Thinking Right

By Road Scholar

December 15, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

485 years and 4 life terms w/o parole. If he doesn’t break out, he will die in prison. What is more inhuman? Death now or later? While I do not always agree with the death penalty, the cold blooded murder of a judge and a customs agent (whether he knew or not) should be grounds for death. There is no doubt in this case.

By Road Scholar

December 15, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

Can a jurist be tried for lieing during the selection process? If true, the report of one doing a crossword puzzle during deliberations is very disturbing. Were the 3 votes for not assigning the death penalty from the 3 that had issues with it? Why were they even on the jury?

By Davo

December 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

JW wants to have it both ways…again.

He will say that America is a Christian nation and that religous policies are to be the norm. Yet when the rubber hits the road in a death penalty case, he reverts back to the Old Testament in a flash.

Add to this the amount of time and money wasted by our prosecutors seeking the death penalty . Still not good enough for JW…let the Feds waste time and money on the POS as well.

Blame it on the liberals JW…that’s how you win elections

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. It’s too bad our genial host used the phrase “train wreck” to describe the weekend topic (the automobile manufacturer bailout) – the term is surely more applicable to every aspect of capital punishment law, and to the Brian Nichols case in particular.

First, lest there be any misimpression, the US Supreme Court, dominated by leftists, is engaged in a course to prohibit capital punishment, Constitution and history and public sentiment notwithstanding. As Justice Scalia noted in his mocking “concurrence” in the recent horrific Kennedy v Louisiana:

“(T)he views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority’s decision in this case. The majority opinion, after an unpersuasive attempt to show that a consensus against the penalty existed, in the end came down to this: “[T]he Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.” (citation) Of course the Constitution contemplates no such thing; the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read “no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.” But that is what the majority opinion said, and there is no reason to believe that absence of a national consensus would provoke second thoughts. While the new evidence of American opinion is ultimately irrelevant to the majority’s decision, let there be no doubt that it utterly destroys the majority’s claim to be discerning a national consensus and not just giving effect to the majority’s own preference. As noted in the letter from Members of Congress, the bill providing the death penalty for child rape passed the Senate 95–0; it passed the House 374–41, with the votes of a majority of each State’s delegation; and was signed by the President.”

The incoming leftist administration, coupled with the leftist Congress, will surely engage no effort to change that direction, although both of those entities lack the political courage to directly act on their collective beliefs, as there would obviously be a political price paid. Thus the personal opinions of five overlords will substitute for the good judgment of 200 million plus.

Even when the leftists controlling the US judiciary allow capital punishment in meritorious cases, inattentive and/or sympathetic judges allow such cases to become cost-ineffective in prosecution. In a case factually open and shut, the taxpayers funded attorneys more than $1 million pretrial. I do not wish my comments to reflect adversely on the judge who actually tried the case – his work was efficient and fair by any reasonable standard, and did not cost the taxpayer ungodly sums. I noticed a headline in the weekend AJC suggesting a prosecutor believed the public was denied a fair trial, due to the inattentions and deceptions of a single juror – he may be correct. Perhaps the juror should be tried for violation of oath. (Ok, no it won’t happen, nor do I really think it should, but the evidence of a deception/fraud there is no less than that evidenced by Gov. Blagojevich.)

The right way to adjudicate criminal cases is to allow each state to set its own standards. Until the 1960s, the federal overlords did not exercise any real jurisdiction over mere criminal matters; but for the quasi-socialist behavior of Southern overlords, the federal judiciary may never have injected itself into such affairs. The state supreme courts are competent to interpret the Federal Constitution and whatever limitations it places on the states – why do Federal district judges have habeas corpus jurisdiction over matters considered by a state supreme court? When Jim’s band of conservatives take over, one of the first steps should be to remove that jurisdiction, leaving it with the US Supreme Court only.

By Ga Values

December 15, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

I am as CONSERVATIVE as they come but I do not think the death penalty should be used. Life with out parole is cruel enough for me.

By Churchill's MOM

December 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

This is my Christmas present to all my friends here. This is a simple, easy to make cake & is great for this season. All my Family lovers it.

Butter Pecan Pound Cake

¼ cup powdered sugar

1 box Betty Crocker Butter Pecan cake mix

¾ cup oil

1 can Coconut Pecan Frosting

¼ cup chopped pecans

4 eggs

1 cup water

Grease pan or spray with Pam and sprinkle with powdered sugar. Sprinkle chopped pecans in the bottom of the pan. Combine cake mix, eggs, oil and water. Mix for two minutes and add coconut pecan frosting to the batter; mix well and pour into pan on top of pecans. Bake at 350 degrees for 55 minutes or until brown. Tube pan or bundt pan may be used.

By Road Kill

December 15, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

There should be more than choice A (death penalty) and B (prison in the general population). Murderers should be locked in a small cell with nothing to read, nothing to write with, nutriloaf and water twice a day - and that’s it. As little contact with others as possible. Forever. That would be some punishment right there.

By Redneck Convert

December 15, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Well, I was mighty proud of My President for ducking and weaving like a Congressman being grilled by a FBI agent when that Iraq guy throwed his shoes at him. And noticing they was size 10 at the same time. If that guy’s Tender Parts ain’t hooked up to electric wires right about now I’ll carry a sign down GA 400 reading Don’t Drink Beer. It’s the way they do things in a free country. Like Sister Dusty always says, My President made Iraq free. Maybe the guy’s being waterboarded, I don’t know. Leastwise, we know My President’s got a future as a world class athalete after he leaves office.

Anyhow, the famblys of the people that this Nichols kilt didn’t get no Closure. Which is a fancy word for revenge or back at you, bud. We need to take the sentencing out of the hands of the jury no matter what the Supreme Court weenies say. It was pretty clear to me the judge wanted to hand down the Death Penalty but the jury wouldn’t let him. I say if we can’t do that, then hand down the Death Penalty if even one jury member votes for it. We know good and well at least one member of the jury will vote for it, so we can stick the needle to anybody that gets convicted.

Anyhow, I am praying GA will see the era of its ways and change the law so we can give people Closure every time. But I ain’t felt quite right about my prayers the past week or so. I feel all Sinful on account of I can’t pray good. What with Captain Freedom up there with God able to listen in, I can’t say all the things I need God to forgive me for or THE Captain will blab to everybody. Have a good day everybody.

By ron

December 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Good morning, I would have no problem,as I have indicated,to imposing the death penalty on Brian Nichols.That does not mean,however that I would impose the death penalty in all murder cases.Many cases that I have read about have too many grey areas for me to want to see the perpetrator executed.Wives that murder abusive husbands come to mind as one whole category where I would be hesitant to execute.

Dear Ragnar,————In the last year I have read of many rape cases that have been overturned because of DNA evidence.Bearing these cases in mind,I could never vote the death penalty in child rape cases.

Now comes the jury selection.According to Jim,it is all right to empanel 12 people who are for the death penalty but not o.k. to empanel one that opposes,or one that can change their mind for any reason.In the Nichols case there were three that opposed.As difficult as that is for me to accept in THIS PARTICULAR CASE,I will learn to live with it.Next case,please.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 15, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Dear GA Value @ 9:21, I am more liberal than most on this blog, and I believe capital punishment is a more humane sentence than life imprisonment. I would respectfully appeal to those with humane sentiments.

Dear ron @ 9:46, are you saying that you now oppose capital punishment because DNA technology has improved? To your original point, I think most agree capital punishment ought not be employed in the routine case where an evil sort kills an innocent soul – that should be reserved only for cases where a totally innocent soul is executed by one who forgets to say “mother may I” or “oops.” I obviously hold a differing view, that all murderers ought to be executed. All armed robbers ought to be executed. All arsonists ought to be executed. I hold life is too precious to allow any individual to unilaterally expose it to termination. Any pre-meditated action that can cause death ought to bring execution.

And for benefit of our friend Redneck, surely the Brian Nichols case proves the need for a cut in the capital gains tax.

By Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

December 15, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

I think we should drag this guy until all that’s left is a little neck bone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/15palm.html?_r=1&dlbk

By Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

December 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Not all of that $700 billion in bailout money for the financial industry has been poured down the rat hole, as critics charge.

Some of it has been poured into China. That’s what U.S. banking giant Morgan Stanley did with part of its share of the loot. Unbelievable. Small wonder the American public is so opposed to bailouts.

Recall what politicians, federal bureaucrats and big bank moguls said when they were arguing for the financial industry rescue package — except they didn’t say it was to rescue China.

It was designed, they said, to keep the wheels of U.S. commerce — clogged by the subprime mortgage mess — well oiled by infusing the financial system with hundreds of billions of dollars in order to restore credit liquidity.

Well, so far very little liquidity has been restored. And while it’s good that the big banks are out of hot water, they’re either hoarding their new billions or, like Morgan Stanley, investing it somewhere else, not in the U.S.A.

They’re not only not buying America first, they’re selling out America fast.

Morgan Stanley is especially egregious — spending nearly $30 million to buy a 20-percent stake in a China bank.

Think on that for a moment. The firm’s spending hard-earned U.S. taxpayer dollars — given to it to help American consumers and businesses gain access to desperately-needed credit — to help grease the wheels of commerce in China.

If Washington is overseeing this rescue, it needs to be asking some tough questions. Perhaps Morgan Stanley can justify its foreign investment.

But for some inexplicable reason, Congress hasn’t put financial industry moguls under oath as they have the Big Three auto executives.

Taxpayers are entitled to know why Morgan Stanley, and the nation’s other mega-banks, seem to be doing everything with the rescue money except what they were supposed to do — rescue U.S. credit.

Isn’t it time they be held accountable too?

By British Man

December 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

As ever, a logical response to the problem of the homicide rate in the United States. In Britain we have a homicide rate of 2.03 people per 100,000, but no capital punishment for the last 40 years. The United States has a homicide rate of 5.7 people per 100,000 and the death penalty available in 37 states. Perhaps you should look at why people kill and fix your communities rather than reverting to capital punishment as a solution.

“In the meantime, yes, federal prosecutors should try Nichols for the murder of off-duty U.S. Customs agent David Wilhelm. And ask for death.” Yes! Of course, waste further millions of tax payers dollars on another trial, instead of spending it on education, healthcare or (whisper it) welfare programs that might prevent this type of thing happening in future. So what’s Conservatism with Stupidity?

PS I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party.

By Biggdawg 96

December 15, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

I can live with the sentence. Honestly, I could have lived with him getting the death penalty as well.

However, I just want to spend as little money as possible supporting him. We paid for his defense attorneys. (He was an indigent defense-which means that he didn’t have to pay his lawyers, we did). We paid for the prosecutors. If death had been sentenced, he would have gotten automatic appeals that would have lasted nearly 20 years. (I remind you that Troy Davis hasn’t been put to death yet and he was convicting in the late 1980s - almost twenty years of housing AND legal fees on our dime).

I wouldn’t want to do the same for Nichols. We would have to pay for his “housing”” in the the penn. as well as his legal fees for the automatic appeals. I wouldn’t want to do that. Enough of MY money has been spent on that dude.

Obviously, he doesn’t like the thought of being locked away for ever because he has tried to escape. So, letting him live the very thing that he feared, may be what was truly needed. Killing him puts an end to his suffering.

By Glenn

December 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

I’m sort of wowed by this column. My “wow” moment came when I realized that you were writing, out in the open, about something so subtle and so difficult to depict, the possiblity that pacifists burrow, systematically and deceptively.

See, to me that kind of topic is explosive stuff, and I never, ever expect to see this kind of thing described in my daily newspaper. Why would I do?

But you’re onto something.

By lazermike

December 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

So if I read Wooten right today, this is the plan of death penalty opponents:

Easy as pie!

By NightTrain

December 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

IF Nichols is tried at the federal level and is sentenced to death, he WILL NOT be getting appeal after appeal. The feds dispense justice a lot faster than states do. Just ask Timothy McVeigh.

By Biggdawg 96

December 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

NightTrian:

That won’t be as easy as it sounds. The Feds will have to prove that Nichols planned to go after the Federal agent. It sounds like the met more of a random thing, not malice aforethought which would be required.

He grabbed the agents gun and badge afterwards. So, it could be argued that Nichols did not know that he killed a federal agent until after the encounter.

I just don’t see it as a strong enough case for the Feds to pick up. Without planning to kill a federal agent ahead of time, it sounds much more like manslaughter than murder. Death penalty is not an option for manslaughter.

By jm

December 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

NightTrain- I doubt Brian Nichols would waive his right to appeal in the same manner as Timothy McVeigh.

By findog

December 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Ragnar,

This is Georgia so everything needs to be sent to the electorate for inclusion in our sacred state constitution. How about a twofer: “It shall be unlawful for the life of a human to be ended from conception to natural causes except by occasion deemed as an act of God.”

Takes it all in: if you want abortion you have to allow the death penalty. You may not be pro-life and pro-capital punishment.

As for the federal prosecution – the only family that insisted on the death penalty was that of the federal officer slain. Should have let that case go first and saved the state’s meager indigent defense funds for the corner crack dealers.

By Pat

December 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

A miracle! I agree with AJC’s fossil-columnist in chief, Jim Wooten. Almost. But what happened in the Nichols case requires, NOT just a rush to make sure we can impose death wily-nily on everyone facing the penalty, but some thoughtful reforms and courageous actions of conscience by black communities.

I personally oppose the death penalty in most cases because of the chance - however slight - of executing the innocent. Fraudulent or confused “eyewitness” or “jailhouse snitch” testimony can be faulty, dishonest, even purchased. And it’s patently apparent that the penalty is applied disproportionately by race and income. Blacks and the poor are far more likely to wind up on death row than white defendants charged with identical crimes.

That said, Nichols had no such defense. He was raised by hard-working, attentive middle class parents, given every advantage, and earned a good living in a prestigious white collar professional career. His callous violent, repeated rape of his own girlfriend wasn’t “war” against a white system that oppressed blacks, but the acts of a violent, selfish man intent on revenge and gratification. The same character traits drove Nichols to beat a small, weaker black female deputy senseless, leaving her brain damaged … to shoot a brave black police office trying to protect the public… to pistolwhip an older white man to steal his car … to ruthlessly assassinate a federal agent doing home repairs on his day off. Nichols bragged of his crimes in jail, made it clear he would continue to attempt escapes as long as incarcerated, and regretted ONLY not also killing the prosecutors. He showed zero mercy, and deserved none.

The core problem? Many blacks have seen the death penalty misapplied unfairly to blacks for so long, they’re reluctant to sentence any black defendant to death. As Wooten points out, no one can screen for this propensity at jury selection. So what’s the answer? Packing juries with rednecks eager to execute every black suspect they encounter in jury duty? That takes us back to 1950-1960s Mississippi.

We need tight controls and reforms of the death penalty and how it is applied. We need to demonstrate to blacks that the death penalty is being applied with care, deliberation and even-handed justice. Perhaps most of all, we need ways to remind blacks that there are some actions so evil and repellant to society that we cannot allow their perpetrators to live among us - even caged - especially one as violent, remorseless, and intent on escape as Nichols.

Who in the black community will stand up and renounce murder - not with a candlelight protest march, but with real action? Why do so many young blacks die in our cities? Because too many blacks have become immune to death, even the death of the young and innocent. No matter how heinous the crime, a friend or family member of the accused can always be found to make excuses. Witness Nichols’ parents and friends, or the mother of Jennifer Hudson’s family’s killer.

MLK hoped blacks would one day be judged only on “the content of their character.” Nichols character earned him death. The character of the jurors should have demanded they impose it. If only the black community summoned its inner character and strength to deal with violent criminals, to publicly hound, revile, shun and marginalize them - and swiftly deliver them to justice! Then and only then would change begin. When loud, angry marches protest the leniency of murderers’ sentences, or we see blacks storm their own neighborhoods to bring down the wrath of God on violent predators and gang-bangers who harm and kill their children, then there will be real hope for the urban community. Criminals shouldn’t fear the police - they should fear the righteous judgement of their own people.

By Chris

December 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

I’ve noticed that whenever Jim Wooten is for something, he wants to change the law to make whatever he supports significantly easier. And when Wooten is against something, he wants to change the law to make whatever he opposes significantly harder.

For example, Wooten supports the death penalty…juries are not imposing the death penalty as much as Wooten would like (jurors generally prefer life without parole)…so, Wooten wants to change the law to let the judge decide (he previously advocated for changing the law such that only 11 of 12 jurors could impose the death penalty).

Another example: Wooten is against higher taxes, the legislature can raise taxes with a simple majority…so, Wooten wants to change the Constitution so that a taxes can only be raised with a super-majority.

If Wooten and his fellow Republicans can’t win enough votes in the legislature, then they seek to change the state constitution by adding an amendment to vote on that no lay reader can decipher…and on and on.

That’s the thing about Republicans/conservatives. They don’t care about right or wrong. If things don’t go their way, then they seek to change the rules.

By NightTrain

December 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

JM, I did not realize that TM waived his rights to appeal.

By Biggdawg 96

December 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

NightTrain

TM wanted to die. Martyrdom was one of his goals. Those who are like him can say that McVeigh died for his cause.

However, you are right though. The Federal system is quicker, but that is because it is due to the fact the Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. It is part of the Constitution’s separation of power between Federal and state government (Article III). State courts are courts of general jurisdiction which means more cases have to go to state court instead of Federal court. As a result of a lighter case load, Federal cases move quicker than state cases.

By TomG

December 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

So, as I understand the comments in this blog, its not about the death penalty, its about money. Based on that we should try anyone where the cost of the trial will exceed $(insert a value here) dollars. What kind of justice would that be?

By Billy

December 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Ragnar, if you are indeed more liberal than most on this blog, then it is not due to your being liberal. Rather, it is a statement about how far to the right the blog skews.

Exhibit A is in your assertion that the Supreme Court is dominated by leftists. Really? “Dominated”? Only two of the current justices were even appointed by a Democrat! From Wikipedia:

It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito compose the Court’s conservative wing. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court’s liberal wing. Justice Kennedy, generally thought of as a conservative who “occasionally vote[s] with the liberals”, is considered most likely to be the swing vote that determines the outcome of certain close cases.

If the Court were truly “dominated by leftists”, I would agree with their decisions far more often than I do. (And on those occasions, the vote wouldn’t be 5-4.)

Your claims about Obama and Congress being leftist are also way off base. Obama is decidedly centrist. The only way, I believe, anyone could think Obama a leftists is if he believes himself to be a centrist and all to the left of him to be leftists. That’s the brilliance behind talk Fox’s & talk radio’s control of the political narrative for the past 15+ years — they’ve succeeded in skewing most Americans’ perceptions of the political spectrum. Visit The Political Compass and read what they have to say.

Let’s be specific here. Obama is not an opponent of the death penalty and said he disagreed with the Kennedy case. A true leftist would be opposed to the death penalty in pretty much every instance, but most definitely in cases in which a life was not taken by the criminal. None of Obama’s positions were radical to begin with, and since his election he has shown that he is willing to compromise to get things done. A true leftist would shoot for universal health care and let the insurance companies be damned. He wants to work with them. A true leftist would institute a radically progressive tax on both income and assets, a real redistribution of wealth. Obama just wanted to repeal Bush’s tax cuts, and now he’s said he might hold off on that for a while. A true leftist would get us out of Iraq immediately, not over the course of 16 months, and would also pull us out of Afghanistan, not send more troops.

Congress is the same. Sure, there are some members on the far left, but I hardly think Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are dominating discourse on the Hill. In the words of Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Regarding the Nichols case — Is it not possible that a juror changed his mind? Could a juror not have gone in saying, “I’m in favor of Capital Punishment,” but then, when it came time to vote for it, couldn’t do it because a “death” vote would me one step closer to being a killer himself? Almost 35 years ago my father shot and killed a serial rapist who was in the process of abducting a woman. He only fired after the guy shot at him. He was lauded as a hero by many. I don’t think anyone would argue that he was in the wrong. Decades later, he still has occasional nightmares.

It’s easy to say that you favor killing someone. It’s even easy to say that you’d do it yourself. It’s an entirely different proposition when actually faced with taking a life. If you value human life yourself, then taking that life shouldn’t be such an easy decision. Maybe jurors sometimes come to this realization during the trial. Maybe someone who is so eager to kill a murderer has more in common with that murderer than he would like to think…

By TomG

December 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

So, as I understand the comments in this blog, its not about the death penalty, its about money. Based on that we should try anyone where the cost of the trial will exceed $(insert a value here) dollars. What kind of justice would that be?

By Jason

December 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

Not that he has the wherewithal to pull it off, but wasn’t Nichols plotting to escape from prison as recently as a couple months ago? That’s reason enough to kill him. He’s obviously remorseless and has nothing left to lose, so why give him the chance?

By TomG

December 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

So, as I understand the comments in this blog, its not about the death penalty, its about money. Based on that we should NOT try anyone where the cost of the trial will exceed $(insert a value here) dollars. What kind of justice would that be?

By ron

December 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Dear Ragnar @ 10:02——-I am simply opposed to the death penalty in child rape cases.I merely set the DNA evidence out to make people think.I know child rape is a heinous crime,and life without parole should be a mandatory sentence for this crime.I am not at all interested in being humane to the rapist by executing him so he won’t suffer the perils of prison.Let the prisoners execute him.

I disremember the name of the Catholic priest who suffered this fate a while back,but I thought it was fitting.

I hold that increases in the capital gains tax is responsible for any rise in crime rates.

By Michael Shapiro

December 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

Ragnar

I typically read this blog and have never responded, but I have to ask you about your statement that the “US Supreme Court, [is] dominated by leftists”

Pray tell, who are the leftists?

Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter have clear left leanings.

Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas are far to the right.

Are you saying Kennedy, who has voted with the Chief and the “righties” far more often than the “lefties” dominates the court? Or was this just convenient hyperbole?

By And The Beat Goes On!!!

December 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

No person(s) has the right to decide if another person should die for committing a crime. I could never do it. That decision belongs to God and God alone.

By mike

December 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Why have a trial and a jury. Lets go back to the times when they just hung a person and be done with it. I guess we only need people on juries that only agree with us. Heck lets give the death penalty to all. “Off with their heads”

By Pookie

December 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

So, Beat, um, do you worship Brian Nichols? He’s qualified to decide who dies, but society is not qualified to decide he dies as punishement? Hmmm.

By Chaz

December 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Oh don’t worry… I have every confidence that after he kills a few guards and fellow inmates, his next jury will (filled with ennui and guilt over it) do us all a favor and kill the b#####d.

By And The Beat Goes On!!!

December 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Pat @ 11:33 AM’,

Your comments are confusing. The Brian Nichols trial had nothing to do with the morals, beliefs or attitudes of the black community. Sounds like you may be suffering from OJ psychosis.

By Peadawg

December 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Let him slowly rot in jail. Why give him a quick death? Let his a* rot. I rather him be like Vick and have to watch out everytime he bends down to pick up the soap.

By Whatever Jim Wooten

December 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

Classic Jim Wooten/Paul Howard: “If I lose the game, the rules need to be changed.” Did you read your own newspaper’s coverage? http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/12/11/nichols_jurors.html. Or is Steve Visser supposed to be a flaming liberal too? Three jurors expressed great concern about the death penalty. Three jurors couldn’t vote for death. Same 3? We may never know for sure. But the prosecution could have used preemptory strikes to strike them from the jury and didn’t. Do you really think that three random people who hated the DP so much they would give up 3 months of their lives to votes against it? And those three people were questioned extensively about their beliefs and causes, and none of them ever worked to oppose the DP before, or else, did, but lied about it under oath? Unless I’m given some proof otherwise, the most likely scenario is this: These people said they’d have a hard time voting to kill anyone under any circumstances. When asked again, they said they’d try to keep an open mind, and nothing was off the table. When the moment came, their initial opinion hadn’t changed, they just couldn’t vote to kill someone. If they said so up front, that doesn’t make them bad people and it doesn’t mean “the game” is rigged against Paul Howard. That’s the thing about moral judgment. The comments show not everyone agrees with what you think is the ONLY correct moral decision.

By Curious Observer

December 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

It’s very interesting that the blood-thirsty people on this blog, as well as the prosecutor of Nichols, want to use the likelihood of his wanting to escape from prison as a justification for executing him. So a jury is to decide whether a felon, given an opportunity to escape from a life sentence, would seize upon that opportunity? That ought to cover about 99% of all prisoners in such circumstances.

And the people who are crying out for blood are the same ones who gather at church on Easter Sunday to bemoan the infliction of capital punishment on Jesus Christ. “But He was innocent!” they cry. Well, not according to the laws of the Roman Empire in existence at the time.

Just as contemptible is the state prosecutor’s effort to get the federal authorities to go for the death penalty, now that the state has been frustrated in its effort to kill Nichols.

By Whatever Jim Wooten

December 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Classic Jim Wooten/Paul Howard: “If I lose the game, the rules need to be changed.” Did you read your own newspaper’s coverage? Link: [http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/12/11/nichols_jurors.html.] Or is Steve Visser supposed to be a flaming liberal too? Three jurors expressed great concern about the death penalty. Three jurors couldn’t vote for death. Same 3? We may never know for sure. But the prosecution could have used preemptory strikes to strike them from the jury and didn’t. Lasermike at 12:02 nailed it, Jim, your factual assumptions don’t make sense. Unless I’m given some proof otherwise, the most likely scenario is this: These people said they’d have a hard time voting to kill anyone under any circumstances. When asked again, they said they’d try to keep an open mind, and nothing was off the table. When the moment came, their initial opinion hadn’t changed, they just couldn’t vote to kill someone. If they said so up front, that doesn’t make them bad people and it doesn’t mean “the game” is rigged against Paul Howard. That’s the thing about moral judgment. The comments show not everyone agrees with what you think is the ONLY correct moral decision.

By Sharon

December 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Death penalty laws need serious ammendment. When a jury reaches a decision on sentencing, it should only be seen as a recommendation — the judge should be allowed to over-ride the decision. Why?? Because the death penality is a very polarizing issue in our country. People generally have an opinion and are not likely to sway from it. When people make a decision about giving Brian Nichols the death penalty it has less to do with Brian’s actions and more to do with someone’s personal mores and beliefs. This was a huge miscarriage of justice!!

By And The Beat Goes On!!!

December 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Pookie,

Society(especially our society) is not to determine if one is to die. Our society sent good men and women to Iraq to die when they committed no crime. Taking a life is not a nilly-nilly proposition.

By Peter

December 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Yes reform the system……

The guy shot a Judge in court, and the court reporter in COLD BLOOD………

He should be put in front of a Firing Squad !

The whole trial was a joke…….the only folks who we didn’t serve were those shot, and those killed !

By Poppa Grande

December 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Tom G

As much as I’d hate to say it (as person who works in the legal field), the system is not set up for justice. People want results and aren’t willing to wait for come along naturally. As a result, prosecutors have histories of just getting somebody to go down for crimes.

Hence the Innocence Project and others like it have been finding and releasing wrongly convicted people. Former Dallas TX prosecutor Henry Wade is probably one of the worst at framing people.

When you spend time in jail for crimes that you didn’t commit, where is the justice there.

Nichols case was one that got away, true. But, don’t confuse the American system with justice. It is about stats. We elect Judges and DAs that want numbers so that they can beat their chests to get re-elected. It isn’t about justice. It is about politics.

By Jake

December 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

The death penalty is to good for him, especially when it takes 20 years or so to carry out. This is one area where the Iraqis are better, ty ‘em, convict ‘em, hang ‘em few days later.

By tom west

December 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

Jim, as you know, under Georgia law a juror can vote for life for any or no reason. The juror can decide, hey, I was impressed by the defendant’s mother, or, I was saddened by his upbringing, I’m voting for life. And there is nothing you or anyone can do about that. What, do you want to do away with jury trials Jim? The fact of the matter is that as many jurors profess pretrial that they can consider a life sentence, which is a qualifier for service in these cases, when in fact they could not in a murder case. Hey, Jim, why not just mandate only death for murder with aggravation? No life sentences at all? And to make it simpler let’s decide guilt based on the media reports of the crime. Hooha!

By J.D.

December 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

I can only hope for those jurors who had no intention of considering the death penalty sakes that Nichols doesn’t ever escape and repeat his previous acts. Because if he does then the blood is on their hands.

He is going to spend every day trying to get out any way possible. All it means is additional monies spent keeping his already worthless hide secured.

I have to agree with Wooten. Let the jury determine guilt or innocence, but leave the penalty to the judges.

By ron

December 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Off today’s subject,back to yesterday’s for a moment.

Toyota opened a new plant in Ontario,Canada this month to produce the Rav4 crossover.Toyota also put the new plant it’s building in Mississippi on hold.This pland was to start producing the Prius in May of 2010.It’s on hold until the present financial crisis is deemed over.Toyota is also cutting production in it’s present U.S. plants.

By mister.earl

December 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

Obama Sails Over Scandal

Public ratings of Barack Obama are unscathed by the scandal swirling around Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich’s apparent effort to trade off his power to appoint Obama’s successor to the U.S. Senate, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

More than three-quarters of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the presidential transition, up significantly from three weeks ago, and a slim majority in the new poll said the president-elect has already done enough to explain any connections his staff may have had with Blagojevich.

Two-thirds of Democrats and 51 percent of independents said Obama has sufficiently outlined discussions with the governor, but 51 percent of Republicans said Obama has not done enough. The Republican National Committee has made a concerted effort to tie the two Illinois politicians.

Republicans are also much less apt than others to rate Obama as honest and trustworthy - 41 percent do, compared with 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents. Nevertheless, a sizable majority, 59 percent, of Republicans approve of the way Obama is handling the transition overall.

Among those who cast ballots for Republican presidential hopeful John McCain last month, 54 percent approve of how Obama is handling the changeover of power in Washington.

By SC Birdflyte

December 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

I lived in Wisconsin 4 years and never felt as uneasy walking in downtown Milwaukee late at night as I do in downtown Columbia. Wisconsin has no death penalty, but is willing to lock ‘em up until death. While I was there, a state judge was convicted of killing a political opponent. He’d only served a few months of his life-without-parole sentence when he committed suicide. He’d had some time to think about what he was in for and decided to end it pronto.

By Biggdawg 96

December 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

JD

I have to agree with Wooten. Let the jury determine guilt or innocence, but leave the penalty to the judges.

If you do that, they should never be elected officials. As elected officials, they could be open to bribes or grand standing for more votes…I can see a political ad now touting”I sentenced more people to death than my opponent”. Is that what you want? After all, Judges are still human and have flaws themselves.

• can only hope for those jurors who had no intention of considering the death penalty sakes that Nichols doesn’t ever escape and repeat his previous acts. Because if he does then the blood is on their hands.*

That is not true either. He is responsible for his own actions. No juror can predict the future and neither can you.

Even if he was sentence to death, the sentence is not carried out instantaneously. There still would be ample time for him to create mishief.

However, I think that he will be watched like a Hawk down there in Jackson (which is where is is currently). That is where the Electric Chair sits, as well as death row. So, they know how to handle those like him and even worse.

By RenaP

December 15, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

There’s no way to detect their bias until the deed’s done.

We knew the three jurors were not for the death penalty when the jury was chosen. Why did the prosecution let those three jurors be picked?

By Watta Load

December 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

I think Nichols should be off to the legal needle table, but since he won’t be put down, he should have to be cellmates with Eric Rudolph…that should take care of one of them anyway.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 15, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Dear findog @ 11:32, and TomG @ 12:09 well-argued. Dear Pat @ 11:33, even better-argued. Much bright thought on the blog today, both sides. Not much name-calling – rare.

Dear Billy @ 12:07, I think you do not know the real meaning of “liberal,” but that is a common problem today. Of course a centrist is simply anyone who is not intelligent enough to understand what he thinks, so you may have applied the term correctly to Chauncey. And you are an unusual soul, in your preference for the leftist view in Kelo – most Americans dislike such an “overlord rule” although it is an essential element of leftism. Just to assist you in your own prejudicial analysis, I disagree with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter because they are far more leftist than I, but I appreciate the strong intellect motivating each. I have no trouble assessing the level of leftism in any writer, as everyone is more leftist than I. Despite my critique, you raise one great issue: “If you value human life yourself, then taking that life shouldn’t be such an easy decision.” You are wrong, of course – 35 years of abortion has so cheapened life that nobody really cares anymore. We live in a world where the most innocent among us are routinely killed for the most selfish reasons. (Of course, as a thoughtful liberal, I favor abortion, as only leftists are morally driven to kill their babies, and the world is always improved with the death of leftists.)

Dear Michael @ 12:41, “Are you saying Kennedy, who has voted with the Chief and the “righties” far more often than the “lefties” dominates the court?” No, it’s not a numbers thing. Intelligent conservatives know what they think – Justice Kennedy may be a nice guy, but he does not have a clue about what he thinks. The Kennedy v Louisiana opinion proves that point.

Dear Beat @ 12:52, I would argue that no person has the right to assess a fine against an individual’s wealth for violation of a law. But then we would both be arguing foolishly.

By 1911A1

December 15, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Here’s a thought.

Let Nichols die of old age in prison. Take his body to the mortuary, embalm it, put it in a pine box, then take the box back to prison for the next 485 years.

By Richard

December 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

I’m a democrat but I think the death penalty is not used enough. I’d like to see these convicts shot in back of the courthouse and bill their family for the cost of the bullet.

On the otherhand, thanks to our appeals process (which sometimes works out for the better) it cost so much more taxpayer money to execute someone than to let him rot in prison. For that reason, life in prison isn’t that bad.

Now if we can just get to meaningfull punishments like Michael Vick having to fight off 10 of his own dogs on pay per view so we can all bet on the winner (half the proceeds go to PETA).

By SwedeAtlanta

December 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

It has been repeatedly shown that the death penalty has no deterrent effect and costs society (i.e. taxpayers) more than life without parole.

I agree Nichols is a very sick and evil man and his guilt is not in question.

To me there is greater justice in knowing he will spend 23 hours of every day in a small cell in solitary confinement. That is a hell like no other, just listen to the comments from Eric Rudolph.

Changing the sentencing laws to make it arguably easier to impose it is not the way to go. While in this case guilt is clear, there are many cases where we as society have convicted the wrong person. For that very reason we need to have extremely high standards for imposing the ultimate sentence. I do not want anyone killed in my name period but I certainly don’t want someone who might be innocent.

By Steven Daedalus

December 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

I agree with Rchard.

By Rockerbabe

December 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

The jurors in the Nichols case gave 4-6 months of their lives to sit and hear what this case was all about…I’m not sure I could or would have agreed to do that for anyone or anything. There was lots of evidence produced on both sides; some of it very compelling. Think the jurors rendered a verdict and made their sentencing recommendation based on their best beliefs and that should be respected, even if it wasn’t what an aweful lot of people wanted. There 12 citizens come from all walks of life, different belief systems, values and to expect that they would all come to the same conclusions is folly! The jurors did their duty and from what I can see, did it well under very trying circumstances. Their duty was to serve justice, not the render vengence to make the families and the DA happy. I will keep them in my prayers as I am very certain I could not do what they did. The respect for their labor should be forthcoming…the critism is not deserved.

By Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

December 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

A former defense contractor who showered more than $1 million in cash, cars, an antique commode and a yacht on former representative Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) to boost the prospects of his company was sentenced today to 2 1/2 years in federal prison.

Mitchell J. Wade pleaded guilty in February 2006 to bribing Cunningham, giving nearly $80,000 in illegal campaign contributions to two House members and seeking to illegally influence Defense Department contractor officials.

Cunningham, who pleaded guilty in 2005, was sentenced to just over eight years in federal prison for accepting $2.4 million in bribes from Wade and another defense contractor in a scheme that included a “bribe menu” that spelled out the prices for official favors.

Federal prosecutors and defense lawyers said that Wade cooperated with the government — help that was acknowledged by U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina during a sentencing hearing today in federal court in Washington.

“I’m sincerely sorry for my actions,” Wade told the judge today. “I take full responsibility for the mistakes I have made… . There is no justification for what I’ve done.”

Wade, who founded District-based MZM Inc., a firm that specialized in defense and intelligence contracting services, received more than $150 million in contracts from the Defense Department from 2002 through 2005. MZM has since been sold.

In court papers, prosecutors said Wade sought to boost MZM by bribing Cunningham, conspiring with Defense Department officials and making illegal campaign contributions. “Mitchell Wade’s greed, corruption, and disdain for the rules that bind honest citizens … is staggering,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Howard R. Sklamberg wrote in court papers.

The bribes included cash, a used Rolls Royce, rugs, antiques, a yacht and the purchase of Cunningham’s home at an inflated price, Sklamberg wrote.

In return, prosecutors said, Cunningham made sure that government officials took actions that benefited MZM. Cunningham also used “his power to pressure and influence Defense Department officials to award contracts in a manner that would enrich MZM and Wade,” Sklamberg wrote.

He also threw nearly $80,000 in illegal campaign contributions at “Representatives A and B,” who are identifiable as Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.) and then-Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.). Sklamberg wrote in court documents that there was no evidence suggesting that Harris and Goode knew they were receiving the illegal contributions. Wade hoped the contributions would get Goode and Harris to send federal business his way. He made the donations by illegally reimbursing $78,000 in donations to the two members through 19 straw donors, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors also said that Wade hired Defense Department employees who had jurisdiction over MZM’s contracts and even hired children of those Defense Department workers.

By Allman

December 15, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

A predictable result and a waste of a great deal of money and resources diverted from other prosecutions (and defenses).

I was one of the hostages (apparently the only one who wasn’t “compensated” by the taxpayers). Paul Howard should have taken the proferred deal of life without parole a year ago.

By The Defense Team

December 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Well put, Rockerbabe.

(See you at the Christmas party later.)

By SwedeAtlanta

December 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Ref Allman @ 4:02 p.m.

Completely agree. I wish the DA would have agreed to a plea of life without parole a year or more ago. It would have saved Georgia taxpayers nearly $10M (if I have my facts right). Money we could definitely use on other cases or for other purposes. Was his motivation political?

And he needs to keep his nose out of the business of the Feds on this one. He should not be talking to them about pursuing the death penalty. He sought it but didn’t get it.

If the Feds want to prosecure that is their business. Personally I don’t want my federal tax dollars wasted on another trial, appeals, etc. when this man will spend the rest of his life in prison, period. What is the value in another trial? None except for the prosecutors in the case.

By scrappy

December 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

My father worked in the jail systems and always explained to me that executing someone was much more expensive than keeping them locked up. I have no proof of this however, it would be great if someone actually researched this issue and could let me know.

I agree with an earlier poster that the problem with our “justice” system is that “justice” left a long time ago. Now the only thing that our elected officals care about is there jobs and looking tough on crime. They need to step back and think - this goes for prosecutors and the members of congress that make each of these new laws. More and more ridiculous laws, builds more and more jails, that hold people that aren’t a danger to society, whose lives are ruined, and we as taxpayers foot the bill. Heck - maybe congress could could put a stay on passing new laws and think of it as cost cutting measure during this recession!

As for Nichols, death or life in jail works for me. Maybe a fellow inmate will do the job, or at least make him is new girlfriend.

By Scooby

December 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

It’s true, Scrappy, especially when the inmate is a zombie. Then, they don’t have to be fed, supplied with toilet paper, or given medical care

By Biggdawg 96

December 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Why did the prosecution let those three jurors be picked?

If I remember correctly, the defense got more strikes than prosecution. So, even if prosecution used all of the strikes they wouldn’t have as many as the defense.

So, that left the defense with an advantage.

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

December 15, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

it’s obvious the jurors who held out lied about their willingness to consider death a suitable punishment! If anyone ever merited the death penalty Nichols does. This cockroach is a dangerous, scheming murderer and the sooner he’s flushed the better. I hope he will be tried at the Federal level and given the death penalty he so richly deserves. If left alive, he will kill again. You can bet on that and it won’t be long before he strikes again. Vengeance, Christian beliefs, retribution have nothing to do with my feelings about this insect. He’s a murderer and he’ll murder again. Kill him first!

By Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

December 15, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

The federal deficit for 2008 would top $1 trillion if the government had to use the same accounting methods as private companies.

And that doesn’t even account for the huge costs of the Wall Street bailout, which didn’t really start until the new budget year began on Oct. 1.

The government is promising $49 trillion more than it can deliver on Social Security, Medicare and other benefit programs over the next 75 years unless Congress steps in to shore up the system. Some combination of tax increases, benefit cuts or other policy changes is needed to stave off unsustainable deficits.

That was the finding Monday when the administration released a 188-page ”Financial Report of the United States Government” for the 2006 budget year that ended on Sept. 30.

The report, released by the Treasury Department and the White House budget office, found that under the accrual method of accounting used by businesses, the deficit for 2006 would have totaled $1 trillion - not the $455 billion reported in October under the cash system of accounting.

Under the accrual method, expenses are recorded when they are incurred rather than when they are paid. That tends to raise costs for liabilities such as pensions and health insurance. The big jump in the 2008 budget year was largely due to changed calculations for the payment of veterans benefits.

The deficit is expected to top a staggering $1 trillion for the ongoing 2009 fiscal year, reflecting the costs of the Wall St. bailout, weaker tax revenues from the deepening recession and the costs of President-elect Barack Obama’s upcoming economic recovery measure.

What’s more: The report doesn’t factors in the enormous potential liabilities incurred by the Federal Reserve System over the past few months as it has tried to stabilize the financial system by taking steps like guaranteeing $306 billion worth of Citigroup troubled assets. Fed transactions aren’t reported on the government’s books.

Despite the turmoil caused by the financial crisis, the longer term liabilities facing the government are even more staggering.

Virtually every budget expert warns that the long-term costs of federal retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare are going to swamp the budget as more and more baby boomers retire.

”We must not forget the long-term needs that pose a significant threat to our economy’s fiscal sustainability,” said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. ”Changes are needed to ensure these programs are fiscally sustainable.”

”It is without question that we face extraordinary challenges in our financial markets and the larger economy,” said White House budget chief Jim Nussle. ”As a result, the bottom-line budget results in the short-term are sobering.”

The fiscal results also amplify President George W. Bush’s record on the deficit. Virtually every administration promise on the deficit has failed to come to pass.

Bush hands President-elect Barack Obama a government in bad fiscal shape, but Obama’s unlikely to tackle the deficit until an economic recovery begins.

Bush inherited a budget seen as producing endless huge surpluses after four straight years in positive territory. That stretch of surpluses represented a period when the country’s finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest expansion in U.S. history.

Twelve years ago, Congress ordered the government to start issuing annual reports using the accrual method of accounting in an effort to show the finances in a way that was comparable with the private sector.

By Billy

December 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Dear Ragnar —

You have a flourish with words that no doubt leaves many satisfied with your posts or confused as to how to respond.

I disagree with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter because they are far more leftist than I…I have no trouble assessing the level of leftism in any writer, as everyone is more leftist than I.

Thank you for further solidifying my argument. If you’re 7’6”, you’re at the far end of the height spectrum. Good for you. That does not make someone who is 6’5” short. Shorter than you, sure, but not short. Maybe Limbaugh & Coulter are to the left of you, but that hardly makes them leftists. I would argue that someone should fall in the left third to be considered a leftist. But maybe that’s just me.

I get that liberal and leftist are not the same thing. (Note that I took issue with your characterization of Obama, Congress, and the Court as leftists — something they are most definitely not, unless you use yourself as the standard.) If you want to see why people have a hard time with it, look at the political discourse of the past few decades. Look at what Republicans have said. Since Reagan it’s been nothing but “tax & spend liberals”, “liberal fascism”, etc. The use of “liberal” as an epithet by the GOP is why no one knows what it used to mean. And when something “used to mean” a particular think, then it no longer means the same thing. Like it or not, that’s the case here. Again, from Wikipedia, this time the article on liberalism: Schools — Conservative · Cultural Economic · Libertarianism Market · National Neoliberalism · Ordoliberalism Paleoliberalism · Social Ultraliberalism

Given the fact that most people’s definition of what liberalism is differs from your own, the fact that most prominent figures in politics, from politicians to analysts, use that definition in discussion, and the fact that you know this leads me to believe you are looking for this discussion. You come out vocalizing views that are decidedly far right. You then say you are a liberal. You then chide anyone who calls you out on it for not knowing what liberal means. You are the elitist the Republicans have been warning us about for all these years…And if you are as smart as you think you are/try to portray yourself as, you know what most people are going to think about the term “liberal”. If you were out for anything other than a feeling of superiority you’d say “Classical” liberal or something similar that would tell us you didn’t mean “liberal” the way that everyone else in the U.S. does.

If you visited The Political Compass, you’d likely have seen the scale the site uses. I like the scale, I find it helps differentiate between supposedly similar people. It makes the point that as far as the state’s authority is concerned, Ron Paul is closer to Dennis Kucinich than to most of his party. It also shows, of course, how similar notable Democratic figures like Obama are to some notable Republicans. I’m very much a libertarian as far as my beliefs on the authority of the state. I fall in the lower left-hand corner, near Mandela and Gandhi. I disagree with with the Kelo decision. (Nice job cherry-picking that single case out, by the way. I’d hate for you to have used, say the recent decision granting habeas rights to the Gitmo detainees, something that, you know, was pro-liberty and not authoritarian.) I also disagree with the right’s vociferous condemnation of it while not caring one whit that W’s only successful business venture, part-owner of the Texas Rangers, was successful because the use of eminent domain to obtain land for a taxpayer-financed stadium. The team basically received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars when it was given the stadium and the land on which it was built. Land which the owners did not want to sell and for which they did not receive fair compensation.

I love how you use high-minded language to try to set yourself apart, as if above the fray or something, then come in at the end with the comment about leftists being “morally driven to kill their babies” and that the world is improved when leftists die. Yep. You’re really something, there.

By reebok

December 15, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

Nuts. There goes my clever plan to subvert America. I have been waiting to get called for jury duty on a capital murder case involving someone who is clearly guilty as sin (and if not guilty of murder, then definitely guilty of SOMTHING - right? I mean, why split hairs?) Then, I was going to pretend to be open-minded about the death penalty but all the time I was actually looking forward to subverting democracy and destroying Amercia from the inside by refusing to agree to the death penalty and insisting on life in prison without parole! Take THAT, imperialist dogs! I was going to do this once a month or so, as were a like-minded bunch of fellow America-haters, and pretty soon the jihad would be complete!

Sadly, Mr. Wooten is onto us and our nefarious plans have once again come to naught! Curse you, Jim Wooten! Curse you I say!

By Billy

December 15, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

An execution only saves money over life imprisonment if the execution is conducted quickly. The only way to conduct it quickly is if there are no appeals. Almost anyone sentenced to death will appeal unless he wants to play the martyr. You can say that we shouldn’t grant appeals, but we are entitled to them, and we damned sure should get them if we are to be convicted in a capital case. You don’t want to send an innocent man to prison. You really don’t want to execute him. Well, some of you might…

I won’t lose any sleep if Nichols is executed. I do, however, find myself thinking about Troy Davis often. Why are people still out for his blood? Has he killed people in escape attempts? I haven’t heard anything of the sort, so everyone calling for his execution must be basing it on the original crime. When seven of the nine eyewitnesses who testified against you recant their testimony and one of the remaining two may be the actual culprit, I believe your case should be revisited. Clemency is definitely in order. When convicting, the phrase is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. For executions, there should be no doubt whatsoever.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

Dear verbose Billy @ 5:16, if I digest your thesis correctly, you favor meaningless labels. Fine by me. If you ever find anything liberal about the leftists who control the democrat party, please raise an alarm - like nuclear winter, we would all wish to be made aware of its onset.

By Dusty

December 15, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

If you want to read something disgusting, read Bookman’s blog on the shoes the Iraqi journalist threw at President Bush as an insult.

Disgusting are the comments made by AMERICANS here who are insanely HAPPY over the whole thing. A bunch of liberals that must please Osama ben laden. They are a disgrace to this country.

By Billy

December 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

Dearest superior Ragnar —

I most certainly do not favor meaningless labels. That’s my whole point, really. Calling the current Democratic establishment leftists makes the whole leftist label meaningless. If your in-group consists of you and maybe Ayn Rand while your out-group consists of me, Obama, Limbaugh, Coulter and everyone else under the sun, then the two groups are meaningless. Having a political discussion and saying that there is only liberal you and leftist everyone else is a little like discussing math and saying that there is only -1 and every other number is positive. Narcissistic much?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 16, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

Dear Billy, from 6:12 yesterday – Anyone who addresses me as “Dearest superior Ragnar” deserves a more thoughtful argument than my fatigued short-response from late yesterday. Your focus was on my disparaging use of “leftist” to describe the modern democrat party, and my enthusiasm for describing myself as a liberal. I failed to acknowledge my core approval of your libertarian beliefs – in fact, you are new to me on the blog, and I failed to bid you an appropriate “welcome.”

Nevertheless, having buttered you up with meaningless compliments and having stroked your ego with broad concurrence, I disagree with an essential thrust of your 5:16 note – that my republican friends are responsible for the “epithet” connotation suggest by the term “liberal.” Indeed, the leftists embraced the term in the 1960s – if you will forgive another trite phrase – to put lipstick on the pig, i.e., leftist ideology. In the 1920s “socialist” was a perfectly acceptable appellation for the Leviathan-worshipers who are the legacy of the post-Wilsonian big government movement. When “socialist” acquired the odor inseparable from all who favor big government, the movement adopted “progressive” as the label of choice. Then “liberal.” Same thoughts, same core philosophy – the shell game of nomenclature is essential to avoid the stench of the policies that attach. To paraphrase President Horndog, “it is the ideology, stupid.” The leftists may embrace any label they wish, but the consistency of the policies ensure that any label they adopt will turn into an epithet within a generation.

While I grasp your generation’s affection for Wikipedia, the mere fact that a writer there subdivides the leftist movement into a thousand sub-movements is not a basis for intelligent distinction. Political ideology is nothing but a single A-B switch – do you think government is the solution or the problem? I write often here that government serves a useful purpose in only three circumstances: (1) killing people, (2) eliminating freedom, and (3) confiscating and disposing wealth. That perspective generally leaves me opposed to the actions of the government. Sometimes those are desirable functions, such as the Bush initiative to eliminate al Qaeda and its ideological Islamist clones from the face of the earth. While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq drew the focus on method one, the closely-related GTMO incarcerations have been an essential element in controlling the evil. (I note your approval of Boumedienne, but I disagree – where you and the foolish majority would grant Constitutional protections to the entire world, I would limit those protections to those who willingly embrace the responsibilities attendant.) Similarly, the Bush administration has done an admirable job interrupting the cash flows of the terrorist networks, so I approve of the full panoply of tools used by the current administration.

“Given the fact that most people’s definition of what liberalism is differs from your own, the fact that most prominent figures in politics, from politicians to analysts, use that definition in discussion, and the fact that you know this leads me to believe you are looking for this discussion. You come out vocalizing views that are decidedly far right. You then say you are a liberal. You then chide anyone who calls you out on it for not knowing what liberal means. You are the elitist the Republicans have been warning us about for all these years…” Here, dear Billy, you wade into the territory of a blowhard – your argument, boiled down to the meat, is that because I resist lazy misapplication of terms I am therefore the one who is wrong. You are correct that I am an elitist – I believe in the pursuit of excellence, and I am a stern taskmaster, and extraordinarily few measure up to my standards. You have potential, but you need to shed your lazy acceptance of the common and commence pursuit of the better.

By Shannon

December 16, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this

It should not be easier to sentence someone to death. The vote should stay unanimous. Nichols said himself that it isn’t in his DNA to stay in jail, so this is the worst punishment that he could get. Paul Howard has his testicles in a bunch over Nichols, he needs to get over it and the law does not need to be changed. And to Pat, you are an ignorant racist fool to think that all black people are against the death penalty.

By Shawny

December 16, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

Fry the man. It is that simple.

By Ted Striker

December 16, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten — Changing the law to increase the likelihood of death penalty verdicts may not bring you the results you want.

Jurors can create a mistrial or even rule a defendant innocent if they strenuously object to a likely sentence.

Jury nullification has been documented in the jury system of multiple countries, dating as far back as 1554. And in the US, the right of a jury to “judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy” was affirmed by John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Popular or not, it’s the constitutional right of a jury. And Georgia law doesn’t preempt the constitution.

By robert brooks

December 16, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

It is unforunate that ignorance about relgion is allowed to enter a jury room, especially in a death penalty case. It’s the highest form of arrongance to believe you have the “power” to put a person to death. The only “power” a juror has is to make a decision based on the evidence. Far too often people try to make and change laws in a jury room. If you disagree with the laws of the land, go lobby to have them changed. To all those “religious” folks, God ordained capital punishment (Romans 13:1-4). Stop using God to approve you ignorance.

By robert brooks

December 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

It is unfortunate that ignorance about religion is allowed to enter a jury room, especially in a death penalty case. It’s the highest form of arrogance to believe you have the “power” to put a person to death. The only “power” a juror has is to make a decision based on the evidence. Far too often people try to make and change laws in a jury room. If you disagree with the laws of the land, go and lobby to have them changed. To all those “religious” folks, God ordained capital punishment (Romans 13:1-4). Stop using God to approve you ignorance.

By cc

December 16, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

i could never vote to have anyone killed, and neither could Jesus. it’s a terrible shame how mean spirited people who call themselves christians can be. Ghandi was right when he said an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind. i would like to see God strike brian nichols down immediately, he has done horrible things. but it is very arrogant to believe that any of us can give the thumbs up or thumbs down on someone’s life like a brutal roman dictator. to kill someone to teach that killing is wrong just doesn’t make sense. no where in the Bible did it say ‘vengeance is mine sayeth the jurors’. i wish our prison system was fixed. send someone like nichols to jail for life without parole. then 3 meals a day with bland food and water to drink and 12 hours of work everyday growing food or other things that support the prison so taxpayers spend less to house them. no cigarettes, no tv, no work out equipment or weights and limited reading materials. people in for life should be incarcerated differently than those that may get out again. but if you’re calling yourself a christian and you support the death penalty than you aren’t doing as Jesus would want you to do, thus, you aren’t much of a christian after all. but you are following the laws of hammurabi. so in other words, you follow the teachings of a middle eastern arab before the teachings of our Savior. but that’s understandable since they had the basic idea of the ten commandments down almost 2000 years before anyone even thought about writing something called the Bible.

By MC

December 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

a jury is the dumbest most inept group of people I’ve ever seen! the only decision they should ever be allowed to make is something as simple as paper or plastic. but they would even mess that up. you don’t get on a jury because you have a really good brain. it’s quite the opposite. and I don’t care but I’ve never seen a jury of my peers. I expect better of myself.

By USCSAgent

December 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

I am a retired US Customs Agent that had the privilege of meeting David Wilhelm and I can say that I was honored to have met an excellent agent and a great man. He was killed by a man with a record of committing violent acts towards others. He, by his own admissions, confessed to the crimes against him and was convicted. Somewhere within the sentencing phase the jurors deadlocked concerning the death penalty. In this case the death penalty was entirely appropriate and should have been duly rendered.

I watched as Dave’s wife, Candee, went to court each day and I believe she was denied justice. What about the victims whose lives were shattered and will never be the same? I do not believe that Nichols should spend the rest of his life in a cell paid for by taxpayers, and further, I think once the reality of his situation sinks in he will become bitter and start planning further acts of violence against his superiors.

I think this verdict sends a message that a defendant can avoid the death penalty for killing a law enforcement officer, and that is precisely the wrong message. They should try him separately for the murder of a Federal agent and get the Federal death penalty for him. It will take time to for the case to wend through the Federal appellate system, but the facts of the case are pretty clear cut. The Federal death penalty does occur as evidenced by the execution of Timothy McVeigh, thereby freeing up space for the next scumbag that comes down the pike. I have hope that justice will be served and the devastated families can begin closure. THAT is true justice.

My most sincere sympathy for the loss of David. He was a good man. I know you will miss him every day you draw breath. I salute him and every officer who has lost his or her life to violence, and at Christmas we decorate the yard with a big blue light with his name on it in honor of Dave. He will never be forgotten.

By oldcowboy

December 16, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

I think the three jurors who did not vote for the death penalty should be locked in a building, along with their families, with an armed Brian Nichols and see if they regret it.

By Freud

December 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Death penalty is just tribal ceremony bonding for ignorant morons who feel inferior to almost anybody ‘less they’re “evil” and for powerful rich people who dont want us looking at them when things get hard. Kill a scary person of color or some raving crazy b******* who’s been beat on their whole life and Joe Sixpack and Bob Citicorp can sleep soundly. So much for truth and justice in the “greatest country” in the 21st century. Sheeeet.

By cc

December 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

now oldcowboy, that’s a georgia christian for ya, if you don’t believe in killing you should be killed, right up there with the spanish inquistion and those pius saints of salem, mass. jump in line, believe what you are told to believe or else, vote for people who will ultimately cause harm to so many like george bush, demean or kill anyone that doesn’t go along, and use words like freedom for you own personal gain but make sure nobody gets too much, call all those who obey patriots and all those that question why a terrorist, beg for killing and senseless wars for Jesus’ sake and label anyone who might live as Jesus would have wanted a coward.

By claudio giusti, italia

December 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

so the death penalty is compulsory???? I always thought Scotus in Woodson and Roberts (1977) decided it cannot be mandatory

By GaLiberal

December 16, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Moron Jim said: That’s it. Those who most vigorously oppose the death penalty have great incentive to work their way onto capital cases to keep the penalty from being imposed. There’s no way to detect their bias until the deed’s done.

What MJ doesn’t tell you is that jurors are asked if they are opposed to the death penalty. So the prosecutors should have known these peoples’ views up front. If they answered untruthfully, then they can be found in contempt. The prosecutor cannot simply exclude someone because they are opposed to the death penalty. That would be unfairly stacking the jury.

MJ continues to demonstrate why he and his narrow moralistic Rethuglicon buttlicking ilk are so out of touch with reality. The death penalty is basically a state sanctioned revenge killing. Similar to a lynching only with the trappings of fairness. Brian Nichols did not receive a fair trail by trying him in the same city and the same courthouse where he allegedly committed these crimes. The jury was already primed to convict him based on the barrage of news coverage during the event and during the months before the trial actually started. How can anyone reasonably argue this was in way a fair and impartial jury? I’m quite sure some of MJ’s buds lied about their impartiality just so they could convict Nichols and deliver justice to the victim’s families. It is the Rethuglicon way to lie and con people so why should this trial be any different?

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And changing the death penalty law is living proof.