To Kill a Murderer

Twenty years ago, Nathan Dunlap walked into a Chuck E. Cheese in Colorado. Dunlap had been fired from the restaurant earlier that year and told a friend that he wanted to get even and take all the money. One cold wintry evening he walked in, put a gun to the head of a 19-year-old girl at the salad bar and pulled the trigger. Then he killed three others and stole $1,591 before being arrested by the police.

Over the next twenty years, Dunlap and his lawyers did everything possible to get their client off. They claimed that his trial lawyers were incompetent, that he was abused as a child and that he had mental problems. That same claim is made by the defenders of nearly every murderer on death row.  There has yet to be an inmate on death row who isn’t a mentally ill child who was sexually abused by his incompetent lawyers.

Dunlap’s case went to the Colorado Supreme Court three times and once to the Supreme Court. And that means that after twenty years, he may finally be executed. The taxpayers of Colorado have spent millions fighting Dunlap’s lawyers. Aside from the attempts to keep Dunlap from facing the death penalty, the ACLU sued Colorado over exercise privileges for the Chuck E. Cheese killer.

“Depriving Mr. Dunlap of fresh air, sunshine, and outdoor exercise for 15 years is cruel and unusual punishment,” the ACLU legal director said last year.

In Georgia, the murderer sympathy vote is swarming around Warren Lee Hill. In 1986, Hill shot his girlfriend 11 times. Four years later he beat another inmate to death in prison with a nail-studded board. Hill was finally on the verge on being executed, but his defenders argued that Georgia couldn’t kill Hill because he only has an IQ of 70.

Jimmy Carter has come out in Hill’s defense and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in a 30 minutes before Hill would have faced justice. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is not supposed to handle death penalty cases, but activist judges know no boundaries and the court has now stepped in to halt two of Georgia’s executions in two days.

Hill only began claiming that he was retarded in 1996, ten years after his original murder, at which point his IQ scores, formerly in the mid-70s, dropped down to a more appropriately low level. Despite supposedly being retarded, Hill had managed to serve in the military and hold down steady jobs, not to mention murder two people. But no one has established whether Hill is mentally retarded within a reasonable doubt.

Christof Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions declared that “the world community is again watching Georgia with great concern as it prepares to carry out another grotesque and unjust execution.” The South African Heyns did not say whether he would be willing to be locked in a cell for 24 hours with Hill and a nail-studded board.

Andrew Cook, the other death row inmate on whose behalf the 11th Circuit intervened, has an even better gimmick. Cook claimed that he couldn’t be lethally injected with pentobarbital without a doctor’s prescription. What should have been a punch line to a joke is an actual tactic that pro-murderer death penalty opponents are using to stop Georgia from killing murderers.

European drug companies are refusing to supply drugs that can be used for lethal injections to the United States leading to a shortage of pentobarbital. Lethal injection however is only the most painless way to kill murderers. There are other less cleaner ways that states will have to resort to if the drugs aren’t available. The electric chair is used in nine states, the gas chamber in four states and the firing squad in two states. If we ever run out of bullets, gas and electricity, New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state, authorizes an old-fashioned rope hanging.

Cook, who can’t be killed without a doctor’s prescription, murdered a young couple by a lakeshore lover’s lane 18 years ago. There is no word on whether he got a doctor’s note before killing Grant Henderson and Michele Cartagena. Cook didn’t know the young couple, he just wanted to see if he could kill someone and get away with it. Now he wants to see if he can get away with murder by demanding that a doctor write a prescription for his lethal injection.

With that kind of legal obstacle course, it’s a wonder that any murderer ever makes it to the end of the line. But you can always count on Texas to deliver the goods.

In 1994, Carl Blue filled up a Big Gulp cup with gasoline, threw it at his girlfriend and then set her on fire with a lighter. Carmen Richards-Sanders died horribly after clinging to life for 19 days with burns over 40 percent of her body. Even in Texas it took 19 years to get Blue, who had been smoking crack before the attack, to his final end.

Along the way, Blue’s lawyers claimed that he was also retarded because he had been born premature and had to be kept in an incubator and that the attack had only been a prank, even though Blue told his girlfriend, “I told you I was gonna get you” as she was burning up.

The Big Gulp killer was the first Texas killer to die this year and the second killer in the United States to be sent beyond the reach of any living ACLU lawyer and into the jurisdiction of the dead ACLU lawyers in the underworld.

In Tennessee, Christa Gail Pike, the only woman on death row, is also pleading mental illness and mental retardation. In 1995, Pike lured another girl whom she suspected of trying to steal her boyfriend into the woods, stabbed her with a meat cleaver and carved a pentagram on her chest. The torture went on for 30 minutes until the victim’s skull was finally smashed in with a chunk of asphalt. Pike even kept a piece of her victim’s skull in her jacket as a souvenir, despite claiming that the brutal murder had just been another prank that got out of control.

Like Hill, Pike didn’t stay idle in prison. Instead she tried to murder another inmate with a shoelace over yet another romantic triangle. And she filed numerous appeals. The latest filings claim that death by electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment and that the victim’s skull should not have been submitted into evidence. Finally the petition claims that Pike’s original lawyers were incompetent because they failed to argue that the death penalty was illegal under international law.

These are just a few of the battles being fought for decades by prosecutors against the murderers and their defenders. It is a long slow war that costs millions and that ends only when the needle goes in and the life of a murderer ends.

The Pro-Murderer Anti-Death Penalty lobby is very wealthy and very active. The rights of criminals have always been more protected than those of victims and the war being waged on the death penalty is an international campaign.

While the parents of victims wait decades for closure, the international left wages a ceaseless war against them.

In Tennessee, the mother of Pike’s victim has been waiting nearly twenty years to bury that piece of her daughter’s skull. As long as Pike lives, the State of Tennessee has to hang on to it as a piece of evidence in the legal war between Pike’s defenders and the People of Tennessee. Only when Pike is dead, will her victim be buried at last.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • crackerjack

    Strange that the nation of self proclaimed Christian values should stand together with dictatorships, Sharia and totalitarian regimes in this subject. Can one imagine Christ operating the electric chair, commanding the fireing squad of or administering the poison injection?

    Perhaps Mr Greenfield should read the Sermon On The Mount.

    • F.K. Juliano

      What a ridiculous argument. The mealy-mouthed wusses of the European Union who are peacefully turning over their countries to Muslims shouldn't be the standard for anything. And has it occurred to you that Daniel Greenfield might be Jewish?

    • UCSPanther

      Well, well, well. Looks like we have a typical lefty who hates the idea of private gun ownership, likes the idea of a failed Palestinian state and now has a problem with convicted murderers getting what they deserve. Too bad.

      If the Euroweenies won't provide the goods we need to dispose of those scum, we should just do what China does: Shoot them in the back of the head and charge their supporters for the bullet…

    • Mary Sue

      Did you READ what these animals DID?

      God instituted the Death Penalty FOR MURDERERS. It's right there in the Bible. "For in the Image of God Made He Man."

      The sermon on the mount has NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING, to do with how to deal with criminals.

    • cedarhill

      Another one that missed the part where Christ was on the cross beside two convicts and did nothing, absolutly nothing, to halt their deaths but, for the converted believer, promised to meet him in eternal life.

      That's what Christ did. You can look it up. To save you the effort, the Vatican's English translation is here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PX6.HTM
      Start at verse 39.

      Oh, and we don't need to be told of Matthew's account. Luke has the direct word. And, if you have a few days, check out the 600+ commandments in the Hebrew Bible.

      One should note: forgiveness does not equate to avoiding judgement nor consequences. A fact many non-Christians never learn – the pseudo junk theologians.

      Obtw, if whom do you think will sit in judgement of you? Christ will render judgements which will be more terrible than the list you provided. Consider:
      Matthew 12:36
      Revelation 20:11-15
      1 Corinthians 4:5
      Romans 14:10
      Hebrews 9:27
      John 12:48
      Romans 2:16

    • LibertarianToo

      Actually, ours is the nation of codified separation of Church and State.

      • Jeff Bargholz

        LibertineToo,

        ours is NOT the nation of codified separation of Church and State. It is not codified in the Constitution, federal law or anyplace else.

        Try reading the Constitution rather than the anarchic rantings of the Libertine thinkers.

    • John

      Cracker Jack

      Cedarhill has a great response.

      This is what I can see Christ doing. Opposing the punishment of prostitutes if their customers are not also punished. Punishing both the prostitutes and their customers or admonishing both the prostitutes and their customers.

      I can see Christ giving a different angle on Mosaic law, but I do not see him overturning Mosaic law. Christ came in fulfillment of Mosaic law.

      I do not see him stopping all executions nor releasing all murderers. You might dream of that, but it is a false interpretation of what Christ would have done.

      • EarlyBird

        John, Jesus hung out with Mary Magadelene because she was a human who was considered among the wretches of society. "That which you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto Me." He gave no consideration of politics, law or anything other than the humanity of the woman.

        It may be true that Jesus would not have released all murderers (nor do I think the OP suggested that), or stop all executions, but can you imagine Jesus flipping the switch?

        • Mary Sue

          The difference is Mary Magdalene was repentant of her sins. Dirtbags such as those mentioned in the article are not.

          Jesus flips the switch anytime someone dies in real life.

          • EarlyBird

            Go back to Bible school, Mary.

          • Mary Sue

            No thanks, I've had my fill. You on the other hand, should visit Theologyweb's Tectonics subforum.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            EB: "Go back to Bible school, Mary."

            Really now? After the arguments you present? You're totally off your rocker.

            EB above that MS replied to: "John, Jesus hung out with Mary Magadelene because she was a human who was considered among the wretches of society. "That which you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto Me." He gave no consideration of politics, law or anything other than the humanity of the woman. "

            As if you added anything to the conversation? You're attitude is mind-boggling, as though you think you're doing something productive. We're not talking about who we should hang out with. Go visit the criminals up to the day of their execution. That's Christian. Claiming they should not be executed because Christ taught not to, that's just a silly lie.

            Give it up.

          • EarlyBird

            You're a fool.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You're a fool."

            Thank you. You've arrived to the end of your argument with your most salient point, that anyone who disagrees with you is regarded by you as a fool.

            Not too constructive though.

        • Jeff Bargholz

          GirlyBird,

          what does your idiotic hypothetical comment about Jesus "flipping the switch" have to do with his support of man's laws or current executions?

          Pettifoggery is for losers who cant handle the facts.

          • EarlyBird

            Jeffy, perhaps it's that Jesus would oppose this man made law? Perhaps he would not go to war in the name of the state, or kill other people for crimes, etc.?

            All this "Christianity" is pretty easy when we can pick and choose, isn't it?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "John, Jesus hung out with Mary Magadelene because she was a human who was considered among the wretches of society. "That which you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto Me." He gave no consideration of politics, law or anything other than the humanity of the woman."

          He didn't spring her from prison. Name one case where he intervened to get someone out of a JUST punishment? Immediately stoning people accused of adultery is not morally equivalent to applying the death penalty after numerous court procedures and hearings.

          "It may be true that Jesus would not have released all murderers (nor do I think the OP suggested that), or stop all executions, but can you imagine Jesus flipping the switch?"

          He's busy doing other things. He's not calling anyone to stop implementing just verdicts.

    • Cassandra

      are you crazy or a murderer in the process?

    • Rifleman

      Strange that people who ridicule Christians and say religion should be kept out of the public square are always trying to lecture us on what Christianity is, and how Christian their policies supposedly are.

    • john in cheshire

      As I recall Jesus was crucified alongside a thief and a murderer. I don't recall he protested that they should be reprieved from their horrible execution. That tells me that Jesus and therefore Christianity and judicial execution are compatible. God tells us not to murder, he doesn't tell us not to exact punishment, including capital punishment, for a person's misdeeds.
      My choice….kill the bastards, they won't cost any more taxpayers money and they won't kill any more innocent people. And just maybe, if they repent, Jesus will intercede on their behalf and save them from eternal damnation.

      • JacksonPearson

        " And just maybe, if they repent, Jesus will intercede on their behalf and save them from eternal damnation."

        Not to worry, because hell is going to be overcrowded.

        • jakespoon

          Nah,Jack,it's big enough,plenty of suffering for all that deserve it. Scratch may have to work overtime to dish it out,but dished it will be.

    • JacksonPearson

      The now doesn't matter, because the end is what counts:
      "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

      • jakespoon

        Amen,and Amen.

    • Jeff Bargholz

      crackheadjack,

      Jesus didn't oppose capital punishment. He didn't even oppose his own execution.

      How does an islamopithecine troll like you even use a keyboard when you're sitting on your brain?

    • Parenthetical Phrase

      I haven't read the sermon on the mount — I don't have to. I know that any society which does not punish it's criminals — especially when the crimes are so heinous, is a corrupt and doomed society. Forgiveness on the part of the victim is one thing. But a legal system in which murderers are set free to kill again is neither legal nor a system. My view of Jesus is that he is for the old addage, as you do unto others, so MUST it be done to you.

      • Mary Sue

        Well rest assured that the Sermon on the Mount does not deal with what to do about criminals.

      • jakespoon

        But you should read it, please.

    • Snorbak

      I for one, do not support the death penalty however, you, are missing the point of the article. It has nothing to do with being for or against the death penalty rather, the hypocrisy of bleeding heart liberals defending the rights of inhumane & sadistic killers.

      Your comment;
      "Strange that the nation of self proclaimed Christian values should stand together with dictatorships, Sharia and totalitarian regimes in this subject." is shallow & misguided.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "It has nothing to do with being for or against the death penalty rather, the hypocrisy of bleeding heart liberals defending the rights of inhumane & sadistic killers."

        And using over-the-top deception to do so. That is the biggest problem. Everyone must have their day in court. Pouring enormous sums of money in to defending a criminal because it serves a leftist agenda, and using that money for deception and other lawfare tactics is pathetic, anti-American and anti-Justice.

        If leftists want to show me the "good work" they've done, I'll give credit where credit's due. Show me first.

    • michelle

      can you imagine Christ riding a white horse with the blood of the likes of pike and her ilk up to his knees? perhaps you should read the Bible.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      http://bible.cc/genesis/9-6.htm

      "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
      http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm

      "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

      You need to read the whole thing. Christ was not in to vigilantism but he never denied the need for justice. Christ did not save either thief on the cross either. He didn't condemn his executioners.

      "Can one imagine Christ operating the electric chair, commanding the fireing squad of or administering the poison injection?"

      Christ was a carpenter and preacher, not a peace officer. He would not have condemned or even rebuked them.

      • jakespoon

        He even forgave those that were hammering in the nails.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "He even forgave those that were hammering in the nails."

          Precisely, thank you.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Strange that the nation of self proclaimed Christian values should stand together with dictatorships, Sharia and totalitarian regimes in this subject."

      Um, not. You don't know what you're talking about. Our standards for justice are higher than any other civilization in history. These standards are tilted towards the accused. But it's not like you read the article. You're just a bottom line leftist who finds superficial reasons to attack the USA because that's what the Soviets programmed you to do. Imagine the irony of that; leftists who care about the individual liberties of criminals. They only do this to attack Western democracies. They don't even pretend to live according to those values.

      Your source was not the Bible, The leftists programmed you to think it was.

      • Ziggy Zoggy

        objectivefactsmatter;

        Our standards for justice are NOT higher than any other civilization in history. "Innocent until proven guilty" is just a slogan, and a grammatically incorrect one at that. The truth is that Americans "are guilty until proved innocent." The millions of people locked away in jails awaiting their trials are testament to that. Many of them are inncent and many more will even be exonerated or have their charges dismissed by our woefully incompetent and corrupt courts.

        As insane as the European union and its courts are, people really are innocent until proved guilty over there. In a case of "he said, she said" between citizen defendants and the prosecutors, accusers and cops trying to convict them, the testimony of the citizen is paramount-the exact opposite of American "justice."

        The petty punishments the Union metes out to those who refuse to be correct in their thinking are Orwellian, and the light punishments meted out to murderers and terrorists are obscene, but it is not locking up ever larger chunks of the population just to generate money for local municipalities and state governments.

        It's debatable which system has worse flaws, the American or European one but so long as America continues to imprison its innocent, I say we lose-big time.

        Canadian courts aren't as crazy as European ones or as punitive as American ones.

        These are just two examples off the top of my head. I have no doubt that there are plenty of island nations with less psychotic criminal justice systems than ours, and Australia and New Zealand don't seem interested in turning their countries into penitentiaries either.

        I sometimes think there are those in our sick system who would like America to be a penitentiary country with trustees as guards and the elites as wardens.

        No, America isn't hanging 'em high like Roy Bean but Just because Dunlap and crew are guilty of heinous murder yet still alive doesn't mean justice is tilted toward the accused in America. It is demonstrably not. Judge Smails and DA Nifong are the norm in our criminally unjust system and the innocent public suffer in obscurity.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "It's debatable which system has worse flaws, the American or European one but so long as America continues to imprison its innocent, I say we lose-big time. "

          I don't doubt you can back up your claims but I wasn't actually trying to argue that American justice is clearly always superior to "European" justice, but we could go there. I'm not that interested. The thread in my mind was about the alleged hypocrisy of Western civilization and it's Judeo Christian origins. I'll also say that America's standards are highest and you can reply with examples of our failures to meet our own standards. That's fine. I don't think I have time to go down that road and I don't really have a problem with your claims. I'm sure you have plenty of valid points to make so carry on as you wish.

          • EarlyBird

            "I don't doubt you can back up your claims but I wasn't actually trying to argue that American justice is clearly always superior to "European" justice…"

            Yes you were.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes you were."

            My claim was that our standards are the highest. They are. I don't doubt he can find evidence showing we don't always live up to those standards, which is to say we're imperfect. European ideals might seem higher than our worst failures. That's not a fair comparison, but to get there you have to unpack the evidence first, which we haven't. I don't think it's worth the time really. I think what is critical is that most of the time we (in the USA) do live up to our ideals and often go overboard, tilting towards defending blatantly guilty people with silly discussions about how to define "cruel and unusual" and so forth.

            He's concerned about punishing innocent people and so am I. That's not the fundamental discussion, though it's reasonable to go there when discussing capital punishment. There are also people like you who can't even take a reasonable point and use it constructively.

            The bottom line is that cases should be weighed on the law, on evidence and due process. The appeals process is extensive. If there are systemic problems we need to fix those. I don't even care if nobody in the end is executed. What I care about is creating incentives for politicizing the cases and flooding the defense team with funds to pursue radical anti-American agendas by making heroes out of anti-heroes.

            Bill Ayers should have been subject to execution but look what happened to him? He's now teaching people how to get rapists and murderers off of death row by lying.

            This is not good. If leftists are concerned about justice they ought to work on improving the systems that make sure evidence is managed and presented properly, things that apply equally to every accused individual. They tend to, as I said, go after lionizing or protecting anti-heroes. Just look at the "Blind Sheikh" and what his radical leftist lawyer did for him. There are so many more examples like that. We want equal justice. I don't expect more for myself than I ask from others.

            Reread the article if you still have questions.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          I remembered after I replied that if I am to rely on my own experiences I can testify against what you say. I was arrested once in Italy due to my foreign passport. Zero probable cause. I'm not traumatized or anything but it could never happen that way in America. Maybe not never, but I defy you to find an example of someone being arrested by the police who merely scooped up passports at every hotel in the area. Legal passports with visas in order…and then just knocking on doors and taking them to holding centers.

        • jakespoon

          I do believe that La Belle France ,you must prove you are innocent,the state doesn't have to prove you guilty. But,then,they are French.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I do believe that La Belle France ,you must prove you are innocent,the state doesn't have to prove you guilty. But,then,they are French."

            Most of my ancestors are French too. Everything I learned from direct experience in my life tells me that American justice is the closest to our American ideals and Biblical ideals as any other sovereign in history. I could be wrong though…in theory. I'll listen to other theories on that subject because things are changing so quickly these days.

            I also realize there are lots of individuals who did not fully benefit from our high ideals. They need to be heard, but it doesn't change the facts in the end about what we've achieved. We have lots of protections that others think they enjoy but don't, or they don't understand the protections Americans enjoy from the need for probable cause, rights to appeals and so forth.

          • Mary Sue

            Napoleonic Law (French Common Law) is indeed, burden of proof reversed. Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Quebec was granted the right to use it in Civil Law but not Criminal Law.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Napoleonic Law (French Common Law) is indeed, burden of proof reversed. Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Quebec was granted the right to use it in Civil Law but not Criminal Law."

            Given the number of people already prosecuted for "hurting religious feelings" or whatever, I'm pretty confident in my position. But like I said I can see why Europeans would compare their ideals favorably to their leftist-media derived impression of US justice weaknesses.

    • Paul

      perhaps YOU should read about Judge Roy Bean then remove your head from where the sun dont shine.

    • epaddon

      As a Christian, my only obligation to a death row inmate is that they can as a result of their own pleas for God's forgiveness receive God's forgiveness which is to spare them from the fires of Hell. That is the ONLY obligation I owe them since I must always believe that the love of God can reach down to even the worst of sinners. What it does NOT mean is that the punishment that is deserved in THIS world is to be denied on a flimsy pretext that ignores the pain and horror further inflicted on the family of the victims, not to mention the absurdity that that the taxpayer is supposed to foot the bill for the continued subsidy of this person's existence who has demonstrated their unfitness to be part of society. That is the distinction those anti-death penalty people who wrap themselves up in "Christian" standards conveniently forget (Of course most of them are perfectly happy letting people play God to determine who lives and who dies when its an unborn child!)

      • EarlyBird

        "As a Christian, my only obligation to a death row inmate is that they can as a result of their own pleas for God's forgiveness receive God's forgiveness which is to spare them from the fires of Hell. That is the ONLY obligation I owe them since I must always believe that the love of God can reach down to even the worst of sinners."

        Sorry, but in this scenario where does your obligation come in?

        • epaddon

          My obligation is to not wish that his soul burn in Hell or that if God spared him from Hell because of a sincere repentance of the heart, then somehow it would be "unfair" if he didn't go to Hell. I have heard some people think it would be "unfair" if God showed that mercy to a sincere repenter and that is what I am referring to.

  • F.K. Juliano

    By trying to prevent justice from being done, the ACLU and their ilk are nothing less than complicit in these murders.

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com adinakutnicki

      Bottom line:while the rabid left goes postal over gun control, they work feverishly to protect convicted killers from receiving due punishment. The fact of the matter is that the left reflexively comes down on the wrong side of justice, therefore, they must be pushed aside with all due pressure http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/03/leftists-go-p

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Michael Copeland

    Another excellent piece, much appreciated.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Oddly enough, if we lock murderers up for life with no chance of parole, the kind of people who are unalterably opposed to capital punishment will eventually regard life imprisonment too as cruel and unusual punishment.

    • John

      "Ain't" that the truth

    • Larry

      Already happening in some countries. In Australia "life" used to mean literally that, you came out in a pine box. Now if means 27 years, parole hearings at 22 years, and on, and on, and on.

      Give them a quick trial and a swift hanging, and if you insist on giving them a needle, just load it up with a massive hot shot of heroine. Lots of that lying around, and you don't have to worry about European manufacturers.

    • EarlyBird

      Alex, your notion flies in the face of every aspect of the death penalty debate we've ever had in this country. Anti-death penalty people are almost unanimously for life in prisonment w/o parole for murderers. Your argument is a common one, which is to state that we can't do what is right now, for future of doing something wrong in the future.

      I was once very pro-death penalty, because in theory it is so morally neat. But in reality, where all of us live, there are so many different reasons to reconsider it. Please see my post below.

      • Alex Kovnat

        I don't believe its in the best interests of society for a person to be able to commit even the most heinous murders with no fear of being put to death.

        The only anti-capital punishment argument for which I have any respect, is that we might execute an innocent person by mistake. That argument deserves respect, yet I still favor capital punishment for particularly heinous murders. To me the bottom line is the overall best interests of society.

        • EarlyBird

          I'm very sympathetic to your view point. I have only in the past few years come around to being against it, mostly for practical reasons.

      • Jeff Bargholz

        GirlyBird,

        you are lying as always. The morally inconsistent retards who oppose the death penalty are NOT "almost unanimously for life in prisonment w/o parole for murderers." FAR FROM IT.

        And the death penalty is still legal. If it were outlawed, th e usual suspects would clamor even louder for shorter sentencing.

        • EarlyBird

          Jeff, you're proven numerous times now that you're stupid. Stay off my threads.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Jeff, you're proven numerous times now that you're stupid. Stay off my threads."

            Translation: Jeff, I can't beat you in an argument so please leave me alone.

      • Jeff Bargholz

        GirlyBird,

        those against the death penalty for muderers (as opposed to the unborn) are definitely NOT "almost unanimously for life in prisonment w/o parole for murderers." In fact, they "almost unanimously" support parole for even the most depraved murderers, so long as they belong to one of their preferred identity groups.

        The death penalty for mudrer is currently legal in many places and the worst fanatics STILL oppose life imprisonment. if life imprisonment were to become the most severe legal punishment for murder in these areas, it stands to reason that they would demand shorter sentences because that is what they are already doing in areas where that is the case.

      • Mary Sue

        Canada has very liberal sentencing for such crimes as child molestation. A man named Graham James who was convicted of molesting two boys (pretty much the Jerry Sandusky of Hockey) recently had his sentence UPPED to FIVE YEARS. And statutorially, Canada ALWAYS lets out crooks after serving 2/3 of their sentence unless they are a "Dangerous Offender" – a rare designation usually reserved for serial killers such as the late Clifford Olsen. "Dangerous Offender" status means a person may be held indefinitely; however it also means they are up for review a lot. Life in Prison is rarely a sentence in Canada for any practical purpose.

        • jakespoon

          Breivik got 27 years for shooting and killing 77 people. Not 27 per dead body,but 27 total. 77 people= 27 years. Swedeland, a progressive's paradise.

    • Tina Trent

      They already have. The anti-LWOP movement is full steam ahead with the usual suspects — academicians, George Soros, prison eradication radicals, and their toadies in the media.

    • Jake Tobias

      Saw on a true crime program this very day, how that is not true.

      In a murder case out of England, a man was given a life sentence, but was released after just ten years. Not even paroled. Just plain released. The narrator said that is what a "life sentence" usually means in England. Ten years, and out. For first degree murder.

      It was some rich guy who married an American. He murdered her, after planing it for months, kept the body hidden for five months, at home I believe, transported the body over one hundred miles, and buried it in the woods. But not before cutting off her head. He said he wanted to keep it as a reminder of her. For sentimental reasons. The authorities thought it may have been to prevent the body from being identified through dental records.

      What's more, he was allowed to eat gourmet, and drink wine, before, and during, his trial. And while serving his sentence, was allowed access to his resources, and able to make money from prison.
      After ten years, he was released, moved to Australia, continued to enjoy his life, and finally died of complications from diabetes in his late sixties.

      Ten years for first degree murder. That is what English socialists call a life sentence.

    • Captain Caveman 001

      Opponents to the Death Penalty may simply be trying to disrupt what they perceive to be a corrupt power structure. Letting murderers escape the consequences of their actions is a small price to pay for their emotional gratification.

      One more thing: though I am not unsympathetic to reasonable arguments against the Death Penalty, I do believe in its deterrent effect. It cannot be known how many people today are alive because potential murderers. I would like to see a decline in the Death Penalty as a result of fewer cases that call for its implementation.

  • pierce

    I believe in the death penalty. It supposedly acts as a deterrent, but with all the do-gooders out there, it has become a Cause Calibre for all those people who cherish life rightly or wrongly, even though it was wrong in the first place to murder. I say you are all hypocrites, lock them up, why, so we can clothe and feed them, and allow them to be an expense on our government. They don't deserve any considerations, because they showed no compassion.

    • EarlyBird

      Pierce, the fact is that, alas, capital punishment has ZERO deterrent effect. That would be an excellent case for capital punishment if it was true.

      Further, even at the cost of care taking these scum bags for life, going through the entire death penalty process is far, far more expensive. Now, surely there would be people who would like to throw over the entire principles of trials, and immediately execute a person who's been convicted.

      • pierce

        So you want to bring back Old Western style justice. I would be for that, but that is not your intent, it would however eliminate some of the need for Judges and Courts. Robbing Banks and killing unarmed people would not meet your criteria, but it would eliminate a bunch of scumbags that we don't need. Only the mothers of these scumbags would object. The only way I could agree you is if the scumbags were Guinea Pigs serving as trialists for medicine. They would then serve humanity.

        • EarlyBird

          No, I don't want to bring bac, Old Western justice…the same kind of "justice" many gangs around the world practice. Being someone who wants to live in a civilized society, I want full trials and jurisprudence even for those criminals who I hate for their crimes.

          And though I'm very sympathetic to the death penalty, it doesn't make ultimate sense.

          • Jeff Bargholz

            GirlyBird,

            the death penalty DEFINES "ultimate sense." "Sympathetic" is not a synonym for "supportive."

      • Jeff Bargholz

        GirlyBird,

        you are living proof that the death penalty deters murder. Not that the law is meant as a deterent. It is meant as a penalty, hence the name.

        • EarlyBird

          Sorry? I am living proof that the death penatly deters murder? You mean, I'd have been murdered if we didn't have the death penalty? Dude, you're stupid.

      • Mary Sue

        well, put it this way. A dead mass murderer can't murder any more after they are dead. It's less a "deterrent" than it is a "preventative measure" because nowadays executions are so drawn out with infinite appeals so that inmates sit on Death Row for decades, that of course it's not much of an actual deterrence (to other crooks) in all practicality.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        The great winged-oracle belched out another prophetic revelation:

        "the fact is that, alas, capital punishment has ZERO deterrent effect."

        Well if you say so. I say you don't even know what a fact is.

        "Further, even at the cost of care taking these scum bags for life, going through the entire death penalty process is far, far more expensive."

        Whose fault is that?

        "Now, surely there would be people who would like to throw over the entire principles of trials, and immediately execute a person who's been convicted."

        We're pro justice here, not anarchists. And how does one become convicted if we "throw over the entire principles of trials?" You imagine people saying, "We don't' want any trials. We just want to murder the convicts."

        You don't even think about your silly statements. You ought to be embarrassed writing things like a drunk. Are you?

        • EarlyBird

          Yeah, I think basically you want lynch mobs deliverin' good ol' justice, 'specially to "damn libruls!" Because you're a fascist, as most of the so-called "conservatives" on this site. Just simple, reactionary, frightened, ignorant people prone to lashing out at anything that is different or new or discomforting.

          Which is what makes you such excellent fodder for Front Page Magazine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yeah, I think basically you want lynch mobs deliverin' good ol' justice, 'specially to "damn libruls!" Because you're a fascist, as most of the so-called "conservatives" on this site. Just simple, reactionary, frightened, ignorant people prone to lashing out at anything that is different or new or discomforting. "

            More revelations on just how delusional you are. How much of that is due to your poor reading comprehension we'll never know without extensive testing.

            Good luck with that.

  • Edward Cline

    “Depriving Mr. Dunlap of fresh air, sunshine, and outdoor exercise for 15 years is cruel and unusual punishment,” the ACLU legal director said last year.

    I wonder what the Colorado prosecution and attorney general said in reply. Hopefully, it was, "Mr. Dunlap deprived his victims of fresh air, sunshine, and outdoor exercise forever, which is more than 15 years." But, probably not.

    I

    • EarlyBird

      “Depriving Mr. Dunlap of fresh air, sunshine, and outdoor exercise for 15 years is cruel and unusual punishment,” the ACLU legal director said last year.

      Our answer to the ACLU should be, "Yes, it is. And there's a problem with that? The man is a murderer."

      • Jeff Bargholz

        GirlyBird;

        No, it is not. It is simply cruel. That is why it is punishment.

        • EarlyBird

          Jeff, note that you're so dense you dont' even get when someone agrees with you.

    • BS77

      Deprived of outdoor exercise….OH BOOOOO HOOOOOOO.

  • joe

    Isn't it funny democrats are repulsed at the execution of brutal murderers but not abortions ?
    And they grade murders by skin color, the darker the criminal the more acceptable the crime.
    Exactly what benefit are we ,as a society and country , going to receive from those animals ?

    • EarlyBird

      Amen, Joe.

      It's best to be a Catholic type of purist: don't kill murderers and don't kill innocent babies. Only kill on the basis of Just War and self defense in extremis, and only as little as necessary.

      • Jeff Bargholz

        GirlyBird,

        it's best to be an American purist: Murder is prohibited and execution is not.

        You are a hypocrite who does not live by Catholic doctrine, so don't cherry pick doctrines that suit you and demand that everybody else-including the Catholic Church, presumably-obey the same doctrines.

        • EarlyBird

          So, Jeffy, you're for killing in unjust wars, and killing as much as possible in those wars. Got it. Kill, kill, kill!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            EarlyBird, the most productive author of silly false dichotomies used as straw men arguments in the "leftist conservative" world. You've got a proverbial army of straw men.

      • Drakken

        Obviously the effing jesuit marxist filled your head with mush. Before you ask, yes I am Catholic.

        • EarlyBird

          Darn Jesuits! They think just too darned hard, what with their book learnin'! They mix everybody up and make 'em "libruls!" Why, when we're done bringing the mailed fist of DraKKKen down on the Sand Apes, we need to take it to them Jesuit Marxists!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Darn Jesuits!"

            Wrong AGAIN. He's saying, "darn communists" like you. You just think you're conservative because you once held down a job.

  • Edward Cline

    I think more people should grasp the fact that the ACLU and other "criminals' rights" advocates do not value life, but rather some Kantian abstraction that they must maintain in its purist sense, else they would have no philosophy of justice at all. The cruel and unusual suffering imposed on a murderer's victims and their survivors interest them not. The cruel and unusual suffering of a victim is, to them, transient, water under the bridge. An incarcerated murderer's alleged "suffering" is a constant, ongoing matter which they choose to focus on, so they claim he needs relief from it. However, isn't that the whole point of incarceration, to deprive a killer of the normal benefits of life? Isn't that the nature of punishment, to deny him the freedom that he has robbed of his victims, whether or not he faces the death sentence? Think of all the killers who took up painting, or studied law, or became book critics, and had the time, at taxpayer expense, to develop extracurricular interests and skills (I'm thinking of Richard Speck, and can cite dozens of others) that their victims cannot.

    • EarlyBird

      Well said, Edward.

      But let's remember that most of us live in the realm of theory and abstraction on this subject, whether we are for or against the death penalty.

      There are so many actual realities to contend with in regard to the death penalty, that I've gone against it in practice and urge people who wish to be live in a moral society and limited government to reconsider. It gives us emotional satisfaction and a "sense" that justice has been served (though there is truly no earthly punishment that can create true justice for a murderer). I've posted my short list of reasons below.

      • Jeff Bargholz

        Poorly written, GirlyBird.

        Only leftists "live in the realm of theory and abstraction." The rest of us live in the real world.

        The only "actual reality" about the death penalty is that it should be used on those who commit unjust and unwarranted murder.

        Murdering evil people who severely transgress against others is to be commended.

  • Edward Cline

    The ACLU and other "criminals' rights" advocates are actually creatures of the welfare state. If you exist, in or out of prison, then you have a "right" to exist regardless of your actions and should be supported by the state at the expense of justice.

  • Western Spirit

    Hitler had his brown shirts to cow dissenting Germans and the Left is using angry Black people to cow the whites, And so the Left comes to the rescue of their "servants".

    Also, as Jesus asked, if Satan's house is divided against itself how can it stand? And so Satan's house is not divided but stands with its own.

    • EarlyBird

      Yeah. Speaking of Jesus, I remember reading throughout the New Testament his desire to execute murderers. Killing people we hate was pretty central to everything He taught, wasn’t it?

      • Mary Sue

        Um, one has nothing to do with the other.

        • EarlyBird

          Try to follow along, dear.

          • Jeff Bargholz

            GirlyBird,

            this is a thread about the death penalty and why leftists are absurdly evil and self serving in their opposition to it. It is not about "what would Jesus do" so Mary sue is right:" One has nothing to do with the other." The same is true for Jesus's support of capital punishment and killing people "we" hate.

            I get the feeling you would love to kill anybody who stood in the way of your Utopian fantasies.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I get the feeling you would love to kill anybody who stood in the way of your Utopian fantasies."

            This coo coo has "conservative" Utopian fantasies.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            What the Hell is that supposed to mean?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What the Hell is that supposed to mean?"

            He's a leftist who claims to be conservative.

          • Jeff Bargholz

            objectivefactsmatter;

            The last time I checked "conservatives" do not want to impose their ideology on others by force and they do not justify violence to achieve their goals.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The last time I checked "conservatives" do not want to impose their ideology on others by force and they do not justify violence to achieve their goals."

            Exactly. He's no conservative, except in his mind. Ask him.

          • EarlyBird

            As I mentioned to Mary Sue, try to follow along. It was Western Spirit, after rambling about Hitler and brown shirts, who brought up Jesus.

          • Mary Sue

            This whole killing people thing has nothing to do with "people x hate". I don't know what talking points sensitivity training bull feces manual you got that from but you should stop reading that excrement. This is about justice, not hatred.

          • EarlyBird

            We should hate murderers. I sure do.

            But the death penalty, like a good number of issues, to me is a litmus test of mature conservatism. Are we just hysterical reactionary culture warriors who want to use the government as our own tool to bash "the left," or are we capable of taking an emotional issue and soberly consider the pros and cons of a given policy and make a decision on that basis?

      • Western Spirit

        Your post is a crude joke written by someone who has never read the New Testament in his life.
        What Jesus taught is still relevant today because it was true.

    • Boo

      Remember the Night of Long Knives; the Brownshirts were dispatched as soon as they were no longer useful, except to play the villains against the Nazi "heroes." Look at the condition of black Americans under Obama they voted color lines and are no longer useful. I fear for them.

  • EarlyBird

    It is a sign of moral health and proper moral outrage to WANT to execute murderers. But let's see how smart and "conservative" capital punishment actually is:

    1.) It is hardly "small government" to allow government the ultimate power over its citizens, in fact, it's the ultimate in Big Government power.

    2.) It does nothing to prevent murders or other heinous crimes.

    3.) It costs ridiculous amounts of precious public money (meaning your's and my taxes) to go through the process of executing someone.

    4.) It clogs up and stresses our legal system.

    5.) Given the number of convicted people who's sentence has been overturned on new evidence, we can be certain there are plent of executed citizens who have been innocent.

    6.) It does little-to-nothing, by all accounts, to help the murder victims' family heal.

    Based on this, the only actual argument for giving the government the ability to execute murderers, who we properly hate for their crimes, is our emotional satisfaction.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      1. It's not big government. Executions are carried out by states as a result of jury trials.

      2. It certainly does. Two of the prisoners on the list attempted to kill while in prison.

      3. It only costs a lot money because of the left's legal activism.

      4. Done properly it declogs it.

      5. We can never be certain of anything.

      6. The families of murder victims disagree. In the final case in this article, a family can't even bury their daughter's last remains until her murderer is executed.

      • Donna

        6. This wouldn't be an issue if the perpetrator's life weren't on the line. If the state(government) didn't have the power to kill, the convicted would have received life without parole, the case would have been closed, and the remains would have been buried a long time ago, allowing the victim's family to move on. It is the death penalty itself that is prolonging this family's suffering, just agree to drop the death penalty, that the perpetrator will stay in prison until natural death, the remains can be buried, and the case will vanish from the spotlight and endless public spectacle allowing the family to have as much peace and closure as they can really get short of bringing thier daughter back.

        • doubleblack

          If they somehow let the murderer out of their life sentence, I'm sure that you Donna will be happy
          to allow them to live with you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If they somehow let the murderer out of their life sentence…"

            Which never happens!

            I love how these people speak for families of murder victims so coherently like they've all gotten together to figure out how to let the murderers go free just like the leftists want. Just remember the leftist dogma that any violent criminal is a de facto victim of society…unless he's white in which case he's a racist guilty of hate crimes.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          No it would still be an issue as long as appeals can keep being filed and murderer advocates can keep demanding to reopen cases.

          Only executing the murderer wraps up the case for good these days.

          • EarlyBird

            But most importantly, it feels so good!

          • Jeff Bargholz

            but most importantly a deadly threat is eliminated.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But most importantly, it feels so good!"

            In your mind only.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Only executing the murderer wraps up the case for good these days."

            That's another problem that needs to be solved.

        • Jeff Bargholz

          Donna;

          6. This wouldn't be an issue if the criminal justice system weren't corrupt and incompetent.

      • EarlyBird

        1. Death penalty is the ultimate penalty. As conservatives we should be allergic to granting government that power.

        2. No, that these prisoners attempted to commit further murder in prison exactly DISPROVES capital punishment deters murder. And don't be so dishonest to pretend that our interest in capital punishment to deter murder is focused on other inmates, or even prison guards.

        3. Oh, you mean all that lefty, squishy stuff like due process under the Constitution? Eek! Next you'll complain that cops can't summarily execute suspects on the street, due to the "left."

        4. You mean, done properly by doing away with said due process.

        5. So, if in doubt, kill. Got it.

        6. It depends on who you speak to about it.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          1. Death penalty as a result of a jury proceeding in a non-federal court is a traditional exercise of the justice system.

          2. Capital punishment deters a murderer once he is executed.

          3. I mean like dragging out a capital case for 20 years.

          4. 20 years is not due process.

          5. Death penalty convictions require beyond a reasonable doubt.

          6. Go speak to the mother of Pike's victim.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "1. Death penalty is the ultimate penalty. As conservatives we should be allergic to granting government that power. "

          You don't even know how the criminal justice system works. The big government saves the losers after the local judge and juries decide the cases. Go count how many criminals have been executed by the federal government.

          "2. No, that these prisoners attempted to commit further murder in prison exactly DISPROVES capital punishment deters murder."

          Your mind is twisted. The fact that SOME criminals have been put to death lawfully was not alleged to be a deterrent for all future criminals. But it's impossible for a dead murderer to kill again. That is the only thing we need to think about to prove your words wrong. Does it deter others? The only question is how much, not whether is does at all. You must be on drugs 24 hours a day to make the statements that you try here.

          "3. Oh, you mean all that lefty, squishy stuff like due process under the Constitution? Eek! Next you'll complain that cops can't summarily execute suspects on the street, due to the "left." "

          What are you talking about? We want due process. We don't want it manipulated by liars with agendas motivated by the desire to attack the "white establishment' or "capitalism."

          "4. You mean, done properly by doing away with said due process. "

          You're insane.

          "5. So, if in doubt, kill. Got it. "

          You can't read.

          "6. It depends on who you speak to about it."

          A reminder about what a waste of time it is talking to you about anything.

          • EarlyBird

            Facts Objected To: You and others are stating, "Yes, we know the death penalty works to prevent murder. But the reason it doesn't work to prevent murder is because 'the left' doesn't let us use the death penalty properly."

            So, what is it? And when I brought up government power and big government why does that exclude local (state) governments?

    • Tina Trent

      All of these claims also apply to life without parole, which is the next target of the anti-incarceration, pro-offender cabal. Soon it will be as expensive and time consuming to find someone for LWOP as it now is for death, I promise you.

      Your comments about healing are inappropriate.

      Contrary to the propaganda, despite the vigilant work of thousands of lawyers and law professors, we have not identified one single innocent executed person since the death penalty began being used again a few decades ago — and of those freed from death row, the vast majority were not innocent but were re-sentenced for a wide variety of reasons, a fact that is almost always lied about by activists and reporters. This may be surprising to you, but there's the power of their media machine. I suggest you read more widely. ProDeathPenalty is an excellent website with facts, not feelings and presumptions.

      Over a period of 35 of the most blood-soaked years in our nation's history, we have identified approximately 300 people wrongly convicted — out of many millions of convictions and many more serious crimes. Each individual case is a tragedy, but statistically this reinforces the accuracy of our system, not the opposite. And with the technology we have today, the likelihood of similar future mistakes is vanishingly small — successful new cases (convictions for crimes committed recently, not new petitions regarding older crimes) dwindled to single digits years ago.

      Also, not all of those acquitted were actually innocent. Many were non-contributors to a gang rape or rape-murder, freed as innocent as the Innocence movement gained political clout. The Central Park 5 are among these. Of the rest, many are serial offenders popped for the wrong crime because they were operating criminally in the same area — no excuse for convicting them, but they're not innocents — they're criminals, often serial rapists.

      Among the rest, the cases (and the fake research created from them) are frequently wildly misrepresented. The "false eyewitness identification" claims made are almost never made by the victim alone, and there are only a handful of cases where malice by an alleged victim was involved. Most frequently, it is a criminal compatriot or snitch, or getting caught for another crime that leads to the misidentification. Even victim misidentification from lineup is frequently only a small part of a case. But the victims get blamed because this feeds a myth system needed to perpetuate an entirely untrue view of the justice system.

      I don't seek approbation by talking about this, but the serial offender who raped me made the "retarded" defense the next time he was caught and received a shortened sentence on those grounds, and not for the first time in his prolific career. Then, in prison, he miraculously recovered his intellect and "earned" a "psychology degree" conferred by the types of criminal fetishists who get off on their prisoner outreach — college professors, you know, highly stimulated by the chance to tell their peers about mentoring oppressed prisoners who really are quite good poets, you know. My tax dollars paid for his "education" while I paid for my own education as well. That's the part that really galls the quotidian rat running up and down my brain stem.

      His "psychology degree" resulted in more time off his sentence, so, added to his time off for mental incapacity, he was soon free again — to fist-rape an elderly cancer patient who died soon after. Most lately, his LWOP sentence for that rape was overturned on a paperwork-only technicality (that cost quite a lot), so he should be gracing the world with his presence again. When that happens, I will be there.

      Sometime you just have to Buford Pusser your way through things. Metaphorically, of course.

      Smarmy comments about emotions notwithstanding, I don't find any of this satisfying. Nor have I ever heard from a crime victim — and I've heard from hundreds of them through my blog and worked with others to achieve justice — who is motivated by "vengefulness" or any of the other usual crackpot nonsense spouted about their motives by people who are entirely ignorant of the world of criminal pandering that passes for our criminal justice system.

    • UCSPanther

      How they do it is inefficient. They should do it the way the Japanese do it: Allow two weeks for appeals, and then terminate them.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "1.) It is hardly "small government" to allow government the ultimate power over its citizens, in fact, it's the ultimate in Big Government power. "

      No, it's one of the few legitimate roles any government has.

      "2.) It does nothing to prevent murders or other heinous crimes."

      Dead murderers sure can't kill anyone on earth after they're executed.

      "3.) It costs ridiculous amounts of precious public money (meaning your's and my taxes) to go through the process of executing someone. "

      It costs ridiculous amounts of precious public money (meaning your's and my taxes) to go through the process of contending with corrupt liberals over executing someone. That's what we're discussing.

      "4.) It clogs up and stresses our legal system."

      Lack of firm consistency leads to more zealous fighting of the existing laws. That is what clogs and stresses due process. You're against due process?

      "5.) Given the number of convicted people who's sentence has been overturned on new evidence, we can be certain there are plent of executed citizens who have been innocent. "

      That is solved under ensuring due process. That's what we want.

      "6.) It does little-to-nothing, by all accounts, to help the murder victims' family heal. "

      That's not fundamentally why it's done and you have no right to speak for any of them as far as I know.

      "Based on this, the only actual argument for giving the government the ability to execute murderers, who we properly hate for their crimes, is our emotional satisfaction."

      Proving again that you can't read.

      • EarlyBird

        Because you are objectively a fascist, you see the use of due process and appeals as corruption.

  • tagalog

    As the gun control lobby pushes for such silly and useless prohibitions as restricting the number of rounds allowed in a magazine or banning firearms with pistol grips, at the same time they militate against the one gun control measure that does work: longer sentences for those who use firearms in committing their crimes,

  • cxt

    Early Bird

    Points in order:

    1-Size of the government has nothing to do with executing killers

    2-Debatable–evidence for both opinions is available. But certainly there is nothing posted by you than a simple assertion so it can be ignored

    3-The cost is due to the extreme lengths the system goes to protect the criminal. So the point is off-base. In any case the cost of food and free medical care for LIFE is also extreme–yet you don't seem to upset at that.

    4-See #3

    5-Perhaps—but this one is really just supposition. As far as I know no inncent person has been put to death in the modern age.

    In any case the exact SAME new technology and DNA used to free the innocent can/has been used to positively identify the guilty–thus your entire point is flawed.

    6-Accoding to whom?????? I see no reason to belive your assertions that such things don't help.

    • EarlyBird

      1. It has everything to do with the power, not "size" of government.

      2. I'd love to read something other than your contention that it deters murder. In the US we're experiencing one of the lowest violent crime rates since the early '70s, likely having to do with Three Strikes laws, which send recidivist criminals to prison for life. Ironically, states with capital punishment often have weaker non-capital sentencing.

      3. The cost comes from criminals using every Constitutional avenue at their disposal. Last I heard the Constitution was rather important to all of us.

      5. Absurd. Humans make mistakes, or commit fraud in the process of law enforcement and jurisprudence. It doesn't take much research to find some pretty solid cases of execution of innocent people:
      http://listverse.com/2010/01/12/10-convicts-presu

      And that we've used DNA to free innocent prisoners only shows that we have in the past put innocent people to death. It reinforces my point.

      6. Just read up on this. It's a mixed bag.

      • Jeff Bargholz

        GirlyBird;

        1. It has everything to do with law.

        2. Deterrence is not the reason for capital punishment and according to your own convoluted reasoning crime rates are lower because deterrence works.

        3. The cost comes from government waste-as always.

        4. You are so stupid you forgot this number.

        5. Two wrongs don't make a right.

        6. Your problem is that people have read up on this and they don't agree with you.

        • EarlyBird

          Jeff,

          You obviously have a reading disability. This is now the second time you've been able to follow the conservation. Read this slowly, and repeat, before you attempt to form a response:

          1. My concern is that we are giving too much power to the government to execute citizens, when we can punish and deter criminals by merely putting them in prison for life.

          2. Three Strikes laws have proven to be a far greater deterrent to crime, because criminals who commit multiple crimes stay in prison for life. There is nothing close to proving that the death penalty is a deterrent.

          3. If we want to reform the legal system to allow criminals their full appeals rights but more efficiently at lower cost, great. But we're better off doing away with it all together, as I've demonstrated.

          4. You're an idiot. 3 and 4 are related.

          5. You're even more idiotic. That's my point: we aren't going to serve justice by making the Ultimate Mistake by executing an innocent person. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the cops aren't always right.

          6. Read and get educated on this.

          Extra point: you are stupid.

      • cxt

        Early Bird

        1st The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim–so asking ME to provide “proofs” when you don’t is not just bad form–but fallcious.

        Ok:

        1st–”Power” and “size” are not the same thing. Its also poor logic to assert that “small government” and the executing killers is at cross purpose–the Founders and much of the nation is pro-execution thus the “government” however you define the term and regardless of size is not an issue.

        2-Huh????? Don’t think I asserted that

        3-Huh???? Pretty such I already pointed out that the cost was tied to the care we take to make sure we get it right. Don’t see where you of I have a problem on this one

        4-Ok you have no #4 and you jump right to 5

        5- 5A of all I don’t do “argument by link” if you have something to say please SAY it. Quote the source yourself. you have yet to prove that anyone innocent has been put to death in modern times.

        5B–You miss the DNA point utterly–DNA/new tech can provide proof-positive evidence that the person in quesion IS guilty. So moving forward your claim that innocent people will be put to death is null and void.
        Have read up on it–its why I disagree with you.

        • EarlyBird

          The pro-death penalty crowd are the ones claiming that it serves as a deterrent. It is therefore their job to prove this claim since it is central to their position.

          There are plenty of good arguments in theory for the death penalty. I used to be strongly for it and am very sympathetic to it, and I respect your position. My point is that, ultimately, there are so many factors that make it impractical, questionable and untenably expensive that it is a conservative position to be against it.

          1. It's not an issue of government "size," but power, that should concern us.

          2. We've had the death penalty in most states longer than we have not had it, and during that time had serious violent crime rates. Oddly, as it has become less popular, long incarceration rates have gone up, and so murder and violent crime has gone down (and I believe that has a lot to do with 3 Strikes laws, which I'm a major proponent of). We actually are living in a pretty non-violent time relative to the past 30 + years.

          3. Sorry, I think we agree here: it does cost a lot to given criminals their Constitutional rights, but it's necessary.

          4. We agree that 3 and 4 overlap.

          5. There are all sorts of problems with our criminal justice system because it is run by fallible human beings. Cops, defense attorneys, prosecutors, witnesses make mistakes, etc. Of course we can be sure that innocent people have been put to death.

          5B – It is DNA that has proven a large number of people in jail were innocent, which disproves that we don't or haven't put innocent people to death. Yes, let's use DNA more and more, perhaps as a requirement before putting someone to death.

  • obama guy

    Yep, he's a black guy, he sure is a black guy, just like Obama. The modern Conservative Movement was born and bred in racism. Read William F. Buckley's early support for Jim Crow. But sadly for you folks,
    racism does not have the support it once did. But cheer up, there is still the KKK.

    • RoguePatriot6

      "But cheer up, there is still the KKK."
      Who founded the KKK? I'll give you a clue. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans.

      "Yep, he's a black guy, he sure is a black guy, just like Obama. The modern Conservative Movement was born and bred in racism."
      I can't believe you just went there. The Democratic party with LIBERAL interpretations of the bible and the Constitution of The United States, were truly bred in racism. It was from those liberal interpretations that they tried to expand slavery.
      And it's funny that you would use William F. Buckley's early support for Jim Crow. William F. Buckley nor Barry Goldwater represent the foundation of Conservatism nor the Republican Party. In other words they were not the norm. Yet with their racist leanings they would have fit right in with the Democratic Party.

      • EarlyBird

        Don't miss the forest for the trees, Roger. This ain't Lincoln's GOP anymore.

        The Republicans may have started out as the anti-slavery/progressive party, and the Democrats pro-slavery, but at some point those roles reversed, and bigots and backwoods rednecks and white supremacists are now firmly in the grip of the Republicans.

        Not that there aren't plenty of racists and bigots of all types in the Democrats' camp too!

        • RoguePatriot6

          Reversed roles, eh?

          I honestly wish I had a buck for everytime I've heard this tired lie.

          They didn't reverse roles:
          "These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”-LBJ Democrat So there it started with the "Great Society" programs for blacks with welfare, food stamps…etc. The new chains and shackles were in the form of government dependency.

          "I'll have them n***ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years"-LBJ Democrat

          Some quotes you'll never hear in school. They didn't switched roles. The Democratic Party just switched tactics and ajusted fire.

          • EarlyBird

            Rogue, you'll noticwe that I stated, "not that there aren't plenty of racists and bigots of all types in the Democrats' camp too!" And LBJ was one of the last holdouts, a Southerner still in the Democratic Party just before Nixon made the big GOP push into the South and gave us today's GOP.

            But in the terms of white racism, the roles of the parties have generally reversed.

          • RoguePatriot6

            You still don't get it do you?

            LBJ set the foundation for the new form of slavery called, "Government Dependency". You see, since the old archaic form of racism was starting to be frowned upon this was a more subtle means of it. All of the programs started under the "New Great Society" was never meant advance black people but was just meant to give a little bit to shut everybody up. Still don't believe me? Why are blacks and latinos still living in run down ghettos surviving off food stamps, welfare….etc? What party affilation predominatly runs these areas? The one and only, DEMOCRATIC PARTY. They never wanted blacks move forward because if they did, it would defeat their purpose and screw up their voter base. The un-foreseen side effect was that later own alot of white people were drawn into this too. The Democratic Party is still the party of enslavement, they just polished their act up.

        • Drakken

          Earlyidiot.
          Still using that race and bigotry card huh shortbus, hint, that dog don't hunt no more Sparky, but thanks for playing. Dumbazz!

          • EarlyBird

            Shut up, ye of "Sand Apes" infamy.

    • Mary Sue

      It wasn't racism that caused the black guy to shoot a perfectly innocent 19 year old employee of Chuck E Cheese's that had done him no harm.

      No, he's NOT just like Obama. (The fact that obama is half white is beside the point, but Obama did NOT grow up in the Ghetto or any situation even remotely similar. The only thing Obama MIGHT have in common with this guy is absentee father).

      The KKK is for Idiots, and it was started. by. DEMOCRATS.

      • EarlyBird

        "It wasn't racism that caused the black guy to shoot a perfectly innocent 19 year old employee of Chuck E Cheese's that had done him no harm."

        You're right. It was the pizza. Have you tasted the stuff they put out at Chuck E. Cheese?!

        • Mary Sue

          Unfortunately I have not had the pleasure (or misfortune?)

    • UCSPanther

      I guess you would have had no problem with the NAACP trying to save the Hi-Fi murderers on account of their race, never mind that their crimes were so heinous that they were despised by the other death row inmates.

    • Jeff Bargholz

      obama goy;

      Dunlap is Black, obama is not and no conservative hates either one of them for their racial identity.

      Modern socialism was born in racism and bred with race baiting.

      Jim Crow laws were concieved, enacted and enforced by Democrats.

      Racism has more support than ever so enjoy! Thanks to Black privilege you can get away with murder and even be anointed as President with no experience, training or talent whatsoever. You can join the Nation of Islame and make tens of millions in speaking fees and graft.

    • Boo

      Your name is a cue to not bother reading, but I did it anyway. You are clearly incapable of logic or reason. Let me guess, you didn't even bother to read the article.

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      obama gay,

      Obama isn't Black and he has nothing to do with Dunlap.

      The modern conservative movement was bred in ant-racism.

      Jim Crow and the KKK are owned by the democrats.

    • tagalog

      Racism has LOTS of support among black people.

      Black spokespersons have made claims that it's not fair to black people not to take race into consideration when dealing with the so-called "interests of black people," as if their interests are somehow uniquely "black."

  • Questions

    So some of these murderers had a low IQ. Big deal. So do most blacks — at least relative to whites. That doesn't absolve them of moral responsibility for their actions. Nathan Dunlap in particular needs a lunch date with Old Sparky, ASAP.

  • RoguePatriot6

    "Christof Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions declared that “the world community is again watching Georgia with great concern as it prepares to carry out another grotesque and unjust execution.”

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I'm sorry, this is by no means funny however I'm laughing at the hypocrisy.
    Now, the UN is going to lecture us about injustice while they turn a blind eye to the "honor killings", "ethnic cleansings", "sectarian violence" and mass hordes of Coptic Christians and Jews being murdered. But they're going to focus on the U.S. as the place where the injustice is going on.

    Seriously????

  • Jeff Bargholz

    Change the name from "CAPITAL PUNISHMENT" to "CAPITAL ABORTION" and the left will start agitating for it instead of against it.

    • F.K. Juliano

      Good idea. After all, these abortions in the 52nd and later trimesters would be no less voluntary for the individual being aborted than the ones in the first through third trimesters.

      • F.K. Juliano

        Oops, I miscalculated the number of trimesters. Abortion should be legal in the case of severely criminally inclined individuals starting in the 72nd trimester.

  • JCS

    It has always struck me as curious that anti-death penalty activists cry a river of crocodile tears for the murderer but can rarely spare one tear or even any concern for the victim(s) and their families.
    When Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, he as governor of Arkansas allowed a mentally retarded man to be executed. Naturally the silence from anti-death penalty types was of course deafening since they supported him for president. Good things liberals are never hypocrites.

    • Mary Sue

      but they raise the roof when Texas does it!

      • Drakken

        Thank God Texas has an express lane !

        • EarlyBird

          You're all correct that when a Democrat governor executes someone the anti-death penalty left don't make a squeek. It just shows that the death penalty is part of our larger culture war, and is often not thought through rationally.

          I understand the emotional desire to use the death penalty. And many supporters on this thread even admit that it's not a useful tool, because "the left" makes it so long and costly a process for it to be administered.

          That has to do with the Constitution, not the "left" or "corruption." Let's either fix the Constitution to make it easier to kill a criminal, or acknowlege that it is far less practical in reality than it is in theory.

  • UCSPanther

    Here's one who should have gotten the Chinese firing squad treatment right after he was convicted: Stanley "Tookie" Williams.

    In addition to being one of the founders of the inner city scourge known as the Crips, he led a pack of his fellow gangers on a robbery spree to basically teach them "how to do it right". He first robbed a convenience store, took the night clerk into a walk-in freezer and shot him in the back of the head point blank with a 12-gauge sawed off. Then, he and his crew robbed a hotel owned by a family of Chinese immigrants, then murdered the owners by shooting them in the face with his sawed-off. He was bragging and laughing about the crimes for days afterwards, and mockingly referring to them as "Buddha-heads" in reference to their race.

    It was pretty sickening to see idiots wanting to save that murderer from his well-deserved execution.

    • Questions

      Tookie Williams was a steaming pile of murderous Negritude. I shed no tears upon his execution four years ago.

      • TimN

        You'll love this.
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1

        Tookie's funeral, Graz Austria actually considering renaming Schwarzenegger stadium "Tookie Williams" and -get this- "Crips" stadium.
        Schwarzenegger's term as Governor of California was fair game for criticism, but there were a few moments when I really felt like applauding the guy.

  • Civilus Defendus

    So, earthy justice remains incomplete, held hostage by murderers and their apologists. This is the second crime done to the victims and their loved ones… and society.

  • https://twitter.com/BostonPoverty Boston Poverty Law

    Why is Frontpage being used to agitate for the implementation of the death penalty in the US? Israel does not have the death penalty. And this case has nothing to do with the creeping Islamisation of the US as is happening in Europe. Why are those of us who support the well being of Israel and worry about capitulation to Leftist and Islamic mob rule also expected to go along with supporting a laundry list of grumpy old guy politics?

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      WTF does Israeli law have to do with American law. Do you think the slain and their families were and are all grumpy old guys?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        He's implying that FPM should have a narrower focus and stick to "pro Israel" discussions. He's also implying that it's only the old guys (from the white establishment I bet) who care about being "pro Israel."

        • EarlyBird

          No, he's pointing out that this is not really a collection of "conservatives," but merely reactionary right wing culture warriors.

  • Fritz

    Someone forgot to proofread this article before publication, for example: "That same claim is made by the defenders of nearly every murderer on death row. There has yet to be an inmate on death row who isn’t a mentally ill child who was sexually abused by his incompetent lawyers."
    While I don't disagree with the point made by this article I don't think that the intent was to imply that death row inmates routinely claim that they were mentally ill and were sexually abused by incompetent lawyers as children, yet that is precisely what the second sentence says.
    Here is what I believe the Mr. Greenfield intended to say: "There has yet to be an inmate, on death row, who is not claimed to be by his incompetent lawyers, to be mentally ill, and to have been sexually abused as a child."

    • Daniel Greenfield

      No it's written as meant for satirical purposes.

      • EarlyBird

        Everything you write is for satirical purposes. There should be a permanent laugh track running whenever someone opens your garbage to read it.

  • Marc

    Well said Rogue. I stopped believing in the UN many years ago. Just look at the human rights commission. They focus on Israel and has said very little about the 70,000 Syrians that have been killed.
    As far as this despicable crime committed by Mr. Dunlap ( even though he claims that he has mental issues) death is too good for him. But then again the cost of keeping him in jail for the real of his life is well over $50,000 a year.

  • http://www.mailmagazine24.com Bright Knight

    It’s interesting that those who are against the death penalty even for the worst criminal are very often the same who are pro abortion and think it’s ok to kill an innocent unborn…..

  • Fritz

    I used to be in favor of capital punishment, under certain circumstances, but never universally. However I heard a very reasonable argument against capital punishment by someone on the conservative side of things, by Sun News commentator and reporter Brian Lilly. The gist of it goes like this, "The government can't run anything properly, they can't even run the post office, do we want to trust them with getting it right with ending someone's life?" Wrongful convictions do happen, and this is a case where you only need to get it wrong once as there is no going back. Now I am not saying that the convicted murderer's mentioned don't deserve capital punishment but don't pretend that government and the courts always get this right, especially when they get so many other things wrong.
    As for the European pharmaceutical companies refusing to supply pentobarbitol and other drugs that could be used for lethal injection that is their moral prerogative. I think it's a pretty weak argument to imply that they are party to some crueler form of capital punishment simply because they refuse to be party to enabling lethal injections. It's as absurd as the pro abort industry claiming that a gynecologist refusing to perform abortions is denying someone their rights and leading to a back alley job with a coat hanger. One also has to remember that many pharmaceutical companies were founded and are being run by doctors, and doctors take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, some still take that seriously. If the various states want to perform lethal injections, give the convicted murderer an overdose of heroine, this in effect shuts down their nervous system and they die of cardiac arrest.

    • TimN

      Like you I'm ambivalent about the death penalty for much the same reasons you've given. But you can go a long way being ambivalent about it without actually eulogizing these vermin or trivializing what they've done.

  • cxt

    Fritz

    Actually not that good an argument IMO……."the government" and the "courts" are not identical and confusing the 2 is the root of the problem.

    The courts don't always get it right–which is exactly why soo many people are still alive instead of being excuted–we err on the side of caution to an extreme.

    The other thing to consider is that new/developing techonolgy such as DNA makes it possible to postivily determine guilt.

    • Fritz

      The courts are a branch of government and the laws they act on are written by politicians, who also decide the threshold of what constitutes a capital crime. Also judges and prosecutors, if not elected directly (meaning they are in effect politicians), are appointed by politicians. If you are going to continue to have capital punishment there is very little way to streamline the process and avoid getting things wrong, unless you don't mind becoming like Communist China.
      We only have to look at the Duke Lecrosse team rape case to show an example of a showboating district attorney. Mike Nifong was quite willing to railroad those young men just to look "tough on crime" for his re-election campaign, and he was a Democrat by the way. Just like the "three strikes and you're out" crime control schemes, what works for baseball and on paper doesn't always work in practice.

  • edgineer1

    The Communist Party with the Marxist led Democratic Party are doing everything they can to destabilize this country and prove a centrally planned society is necessary. It is at the stage where Democrats are openly allowed to refuse to enforce the laws they swore to uphold. Wake up America.

    • EarlyBird

      The end is near!

      • edgineer1

        You have been sticking it in the end for a long time, haven't you fudgepacker?

        • EarlyBird

          Ed, are you asking me out for a date?

  • Gordon

    If someone is convicted of murder and given the the Death Sentence, I think they should die by using the same method they used to commit the murder.

  • https://twitter.com/BostonPoverty Boston Poverty Law

    While you’re pushing for the punishing of horrible people like this murderer, I think you should not automatically want to wage war on all vice and rebelliousness coming out of the Black Man in the American ghetto. I have a vision that if Islam starts to get really bad here and starts to mess up our streets like in Europe we will just ease up on the prison and jails and let the Man out. If you went to inner city American schools you understand. It is important that those on what is called the political Right will be ready to allow this move rather than capitulate to and merge with the so-called conservative Islamic street.

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      Boston Affirmative Action Law;

      There is no such thing as a Balck ghetto. Blacks aren't forced to live anywhere, much less ghettos, and they are the ones responsible for turning their neighborhoods into Hellholes.

      The top recruitment centers for islam are prisons and the top recruits are Blacks.

      Are you a subversive troll or just plain stupid?

  • SFLBIB

    "…Dunlap and his lawyers did everything possible to get their client off. They claimed that his trial lawyers were incompetent …"

    Uhhh … weren't they appointed by the court?

  • Brujo Blanco

    I have worked in the justice system my entire professional life and imposing the death penalty is complicated and expensive. I believe it would be cheaper to give them life. I am not opposed to the death penalty but it may just be cheaper to warehouse them until they die.

  • Consider

    The author could better start his article with the detailed examples of the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven as proof how the death penalty is ‘salutary’ to society.

    Had this barbaric practice been in force in Britain at the time, eleven innocents would be hanged.
    But why complain? Obviously, in the view of the author (and the general mindset of this website) it is better to kill a hundred of innocents than one culprit let go.

    By the way, there was a nice custom in Afghanistan, where the relatives of the victim would cut the throat of the supposed offender, publicly, in the city stadium.
    Maybe this practice should be introduced in the US for the benefit of all.
    Or at least in Texas.

    “Les extrêmes ce touchent”

  • hikerdude

    Tammy Bruce said , "When victimhood is your empowerment . Recovery is the enemy."
    As long as the Blacks live with the victimhood chip on their shoulder there will always be racial divide .
    Any black seeing Obama as their savior is living a illusion. You are bought and paid for by this administration with tax payer dollars. Between welfare , housing subsidation , food stamps and Obama cell phones you sold out your integrity. You are slaves of Democratic party.

  • cxt

    Consider

    On the other hand–if we are playing "what if"…..then "consider" ;) people that commit murder that are freed and do it AGAIN. Recently a man that beat his mother/grandmother (I forget which) to death with a HAMMER got out after doing 15+ years he then set his house on fire and then shot to death 2 firemen thhat showed up to put the blaze out.

    People that commit murder can and do get out of prison—and they kill other people while IN prison. A fact which you seem to ignore.

    Nice hyperbole BTW, NOBODY on this site/article so much as suggested that its "better to kill a hundred innocents than one culprit let go."

  • pyeatte

    Take these maggots to the local zoo, after hours, and toss them into a polar bear tank. You will not have to worry about lethal injections and all that other nonsense, plus you save on bear food.

  • http://twitter.com/victoria_29 @victoria_29

    Appeals should be limited to 2 years. I do however agree lets do away with lethal injection-that is too damn kind. In our prison museum in Huntsville sits Old Sparky in retirement-I want him unretired & brought back-something about the "chair" is a better deterent to me. If appeals were limited to 2 yrs it would make a tremendous difference, hell these idiots know that a lot can happen in 20 yrs-not to mention how much it costs us to house these criminals for 20 yrs. But then I am a Texan, thank God that we at least do eventually get er done.

  • jewdog

    Sounds like the same process of excessive civil libertarianism that has emptied out our mental hospitals is going on in our prisons. That's probably because the same activist loudmouths are busy undoing the protections our society needs.
    The antidote is for sensible people to yell even louder and fight to protect the public.

  • Ghostwriter

    What people like EarlyBird don't get is that there are crimes so disgusting,so vile,so horrific,that the death penalty is necessary. Tookie Williams deserved what he got and old Arnold deserved some praise for that. What got him is that three of the victims were immigrants from Taiwan,people a lot like himself. Mr. Williams deserved the death penalty. In a 1987 Australian case,a little girl was murdered by two people,a man and a woman. They both raped and sodomized the girl before killing her. The woman spent the rest of her life in jail,only to die of a heart attack. It's a shame Australia DIDN'T have the death penalty. They could have got rid of them after a long trial,which is what they deserved.

    • EarlyBird

      Like I've stated, Ghosty, I surely WANT the death penalty, because I want these monsters you're describing to die and suffer. In fact, I'd love them to be burnt to death.

      But there is more to it than just my passion, my want to see these beast suffer. There are other overriding factors in the actual implementation of this policy which keep me against it.

      It's a question of passion vs. logic. We can and should be outraged by murder – that's a sign of societal health. But we should keep our head when creating policy. You'll see my arguments against the capital punishment elsewhere in this thread.