A stunning 7,900-word New York Times article paints a murderer as a sympathetic victim, with little concern for murder victims and their loved ones. The pro-murderer movement hits the big time.
A recent 7,900-word New York Times article singularly illustrates the huge gulf between victims of barbaric crime and the zealous rationalizers of their victimizers. Strongly suggesting that a prisoner’s being “sorry” for the premeditated murder of both his parents should be “enough” to free him, the article would likely repulse most survivors of violent crime, including loved ones of murder victims and others who care about them.
Repulse, but not surprise.
Something is painfully wrong when a person with no prior record can receive a harsh sentence, but someone serving life cannot be penalized for the most barbaric new crimes because he is already permanently incarcerated for the worst depravity.
With no criminal record, Thomas Prusik Parkin recently was sentenced to serve a prison term of 14 to 41 years. His crime included having dressed in his mother’s clothing to deceive others to believe she was still alive, so that he could maintain possession of her home, collect her social security checks ($44,000) and receive rental assistance ($65,000).
No one can, responsibly, accept what the Liebman/DeLuna report, ”Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution,” says, without fully fact checking it, as well as evaluating bias.
It is unwise to, blindly, accept any study.
At least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, progressives and liberals have seen our anti-tyranny Constitution as an obstacle to imposing their self-presumed superior morality and wisdom on everyone else. So it was unremarkable when, in February, The New York Times disgorged an article trashing the Constitution as an unworthy model for the rest of the world. Remarkable is what was omitted from the responses, which focused on Justice Ginsburg’s urging drafters of new foreign constitutions not to consult the one she took an oath to defend. She and others complained that it did not provide sufficient “rights.”
Unanswered by various critics was law professor Sanford Levinson’s claim that “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any … in the world[.]”
Actually, because justices must be lawyers, the Constitution is easy to amend.
An unbridgeable values chasm exists between victims of the worst crimes and the zealous devotees of their depraved victimizers.
Last month, 18-year-old Alyssa Bustamante, protected from capital punishment by five U.S. Supreme Court justices undemocratically imposing their unrepresentative moral values, was sentenced to mislabeled “life in prison” for the October 2009 murder of 9-year-old neighbor Elizabeth Olten. Four months before that murder, the Court devoted 44 pages to the “embarrassment” of Savana Redding, a 13-year-old searched for illicit drugs.
These and other cases graphically shed light on unelected justices who run our lives.
In common parlance, “getting away with murder” is a metaphor for doing something wrong without suffering deserved adverse consequences. Getting away with actual murder has meant that the killer did not get caught, or else he avoided conviction or appropriate punishment thanks to a good lawyer (often taking advantage of judge-concocted rules favoring guilty defendants).
Dudley Sharp talks on the Thom Hartman show about the death penalty on Amnesty International’s “International Day of Action for Troy Davis” day. Troy Davis is the convicted murderer of Officer MacPhain in Georgia who was recently put to death.
Because some occupations are hazardous, risking injury and death, Congress enacted the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act to protect workers. While no sane person would advocate avoidable unsafe working conditions for the law-abiding, this sensible view has been grotesquely perverted into an illustration of Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s famous reminder (51) of “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.”
“Smoke and mirrors” – that is what the federal judge called Davis’ innocence claims, after he held the innocence evidentiary hearing ordered by the US Supreme Court.
Based upon the evidence presented in the June, 2010 hearing, it was clear that the federal district court would rule against Davis and that SCOTUS would not intervene.
This shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone who knew the facts of the case.
Anti death penalty folks, were, of course, fed a bunch of nonsense by their leadership and they simply accepted it.
1) Debunking the Myths Surrounding The Murder of Officer Mark MacPhail Sr. and the Conviction of Troy Anthony Davis”
2) Innocence claims will offer no reprieve for Troy Davis
Dudley Sharp, 6/25/10
Based upon the media reports, alone, of the two day hearing of June 2010, just as I suspect Davis’ attorneys have known all along, the appellate case cannot prevail in overturning the findings that Troy
Davis is guilty of the murder of Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail.
What happened in the two day hearing was very ordinary, if you are aware of anti death penalty nonsense. (1)
THE MODERN ELITE RULING CLASS NOTION OF JUSTICE Cruel and Unusual Punishment of Victims By Lester Jackson, Ph.D. DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE
“Jitka Vesel, 36, was stalked and murdered by a rejected boyfriend from Canada who, before killing her, did research to determine that Illinois had ended the death penalty, according to DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin.” (1)
In a vitriolic column employing the very style for which she attacks Justice Anonin Scalia, Linda Greenhouse repeats the old banal “bad-boy” narrative of a long hostile media. This unanswered charge is misleading in the extreme.
What Greenhouse Wants Readers To Believe
Greenhouse asserts Scalia utterly lacks “pragmatism,” is “angry,” “enraged,” “furious,” “inflammatory,” “bomb-throwing,” “intemperate,” “self-indulgen[t],” “bullying,” and prone to “insults,” “put-downs,” “lashing out,” publicly “thrashing…a junior colleague” and, indeed, “undermin[ing] the court’s … legitimacy.”
Regarding the jurisdiction, by time, of the Texas Forensic Science Commission in the Willingham case:
It seems clear that the TFSC has no jurisdiction in this case. But, that is why we have AG opinions.
The question in not why the TFSC has submitted questions to the Texas AG for his opinion, now, but why and how the TFSC could have spent all of the time, money and other resources on the Willingham case, without being responsible enough to get an opinion from the AG, prior to all of those expenditures.
Ms. Keshen, staff attorney, New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, needs to review the evidence, again.
A rebuttal to Ms. Keshan’s four points.
1) countries with no death penalty law: 95
countries with the death penalty: 102 (1)
Last April’s retirement announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens occasioned an outpouring of adulation: Champion of the Powerless. The Greatest Justice, etc. His absence from the new Supreme Court term renewed the love fest, evoking honor and award for his “open mind.” Liberal judicial activists depict him as an authoritative hero and saint (most recently: 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley and The New York Times’ Adam Liptak).
The community used to have a forum. It was known as the Fourth Estate.
Everyone in the death penalty debate, inclusive of the Dallas Morning News, knows how the anti death penalty folks have so distorted the meaning of exonerated, as to mask its real meaning.
Defense attorney Thomas Ullmann defended Steven Hayes in the capital murder trial of the three rape/torture/murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit, who was raped and strangled to death, along with her two daughters, 17-year-old Haley and 11-year-old Michaela. Michaela was sexually assaulted.
Justice Stevens strong bias against the death penalty and his lack of voiced concern for murder victims is well known (1).
Very few of the 112 Supreme Court Justices concluded that the death penalty is unconstitutional, as Justice Stevens has.
RE: Reply to Rick Halperin’s “Why don’t people in Texas talk about the death penalty?” (1)
Prof. Halperin is director of Southern Methodist U. Embrey Human Rights Program and is a well know anti death penalty activist
From: Dudley Sharp, a pro death penalty guy
There is a difference between open discussion and fair debate and what Rick Halperin presents, which is one sided and false propaganda and indoctrination.