24 Feb 2003 | JF said...

What the fuck is this country coming to?

Ask the lawyers.

24 Feb 2003 | ek said...

It's not just the lawyers though. Witness the whole death penalty debate here in Illinois engendered by former Gov. Ryan's blanket commutation.

Based on the hue and cry that came after his decision you'd think that he decided to let all death row inmates go free. He didn't -- he turned death sentences into life sentences with no change for parole.

The system in Illinois was so obviously broken, and yet I heard a lot of non-lawyers calling for the deaths of these inmates as though it was an affront to society for them to be spared. To me the State even potentially killing an innocent person is an affront to humanity and everything that this country stands (or at least used to stand) for. Yet I'm not even sure if I'm in the majority in feeling this way. That's frightening to me.

24 Feb 2003 | ek said...

Oops, meant no "chance" for parole.

24 Feb 2003 | xavier said...

Jeremiah W. Nixon, Missouri's attorney general : "Is the state required to prove every day that someone committed an offense beyond a reasonable doubt?"

I'd propose another technique to fight criminality without wasting money with trials and appeals. Every month, a number (according to crime statistics) of people are randomly picked up and executed... wouldn't that make a great, state sponsored real tv show?

24 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

Ask the conservative republicans about the oversimplification of issues and the sheep that listen.

24 Feb 2003 | pk said...

Talk about simplification...

24 Feb 2003 | cheese-eating heretical witch said...

Every month, a number (according to crime statistics) of people are randomly picked up and executed... wouldn't that make a great, state sponsored real tv show?

Why are we so incredibly eager to kill people, even people who could very possibly be innocent?

hell, put the "right" spin on any action and you'll find a force of people supporting your action. ..."Iraq is evil..."

24 Feb 2003 | cheese-eating heretical witch said...

my post didn't post everything ... that's weird ?

anyway...I said, the sponsored real tv show --- I like it! then the AMERICAN public could vote! what fun that would be! we would decide who gets the chair! reality tv, it's so real! isn't it? it's real isn't it? ridiculous.

I said, why are we so incredibly eager... ---- why are we so eager to go to war and kill innocent people that way?

24 Feb 2003 | Benjy said...

Every month, a number (according to crime statistics) of people are randomly picked up and executed... wouldn't that make a great, state sponsored real tv show?

Reminds me of ShirleyJackson's short story The Lottery I read back in middle school...

24 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

"Talk about simplification..."

Well, that's what it is. The proponets oversimplify the issue bringing up concepts like 'eye for an eye' and 'it reduces crime' logic. It's easy to believe this, and many voters do. The death penalty is a very emotionally driven argument. If my wife or child were brutally killed, my first reaction would probably be 'kill the person that did this'. That's a reaction a lot of voters can relate to and republicans can latch onto.

Republicans are very aware of surface arguments. They know that's what 'sells' and are quite good at it. It's good marketing/PR.

The death penalty, though, is flawed in that we can and do kill innocent people and it does little, if anything, to curb violent crime.

24 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

And, true, I shouldn't be making this a 'conservative republican'-only issue. Fair enough.

24 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Yeah, this isn't a republican-only issue. Don't forget that Clinton was all too eager to execute Rickey Ray Rector, a retarded, indigent black man in 1992. Rector's lawyers said that even though he could speak, his mental capacity was so impaired that he didn't even know what death was. He also didn't understand that the people he shot were not still alive.

24 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

What the fuck is this country coming to?

ask all the cracked-up, crazy, sick, perverse people who are allowed to have kids. we need licences, certificates and legal documents for every little step we make in this life, but any jack-ass can bring children into the world, abuse them, and turn them out onto the streets for the rest of us to deal with. If you want to make a difference, start at the source: children. Theres lots of them out there who need help. By the time theyre on death row, its most often too late.

24 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

"If you want to make a difference, start at the source: children."

But we prefer to 'fix' symptoms rather than root problems in the US. ;o)

24 Feb 2003 | pk said...

Alisha, you nailed it.

24 Feb 2003 | JF said...

but any jack-ass can bring children into the world, abuse them, and turn them out onto the streets for the rest of us to deal with.

I agree, but how can we possibly deal with this reality?

24 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

I agree, but how can we possibly deal with this reality?

How about, every month a random number of people are corralled and sterilized. This could be put on TV. Solves the problem, and allows viewers to be part of the solution.

Just trying to take many of the ideas presented here and make an absurd amalgamation. :)

24 Feb 2003 | pk said...

You can't. Not without stepping on some pretty major toes. Perhaps earth will slip through the tail of a comet and everyone will be sterile for 30 years.

24 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

Doesn't china sort of do that with the one-child limit? My understanding is that it works fairly well at reducing the # of children, but has the side effect of increased abortion and the death of many young girls.

Regardless, if we'd just realize that we need to support the children, a lot of problems would be fixed.

Our new Governor in Minnesota wants to get rid of the 'extra' $3 per child per day cash alotment for those on welfare.

His argument is that those on welfare should have to make the same decision as everyone else: "can I afford another child?"

The whole problem with that argument, and many ones like it, is that it completely takes the child out of the discussion. It's always about 'responsible parenting'. What about the children? Won't anyone think about the children? ;o)

24 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

Of course we cant stop all "sick" people from having kids, but there are many ways to get the numbers of repeat-abuse situations down lower. Support childrens help orgs, always investigate and report suspected abuses, donate time and/or money to childrens charities and orphanages, be a big brother or sister, help the neighbor kid who has problems... the list goes on and on. The concentration is on adults who are already abused and sick, but there are lots of murders in the making who could still be "saved". There needs to be more programs for kids and society needs to start taking more of an active role in childrens lives, not only mom or dad, who may or may not be qualified role models.

24 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

Doesn't china sort of do that with the one-child limit?
---
no - its not about population control. Its about quality control. Why arent new parents ever checked for qualifications and suitability, like adopitive parents are? I guess thats a breach of civil rights, but wouldnt it make sense?

24 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

The sad thing in all this is that, based on some stuff that's come out of the current Supreme Court, the Asst. AG is correct legally. After all, according to Scalia, actual innocence is not sufficient grounds for appeal.

It's damn sad when process and rules are more important than doing the right thing. This country bugs the hell out of me some days.

25 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I'm all for Alisha's idea ...

... as long as *I* get to decide WHO has children!

Catching my drift here? It's S-C-A-R-Y.

25 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Its about quality control. Why arent new parents ever checked for qualifications and suitability, like adopitive parents are?

Alisha, I'm sure you're pro-choice, but isn't your position anti-choice? Someone gets to decide who gets to have kids based on qualifications.

25 Feb 2003 | mode777 said...

COMMON SENSE IS NOT COMMON.

25 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Back to the original article, Mr. Jung is absolutely correct in his answer! And his answer is a WIN for the anti-Capital Punishment crowd. Here's why:

We cannot leave our system of justice up to the changing whims of "common sense"; it must be codified.

Given that, this story underscores a good reason for REFORM. Don't make an exception, CHANGE THE SYSTEM.

In the meantime, the governor can -- should -- step in for temporary ban until the system is revamped.

25 Feb 2003 | ek said...

The problem is that there seems to be almost no appetite for reform. I mean, look at the situation here in Illinois; 11 people on death row were proven innocent and yet the State legislature has done ZERO to reform what is so obviously a broken system. And a big part of the reason why is that there has been almost no public pressure to do so. We are become a bloodthirsty society with a lust for vengeance over justice.

Maybe it's time for me to move to Canada...

25 Feb 2003 | pk said...

The "system" has gotten so vast and complicated, that reform is impossible. It will take a meltdown and then a reboot.

25 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

ek, NO! Do not move to Canada. Don't bail. Seriously.

Never ... never ... never ... quit.

25 Feb 2003 | ek said...

Never ... never ... never ... quit.

I used to feel that way, but it seems somewhat silly to try to change something that is happy the way it is and does not want to change.

Hey, for all I know I'm wrong and everyone else is right. Just like religion, I've given up trying to explain to "religious" people that their belief system is man-made and without merit except that which they themselves assign to it.

What's the use really.

25 Feb 2003 | ek said...

And Canada seems quite nice, at least what I've seen of it.

25 Feb 2003 | pk said...

26 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

Alisha, I'm sure you're pro-choice, but isn't your position anti-choice? Someone gets to decide who gets to have kids based on qualifications.
---
I know, its not realistic. And its not my position - as I said, I know its a breach of rights. But if it were possible, it could be a scenario whereas if youve recently given birth, you get an assigned social worker who comes and checks everything twice a year. there could also be interviews with parents and children to make sure the childs needs are being met - the same procedures and methods used for adoption. I guess these checks are done to a certain extent now by nieghbors and teachers but its not effective - child abuse remains a major problem. And those kids become adults who repeat the abuse.

"Just like religion, I've given up trying to explain to "religious" people that their belief system is man-made and without merit except that which they themselves assign to it."

Why did you want to change them? They need their belief system - they need to hold onto it. Its good you gave up.

If youre considering Canada, I personally was blown away by Vancouver. Its the most beautiful, interesting city Ive ever seen. We had tears in our eyes when we had to leave. :-)

27 Feb 2003 | ek said...

Why did you want to change them? They need their belief system - they need to hold onto it. Its good you gave up.

Good point alisha. I guess I was acting just like the missionaries who try to convert people to Christianity. I guess part of my drive, though, was seeing how many horrible things are done in the name of religion, but I guess plenty of good things are done in the name of religion as well.

And I completely agree on Vancouver. I only saw a bit of it, but I was really blown away by what I saw.

27 Feb 2003 | JF said...

How difficult is it for a US citizen to gain Canadian citizenship?

28 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

We looked at a few homes there, in Lions bay, North Vancouver. Incredibly beautiful. Its easier for Americans, than for other nationalities to get in. If you want Canadian citizenship, you have to give up your current citizenship, pass language tests, prove youre financially stable, etc. I dont know how hard it is to get a greencard. Buying property doesnt guarantee a greencard, like many believe. And if youre a foreigner, you have to put down 35% instead of 25% on property purchases. whew. But with Whistler only 2 hours away, beach front property as far as the eye can see, pristine mountains and nature exisiting side-by-side with city, who wouldnt fall in love? I will definitely live there some day.
I might add that the people there were the friendliest weve ever met.
---
"I guess part of my drive, though, was seeing how many horrible things are done in the name of religion, but I guess plenty of good things are done in the name of religion as well."
---
yea, Peter feels the same way. But some people arent built for being independent thinkers. They need the security of collective thought and worship. Its frutile to try to change them.