All hail King George! By Divine Right the king in his wisdom has freed his honorable friend from the clutches of the evil warmongering liberals.

the u.s. government is so out of control! why will nobody impeach the president? and get rid of that cheney, he's really evil!

your government is so out of control! why will nobody impeach the president? and get rid of that cheney anyway, he's really evil!

This is terrible. This is a complete disaster. He doesn't even CARE anymore. He, Cheney, and most of their administration should be on death row.

Little Bush's other famous commutation:

George W. Bush, the guy who giggled as he signed off on executions and who believes that even retarded people should be subject to the death penalty, apparently has a soft spot for serial killers. One mass murderer commutes the sentence of another . . .

As governor of Texas, George W. Bush had more people executed than any other governor in U.S. history, signing off on 154 death warrants in six years. The only person he let off Death Row was Henry Lee Lucas, a dangerous serial killer who confessed to over 600 murders.

Henry Lee Lucas might be America’s most prolific serial killer.
Whatever the actual total, the horrific nature of Lucas’s life of crime was summed up in one statement: "Killing someone is is just like walking outdoors. If I wanted a victim, I’d just go and get one."

After confessing to over 300 hits, Hank recanted it all only to confess again when he became born-again.

On June 27, 1998 Governor George W. Bush commuted Lucas's death sentence and spared Henry's life. "I can only thank them for believing the truth and having guts enough for standing up for what's right," Lucas said from death row.

http://www.houseofhorrors.com/lucas.htm

Reading the above comment it's difficult to grasp your point: you seem to be against Bush sending convicted capital criminals to execution, except for when he doesn't ... then he should have?

This mirrors the sentiment in the quoted article, which I still don't quite grasp. Okay pardoning Scooter is downright horrible (and there's certainly reason to think the full pardon is right around the corner). Another feather in Bush's cap of shame. But lumping all the other irrelevant stuff into it doesn't make sense.

Karla Faye Tucker was convicted of murder. Betty Lou Beets was convicted of murder. Should they not have been executed because they're women? Or because they 'found God'? And I don't get the absolution for retarded criminals, either - if they're guilty, they're guilty. The fact that the killer is retarded, or crazy, or suffering from Twinkie withdrawal or 'roid rage or PMS doesn't bring the murder victim back to life, and giving them a pass certainly is not justice. Commit a capital crime and receive capital punishment: that's the even, fair-handed application of the penal measure we're supposed to be providing.

It's just foolish and naive to be against the death penalty. Every single argument against it falls upon even the most basic analysis (yes, even the vaunted "it doesn't deter crime" lie, because it has been statistically proven to deter crime in a recent study).

TFTT, I suppose you're also pro-death penalty because you believe the legal system is (ie. the people who run it are) infallible?

I mean, since you can't seem to find anything wrong with killing certain people on a moral level...

It's just foolish and naive to be against the death penalty.

So the following countries are naive?

(the date listed is when the following countries abolished the death penalty for all crimes)

Albania 2007
Andorra 1990
Angola 1992
Armenia 2003
Australia 1985
Austria 1968
Azerbaijan 1998
Belgium 1996
Bhutan 2004
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2001
Bulgaria 1998
Cambodia 1989
Canada 1998
Cape Verde 1981
Colombia 1910
Costa Rica 1877
Côte d'Ivoire 2000
Croatia 1990
Cyprus 2002
Czech Republic 19901 Denmark 1978
Djibouti 1995
Dominican Republic 1966
Ecuador 1906
Estonia 1998
Finland 1972
France 1981
Georgia 1997
Germany 1949/19872 Greece 1993
Guinea-Bissau 1993
Haiti 1987
Honduras 1956
Hungary 1990
Iceland 1928
Ireland, Republic of 1990
Italy 1994
Kiribati 1979
Liberia 2005
Liechtenstein 1987
Lithuania 1998
Luxembourg 1979
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of 1991
Malta 2000
Marshall Islands 1986
Mauritius 1995
Mexico 2005
Micronesia, Federated States of 1986
Moldova 1995
Monaco 1962
Montenegro 2002
Mozambique 1990
Namibia 1990
Nepal 1997
Netherlands 1982
New Zealand 1989
Nicaragua 1979
Niue N/A
Norway 1979
Palau N/A
Panama 1903
Paraguay 1992
Philippines 2006
Poland 1997
Portugal 1976
Romania 1989
Samoa 2004
San Marino 1865
São Tomé and Príncipe 1990
Serbia 2002
Seychelles 1993
Slovak Republic 1990 1 Slovenia 1989
Solomon Islands 1966
South Africa 1997
Spain 1995
Sweden 1972
Switzerland 1992
Timor-Leste (East Timor) 1999
Turkmenistan 1999
Turkey 2004
Tuvalu 1978
Ukraine 1999
United Kingdom 1998
Uruguay 1907
Vanuatu 1980
Vatican City 1969
Venezuela 1863

The U.S. is among the following countries which are apparently not naive nor foolish and still have the death penalty:

AFGHANISTAN ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA BAHRAIN BAHAMAS BANGLADESH BARBADOS BELARUS BELIZE BOTSWANA BURUNDI CAMEROON CHAD CHINA COMOROS CONGO (Democratic Republic) CUBA DOMINICA EGYPT EQUATORIAL GUINEA ERITREA ETHIOPIA GUATEMALA GUINEA GUYANA INDIA INDONESIA IRAN IRAQ JAMAICA JAPAN JORDAN KAZAKSTAN KOREA (North) KOREA (South) KUWAIT LAOS LEBANON LESOTHO LIBYA MALAYSIA MONGOLIA NIGERIA OMAN PAKISTAN PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY QATAR RWANDA SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS SAINT LUCIA SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES SAUDI ARABIA SIERRA LEONE SINGAPORE SOMALIA SUDAN SYRIA TAIWAN TAJIKISTAN TANZANIA THAILAND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO UGANDA UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UZBEKISTAN VIET NAM YEMEN ZAMBIA ZIMBABWE

http://www.newsbatch.com/deathpenalty.htm

Capital punishment was widely applied in ancient times throughout the world. The modern movement for the abolition of capital punishment began in the 18th century with the writings of Montesquieu and Voltaire. Some of the first countries to abolish capital punishment included Venezuela (1863), San Marino (1865), and Costa Rica (1877). Today, over half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty either by law or through practice. (Click to see map) Since 2000, Chile, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey have joined the list of abolitionist countries. Most executions occur in a handful of countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

"TFTT, I suppose you're also pro-death penalty because you believe the legal system is (ie. the people who run it are) infallible?"

Of course not. But this is a pointless argument as there is no such thing as an infallible system, and we accept much greater 'death of innocents' from such mundane facets of our society as transit. Many thousands of 'innocent' people die on our highways every year.

The idea is not to de-fang the penal system because the judicial system may have flaws, but to improve the judicial system when flaws are discovered. And since our ability to prove or disprove guilt in capital crimes constantly improves, it seems this argument has even less impact every year it is trotted out.

It's not as if we have innumerable (or, frankly, even numerable) cases of innocent people being executed. However what is an extremely common occurrence is repeat violent and capital offenders being released from prison to offend again and again. Which, to me, is a much bigger issue.

"So the following countries are naive?"

In this respect? Most certainly. I can provide an equally long, if not longer, list of nations with official national religions. Should we follow their lead on that as well?

The reason it's popular is because it's easy to sell people on the emotional position that 'killing is wrong'. But of course killing is not wrong - we recognize this by the fact that we allow 'self-defense' as a defense. Killing is sometimes a justifiable action.

It's just foolish and naive to be against the death penalty

um, all due respect, i think its a bit more complex than that. fair enough to be "pro" but not admitting to the depth and complexity of the argument, when peoples lives (many undeniably innocent) are at stake is just wrong.

my personal favorite of the many arguments against the death penalty? death is just too good for some people.

Frenetic: TFTT, I suppose you're also pro-death penalty because you believe the legal system is (ie. the people who run it are) infallible?...I mean, since you can't seem to find anything wrong with killing certain people on a moral level...

TFTT: Of course not. But this is a pointless argument as there is no such thing as an infallible system, and we accept much greater 'death of innocents' from such mundane facets of our society as transit. Many thousands of 'innocent' people die on our highways every year.

Amazing, absolutely amazing! Well, Frenetic, don't you feel foolish. The only question that remains is, having seen this remarkable non sequitur in response to your question, why should we concern ourselves with what TFTT thinks is "foolish and naive"?

Thing is, the comment wasn't about the death penalty. It was about the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the dumbfuck piece-of-shit Amerikan Decider.

Not that it matters to a certain dumbfuck piece-of-shit troll who is less interested in reading comprehension than he is in seizing upon every opportunity to prove himself a complete and utter embarrassment.

and we accept much greater 'death of innocents' from such mundane facets of our society as transit

Remarkably ignorant comment. Any death by transit is accidental. Obvious of course.

Yes, Tim, why should we concern ourselves? Because these people vote! Any little tiny chance of... okay, it's minuscule, but still...

Well, lots of people get killed in auto accidents so it is ok to kill some more, on purpose.

After all, Clinton got a blow job, and that makes it ok to kill American youth and Iraqis by the thousands. It's all perfectly logical.

Of course, as usual, Tilly didn't understand what the point was but he just had to say something. That must be tough, or would be if it knew what it was doing.

"The only question that remains is, having seen this remarkable non sequitur in response to your question,"

Perhaps after a few years of secondary education you will learn the difference between a non sequitur and an analogy.

"Thing is, the comment wasn't about the death penalty"

The quoted article made frequent mention of it. Don't let the fact that I've proven your position wrong make you mad, let it make you think.

"Remarkably ignorant comment. Any death by transit is accidental. Obvious of course."

As would be any death due to wrongful conviction. Obvious, of course.

"Well, lots of people get killed in auto accidents so it is ok to kill some more, on purpose."

An actual flawed argument and not just an insult - we're making progress. Do I need to point out that, by definition, any person who might be wrongfully executed would not be killed 'on purpose'. My argument still stands: the hypothetical 'innocent man' point is not a refutation of capital punishment.

"Of course, as usual, Tilly didn't understand what the point was but he just had to say something."

Perhaps, as an idealogue and willful contributor to a partisan, fingers-in-the-ears political nation, you are simply unaware that there is rarely a single point to any discussion.

But if we must: Bush used a legal power to pardon a cohort. This is surprising to you? Do you really need new reasons to hate the guy? He's scum. Everybody knows that. But what he did is within his powers. It's probably one of the few things he's done that is legally within his powers, and it seems like a pointless thing to get upset about.

Oh, and as for Clinton: the guy lied under oath. That's what got him busted. He had professionals after him, and Bush seems to only have amateurs and half-wits on his tail. They need to take the Gotti approach. Knowing they're guilty doesn't do it - you have to get smart and get him on a technicality.

Until then I'm sick of the posturing and speeches. They're going to posture and speak away the remainder of his lame-duck term, using him as an excuse not to get anything done, and to try to hide their own complicity in the current state of the nation. It's the definition of partisan, obstructionist politics.

non sequitur : a conclusion or statement that does not follow from the previous argument or statement.

As a device for defending the proposition that a certain number of wrong death penalty executions is acceptable, your analogy is so preposterous that it descends to the level of a non sequitur. The function of a transportation system is to enable people to move about. The function of a justice system is correctly identify people who have violated the law and to mete out punishment and/or to rehabilitate them, depending on one's philosophy. In particular, when capital crimes are at issue, its function is to correctly identify such offenders. Deaths that occur in transit accidents are unrelated to the function of the system. Accidents that occur in capital crime cases are nothing less than failures of the system in performing its primary function.

The fact that you offered analogy that was so transparently irrelevant to the issue at hand is probably not due to a failure in your formal education. More likely, you are an individual who is missing something far worse.

"Don't let the fact that I've proven your position wrong . . ."

I guess I missed the part where you made the case that serial killer Henry Lee Lucas was less deserving of the death penalty than the 154 people Bush laughingly executed in Texas.

Or the part where you argued that Scooter Libby was more deserving of a commutation than this fella: http://tinyurl.com/2fh6w2

So, were you born with your head up your ass, or is your condition the result of some tragic accident?

"As a device for defending the proposition that a certain number of wrong death penalty executions is acceptable, your analogy is so preposterous that it descends to the level of a non sequitur."

Not at all - you're simply making the claim because you have been logically backed into a corner.

The proof of this is that you attempt to show that the situations are not analogous because their functions are different. But function is not the facet of both situations that is being used for analogy - result is. Thus, the analogy is not only apt, it is quite adept. This is why it upsets you so greatly.

"Deaths that occur in transit accidents are unrelated to the function of the system. Accidents that occur in capital crime cases are nothing less than failures of the system in performing its primary function."

Laughably false. In both situations the death of innocents is a failure of the system to adequately perform its function - the only real difference is that the first example actually occurs, while the second is a hypothesis.

Deaths that occur in the transit system are a result of the transit system functioning with error, just as they are in the justice system. In both cases, when a death occurs, the system has failed to function flawlessly and an 'innocent' life has been lost.

Again, the analogy is correct, as is the conclusion from the analogy: the 'innocent life' argument is both symbolically and logically flawed.

It is important to note that, other than begging the analogy and resorting to tiresome personal insults, you have offered no argumentation on this issue whatsoever - which means you concede the point entirely.

I would like to thank the both of you for clearly illustrating that your beliefs are not based on logic or reason at all - but upon emotion. Perhaps when you mature a bit and rationally analyze your beliefs, you will stop being so vitriolic and hateful. As it stands, I have meticulously illustrated that the only logical conclusion regarding capital punishment is to support it.

And I don't get the absolution for retarded criminals, either - if they're guilty, they're guilty.

Much of your arguments revolve around awkward reasoning of this fashion. If a baby in a control room hits a button that sends a plane crashing down and kills everyone aboard...well I’m sorry babe, but guilt is guilt. By this logic, if a ‘criminal’ turns out to be innocent and you’ve killed him through capital punishment then you too are guilty and deserve to die. Much of the conservative school of thought in the Criminal Justice System is very myopic and punitive in this respect and doesn't really concern itself with root causes of criminological phenomena nor wants to. Moreover, it executes a punishment that is uniform to all people when in the real world we know that there are differences among individuals. In that case we could deter crime even better by putting ALL "retarded" people in a penitentiary. Most of your arguments aren’t even a concern so much about deterrence as much as for retribution and bloodlust.

there is no such thing as an infallible system, and we accept much greater 'death of innocents' from such mundane facets of our society as transit. Many thousands of 'innocent' people die on our highways every year.

Now this is just silly. So because we have fallible systems we should then embrace capital punishment since people have died while suffocating on plastic bags. If we get rid of the death penalty we should then get rid of Ralphs’ grocery stores to be fair. That’s basically what you are arguing (and why you’d put innocent in quotations is beyond me—I’m guessing you think ‘they had it coming’?) The death penalty isn’t an accident we can’t control or can’t get rid of.

Deaths that occur in the transit system are a result of the transit system functioning with error, just as they are in the justice system. In both cases, when a death occurs, the system has failed to function flawlessly and an 'innocent' life has been lost.

Without ridding ourselves of the Criminal Justice System we can actually do away with killing innocent people by subtracting capital punishment since we have the ability to do so. We can’t do this with the transit system whose purpose wasn’t to kill in the first place. These are unalike examples that you’ve attempted to sneak in to support your argument. If you don’t agree answer me this question: Without ridding ourselves of the transit system, what law could be passed to do away with the innocent deaths that occur from it? We certainly can do this in the C.J.S. and other countries have done it.

When a car accident occurs, the injuries that lead to death are sustained almost instantaneously. Rarely, if ever, is a car accident the result of deliberate decisions made by the driver or anyone else. When a death comes to a wrongly accused defendant, it is the result of deliberate, conscious decision making. Those decisions may or may not have been made in good faith, but it is clear that other alternatives are available – whether those alternatives lie in changing in the laws that guide the decisions, or in the ways the laws are administered. If one wanted to decide whether the laws that guide such decisions are wise, or whether they should be administered differently, consideration of car accident deaths would be of absolutely no use. That is why your analogy is neither apt nor adept – your imagined “meticulousness” notwithstanding.

I happen to think that to draw an analogy between deaths that result from the wrongful conviction of defendants and those who are killed in car accidents is utterly ridiculous– if you still think that your analogy is apt, even adept, so be it. The purpose of posting is, I would think, to convince others of the correctness of your point of view and I doubt that you have succeeded.

I'm still against the death penalty (for purely emotional reasons) but if logic were the only reason to take a side, T4T won this one hands down.

but if logic were the only reason to take a side, T4T won this one hands down.

First of all, I thought syngas and TeaBagThe Tillerman were the same person. Secondly, there was no logic in his argument. Teabagger and Syngas always make claims of “proving people wrong” which shows how ill-informed they are on almost everything. They mistake opinion for fact. You cannot prove someone wrong when arguing for or against capital punishment.

It's just foolish and naive to be against the death penalty. Every single argument against it falls upon even the most basic analysis (yes, even the vaunted "it doesn't deter crime" lie, because it has been statistically proven to deter crime in a recent study).

This could be the most foolish thing you’ve ever written here. Please show us this “study” you mention. I’m sure that its results are dubious, at best. It’s kind of like your anti-global warming scientists, kind of like Custer at the Little Bighorn. Of course you are in favor of the death penalty; you buy into all of the myths that violence is the cure for many of the ills of society. War is good, torture is useful, and executing a few destitute black men in Texas will keep America safe for the rest of us. That is an opinion.

My own opinions are a byproduct of what I read and I feel that I read the best journalism available in the languages I can read. I doubt it but perhaps I'm missing something? I ask you this again: where do you get your news? I am really curious to learn what you feel are good and legitimate sources for information.

First of all, I thought syngas and TeaBagThe Tillerman were the same person.

ok, i know i'm going to get into trouble for this. leftbanker is far from the only one here who's made this mistake. a few people have assumed that t4t is actually a guy who used to post here named "average joe", presumably because their political opinions are similar. a little textual and grammatical analysis i think will show it just ain't so, unless we're dealing with one brilliant syble of a troll, in which case i say:bring it on!

and what is this troll accusation for anyone who doesn't toe the line? t4t has written a lot of stuff here i disagree with, a lot of stuff i might even call bullshit, but he's not vicious, not (usually) insulting, and his use of logic is much better than almost anyone here seems to give him credit for-unlike a lot of the people i see arguing with him. i personally hold plenty of opinions that are counter-logical and its usually on these that i disagree with him. when he's wrong logically it can be pointed out relatively dispassionately, as erick did above, without the whole hate trip. what do we need this for? (and i don't mean you specifically, leftbanker, you seem pretty reasonable)

i'm here, among other reasons, because i actually buy into this whole global/internet community thing, free dialogue and yes, argument. what are you all so afraid of?

having said this (and i know i'm gonna get hammered) this is definitely a legitimate and important question- for all of us:

I am really curious to learn what you feel are good and legitimate sources for information.

and thanks to jo ann for providing, without comment, a bunch of actual FACTS to provide a little context for a far from simple debate.

I get my news from the fax machine - the White House sends it to me twice a day.

right. and i have a direct feed from the zionist/neoconservative/hollywood/banking cabal. how bout the rest of you guys? :)

"what is this troll accusation"

It's not an accusation. It's a description.

"he's not vicious, not (usually) insulting, and his use of logic is much better than almost anyone here seems to give him credit for-unlike a lot of the people i see arguing with him"

Gee, where was Becker's Civility Brigade a few ago when this same troll was calling my citizenship into question and referring to me a "stupid foreigner"?

As, for the death penalty, even the troll concedes that we have a corrupt system in which corrupt "scum" like Bush and Clinton make decisions about whom the state executes, decisions which are very often politically-motivated and/or based on the accused person's ties to money and influence and which sometimes result in an innocent person being put to death. No person who cares at all about justice would support a system like that. Period.

Gee, where was Becker's Civility Brigade a few ago when this same troll was calling my citizenship into question and referring to me a "stupid foreigner"?

well, kali yuga, if your intention was to embarrass me, you have succeeded. maybe its for the best. i hereby tender my resignation from the civility brigade.

i didn't see anyone call anyone a stupid foreigner. if i had, i would have called them on it, back when i was in the civility brigade.

it wasn't "uncivility" i objected to (back in the day). it was the kind of hatred that busts out even of the confines of the written word to assail my tender sensibilities. but i see now if i want true global freedom of expression i'm just gonna have to put up with it.

p.s. the smug, superior, dare i say "civil" character of t4ts' insults is, i think what really gets under peoples skin, including yours. isn't falling for that stuff what you call "feeding the troll"? whatever, i'm off to enjoy my retirement. i bless you all that you should experience the joys of playing nicely. and if you want to be nasty, try the smug, civil approach.as you can see, it works.

"i didn't see anyone call anyone a stupid foreigner."

Funny. I could have sworn your name appeared in that very thread, responding to the very same troll, no less. Probably it was a case of identity theft, or maybe you were simply blinded by his, as you put it, "brilliance."

well you got me all curious. checked the thread (thank google search)- its a long one, with a lot of nastiness on all sides.

you're right, i do have one short post there, at the end of a long string of viciousness most of which i didn't read. seeing it now, i'm still not sure if the "stupid foreigner" remark was meant to be ironic, but in any case the whole thing is pretty nasty, exactly the kind of stuff i was objecting to. for what its worth, in my post i was criticizing t4t, no mention of brilliance.

so what do you want me to do here, admit that he's just as much of an asshole as everyone else? ok. i stand corrected.

here's the link if anyone cares- which i doubt. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/06/michaelmoores.html

boy, he really was a major asshole at that thread. even called norm names. what a jerkwad.

thank you, o kali yuga, for releasing me from the civility brigade! now watch your backs. :)

right. and i have a direct feed from the zionist/neoconservative/hollywood/banking cabal. how bout the rest of you guys? :)

Probably it was a case of identity theft, or maybe you were simply blinded by his, as you put it, "brilliance."

LOLOLOL... Oh thank you guys for the laughter.

I have a direct feed from HippieVille.

I'm still attempting to understand Tilly's "brilliance" HAhahaha...

oh my....

to hell with the civility brigrage.. lol

what its worth, in my post i was criticizing t4t, no mention of brilliance.

LOLOLOL... Oh, Jonathan, stop it. I can't take anymore laughter this evening.