Late-breaking: Supreme Court consideration delays illegal alien rapist/double murderer’s execution; Update: No reprieve; executed
Update: Good riddance.
Update: Phew..Just in…”The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Mexican-born condemned prisoner Jose Medellin’s request for a reprieve. The court denied the request late Tuesday, more than three hours after Medellin’s execution was to take place. The death warrant remains in effect until midnight CDT.”
***
Original post 10:27pm Eastern…
After backing the sovereignty of the state of Texas and rejecting international meddling, the US Supreme Court’s consideration of a last-ditch appeal has put illegal alien rapist/double murderer Jose Medellin’s scheduled execution tonight on hold.
Reader Sean O’Brien clarifies: “Texas chose to wait for the Supreme Court to actually rule–it could have, in the absence of a stay, carried out the execution.”
Stay tuned for late-breaking developments.
Blood pressure alert squared:
Injecting last-minute uncertainty into a case that has garnered international attention, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a late-hour appeal by Texas death row inmate Jose Ernesto Medellin on Tuesday night, disrupting the timetable for his scheduled execution in the 1993 rape and murder of two Houston teenagers.
The 33-year-old Mexican national, the center of an international dispute over U.S. treaty obligations, was scheduled to die by injection shortly after 6 p.m. Texas time. But the execution remained on hold nearly two hours later as justices considered his request for reprieve.
“We’re waiting for a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court,” said prison spokeswoman Michelle Lyons in explaining the delay.
The case became entangled in international politics over Medellin’s assertion that he was denied his right to contact the Mexican consulate after his arrest. Under a 1963 treaty signed by the United States and 165 other countries, citizens from any of the participating nations are entitled to contact a consular official “without delay” if they are arrested overseas.
An unlikely cast of legal allies, including the Bush administration and much of the world’s diplomatic community, embraced Medellin’s position, warning that the United States will be accused of violating the treaty if Medellin is executed without a hearing on his consular access claim. The case pitted President Bush against his home state of Texas.
Medellin and five other members of a gang called the Black and Whites were convicted of raping and killing Jennifer Lee Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, after the two girls stumbled into a gang initiation while hurrying home from a party.
Witnesses said Medellin later bragged about the assault and described using a shoelace to strangle one of the girls because he didn’t have a gun. Medellin, then 19, also “put his foot on her throat because she would not die,” according to a state legal brief.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Is The United States Officially Dead…Jose Ernesto Medellin is Still Alive «
- Jose Medellin’s Last Minute Appeal DENIED by Macsmind - Official Blog of the MacRanger Radio Show on Blog Talk Radio
- Webloggin » Thank God for Texas
- Four Supreme Court Justices endanger ALL Americans | The TIW Blog
- Tel-Chai Nation
- CHILD MURDERER EXECUTED & Other ILLEGAL ALIENS Go on Rape Spree « Reportanddeport
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Mexico thinks we’re too hard on their biggest illegal export, (Sociatal Rejects)
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Open Borders Lobby
Patterico
» Why We Need to Link Andrew Sullivan
JustOneMinute
» Seeing Is Not BelievingJustOneMinute
» Sweetheart DealDavid Frum
» An Exchange on ElitismStop The ACLU
» One Party’s Trash Is Another Party’s Treasure: McCain Camp Rescues Flags Thrown in Trash From DNCPower Line
» The Bounce, Cont.Stop The ACLU
» NY Times: Sarah Palin *GULP* Believes In God!Confederate Yankee
» Obama Slips, Admits He'd Favor A Gun Ban
I wonder if ol’ Jose had a little tear running down his cheek when the needle went in. I wonder if he wanted to cry for mama and papa.
I believe the blood thirsty ones were Jose and his cohorts, fecal matter all. No amount of liberal hand wringing can justify what he did to these girls. No amount of Kumbaya or “he is a human being” (while I disagree) will ever hide the fact that he raped, tortured, and murdered two innocent girls for fun. Spare me.
So this cretin died a nice peaceful death, like putting a rabid dog to sleep, rather than the torture he so rightly deserved. Bye bye Jose, you mother *&^$%#!!
Do you think we have never executed an innocent person? That is not snark. That is a legitimate question.
Indeed, there was a huge difference. I’m not suggesting that an innocent man was killed here. In fact I think the biggest miscarriage of justice here was that we had government officials siding with the thrice-damned world court over the US Constitution.
I merely cite Nifong as an example of what can and all too often does happen in our justice system. We’ve all seen how the “war on drugs” and other political pressures drive cops & prosecutors to unethical extremes. I’m uncomfortable with them having the death penalty in their arsenal.
It’s because the defendants had money and other resources that they were cleared. If that was me or you we’d probably be in a cell right now.
So just to clarify: it’s not that I think capital punishment is immoral or unjust. Quite the contrary. My only issue is that I don’t trust the government to use it fairly and responsibly.
The only real argument here is whether the defendent was denied a right under a treaty obligation. It is my understanding that he did not request to meet with Mexican officials when he was arrested or tried. The issue was not brought up at trial. It was very late into the appeals process that lawyers figured out that this was an opportunity to derail the sentance.
Whether the death penalty is a deterrent to crime remains uncertain. What is certain is that no one who has been executed has ever committed another crime.
Chap,
Here’s what I think…
chapoutier: After 9,999 appeals, the chances are slim.
I suppose one argument, biblically, could be argued as “an eye for eye”.
Seems fair here, belief in religion or not.
I would post though, that Medellin went through years of the legal process. Granted, government screws things up, but its not like he was given 1 trial on a shoestring budget and then executed. He went thru this process since 1993. He was fairly tried by a jury of his peers, sentenced, appealed a number of times, and finally made to face punishment.
but still…
15 years that the family of those murdered children didn’t receive justice or solace.
I would think after such a span of time, that all the checking and rechecking would have availed something. But he was guilty. you know it. i know it. he admitted it.
Its just another piece of scum no longer wasting tax dollars or putting out CO2 into the atmosphere.
Legitimately, I havent seen an instance where this is the case. If i’m wrong, i’d stand corrected.
#103 There is NO treaty obligations!
Contitution Trumps Treaties PERIOD!
I know I’m not the first one to point this out but that comparison is just absurd beyond parody.
Texas executed a multiple rapist/murder after more than fifteen years of court proceedings. Iran and Saudi Arabia kill women for committing adultery and homosexuals for breathing. China executes people for praying or, in some cases, just for being born.
One of the easiest ways to lose an argument is to resort to such ridiculous rhetorical overkill. Only people who are out of facts and reason do that.
Oh yes. I’ll say it one more time just for emphasis: I will not lose one single moment of sleep over this guy. I have no gnawing fear that we’ve executed an innocent
manperson. And I think that peacefully drifting off to sleep is far too merciful a fate for this guy.Those comments also go for Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and probably a bunch of other guys I could think of if I set my mind to it.
My death penalty objections are general, and they’re rooted in mistrust of the government, not in concern for the well being of felons.
Understood
chap said:
I concede your point, and I am also sure that guilty individuals have also been released in many different ways, some to even commit murder again.
As a just society, I believe that it is our responsibility to do the best we can with our deliberate system of justice. Including: praising the system when it works, punishing the administrators who abuse it (like Mike Nifong) and refraining from holding up the most egregious cases, like Jose Medellin and Stanley “Tookie” Williams, as poster children for “peace and justice” and “human rights.”
You kill someone down here in Texas and we’ll kill you back.
.
Please show me how what I said conflicts with your quotes from EV?
And, before you start throwing names about, I recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 2265-2267.
We have to ensue that trials remain open to the public and investigations are open to review. Journalists like Michelle actually provide a good line of defense against railroading and corruption.
At the risk of injecting religion (back) into this thread I wanted to say this:
It’s strange to me that so many of my fellow atheists are liberal on the death penalty.
It is my contention that since I believe there is no justice in an afterlife, (being as how I don’t believe in an afterlife at all) then ultimate justice must be handed down by man, not God. Furthermore, it seems to me, that ending this man’s life was more “humane” then allowing him to languish in jail. Also, it is certainly better that he is no longer alive for all decent people concerned.
Many anti-death penalty types make the argument that life in prison will also keep a person like this from killing again. This is just not true. What about the other inmates sharing a prison with this animal, (that may be imprisoned for something especially less heinous) what about the guards?
As far the argument that the state shouldn’t be allowed to kill people: well, what about warfare? The state DOES decide to kill based on protecting its citizens from foreign bad guys, why can’t it decide to kill domestic bad guys?
Good riddance.
The best thing about this story is that Texas delayed the execution while waiting for the SCOTUS decision. The scum sat in his cell sweating it out for a few hours. I wonder if he felt as much fear as his victims did during that time?
Someone mentioned Iran as comparable to the U.S., well when the U.S. starts hanging 16 year olds accused of homosexuality, maybe then we can debate.
Honestly, dude, are you serious? Seriously? There is something wrong with you.
James Felix:
Thanks for saving me the time from typing. Good points on the problems with our criminal justice system.
Well 30pcs, what say you when your fellow pro-death hardliners talk about streamlining the appeals process for swifter justice. I think, most people would be appalled if an innocent was mistakenly put to death. Thank goodness we have a substantial, and long postconviction process to look for errors in the trial. If the pro-death crowd wants justice to be fast and swift like Purplepeep described above, you are more likely to see an innocent put to death.
I live in Florida. Feel free to do some research on how many death row exonerations we’ve had since 1976. Unlike like you, I don’t support the death penalty, for many of the reasons described by James Felix. At least you see why the appeals process is so long and thorough. More people need to be pro justice, as opposed to simply pro death. Some may call me a liberal, girly, pinko, for feeling that life in maximum security, 23hrs a day is sufficient state administered punishment for anything. However, anyone who would want to callously risk putting somebody to death for a crime they didn’t commit, just to speed things up, is a special kind of sicko.
Yes, this dead a-hole appears to be guilty, but exonerations do happen every year, particularly with updated DNA testing. Thank goodness things aren’t sped up too fast.
Gabe,
looks like you need to start studying a little harder.
link
And
Link
Are you saying that our modern society does not have the means to protect us from convicted killers?
Link
I pray that you read beyond the catch phrases and myth that the death penalty is supported by the Catholic Church. As it seems that you are studying, dive deep into the teachings and word to understand the true meaning of the value of protecting human life.
Many who are against legalized abortion are at the same time support capital punishment. This is an inconsistency and an unacceptable contradiction. To me it seems that your position is no different than that of a Pro-lifer advocating abortion as a woman’s right to choose.
What say you……? Sorry if there are more typos.
Must you go there???
Do you not see a distinction between a state objectively exacting punishment on a CRIMINAL vs. a mother/doctor/whomever taking an INNOCENT life via abortion?
As one of those who supports capital punishment and is ANTI-ABORTION, there is no such inconsistency (see above).
And MJ, this does not make me PRO-DEATH. Abortion proponents are decidedly PRO-DEATH. I am very much PRO JUSTICE, which means death when it is merited by the actions of the individual.
Next.
MtsEdge:
I think you may be taking me out of context. I’m talking about people who want the death penalty carried our superfast like the Wild West. They resent the appeals process. The same appeals process that has saved many wrongfully convicted people. These people don’t care about justice as much as death for the person whom they believe is guilty. If they turn out to be wrong, oh well, too late. If you are one of these people, you are just simply pro-death. If you understand why the process in so deliberate, I’ll concede and play with semantics and call you pro justice.
mockingbyrd
looks like #119 applies to you as well. This line makes your argument in support of the death penalty moot:
We have the means to prevent a killer from killing again. Once he/she is convicted, we can lock him/her up in a solitary cell and his interaction with society. This serves as justice for his/her and also conforms with the teachings and word of the Catechism
I believe my “fellow pro-death hardliners” have very good justification for why they believe what they do. Contrary to popular belief - this isn’t a knee-jerk reaction. I believe people on both sides weigh their positions carefully or at least they should, especially when life hangs in the balance. I just find it ironic that the same people who are “pro-death” when it comes to abortion, put up such a great fight to protect the lowest forms of humanity.
So, you don’t think that justice is served when someone is found guilty, appeals process has been exhausted and they are put to death? Sounds “pro-justice” to me.
I don’t agree with it. I just see it for what it is.
What of those who are released because of a technicality or such? Is justice served in those instances?
MJ,
I have no problem with the death penalty. I am pro justice first. Pro Death second.
I also believe that we do need a strong legal system that checks, and rechecks, and re-rechecks things, as much as there would be no doubt to the course of action taken.
My personal view of justice would be to give an equal measure of what was done to the victim back onto the offender. But that’s not the way it works. I have to settle for forfeiture of his life as payment for the destruction of 2 other lives.
I would once again point out though, that exonerated persons are not the ones already executed. I have not seen, to date, where an innocent man was executed. Again, if there is, i can stand corrected.
MJ, thanks for your response. But remember you used the phrase “pro justice”–I’m just citing your own phrase.
BTW, being “pro justice”, a term which I think is appropriate, is not playing with semantics, it’s the difference between anarchy and civilization.
Now that they’ve finally pulled the plug, send this guy’s corpse to Pelosky’s office; she just LOVES illegals!
Interesting point, but as an atheist and thus believing that this life is all we got, that leads me to believe that the risk (even if it is very small) of putting an innocent person to death has such a severe consequence that its should outweigh our desire to inflict death, especially when there is a reasonable alternative (life in prison), even if we as a society think that death may be more fitting a punishment in some cases.
you’re still going on about the risk of putting innocent people to death. an interseting spin you’re using in this regard…but again, for the 3 time…where have we done so? are not the checks and balances sufficient enough to prevent that, as its done already?
There is no case that I am aware of, admittedly. And certainly one could argue that every exoneration is just proof that the system actually does work. But considering how much new technology has exonerated many today, there is an almost certainty we have in the past.
Say hi to Satan, Jose.
Abstract:
I don’t think there is a definite example out there, so to speak. I’ve heard of a case out of Texas, but there’s no confirmation that I’m aware of. Thank goodness our system is so deliberate with the checks and re-checks to make sure that we are not killing an innocent person.
No 30pcs, I think you ought to re-read some of the threads where posters read about a horrible crime, and talk about, “hang em”, “Don’t waste time on this one”, “I’ll take care of em myself” yadayada. Some folks read about the horrorshow automatically assume the Indicted is guilty, and want em killed. I’m not saying all pro-death penalty people are like this.
I addressed this at the end of post #123. I’m anti-death penalty, but if the laws are followed, and the appellate process is properly exhausted, I’ll call it justice. Punishment I hate, but “justice” indeed.
Sorry I misread you on the issue. Again read up on death row exonerations. Read up on the actually innocent, if the “technicalities” concern you. Actually innocent people have been released from prison, including deathrow. These people are rescued because of the same appeals and postconviction process that you “don’t agree with”.
This is kind of loaded, and I don’t mean that as an insult. I think the word “technicality” is used lazily and as a catchall. We have rules of law, which are set in place to protect us all. We have rules of evidence in courts of law, and attorneys have to abide by ethical rules of conduct. Attorneys also have to follow certain standards of professional conduct to avoid being ineffective. These rules are in place to protect everyone our U.S Constitution affords protection. You wouldn’t want exceptions made if you or a loved one were accused of a crime. I’m sure you were happy that these same rules/laws protected those ole’ boys at Duke when Nifong tried to railroad them. You can’t seperate things out, play “God” and change these laws, rules and protections willy nilly based on what 30pcs or MJ thinks might have happen on the “day in question”.
I could at least grant that in days gone by, its possible. but using what we have no, its so unlikely as to not really be an issue, i believe.
I certainly dont want to put innocent people behind bars, or worse. I am all for the law working, sensibly, to ensure guilt, to determine the proper course, and to adjudicate things appropriately.
But I do believe that dealing with the worst types of offenders, such as Medellin, requires a punishment befitting of the crime.
*have now
-self correction-
And what is your opinion then, of the many instances where courts have disallowed the reopening of a case to allow DNA evidence?
Also, DNA is great, and certainly substantially decreases the chances of a wrongful conviction, but there are many instances when DNA is not available one way or the other. And of course, nothing, not even DNA, is infallible. To me the potential consequences are just too great for what I deem a relatively minor payoff in terms of what level of justice fits the crime.
Of course, I have never personally known a victim in such a case, so take my notion of what is relatively minor with the appropriate grain of salt.
MJ,
thats fair. And i’m absolutely good with things being exaustively checked out. i hate that it takes so long sometimes, but…i’d rather err on the side of caution.
I do, however, believe that because there are those who are obviously, self admittedly guilty, and have no remorse for their crime…that accelerating a process for those special cases wouldnt be detrimental to the cause of being just or fair. Using our friend here as an example, i dont think years of appeals were really necessary..but thats my humble opinion.
I can’t speak for everyone and I think it best to just switch gears and refer to only myself in response. However, after reading the way those two girls were murdered I find it very hard not to wish for this man’s death. I have very little sympathy for him. Justice was served, on that I think we can all agree.
There won’t be any need for that. I am well aware that exonerations take place. However, my point and what I don’t agree with is an endless stream of appeals. For 15 years Medellin held up the court system trying to get his case thrown out on, what I believe to be a technicality. He didn’t get to speak with the Mexican consulate; therefore, all of the evidence, his confession, etc. should be set aside and he should be set free. That is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And leads me to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the appeals process and it needs to be revamp. Good luck getting everyone to agree but I believe there should be a limit to the number of appeals a convict should have.
You are correct. I’m not looking for any exceptions. Again, justice was served and Medellin is no longer a pox on society. As someone else stated above. Next.
Chap,
As far as DNA evidence being excluded, it would have to be taken in the context of that specific case. If i were to generally answer that without a reference point, my first instinct would be to allow it. Again, better safe than sorry.
However, in the cases where i’ve read of it being excluded, it came across as being something that would not have changed the outcome. I could see, if i were a defense attorney, trying to find every possible explanation (true or not) to win…could be my experience with lawyers, but…i digress. Point is, all a lawyer needs is reasonable doubt. If there is a serious and reasonable doubt, and that there is evidence that could prove the accused was not the criminal, then i dont have issue with that. Again, I’d have to look at exact cases where that was taking place, and go from there.
Where there was DNA not available, to levy a death sentence would take a rather large amount of evidence i would think, esp since the appeals process is so long and exaustive. my 2 cents there.
Good to see justice done! There should be more, lots more of these cases. I am tired of manifest murderers being soft gloved by our justice system.
Burn in Hell Slowly.
“I have not seen, to date, where an innocent man was executed. Again, if there is, i can stand corrected.”
That reasoning reminds me of the old joke about the guy who pushed a wheelbarrow ful of cement everywhere he went, up and down NYC city streets. When asked why he was wasting so much time and energy doing so, he replied: “I do it because it keeps wild elephants away”. Someone pointed out to him that there are no elephants running wild in NYC and he answers “See! It works!!!”
Now for evil people like the ones who savagely murdered these two kids, I say we give them one night after conviction to prepare to meet their Maker Judge.
The next day you have a public hanging in the park with the citizens bringing picnic baskets to the big show. Used to be an excellent deterrent. A long life with free satellite-tv just doesn’t serve as well to discourage heinious murderers.
Even with DNA and massive mountains of evidence, it doesn’t matter. Think “OJ”. Jury nullification ignored and overruled every bit of fact and evidence.
chapoutier #129:
Well, I think that the appeals process is more than sufficient to manage this (incredibly small) risk. Further, I don’t think life in prison is reasonable especially when there is a risk (probably much greater than putting an innocent to death) that the bad guy could kill others (guards or other inmates) in prison.
The problem with this theory is that people have been and still are convicted without DNA evidence all the time. And, DNA, even when available, does not always prove guilt or innocence. It can certainly be compelling evidence of such.
Look I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate here and put forward every crazy scenario by which an innocent man could be tried, convicted, lose all appeals and then be executed. No doubt the vast majority are guilty of the crimes they are accused of. However, no doubt this would be of little comfort to those who are not. I have zero doubt that it has happened and the thought of it is really really unappealing to me. More unappealing than an absolutely brutal killer “only” getting a life sentence as opposed to death.
Dear Sausage,
I am intrigued by your comments and I would like you to give all of us your “sentence”, if you were the judge, for a murdering rapist. Its only fair to hear your remedy to this situation.
But what you’re saying the problem is with that theory is also the rebuttal to your statement
People are convicted of crimes without DNA evidence, and rightly so. They go thru the same appeals process as everyone else. DNA can be incredibly compelling, but it isnt the end all-be all of the legal system. The other evidence, outside of DNA, can and does establish guilt and innocence. thats how it was before DNA was brought into the courtroom, and will continue to do so long after we’re all gone.
And perhaps innocent people have been put to death. But in living memory, we’ve all agreed to this point that we have no examples of that being the case. One possibly, but even that’s iffy at best. Executing innocent people is abhorant to me as well, but that doesnt deter me from pursuing death against those who deserve it. If we were still doing things like it was the 17th Century, then i could conceivably agree with the mistake angle, but…with the process in place, we’ve managed to avoid that issue.
His cousin, Reyna Armendariz, in Neuvo Laredo said of the execution “Only God has the right to take a life.”
I wonder what he thought of Medellin’s the rape and murder of two innocent girls walking home on a summer’s night?
I guess that was ok with her.
Or perhaps as another poster above so aptly pointed out maybe his cousin thought Jose was God because Jose certainly took the lives of two people. The difference is he took the lives of two innocent little girls. We as society took the life of a monsterous murderer and rapist. Not even a fair representation of justice, he deserved worse.
On August 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm,
Oooh, oooh, me, me.
SuperMax prison. All child rapists(13 and under) and what we today call capital murderers should be sent to prison with no possibility for parole. This should be a maximum security prison where the prisoner sits in a small cell with no access to television. They should be provided certain reading materials. They should not be allowed any visitors outside of those needed for legal matters. These prisoners should remain in the cells 23 hours a day, and never have any personal contact with fellow inmates. Their one hour a day of rec time will be in an outdoor cage, where they are only allowed to be in the presence of armed guards. The inmate should not be provided any exercise equiptment. They are permitted 3 showers per week. If you are worried about your tax dollars, do some research about how much it costs to take an inmate from arrest to execution today. We have already discussed why the exhaustive, deliberate appeals and postconviction process is necessary to achieve justice.
Of course, if one of these inmates is later exonerated, the state should provide millions of dollars in reparations. The inmate should also be offered state sponsored psychiatric treatment, and reintegration training. He should be provided free eduation in any state university. At least he’ll be alive.
I’m a big fan of the SuperMax prison concept. It’s funny that I’m dicussing this issue. Over the weekend, I got in a debate with my sister who happens to be entirely pro-death penalty, even for child molesters. However, she thinks the SuperMax prison are psychologically cold and callous to the point of being cruel and unusual. Different takes for different folks I guess.
Great that this pos will be pushing up daisies.
My next POS to be executed would be Abu Mamia for the murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.
GSP
MJ, I realize you’re a defense attorney, but again I must ask, why? Why is it necessary to keep a person in prison forever to pay the penalty for taking a life? Prison is for crimes for which there is a finite end to the penalty. When a person is murdered, the only end that is reasonable is death to their murderer. Not vindictiveness, not gleeful rejoicing, either, just an objective penalty that must be exacted by the state, and paid by the perp.
One problem with that, MSJustice, is the wont of liberal judges to jump in with their own versions of “no possibility for parole” e.g. 6 months with no satellite TV between 4-6 AM.
The other problem, even if that weren’t so - how can you justify putting an innocent person behind bars for the rest of his/her life? (That’s if your basis is to protect the innocent.)
I think there you’re unknowingly making the case for swift punishment, MsJ. Time is money, to coin a phrase.
One problem with that, MSJustice, is the wont of liberal judges to jump in with their own versions of “no possibility for parole” e.g. 6 months with no satellite TV between 4-6 AM.
The other problem, even if that weren’t so - how can you justify putting an innocent person behind bars for the rest of his/her life? (That’s if your basis is to protect the innocent.)
I think there you’re unknowingly making the case for swift punishment, MsJ. Time is money, to coin a phrase.
Arghh! Browser’s acting up and double-posting again! Excuse moi.
Arghh! Browser’s acting up and double-posting again! Excuse moi.
MtsEdge #152:
I just see your question as rhetorical. I really can’t explain my views better than I have in prior posts.
Think of all that prison causes you to suffer. There’s no family, no sex(unless….), no freedoms to do all of the things that we take for granted every day. You are surrounded by danger, and oppression. If you are in maximum security you are deprived of any sense of humanity.
Why allow a prisoner who commits an act as horrific as Medallin to escape this fate? After his appeals are used up, he’s provided the satisfaction that thousands have fought and cried for his life. He’s provided the last meal of his choosing. A member of the clergy counsels him to help his soul prepare for the afterlife. Then he’s gently put to sleep in the most humane fashion known to man so that he can escape his crap of a life. Last, he’s provided an opportunity to have eternal salvation if you believe what I described in #12.
It all depends on how you frame it. I respect you opinion, but we just disagree on this matter.
Purplepeep:
Life without parole means exactly that. I think you are worried about cases where a defendant is granted life with parole. Life without parole is the alternative to capital punishment, and means exactly what it says. In my post #150, I explained why life in prison protects the actually innocent inmate better than the death penalty. I believe the point is quite obvious. What’s worse Purplepeep, an innocent person behind bars, or an innocent person strapped to a table ready for the state to kill him?
I’ve discussed the problems with swift justice in numerous posts. I like you Purplepeep, but you’ve offended me on this thread with your disregard for the possiblity for killing innocent people. I’m sure I have offended you at times on this blog also. Even other conservative posters have discussed how our deliberate process has led to exonerations. I don’t understand you here. Your picnic hanging scenario was particularly gross, and doesn’t reflect the type of America most people would want to live in. I’m sure you don’t have any evidence that expedited public hangings would do anything to make us safer as a nation. I can’t debate you on this thread Purplepeep, because we’re simply too far apart. As always I hope you have a very pleasant day.
MJ, thank you for elaborating. But the place where I think we differ is that, while life in prison may not be ideal, it is still LIFE. The perp is still breathing, and thinking, and BEING every day.
You’re right, we simply don’t see eye to eye on this one.
And I think that this is exactly why I come down on the anti-death penalty side. God forbid our system makes a mistake. At least there is SOME life left and some ability to right the wrong.
The problem with that, MsJustice, is that in even in heinious cases like the one here everone jumps into the legal fray to change the already adjudicated outcome. Even the Euro-weenies tried to muscle into something that’s none of their business. So there’s just no sure thing given the way the system (mal)functions today.
And there are many more problems in just the scenerio you gave:
As the system is today, that would be quite quickly and easily shot down as “cruel and unusual punishment” before you could say “Chuck Manson”. We can’t even get by with much less harder treatment of captured terrorists who are sworn to destroy the whole country.
More problems:
Why would being raped at 13 years and one week of age be more acceptable than it would have been less than two weeks before?
And although we’re all quite admittedly extremely hardpressed to come up with instances of stone cold killers being mistakenly executed, girls who have falsely cried rape is not such a rare phenom.
The key: underlying and undermining your argument is the the incorrect belief that no proof is enough.
You asked:
I think wrongly consigning a person to die in prison in the conditions you detailed is 6 of one/half dozen of the other, MsJ. Although your scenerio is arguably much less humane as it cruely drags out and prolongs human suffering until death. I fail to see your version of a death penalty as more humane.
I’d like to take credit for it but it’s not original - it used to be the way things were done. It enabled children to play safely and families to leave their doors unlocked at night. And, yes, folks did take picnics along and made a day of it. Not only was a evil person removed from their community, it served as a very visual lesson to others. And children saw the end of the evil one who felt he could rape, torture and brutally murder one of their playmates with impunity.
When vicious criminals know they cannot avoid certain and very swift consequences for their tremendous evil deeds they’re not as eager to commit them. The community is assured that justice is being done and the law is taking care of them - they are not at the mercy of cocky murderers who will game the system as much as they wish.
Your supposed to debate folks who are apart, MsJustice. It’s kinda hard to debate folks who agree with ya!
What’s telling on this whole matter is that while you will find memorial pages for children who are the victims of rape, torture and murder, you’ll find the aforementioned Manson is running his own homepage. He’s happy as the proverbial clam. That alone should speak quite loudly that somethin’ ain’t right with the (in)justice system.
Chap, I’ll grant you that. No one wants to see an innocent person put to death. But when you weigh the extremely remote possibility that an innocent person is put to death by the state, versus the thousands of innocent victims who are murdered each year in this country alone, the stats are on the side of the death penalty. Not executing 99.99% of murderers in order to prevent the accidental death of .01% (give or take a few thousandths of a percent) means that you’re ignoring the fate of the victims who died at the hands of these perps. Not only weren’t their lives spared, but if a murderer isn’t executed, he/she is free to do it again, just as soon as they can (whether they’re in prison or not).
No, it doesn’t. These people are being punished. Maybe not exactly like how some would want, but punished nonetheless.
Certainly someone that is alive (whether in prison or not) is more likely to murder someone than a person who is dead. But our justice system does not punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. Or at least it shouldn’t. And in any case, the chances of that happening are super low, so we should probably err on the side of the most likely, right?
Convicted and not executed murderes have…
1) Been parolled and murdered again.
2) Escaped and murdered again.
3) Murdered while in prison.
A live, unexecuted murderers get to eat meals, watch TV, talk to family, and live… all thing they denied their victims.
Super low? The innocent victims of these non-executed murderers would disagree.
3 hots and a cot, workouts in the gym, TV, cards, etc., doesn’t sound like much of a punishment to me. If the only reason these people are being housed by the state vs. executed is to prevent the tiniest fraction of them from being wrongfully put to death (as discussed earlier that possibility is even more remote nowadays), then the system has failed. Justice has not been served. The punishment has not fit the crime.
I didn’t say that it did. But what does that mean? Please explain. Is that simply “eye for an eye”? And if so, should every single person that has ever killed someone be put to death?
No, as there are various kinds of murder, from involuntary manslaughter to 1st degree of capital murder. And in recent years, the list of crimes for which the death penalty is applicable as been decreasing. Just killing someone is not enought. It has to be premediated, particularly heinous, involve more than one victim, etc.
There are murderers that can and will see the free light of day again. But others that should not. That small percentage are the ones being discussed here, and the ones that deserve the ultimate punishment.
Agreed.
The concept of whether one “deserves” an ultimate punishment is a different one from whether we as a society and as a justice system are able to carry that out in an infallible, fair manner.
As the most reviewed, retried, and appealed sentence in all of legality, I’d say the death penalty is the most fair punishment of all.
And infallibility is a lofty goal, but not in the perview of the legal system. Do you stay at home in bed until there is a 100% chance you will arrive at work alive? If we seek perfecting in sentencing, in any case, there would be no convictions. Only proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nice try at introducing a foreign concept into the discussion, but that strawman won’t hunt!
Conviction and form of punishment are not the same thing.
We can never have infallibility in conviction. I am glad you concede that. Now, accepting that and considering that the death penalty is the only truly irreversible punishment, I don’t think it too radical to ask that it be taken off the table.
First, the death penalty is not the only truly irreversible punishment. Can you give a man back the 25 years of his life you took with a wrongful conviction? Can you let him see his children grow up in a happy home, instead of getting in fights at school all the time because “NaNaNaNa, your daddy’s in prison!!!”???
The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, reserved for only those heinous crimes deserving of it. And it is far too radical an idea that it be abolished, simple because you want 100% certainty that it is right.
A heck of a lot more than you can ressurect a dead man.
And ultimately, this is where I disagree.
Then you have a very high and totally undeserved opinion of yourself.
BTW, got a name for this innocent that has been executed, Chap?
Wow, I see that a lot has been covered here since 6:30 PM last.
Recognizing the futility of butting into any one conversation so late in the game, I still feel compelled to comment on my ceaseless fascination with the many arguments that have been made on both recent threads regarding abortion and capital punishment:
-Comments made by those who defend life, all the way from a “zygote” to a detestable rapist and destroyer of little, innocent girls.
-Comments made by those who are willing to terminate life for many different reasons…again, from a “zygote” to a detestable rapist and destroyer of little, innocent girls.
-Comments excruciatingly made by those who are willing to terminate life in the womb for many different reasons, but who feel compelled to defend those who face capital punishment, even after an arduous trail of due process and appeal.
-Comments, IMHO, thoughtfully made by those who defend innocent life in the womb, but who cannot extend the same privilege to those found guilty, rightfully or wrongly, of some of the most heinous crimes heaped upon society.
-Comments prematurely ejaculated by pimply-faced, high-voiced agitators like Rob and Steve456, from behind their Charles Atlas Excercise Manuals and Ho-Ho wrappers. (By the way Steve456, I thought that I can get emotional on a thread or two…but you are one creepy dude, dude. If I was Andy Dufresne, I wouldn’t want to bump into you and the “sisters” at Shawshank.)
Perhaps the strongest reflection I impart with, after reading y’all tonight, is something equidistant between free will and the knawing awareness of something greater than myself. I can’t help thinking that this entire ball of wax is something akin to an open book, final exam:
-Some of us choose to transcribe the entire open book onto the test paper, for fear that anything less than perfect adherence isn’t passable.
-Some of us complete our test answers by interpreting the book to the best of our abilities, but mostly relying on our better judgements.
-Some of us reject the book outright, feeling that we alone have all the right answers.
Give the textbook any cover you want, and pick the exam method that you are most comfortable with. But be honest. Before you fall asleep…you know you’re thinking about that report card that will eventually be showing up in your mailbox someday.
Chap, this is where you lose me. You are passionately defending not destroying the life of someone who has been tried, convicted, been through the appeals process, and now awaits their penalty FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
However, on the other thread, you are unwilling to protect the life in the womb b/c you’re not sure when life begins. We both know that abortion is also irreversible, and at least one person dies each time an abortion is successful. A totally INNOCENT child/fetus/zygote whatever you wish to term it. One dead, one wounded every time.
BrianNY,
I think the point has been made several times that the difference is between killing an innocent in the womb versus exacting justice on someone because of their ACTIONS. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. All life is sacred, but sometimes the things we do while on this earth warrant that we lose that privilege. It’s not a pleasant idea, but a civilized one, and dependent on the individual’s own choices, not the whims of others.
Before I get flamed for that last statement, I must remind you that not one person has identified an innocent person who has been executed, esp. in recent years. Yet over 50 million lives have been snuffed out in this country, a whole generation of citizens is gone, merely for the “crime” of being inconvenient or unwanted.
BrianNY,
Without question. Excellent post!
A statement from Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department said it was “concerned for the precedent that (the execution) may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country.”
May-be the Mexican government should warn illegal imigrants that thing like this happen when you go to a foreign country to rape and murder their citizens.