Latest 15 of 40 Total Comments Show All

• 

  SezWho2 at 06:24 PM JST - 26th June

  dano2002,

  Whether we would sing a different tune when our own ox is gored is not the point. The point is are we willing to sing that same tune every time someone else's ox is gored.

  Death penalties for priests anyone?

• 

  Zen_Builder at 06:34 PM JST - 26th June

  Skipthesong:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyphDZaGQ&feature=user

• 

  skipthesong at 08:04 PM JST - 26th June

  Zen,

  Sorry, I can't view youtube on this. What was your point?

  Sez, instead of the conversation being on THE PENALTY, why don't we all start figuring out how things that would bring me to an insane point become a thing of the past?

• 

  SushiSake3 at 09:29 PM JST - 26th June

  Sez - "We have laws because we know we cannot trust our prejudices."

  Precisely the point I have been trying to make.

• 

  SezWho2 at 09:48 PM JST - 26th June

  SushiSake3,

  I thought you made the point rather nicely. I don't think it was your fault that people glossed over it.

• 

  Sarge at 09:49 PM JST - 26th June

  Skipthesong - Very sorry to hear about your dad and his killer being freed after only 5 years. His killer should either be in jail or dead, not free. But don't take matters into your own hands and become a vigilante. You could end up ruining your life.

• 

  SezWho2 at 09:49 PM JST - 26th June

  skipthesong,

  That's a good idea. And I really think we are mostly all trying to get there. Do you have a suggestion?

• 

  sailwind at 10:07 PM JST - 26th June

  “I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” Obama said at a news conference. “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable that that does not violate our Constitution.”

  I agree 100 percent, never knew this about Obama until now. His views on the ultimate penalty are exactly in line with mine. He may not be a a 'bleeding heart' liberal after all but a realist that there are crimes that do go beyond the pale and deserve the death sentence.

• 

  SushiSake3 at 11:00 PM JST - 26th June

  Skipthesong, I'm also very sorry to hear about your dad and his killer being freed after only 5 years - that must hurt you really bad.

  But - and it's a big 'BUT' - if you go out there on a revenge spree and for some reason you get the wrong person and are caught and charged, your life **will **be ruined, and who knows - you could even get the death penalty for murder?

  It would be the ultimate irony.

  I'll say it again - this is why we have laws (& not vigilante justice).

• 

  usaexpat at 12:04 AM JST - 27th June

  Obama supports the death penalty a very odd stance for a liberal democrat in the first place. I think the supreme court was right in striking down this law. Here are the 2 foremost reasons for this: First children's testimony can be unreliable and without DNA evidence a conviction leading to a death penalty is unthinkable and second since most children are molested by relatives or family friends the victims would be even less likely to report abuse if they knew it could lead to the perpetrator being put to death. The second part was even argued by victims rights groups.

• 

  Molenir at 01:09 AM JST - 27th June

  My own opinion of this is that its stupid. Why shouldn't the death penalty be an option for juries to impose? If the crime is heinous enough, then yes, the perp should be put to death, even if he is not guilty of actual murder. Saying that victims would be less likely to report abuse, or that childrens testimony is unreliable are just excuses for doing nothing.

• 

  Alphaape at 04:00 AM JST - 27th June

  I find it news that Obama would disagree with this decision. I wonder how he feels about the other decision the Supreme's made concerning the right to bear arms and striking down the D.C. ban on handguns.

  I agree with the death penalty. I am sorry that for skipthesong the penal system has failed him and his family. But when we post comments about how in Japan the J-teens have a lack of respect for elders, teachers and police becuase they know nothing will happen to them, I think the same appies for the criminal element. They know that somewhere, they can find someone that is willing to say that they are not the cause of their life of crime or murder or rape of children, but it was societies fault that made those conditions so that you did your crime, thus relieving you of any responsiblity. I think that is hogwash.

  The penalty should be carried out. Yes a child may not be able to testify as well as an adult, but as the saying went in the old west: "dead men tell no tales." If there is ample physical evidence there, then there is no excuse. A crime such as this one will scar someone (I am not talking out the side of my mouth saying that it is not societies fault, in this case, an innocent child was assualted by an adult, the child had no recourse in this one).

  Now, we will be responsible for caring for this guy for his life sentece. I believe it is about $30,000/year per inmate in Louisiana. The tax payers money could be better spent.

  As far as Obama, mark my words, his true colors will come out soon. If someone can show me where a true "liberal change" has taken place in any government world wide that has not resulted in some sort of armed conflict as the "enlightened" tried to make the "un-enlightened" to the light, without major violence please tell me.

• 

  Alphaape at 04:00 AM JST - 27th June

  I find it news that Obama would disagree with this decision. I wonder how he feels about the other decision the Supreme's made concerning the right to bear arms and striking down the D.C. ban on handguns.

  I agree with the death penalty. I am sorry that for skipthesong the penal system has failed him and his family. But when we post comments about how in Japan the J-teens have a lack of respect for elders, teachers and police becuase they know nothing will happen to them, I think the same appies for the criminal element. They know that somewhere, they can find someone that is willing to say that they are not the cause of their life of crime or murder or rape of children, but it was societies fault that made those conditions so that you did your crime, thus relieving you of any responsiblity. I think that is hogwash.

  The penalty should be carried out. Yes a child may not be able to testify as well as an adult, but as the saying went in the old west: "dead men tell no tales." If there is ample physical evidence there, then there is no excuse. A crime such as this one will scar someone (I am not talking out the side of my mouth saying that it is not societies fault, in this case, an innocent child was assualted by an adult, the child had no recourse in this one).

  Now, we will be responsible for caring for this guy for his life sentece. I believe it is about $30,000/year per inmate in Louisiana. The tax payers money could be better spent.

  As far as Obama, mark my words, his true colors will come out soon. If someone can show me where a true "liberal change" has taken place in any government world wide that has not resulted in some sort of armed conflict as the "enlightened" tried to make the "un-enlightened" to the light, without major violence please tell me.

• 

  SezWho2 at 12:16 PM JST - 27th June

  Alphaape,

  It seems to me that the New Deal was a true liberal change, but maybe that's not the kind of change you had in mind. Incidentally, could you give some examples of conservative change unattended with violence?

  Additionally, you cast liberalization in terms of the enlightened versus the unenlightened and certainly the American War of Disloyalty in 1776 was an outgrowth, in part, of the Age of Enlightenment. That war was certainly attended with major violence. When you look at liberalization in this way, it's good to consider who it was/is that is not in favor of liberalization--dictators, monarchs, theocrats, autocrats, demagogues, totalitarians, and so on. Are you saying that you would prefer to live under one of those systems?

  I think also, that you have rather biased the discussion with your suggestion that liberalizers consider themselves to be enlightened and that they consider those who do not agree with them to be unenlightened. Generally speaking, enlightenment is a good thing but you make it out to be a pejorative. In my view, what most characterizes a liberal is the desire for personal freedom unrestrained by any ideology that asserts without proof that such freedom is bad for society.

• 

  Kijimuna at 09:25 PM JST - 2nd July

  This is a careful walking on the fence for political reasons. He's trying to avoid his Willie Horton by saying he supports death penalty for child rapists. Then he says that it should be applied "only in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes." This is more of Obama trying to be all things to all people.

  I would respect him so much more if he had said "no, it's cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone for rape, even if the victim is a child. And no, my answer wouldn't change if the victim is my daughter. It's not that I don't love my kid, it's that I fear the state's being given too much leeway with the taking of its citizens' lives. Punish offenders, of course, but I believe that the death penalty is not something we should allow to creep."

Register or login to add a comment!