Click Here to Read the Commentary
Per the Sixth Amendment, don't forget that the jury has the right to judge *the law itself* in addition to the facts of the case.
And you are right about education. People are taught *what* to think rather than *how* to think. Please see my essay on education at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com.
Thank you.
Alice
John
I am a constitutional law researcher based in Minnesota. I was taught how to study and interpret the constitution by an individual that spent 30 years of his life and probably over 50 thousand hours studying and compiling research in this area. He died in 2008 without once ever petitioning the courts.
The State and federal taxing powers. Licensing and administration. Police powers. Contract and property rights. Gun control.
As for the constitution. Its still there. Under most circumstances, it simply cannot be reached because of complicated relationships created through unknown waivers.
An example:
Property law and building codes.
The State, under its police powers has the power to regulate building construction, alteration, or repair. It creates administrative agencies to oversee those activities. Here in Minnesota, as determined by the MN Court of Appeals, the Code regulates the “ACT” of building.
Most engaged in the activity are contractors and engaged in an activity subject to regulation under a license. The Code is written by the same agency that licenses.
The power to license includes the power to regulate under the license.
That would mean that the Code would fall within the context of business regulations. Hence in MN, the Codes controlling statutes fall under Chapter Title “Trade Regulation/Consumer protection Laws”
The Code must be enforced equally upon all whom would fall within its scope.
The law must be enforced within the purpose and context of the political/economic aspects of this States police powers it was created under at its inception.
THE RUB:
Substance over form. What is the State really doing?
Its placing restrictions on one mans right of property through a third party regulatory scheme (licensed activity) by a licensee who lacks property and therefore standing to argue injuries or wrongs or that those restrictions are unreasonable or arbitrary.
It is beyond the competency of the courts to engage in any such collateral inquiry.
In other words, the licensee cannot reach into the right of the property owners as a means to limit the powers of the State to regulate what amount to be a business/occupations privilege. The very powers upon which the Code is created. Judicially untouchable
Moreover, regulation of the privilege under the license poses a political question upon the courts.
The same laws created under the same political economic aspects of this States police powers are being lifted up and out of context and are applied upon the property owners themselves via integration with zoning permits.
Like and similar circumstances? Constitutional/judicial Due Process for challenge of a code violation? Hardley. The law must be enforced equally upon all.
Where then does this leave property and its constitutional/judicial protection?
Unreachable. The power to regulate INCLUDES the power to PROHIBIT under the license. Application to the privilege includes the acceptance of the conditions under the license.
The CONSTITUTION and it protections are irrelevant.
It get better.
The State also has the power to impose an occupation tax upon its licensees. This would fall within the context of an excise or privilege tax. Based on the value of the materials, labor, overhead and profit of the work done.
Instead they call it a permit fee and allow municipalities to contract Code enforcement to LLC’s to save money.
Revenue derived from a fee is a TAX. If the State is prohibited from imposing an EXCISE TAX upon civil liberties (property) (power to tax is power to destroy) how can the municipality hand an LLC the power to derive revenue from a so called fee if they themselves are prohibited from doing so?
Where the power to tax exist in this State, it cannot be suspended or contracted away. It must be collected for public purposes.
AND, if the State has the power to tax the occupation based on valuation of the work done, how can a private for profit LLC move into the constitutionally exclusive sphere of an occupation tax whereby deriving revenue from a fee for private purposes?
Where the power to tax exist the privilege of corporate profit and gain cannot displace it.
HMMM
And what of the constitution?
Again. Irrelevant.
We are all being taxed and regulated as if we are mere trespassers on our own property. And the courts sit by idle doing exactly as they are suppose to....as what is left of this once great republic burns. Think mere procedural due process under a licensed and taxable privilege as distinguished from constitutional/judicial due process involving an activity that is a bona fide civil liberty.
If the law is to be enforced equally upon all, which form of due process trumps? How does the court sit in relation to the “RIGHT” as that right is affected by the enforcement of the law?
Are we to believe that the courts would apply an entirely separate standard of scrutiny upon the codes provisions depending on whether or not an actual right was exercised and possessed?
Sincerely
Mark
Dear John W. Whitehead,
As a Yellow Dog Democrat it was an easy and delightful read of your opinions in your current article. I am a freelance stage director and spend time in lots of different venues. At the moment I am in the small, highly Republican town of Mt. Carmel, Illinois. It is so politically partisan that the local paper is called THE DAILY REPUBLICAN. Seeing your column in this "rag" I almost skipped it, being pretty certain that it probably would be more "Fox News" cant. Happily, I did not skip it.
Thanks for so cogent and well reasoned a summary of what has gone wrong with our country. The only thing you omitted that I would love to see in print is a repudiation of the Supreme Court's right wing majority for ignoring their own bias toward "states rights" and then blatantly intruding into the Florida recount process and thus stealing for Bush an election that most voters thought ought to have gone to Gore.
Keep up the good work.
Tom
Monday, September 12, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Ten Years After 9/11: Have We Become the Enemy of Freedom?
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Mr. Whitehead,
Whatever the actual cause of the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, plane crashes and/or fire were not the cause. Architects, engineers, physicists too numerous to ignore - even people with a good knowledge of high school physics - have proved that the collapses happened at near free-fall acceleration (of gravity: 9.8 m/sec/sec). The flaw in the NIST reports is that they computed an average acceleration of the collapses, instead of the dynamic (instant-by-instant) acceleration of the collapses. Any high school physics teacher, with software available free on the Internet, could compute and graph the data points obtainable from on-line videos of the collapsing buildings. I have personally done such computations and graphed the data: points of fixed points on the three buildings after the actual collapses began, rather than at the first buckling and shuddering, with no actual downward movement. The results are inescapable: the buildings met NO significant physical resistance by the underlying floors - impossible unless those floors had had their structures destroyed before being reached by the collapsing floors above. Only an event comparable to a so-called "controlled demolition"could have achieved this result.
Therefore, the questions that remain are: Who? and Why? Your commentary, while accurate, is too timid - and far too late. The fascist state has arrived in the U.S., as it did in 1930's Germany, in the guise of "security". As the German people (out of the belief that "it can never happen here"), failed to recognize early enough the destruction of the Republic, so have the American people. NOT a "democracy", but a Republic called the United STATES of America, as the Founders intended.
Now it is too late! The situation is beyond repair or restoration by political means. Only methods that would result in the deaths of millions of our own citizens by a government determined to retain power. And, just as people like yourself failed to challenge those seizing power while they were seizing it, you will also be late in calling for the overthrow of the usurpers who have seized our nation's government. Your commentaries, therefore, are as smoke in a wind storm - they will achieve nothing of consequence. Those now in power will never yield that power back to the citizenry; only force will attain that goal. And men such as yourself, too weak and too late in their critiques when power was first being seized, will likewise delay the call for decisive action by the citizenry.
Brave words by timid men: Were you "part of the problem", as the Vietnam War-era protesters used to chant? My personal opinion is "Yes", as were most Americans. "When good men do nothing..." You certainly must know the rest of that quote.
Dear Sir,
Very well done! Great writing and the truth too!
It is time for all of America to confront the path that America has been
taken and route out those that are doing it and to take it back to its roots
of respect and freedom. Enough is enough.
Thank you very much for all of your work for us!
Sincerely,
Larry
Mr. Whitehead, you shock me!! While there are arguable reasons why we should not have gone into Iraq the supposed lack of weapons of mass destruction was NOT one of them! Surely you haven't bought into the leftist lie that Iraq didn't have any, you are certainly better than that!! Hussein had and USED his weapons on his own people many times throughout the Iran Iraq war and after and had threatened to turn those onto neighbors. You have much of the Liberal theology in your articles that has brought Christianity down to the level of "just another religion" but you have always had many thought provoking ideas in them. Please don't destroy your credibility by spreading hogwash.
We, meaning in this case John, has done an excellent job of refusing to acknowledge that today's US population is a bunch of profligates unworthy of the nation they inherited. And until we can unbreak an egg, or make butterflies strong, or a charismatic leader emerges, there's nothing anyone can do to change that.
Alas,
Rey
Follow the money. There is a war in this country, but its against the White Christians. There being pushed out of all the sports, tv, movies, name it and you'll see. a negro can committe a crime and not concidered racism. But, if a white man even speaks out against the racist in this country, its turned around. What a bunch of hyprocrites.
On April 23rd, during a debate on immigration law, Congressman John Rankin makes the following statement to the House on the subject of the Jews, which is recorded in the Congressional Record, "They whine about about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation...Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslvakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Chrisitan people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here."
Don't forget GOD took away the Kingdom from the Jews and made their house desolate (Matt.21:43;23:38). They are still enemies of Jesus Christ, this country and its Christians. The white are systematically pushed out of everything great they have done in this country.
Mr. Whitehead,
Whatever the actual cause of the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, plane crashes and/or fire were not the cause. Architects, engineers, physicists too numerous to ignore - even people with a good knowledge of high school physics - have proved that the collapses happened at near free-fall acceleration (of gravity: 9.8 m/sec/sec). The flaw in the NIST reports is that they computed an average acceleration of the collapses, instead of the dynamic (instant-by-instant) acceleration of the collapses. Any high school physics teacher, with software available free on the Internet, could compute and graph the data points obtainable from on-line videos of the collapsing buildings. I have personally done such computations and graphed the data: points of fixed points on the three buildings after the actual collapses began, rather than at the first buckling and shuddering, with no actual downward movement. The results are inescapable: the buildings met NO significant physical resistance by the underlying floors - impossible unless those floors had had their structures destroyed before being reached by the collapsing floors above. Only an event comparable to a so-called "controlled demolition"could have achieved this result.
Therefore, the questions that remain are: Who? and Why? Your commentary, while accurate, is too timid - and far too late. The fascist state has arrived in the U.S., as it did in 1930's Germany, in the guise of "security". As the German people (out of the belief that "it can never happen here"), failed to recognize early enough the destruction of the Republic, so have the American people. NOT a "democracy", but a Republic called the United STATES of America, as the Founders intended.
Now it is too late! The situation is beyond repair or restoration by political means. Only methods that would result in the deaths of millions of our own citizens by a government determined to retain power. And, just as people like yourself failed to challenge those seizing power while they were seizing it, you will also be late in calling for the overthrow of the usurpers who have seized our nation's government. Your commentaries, therefore, are as smoke in a wind storm - they will achieve nothing of consequence. Those now in power will never yield that power back to the citizenry; only force will attain that goal. And men such as yourself, too weak and too late in their critiques when power was first being seized, will likewise delay the call for decisive action by the citizenry.
Brave words by timid men: Were you "part of the problem", as the Vietnam War-era protesters used to chant? My personal opinion is "Yes", as were most Americans. "When good men do nothing..." You certainly must know the rest of that quote.
Dear Sir,
Very well done! Great writing and the truth too!
It is time for all of America to confront the path that America has been
taken and route out those that are doing it and to take it back to its roots
of respect and freedom. Enough is enough.
Thank you very much for all of your work for us!
Sincerely,
Larry
Mr. Whitehead, you shock me!! While there are arguable reasons why we should not have gone into Iraq the supposed lack of weapons of mass destruction was NOT one of them! Surely you haven't bought into the leftist lie that Iraq didn't have any, you are certainly better than that!! Hussein had and USED his weapons on his own people many times throughout the Iran Iraq war and after and had threatened to turn those onto neighbors. You have much of the Liberal theology in your articles that has brought Christianity down to the level of "just another religion" but you have always had many thought provoking ideas in them. Please don't destroy your credibility by spreading hogwash.
We, meaning in this case John, has done an excellent job of refusing to acknowledge that today's US population is a bunch of profligates unworthy of the nation they inherited. And until we can unbreak an egg, or make butterflies strong, or a charismatic leader emerges, there's nothing anyone can do to change that.
Alas,
Rey
Follow the money. There is a war in this country, but its against the White Christians. There being pushed out of all the sports, tv, movies, name it and you'll see. a negro can committe a crime and not concidered racism. But, if a white man even speaks out against the racist in this country, its turned around. What a bunch of hyprocrites.
On April 23rd, during a debate on immigration law, Congressman John Rankin makes the following statement to the House on the subject of the Jews, which is recorded in the Congressional Record, "They whine about about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation...Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslvakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Chrisitan people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here."
Don't forget GOD took away the Kingdom from the Jews and made their house desolate (Matt.21:43;23:38). They are still enemies of Jesus Christ, this country and its Christians. The white are systematically pushed out of everything great they have done in this country.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Rutherford Institute Appeals to Virginia Supreme Court on Behalf of 14-Year-Old Honor Student Expelled for Shooting Plastic ‘Spitwads’
Click Here to Read the Press Release
We have these programs because the ACLU and its buddies on the bench have restricted the teacher's ability to use their discretion to deal with kids.
Get the lawyers our of the schools and let the principals do their jobs.
We don't have to get the lawyer's kids out of the public schools because they don't go there.
Give the public school principal the same freedom given to the private school and the problem will disappear.
Alan
We have these programs because the ACLU and its buddies on the bench have restricted the teacher's ability to use their discretion to deal with kids.
Get the lawyers our of the schools and let the principals do their jobs.
We don't have to get the lawyer's kids out of the public schools because they don't go there.
Give the public school principal the same freedom given to the private school and the problem will disappear.
Alan
Friday, August 19, 2011
Setting the Record Straight: Michele Bachmann, Francis Schaeffer and the Christian Right
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Dear John Whitehead,
We’ve never met, but you might recognize my name, because Jayson Whitehead published an interview with me on the Rutherford Institute website in 2005 concerning my book, _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_.
I wanted to tell you that I was delighted to read your article on Bachmann and Schaeffer on your website. I agree heartily with it. I don’t know if you saw my op-ed article on the same topic (published in _Philadelphia Inquirer_, _Ft. Worth Star-Telegram_, _Sacracmento Bee_, _Kansas City Star_, _Modesto Bee_, and elsewhere), but here it is, in case you are interested:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/17/3844430/bachmann-and-dominionism.html
Blessings,
Richard
Dear John Whitehead,
We’ve never met, but you might recognize my name, because Jayson Whitehead published an interview with me on the Rutherford Institute website in 2005 concerning my book, _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_.
I wanted to tell you that I was delighted to read your article on Bachmann and Schaeffer on your website. I agree heartily with it. I don’t know if you saw my op-ed article on the same topic (published in _Philadelphia Inquirer_, _Ft. Worth Star-Telegram_, _Sacracmento Bee_, _Kansas City Star_, _Modesto Bee_, and elsewhere), but here it is, in case you are interested:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/17/3844430/bachmann-and-dominionism.html
Blessings,
Richard
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Death Penalty Is a Miscarriage of Justice: It Should Be Abolished
Click Here to Read the Commentary
I am not a dedicated Baptist. I have not been to church for years. I am
67 years old.
I was raised as a Christian and I believe in God and I believe you can
not go to heaven except by Jesus Christ.
I have seen shows on the death penalty and it concerns me.
When a convicted criminal is sentenced to death and he is seated to be
executed, the State provides a priest or clergy to stand by his side and
do whatever he can to get the KILLER to ask the Lord to forgive his sins.
We all know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to have God forgive ALL
our sins who ask forgiveness, no matter what the sin or crime, and God
will forgive the person and he will go to heaven.
THAT, is where I have a problem. I don't want the killer to go to Heaven.
I want the killer to do life in prison and be dead a long time before a
clergy or priest can get the person to confess his sins and ask God for
forgiveness and he straight to hell.
That is my opinion.
you are speaking truth to wimpiness. not having the death penalty is the true miscarriage of justice. endless appeals and the different levels of murder are also miscarriages of justice. the death penalty is not there for justice. once an injustice has been done there is only retribution, restitution, revenge and righting a wrong. in any crime there is only injustice, justice has already gone out the window. and for the taking of a human life, deliberately or in the act of another crime, society has the not just the right but the obligation to demand the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. you apologists for murderers make me sick. if the founding fathers did not want the death penalty in america they would have specifically included that in the constitution. they knew it was an effective deterrent and the obligation of society to protect its citizens.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
While there may be times when people have been wrongly charged with, even convicted of, a crime, the death penalty is not a miscarriage of justice by any stretch of the imagination. The death penalty was a penalty instituted by God to protect society against those who had become so spiritually corrupt that they had degenerated to the level of murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc. No matter who says otherwise, the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate punishment that actually raises the dignity of human life back to the level where if a person takes a life he pays for it with his own. Period. And those who are the family of the victim should get the first opportunity to throw the switch, pull the lever for the hangman, whatever.
What has happened in our culture is we have so debased the value of human life that we simply allow crime to happen with minimum punishment. Courts bargain with the lawyers of the criminal while the victim/victim's family has little or no input into that process. That is a travesty! Godly designed justice is always based upon restitution. Under that system, if you steal, you pay back double the value of what you stole. If you cannot, you are sold to indentured servitude until you work off what you owe. If you kill someone, you die, unless the killing was accidental. Then there are even specific consequences and ways of dealing with that situation.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" has been so abused by the God haters because the original intent of the commandment was thou shalt not MURDER, or kill without cause. And, of course, the word "murder" in our current culture has been debased to mean any kind of killing, legitimate or not.
You have some wonderful, thought provocing articles, Mr. Whitehead, but this is one area where you are in error. If, in fact, someone is erroneously put to death - and, frankly, I don't believe it happens as often as some would have us believe - then, we do have a God who will sort out the problems when he sends Christ back and we all go before that judgement seat. Those who lie or otherwise cause the wrongful execution of someone will indeed face their own penalties before God, who is a far better judge than we will ever be. Now, before you go into the usual, "Well, then, why don't we let God judge the murderer?" routine, God laid out the law telling US that it was OUR responsibility to protect ourselves using his rules. WE were to carry out the law and the penalties. If, perchance it is discovered here and now that someone did lie and an innocent person was put to death, THAT person dies. It really is as simple as that.
Keith
I was opposed to the death penalty for many years but now I realize the problem is that it takes WAY TOO LONG to carry out. The "Mumia" killer has been on death row longer than the cop he murdered was alive.
Ergo for Richard Allen Davis here in California, far longer on death row than Polly Klaas was alive.
Blacks here in Oakland are 28% of the population but 80% of the crime, in SF 5% of the population but at least half the crime and the same is true of every major urban area in the US.
The rioters in the UK should have received the instant death penalty. Very few innocent people have been executed.
I agree it should be zero but the great thing about the penalty is that none of these murderers will be killing again, it's a 100% deterrent in the case of the particular killers.
I strongly support Ron Paul but there are some nutcases in the libertarian ranks who are out to lunch.
Rothbard strongly supported the death penalty, Rockefeller's takeback of Attica and the LAPD's whipping
of Rodney King. So your leftist intellectual mush is not any official libertarian position.
I wish to respond to this quote: "There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty--certainly not the way it is implemented in America, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to get elected by appearing tough on crime."
God told Noah this: GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The reason that a man should be put to death is because we are made in the image of God. This is a transcendant thing. The reason for doing so isn't disappearing any time soon -- never, in fact.
Interestingly, God allowed David, a murderer, to live. At the same time, God put many to death and used men to carry out these things. Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery. Thus, it is hard to know how to carry forward the Old Testament commands in that light, really hard.
"RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Some would say, I among them, that it is a further injustice to force the family member of a murdered victim to, through taxes, pay for the murder to be incarcerated and it is made all the worse when they eat better, sleep better, have better health care, better accommodations (libraries and media) than many of the family members of murder victims. If your family member got murdered and you had to pay an extra $20 a month to feed and clothe them the rest of their life, and if that takes away food from the table of your remaining children, how do you square that with justice?
EX 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses... 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. 15 "Anyone who attacks* his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
These are Gods words, not laws made up by man. God is not immoral. These are his standards. I don't see how being opposed to the death penalty itself as immoral can be supported scripturally.
The only challenge for me is to temper judgement with mercy. As James says: "JAS 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
Further, when a police officer guns down a man who is on a shooting rampage, this is a just carrying out of the command to protect people made in the image of God. He is killed because he won't stop any other way. This is moral. This is just. Do we only shoot to stop a murderer in the act, or, as the Bible indicates, is it correct to mete out punishment for it also, after the fact? Consider this: the Cities of Refuge were to hand over people found guilty of intentional murder, to the avenger. What can be more clear than that?
To follow God is to be both stern and merciful, to order the execution of some and to stay the execution of others. I have to confess it would be a sober thing to actually have to mete out such a sentence. We who are forgiven much do indeed want to be merciful.
I have even considered what I would do if being attacked by someone who can only be stopped from killing me by killing them first. Should I, as a Christian, give up my physical life to give them a bit more time that God may reach them?
What about my family? Do I owe it to them to preserve myself? While I have no zero trouble killing to protect others, yet I struggle about protecting myself if it means killing another?
Do I let a person kill me and take away my children's father and source of support, do I keep me alive for them? Do I instead trust them to God? How do I decide.
If I am to base my beliefs on Scripture, npunishment that includes putting to death a murderer is both just and moral, but it is not to be exclusive of mercy. God himself exemplifies this. It is with intrepidation and prayer that we should carry out our God's standards. We should not apply them with human vengeance, but out of worship and respect for God's laws, his authority and his standards, trusting to him the results. Not for spite. Not to avenge. But to apply justice, in a just way, always mindful of his mercy, yet not to the exclusion of his justice. This is so difficult.
Bill
Yes, this is just another instance -- abolition of the death penalty -- when Left Libertarians and Right Libertarians may agree whole-heartedly with one another. Why, then, do they not combine to "put the screws" to candidates for office, at every level, who stand opposed to the factual, moral, legal, and philosophical reasonableness of abolishing this blemish on the face of our country? Because they are not commonly financed by corporations? Because they do not commonly support a return to the gold standard? Because they are not subsumed by the unthinking/unaccountable tribalism of partisan politics? As you so carefully and cogently point out, there isn't reason or anything else substantial standing in the way of immediately abolishing the death penalty. (Nor, is there anything reasonable standing in the way of a complete reconstitution of our entire penal system.) If like-minded citizens would stand together, the abomination of capital punishment would be gone over night. The profiteers and others who reap benefits from this injustice would be defeated. Do you see a chance that that might happen any time soon? If there is the slimmest chance, it will be because of people like you who continue to beat the drum for sanity and real justice. Thank you.
John Whitehead:
I heard your interview in WVTF this evening.
It sounds as though you have been hanging out with your apostate buddy Franky Schaeffer.
You may make denigrating comments about Christianity, but you know very well the law of God requires the death penalty for capital crimes.
Please take Samuel Rutherford's name off your organization. You'd be better served by becoming a branch office of the ACLU.
Sincerely,
David
You're right. I couldn't agree with you more. The death penalty, as we do it now, is a miscarriage of justice and should be abolished. Lethal injection is just so tacky and tasteless.
The Japanese had the right idea. Instead of forcible execution, we need to bring back mandatory seppuku!
What utter rubbish. So this system must be perfect or eliminated? Will this metric then be used for the entire legal system? The entire welfare system? ad naseum. Has it not been recognized by you we live is and imperfect world? A world in rebellion to its' maker. He had a plan, rejected in the old testament then rejected in the new. Perfection is longed for by all creation so if it's not here and now it will best best to remove evil from the camp once and for all and the ways to determine the evidence, means of judgement and penalties are quite clear in Deuteronomy. Take a peek and then comment on what the Judge of all the earth has missed. cruft
John,
I make an effort to read all your pieces on LRC; I appreciate your work.
Your argument against the death penalty is certainly provocative. The fact that it doesn’t seem to deter the act of murder would seem to lean more toward the fact of the grind of the system, and possibly to the lack of public executions for capital offenses.
However, since God’s word is the final authority, should we reconsider? I’m thinking that your argument could be applied to any civil crime as justice is rarely carried out, much less to biblical standards should one be convicted of rape, theft, fraud, etc.
Do you recall Rushdoony commenting on the plight of the wrongly convicted?
Regards,
Curt
I think the real injustice about the death penalty is discrimination by gender. A man is MUCH more likely to be executed for a crime than a woman who does the exact same thing. Why doesn't this ever get mentioned? If women were the victim of "disparate impact", we'd hear this over and over and over again. But it almost never gets mentioned.
Men are the Rodney Dangerfield of American society. We get no respect.
"It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not."
Thomas
Actually I believe it was George Ryan of Illinois who suspended executions in Illinois. His successor may have signed the legislation.
John.
with DNA evidence catching and trying the criminal is more precise. I'm for the death penalty if it's a 100% air tight case proven with dna and other witness/police evidence. If someone killed a family member or close friend, I'd personally want to see the perp dead and out of society for good, and so would most, except the liberals of course.
-- L. A.
"There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty – certainly not the way it is implemented in America"
Mr. Whitehead, I quit reading your column at this point. No need to read further to know that we are in complete agreement. A quick scan told me that I am familiar with the anecdotal support for your position.
I have long been a believer that the death penalty--justly applied--is morally tenable in a Christian ethos. Jesus, on the cross, did not tell either thief that he was getting a raw deal. (As for His unjust punishment, well, that is utterly unique and beyond this interlocution.)
The late John Paul II (even as a Catholic, I refuse to call him "blessed," for reasons that are another discussion) left the door open the merest crack for the just application of a death penalty. However, his general disparagement of the modern death penalty was technologically-based: suggesting that the state of the art of penology was such that society could be sufficiently protected from the lethal depredations of convicted "stone" killers. Unfortunately, that logic offered no protection whatsoever to fellow prisoners or to prison staff--who are, after all, members of "society."
(Was Jeffrey Dahmer saved? We'll never know, in this life. However, he might have been saved, had he had to face the executioner. And the fact that his fellow-convict murderer faced no lethal consequences for the murder is immensely problematic.)
Anyhow, there is no question at all that our American system of "justice" is light-years from achieving even the general intention to mete out true justice. For that reason, I years ago abandoned my stubborn--albeit qualified--defense of the death penalty in this country.
I admire your work and your writings. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
--
Mark
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I am a college freshman at UCLA and trying to get my blog (bunburydave.tumblr) going and trying to get into nationally syndicated journalism. I came across your article after being referred to lewrockwell to read about Ron Paul being under appreciated by the press-which he is.
I just wanted to point out this particular line from your article: "...there are 1,371 blacks on death row (42% of the total death row population) despite the fact that blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population."
It was very misleading to include that blacks make up 12% of the population when the pertinent statistic would have been what percentage of criminals in the United States are black, because only criminals are eligible to be committed to death row. Also, you did not acknowledge any counter argument. Just a little constructive criticism.
Josh
John:
You know I love you and your work.
But on the issue of abolishing the death penalty I believe you are wrong.
First the death penalty is Biblical. You know that. Second, nations and societies that fail to execute capital punishment incur God's wrath, 'blood guiltiness'.
That said, I realize the state - US government is screwed up big time and has executed people wrongly. However, that is not to negate the clear Biblical and historical precedent for capital punishment.
The Bible clearly states that those who fail to administer capital punishment properly at then subject to that punishment. Go back and read Rushdoony's the Institutes of Biblical law on this.
Rather than abolish the death penalty, we should demand it be carried out properly, and if it is not those involved in injustice should be subject to it. That's the proper solution.
When you can make a Biblical and historical argument against the death penalty, I'll listen, but to say because the EU has abolished the death penalty so we should too is a poor argument (and you know it).
To think that Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and others don't deserve the death penalty is not only unBiblical but irresponsible.
I greatly respect you and your share with you your fear of the state using its increasing power against its citizens. The answer is to correct this over reach, which its a root cause.
Once again, I greatly respect you and your work. I think you are seriously wrong on this issue and that such a position hurts the institute and damages it's standing for truth and righteousness in the Christain community.
Love you and the Institute.
Gary
In a recent article on Lew Rockwell's web site you write, "Even if most of those condemned to die prove to be guilty, if just one innocent person is wrongly executed, that is still one too many."
I think by this logic one could never justify a death penalty, which is clearly a result at odds with the scriptures.
God seems to equate wrongfully letting the guilty live (which you support, with regrets) with putting to death the innocent (which you think is utterly intolerable to the point of prohibiting the death penalty). Both should be avoided, of course, but mistakes will be made, as God (of course) knows. Your balance would seem to be that one innocent death outweighs letting dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of guilty people live. That is a very common standard among decent and godly men but one I feel is unbiblical and humanistic.
For a good articulation of what I'm referring to, consider listening to the following:
Casey Anthony: Soulless Murderer by Phil Elmore
http://kgov.com/bel/20110707
Thanks for giving this some thought. Enjoy your writing and have for years.
Frederick
Mr. Whitehead,
You make a pragmatic case for the abeyance of death penalty executions. However, unless God is in error himself in having governments do them, the idea remains that if one man sheds another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man made. Further, if such punishment is swift, it brings terror to evil doers said Solomon. The way our appeals processes go, it makes the "swift" part practically non-existent, and thus renders the penalty (if it ever comes) not the deterent it would be. The Bible is clear that justice, if swift, is a deterrent. There is no arguing that. It makes clear the standard that those who murder deserve the death penalty, as the Cities of Refuge give up those who are not found innocent to the avenger of blood. But we do see mercy for David who ordered a murder, for God did not order David's death, the God who declared the standard. Jesus did not stone a woman caught in adultery to death. Those two things, together with your pragmatic considerations leave much room for viewpoints on this. Include the fact that God did not carry out the death of Adam and Eve swiftly but over time, givng them time to repent and call upon God. Perhaps in your conversations, you might speak to the ideal, and the Biblical truths, even while we acknowledge the pragmatic current limitations. I must not be so idealistic that people die needlessly for it. Yet we must not be so pragmatic that we let go of a standard that is fitting. We ought hold both. That's the best I see it. Thank you for explaning your viewpoint more thoroughly.
Bill
Best if all the very bad people are given the opportunity to commit
suicide. Start with the guy in Norway. At the end - God will judge us
all so if there is any doubt; then
the sentence should be a life term
I am not a dedicated Baptist. I have not been to church for years. I am
67 years old.
I was raised as a Christian and I believe in God and I believe you can
not go to heaven except by Jesus Christ.
I have seen shows on the death penalty and it concerns me.
When a convicted criminal is sentenced to death and he is seated to be
executed, the State provides a priest or clergy to stand by his side and
do whatever he can to get the KILLER to ask the Lord to forgive his sins.
We all know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to have God forgive ALL
our sins who ask forgiveness, no matter what the sin or crime, and God
will forgive the person and he will go to heaven.
THAT, is where I have a problem. I don't want the killer to go to Heaven.
I want the killer to do life in prison and be dead a long time before a
clergy or priest can get the person to confess his sins and ask God for
forgiveness and he straight to hell.
That is my opinion.
you are speaking truth to wimpiness. not having the death penalty is the true miscarriage of justice. endless appeals and the different levels of murder are also miscarriages of justice. the death penalty is not there for justice. once an injustice has been done there is only retribution, restitution, revenge and righting a wrong. in any crime there is only injustice, justice has already gone out the window. and for the taking of a human life, deliberately or in the act of another crime, society has the not just the right but the obligation to demand the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. you apologists for murderers make me sick. if the founding fathers did not want the death penalty in america they would have specifically included that in the constitution. they knew it was an effective deterrent and the obligation of society to protect its citizens.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
While there may be times when people have been wrongly charged with, even convicted of, a crime, the death penalty is not a miscarriage of justice by any stretch of the imagination. The death penalty was a penalty instituted by God to protect society against those who had become so spiritually corrupt that they had degenerated to the level of murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc. No matter who says otherwise, the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate punishment that actually raises the dignity of human life back to the level where if a person takes a life he pays for it with his own. Period. And those who are the family of the victim should get the first opportunity to throw the switch, pull the lever for the hangman, whatever.
What has happened in our culture is we have so debased the value of human life that we simply allow crime to happen with minimum punishment. Courts bargain with the lawyers of the criminal while the victim/victim's family has little or no input into that process. That is a travesty! Godly designed justice is always based upon restitution. Under that system, if you steal, you pay back double the value of what you stole. If you cannot, you are sold to indentured servitude until you work off what you owe. If you kill someone, you die, unless the killing was accidental. Then there are even specific consequences and ways of dealing with that situation.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" has been so abused by the God haters because the original intent of the commandment was thou shalt not MURDER, or kill without cause. And, of course, the word "murder" in our current culture has been debased to mean any kind of killing, legitimate or not.
You have some wonderful, thought provocing articles, Mr. Whitehead, but this is one area where you are in error. If, in fact, someone is erroneously put to death - and, frankly, I don't believe it happens as often as some would have us believe - then, we do have a God who will sort out the problems when he sends Christ back and we all go before that judgement seat. Those who lie or otherwise cause the wrongful execution of someone will indeed face their own penalties before God, who is a far better judge than we will ever be. Now, before you go into the usual, "Well, then, why don't we let God judge the murderer?" routine, God laid out the law telling US that it was OUR responsibility to protect ourselves using his rules. WE were to carry out the law and the penalties. If, perchance it is discovered here and now that someone did lie and an innocent person was put to death, THAT person dies. It really is as simple as that.
Keith
I was opposed to the death penalty for many years but now I realize the problem is that it takes WAY TOO LONG to carry out. The "Mumia" killer has been on death row longer than the cop he murdered was alive.
Ergo for Richard Allen Davis here in California, far longer on death row than Polly Klaas was alive.
Blacks here in Oakland are 28% of the population but 80% of the crime, in SF 5% of the population but at least half the crime and the same is true of every major urban area in the US.
The rioters in the UK should have received the instant death penalty. Very few innocent people have been executed.
I agree it should be zero but the great thing about the penalty is that none of these murderers will be killing again, it's a 100% deterrent in the case of the particular killers.
I strongly support Ron Paul but there are some nutcases in the libertarian ranks who are out to lunch.
Rothbard strongly supported the death penalty, Rockefeller's takeback of Attica and the LAPD's whipping
of Rodney King. So your leftist intellectual mush is not any official libertarian position.
I wish to respond to this quote: "There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty--certainly not the way it is implemented in America, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to get elected by appearing tough on crime."
God told Noah this: GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The reason that a man should be put to death is because we are made in the image of God. This is a transcendant thing. The reason for doing so isn't disappearing any time soon -- never, in fact.
Interestingly, God allowed David, a murderer, to live. At the same time, God put many to death and used men to carry out these things. Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery. Thus, it is hard to know how to carry forward the Old Testament commands in that light, really hard.
"RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Some would say, I among them, that it is a further injustice to force the family member of a murdered victim to, through taxes, pay for the murder to be incarcerated and it is made all the worse when they eat better, sleep better, have better health care, better accommodations (libraries and media) than many of the family members of murder victims. If your family member got murdered and you had to pay an extra $20 a month to feed and clothe them the rest of their life, and if that takes away food from the table of your remaining children, how do you square that with justice?
EX 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses... 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. 15 "Anyone who attacks* his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
These are Gods words, not laws made up by man. God is not immoral. These are his standards. I don't see how being opposed to the death penalty itself as immoral can be supported scripturally.
The only challenge for me is to temper judgement with mercy. As James says: "JAS 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
Further, when a police officer guns down a man who is on a shooting rampage, this is a just carrying out of the command to protect people made in the image of God. He is killed because he won't stop any other way. This is moral. This is just. Do we only shoot to stop a murderer in the act, or, as the Bible indicates, is it correct to mete out punishment for it also, after the fact? Consider this: the Cities of Refuge were to hand over people found guilty of intentional murder, to the avenger. What can be more clear than that?
To follow God is to be both stern and merciful, to order the execution of some and to stay the execution of others. I have to confess it would be a sober thing to actually have to mete out such a sentence. We who are forgiven much do indeed want to be merciful.
I have even considered what I would do if being attacked by someone who can only be stopped from killing me by killing them first. Should I, as a Christian, give up my physical life to give them a bit more time that God may reach them?
What about my family? Do I owe it to them to preserve myself? While I have no zero trouble killing to protect others, yet I struggle about protecting myself if it means killing another?
Do I let a person kill me and take away my children's father and source of support, do I keep me alive for them? Do I instead trust them to God? How do I decide.
If I am to base my beliefs on Scripture, npunishment that includes putting to death a murderer is both just and moral, but it is not to be exclusive of mercy. God himself exemplifies this. It is with intrepidation and prayer that we should carry out our God's standards. We should not apply them with human vengeance, but out of worship and respect for God's laws, his authority and his standards, trusting to him the results. Not for spite. Not to avenge. But to apply justice, in a just way, always mindful of his mercy, yet not to the exclusion of his justice. This is so difficult.
Bill
Yes, this is just another instance -- abolition of the death penalty -- when Left Libertarians and Right Libertarians may agree whole-heartedly with one another. Why, then, do they not combine to "put the screws" to candidates for office, at every level, who stand opposed to the factual, moral, legal, and philosophical reasonableness of abolishing this blemish on the face of our country? Because they are not commonly financed by corporations? Because they do not commonly support a return to the gold standard? Because they are not subsumed by the unthinking/unaccountable tribalism of partisan politics? As you so carefully and cogently point out, there isn't reason or anything else substantial standing in the way of immediately abolishing the death penalty. (Nor, is there anything reasonable standing in the way of a complete reconstitution of our entire penal system.) If like-minded citizens would stand together, the abomination of capital punishment would be gone over night. The profiteers and others who reap benefits from this injustice would be defeated. Do you see a chance that that might happen any time soon? If there is the slimmest chance, it will be because of people like you who continue to beat the drum for sanity and real justice. Thank you.
John Whitehead:
I heard your interview in WVTF this evening.
It sounds as though you have been hanging out with your apostate buddy Franky Schaeffer.
You may make denigrating comments about Christianity, but you know very well the law of God requires the death penalty for capital crimes.
Please take Samuel Rutherford's name off your organization. You'd be better served by becoming a branch office of the ACLU.
Sincerely,
David
You're right. I couldn't agree with you more. The death penalty, as we do it now, is a miscarriage of justice and should be abolished. Lethal injection is just so tacky and tasteless.
The Japanese had the right idea. Instead of forcible execution, we need to bring back mandatory seppuku!
What utter rubbish. So this system must be perfect or eliminated? Will this metric then be used for the entire legal system? The entire welfare system? ad naseum. Has it not been recognized by you we live is and imperfect world? A world in rebellion to its' maker. He had a plan, rejected in the old testament then rejected in the new. Perfection is longed for by all creation so if it's not here and now it will best best to remove evil from the camp once and for all and the ways to determine the evidence, means of judgement and penalties are quite clear in Deuteronomy. Take a peek and then comment on what the Judge of all the earth has missed. cruft
John,
I make an effort to read all your pieces on LRC; I appreciate your work.
Your argument against the death penalty is certainly provocative. The fact that it doesn’t seem to deter the act of murder would seem to lean more toward the fact of the grind of the system, and possibly to the lack of public executions for capital offenses.
However, since God’s word is the final authority, should we reconsider? I’m thinking that your argument could be applied to any civil crime as justice is rarely carried out, much less to biblical standards should one be convicted of rape, theft, fraud, etc.
Do you recall Rushdoony commenting on the plight of the wrongly convicted?
Regards,
Curt
I think the real injustice about the death penalty is discrimination by gender. A man is MUCH more likely to be executed for a crime than a woman who does the exact same thing. Why doesn't this ever get mentioned? If women were the victim of "disparate impact", we'd hear this over and over and over again. But it almost never gets mentioned.
Men are the Rodney Dangerfield of American society. We get no respect.
"It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not."
Thomas
Actually I believe it was George Ryan of Illinois who suspended executions in Illinois. His successor may have signed the legislation.
John.
with DNA evidence catching and trying the criminal is more precise. I'm for the death penalty if it's a 100% air tight case proven with dna and other witness/police evidence. If someone killed a family member or close friend, I'd personally want to see the perp dead and out of society for good, and so would most, except the liberals of course.
-- L. A.
"There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty – certainly not the way it is implemented in America"
Mr. Whitehead, I quit reading your column at this point. No need to read further to know that we are in complete agreement. A quick scan told me that I am familiar with the anecdotal support for your position.
I have long been a believer that the death penalty--justly applied--is morally tenable in a Christian ethos. Jesus, on the cross, did not tell either thief that he was getting a raw deal. (As for His unjust punishment, well, that is utterly unique and beyond this interlocution.)
The late John Paul II (even as a Catholic, I refuse to call him "blessed," for reasons that are another discussion) left the door open the merest crack for the just application of a death penalty. However, his general disparagement of the modern death penalty was technologically-based: suggesting that the state of the art of penology was such that society could be sufficiently protected from the lethal depredations of convicted "stone" killers. Unfortunately, that logic offered no protection whatsoever to fellow prisoners or to prison staff--who are, after all, members of "society."
(Was Jeffrey Dahmer saved? We'll never know, in this life. However, he might have been saved, had he had to face the executioner. And the fact that his fellow-convict murderer faced no lethal consequences for the murder is immensely problematic.)
Anyhow, there is no question at all that our American system of "justice" is light-years from achieving even the general intention to mete out true justice. For that reason, I years ago abandoned my stubborn--albeit qualified--defense of the death penalty in this country.
I admire your work and your writings. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
--
Mark
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I am a college freshman at UCLA and trying to get my blog (bunburydave.tumblr) going and trying to get into nationally syndicated journalism. I came across your article after being referred to lewrockwell to read about Ron Paul being under appreciated by the press-which he is.
I just wanted to point out this particular line from your article: "...there are 1,371 blacks on death row (42% of the total death row population) despite the fact that blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population."
It was very misleading to include that blacks make up 12% of the population when the pertinent statistic would have been what percentage of criminals in the United States are black, because only criminals are eligible to be committed to death row. Also, you did not acknowledge any counter argument. Just a little constructive criticism.
Josh
John:
You know I love you and your work.
But on the issue of abolishing the death penalty I believe you are wrong.
First the death penalty is Biblical. You know that. Second, nations and societies that fail to execute capital punishment incur God's wrath, 'blood guiltiness'.
That said, I realize the state - US government is screwed up big time and has executed people wrongly. However, that is not to negate the clear Biblical and historical precedent for capital punishment.
The Bible clearly states that those who fail to administer capital punishment properly at then subject to that punishment. Go back and read Rushdoony's the Institutes of Biblical law on this.
Rather than abolish the death penalty, we should demand it be carried out properly, and if it is not those involved in injustice should be subject to it. That's the proper solution.
When you can make a Biblical and historical argument against the death penalty, I'll listen, but to say because the EU has abolished the death penalty so we should too is a poor argument (and you know it).
To think that Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and others don't deserve the death penalty is not only unBiblical but irresponsible.
I greatly respect you and your share with you your fear of the state using its increasing power against its citizens. The answer is to correct this over reach, which its a root cause.
Once again, I greatly respect you and your work. I think you are seriously wrong on this issue and that such a position hurts the institute and damages it's standing for truth and righteousness in the Christain community.
Love you and the Institute.
Gary
In a recent article on Lew Rockwell's web site you write, "Even if most of those condemned to die prove to be guilty, if just one innocent person is wrongly executed, that is still one too many."
I think by this logic one could never justify a death penalty, which is clearly a result at odds with the scriptures.
God seems to equate wrongfully letting the guilty live (which you support, with regrets) with putting to death the innocent (which you think is utterly intolerable to the point of prohibiting the death penalty). Both should be avoided, of course, but mistakes will be made, as God (of course) knows. Your balance would seem to be that one innocent death outweighs letting dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of guilty people live. That is a very common standard among decent and godly men but one I feel is unbiblical and humanistic.
For a good articulation of what I'm referring to, consider listening to the following:
Casey Anthony: Soulless Murderer by Phil Elmore
http://kgov.com/bel/20110707
Thanks for giving this some thought. Enjoy your writing and have for years.
Frederick
Mr. Whitehead,
You make a pragmatic case for the abeyance of death penalty executions. However, unless God is in error himself in having governments do them, the idea remains that if one man sheds another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man made. Further, if such punishment is swift, it brings terror to evil doers said Solomon. The way our appeals processes go, it makes the "swift" part practically non-existent, and thus renders the penalty (if it ever comes) not the deterent it would be. The Bible is clear that justice, if swift, is a deterrent. There is no arguing that. It makes clear the standard that those who murder deserve the death penalty, as the Cities of Refuge give up those who are not found innocent to the avenger of blood. But we do see mercy for David who ordered a murder, for God did not order David's death, the God who declared the standard. Jesus did not stone a woman caught in adultery to death. Those two things, together with your pragmatic considerations leave much room for viewpoints on this. Include the fact that God did not carry out the death of Adam and Eve swiftly but over time, givng them time to repent and call upon God. Perhaps in your conversations, you might speak to the ideal, and the Biblical truths, even while we acknowledge the pragmatic current limitations. I must not be so idealistic that people die needlessly for it. Yet we must not be so pragmatic that we let go of a standard that is fitting. We ought hold both. That's the best I see it. Thank you for explaning your viewpoint more thoroughly.
Bill
Best if all the very bad people are given the opportunity to commit
suicide. Start with the guy in Norway. At the end - God will judge us
all so if there is any doubt; then
the sentence should be a life term
Monday, August 15, 2011
Rutherford Institute Urges Gov. McDonnell to Reconsider Virginia’s Death Penalty Policy, Stop Jackson Execution
Click Here to Read the Press Release
Gee Guys? Rape and murder of the elderly isn't worthy of the death penalty? Reformative JUSTICE? Where was the justice for defenseless 88 year old Ruth Phillips?
I guess removing the Ten Commandments from site in public education removes any serious mind damage to those who don't see them-- and yours too?
Has TRI gone mad because those you are pandering to are not going to provide financial aid to your ill focused defense!
No doubt he deserves to be punished? And rate of recidivism on such people who are placed in peril by "reformative Justice?
DD
I have enjoyed reading many of John's opinions and have found myself agreeing with a vast majority
of them.
This is one that I find myself in opposition to. My reasons are the following.
One: For crimes of this nature, I am in favor of the death penalty.
Two: The heinousness of this crime cries out for this type of penalty.
Three: There are many in our society who have been subjected to abuse as children who
manage to live out their lives without committing acts of violence against others.
What if the jurors had been given a "complete picture", of the abuse, his attorneys claim Mr Jackson
was subjected to as a child, and the jury still found for the death penalty?
If one is opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, then those in opposition will always argue that
the guilty have not received a fair trial, or that there are mitigating circumstances to warrant undoing
a lawful verdict.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Gee Guys? Rape and murder of the elderly isn't worthy of the death penalty? Reformative JUSTICE? Where was the justice for defenseless 88 year old Ruth Phillips?
I guess removing the Ten Commandments from site in public education removes any serious mind damage to those who don't see them-- and yours too?
Has TRI gone mad because those you are pandering to are not going to provide financial aid to your ill focused defense!
No doubt he deserves to be punished? And rate of recidivism on such people who are placed in peril by "reformative Justice?
DD
I have enjoyed reading many of John's opinions and have found myself agreeing with a vast majority
of them.
This is one that I find myself in opposition to. My reasons are the following.
One: For crimes of this nature, I am in favor of the death penalty.
Two: The heinousness of this crime cries out for this type of penalty.
Three: There are many in our society who have been subjected to abuse as children who
manage to live out their lives without committing acts of violence against others.
What if the jurors had been given a "complete picture", of the abuse, his attorneys claim Mr Jackson
was subjected to as a child, and the jury still found for the death penalty?
If one is opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, then those in opposition will always argue that
the guilty have not received a fair trial, or that there are mitigating circumstances to warrant undoing
a lawful verdict.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)