many meanings and is a intrinsically complex notion, however this is an extreme to which I believe modern society should by now bid farewell.
Taking someone's life is taking someone's life. No matter what they've done. So no, I don't think James Holmes should be executed (even though he is/might be guilty - what I think is really irrelevant, you know, trials are there for a reason). I think we (as a society) can do better.
And, talking about victims in this context is just silly. Victims do not win when another life is taken. There is nothing they can gain from it. Satisfaction, you say? Justice? Really, if the only way to help them we know (and want to know) is offering them a ritual killing... well, I really refuse to think this is our only option.

Posted by: Mo | Jul 31, 2012 9:39:35 AM

Do you think that's a little flippant and dismissive toward DP supporters, and makes light of this Aurora massacre?

No. It was a criticism of a specific type of DP supporter that provided a lengthy reply that shows a lot more care than this one.

The problem we're having just now is not with DP backers, who had zip to do with this atrocity. The problem is with James Holmes.

The op-ed cited concerned a criticism of the anti-death penalty side. So, positions on the death penalty -- I mentioned as with anti-abortion, there are nuances there -- has more than "zip" to do with THIS conversation.

Let's try to stay on the basics of this case.

If you don't want to talk about positions on the death penalty, perhaps you can take it up with the person who posted an op-ed that did not "stay on the basics of this case" and instead provided a knee-jerk attacked on anti-death penalty people. If you are so concerned with treating the matter correctly, such divisive stereotyping should be a problem for you too.

But, with respect, concern trolling on tone is not exactly something you might be the best representative for.

Posted by: Joe | Jul 31, 2012 12:01:35 PM

Mo: Try entering a European police station and reporting a rape at knife point. You will be ejected. So European crime rates are falsely low. They are far higher than those of whites in the US.

Europe is totally Commie, with big government assumed to be correct. That is the reason for your supercilious support of murderers and derision of victims. Government dependent parasites like you should put a disclaimer in your comments that your are a government dependent parasite who profits from keeping murderers alive, and gets nothing from protecting victims. You are a rent seeker, which is a synonym for armed robbery.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 31, 2012 9:50:38 PM

Ahem, @Supremacy Claus, I'm not quite sure what you mean, you think rape under threat is not incriminated in Europe? Have you ever opened a european penal statute? Any one of them? Nevermind, it doesn't matter. For the record, it is incriminated. And investigated. And prosecuted. And punished. Just not by killing the (still human) being that did it.
But, yes, you are right. Just us government dependant parasites from communist Europe understand that. And our communits government dependant parasites allies in the US and elsewhere in the world. And yes, sure, the death penalty is there to keep in line all those non-white criminals AND to protect victims. Because everyone feels much better knowing that the government got rid of another one. (btw, as far as big government go - is there something bigger than the power over life and death?)

Posted by: Mo | Aug 1, 2012 5:31:44 AM

Joe --

"But, with respect, concern trolling on tone is not exactly something you might be the best representative for."

Better it should be done who have called me a "douche" and a "Nazi," and have said that I'm worse than Jerry Sandusky? Oddly, I have never seen you upbraid them for either tone or "trolling."

No pro-DP commenter has come close to that gutter-level stuff, and you know it. But you reserve you ire about tone only for the pro-DP side. My goodness.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 1, 2012 10:21:09 AM

Mo: I am describing the personal experience of my nanny, the real world. Europe suppresses its crime statistics.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 5, 2012 3:18:33 AM

To echo the sentiments of "The Death Penalty Sucks", if you believe in the notion of "an eye for an eye" you will always be in favor of this sort of retribution. If you don't, you won't. I live in Denver and the day this tragedy occurred I could have done the execution myself. With time and reflection, better judgement sets in; an eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Posted by: Denver Matt | Sep 24, 2012 5:05:07 PM

i say kill him

Posted by: donna | Nov 27, 2012 12:26:03 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB