home

The Death Penalty: Perpetuating A Resilient Pestilence

by TChris

The Washington Post uses the tragedy of Lena Baker's execution to argue that courts and juries cannot be entrusted with the power to take a life:

It is tempting to believe that these tragedies don't happen anymore, that the death penalty now is more protective of innocent life. ...

Yet injustice is a resilient pestilence that -- like drug-resistant bacteria -- has myriad ways of defeating the best human attempts to eliminate it. And Americans who believe the death penalty is foolproof are simply kidding themselves. DNA testing has caused many people to be freed from death row, illustrating the fallibility of even modern trials. And recently prosecutors in St. Louis reopened the case of a man executed by the state of Missouri back in 1995 -- no longer being convinced that the state had killed the right person. As long as the death penalty persists, cases like Ms. Baker's -- where recompense is impossible -- are inevitable.

< Australian Model Faces 15 Years in Bali for Two Ecstasy Pills | Iraq Constitution: Will Bush Declare Theocracy a Victory? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So if courts shouldn't have the right to authorize taking a life...then I guess we're agreed that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned?

    Re: The Death Penalty: Perpetuating A Resilient P (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    grad- How surprising! Most "pro lifers" are pro death penalty. Perhaps you are just being snide as usual.

    Re: The Death Penalty: Perpetuating A Resilient P (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    Funny thing about the anti-choice, pro-state sponsored murder crowd... They adhere strongly to the concept of death as a punishment. In the face of mounting evidence that the punishment they love, that gives them that feeling of being a god, that quenches their base instinct for blood and violence is flawed... They go on comparing it to abortion. Neatly sidestepping the issue (which is that the murder penalty is unfairly administered, that innocent men and women have been murdered by the state), and go straight to Roe v. Wade. At what point do the two meet?

    Well, the obvious answer here is that Roe vs. Wade authorized the killings of unquestionably innocent people (18 million so far in the US), whereas capital punishment authorizes the deaths of convicted people (less than 100, I think, in the same timeframe). But the other answer is, I'm against capital punishment in our society too. So how about answering the damn question?

    Re: The Death Penalty: Perpetuating A Resilient P (none / 0) (#5)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    Here's your "damn" answer... Life begins at birth, no matter how strongly you wish it didn't. Every facet of our lives starts with our "birthday", not conception. Besides, only people breathe air. Or feel pain. In any event, you and I will never agree on this, besides, this topic was about STATE SANCTIONED KILLING OF HUMAN BEINGS AS A PUNISHMENT FOR SOME CRIME. Not Roe v. Wade. As for your comment about Roe v. Wade authorizing the killing of innocents, I might offer that every war ever waged can be framed in exactly those terms... Still for the war? Or do those innocents not matter?

    Johnny, - many facets of my life began prior to my birth. For example, I began moving around prior to birth, I received several doctor's checkups prior to birth, I learned to recognize my mother's voice prior to birth, etc. Your claim does not stand. - you and I may never agree on this, but I hope we may at some point at least address the issue rather than dancing around it. If courts can't authorize the taking of lives, then Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. Clearly sanctioning innocent deaths is no better than sanctioning the deaths of convicts. If you don't agree, explain why. You failed to answer this question. - You mention war. My answer is simple: if one fights a war with the attitude that one only kills aggressors in an effort to save innocents, then that war is just. An example would be WWII to save European Jews from the Holocaust. Another example might be the Kosovo conflict. Some argue that the deaths of thousands in Iraq is a similar case. Personally I believe the Iraq conflict was unjust, but that's beside the point. In any event, war is only just when it targets aggressors, not innocents. Capital punishment is intended to target convicted murderers. Abortion only targets innocents. Either address the issue or have the honesty to admit your inconsistency in champoining abortion while condemning capital punishment.

    Re: The Death Penalty: Perpetuating A Resilient P (none / 0) (#7)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    First of all, I didn't "champion" abortion. Second of all, this is way off topic, but here goes... I am a man, I really have no clue what an abortion is really like. I have no recollection of being a fetus (and neither do you), in fact, I have no recollection of the first two years of my life (and neither do you). And some might say that a human being is nothing more than a collection of memories stored in a meat bag. Abortion is a women's rights issue being decided by men. You can say anything you want, but I cannot answer well crafted RNC talking points. I am just not that well versed in scripted debate, sorry. Ask a woman about abortion. War. No leader worth his salt has EVER said "we are going to war to kill innocents." Every wartime leader has done just that though. Sorry. No war is just. It is killing of innocent human beings to accomplish political and economic goals. Period. Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo, North Vietnam, Cambodia all come to mind. Based on your defintion of a just war, there has never been one. It is too convenient to target innocents purposely, it is a means to an end. Back on topic, I am still waiting for justification for the death penalty from supporters... You seem to be the rare wrong winger that is only pro-death when it comes to "just" war... So we cannot argue the merits of a final punishment and it's effects on innocents. Sorry Grad, it has been a long time since I was in school, and even then it was engineering,not political science, so I do not have memorized responses to debate questions. Why don't you go and find your own answers?

    Johnny, these are not "RNC talking points". They are my honest opinions and the reasons I hold them. If you can't address the contradiction in your position then you should admit that your position is inconsistent, and therefore wrong. One final point for you: if men have no authority to make decisions concerning abortion, then Roe vs. Wade should still be overturned. It was decided by a group of nine men. Of course, saying that men have no right to discuss the issue is like saying non-Germans have no right to discuss the Holocaust or that non-Southerners have no right to discuss slavery. That's absurd. And I'm very grateful that a lot of non-Germans and non-Southerners not only took a stand but went to war over those issues because they realized a great injustice was in progress.

    Re: The Death Penalty: Perpetuating A Resilient P (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Nooo.... I told you that life begins at birth. You asked, I gave. Done. Now stop being irrational and go and eat a cookie.