Dead Already

Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009, at 1:32 AM

One of the great debates that Liberals and Conservatives have is the death penalty.

I am puzzled by liberals that show up to protest anytime a death penalty sentence is carried out. It is amazing that the convicted murderer is so important to the left, while millions upon millions of truly innocent murder victims, babies, have been slaughtered under a liberal banner of personal freedom.

Okay liberals, explain how that works. Defend your liberalism for a change, instead of just whining about how mean we conservatives are.

Case 1: Robert Glen Coe of Tennessee. CONFESSED in horrid details how he kidnapped an eight year old girl from in front of her church, then raped and brutality murdered her. He even confessed to how the little girl told him about Jesus right before he cut her throat.

Robert Glen Coe spent nineteen years on death row. Why? Because of goofy liberals and their goofy laws that's why. Liberals try and say that they are concerned that the State my accidentally kill an innocent person, that is why they are against the death penalty. That puny argument doesn't hold water, or you would find liberals protesting the daily execution of three thousand innocent kids in America.

You can go on-line and see that most death row inmates are on death row for up to two or three decades, when they should be DEAD ALREADY.

Robert Glen Coe, confessed on Sept 4th, 1979 to this awful crime, and a court convicted him in May 1981. He should have been taken out back and shot. Why take almost twenty years to carry out this sentence? Liberalism is why. Spend millions of dollars of taxpayers money in legal fees, and court time, and millions for incarceration, that is the liberal way. Appeal after appeal after appeal, and then appeal again.

Okay you libs, go for it. Don't whine, don't cry foul, just explain how this type of liberal nonsense is good policy.

Case #2: This is a tough one to talk about because this case is so hideous, but necessary to show how destructive and silly liberalism is. This case revolves around the abduction, brutal gang rapes, torture and murders of two Texas girls, Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jenny Ertman, 14.

Five teen boys, Black, White and Hispanic committed the crimes on June 24th, 1993. I could go into detail about how unbelievably horrible these crimes were, and how brutal these teenage killers were, however, this is a family newspaper, so I will not. I plead with you to go to www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.htm... and you can read for yourself of the incredible brutality that was visited upon these two young girls by these five killers. One thing I will tell you about the murder of Jenny Ertman is this. Two boys wrapped a belt around her neck, and they each grabbed and end of the belt, and pulled until the belt snapped. This occurred after they had raped and tortured Jenny for hours.

It came out in the trial, that little Jenny, actually had the chance to get away when the teenagers first tried to grab the girls off a street in Houston. Jenny heard her friend scream for help, and went back to try and help Elizabeth. These were good girls, brutalized in a way that would make Nazis cringe, and yet liberals fight to keep three of these killers alive.

Two of the killers have been put to death for this crime, as they should have been, but three have not, and most likely never will. Why? Liberalism. The Supreme Court, awash in liberals at the time, voted that people who murdered when they were under the age of eighteen, could not get the death penalty.

Go figure. To liberals, keeping killers alive in jail for sixty years, at incredible emotional cost to the victims families, and the high monetary costs to you and I, makes sense somehow. These crimes were committed over sixteen years ago, these killers should be DEAD ALREADY.

Okay libs, explain the wisdom. Stop with the petty defenses, and explain to us all why these killers should be cared for by society for sixty or seventy years at a huge cost to the families and the taxpayer.

Why does the Green River Killer, who murdered over forty women, be kept alive at taxpayers expense in Washington State? He confessed, the State has proof, the creep killed dozens of people! The Green River killer should be DEAD ALREADY.

Case #3: A killer in Colorado, Robert Harlan, was sentenced to death for the 1993 kidnapping, rape and murder of a Denver waitress, and the shooting of a passerby who tried to help. The passerby remains paralyzed today. A bunch of liberal Judges, threw out the Death Penalty, and get this, because a couple of Jurors used the Bible as a reason to sentence this killer to death. The crime occurred over sixteen years ago, Robert Harlan, a man with a history of brutal rapes, should be DEAD ALREADY.

Various liberal groups who fight the death penalty are delighted about Mr. Harlan.

Liberals, and you wonder why I fight them?

In many States with the Death Penalty, it is really a joke. Death by old age is more likely. Liberals, and liberalism is responsible for polluting our justice system.

Since you libs place so much value on every word uttered by college professors, let me quote one.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murderers, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Hebrews 10:30. For we know Him who said, "Vengence is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."

I wouldn't argue with the Big Guy if I were you Sam. Have a wonderful day!

-- Posted by fred2 on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, at 8:19 AM

An overwhelming amount of evidence is required in order to justify the death penalty in any state. There is no doubt in my mind that these people are quilty. I have worked death row, I have sat down and had converstaions with all of the current death row inmates in this state, these inmates laugh at the legal system in this state. Several of these inmates have been on death row since the 1970's and early 1980's. They have all filed appeal after appeal to avoid taking the ride on old sparky. Most of them do not deny the crime, they just appeal the method of execution. Lawyers have made fortunes, and tax payers have lost fortunes because of these appeals, and because some bleeding heart politician is afraid the old sparky might cause a convicted killer a few second of pain. A convicted killer that caused his victims and families hours and years of pain. The entire issue is a waste of time and taxpayer money. I have said before that the fact that such a punishment is necessary makes my heart heavy, but the reality is what it is. If there is enough evidence, or a confession that would justify the death penalty, the sentence needs to be carried out swiftly. There is no point in allowing more than 2 appeals. I am not at all concerned about the method of execution either. I think they should continue to use the electric chair, electricity is a pretty good deterrant. I worked at a correction facility that had a lethal fence for a few years, nobody even tried to challenge the fence.

It costs approximately 41K per year, per inmate to house a death row inmate, a couple of years ago the state of Nebraska even gave a death row inmate a triple by-pass at tax payer expense. That inmate died of natural causes last year. I would suggest that the people in favor of dragging this process out, or eliminating the death penalty completely, pay this expense. I would rather educate our children or pave a few roads. It only costs a couple grand to flip the switch on old sparky and lite em up.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, at 10:29 AM

I agree with seentoomuch "Lite em up"!!!!!!!

-- Posted by orville on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, at 1:47 PM

Personally, I support an eye for an eye type of death penalty. Kill them the way they killed their victims.

-- Posted by npwinder on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, at 7:28 PM

I am aware of the opposition to the death penalty, and that much of it (but not all of it) comes from the left. But from the way people have been talking in these comments, you'd think every one of us liberals is vehemently anti-capital punishment. Well, I'm not. And neither is a single one of my 'liberal' friends. We all believe that in cases where the crime is heinous and the verdict can be certain (such as cases with video evidence, or confessions that have not been forced through intimidation) that it is acceptable punishment. We believe that the death penalty should never be taken lightly, and that it's execution should only be permissible for the absolute worst offenders, who are guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

But then again, maybe we're the exception. Maybe the 'liberals' I associate with and myself are the exception to the rule. How about we take a look at a more prominent liberals. Say, the three main contenders for the presidential nomination of the democratic party in 2008. Obama, Clinton, Edwards. All of them support the death penalty for the worst offenders.

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

But maybe they're exceptions too. I mean, all liberals are against the death penalty, aren't they? Let's look at the 2008 democratic national platform. Surely it outlines our master plot to eliminate capital punishment once and for all.

"We believe that the death penalty must not be arbitrary. DNA testing should be used in all appropriate circumstances, defendants should have the effective assistance of counsel in all death row cases, and thorough post-conviction reviews should be available."

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/...

Darn, I guess it's NOT in there.

(In fact, over half of "self-described liberals" are in favor of the death penalty. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-p...

But I guess we can still complain about the "thorough post-conviction reviews". The convicted should just be "taken out back and shot" just like Sam put it, right? "Lite 'em up!!!" right? There is no need for them to sit in jail, eating up all of our tax dollars. It's not like any of them were falsely convicted. That is, except for the 173 death row inmates (since 1973) who WERE falsely convicted and had their convictions overturned or were pardoned by the governor because of new evidence. The average amount of time each one of those men spent on death row? 9.5 years. I suppose that we're lucky we didn't just take them out back and shoot them right away. Maybe it was worth the burden on the taxpayer to save their lives from an unjust fate. Sorry if we want to spend some extra money to be ABSOLUTELY sure someone is guilty before we kill them. I guess we're just crazy like that.

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocenc...

Also, the way the law currently exists, each state has the right to decide if it will allow or ban the death penalty. Aren't conservatives supposed to be all about state's rights? Or is that only for issues on the "right" side of the aisle?

I also feel that it is important to (again) point out that liberals don't believe that abortion is murder. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that it's murder (and even have the right to call us murderers). But to insinuate that liberals are pro-choice AND ALSO believe abortion is murder is intellectually dishonest. If we believed abortion was murder, we'd be pro-life.

And not to change the subject too much. But I'm noticing alot of outrage about how much we are spending to keep these men imprisoned. Can we maybe apply some of this outrage to the $1+ billion a year we spend to keep stoners imprisoned. 1 out of 8 drug prisoners are locked up for marijuana abuse. I don't smoke it, and don't intend to (even if it's legalized), but I don't want to spend that much money to keep people in jail who essentially just get the munchies and pass out on their friends couch. I don't feel safer that they're off the street, just poorer. Of course, I'm not 'outraged' by that, but maybe you fiscal conservatives can be outraged for me.

Source: DOJ statistics via http://www.alternet.org/rights/47815/

-- Posted by jhat on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, at 10:45 PM

Fred - I am not taking vengeance, if the state or government is carrying out the sentence of a duly convicted murderer.

Now, if a murderer kills a family member of mine, and I went and killed him, that would be vengeance.

I agree that I do not want to be on the wrong side of "the big guy".

Jhat - bro - when is the last time you have actually held a newborn in your hands? My youngest daughter, ( a high school English Teacher ) is eight months along, and we can all see the baby move, kick, turn, etc.

When Dr George Tiller, the baby killer, in Kansas, aborts a baby eight months along, are you still going to tell me that Dr. Tiller did not just kill a baby? C'mon now, that baby is not alive? That is your position? If it is, you may be in denial.

Is it your position Jhat that Scott Peterson only killed one person when he murdered his pregnant wife Lacy? He was convicted of two murders.

Friends, we get into this kind of an argument allot. I say liberals do this and that, and you liberals point to exceptions, and indicate that you may be the exception.

What I point out is the CULTURE of liberalism, and when you vote for, and support liberals, you support and put into power...liberalism. So, even if you personally disagree with some points of the liberal agenda, by supporting liberals, you contribute to the culture of liberalism.

I do not see how you can divorce yourself from the actions of those you support and put into office. You liberals certainly had no problem wrapping every single move that George W Bush made around the necks of conservatives, even though we conservatives felt Bush was wrong in many areas, and was not really a conservative, but a moderate...at best.

How can you have it both ways?

When I talked about Robert Glen Coe and said he "should be taken out back and shot", the man had confessed, the man had been convicted. Time to put the killer down.

I certainly do not advocate that a man who protest his innocence, should not be given an appeal, even two appeals. Robert Glen Coe got five appeals, after a confession.

If a 17 year old can murder like an adult, then he can damn well die like one.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, at 2:39 AM

I might add that the overturned convictions of inmates on death row were mostly overturned by technicalities. I cant recall even 1 that was overturned by the introduction of new evidence that exonerated the defendant. Almost all of them were because of investigation errors rendering the evidence against them inadmissible. This does not mean they are not quilty, it just means that the police did not jump through all of the endless string of hoops required.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, at 7:54 AM

Sam,

First of all, congratulations on the grandson.

My mother works in a hospital. I have seen babies being born and held newborn babies. I have also expressed on this site in the past that I do not support (and the democrats don't support) late term abortions (that would include the abortion of an 8 month old fetus). The only time I would ever think they are acceptable is if the mother's life is in immediate jeopardy.

What I do support is a woman's right to choose to have an abortion when the fetus is undeveloped, and completely reliant on the mother for life.

Of course, these positions raise two important questions.

1) Who decides if the woman's life is in immediate jeopardy?

2) Who defines where life begins? Who decides the location of the 'magic line' that separates a cluster of cells from an unborn baby?

My answer to both of these questions is the same, NOT the government.

I think it is acceptable for them to draw for late term abortions, because the fetus can be viable and brought to term. However, in the place where there are shades of grey, the place between fetus and human life, I don't think the government should be making that decision.

I would personally never tell my girlfriend to get an abortion. And I would not counsel anyone to get an abortion (save for reasons of health). Were I a woman, I would never get an abortion.

But I also don't think it's the government's job to decide on this issue for people. It's their own decision to make, be it right or wrong. It's between a woman, her doctor, and any god she chooses to pray to.

As for "wrapping every single move Bush made around conservatives". I did not do that. However, many of the things he did that I criticized were supported wholeheartedly by the republican congress. These are the legislators that conservatives have elected to represent them in congress. So for those actions, I feel justified "wrapping it around the necks" of conservatives in general (though certainly not all conservatives).

But for the actions he has taken himself, I do not lay those at the feet of all conservatives. Just his administration and anyone who supported those actions (including many democrats).

I understand that the populace at large HAS laid the blame for Bush on all conservatives. And that's too bad. But, by the same logic, please don't wrap Obama's actions around the necks of all liberals. Many of us disagree with several of his policies and actions since he has become president.

"What I point out is the CULTURE of liberalism, and when you vote for, and support liberals, you support and put into power...liberalism. So, even if you personally disagree with some points of the liberal agenda, by supporting liberals, you contribute to the culture of liberalism."

But this is the dilemma of any man (conservative OR liberal) in a representative democracy. We cannot vote for anyone who stands for the EXACT same beliefs as ourself (unless we choose to run for office ourselves). So we pick the people who BEST represent what is most important to us.

I am happy to contribute to the "culture of liberalism". I certainly don't agree with every thing that all liberals represent (and would contend that no single liberal believes in what the whole of liberalism represents). But I generally agree with them more than conservatives. So I tend to vote for people who run on liberal platforms, because the reflect my beliefs better than the conservative candidate.

I also find it quite disturbing how many conservatives use the words 'liberal' and 'liberalism' as pejoratives. Saying them as if they are somehow insults. While it seems to me, most liberals use the term 'conservative' simply to describe one's political stance, and not as a thinly veiled insult. I certainly have never seen anyone call someone a 'conservative' as in insult, though I have seen 'liberal' used as an insult. But I suppose that's why they felt the need to re-brand themselves as 'progressives'.

seentoomuch,

I would point you to the site I referenced in my previous post. Go down that list and see how many people on it got off on 'technicalities'. Every one that I have looked at (haven't checked them all) was released because of new evidence supporting their innocence (including many cases where the real killer was found). I understand it's frustrating that there are so many 'hoops' in the justice system. But it's important to remember that they were not placed there arbitrarily. They were placed there to protect innocent men from being screwed by the system. Justice must be equitable for all men. And we know that we cannot simply trust everyone in our justice system to be fair and just. Those 'hoops' ensure that prosecutors, judges, cops, and detectives do not abuse the justice system due to their own personal biases.

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, at 9:11 AM

jhat,

Point taken, you are correct about the loop holes, and I think all of us get a little frustrated especially when we see a guilty person exploit those loop holes. Thank you for the reality check.

The overturned death penalty convictions I was talking about were only in Nebraska. I have personally talked to several inmates that got thier sentence overturned and reduced to life, based on investigation errors. I have no doubt that nation wide, there could be that many wrongly convicted. I can only speak of my own experience. I believe that the statistics that the public reads about the Nebraska DOC are very deceptive.

I think if there is no doubt of the condemned inmates guilt, there should be a limit on the amount of time that can be wasted before the sentence is carried out.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, at 11:47 AM

Seentomuch,

I absolutely agree. If there is no possible doubt about the verdict (and no impropriety on the part of police/prosecutors), the sentence should be carried out in a timely fashion. I believe that some states (at least Texas) have a law that does just that in cases with video evidence.

I understand the perspectives on both sides of this issue. Those who are against it, and those who are for it. Personally, I don't like it, but from a practical standpoint, I see why it's necessary for violent criminals who would otherwise be in prison for life.

And in the interest of reciprocity, I do admit that sometimes our justice system does have too many hoops that criminals can take advantage of. But I suppose that it's very difficult to find the balance between too many rules for the system, and not enough.

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, at 12:59 PM

Overturned by technicalities means LAWDOGS are feeding off of "TAX PAYERS MONEY" end of story.

-- Posted by orville on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, at 8:26 AM

Orville - right on Bro!

-- Posted by sameldridge on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, at 6:40 PM