When pro-murderer justices seek — often successfully — to focus upon criminals rather than crimes, the result is to grant certain perpetrators greater protection against punishment for their brutality than others who commit identical or less serious acts.
As detailed elsewhere, pro-murderer media suppression of the truth has played a major role in enabling a wholesale evisceration of capital punishment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently provided a graphic example, one that would be excruciatingly painful to survivors of murder victims if they knew about it. Many people unfamiliar with the practices and philosophy of the Supreme Court would very likely be shocked to learn just what values some justices hold.
The history of liberal judicial activism has largely been a history of Republican handiwork — in case after case after case, impacting all areas of law (including public safety, crime and capital punishment).
The most important reason for conservatives to support Mitt Romney is that he is not Barack Obama, period. Never before has there been an American president ashamed of his own country. Never before has there been a president with complete contempt for the political and economic principles that made it great.
The ObamaCare decision exposed the Supreme Court as an emperor without clothes. Hoping for deliverance from ObamaCare, many usual critics defended the Court. But with a new term fast approaching, a month before a critical election, Chief Justice Roberts’ handiwork should be remembered as a final wake-up call to consider, once and for all, whether the Court and judicial review merit respect, acceptance and legitimacy.
Upon Paul Ryan’s vice presidential selection, supporters noted his objection that Chief Justice Roberts had “contort[ed] logic and reason to come up with [the ObamaCare] ruling.” Such contortion is nothing unusual except for one thing. The Supreme Court, which normally operates in obscurity, could not escape a glaring spotlight this time, affording a rare opportunity to inform the public about the dark side of what many justices do. This raises questions concerning the utility of elections, what remains of our actual Constitution, the rule of law, and public acceptance of judicial review.
This is the strongest argument against the death penalty, or one of them, as if it is correct they can convince an unelected supreme court to subdue the death penalty. Anti-Death penalty groups such as the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) try to capitalize on these arguments all the time. I think this is the vilest strategy of the abolitionist crowd. However, their claims are all false, and as usual the abolitionist crowd is good at ignoring facts.
SUMMARY: The cost errors, within the Majority Report, are so substantial that their cannot be considered reliable. Is it possible that a properly managed death penalty system could be less expensive than a true life sentence? Read on.
Some observations on the Urban Institute (UI) Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland (1) as well as on the Majority Report.
NOTE: Clark is a Calif. ACLU activist and The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice’s (CCFAJ) is a Calif. government commission.
Clark’s/CCFAJ’s cost review is wildly inaccurate and misleading. I doubt that there is any more veracity to the death row costs than with their lifer cost evaluations. None of Clark/CCFAJ’s numbers can be relied upon.
Clark/CCFAJ says: “In total, California’s death penalty system costs taxpayers $137 million per year. Contrast that with just $11 million per year if we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.”
The claim the death penalty (may be referred to, as the title already does, “DP”) costs to much is one of the most common claims about the death penalty. The history of it really began in 1970 when abolitionists began to back down from morality claims as they had little ground to stand on. So they decided to take a whack at the administrative “problems” of the DP, such as race, innocents, and costs. We will only look into costs in this article to make it simpler.
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.
In protecting deceit of the people, the Chief justice has committed a frontal assault on the democratic process, smashing to smithereens his grandiloquent bromide disavowing Court vigilance regarding their alleged political choices.
Collateral damage has resulted from Chief Justice Roberts’ validation of ObamaCare’s assault on individual freedom, the economy, and the country. The comity and unity of the law’s opponents have been shattered, as they have been bitterly divided between his critics and defenders.
Because, in a sense, the broccoli example is a reductio ad absurdum ridiculing ObamaCare’s overreach, the Times, using typical media bias techniques, disingenuously attempts to ridicule this legitimate ridicule.
The New York Times recently ran a sarcastic 2,300-word front-page article denouncing the use of broccoli to illustrate why the ObamaCare individual mandate is unconstitutional. As the reasoning goes, if the government can force individuals to buy health insurance against their will, it can force them to buy anything, including broccoli.
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.
Dudley Sharp, contact info below Are death penalty opponents really concerned about innocents at risk? Of course. However, as innocents are more at risk without the death penalty, it is appropriate to challenge their understanding of that easily accessible fact.
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.
From the Thom Hartmann Show www.thomhartman.com
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.