Cruel and unusual punishment can cause pain for hours, days, months, or years without killing a convicted murderer. Obviously, the death penalty is NOT cruel or unusual punishment. The objective of the death penalty is to execute convicted murderers. The only constitutional question that needs to be cleared up is the length of time it takes to physically perform the execution from start to finish. Example: A hanging begins when the hangman fastens the rope around the condemned criminalās neck, and ends when the trap door opens. In truth, lethal injections lengthen the time it takes to finish the job.
NOTE: Putting a board in Ygorās neck after botching his hanging does not count as cruel and punishment. (See 1939 movie Son of Frankenstein.)
The method of execution is a backdoor approach to the same old opposition to the death penalty. Eric Holder convinced me that killing with kindness will not satisfy him:
If executing with drugs is cruel and unusual punishment, I suggested hiring Jack the Dripper before he departed.
Iām pretty certain that Holder & Company are the same people who oppose the death penalty. They are also the same people who advocate doctor-assisted suicide; so they should have no trouble finding a few Jack the Drippers looking for the gig.
This next one is a kick in the ass. Exactly who in hell does Holder expect to get satisfaction screaming about losing a constitutional protection? Law-abiding Americans can scream forever about their lost constitutional Rights before the Supreme Court gives them any relieve.
This final excerpt is one of the oldest chestnut in the law books:
The touchy-feely argument against the death penalty says that an innocent man cannot be brought back to life after he is executed. That line of reasoning comes down from William Blackstone (1723 - 1780) in a piece of legal sophistry lawyers call the Blackstone ratio:
The ratio varies depending upon who you quote. Charles Dickens put the morning line at 99 to 1 in favor of the criminals.
Blackstoneās ratio probably made sense in his time. It makes no sense today when you look at all of the protection todayās criminals are given before trial. Murderers are given even more protections in the form of endless appeals after they are found guilty. Twenty years or more often elapses before a murderer is finally executed. And executions are becoming rarer each time the High Court hears a case.
And I donāt believe that all of those convicted murderers being set free are not guilty twenty years after being convicted. There is too much room for larceny and tampering with evidence to convince me that so many prosecutors and juries made so many mistakes.
Then there is war and Blackstoneās ratio. Many innocent people die in wars. The number of civilians killed in war has multiplied to the point of vulgarity in each succeeding twentieth century war. Civilians, by far, die in war in greater numbers than do professional soldiers. My point is: The public is told that there is a war on crime. How is an innocent casualty in the war on crime any different than the innocent killed in shooting wars?
On the plus side, the number of innocent killed by mistake in the war on crime will be negligible after you factor in all of the protections the accused are entitled to. The innocent slob who is executed will suffer to be sure, but I donāt see any great harm being done to society as Blackstone implied.
Letās back up a few years
Abolishing the death penalty (except for people who blow up federal buildings like Timothy McVeigh) is the ultimate goal behind Eric Holderās complaint about cruel and unusual punishment when he first ordered no death penalty for Muslim murderers. Incrementally, he first sent enemy soldiers guilty of murder into a civilian court. Then he took the death penalty off the table:
NOTE: Democrats have not been able to send terrorists to the ICC (International Criminal Court) for trail. There is no death penalty in the UNās illegitimate judicial system. Unable to send Muslims to The Hague for safekeeping, Holder and Taqiyya the Muslim decided to launch an all-out attack on capital punishment in our courts.
Incidentally, assume that the aforementioned Timothy McVeigh was tied to Islamic fundamentalism. He would never have been sent to the ICC had he been arrested on foreign soil because blowing up federal buildings is far more heinous than is blowing up American embassies, marine barracks, or killing private sector Americans.
McVeigh aside, there are several reasons why Holder & Company are determined to abolish the death penalty.
The first is treason. Democrats know that sooner or later one of their kind will be tried for treason. Treason allows the death penalty. Democrats live with the fear of seeing one of their presidents or senators swinging from the gibbet.
The second reason is to protect people like Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno. The Left would have been outraged had a foreign law enforcement official been responsible for killing 80 innocent people including 17 children (the totals vary from report to report). Had a federal official killed 8 Communists āā Eric Holder would have demanded the death penalty. Yet Reno was never charged with anything; so she was never in danger of receiving the death penalty. Reno was not even asked to resign over the Waco Massacre.
There is nothing new behind the Leftās major push to eliminate the death penalty. One of the arguments against the death penalty is that only the powerless are executed. The flaw in that argument is that the powerful will get away with even more heinous crimes after the death penalty is abolished. Death penalty opponents would fix the system by not executing anyone rather than correcting a system that allows the privileged to get away with murder.
Holder went so far as to admit that he held Janet Reno in his arms as she wept over the people she burned to death in the Branch Davidian compound. How touching if true.
Presumably, Hillary Clinton is made of sterner stuff; there is no evidence that she ever shed a tear:
The country knows why Holder opposes the death penalty; so perhaps he should elaborate on death itself unattached to the death penalty.
Gitmo
Most Americans are outraged over closing Gitmo. They were even more outraged when they learned that enemy combatants would receive the protections guarantied in our Constitution. So clever was the spin from the Left, I doubt if many Americans gave a thought to Muslim terrorists beating the death penalty. Put the aforementioned Ghailani trial in perspective by recalling all of the Leftās lies told about why Gitmo should be closed. Not once did any leading Democrat ever admit that the worst of the terrorists would be spared the death penalty in civilian courts. Some do much better. They are simply released under one pretense or another:
Fictional murder
Televison, the great āeducator,ā is suffocating viewers with shows about horrible murders. The murderer is usually arrested in the final minutes of the show with a hint that he or she will be executed, or spend forever in prison. No mention is ever made of the decades of appeals at taxpayer expense; often followed by release and a big cash settlement, as so often happens in real life.
On the other side of the scale there are countless television shows where the defendant is always found not guilty. In TV Land, the death penalty vanishes somewhere between the guilty and the wrongly accused.
Another argument that is used against the death penalty is that it is a form of revenge. Capital punishment can hardly be called revenge in any society that gives as much care to an accused defendantās Rights as does the United States. More protections are added after a convicted criminal is sentenced to die. A cynic might say that many lawyers make so much money defending murderers they would be fools to support the death penalty.
Hollywood is even more āhumane' than is TV. Liberals are always railing against the death penalty, but you never hear a Hollywood lib attack vengeance in movie plotlines. That is odd because vengeance is the premise in most Hollywood bloodbaths. Incidentally, the kill numbers went out of sight after the era of the big studios disappeared.
Vengeance is the climax of every violent plot. The audience is led to revenge by the villainās cruelty. A revenge-driven plotline is not much different than sexual arousal ending in an orgasm. The audience is relieved, gets off, when the villain gets his or her comeuppance in the final gory minutes. If liberals are truly against the death penalty why arenāt they fighting to save the villains in Hollywood movies?
Democrats are Hollywoodās biggest supporters. They are the caring folks who claim that it takes a village to raise a child. Of course, liberals wring their hands in dismay and blame guns whenever village children turn to killing. Democrats do not get it. It is not the children trying to imitate the on-screen killing as some claim; they are only imposing justice on their enemies.
Hollywood has taught generations of moviegoers that getting even is acceptable behavior; so after decades of the same message it should not surprise liberals when a generation of kids comes along determined to carry fictional revenge to its logical end in the real world.
The Left extends the revenge argument to protest the execution of the perpetrators of terrorist acts. It is all oh so fashionably international. The line I like best is: America loses its moral legitimacy when it imposes the death penalty on anyone. Yeah right! Letās abolish the death penalty and concentrate on abortion, euthanasia, death panels, and population controls.
All of the Leftās caterwauling about ātortureā is nothing more than an extension of opposition to the death penalty. Abu Ghraib was subliminally portrayed as a death camp, while āinnocentā Muslims being held in Gitmo supposedly went from a turn on the rack to nearly being drowned. Make no mistake about it, abolishing the death penalty was always the end game.
Those who claim that all institutional killing is revenge of one kind or another are the same people who want more government. Before I buy into more government, I want to hear liberals explain why governments take revenge against their own people? Scapegoating a specific group is not the answer I am looking for.
The revenge argument was also used against President Truman for ending WWII by dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The story is that Truman took revenge on Japan, but would never have dropped atomic bombs on Germany or Italy. I certainly hope so since Japan intended to fight to the death.
Insofar as leading Democrats are concerned, their assertions on any subject are always made for the sole purpose of undermining the American political system. Once they have total control they will inflict their brand of revenge upon anyone who dared stand in their way before Taqiyya & Company had the power.
Finally, I am one hundred percent in favor of killing everything that moves in a war when it is a clear case of self-defense. Legitimate self-defense, like when the country is attacked, not the philosophical kind espoused by dirty little moralists who oppose the death penalty for the wrong reasons.
I am also in favor of preemptive strikes against aggressive enemies when they have, or are about to acquire, the means of carrying out their threats. It seems that Eric Holder is against death and the death penalty āā except when Muslims do the killing in their war.
NOTE: Putting a board in Ygorās neck after botching his hanging does not count as cruel and punishment. (See 1939 movie Son of Frankenstein.)
Attorney General Eric Holder called on states to temporarily pause death penalty executions on Tuesday, until the Supreme Court decides a case about the controversial drug cocktails used for lethal injects in some states.
The Supreme Court plans on hearing a case brought up by death row inmates in Oklahoma, who believe the midazolam-based drug cocktail used by the state is a breach of their constitutional protection from 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
The Supreme Court plans on hearing a case brought up by death row inmates in Oklahoma, who believe the midazolam-based drug cocktail used by the state is a breach of their constitutional protection from 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
The method of execution is a backdoor approach to the same old opposition to the death penalty. Eric Holder convinced me that killing with kindness will not satisfy him:
Jack Kevorkian, the enigmatic pathologist known as "Dr. Death" and "Jack the Dripper," who assisted in more than 130 suicides with his "mercy machine," leaves a legacy of activism and controversy.
Jack Kevorkian Dies, Leaves Controversial Legacy, No Successor
June 3, 2011
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Jack Kevorkian Godfather of Right-to Die-Movement Dies Leaving Controversial Legacy - ABC News
June 3, 2011
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Jack Kevorkian Godfather of Right-to Die-Movement Dies Leaving Controversial Legacy - ABC News
If executing with drugs is cruel and unusual punishment, I suggested hiring Jack the Dripper before he departed.
Iām pretty certain that Holder & Company are the same people who oppose the death penalty. They are also the same people who advocate doctor-assisted suicide; so they should have no trouble finding a few Jack the Drippers looking for the gig.
This next one is a kick in the ass. Exactly who in hell does Holder expect to get satisfaction screaming about losing a constitutional protection? Law-abiding Americans can scream forever about their lost constitutional Rights before the Supreme Court gives them any relieve.
The Supreme Court plans on hearing a case brought up by death row inmates in Oklahoma, who believe the midazolam-based drug cocktail used by the state is a breach of their constitutional protection from 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
The death penalty has long been controversial but became an even bigger issue last year with the botched execution of Oklahoma prisoner Clayton Lockett who writhed in pain and clenched his teeth during the 45 minutes it took for him to die from an injection last year.
The death penalty has long been controversial but became an even bigger issue last year with the botched execution of Oklahoma prisoner Clayton Lockett who writhed in pain and clenched his teeth during the 45 minutes it took for him to die from an injection last year.
This final excerpt is one of the oldest chestnut in the law books:
Holder, who will be retiring once his replacement is confirmed, has long opposed the death penalty since it presents the 'inevitable' risk of killing an innocent person
The Supreme Court will decide this year whether the three-drug combination used in Oklahoma executions is constitutional
By Ashley Collman For Dailymail.com and Associated Press
Published: 01:44 EST, 18 February 2015 | Updated: 05:06 EST, 18 February 2015
Attorney General Eric Holder calls for pause on death penalty executions Daily Mail Online
By Ashley Collman For Dailymail.com and Associated Press
Published: 01:44 EST, 18 February 2015 | Updated: 05:06 EST, 18 February 2015
Attorney General Eric Holder calls for pause on death penalty executions Daily Mail Online
The touchy-feely argument against the death penalty says that an innocent man cannot be brought back to life after he is executed. That line of reasoning comes down from William Blackstone (1723 - 1780) in a piece of legal sophistry lawyers call the Blackstone ratio:
Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. William Blackstone
The ratio varies depending upon who you quote. Charles Dickens put the morning line at 99 to 1 in favor of the criminals.
Blackstoneās ratio probably made sense in his time. It makes no sense today when you look at all of the protection todayās criminals are given before trial. Murderers are given even more protections in the form of endless appeals after they are found guilty. Twenty years or more often elapses before a murderer is finally executed. And executions are becoming rarer each time the High Court hears a case.
And I donāt believe that all of those convicted murderers being set free are not guilty twenty years after being convicted. There is too much room for larceny and tampering with evidence to convince me that so many prosecutors and juries made so many mistakes.
Then there is war and Blackstoneās ratio. Many innocent people die in wars. The number of civilians killed in war has multiplied to the point of vulgarity in each succeeding twentieth century war. Civilians, by far, die in war in greater numbers than do professional soldiers. My point is: The public is told that there is a war on crime. How is an innocent casualty in the war on crime any different than the innocent killed in shooting wars?
On the plus side, the number of innocent killed by mistake in the war on crime will be negligible after you factor in all of the protections the accused are entitled to. The innocent slob who is executed will suffer to be sure, but I donāt see any great harm being done to society as Blackstone implied.
Letās back up a few years
Abolishing the death penalty (except for people who blow up federal buildings like Timothy McVeigh) is the ultimate goal behind Eric Holderās complaint about cruel and unusual punishment when he first ordered no death penalty for Muslim murderers. Incrementally, he first sent enemy soldiers guilty of murder into a civilian court. Then he took the death penalty off the table:
. . . Attorney General Eric Holder has broken further ground in Ghailani's case by barring the Manhattan U.S. attorney from seeking the death penalty - never mind that Ghailani allegedly helped buy a truck and load it with the TNT that leveled the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania in 1998.
No more grave errors: Justice Dept. can't let terrorists escape death penalty
Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 7:25 PM
Editorial No more grave errors - NY Daily News
Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 7:25 PM
Editorial No more grave errors - NY Daily News
NOTE: Democrats have not been able to send terrorists to the ICC (International Criminal Court) for trail. There is no death penalty in the UNās illegitimate judicial system. Unable to send Muslims to The Hague for safekeeping, Holder and Taqiyya the Muslim decided to launch an all-out attack on capital punishment in our courts.
Incidentally, assume that the aforementioned Timothy McVeigh was tied to Islamic fundamentalism. He would never have been sent to the ICC had he been arrested on foreign soil because blowing up federal buildings is far more heinous than is blowing up American embassies, marine barracks, or killing private sector Americans.
McVeigh aside, there are several reasons why Holder & Company are determined to abolish the death penalty.
The first is treason. Democrats know that sooner or later one of their kind will be tried for treason. Treason allows the death penalty. Democrats live with the fear of seeing one of their presidents or senators swinging from the gibbet.
The second reason is to protect people like Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno. The Left would have been outraged had a foreign law enforcement official been responsible for killing 80 innocent people including 17 children (the totals vary from report to report). Had a federal official killed 8 Communists āā Eric Holder would have demanded the death penalty. Yet Reno was never charged with anything; so she was never in danger of receiving the death penalty. Reno was not even asked to resign over the Waco Massacre.
There is nothing new behind the Leftās major push to eliminate the death penalty. One of the arguments against the death penalty is that only the powerless are executed. The flaw in that argument is that the powerful will get away with even more heinous crimes after the death penalty is abolished. Death penalty opponents would fix the system by not executing anyone rather than correcting a system that allows the privileged to get away with murder.
Holder went so far as to admit that he held Janet Reno in his arms as she wept over the people she burned to death in the Branch Davidian compound. How touching if true.
Likely New AG Nominee Holder Spoke of Holding Weeping Reno in Arms
Huna Kahn
Nov 18, 2008 6:02 pm
Likely New AG Nominee Holder Spoke of Holding Weepy Reno in Arms - ABC News
Huna Kahn
Nov 18, 2008 6:02 pm
Likely New AG Nominee Holder Spoke of Holding Weepy Reno in Arms - ABC News
Presumably, Hillary Clinton is made of sterner stuff; there is no evidence that she ever shed a tear:
Hillary Ordered The Final Massacre At Waco
Robert Morrow
2-14-08
Hillary Ordered The Final Massacre At Waco
Robert Morrow
2-14-08
Hillary Ordered The Final Massacre At Waco
The country knows why Holder opposes the death penalty; so perhaps he should elaborate on death itself unattached to the death penalty.
Gitmo
Most Americans are outraged over closing Gitmo. They were even more outraged when they learned that enemy combatants would receive the protections guarantied in our Constitution. So clever was the spin from the Left, I doubt if many Americans gave a thought to Muslim terrorists beating the death penalty. Put the aforementioned Ghailani trial in perspective by recalling all of the Leftās lies told about why Gitmo should be closed. Not once did any leading Democrat ever admit that the worst of the terrorists would be spared the death penalty in civilian courts. Some do much better. They are simply released under one pretense or another:
Fictional murder
Televison, the great āeducator,ā is suffocating viewers with shows about horrible murders. The murderer is usually arrested in the final minutes of the show with a hint that he or she will be executed, or spend forever in prison. No mention is ever made of the decades of appeals at taxpayer expense; often followed by release and a big cash settlement, as so often happens in real life.
On the other side of the scale there are countless television shows where the defendant is always found not guilty. In TV Land, the death penalty vanishes somewhere between the guilty and the wrongly accused.
Another argument that is used against the death penalty is that it is a form of revenge. Capital punishment can hardly be called revenge in any society that gives as much care to an accused defendantās Rights as does the United States. More protections are added after a convicted criminal is sentenced to die. A cynic might say that many lawyers make so much money defending murderers they would be fools to support the death penalty.
Hollywood is even more āhumane' than is TV. Liberals are always railing against the death penalty, but you never hear a Hollywood lib attack vengeance in movie plotlines. That is odd because vengeance is the premise in most Hollywood bloodbaths. Incidentally, the kill numbers went out of sight after the era of the big studios disappeared.
Vengeance is the climax of every violent plot. The audience is led to revenge by the villainās cruelty. A revenge-driven plotline is not much different than sexual arousal ending in an orgasm. The audience is relieved, gets off, when the villain gets his or her comeuppance in the final gory minutes. If liberals are truly against the death penalty why arenāt they fighting to save the villains in Hollywood movies?
Democrats are Hollywoodās biggest supporters. They are the caring folks who claim that it takes a village to raise a child. Of course, liberals wring their hands in dismay and blame guns whenever village children turn to killing. Democrats do not get it. It is not the children trying to imitate the on-screen killing as some claim; they are only imposing justice on their enemies.
Hollywood has taught generations of moviegoers that getting even is acceptable behavior; so after decades of the same message it should not surprise liberals when a generation of kids comes along determined to carry fictional revenge to its logical end in the real world.
The Left extends the revenge argument to protest the execution of the perpetrators of terrorist acts. It is all oh so fashionably international. The line I like best is: America loses its moral legitimacy when it imposes the death penalty on anyone. Yeah right! Letās abolish the death penalty and concentrate on abortion, euthanasia, death panels, and population controls.
All of the Leftās caterwauling about ātortureā is nothing more than an extension of opposition to the death penalty. Abu Ghraib was subliminally portrayed as a death camp, while āinnocentā Muslims being held in Gitmo supposedly went from a turn on the rack to nearly being drowned. Make no mistake about it, abolishing the death penalty was always the end game.
Those who claim that all institutional killing is revenge of one kind or another are the same people who want more government. Before I buy into more government, I want to hear liberals explain why governments take revenge against their own people? Scapegoating a specific group is not the answer I am looking for.
The revenge argument was also used against President Truman for ending WWII by dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The story is that Truman took revenge on Japan, but would never have dropped atomic bombs on Germany or Italy. I certainly hope so since Japan intended to fight to the death.
Insofar as leading Democrats are concerned, their assertions on any subject are always made for the sole purpose of undermining the American political system. Once they have total control they will inflict their brand of revenge upon anyone who dared stand in their way before Taqiyya & Company had the power.
Finally, I am one hundred percent in favor of killing everything that moves in a war when it is a clear case of self-defense. Legitimate self-defense, like when the country is attacked, not the philosophical kind espoused by dirty little moralists who oppose the death penalty for the wrong reasons.
I am also in favor of preemptive strikes against aggressive enemies when they have, or are about to acquire, the means of carrying out their threats. It seems that Eric Holder is against death and the death penalty āā except when Muslims do the killing in their war.
