Well at least one piece of good news involving the death penalty since today's no common sense ruling:

Georgia Man Executed for Murder of Pizza Manager

The disturbing thing is you seem to eulogise executions. 
Even setting aside my opposition to the death penalty, I find the thumbs-up-for-death sentiment objectionable.
The state carried out the sentence mandated for a murderer named Mobley.  This is no victory.  It is a sign of many things gone awry. 
Those of you who believe abortion is the destruction of life contradict your principles when you cheer an execution.  You may argue the destruction of life at the hands of the state is necessary justice for the worst criminals, but to be proud of your state killing a human being via lethal injection is wrong-headed.

Even setting aside my opposition to the death penalty, I find the thumbs-up-for-death sentiment objectionable.


Don't give me that.

And to be fair, I don't mind people against the death penalty, though the ones holding those candlelight vigils and literally crying for convicted mass murderers on the eve on their executions need to have their heads examined.

Remember kids, if there is anyone you don't like make sure you kill them before you turn to that magical number of 18 that suddenly makes you an adult.

More from our unelected, unaccountable dictators on the court.

And to be fair, I don't mind people against the death penalty, though the ones holding those candle light visuals for convicted mass murderers need to have their heads examined.



Death penalty advocates who hold 'death watches/countdowns' on the eve of executions are a bit disturbing.

The requirements are getting unreal:

1. You must live in one of the 38 US states that allows the death penalty.
2. Must be 18 at the time of the crime.
3. Must not be mentally retarded.

What the f--- is next?


Whew, oh yeah. Unreal! What kind of crap criteria is that?!

Remember kids, if there is anyone you don't like make sure you kill them before you turn to that magical number of 18 that suddenly makes you an adult.


Oh what rot! Do you actually think that the death penalty is a deterrent to juvenile crime anyway? Like not executing people for their crimes is "sending the wrong message." Give me a break. This country is hysterical about crime.

So a teen murderer won't be killed for the crime, they will still receive life in prison, which I maintain is worse than a painless little death that many people in prison (I'm sure) would opt to give themselves. I myself would rather receive death by lethal injection than go to a hardcore prison for the rest of my life. I can't handle that.

I cheer this decision.  While I sometimes (not often with our system) support death penalty for adults, why the hell should a kid be put to DEATH when he can't vote?  Kinda a double standard if you ask me, and besides people under 20's reasoning powers aren't fully developed yet.  Not to say I'm anti-responsibility but I see nothing lawful about putting a child or even a teen to death.

As for life in prison, I'd say only murder and habitual violent and sex crimes when it comes to children, and really also when it comes to adults, although adult standards may be a bit harsher.

To sum it up, I say 18-20 let the state decide, 20+ you're eligible, and 17 and under no way Jose.

-FHF  ;)

They did in 2002.

The requirements are getting unreal:

1. You must live in one of the 38 US states that allows the death penalty.
2. Must be 18 at the time of the crime.
3. Must not be mentally retarded.

What the f--- is next?


Hopfully, they will abolish the whole damn thing.

The disturbing thing is you seem to eulogise executions. 

Those of you who believe abortion is the destruction of life contradict your principles when you cheer an execution.  You may argue the destruction of life at the hands of the state is necessary justice for the worst criminals, but to be proud of your state killing a human being via lethal injection is wrong-headed.


Very disturbing - lets all go to the hanging, we'll bring a picknick lunch.

Its the old Pro-life, pro death contradiction.

Very disturbing - lets all go to the hanging, we'll bring a picknick lunch.

Its the old Pro-life, pro death contradiction.


I'm neither 'pro-life', nor pro death penalty, but it seems misleading to characterize them as being in conflict.  The desire not to harm those who have harmed no one, and the desire to kill those who have killed others -- how is that a contradiction?

I'm neither 'pro-life', nor pro death penalty, but it seems misleading to characterize them as being in conflict.  The desire not to harm those who have harmed no one, and the desire to kill those who have killed others -- how is that a contradiction?


I agree.  But Christians seem to think all human life is equal.  In abortion and death penalty I'm more on the pro-life side but I'm not completely on either.  But executing kids?  That's almost as bad as straight-up murder.

But Christians seem to think all human life is equal.



What does that even mean?

What does that even mean?



I guess they think God only has authority with Human Life, but animals are worth little more than sticks and stones.

I guess they think God only has authority with Human Life, but animals are worth little more than sticks and stones.


Oh, that's the 'Christian' view?  I don't know where you get your ideas about religion, but you might want to actually, you know, study them, and then get to know people who actually practice them.

Oh, that's the 'Christian' view?  I don't know where you get your ideas about religion, but you might want to actually, you know, study them, and then get to know people who actually practice them.


I know Christians.  My family is Catholic and I used to be a Catholic myself.

I cheer this decision.  While I sometimes (not often with our system) support death penalty for adults, why the hell should a kid be put to DEATH when he can't vote?  Kinda a double standard if you ask me

Is that what you think?  These 16 and 17 year-old sit on death row for nearly 20 years before they get executed.  Most of them are in their 30's.

What worries me so much is not that these brats won't get the death penalty, but the fact that this is the first step towards saying "you know what, they are not mentally developed enough for the death penalty, what makes them mentally able to sit in jail for the rest of their life?"  That lawsuit by the ACLU coming up soon.

The fact is that this ruling only sends 70 (just a fraction of all the) people on death row to life in prison.  Also executing people who were 15 and under at the time of the crime was already illegal, this just extends it two years.  Also only 22 16 and 17 year-old offenders have been executed since the US Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in 1976.  Also only 19 of the 38 states that allow the death penalty allowed it for people who commited their crimes at 16 and 17.

So this doesn't keep very many people from being executed.  It's more of the fact that the US Supreme Court would tell 19 states what to do, and the fact that they used opinions from Jimmy Carter and some other nations since they couldn't find anything to justify their ruling in the US Constitution or US law.  One can only wait till one of the 5 who made this ruling leaves and Bush can nominate another Scalia so we can have a 5-4 decision the other way.  It could easily happen.

Thank God Ruth Ginsberg is getting old.

Is that what you think?  These 16 and 17 year-old sit on death row for nearly 20 years before they get executed.  Most of them are in their 30's.

What worries me so much is not that these brats won't get the death penalty, but the fact that this is the first step towards saying "you know what, they are not mentally developed enough for the death penalty, what makes them mentally able to sit in jail for the rest of their life?"  That lawsuit by the ACLU coming up soon.

The fact is that this ruling only sends 29 people on death row to life in prison (13 of them in Texas.)  Also executing people who were 15 and under at the time of the crime was already illegal, this just extends it two years.  Also only 22 16 and 17 year-old offenders have been executed since the US Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in 1976.  Also only 19 of the 38 states that allow the death penalty allowed it for people who commited their crimes at 16 and 17.

So this doesn't keep very many people from being executed.  It's more of the fact that the US Supreme Court would tell 19 states what to do, and the fact that they used opinions from Jimmy Carter and some other nations since they couldn't find anything to justify their ruling in the US Constitution or US law.  One can only wait till one of the 5 who made this ruling leaves and Bush can nominate another Scalia so we can have a 5-4 decision the other way.  It could easily happen.

Thank God Ruth Ginsberg is getting old.


It's true most are in their 30s when they get killed, but why does that make a difference?  They can become good and totally different people by then.  As for 16 and 17-year-olds, I don't think they should get dp mainly because they're denied other rights, and also because they're simply not true adults.  As for life in prison, well it depends on the motive.  A crime of passion, they should be eligible for parole AFTER they've served a mandatory sentence of at least a few decades.  But they must pass some sort of exam.  Cold-blooded murder, they can spend their life in prison and can opt for death penalty after they reach 18 if they wish.  Sex crimes, depends on if they're habitual if they can ever have a chance to leave prison, they also may opt for dp if they wish. 

The US execution system is mostly a joke anyway.  I'm mostly against the death penalty for all ages, and in our legal system I think it should only be applied to maybe 20% of capital cases.  Death sentences are so rare they pratically just to scare people into not killing people (like that works for criminal types  ::) )

I know Christians.  My family is Catholic and I used to be a Catholic myself.


Well, thankfully, your views aren't representative. 

Besides, even within each of the major denominations of Christianity (Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism...), there have been and are huge differences of opinion on some very substantive theological issues.  So to say "Christians feel X way" is invalid.

Well, thankfully, your views aren't representative. 

Besides, even within each of the major denominations of Christianity (Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism...), there have been and are huge differences of opinion on some very substantive theological issues.  So to say "Christians feel X way" is invalid.


You're correct.  I shouldn't be so general.

You're correct.  I shouldn't be so general.


Sheesh -- you people...  ::)

The Supreme Court is  now reviewing a case involving the public display of the ten commandments as an "establishment of religion", but I seem to remember something about "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and I don't remember any qualifiers, like unless the victim is a deranged scociopath.  So to be consistant you religious folk, IMHO would have to oppose both abortion AND capital punishment. 

I also seem to remember a Biblical injunction which says "vengance is mine sayith the Lord", or am I misataken? 

For those of you for whom these injunctions carry some supernatural or spiritual significance, you need, I think, to recognize the contradictions.  You want to blend a religious argument with a secular one, ie its ok to execute killers but not to abort innocents.  Fair enough, but just don't dress up the one in religious dogma and deny that the same dogma applies to the other.

The Supreme Court is now reviewing a case involving the public display of the ten commandments as an "establishment of religion", but I seem to remember something about "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and I don't remember any qualifiers, like unless the victim is a deranged scociopath. So to be consistant you religious folk, IMHO would have to oppose both abortion AND capital punishment.

I also seem to remember a Biblical injunction which says "vengance is mine sayith the Lord", or am I misataken?

For those of you for whom these injunctions carry some supernatural or spiritual significance, you need, I think, to recognize the contradictions. You want to blend a religious argument with a secular one, ie its ok to execute killers but not to abort innocents. Fair enough, but just don't dress up the one in religious dogma and deny that the same dogma applies to the other.


That quote is legit :)  I do know of some conservatives who oppose dp and abortion.  I doubt the Far Right really cares about babies, they just want the Heartland of the country, that is everywhere from Burns, Oregon to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

That quote is legit :)  I do know of some conservatives who oppose dp and abortion.  I doubt the Far Right really cares about babies, they just want the Heartland of the country, that is everywhere from Burns, Oregon to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.


I too know of conservatives who hold consistant opinions on these issues, and while I disagree, I respect their consistance and their integrity. 

You are, of course, right, that the radical right has no use for either consistance or integrity, and is willing to exploit any aspect of the culture wars for their own advantage.  Very insightful.

I too know of conservatives who hold consistant opinions on these issues, and while I disagree, I respect their consistance and their integrity. 

You are, of course, right, that the radical right has no use for either consistance or integrity, and is willing to exploit any aspect of the culture wars for their own advantage.  Very insightful.


Thanks.  As for me, I'm about 70% pro-life and 30% pro-death in abortion and death penalty.  But executing kids is SICK in any case.

-DevoRule (FHF)

Just read through everyones comments on this topic - good debate. Looking at it from the UK where we haven't had the death penalty since... well, before I was born anyway its hard for me to believe that it could ever operate as a deterent. If the death penalty was in force and I was holed up in a store, surrounded by police and I'd murdered the shopkeeper or even worse a child then, hell I'm coming out all guns blazing "You'll never take me alive copper" and all that. If however I knew the worst that could happen (and trust me to me thats still pretty bad) was a prison sentence then I might consider giving myself up.

So the argument of deterence doesn't really work - at least not for me and according to most of the comparative statistics- so we come to punishment. My biggest problem with the DP is that is a cold-blooded, society-endorsed enactment of murder in retribution or revenge. It is the ultimate punishment that we can mete out - the denial of another living human beings continued existence.

It becomes equivalent to the satisfaction you get when the bad guy gets shot or falls from the rooftop at the end of a movie. The titles role and we all live happily ever after. Its an atavistic urge in us all that should not be endorsed by any government in the 21st century IMHO. Also, I'm not saying I'm a purely pacifist guy here - if someone did hurt or kill a member of my family then, yes, like most of us I would probably want to kill them and would probably try. Luckily that hasn't happened and I hope it never does.

Just on another linked note, has anyone here ever actually killed another human being (not as a criminal but perhaps as a police officer or soldier)? I'm just curious as I've no idea what that would feel like inside. I just don't think it would be an easy thing to live with even if I thought the person I killed was a scumbag.

Great news. :)

Perhaps, one day, they will go all the way in banning it and we will finally join the civilized world.. ;D

Just read through everyones comments on this topic - good debate. Looking at it from the UK where we haven't had the death penalty since... well, before I was born anyway its hard for me to believe that it could ever operate as a deterent. If the death penalty was in force and I was holed up in a store, surrounded by police and I'd murdered the shopkeeper or even worse a child then, hell I'm coming out all guns blazing "You'll never take me alive copper" and all that. If however I knew the worst that could happen (and trust me to me thats still pretty bad) was a prison sentence then I might consider giving myself up.

So the argument of deterence doesn't really work - at least not for me and according to most of the comparative statistics- so we come to punishment. My biggest problem with the DP is that is a cold-blooded, society-endorsed enactment of murder in retribution or revenge. It is the ultimate punishment that we can mete out - the denial of another living human beings continued existence.

It becomes equivalent to the satisfaction you get when the bad guy gets shot or falls from the rooftop at the end of a movie. The titles role and we all live happily ever after. Its an atavistic urge in us all that should not be endorsed by any government in the 21st century IMHO. Also, I'm not saying I'm a purely pacifist guy here - if someone did hurt or kill a member of my family then, yes, like most of us I would probably want to kill them and would probably try. Luckily that hasn't happened and I hope it never does.

Just on another linked note, has anyone here ever actually killed another human being (not as a criminal but perhaps as a police officer or soldier)? I'm just curious as I've no idea what that would feel like inside. I just don't think it would be an easy thing to live with even if I thought the person I killed was a scumbag.


Even if it was his life or mine, I don't think I would ever live down taking another person's life.  I would feel successful in defending my own life, but it wouldn't please me that my assaillant had to die for it. 

The last executions in the UK took place in 1964:
13th August 1964. Peter Anthony Allen (at Walton Prison Liverpool) and Gwynne Owen Evans - real name John Robson Walby, (at Strangeways Prison Manchester) become the last to be hanged. The executions taking place simultaneously at 8.00 a.m.
That's taken from a comprehensive timeline on capital punishment in the UK, worth reading over:
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/timeline.html
I did some research a while back about capital punishment in Britain.  The British used hanging almost exclusively since the late 18th century.  Of course, hanging was the chief method for centuries before that, but charming methods such as drawing-and-quartering, and burning at the stake were also applicable.
The Clark timeline doesn't mention that a few individuals were shot for treason at the Tower of London during WWII. 
The Americans never seemed to master the art of hanging the way the British did.  The job of hangman was often passed down from father to son.  The most notable hanging family was named Pierrepoint.
http://pierrepoint.co.uk/
This was serious business.

Although some countries officially banned the death penalty in the early 20th century (notably Scandanavian countries and South American countries), capital punishment provisions remained officially on the books in most countries until the 1980s and 1990s.  However, capital punishment fell out of favor in most European nations in the 1950s and 1960s.
By the time the UK officially overturned the death penalty for all crimes but treason, there hadn't been an execution for almost a decade.
Even South Africa threw out the death penalty in 1995. 

Thus, the fact that 38 American states and our federal government permit capital punishment in 2005 is repulsive and mortifiying to me.

Just read through everyones comments on this topic - good debate. Looking at it from the UK where we haven't had the death penalty since... well, before I was born anyway its hard for me to believe that it could ever operate as a deterent. If the death penalty was in force and I was holed up in a store, surrounded by police and I'd murdered the shopkeeper or even worse a child then, hell I'm coming out all guns blazing "You'll never take me alive copper" and all that. If however I knew the worst that could happen (and trust me to me thats still pretty bad) was a prison sentence then I might consider giving myself up.

So the argument of deterence doesn't really work - at least not for me and according to most of the comparative statistics- so we come to punishment. My biggest problem with the DP is that is a cold-blooded, society-endorsed enactment of murder in retribution or revenge. It is the ultimate punishment that we can mete out - the denial of another living human beings continued existence.

It becomes equivalent to the satisfaction you get when the bad guy gets shot or falls from the rooftop at the end of a movie. The titles role and we all live happily ever after. Its an atavistic urge in us all that should not be endorsed by any government in the 21st century IMHO. Also, I'm not saying I'm a purely pacifist guy here - if someone did hurt or kill a member of my family then, yes, like most of us I would probably want to kill them and would probably try. Luckily that hasn't happened and I hope it never does.

Just on another linked note, has anyone here ever actually killed another human being (not as a criminal but perhaps as a police officer or soldier)? I'm just curious as I've no idea what that would feel like inside. I just don't think it would be an easy thing to live with even if I thought the person I killed was a scumbag.



Never killed somebody.  If it was Osama I'd have no doubts but I'm against DP in most cases.   I don't find the idea of killing people who offend love ones of mine or me satisfying, but if it happened rage might blind me, so I might anyhoo.  Just because it's my family or myself  doesn't make the hatred any more correct, but I do find it hard to forgive wrongs sometimes even though I know I should.

Even if it was his life or mine, I don't think I would ever live down taking another person's life.  I would feel successful in defending my own life, but it wouldn't please me that my assaillant had to die for it. 

The last executions in the UK took place in 1964:
13th August 1964. Peter Anthony Allen (at Walton Prison Liverpool) and Gwynne Owen Evans - real name John Robson Walby, (at Strangeways Prison Manchester) become the last to be hanged. The executions taking place simultaneously at 8.00 a.m.
That's taken from a comprehensive timeline on capital punishment in the UK, worth reading over:
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/timeline.html
I did some research a while back about capital punishment in Britain.  The British used hanging almost exclusively since the late 18th century.  Of course, hanging was the chief method for centuries before that, but charming methods such as drawing-and-quartering, and burning at the stake were also applicable.
The Clark timeline doesn't mention that a few individuals were shot for treason at the Tower of London during WWII. 
The Americans never seemed to master the art of hanging the way the British did.  The job of hangman was often passed down from father to son.  The most notable hanging family was named Pierrepoint.
http://pierrepoint.co.uk/
This was serious business.

Although some countries officially banned the death penalty in the early 20th century (notably Scandanavian countries and South American countries), capital punishment provisions remained officially on the books in most countries until the 1980s and 1990s.  However, capital punishment fell out of favor in most European nations in the 1950s and 1960s.
By the time the UK officially overturned the death penalty for all crimes but treason, there hadn't been an execution for almost a decade.
Even South Africa threw out the death penalty in 1995. 

Thus, the fact that 38 American states and our federal government permit capital punishment in 2005 is repulsive and mortifiying to me.


That is creepy!  South Africa?! 

If death penalty is done is should NEVER be anything but lethal injection.  Drawing and quartering esp is downright sick.  I'm glad I live in the 20th/21st century and not the 17th!

-DR

Perhaps, one day, they will go all the way in banning it and we will finally join the civilized world.. ;D


You're the sterotype that keeps people in support of the death penalty. "....the rest of world....how dare we be different...."

Ain't going to happen.  While reading USA Today yesterday I saw an article entitle "Supreme Court Unlikely to make anymore historic changes."  They argued that the US "Supreme" Court was right and that ALL 9 justices support the death penalty (the "Supreme" court could have fooled me) and they haven't stopped one scheduled execution from taking place for non-mentally retarded people who committed their crimes when they were 18 years-old or older.

So don't expect anything else.  This is your last victory for a long time (and yet again....another COURT decision.)

You're the sterotype that keeps people in support of the death penalty. "....the rest of world....how dare we be different...."

Ain't going to happen.  While reading USA Today yesterday I saw an article entitle "Supreme Court Unlikely to make anymore historic changes."  They argued that the US "Supreme" Court was right and that ALL 9 justices support the death penalty (the "Supreme" court could have fooled me) and they haven't stopped one scheduled execution from taking place for non-mentally retarded people who committed their crimes before they were 18 years-old.

So don't expect anything else.  This is your last victory for a long time (and yet again....another COURT decision.)


Whats wrong with you people? It costs more to keep people on death row, so the argument of 'paying to keep murderers alive' is not valid. The idea of vengeance is absurd, because justice isn't about vengeance. The idea of state-sponsored murder to keep the murderer from killing someone else is stupid. The Justice system should be trying to keep rapists and murderers in prison, instead of wasting resources on marijuana smokers and executing mentally handicapped and insane prisoners. Do you know the average convicted rapist does less time than the average person in for drug charges?

The death penalty is a PERFECT example of non-sensical, misplaced priorities that permeate our justice system. I don't know how you could be happy about it.

Whats wrong with you people? It costs more to keep people on death row, so the argument of 'paying to keep murderers alive' is not valid. The idea of vengeance is absurd, because justice isn't about vengeance. The idea of state-sponsored murder to keep the murderer from killing someone else is stupid. The Justice system should be trying to keep rapists and murderers in prison, instead of wasting resources on marijuana smokers and executing mentally handicapped and insane prisoners. Do you know the average convicted rapist does less time than the average person in for drug charges?

The death penalty is a PERFECT example of non-sensical, misplaced priorities that permeate our justice system. I don't know how you could be happy about it.




A drug guy does more than a rapist? That's ridiculous! Dealing drugs imo is a minor felony, but compared to rape, much less murder, it's not even close. I think a drug guy should do about 5 years for dealing, a rapist 25 years per offense, and a murderer life without parole unless it's a crime of passion, then more like 20-40 years per offense.  The only people I think death penalty suits better than life without parole are terrorists and violent/molesting psychos and socios that are pretty much irredeemable like Charles Manson.  Scott Peterson imo should of also gotten dp because the murder was so cold and he showed no remorse.  OJ should of gotten life without parole, although to be honest he's getting his karma as we speak. 

To GWBush and other avid dp supporters, let's say a murderer or sex offender did a crime, spend 10 years on death row and became a great man who felt deep remorse and loathed himself for his crimes.  He was nice to the other inmates and taught them to respect each other and perhaps shared some knowledge.  Would you want that guy to be put to death?  Sure this case is rare but it does happen.

My two cents  ;)

-DR

Let me clarify...the ruling itself doesn't bother me that much.  This ruling only extends the age you have to be at the time of the crime by two years to recieve the death penalty (from 16 to 18.)  This ruling won't stop many executions.  The thing that gets me is that 5 of our judges on the same court that ruled in Dred Scott, Roe vs. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, and Plessy vs. ferguson would make such an ignorant ruling.  One can only hope the same thing happens like with 1972 to 1976 when the death penalty was temporarily illegal....one of the 5 judges leaves, Bush nominates another Scalia (who he says is the perfect judge), and the US "Supreme" Court rules 5-4 the other way.

Let me clarify...the ruling itself doesn't bother me that much.  This ruling only extends the age you have to be at the time of the crime by two years to recieve the death penalty (from 16 to 18.)  This ruling won't stop many executions.  The thing that gets me is that 5 of our judges on the same court that ruled in Dred Scott, Roe vs. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, and Plessy vs. ferguson would make such an ignorant ruling.  One can only hope the same thing happens like with 1972 to 1976 when the death penalty was temporarily illegal....one of the 5 judges leaves, Bush nominates another Scalia (who he says is the perfect judge), and the US "Supreme" Court rules 5-4 the other way.

If you were living as a conservative white male in Georgia in the 19th century, you would have supported both the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.  You have only liberal progress to thank for the fact that you now condemn both these miscarriages of justice.

If you were living as a conservative white male in Georgia in the 19th century, you would have supported both the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.  You have only liberal progress to thank for the fact that you now condemn both these miscarriages of justice.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/bobbymcgee/011.gif

Stifle yaself, meathead!  ;D

Whats wrong with you people? It costs more to keep people on death row, so the argument of 'paying to keep murderers alive' is not valid. The idea of vengeance is absurd, because justice isn't about vengeance. The idea of state-sponsored murder to keep the murderer from killing someone else is stupid. The Justice system should be trying to keep rapists and murderers in prison, instead of wasting resources on marijuana smokers and executing mentally handicapped and insane prisoners. Do you know the average convicted rapist does less time than the average person in for drug charges?

The death penalty is a PERFECT example of non-sensical, misplaced priorities that permeate our justice system. I don't know how you could be happy about it.



The Right is obsessed with surveilllance, vengence, punishment, and making people suffer.  It is their favorite thing in the whole wide world except a big stack of hundred dollar bills.
People who think they are doing God's work are the scariest of all.  They can get absolution for anything.

Al Franken once asked a member of the Fred Phelps clan (Phelps of Topeka, KS, Westboro Baptist Church--"God Hates F*gs), "Do you really believe  God "hates."  
"Yes," replied the Phelps boy, "it's one of his finest qualities."
We all style God after our own values.

I would have asked of the Phelps boy, "Do you mean to imply some of God's qualities are less fine than others?" But that would probably wouldn't register with one so bred of incest and hate.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/bobbymcgee/011.gif

Stifle yaself, meathead!  ;D

Arch, how can you say that!?

Just to catch the drift of GW's points from this, and a few other discussions:

1. America does things its own way regardless of the rest of the world.
2. Only Americans have any right to comment on what America does regardless of where, what or to whom it does it.
3. The only true Americans are blindly patriotic, flag waving republican conservatives packing a side-arm
4. If it was at all possible they would build a wall around america, metaphorically or otherwise, to keep the rest of the world out

Apart from slight change in political colours (and of course the guns)  isn't that pretty much what the USSR and China did for years? Didn't really help their people or their economy.

Don't get me wrong there are many great traditions I am sure in the US that are worth conserving but I'm sorry GW but I can't agree with you on some of the key ones you've been arguing on these forums such as the Death Penalty, gun law and the welfare state as they are not traditions but anachronisms to any modern society. In fact, I could almost feel happy to say "keep the guns" if the USA was moving politically towards creating a society where maybe, just maybe, you didn't need them. Judging by the fact that the last election was one massive beauty and the beast parade of moral panics, fear-mongering and character assassinations on both sides with little movement towards addressing the real internal problems of the USA in terms of social and economic issues, I reckon you'll actually need helicopter gunships to get the weekly shopping done before long.

Just to catch the drift of GW's points from this, and a few other discussions:

1. America does things its own way regardless of the rest of the world.
2. Only Americans have any right to comment on what America does regardless of where, what or to whom it does it.
3. The only true Americans are blindly patriotic, flag waving republican conservatives packing a side-arm
4. If it was at all possible they would build a wall around america, metaphorically or otherwise, to keep the rest of the world out

Apart from slight change in political colours (and of course the guns)  isn't that pretty much what the USSR and China did for years? Didn't really help their people or their economy.

Don't get me wrong there are many great traditions I am sure in the US that are worth conserving but I'm sorry GW but I can't agree with you on some of the key ones you've been arguing on these forums such as the Death Penalty, gun law and the welfare state as they are not traditions but anachronisms to any modern society. In fact, I could almost feel happy to say "keep the guns" if the USA was moving politically towards creating a society where maybe, just maybe, you didn't need them. Judging by the fact that the last election was one massive beauty and the beast parade of moral panics, fear-mongering and character assassinations on both sides with little movement towards addressing the real internal problems of the USA in terms of social and economic issues, I reckon you'll actually need helicopter gunships to get the weekly shopping done before long.


You and I both know you exaggerate.

On 3 and 4 you go to far, which you are to smart to do.  If America wanted to be so alone, we wouldn't have a policy of free trade.  And America, as a sovereign nation, can make any laws it wants.  We do not have to kowtow to the Europeans (who act like they're the only place outside of America.)  The fact that one of our justices used opinions from Jimmy Carter and those like Justice Scalia said from like-minded foriegners shows reason for alarm.  Our judges are sworn to rule based on the US Constitution so help them God.  That is it.

Note why HR-97 was filed yesterday to ban all usage of international law in all US court decisions.  I hope and expect full passage.

This article is exactly what I feel:

So now the U.S. Supreme Court is writing decisions based on what Our Betters in Europe think is best. That's what the Big Bench did on Tuesday when it issued a 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, overturning the death penalty for crimes committed by minors.

Let me stipulate. The outcome -- an end to executions of those who committed crimes as minors -- isn't what bothers me here. There is an argument to be made that, as per the Eighth Amendment, it is "cruel and unusual" to execute those convicted of crimes committed when they were minors. Minors, as Kennedy put it, are "categorically less culpable than the average criminal."

But the court didn't limit its guidance to the U.S. Constitution. Kennedy wrote that the court can and should consider "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," including opposition among "leading members of the Western European community."

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid. European Union countries don't simply oppose capital punishment; they also oppose life without parole and mete out notoriously short sentences for heinous crimes. In recent years, a German court essentially sentenced a man who killed and ate another man -- the killer was so proud he videotaped everything -- to eight and a half years in prison. He is expected to walk free after five years.

The International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia found a Bosnian Serb colonel guilty of aiding and abetting the genocide that resulted in thousands of deaths. His sentence: 18 years.

Don't blame European juries. Judges made the above rulings, on a continent where juries get little respect.

If you're wondering who died and made Justice Kennedy -- or Western Europe -- king, consider that Kennedy also referred to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child that prohibited the execution of minors -- even though the United States failed to ratify that treaty. The definition of an activist judge could be a judge who calls on the government to adhere to a treaty it rejected.

Kennedy wasn't even on solid ground factually. "In sum," he wrote, "it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile-death penalty."

"That's not quite true," said University of California at Berkeley professor Franklin E. Zimring, who was quoted extensively in The New York Times in support of Kennedy's continental leanings. Iranian law prohibits executions of minors but considers a 10-year-old girl to be an adult, Zimring noted. In 2004, The Christian Science Monitor reported that five countries -- United States, China, Pakistan, Iran and Democratic Republic of Congo -- executed minors in the previous five years.

Michael Rushford of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation admitted that the roster of countries that still have the death penalty for adults doesn't exactly "help the pro-death penalty cause," as many of those countries don't cherish the notion of freedom. On the other hand, America does not own those countries' abuses. In the meantime, Rushford noted, "The Supreme Court has now said we're all going to wear the same socks and we're going to decide what a jury can decide."

That is the European Union model. Same socks. And jurors aren't welcome.

Kennedy also cited a "national consensus" in America against the juvenile-death penalty as a reason to overturn it. I must ask: Since when has the court issued rulings based on what average folk think?

Besides, if the Supreme Court did care what people thought, it wouldn't be looking to Europe to decipher the U.S. Constitution.

Zimring told me that the issue here isn't the 72 death-row inmates who committed capital murder as minors. Conservatives bristle at the mention of Europe, he explained, because, "As soon as you internationalize the discourse of capital punishment, then Arkansas no longer has a point."

That's right. But what else will Americans have to give up? Zimring noted that the United Nations has forced countries to end the juvenile-death penalty and the European Union forced Turkey to end capital punishment. He noted that the other countries complied for economic, not moral reasons.

Now, when countries have buckled to this pressure for the money, an America court interprets their surrender as an international trend against the death penalty. That is the EU way. Force dissenters to go along. Then boast that you have a consensus.

Individual rights? They're not high on the EU list. Then again, neither is punishment.

Link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20050304.shtml

I do think there is a definite fear of Europe currently in the USA, not because we're about to declare war or anything silly like that, but because we are inevitably heading towards increased unification of the individual states into, if not a true federation under one government such as the USA, an economic power that would indeed have a greater say in the world as a result. Eventually I do believe, not in my lifetime probably, that as United States of Europe will come into being as it simply makes sense on all levels. All the terrible wars that Europe has suffered over hundreds if not thousands of years have been born out of blind patriotism and we're starting to realise now that we've got more in common than that which is defined by a piece of cloth. We've had plenty of bombs, guns and bloodshed in our history, on our streets and in our houses and frankly we've had enough.

We also realised that the Death Penalty was, as I said, anachronistic to a civilised society. I know I can't make you change your mind and you cannot change mine so we're at a stalemate. Its like your asking me to go back to burning people at the stake or sticking their heads on spikes, its just not part of mine or my countries mindset but if thats what your country wants then so be it (the DP not the spikes/burning bit I hope). But come on, you have to draw the line at 18+ for Death Row

One last point I do find it odd that Europe's being portrayed in the article cited as the bully of the world, I mean come on, thats the pot calling the kettle black as you guys have had the knuckle dusters for years and everyone's known it. You've been sending 'advisors' all over the shop to influence the political shape of other countries including some shady goings on in the UK when Labour PM Harold Wilson was in power and probably a lot more we'll never know.

And as to leniency in sentencing, well yes that can be argued many ways and on and on, but prisons are a finite space and cost a lot of tax money to run. Sure some scum will never see the light of day but most end up back in society at some point and a proportion start contributing positively to that society and others re-offend. If we just keep increasing the prison populations it just seems as though we've given up on working on ways to prevent crime in the first place and accepted defeat. 

I do think there is a definite fear of Europe currently in the USA, not because we're about to declare war or anything silly like that, but because we are inevitably heading towards increased unification of the individual states into, if not a true federation under one government such as the USA, an economic power that would indeed have a greater say in the world as a result. Eventually I do believe, not in my lifetime probably, that as United States of Europe will come into being as it simply makes sense on all levels. All the terrible wars that Europe has suffered over hundreds if not thousands of years have been born out of blind patriotism and we're starting to realise now that we've got more in common than that which is defined by a piece of cloth. We've had plenty of bombs, guns and bloodshed in our history, on our streets and in our houses and frankly we've had enough.


Somehow I doubt some of those nations, especially Great Britain and Italy, want to sell out their sovereignty so as to have people from other nations tell them how to run their life.  I don't see this happening in our lifetime, like you wrote, and I doubt it will ever fully happen.  But what does this have to do with the death penalty being banned for people who committed their crimes when they were 16 or 17 years-old?

Just read through everyones comments on this topic - good debate. Looking at it from the UK where we haven't had the death penalty since... well, before I was born anyway its hard for me to believe that it could ever operate as a deterent. If the death penalty was in force and I was holed up in a store, surrounded by police and I'd murdered the shopkeeper or even worse a child then, hell I'm coming out all guns blazing "You'll never take me alive copper" and all that. If however I knew the worst that could happen (and trust me to me thats still pretty bad) was a prison sentence then I might consider giving myself up.



Interesting point.  But as has been suggested, DP is less about practicality or protection than about vengeance, which is an understandable human emotion, but really has not much to do with civilized lawmaking.



I think a drug guy should do about 5 years for dealing, a rapist 25 years per offense, and a murderer life without parole unless it's a crime of passion, then more like 20-40 years per offense. The only people I think death penalty suits better than life without parole are terrorists and violent/molesting psychos and socios that are pretty much irredeemable like Charles Manson. Scott Peterson imo should of also gotten dp because the murder was so cold and he showed no remorse. OJ should of gotten life without parole, although to be honest he's getting his karma as we speak.



I tend to think 'murder is murder' and that the circumstances and justification should not influence the penalty -- the person's no less dead because you "lost your temper in the heat of the moment" as opposed to having planned it the night before.  I'm not talking about self-defense, of course.  And the person's no more dead because you killed him for being a gay black man than if you killed him for not giving up his wallet.  Maybe a more convincing argument could be made for DUIs, since there is no intent involved, but I'm not even convinced in that regard.  Boy, we'd really see some celebrities behind bars if we cracked down on accidental auto killings.

I tend to think 'murder is murder' and that the circumstances and justification should not influence the penalty -- the person's no less dead because you "lost your temper in the heat of the moment" as opposed to having planned it the night before.  I'm not talking about self-defense, of course.  And the person's no more dead because you killed him for being a gay black man than if you killed him for not giving up his wallet.  Maybe a more convincing argument could be made for DUIs, since there is no intent involved, but I'm not even convinced in that regard.  Boy, we'd really see some celebrities behind bars if we cracked down on accidental auto killings.


True, but punishment is more about preventing crime than it is making the perp "pay" for what he did. Motive imo should be a factor.  Crimes of passion are just as tragic as cold murder, but since the don't originate from malice as much as calculated slaughter a lighter penalty should go for it then for cold murder.  That is if they are remorseful. 

Crimes of passion are just as tragic as cold murder, but since the don't originate from malice as much as calculated slaughter a lighter penalty should go for it then for cold murder.  That is if they are remorseful. 



Crimes of passion don't originate from malice?  Well, I'm not sure how you're defining 'crime of passion' or 'malice'.  If you kill me in a jealous rage because you found me in bed with your wife, you're not intending malice?  The devil made you do it?

Crimes of passion don't originate from malice? Well, I'm not sure how you're defining 'crime of passion' or 'malice'. If you kill me in a jealous rage because you found me in bed with your wife, you're not intending malice? The devil made you do it?


Well I think the argument with "crimes of passion" is that basically, its temporary insanity.

Crimes of passion don't originate from malice?  Well, I'm not sure how you're defining 'crime of passion' or 'malice'.  If you kill me in a jealous rage because you found me in bed with your wife, you're not intending malice?  The devil made you do it?


"Crime of Passion" is a spontaneous murder from a spurt of rage.  Yes it's malice but it wasn't intended, it was a thoughtless decision ran by emotion.  I'm not saying it's not the perp's fault but would you really say it's as malicious as cold-blooded, calculated murder?

"Crime of Passion" is a spontaneous murder from a spurt of rage.  Yes it's malice but it wasn't intended, it was a thoughtless decision ran by emotion.  I'm not saying it's not the perp's fault but would you really say it's as malicious as cold-blooded, calculated murder?


I just think it should have the same penalty.  We've all got reasons to get mad as hell about certain things, so what?  Does that mean we should have the right to take someone else's life over it?  I just think we should have to take responsibility for the choices we make in response to our emotions.  If the act is deliberate and the result is reasonably foreseeable, the person should be just as accountable. It doesn't seem just to me to base someone's legal fate on a subjective judgment about whether we 'sympathize' with the person's circumstances -- it just results in a lot of inequity in terms of the way people are treated by the justice system.  The bias inherent in the jury system is bad enough.

Now, if you take a slug at someone and they fall and hit their head and suffer a fatal injury, that to me is different -- the death was probably not reasonably foreseeable.  But "I saw him in bed with my wife and I just snapped and went for my gun"?  Sorry.  I feel for you dude, I really do -- I'd be ticked too.  But c'mon, be man -- do the time and stop making excuses for God's sake.

I just think it should have the same penalty.  We've all got reasons to get mad as hell about certain things, so what?  Does that mean we should have the right to take someone else's life over it?  I just think we should have to take responsibility for the choices we make in response to our emotions.  If the act is deliberate and the result is reasonably foreseeable, the person should be just as accountable. It doesn't seem just to me to base someone's legal fate on my subjective judgment about whether I 'sympathize' with the person's circumstances -- it just results in a lot of inequity in terms of the way people are treated by the justice system.  The bias inherent in the jury system is bad enough.

Now, if you take a slug at someone and they fall and hit their head and suffer a fatal injury, that to me is different -- the death was probably not reasonably foreseeable.  But "I saw him in bed with my wife and I just snapped and went for my gun"?  Sorry.  I feel for you dude, I really do -- I'd be ticked too.  But c'mon, be man -- do the time and stop making excuses for God's sake.


Good point :)  But on a more philosophical note, what do you think is more corrupt (I don't believe in "evil")?

Good point :)  But on a more philosophical note, what do you think is more corrupt (I don't believe in "evil")?


Neither, to me, is more 'corrupt'.  Certainly, someone who deliberates over a murder over a long period of time is more 'damaged' if you will than the person who gets hot in the heat of the moment and is able to regain his sanity later.  But who's to say the person who acts in the heat of the moment wouldn't also kill the next day if the opportunity hadn't already presented itself?  So to judge based on some assessment of the person's character, to my way of thinking, makes for bad law.  What did they do, is all that matters.  If you start putting too much focus on what the perpetrator supposedly thought or felt when he/she committed the act, you can start to go down a dark, dark tunnel. 

Of course, having said that, as I said before, some reasonable judgement has to be made about what the perpetrator was doing (was he intending to kill by punching the guy in the face, or was he just trying to knock the guy around?)  But that's different -- I would imagine those types of judgements are usually pretty clear and straightforward.

Neither, to me, is more 'corrupt'.  Certainly, someone who deliberates over a murder over a long period of time is more 'damaged' if you will than the person who gets hot in the heat of the moment and is able to regain his sanity later.  But who's to say the person who acts in the heat of the moment wouldn't also kill the next day if the opportunity hadn't already presented itself?  So to judge based on some assessment of the person's character, to my way of thinking, makes for bad law.  What did they do, is all that matters.  If you start putting too much focus on what the perpetrator supposedly thought or felt when he/she committed the act, you can start to go down a dark, dark tunnel. 

Of course, having said that, as I said before, some reasonable judgement has to be made about what the perpetrator was doing (was he intending to kill by punching the guy in the face, or was he just trying to knock the guy around?)  But that's different -- I would imagine those types of judgements are usually pretty clear and straightforward.


Well put.  I don't believe there's "evil" people, just deranged or damaged people.  I do believe in responsibility and that it's fine to dislike people who do ill.  You are right about how it could f up our legal system.

I do think there is a definite fear of Europe currently in the USA, not because we're about to declare war or anything silly like that, but because we are inevitably heading towards increased unification of the individual states into, if not a true federation under one government such as the USA, an economic power that would indeed have a greater say in the world as a result. Eventually I do believe, not in my lifetime probably, that as United States of Europe will come into being as it simply makes sense on all levels. All the terrible wars that Europe has suffered over hundreds if not thousands of years have been born out of blind patriotism and we're starting to realise now that we've got more in common than that which is defined by a piece of cloth. We've had plenty of bombs, guns and bloodshed in our history, on our streets and in our houses and frankly we've had enough.

We also realised that the Death Penalty was, as I said, anachronistic to a civilised society. I know I can't make you change your mind and you cannot change mine so we're at a stalemate. Its like your asking me to go back to burning people at the stake or sticking their heads on spikes, its just not part of mine or my countries mindset but if thats what your country wants then so be it (the DP not the spikes/burning bit I hope). But come on, you have to draw the line at 18+ for Death Row

One last point I do find it odd that Europe's being portrayed in the article cited as the bully of the world, I mean come on, thats the pot calling the kettle black as you guys have had the knuckle dusters for years and everyone's known it. You've been sending 'advisors' all over the shop to influence the political shape of other countries including some shady goings on in the UK when Labour PM Harold Wilson was in power and probably a lot more we'll never know.

And as to leniency in sentencing, well yes that can be argued many ways and on and on, but prisons are a finite space and cost a lot of tax money to run. Sure some scum will never see the light of day but most end up back in society at some point and a proportion start contributing positively to that society and others re-offend. If we just keep increasing the prison populations it just seems as though we've given up on working on ways to prevent crime in the first place and accepted defeat. 


You are seeing the core of American conservatism, my friend.
They don't want to build a wall around the U.S. to box in American piracy of world resources, but they would like to keep out those pesky illegals from south of the border.  Too bad all their cousins can vote or else Bush would have built that wall already!

Prisons are great, you see.  Prisons are steel, concrete, and contracting.  There's a lot of money in the "prison-industrial complex" (as Angela Davis calls it).  So you can't reintegrate these super-max ex-cons into society?  Don't let 'em out at all.  Just build another prison in your district.

Yes, I think certain Americans are terrified of the E.U.  The idea of 500 million consumers under one currency sounds like our next major rival.  Why invest in po' azz American dollars when you can invest in the Euro?

   The 5-4 decision in Roper v. Simmons overturns a 1989 ruling that upheld the death penalty for 16 and 17 year-old offenders.

   I think one of the subtle benefits of this decision is that while we are no longer behind Iran, Saudi Arabia, DRC, &c., we do not so much catch up as we do stride ahead: these United States have the power, the will, and the obligation to follow through. This is no mere "public disapproval". This is the law of the land.

   There is still pride to be found in "America".

   Quite obviously, I am pleased by this decision.

   The 5-4 decision in Roper v. Simmons overturns a 1989 ruling that upheld the death penalty for 16 and 17 year-old offenders.

   I think one of the subtle benefits of this decision is that while we are no longer behind Iran, Saudi Arabia, DRC, &c., we do not so much catch up as we do stride ahead: these United States have the power, the will, and the obligation to follow through. This is no mere "public disapproval". This is the law of the land.



I hope you don't expect the Supreme Court to overturn the death penalty, as I already stated, all 9 justices, even Ginsberg, support the death penalty according to USA Today.

Now then, if the 1989 decision was overturned, what stops this one from being overturned?  Think about it, all that needs to happen is for the 71 year-old cancer surviver Ginsberg or maybe Souter to leave, Bush puts on another conservative and they rule 5-4 the other way.  Who's to say it can't happen?  With the republicans in the white house I wouldn't jump up and down and declare the issue over just yet.

And I see what you're talking about, the governor of Texas right?  The governor of Texas is threatening to execute people who committed their crimes when they were 16 and 17 despite this ruling.  I say go ahead.

Problem is GW that if you agree to DP for 16-17 then you lower the bar so that 14-15 year olds become 'borderline' cases. What do you think is the lowest age that this penalty could be applied to? We have to draw the line somewhere and I believe 18 makes sense (even though as ya know I'm against the DP totally) if you are going to have it in the first place. Otherwise why have age restrictions on anything - drinking, driving, sex, etc ?

Problem is GW that if you agree to DP for 16-17 then you lower the bar so that 14-15 year olds become 'borderline' cases.


The youngest child known to be executed was a ten year old native american boy, for murder, in 1885.
There are some states that do not specify the age that someone must be to face execution, so it is possible for a child 7-8-9 years old (and younger).  It is kinda sick when you realize that these states are in what is known as the Bible belt.

I hope you don't expect the Supreme Court to overturn the death penalty, as I already stated, all 9 justices, even Ginsberg, support the death penalty according to USA Today.



But I thought their job was to apply the Constitution, not to rule based on their personal opinion.  That's what Scalia keeps saying.

Problem is GW that if you agree to DP for 16-17 then you lower the bar so that 14-15 year olds become 'borderline' cases. What do you think is the lowest age that this penalty could be applied to?


It should be 16.

I'm still crossing my fingers that one of those 5 judges leave and we can get it back to 16.

Remember the Supreme Court banned the death penalty in 1972, then after a judge left, reinstated it back in America in 1976.

But I thought their job was to apply the Constitution, not to rule based on their personal opinion.  That's what Scalia keeps saying.

Well, our next Chief Justice (hopefully) Scaila is right.  There is nothing in the Constitution that keeps the death penalty from taking place.  The fact is the Supreme Court used UN treaties and laws from Massachusetts to tell the state of Texas how to run.  They are suppose to use the US Constitution, and the US Constitution ONLY.  No laws from Germany, opinions from Jimmy Carter, or laws from Massachusetts.

The Supreme Court isn't allowed to force states what to do (that is not my opinion.)  I hope Perry (Texas's governor) keeps on executing the 16 and 17 year-old killers, I really do.

It should be 16.

I'm still crossing my fingers that one of those 5 judges leave and we can get it back to 16.

Remember the Supreme Court banned the death penalty in 1972, then after a judge left, reinstated it back in America in 1976.

Well, our next Chief Justice (hopefully) Scaila is right.  There is nothing in the Constitution that keeps the death penalty from taking place.  The fact is the Supreme Court used UN treaties and laws from Massachusetts to tell the state of Texas how to run.  They are suppose to use the US Constitution, and the US Constitution ONLY.  No laws from Germany, opinions from Jimmy Carter, or laws from Massachusetts.

The Supreme Court isn't allowed to force states what to do (that is not my opinion.)  I hope Perry (Texas's governor) keeps on executing the 16 and 17 year-old killers, I really do.


Shouldn't they be done in arenas?  You could generate a lot of state revenue by selling tickets and concessions.

"My folks saw John Wayne Bubba get fried, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!"

Failing that, you could generate revenue from selling the television rights.  Hell, why do a straight execution -- make it a reality show.  You have 10 people on death row, and you have them go through a series of challenges including smuggling contraband, fashioning shanks out of spare pieces of visitation room telephones, nude 'wrestling'... and each week, one 'bitch' gets voted off.

Hey Leo, don't joke - it'll be on cable by the summer  :-X :-\\

It should be 16.

I'm still crossing my fingers that one of those 5 judges leave and we can get it back to 16.

Remember the Supreme Court banned the death penalty in 1972, then after a judge left, reinstated it back in America in 1976.

Well, our next Chief Justice (hopefully) Scaila is right.  There is nothing in the Constitution that keeps the death penalty from taking place.  The fact is the Supreme Court used UN treaties and laws from Massachusetts to tell the state of Texas how to run.  They are suppose to use the US Constitution, and the US Constitution ONLY.  No laws from Germany, opinions from Jimmy Carter, or laws from Massachusetts.

The Supreme Court isn't allowed to force states what to do (that is not my opinion.)  I hope Perry (Texas's governor) keeps on executing the 16 and 17 year-old killers, I really do.


The federal government can force states to obey federal law using the military if they have to, it has been done in the past to enforce civil rights rulings. I believe firmly in the authority and supremacy of the national government, states have their rights but the are subordinate to Washington.

The youngest child known to be executed was a ten year old native american boy, for murder, in 1885.
There are some states that do not specify the age that someone must be to face execution, so it is possible for a child 7-8-9 years old (and younger).  It is kinda sick when you realize that these states are in what is known as the Bible belt.

Should emphasize Native American.  I think that could have something to do with it!
::)

That's what I was saying in another thread, America is a thanatophiliac country!

The federal government can force states to obey federal law using the military if they have to, it has been done in the past to enforce civil rights rulings.


Shhhhhhhh...don't give this federal government any ideas!  They'll deploy the military on the New York Times!
:o

There is nothing in the Constitution that keeps the death penalty from taking place.


To the contrary. A Constutional case against the death penalty could easibly be built upon the 8th ammendment.

For all those who love to jump up and down screaming moral values and return to Christian values how about  Thou Shalt not Kill.  Unlike alot of the bible, that is not open to different interpretations.

To the contrary. A Constutional case against the death penalty could easibly be built upon the 8th ammendment.


Yeah, that's what the founding fathers intended.  You and I both know that the founding fathers all supported the death penalty, and if it was possible they would say the 8th amendment was talking about punishments like tar & feathers.

For all those who love to jump up and down screaming moral values and return to Christian values how about  Thou Shalt not Kill.  Unlike alot of the bible, that is not open to different interpretations.

Gee, I thought we had seperation of church and state (can someone point out where that is in the US Constitution?)

The federal government can force states to obey federal law


The federal government can, the US Supreme Court can't.  Ask Mark Levin.

Okay, so it's okay to base an amendment AGAINST gay marriage on the bible, AGAINST abortion on the bible,


Who said the pro-life movements and the pro-traditional marriage crowd all use the Bible to form their opinions?

The federal government can, the US Supreme Court can't.  Ask Mark Levin.


Yes of course, but if the supreme court makes a ruling it is the executive branch's job and responsibility to see that the ruling is carried out.