| Subject: Re: The Death Penalty ¡V the most controversial of subjects |
Author:
JCayan
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:25:29 06/10/01 Sun
In reply to:
PF
's message, "Re: The Death Penalty – the most controversial of subjects" on 05:02:47 06/10/01 Sun
I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, and the people who are currently opposed to the death penalty had something aweful happen to their family member, they might reconsider their lofty, high-minded, quixotic stance on this issue. Or maybe not, maybe your beliefs on this topic are stronger than your emotional reactions. If so, then more power to you, as I tend to react more viscerally in such cases than rationally.
As an opponent to the death penalty and a person who has suffered the loss of loved ones under violent sets of circumstances, I can categorically state that I am against it. I do find your ¡§More power to you¡¨ comment amusing if not a bit contrite. Perhaps, I should be squired away to the Lepers colony before I infect everyone else. You don¡¦t honestly believe that all surviving families of victims follow you ideology on this subject matter do you?
Finally, I love what Judge Judy said on this issue.
You must excuse me, but I do not share your choice of jurist. Although, I find Judge Judy to be amusing television entertainment that is were I keep her. Me personally, I¡¦d rather admire the counsels of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Joseph Story, Baldwin and Hugo Lafayette Black. I may sound a bit snobbish here, but I find their reasoning conveyed a tad more jurisprudence and forethought than Judge Judy. If I may be permitted to quote ¡§Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. ƒº
Someone mentioned in an earlier thread that when the system fails and an innocent woman/man are executed, then the parties responsible should be held accountable. Can you cite one case in which this has occurred? The fact remains that since the start of the 21st century no ¡§Parties¡¨ have ever been held accountable for their actions. None have served time and most certainly none were tried for willful murder under the threat of the death penalty. The most that occurred was being disbarred. Hardly a valid punishment for the taking of an innocent life by anyone's standard.
The fact remains there has always been a terrible flaw when enforcing the death penalty. And even one unnecessary death warrants enough to questions its practice. Let alone countless numbers as has been the case and thus proven. Yet, in 100 years there has been no enactment by Congress that protects the wrongly accused sentenced to death. Jurists, have systematically refused, stays of execution even when there is DNA evidence pending or a questionable doubt has been raised. This is part and parcel of following the letter of the law. A jurist only needs to weigh if ¡§due process¡¨ has been carried out to its dictionary definition. Rarely does it allow room for common sensibility. However, I do take my hat off to those past prolific jurist. The ones that based their decision not by taking the dictionary meaning of words written into the Constitution, but by weighing and factoring an ever changing society and thus finding the equal balance, which protects the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and those it was meant to serve.
A trial that always comes to mind was the execution of the Rosenbergs. This is a case study in our history that strongly warns us of the dangers of the death penalty. What made the Rosenbergs unique was not that they were accused of spying, but that a political whoremonger operating under the auspices of the House Un-American Activities Committee sought fit to feed the American public with propaganda and irrational fears. Does this remind you of anyone? Hitler comes to my mind. Feed them propaganda, feed them fear, feed them lies, and they will beg us to lead them, no matter what we do to them or what rights we take away.
That is the danger of empowering our politicians and jurist with the right to enforce a death penalty, cleverly labeled as ¡§Legal Institutional Murder¡¨. Simply because it is the law, it doesn¡¦t make it right! If the whole of the American people sheepishly followed every law without questioning its validity. Then we would still have slaves, women would not be able to vote women or have the right to abortion and blacks would have to sit at the back of the bus!
Once the smaller voices are denied the ability to protect themselves, no matter how small they are in number. Then the laws that govern our States have failed and should be changed. Under the Bill of Rights we are ALL protected from inhumane acts of cruelty. We place sanctions against other nations that are violators of the United Nations Human Rights Bills, which by the way in no means supports the death penalty. Then how is it that we can turn a blind eye to our own inequities? The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been violated and moreso, those jurists in charge of protecting the Constitution, have failed us. Simply because the majority feels ¡§Legal Murder¡¨ is acceptable does not make it right
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 