Register now, it's free!
Log In | Customer Care

Thinking Right

Not Wrong. Not Left. Right. Common sense conservativism. Read Jim's biography.

What's on this page →

The entry titled "Life without parole? Option only a cop-out," and any of the comments about it.

My favorite sites

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

Life without parole? Option only a cop-out

By Jim Wooten | Monday, September 24, 2007, 09:38 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Conceded. No quarrel. No dispute. The death penalty is, as Sunday’s front-page headline blared, “still arbitrary.”

It’s still “arbitrary” in that those who deserve to be put to death aren’t.

Robert Dwight Foster of Covington is Exhibit A. He brutally murdered a 5-year-old girl, Tacara Judon, beating her to death with a steel lug wrench. Her 10-year-old brother, Ronald Porter, who slept in a separate bedroom, was severely injured. Both were attacked by Foster as they slept in their beds at their Clayton County home in February 2004.

After months of physical and mental rehabilitation, Ronald survived. But because of brain injuries, he requires special education classes.

Foster, who briefly dated their mother, took the tire iron to the sleeping children because he drove by their home near Jonesboro about 12:45 a.m. and saw another man’s vehicle in her driveway. At 12:48 a.m., a 911 dispatcher took a call from the home. “I tried to kill my girlfriend’s kids,” said the caller.

Foster will not suffer the capital punishment he so richly deserves.

Yes, a system that spares him while executing anybody is a system in need of repair.

The squishy-soft jury in Foster’s trial did something increasingly common, especially in urban areas such as Fulton and DeKalb counties, and rationalized the brutality as warranting no more than life without parole.

No murderer in DeKalb, the state’s third largest county, no matter how horrendous the crime, was sent to death row between 1995 and 2004. Fulton County, the state’s largest with a population in 2005 of 915,623, sent but two.

If you set out looking for discrimination in the application of the death penalty, as liberals customarily do, you find it right there. In just under a decade, among a combined population of almost 1.7 million people, two murderers got the appropriate penalty. Two.

One who didn’t was featured in a front-page story Monday. The torture endured by 13-year-old Marsinah Johnson at the hands of a gang commanded by Ahmond Dunnigan was so awful that it’s normally identified with the depravity of the genocide directed at the Jews by the Nazis or at the Tutsis in Rwanda by the Hutus. And yet Dunnigan is not under sentence of death. He’s another life-without-paroler.

An outrage? For certain. How to fix it?

Georgia really should repeal the life-without-parole option. It gives juries an easy out. It allows them to rationalize their way to an alternative death penalty without worrying about conscience. It’s their chance to impose capital punishment slowly and to walk away disassociating themselves from their verdicts. Foster’s not getting out. Dunnigan’s not. It’s the jury’s wink-and-nod plausible denial death sentence. They don’t have the stomach for lethal injection — or at least one person on the jury doesn’t — so they “compromise” on slow death behind bars. Absurd.

Life without parole is no deterrent to people such as Dunnigan. It’s lifetime association with dead-end criminals with a daily routine and free meals and medical care. Over time, of course, as more Dunnigans and Fosters populate the prisons, the worse lock-ups will become.

The first fix, then, is to eliminate the easy-out plausible denial option for juries.

The second fix is to make it clear to juries that their job it to find guilt and make a recommendation to the judge on sentencing. Judges, based on an awareness of what’s happening in other judicial districts, should have the sole responsibility for deciding and imposing sentences, as is the case in Florida, for example.

Another consideration should be to create a state panel of active prosecutors and retired judges to decide, in consultation with local DAs, which crimes warrant asking for the death penalty. The Brian Nichols case, for example, has such significant statewide criminal justice implications that no single district attorney should be allowed to pursue the lesser penalty of life without parole. To his credit, Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard has steadfastly refused to yield to a lesser sentence.

Another fix would be to create a state or regional team of prosecutors experienced in death penalty cases who would take over prosecution of capital offenses throughout the state.

We can either accept that juries reflect the will of the people and, therefore, disparities that superficially appear “arbitrary” will result. Or we can change the system.

You decide.

Permalink | Comments (145) | Categories: Column

Comments

Commenting is now closed for this entry.

By Craig

September 25, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this

Yeah it’s truly awful when “juries reflect the will of the people.”

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 25, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim.

Many of our generation were taught that purpose of the American court system is to see that justice is done.

WRONG!

The purpose of the American court system is to administer the law. If justice is achieved…well, that is just a good fringe benefit.

That being true, I find myself in total agreement with your position today. I, for one, am sick of paying for the upkeep of capital offenders.

Of course, with the collection of losers that we send annually to Atlanta, I would not hold my breath waiting for change. Those statemen can’t even pass a budget!

By Redneck Convert

September 25, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

Well, as a fine upstanding GA redneck, I got to agree with Wooten. Juice �em all. Just run a shuttle service from the courthouses every day and stack up the bodies after we finish with them. If the Death Penalty was good enough to take care of Jesus, it�s good enough for any criminals. The bible is trying to tell us something there.

I got no use for chicken jury people that won�t go for the Death Penalty. Get rid of life without parole and make everybody that�s found guilty go straight to the gurney. Better, bring back hanging and the electric chair. It will cut way down on crime. As my buddy Jim Earl says a person that has been executed has never done another crime. The reason we got so much crime is because we don�t use the Death Penalty enough.

Anyway, I don�t want my taxes going to feed a bunch of convicts and give them a cot and TV and all that stuff. I want them to suffer before they get the juice. We use to call it revenge but nowadays we call it Justice. You can just see how happy the famblys of murdered people are when the guy gets the juice. Then they get Closure, which follows Justice.

If the state needs some volunteers to haul the bodies away after they get juiced I know a bunch of people with long bed pickups that would do it for free. Heck, a lot of us would pump the poison in for free too.

Well, I got to go to a meeting down at the Church of Holiness. We are planning a Revival of Peace and Love for others. Have a good day everybody.

By Michael Blankenship

September 25, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

As they say, sommon sense ain’t so common. This rant is a fine example of that belief. Mr. Wooten opines that Life in prison is not a deterrent. He fails to mention to numerous studies that suggest that executions are no more or no less an effective deterrent. And he seems to want mandatory death sentences, a concept dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976. The rest of the wolrd is abandoning capital punishment, which will happend in the U.S. eventually. Public support has declined since 2000 as has the size of death row and the number of executions. Perhaps Mr Wooten would be more comfortable in a country that embraces executions with more gusto - like Iran or China.

By Michael Blankenship

September 25, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

As they say, common sense ain’t so common. This rant is a fine example of that belief. Mr. Wooten opines that life in prison is not a deterrent. He fails to mention to numerous studies that suggest that executions are no more or no less an effective deterrent. And he seems to want mandatory death sentences, a concept dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976. The rest of the world is abandoning capital punishment, which will happened in the U.S. eventually. Public support has declined since 2000 as has the size of death row and the number of executions. Perhaps Mr. Wooten would be more comfortable in a country that embraces executions with more gusto - like Iran or China.

By Travis

September 25, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

Craig, juries are not supposed to reflect the will of the people. That is the function of a general election. Juries are charged to decide guilty or not guilty.

As for the column, the death penalty has become a logistical nightmare. Major reforms are required to make this punishment worthwhile. If these reforms are not made, then life without parole becomes the only viable option. Personally, I say make the needed reforms and apply the death penalty to those who deserve it.

By Pandora

September 25, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I hope that the death penalty in all states come to an end. Wrong is wrong. Only God has a right to give and or take life, not man! Research has shown that death penalty states have a much higher brutal crime rate than states that do not have that barbaric way of killing people. As long as the death penalty is around, innocent men and women will continue to die for a crime they did not commit.

By Explaining Wooten

September 25, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

Phasers on stun, wide beam.

“But Captain, these are Klingons”.

Phasers on maim, wide beam.

“But Captain, they violated the neutral zone.”

What do you want from me, Scotty, if we kill them there’ll be paperwork. I hate paperwork.

But Captain, the Klingons said you mug too much and do the same act in every scene..”

Photon torpedoes launchers, FIRE!!!

By Your Dukakis Moment

September 25, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

Well one knew it wouldn’t take long before the bed wetters cried all over this blog with their compassion for cold blooded murderers. For me, that’s neither here nor there. Fortunately where I live - Kennesaw - one can take matters into his own hands, so to speak. One thing about that is for certain for a murderous perp: there would be zero chance of killing again.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 25, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

One other observation.

My liberal…excuse me… my progressive friends love to site the research that calls into question the premise that capital punishment is a deterrent. There are pros and cons on both sides, but the one undebatable truth in the argument is that the criminal, who is executed, is permanently deterred from commiting further crimes!

By cranky old man

September 25, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this

Alternatively, in some of the more vile child molestation cases, allow juries to award a sentence of life without parole and no segregation from the general prison population. The taxpayers would rarely have to foot the bill for the prisoner’s upkeep for more than a few weeks.

By Anonymous

September 25, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Again Wooten betrays how far from actual conservatism his mind really is. To him, it’s not possible that anyone could seriously want to deprive the state of the power over life and death… no, it’s just “moral squeamishness” that’s interfering with his righteous bloodlust.

Juries shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions Wooten doesn’t like. Heck, let’s dispense with juries altogether! The state should have the power to kill anybody Wooten dislikes, WITHOUT trial! (Who was it suggesting we double the size of Guantanamo, to handle all the people who need to “disappear”?)

The fact that the label “conservative” appears anywhere NEAR these attitudes is revoltingly inappropriate.

By Shar

September 25, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

The death penalty is reserved for those convicted felons whose crimes a jury deems to meet certain specific parameters. It is a judgement call, structured by the law. Those who meet these parameters are automatically entitled to public funding for appeals that last for years, and they are housed in special cell blocks that add incremental costs to their incarceration.

A criminal sentenced to life without parole does not qualify for these benefits. No special cells, no automatic defenders. Just oblivion, at a lower cost to the public.

Juries are supposed to weigh intent, circumstance and the specifics of the law to arrive at a just verdict and sentence. While the subjectivity of a group can and does yield disparate results, overall juries provide the fairest and most respected consideration and interpretation, which is why the right to a judgement by a jury of peers is one of our country’s most cherished promises. Stripping juries of power and handing it over to a judge who makes a sentencing decision “based on an awareness of what�s happening in other judicial districts” (why is that germane to a given trial?) would be deeply unjust.

Juries should “reflect the will of the people.” That’s the whole point. A sentence of life without parole protects the public and in fact saves money over a death penalty sentence. The particulars of a given crime may incite others to anger and a desire for vengeance, but a jury which has heard all the details from both sides should have discretion to sentence as they see fit.

By Travis

September 25, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Several comments have already been made about paying for upkeep of a capital offender. How do you feel about paying for the defense of a capital offender. Take for example, the Brian Nichols case. If I remember correctly, I believe that $1,000,000 has already been paid for his public defender by the state. And we will still pay to house him for the next ten years or so while all the appeals are filed and argued. How many years could he be housed in prison for the amount of money already spent?

The death penalty argument is not about money. It is about a fitting punishment for a crime.

By Pstar

September 25, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Death Penaly? Yeah right! The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. Because of lengthy appeals process, inmates can sit on death row 15 - 20 years before exhausting all of their appeals. What message does this give to the criminals. Nothing! Life without parole is another waste. It just gives the criminal a free ride until death. Great system Georgia.

By Anonymous

September 25, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Travis: “How do you feel about paying for the defense of a capital offender?”

I feel very good about it, actually. Because EVERYONE in our society is guaranteed a hearing and representation, no matter what the charges against him. To do otherwise would make justice a salable commodity, depending on how much money you’ve got to defend yourself. (Remember O.J. Simpson?)

Public defenders are a vital component of our justice system, and I’m glad to pay their salaries. Remember, it’s the power of the STATE to detain and punish without accountability that’s the real threat—an individual’s crimes, even a murderer or rapist, pale in comparison to the tyranny that would result from removing those requirements.

Welcome to America!

By Curious Observer

September 25, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

I have braced myself for the plethora of arguments to the effect that people who receive capital punishment will not commit another crime. I can almost see the tobacco juice running down the chins of such savage morons. BTW, Mid-South Philosopher, it’s “cite” the research, not “site” it. You might at least show a little literacy while you’re spouting your mountain creed. TFTT has ignorance for an excuse for his misspellings; you at least should be more accountable. Have another plug of Red Man.

The United States must be proud of being mentioned in the same breath with Iran and China in the use of the death penalty as a sort of people’s revenge. This form of punishment is an anachronism, a return to the kind of blood sport in which Britain once had more than 200 capital offenses.

Only a moron would argue that imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the equivalent of being soft on crime. Those who argue for the death penalty essentially deny the possibility that human beings can change. That denial itself contradicts the so-called Christian philosophy that they want to proclaim and impose on everybody else.

By Explaining Wooten

September 25, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

Look at Wooten’s recent blogs: He advocates neglecting sick children of the poor, a return to the fugitive slave act, an expansion of the war in the middle east to include Iran and probably Syria, and now he vants to keel more americans mit der needle injectionheimer.

I mean, if Hitler had a blog, wouldn’t it look like this one? Wooten is out of control! (regis).

He’s a Katzenjammer Fiend. Next, he’ll be advocating prison for panhandlers, exile for drunk drivers, and an eye 4 an I-pod for shoplifters. There’ll be none of us left intact!!!

Warning, kids: Never toilet paper Wooten’s lawn; he’s got the half-wolves confiscated as evidence in the Vick case guarding his property.

Where will it end? Wooten’s already admitted he’s waiting in the wings to take over the country with a band of conservatives from the lunatic fringe. He calls them his brown-eyes. (They only moon offenders now, but who knows what they’ll expose insurgents to if they ever do take over)

The Right gets a lot of mileage out of every blip on the campaign radar. Betray us, Hillary, Jena, and now Mother Theresa, who apparently had doubts, thus she was a godless communists giving free care to the starving and diseased socialists in africa.

Life in prison 4 Mother T’s corpse would be too good for her, that’s 4 sure…..that’s 4 dang sure.

By JK

September 25, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

Timothy McVeigh only served, what, less than four years for all the pain he caused? He was a young man. Seems like fifty years sitting in a tiny little cell regretting his situation would have been more appropriate. He was free of the suffering of prison in less than four years. In his own mind, he got to be a martyr and die for his cause. Not punishment enough, if you ask me.

By JK

September 25, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

By Just Nasty and Mean

September 25, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

Brian Nichol’s overpriced attorneys are singlehandedly and strategically bankrupting the indigent criminal defense budget for the entire state. Their strategy appears to be to break the budget so the state won’t have the funds to pursue the death penalty for an alleged multi homicide maniac. There should be a new law that states that if there are more than 3 credible witnesses or unmistakable clear video evidence to an heinous crime, the trial should be put on a fast-track trial and execution.

By John V

September 25, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

I am not for the death penalty for moral reasons, since I feel it is wrong for the state to use a civil servant to kill another human being no matter how terrible the person may be. The real problem is that prisoners in the USA have too many luxuries and freedoms. Life without parole is good thing if the prisoner is in solitary, no tv, no contact with the outside world. Basically it should be a living tomb.

By @@

September 25, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Oh lawdy Jim! I don’t think we can visit the death penalty issue without taking a look at one of our most liberal Supreme Court justices opinion.

Stevens told me he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration. The experience, he said, raised questions in his mind about the fairness of the death penalty. �I was on the desk, on watch, when I got word that they had shot down Yamamoto in the Solomon Islands, and I remember thinking: This is a particular individual they went out to intercept,� he said. �There is a very different notion when you�re thinking about killing an individual, as opposed to killing a soldier in the line of fire.� Stevens said that, partly as a result of his World War II experience, he has tried on the court to narrow the category of offenders who are eligible for the death penalty and to ensure that it is imposed fairly and accurately. He has been the most outspoken critic of the death penalty on the current court.

We’re talking the same Yamamoto who orchestrated the attack on Midway.

From the Opinion Journal:

Amid another global war, it’s unsettling to think that someone inclined toward such a softhearted view of the enemy is in a position of power.

Liberals are weird!

By Craig

September 25, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

To Anonymous and Explaining, you’re absolutely correct. Wooten is increasingly uncomfortable with core American values.

Jury of your peers? Nope, too squishy! We need more government involvement.

Habeas corpus? You gotta be kidding.

Adherence to the treaties that we sign, like the Geneva Convention? What a quaint idea.

Pay for the wars we get into by making joint sacrifices? Nah, our children can pay…

Allow Georgians to make their own decisions about purchasing alcohol on Sundays? No way, the Baptists would run amok!

Increasingly, radical right wingers and radical left wingers are more and more alike in their disdain for core American values.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 25, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

I humbly submit to the due chastisment by Curious Observer of my misspelling of the word cite.

Sometimes multitasking leads to errors.

With respect to CO’s suggest that I have another plug of Red Man, I will respectfully decline. If, however, you have a little sour mash, I will join you in a libation. It will get my body going and, perhaps, calm you down!

By @@

September 25, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Whoops!

Stick an “apostrophe” where it belongs in my first paragraph.

By Explaining Wooten

September 25, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

I was arrested, railroaded, and imprisoned falsely once, and it wasn’t until the very last moment when they caught the real offender that I was released.

However, when I walked past the people who had imprisoned me, they looked at me like I was still the offender, they had become accustomed to the injustice and seemed reluctant to adjust to my new citizenship. No apology, but rather, “You’re still scum, but the law says we have to let you go, so get out of here afore we changes our minds.”

When you set up a justice machine, people become monsters. From the bailiff to the judge to the cops to the lawyers to the stenographers and janitors. Something gets in the air, and this group think totally explains the holocaust. We make evil like bees make honey, it just drips off us.

The FF knew this when they drafted the constitution. It’s why they revolted. It’s EXACTLY Y they revolted.

Our rights? Wooten loot’n & poot’n us.

By Symbolic Capital

September 25, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Okay, let’s say we grant your request. Execute them all. Then you can’t reasonably object to a more vigorous indigent defense system. I shudder to think what could happen if a SWAT team of expert death penalty prosecutors goes up against overworked, underprepared and underfinanced public defenders doing what little they can for indigent and incompetent defendants. Justice is not served if the innocent are convicted while the killers roam free.

The regular reports of death row reprieves via DNA or new evidence demonstrate why we must be balanced in our rush to convict. The egregious examples Jim cites lack any shadow of a doubt, I assume, but not all cases are so clear cut as to who did the deed. In principle, in the abstract, I support the death penalty, but in practice it’s highly problematic.

As to deterrence, I think it’s overrated as an argument. For one thing, how do we prove deterrence? Can we find people who decided NOT to kill someone because they were afraid of the penalty? Furthermore, normal, law-abiding people refuse to kill, steal, rape or injure not because of the penalties, but because they already believe such things are wrong. Criminals don’t think of the consequences of their actions, or don’t care. The question is: How do we prevent them from doing it again? With punishment fitting the crime. (Now, maybe deterrence works to some degree, I’m just not sure how we prove it.)

By Dusty

September 25, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Many things come to mind this morning.

To Mid South Phil, 8:26

If the American court system is only to administer the law and justice is a fringe benefit, then doctors only administer medicine and a cure ia a fringe benefit. There’s something wrong in there some place.

RedNeck 8:27

Go to the Church of the Holiness and repent for your lack of truth in word.

Pandora 8:38

“Only God has the right to take a life” you posted. That is why we send violent life-taking murderers back to God for more instruction on that principle.

Explaining Wooten @ 8:39

Thanks but no thanks. Wooten explains himself very well without your help. Right, PoFo(man of interminable IDs)?

By Captain Freedom

September 25, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

THE Captain wishes to enter this debate with a quote from scripture:

“Kill them all, let God sort them out.”

It is the Christian approach to Justice.

This parallels closely the dictum of Col. Kurtz.

“Exterminate the brutes.”

It’s the Right Thing to do.

Now I am off to meet Redneck and Sister Dusty at a prayer meeting. God Bless You all. (IF you are the right sort of person; otherwise, to Hell with you. Literally.)

By Southern Democrat

September 25, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

My views on this subject are too intertwined with my religious beliefs to be of much good in this debate. As Mrs. Southern Democrat has often said, “Seeking conversion is admirable, condemning and criticizing another’s religion is just petty.”

In this vein I say to my fellow Christians that the New Testament and the words of Christ are pretty clear on this subject. Lex talionis is summarily rejected in the Sermon on the Mount.

By RCH

September 25, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Even though the death penalty is not “cruel and unusual” punishment, I appose its administration on grounds of possible error. Most likely a innocent individual has already been executed. One million rights do not justify one screw up. As seen with the Duke 3, their are many D.A’s,policeman,etc. who have pressure placed on them to provide convictions. Unfortunately sometimes they bend the rules under this pressure. Any irregularities by officers of the court should be swiftly dealt with and those guilty should spend time in the same prison where they sent the innocent party.Individuals likeExplaining Wooten should be compensated and put back in the same position as if they never went to jail.

Life without parole should be exactly that. Serving life in the barest conditions. Maybe we should bring back Devils Island.

By Explaining Wooten

September 25, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Dont read this if you’re on heart medication, but Ahmadinejad did ask the right questions about 911. Why did it happen. Who was involved? Where is the profile of the hijackers? Where were they in the weeks and months preceding the attacks. Why is there no report explaining every aspect of what why when where and who? What sleeper cells? Who were these people? How long were they hiding in ambush, living normal lives, just waiting for that call to become the Islamic Lion? Where did they live? Who knew them? Where is the interview with friends and neighbors? Where is the complete breakdown of their movements and lifestyle choices? What is the estimate about how many cells there were on 911? How many still exist?

On 911, I remember a report where one carload of hijackers ran away from their rental car when they thought someone made them. What happened with that? (they left behind evidence). Why the coverup? How could they “get away” ? They were in an airport for heavens sakes.

Ahmadinejad did us a favor by exposing a neglected area that could embarrass bush and cheney, who are worse criminals than we can even imagine. Bush’s failed oil company was bought by the Saudis, did you know that? Bush was bailed out by the Saudis, and he is beholding to them. How many Saudis were in the 911 gang? How many Saudis escaped on that plane after we grounded all flights? Saudi Royal Family. SRF.

SRF. Who here knows about Saudis? Who are the Saudis? What is their story? How much influence do they weild on our foreign policy? Do we want a president bush being friends and a-hole buddies with Saudi Kings?

No, no, no, Ahmadinejad asked the right questions. The press has never shown that kind of news prowess. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, people.

BTW: To protest Ahmadinejad’s speech, Jessie Owens ran the 100 meter dash in 9.76 seconds on the Columbia University track. (oh, dont reach 4 that one, getawipe, it’s WAY over your head).

By Van

September 25, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

I see the option of Life without parole, as a way to keep from going to trial - a plea bargain.

As a method to save the tax payers monies and speed up justice, I would allow it.

As a plea bargain, it has merit, as a jury option, I do not think it is appropriate.

I must confess, I am not in favor of the jury deciding on the punishment for a crime, I think they should only be allowed to judge the innocents or guilt of the defendant.

By SharonH

September 25, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Okay universe, you win!! I agree with Wooten, every freakin’ word. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?!

By Freddy K.

September 25, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Public hangings, that’s the way to go.

By getalife

September 25, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

I thought wingnuts were pro life.

But for the death penalty.

But for genocide in Iraq.

Mmmmmm, pathetic.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 25, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

To Dusty @ 9:53

Dusty, you are correct.

The preponderance of doctors follow acceptable medical procedures. While much of the time, this action results in success (the patient gets well), there are numerous cases where process does not work (the patient does not impove and even dies)!

All things considered, I suspect that the medical profession is more successful in affecting cures than the American court system is in doing justice.

You are become wiser and wiser, Dusty.

By getalife

September 25, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Here is Y you cant have the death penalty: U cant disprove an irrefutably contradictory negative in a null set of conflicting discrepancies.

‘muff said

By TEX 12

September 25, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Wooten is right on target. America has become pussified. That’s why there is so much crime to begin with. Predators prey on the weak, that’s why are jails are filling up. All these jokers who have grown-up with this share, be nice, everybody gets a trophy, there are no losers, blah. blah, BS get reemed when they are adults. I’m in law enforcement and i see it everyday.

I have had grown men call 911 to have an officer (me) search there house because they heard a noise downstairs - while they cower in their locked bedroom with their wife! One guy actually threw his keys out the window, so i could unlock the door, because he was so chickensht to leave his bedroom!

This is what we’ve become? A nation founded on hard-work, courage and at times violence to secure our own way of life. Now we are a people afraid to intervene when another is being hurt and scared to protect our own homes.

Most of the people who are anti-death penalty have never seen a brutal crime scene, have never witnessed a bludgeoned head or smelled death, or sensed the rage or violence a scene can hold.

they would sing a different tune if it were there loved ones, and they would wonder why a person who had been arrested 6,8, sometimes 10 times prior was still out on the street. Or why a guy who had been convicted of rape and two separate occassions was out on the street again. Oh, and this time it was rape and murder.

God have mercy on the MF who comes to my home or near my family, because I won’t.

By Gil

September 25, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Liberals who say the Right are hypocritical because we are both pro-life and for the death penalty only reveal that they lack the moral capacity to distinguish between innocent babies and guilty murderers. Now THAT’s pathetic.

By Donald

September 25, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Right on target Mr. Wooten. You are correct-life without parole is just another cop-out. As usual, liberals never want to look at the facts.

By Donald

September 25, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Right on target Mr. Wooten. You are correct-life without parole is just another cop-out. As usual, liberals never want to look at the facts.

By Donald

September 25, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Right on target Mr. Wooten. You are correct-life without parole is just another cop-out. As usual, liberals never want to look at the facts.

By Rod

September 25, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

If we went with more use of the Death Penalty, some of our bloggers would disappear. Every day, during his recreation time, tftt gets online to blog. With the death penalty, he’d be killed and we wouldn’t be able to read the continual diarreha of the mouth that he spouts forth on here.

Hmmmm, Death Penalty it is!

By Dennis

September 25, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes,”We can either accept that juries reflect the will of the people and, therefore, disparities that superficially appear �arbitrary� will result. Or we can change the system.”

Apparently the hapless victim here is Jim Wooten, who, by his statement above, sets himself up as prosecutor, judge and jury.

Personally, I’d like to see George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a host of others tried as war criminals and sentenced by Mr. Wootens standards.

But Mr. Wooten is talking hypocritically if he thinks that the method and the rationale of these guys justifies their behavior.

They too, are killers.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Facts

September 25, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Donald - stuttering problem there?

Gil - you really are stupid. Being pro-life, means treasuring EVERY life, not killing any. To then be for capital punishment shows you’re not mentally capable to making a choice.

Van - you want life in prison as a plea to save money?!?!?! Um, 30 years in Prison ain’t cheap and costs $100,000’s - maybe a million. A trial (other than Nichols) would cost the taxpayers less than $50,000.

By No Laughing Matter

September 25, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Jim seems to raise this issue periodically, with some tweak of the jury system in mind to make it easier for him and his like-minded “band of conservatives” to kill. Last year, it was allowing a jury verdict to be less than unanimous. It is part of Jim’s and the GOP’s strategy of eroding individual rights. This country was built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and a right to trial by a jury of one’s peers. It has worked pretty well for 231 years. We should stick with it. Why a bunch of wild eyed conservatives decide who should die? What’s to stop them from deciding that liberals, environmentalists, actors, or anyone else that disagrees with them should be summarily executed? It is truly a slippery slope, and not one I’d want Jim’s “band of ‘conservatives’” to be controlling.

By Dusty

September 25, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

MidSouth Phil 10:24

Thanks for the compliment, I think. (My parents said I was born “wise” but they said it with a smile.hmmm)

Disagreeing is always more fun. So….doctors fail 100%. We all die.

A few survive the Justice System. I believe the innocent have a fair chance there. Let us hope so.

As always, nothing is perfect. In any case, we are blessed to be living in one of the better locations of justice.

By getalife

September 25, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Remember when the Foot-fetish Murderer got off scott-free because of reasonable gout?

By Tell the TRUTH!!!

September 25, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?