creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
23 Jul 2014
False Equivalence

The "crossfire" mentality that defines public discourse today has the obvious problem of ignoring the fact … Read More.

11 Jul 2014
Sugar Babies

The news that Google executive Forrest Hayes died on a yacht after being injected with heroin by a "date" he … Read More.

9 Jul 2014
Bombs on Jerusalem

Jerusalem used to be safe. It is nearly 40 miles from Gaza and 3,000 feet above sea level. In the last go-round,… Read More.

The American Way of Death

Comment

I will readily admit that I have been all over the map when it comes to the death penalty.

As a young lawyer and law professor, I was opposed to it. Actually, it was easy to be against it. The evidence that it was being administered arbitrarily and unfairly was so overwhelming that the Supreme Court had effectively placed a moratorium on it. When it came back, in the late '70s, I was there, literally.

The first man to be executed after the moratorium was Gary Gilmore, who wanted to die. The second was a murderer named John Spenkelink, who didn't. His last appeal, the night before his death, was to the United States Supreme Court. He needed one justice to sign a stay before midnight to keep him alive. He needed four justices the next morning to agree that the case was worthy of the court's review and to keep the stay in force.

All the clerks were warned. It automatically went to the circuit justice, who was expected to deny it. Then they could go to one of the two justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, who were absolute opponents, but whose votes wouldn't get him past morning. Or they could go to one of the votes he would need in the morning, probably Potter Stewart. We all figured he'd go to Brennan or Marshall, and we could go home. He came to us — us being the court's junior member.

I drove an old yellow Maverick, and the overhead light was broken, so my co-clerk, who went on to become a leading death penalty defense lawyer and scholar, read out loud with the flashlight as we drove over to the justice's apartment. When we got there, we read it again with him, issue by issue: Was there any basis for concluding that a mistake was made?

We didn't come up with much, and then he called the other justice "in the middle" and went over it with him, and then we drove back with the unsigned papers and the windows down in case we threw up.

What if we had missed something? What if his lawyers had? We hadn't read a transcript; we just read the papers. Was he the white guy picked to go first and head off a parade of minorities? Why him?

We got back to the court at 11:45 p.m. and found Marshall, then in his later years, waiting with his pen out. The execution took place the next day.

By the time he retired, Justice John Paul Stevens was among the most outspoken critics of the way the death penalty is administered. We reminisced, decades later, about the care we had taken to review that application. It doesn't work that way anymore.

Even so, I came to view that, as a matter of principle, a society has every right to punish the worst of the worst. It was the murder of a pregnant woman at an ATM that did it for me — stabbed her in the stomach for some cash. It was a month after my son was born. Get the right guy, and you won't find me fighting to save him, I heard myself say. And it was true.

The "get the right guy" problem is not insignificant. Most of those on death row are brutal murderers. But no system is perfect, and ours doesn't aspire to be. So what percentage of error is tolerable when death is the penalty? And just how much are we willing to pay to achieve a tolerable error rate? The work of The Innocence Project, and other organizations, seems to show pretty clearly that it isn't enough.

Now there is the newest problem. Killing people isn't so easy. Or rather, as anyone who has lost a loved one to cancer could probably tell you, dying can be very hard. The drug companies don't want to be a part of the debate by way of making these drugs, states are afraid to disclose what they use, and the last execution took so long that the lawyers filed for a stay.

Did the dying man suffer? They're not sure. It's a public embarrassment, or so death penalty opponents are treating it. Is that an argument that we shouldn't be in the business of killing people? Maybe. I just can't help but think about how most people suffer in death, and none more than those who are viciously murdered.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM



Comments

22 Comments | Post Comment
Some rules are easy. Thou shalt not kill.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:29 PM
Ma'am;... Technically, as society has the right to do wrong... Absolutely anything found necessary for the survival of a people is arguably right... The problem is that not everything a state or a society can do should be done... When a society has reached the end of its road, it is more inclined to do violence to its own and to others than at any other time... Those who push America into wars it cannot afford to have empires that never pay, and never have paid, are bringing us that much closer to the use of nuclear weapons...That act will use up all the good will and legitmacy we have in the eyes of the world..
If the death penalty were simple vengeance it would be fine... The way the Native Americans practiced it, and the way the Greek very early in history practiced it, no one but the family of the one condemned to death could execute them... They had to have that blood on their hands because any other killer would call for blood vengeance...To kill one of your own because he was such a screw up was a punishment in itself... Too often the victims of violence are ones own family... But the past is gone, and now the state pretends to take the guilt of bloodshed off our hands... Then; if Capital punishment is not vengeance, why do so many politicians defend it as vengeance... The injured parties are denied their justice to have some more murder... Every body pays extra for the privilage of capital punishment... And it clearly does not work at reducing bloody violence... Who is satisfied here but the politicians who appeal to the absolute worst qualities of our characters??? We are not improved by these deaths... We are made little by these death... And while there are too many things wrong with law as we know it to list here, it is enough to say that as long as people make mistakes, and do find the wrong people guilty, and can take into account so little of extenuating circumstances, we can take no hope from these executions... It is not a question of what society has a right to do, for it has every right... It is a question of whether it should do all that is within its power if shown that it injures society more than it heals society...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:53 PM
Re: Mark
I agree. The same Commandment applies to the innocent unborn.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Oldtimer
Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:52 AM
Oldtimer,
Which brings us back to the problem of trying to equate a fertilized egg to a human baby - something that we will be unlikely to agree on, given the previous discussion of that topic here.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mark
Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:06 AM
Oldtimer,
Does "I agree" mean that you oppose the death penalty?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mark
Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:29 AM
Dear Ms. Estrich,
As you well know, the so-called Innocence Project doesn't really mean these guys are innocent. The real problem as you well know is in re-trying them a second time after so many years have passed.
Witnesses have moved, forgot details, even died. Police have retired and evidence may have deteriorated and even got lost in the system.
So-called witnesses come forward either to recant testimony, or to say they were with the defendant on the day in question when in fact they were probably committing their own crime 10 miles away.
I'm not sure why the DA's of these counties are not making more of a fuss, and explaining exactly why they're not pursuing the case to the public. Of course having served 20+ years is a stiff sentence, and maybe the DA's are satisfied with that, but now the public thinks innocent people are serving time when that's just not the case.

Of course this is not to say no innocent person even in modern times has been convicted of a crime. It would be foolish to think that it hasn't happened, or couldn't happen. It's just that in the USA, the odds are so great against this happening, especially in a death penalty case as to be non-existent.

Still it gratifies me to see that it appears as a Liberal you support the Death Penalty for the really vicious murderers, as do most Americans including me. I'm surprised.

Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #6
Posted by: Dennis
Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:27 AM
If after due process a "perp" is found guilty of murder for which the punishment pursuant to applicable law is death, and any sentence of death is subsequently confirmed after appropriate appeal then put the "perp" down quickly, that day or the next at latest I care not how, and let God sort the rest out.

That the struggle of the left to rationalize its positions is for those of the left is an intolerable Sisyphean burden and indeed that liberalism is indeed a sickness of the mind is well illustrated by the manner in which progressives, to a man or woman or to all things between would happily and joyously put an innocent child in the womb down right up the moment before birth (and some like obama after birth) without a qualm and without any process ( hell they insist that it is a constitutional right so to do) but yet get all vexed and hot and bothered over the execution of some murdering low life piece of sh*t or the life of some useless smelt in a California river or over Caribou in Alaska that need no protection. Jeez ! These are definitely the lunatics that are charge of the asylum.
Comment: #7
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:22 AM
Re: joseph wright

Joseph,

I agree with your reasoning and would hope that most reasonable people would agree that endless appeals that stretch 25+ years on isn't justice or law that is working for the benefit of society. Yes, the Liberals that don't support the Death Penalty love this endless appeals process because it suits their needs, and of course the murderers love it for obvious reasons. I would think a through appeals process should take no more than 5 - 7 years max that includes both the state and federal court systems. A system could easily be set up in both state and federal courts to hear just these cases.

If the Liberals are so concerned about proper legal representation for the defendant then let them pay for a collection of excellent lawyers to represent all the death penalty cases, or do so pro bono from the start, and that will solve the problem the Liberals constantly cry about that the defendants weren't properly represented, or they have a low IQ.

Comment: #8
Posted by: Dennis
Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:54 AM

"Did the dying man suffer? They're not sure. It's a public embarrassment, or so death penalty opponents are treating it. Is that an argument that we shouldn't be in the business of killing people? Maybe. I just can't help but think about how most people suffer in death, and none more than those who are viciously murdered."

Liberals do evil out of design or stupidity. But why does not matter, people are defined by what they do and what a person does is defined by the results of their actions. Thus, Liberals are evil.

Liberal hearts bleed over the killing of a murderer. They believe this hand ringing over the death of a murderer gives them moral superiority over those who support the killing of a murderer. The Liberals spend this moral superiority capital when they support the killing of a baby, especially during late term abortions. Liberals think they are so clever but they are only fooling themselves.

Women who have abortions will get the reward they deserve one day and so will the killers of murders and such reward will not be the same.

Below are some Aborted Baby Questions that help put the issue in Context.

Q: What is funnier to a liberal than an aborted baby body?
A: An aborted baby body in a clown costume.

Q: How do Liberals make an aborted baby body float?
A: They take their foot off its head.

Q: How many aborted baby bodies does it take to power a Liberal's Prius?
A: I do not know, ask a Liberal.

Q: How do Liberals load a truck load of aborted baby bodies?
A: They use a pitch fork.

Q: What is the difference between a partially unborn baby and a murder to a Liberal?
A: One has no right to life and can be killed at will and the other is a killer.

Q: What is the difference between a tree and a partially born baby to a Liberal?
A: One a Liberal hits with an AX and the other a liberal hugs.

Q: Why was baby Jesus born in a manger?
A: He was hiding from Liberals.



Comment: #9
Posted by: SusansMirror
Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:47 PM
Joseph,
Interesting bit on the news today about a convicted rapist in Texas who was exonerated by DNA evidence of a crime in which the victim identified him in a line up and to which he confessed. I'm sure the DA was certain he had his man. A clear case where "after due process a "perp" is found guilty", although of rape in this case. He served 12 years.
.
I am always mystified by supposedly pro-life conservatives such as yourself who are quite willing to kill others using the power of the state. Apparently, life is only sort of sacred to them. I am also mystified that these are the same conservatives who consistently rant about how incompetent the government is or how those in power manipulate the levers of government for evil purposes. This is the government he for which he eagerly defends it having the power of death? Weird.
.
Oldtimer?


Comment: #10
Posted by: Mark
Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:03 PM
Re: Mark

And what has that got to do with executing a guilty murderer through due process? As I said, due process and then let God sort it out.

Your hand wringing post about some identified and self confessed rapist and your prior pro abortion posts are probative of my point that the taking of innocent life in the womb, the sacrifice of the innocent in the womb at the abortionist's alter, without any process, is the religion of liberalism's holiest blood rite, never to be compromised.

I am pro the life in the innocent womb who are murdered simply for convenience or so that liberals can continue to promote the existence of a phony war on women and that is wholly distinguishable from being pro the death penalty for the crime of murder. To my mind a murderer has himself given up his own right to continue to live. That does not mean that I, unlike liberals do not hold life sacred. Liberalism's actual holding of life sacred is as phony as a six dollar note. Think abortion, think euthanasia of the elderly, think Obamacare and death panels.

I will entertain no talk of life being sacred from a proponent of abortion and obamacare such as you.
Comment: #11
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:21 AM
"As I said, due process and then let God sort it out. " In other words, you are willing to trust the government that you regularly describe as incompetent, corrupt, or both, to decide when to kill citizens. And with the "let god sort them out" you clearly acknowledge that you do so knowing that individuals are being killed for crimes that they did not commit and you don't care, so long as your blood lust is satisfied.
.
I will entertain no talk of being pro-life from such a lover of state sponsored killing and manslaughter.
.
Abortion and the possibility of some liberal nut case somewhere favoring offing the elderly make those topics at least honest topics to throw out for a counter example. The "...think Obamacare and death panels." line is an item that has been thoroughly discredited as a lie told by Sara Palin and her ilk when the facts failed them. The only "death panels" that existed at the time were the insurance companies deciding what treatments and medications they would and would not cover and what were "pre-existing conditions". Death panels which you apparently liked, given your hatred of any attempt to fix them. Therefore, citing such "death panels" displays either significant ignorance or simply an intent to be less than honest on your part.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Mark
Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:49 PM
Re: Mark

Firstly, I have no knowledge of any proven innocent having been executed in the US for the crime of murder. And I venture neither do you. You may have some anecdotal bs but I doubt hard fact. Name say 6.

What I do have actual knowledge of is the wanton slaughter of 55 million plus innocent lives in the womb since Roe v Wade, the first book in any liberal bible, by gruesome means such as live dismemberment, by sucking brains out with a vacuum, and even by dragging the unborn out of the womb and throwing into a closet ( the Obama endorsed method). I have actual knowledge of state sponsorship of the biggest perpetrator of such monstrosities, to wit, Planned Parenthood and actual knowledge that abortion is now Government sponsored via obamacare.

You may mock the idea of the IPABs rationing healthcare but they will and will follow Dr. Death's (Dr E Emanuel) curve relating age to value to society, to deny the very young and the elderly care.

You are a supporter of all of the above, an endorser of abortion on demand, an endorser of euthanasia and moreover an active enabler and abettor of the same by your support of the monsters, aka, the Democratic Party that make it front and center in its manifesto.

I hold that a murderer has himself given up his right to continue to live. You hold that an unborn has no right to life at all.

Now f*ck off and do not contemplate further any hypocritical lecturing on what it means to be pro life. AS I said I will not entertain such from an actual aider and abettor of the wanton slaughter of millions upon millions such as the likes of you.
Comment: #13
Posted by: joseph wright
Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:27 AM
Funny, you don't address your clear belief that the government is incompetent or corrupt in most things it does and yet you still feel just fine allowing it to decide who to kill. Your potty-mouth anger should be directed to your own hypocrisy, but I realize that you may not be capable of such introspection.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Mark
Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:44 AM
Is the usual "hate first, think second (or not at all)," reactionary "conservatism" that dominates our political discourse. All show eating, breathing, and sleeping depletes whatever 'brain matter' they may once have enjoyed.
Comment: #15
Posted by: steveM
Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:14 AM
Re Mark, Re SteveM

Fished In. Hook line and sinker! LOL!

Funny how one little word like f*ck can throw the liberal into a tail spin.

Both would fain offense to being told to f*ck off, both would attack me as brainless for telling Mark to f*ck off but neither can take objection to the primary accusation that Mark and all his liberal ilk are supporters and enablers of mass murder.

My original point proven.

Liberalism is truly a disease of the mind causing the left to try to rationalize its irrational positions.
Comment: #16
Posted by: joseph wright
Sun Jul 27, 2014 1:02 PM
Joseph,
I'm not sure why you think you being a potty mouth is some kind of deep moral victory, but your reality can be more than a bit odd. If it makes you feel good to think so, be my guess. To reiterate: You clearly believe that the government is incompetent or corrupt in most things it does and yet you still feel just fine allowing it to decide who to kill. You have also recently expressed a belief that genocide for all residents of Gaza is the appropriate response to Hamas rockets. And yet you get sanctimonious about your odd belief that you are still, somehow, "pro-life". Must be a challenge to hold all of that at the same time.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Mark
Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:29 PM
In his reply to JW, Mark wrote: "You clearly believe that the government is incompetent or corrupt in most things it does and yet you still feel just fine allowing it to decide who to kill. You have also recently expressed a belief that genocide for all residents of Gaza is the appropriate response to Hamas rockets. And yet you get sanctimonious about your odd belief that you are still, somehow, "pro-life". Must be a challenge to hold all of that at the same time."

At the same time Mark, you believe in a political philosophy that believes that bigger and bigger government is the answer to all of our societies problems. Yet you don't trust that government to apply capital punishment fairly or justly. You show great compassion for the handful of convicted criminals executed in this country each year (most for extremely heinous crimes), yet you don't want to raise a finger to do something about the ~1.5 million murders/year of innocent victims whose sole fault is to merely exist. In fact, you absurdly compare the the two cases and and suggest that being concerned about one group (innocent lives) should be equivalent to being concerned about convicted criminals (i.e., The guilty) . In the case of Gaza, you seem to be far more sympathetic to the side that initiated the present conflict than with the side that is defending itself. You show sympathy to those who refuse to accept the existence of the other side, but scorn those who just want to be left alone.

Yes sir, no chaotic or illogical thinking there.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Old Navy
Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:49 PM
Old Navy,
Nice straw man attempt, but no, I do not believe that big government is the solution to all problems. I do not show great compassion for those executed. The vast majority of them should never see the outside of a prison again. I simply believe that the state should not be in the business of killing people. We should become more like the rest of the western world and less like China and Iran in that matter. In the case of abortion, as you know from previous discussions, I do not believe, as you apparently do, that a blastocyst is equivalent to a newborn. Given my beliefs in that matter, my position is certainly not inconsistent with my beliefs on capitol punishment. One of the difficulties in your statement is equating convicted criminals to "the guilty". If the government is, as extreme conservatives often posit, typically very corrupt and very incompetent, it clearly does not necessarily follow that convicted = guilty. That is precisely one of the major problems with the death penalty.
.
That brings us to Gaza. Observing that genocide is a poor choice of solution to Hamas rocket fire, especially coming from a sanctimoniously pro-life commenter, is hardly evidence of deep sympathy for Hamas. Nonetheless, I will comment: It should be noted that innocent children are dying in that conflict. (Why doesn't that bother the pro-life crowd? Is it because the old liberal rant that conservatives only care about children before they are born is true? A cheap shot, I know, but I could not resist.) Israel is clearly doing what it can to limit civilian deaths, but as the old saying goes, when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. If they were attempting to cause civilian deaths, the carnage would look like it does in Syria. A solution to that mess that I have heard recently is for Hamas to disarm under UN control and for the life-chocking blockade to be lifted, allowing for normal life. I'm not holding my breath for anything like that to happen anytime soon.
.
So, assuming that you believe that government is generally incompetent and/or corrupt, do you consider the death penalty to be morally acceptable? Do you trust the government when it says it has not killed anyone in one of its death chambers who was not actually guilty?
Comment: #19
Posted by: Mark
Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:01 AM
Old Navy,
Nice straw man attempt, but no, I do not believe that big government is the solution to all problems. I do not show great compassion for those executed. The vast majority of them should never see the outside of a prison again. I simply believe that the state should not be in the business of killing people. We should become more like the rest of the western world and less like China and Iran in that matter. In the case of abortion, as you know from previous discussions, I do not believe, as you apparently do, that a blastocyst is equivalent to a newborn. Given my beliefs in that matter, my position is certainly not inconsistent with my beliefs on capitol punishment. One of the difficulties in your statement is equating convicted criminals to "the guilty". If the government is, as extreme conservatives often posit, typically very corrupt and very incompetent, it clearly does not necessarily follow that convicted = guilty. That is precisely one of the major problems with the death penalty.
.
That brings us to Gaza. Observing that genocide is a poor choice of solution to Hamas rocket fire, especially coming from a sanctimoniously pro-life commenter, is hardly evidence of deep sympathy for Hamas. Nonetheless, I will comment: It should be noted that innocent children are dying in that conflict. (Why doesn't that bother the pro-life crowd? Is it because the old liberal rant that conservatives only care about children before they are born is true? A cheap shot, I know, but I could not resist.) Israel is clearly doing what it can to limit civilian deaths, but as the old saying goes, when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. If they were attempting to cause civilian deaths, the carnage would look like it does in Syria. A solution to that mess that I have heard recently is for Hamas to disarm under UN control and for the life-chocking blockade to be lifted, allowing for normal life. I'm not holding my breath for anything like that to happen anytime soon.
.
So, assuming that you believe that government is generally incompetent and/or corrupt, do you consider the death penalty to be morally acceptable? Do you trust the government when it says it has not killed anyone in one of its death chambers who was not actually guilty?
Comment: #20
Posted by: Mark
Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:05 AM
In his response, Mark wrote: "Nice straw man attempt, but no, I do not believe that big government is the solution to all problems."

Really? Your rhetoric on this blog seems to indicate differently. Besides Defense, can you name a major portion of the Federal budget that you are in favor of cutting? What social programs do you consider to be a failure and need to be ended. What taxes do you think should be cut?

Mark further wrote: "... I do not show great compassion for those executed. The vast majority of them should never see the outside of a prison again. I simply believe that the state should not be in the business of killing people. "

The state has always been in this business and always will be (e.g., Defense). Why are you in favor of sparing these individuals and not enemy combatants?

Mark also wrote: "...In the case of abortion, as you know from previous discussions, I do not believe, as you apparently do, that a blastocyst is equivalent to a newborn. "

I do not believe that a blastocyte is a human. I however do believe that the fetus does become a human somewhere between conception and birth and that this point needs to be nailed down and abortions after that time limited to cases where the life of the mother is at stake. As I recall your view on this matter, you believe defining such a point is just too hard to do so you don't even want to attempt it. No curiosity to explore whether we are murdering unborn humans, but plenty of worry about villainous thugs.

Mark then wrote: "...That brings us to Gaza. Observing that genocide is a poor choice of solution to Hamas rocket fire, especially coming from a sanctimoniously pro-life commenter, is hardly evidence of deep sympathy for Hamas. Nonetheless, I will comment: It should be noted that innocent children are dying in that conflict...."

This is one of those remarkably obtuse arguments that the anti-Israeli crowd loves to raise. These poor children wouldn't be dieing if Hamas hadn't picked a fight with the Israelis. And just what do you think Hamas was trying to do when they sent all those rockets toward Israel? I'm sorry, the blood is on the hands of the goons who started the fight and refuse to call a truce. Until Hamas backs off and is defanged, I see absolutely no reason to cease hostilities. Doing so without a more or less unconditional surrender by the aggressors is just a guarantee we will be reenacting this passion play again in 5-10 years. Time to end the reign of these thugs, PERIOD! (To quote a wise leader...). It is unfortunate, but you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

Finally, Mark stated: "So, assuming that you believe that government is generally incompetent and/or corrupt, do you consider the death penalty to be morally acceptable? Do you trust the government when it says it has not killed anyone in one of its death chambers who was not actually guilty?"

A perfect straw man. I do not believe the government is generally incompetent. I do believe it performs some duties (e.g., Defense and law enforcement) better than others (e.g., Social engineering, wealth redistribution) and should stick to doing what it does well.

Further, I see nothing wrong with the death penalty. What exactly do you think the punishment for an Adolph Hitler or a Pol Pot should be? Some crimes deserve the maximum penalty, if for no other reason than society will be absolutely sure the criminal will not strike again (ala Ted Bundy).

Do I think the government has never executed the wrong man? No. But that is no more a reasonable counter argument to capital punishment than the fact that innocent people have been sent to jail proves we should do away with imprisonment. The few executions this country performs each year get PLENTY of oversight. I think we are taking more than reasonable precautions to prevent innocent people from being executed.

And, as long as we are asking tough questions, do you trust the pro-choicers when they say abortionists have not killed a fetus in one of their clinics that was not actually a human? The world wonders...
Comment: #21
Posted by: Old Navy
Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:43 PM
NSA, militarization of police departments, prisons for low level drug offenders, much of the security theater at airports. Cuts are quite possible there. Social welfare for corporations and the wealthy needs to be cut. Other things need a lot more money. The SEC, for example, should greatly be increased in budget. I don't have a simplistic answer on tax cuts, but one example is, if the intent is economic stimulus, to cut payroll taxes to workers instead of giving welfare to corporations in the hope that they will hire somebody. Poor people tend to put any extra money immediately into the economy. Social programs should be reviewed for their efficacy and the money spent where one get the best bang for the buck.
.
The causes of the Gaza and related conflicts are endless. What is the first wrong that needs to be righted? How many decades, centuries, or millennia do you want to go back? Hamas is certainly unlikely to be the group which creates the peace. The Israelis are in a no win. They do not want to expend the lives and treasure necessary to re-occupy Gaza, but anything short of a total victory is a win for Hamas.
.
You have much greater faith in the institutions of law enforcement than I do. The large number of cases that simply fell apart when DNA testing became possible was a window into how well the system generally works, or does not. The recent rape exoneration previously mentioned is a good example. An unusual item in that case was a DA who was interested in truth rather than the more typical attitude of defending convictions at all costs and allowed the evidence to be tested. For me, the primary issue is that I don't think that the state should kill prisoners. The fact that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent, costs absurd amounts of money to implement (Unless, of course, we go with the Chinese or Iranian model...), and makes us look both silly and barbaric to the rest of the western world is just icing on the cake.
.
Question: If you found evidence that the system was likely executing those who were not guilty, would you still support the death penalty?
.
I believe that the penalty for the Oklahoma city bomber should have been life without parole, not death. I believe that the state simply has no business killing prisoners. Killing enemy soldiers in combat is another matter. Typically, there is no alternative in combat, unless you capture the soldier. Once he is your prisoner, killing him becomes a war crime. Combat is not analogous to execution of convicts and neither is the execution of a captured enemy soldier.
.
I believe that women's health clinics should be regulated like all other aspects of the medical profession. As you well know, I believe that the blastocyct to human transition is a vast area of grey with increasing moral hazard. The recent case in PA (Kermit Gosnell) demonstrates that the system of regulation is not perfect. The legal outcome of the case was appropriate.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Mark
Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:40 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Jul. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Newspaper ContributorsUpdated 31 Jul 2014
Larry Elder
Larry ElderUpdated 31 Jul 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 31 Jul 2014

3 Nov 2010 The Day After

22 Apr 2011 Dinner in Brentwood

2 Dec 2009 Holiday Remnants