|
|
View My Stats |
 Subscribe in a reader |
|
|
July 31, 2009
Twittering about the death penalty
Q: Once MD death penalty is abolished, what's next? A: Too many lifers in MD prisons. So says Sentencing Project.
Which sums up this article nicely.
After reading it I questioned:
Uh what percentage of (convicted) criminals in Maryland are black? Doesn't that have some bearing on how many are in prison?
The Washington Post has been promoting life without parole as a preferable alternative to the death penalty. So why is it now seemingly working to undermine the legitimacy of life without parole? (There was no reason to "report" that story uncritically, unless it was to promote the views of the study's authors.) Is the problem the death penalty? Or are all punishments too severe?
Posted by SoccerDad at July 31, 2009 5:20 AM
Hezbollah in passive voice
A cynical and mistrusted offer
Wapo: peace process succeeding because of the great work of the administration
Council speak 100610
Nyt: peace process failing despite the great work of the administration
Do we have enough regulations yet?
Iranian General: "US, Mossad played roles in 9/11 event"
Absolving arafat, ten years later
Rahm can't run? antisemites!
The politics of peace
For those of us active in the death penalty debate, from the pro side, we have been saying for years, getting rid of the death penalty is just the first step - life without parole is next.
Often, folks have responded to this claim with a yawn. I think we have been right, based upon the evidence, all along.
Now, the evidence is more compelling. Throughout the US, there are efforts to release lifers, based upon cost and doing away with a juvenile life sentence, etc.
Noted anti death penalty personality Sister Helen Prejean was excused from jury duty, years ago, because she stated she couldn't give a life sentence because people can and do change.
Based upon her reasoning, why ever sentence anyone to anytime in jail.
She forgot to realize that criminals can change by getting worse and can change by getting better, but still be quite bad, or they can stay the same, also not a good thing.
For her, it's better to risk more harm to innocents in the free world, by releasing criminals, than it is to risk the possibility of locking a criminal up for a period of time they deserve for the crime, and not by speculating on the possibility that they may become angelic.
Posted by: Dudley Sharp at July 31, 2009 10:04 AM