The Coalition of the Swilling

Hey, Hitler was an artist! Makes no sense that he's dead...

And Charles Manson wrote some rockin' music!

WhatEVer.

John Wayne Gacy was a clown!

David Berkowitz's neighbor's dog told him to do it!

And Dahmer just liked to have a few people over for dinner now and again.

I'm opposed to capital punishment, but I have problems with the idea of gubernatorial clemency because it undermines the impartiality of the law. If the state of California has decided that it is going to execute convicted murderers, then why should Williams get a free pass because he's a celebrity with prominent friends?

"... I have problems with the idea of gubernatorial clemency because it undermines the impartiality of the law."

From time immemorial, the common law recognized that justice should be tempered with mercy. Allowing the executive the discretion to withhold a deprivation of life or liberty to someone convicted of a crime but truly repentant and reformed, or under other circumstances for which the law as it stands does not provide an appropriate remedy, seems to me both to moderate the power of the state and to recognize that the law is an imperfect human institution that cannot foresee all things.

That said, while I believe proper cases for clemency do sometimes arise, Tookie Williams ain't one of them by a fucking long shot.

because he's a celebrity with prominent friends?

Exactly my problem with the death penalty, period. Some poor black guy in Mississippi doesn't have the advantage of Tookie, or Carla Faye Tucker or any of the cause celebres. There's usually no one to speak for them and the Corey Mayes of the world are due that as human beings.

And long before someone of Tookie's pedigree gets his 15 or 20 minutes of added infamy.

I have no problem with the guy not wanting to die, and saying so. But if it doesn't happen for him, then to my mind true remorse would be the acceptance of the just punishment for one's crimes, and especially for someone like Carla Faye Tucker, a professed Christian at the end. For one thing, you could accept justice now in the hopes of mercy later; for another, you'd be following the example of St. Dismas, the good thief on the cross who rebuked his fellow and asked Christ to remember him in His Kingdom.

Then again, maybe Dismas is recognized as a saint by the Church because that's not easy to do...

I’m thoroughly ambivalent to capital punishment. I think life in prison without parole is the worst possible punishment the state could impose. If opponents prefer that to capital punishment, we could save a lot of time, money, and burden on the courts. That's not to mention the circus these things sometimes become. That said, I wouldn't lift a finger to save Tookie and I won't shed a tear for him now that he’s gone.

I fully support the death penalty. To such a degree that I think we should make the thing a bit more brutal and barbaric. Bring back the firing squads. Bring back the hangman.

In that regard, I am in favor of making prison a place that criminals actually are afraid to go to. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time would take on an entire different meaning then.

I am pro-death penalty.

Exactly my problem with the death penalty, period. Some poor black guy in Mississippi doesn't have the advantage of Tookie, or Carla Faye Tucker or any of the cause celebres. There's usually no one to speak for them and the Corey Mayes of the world are due that as human beings.

No system is perfect, and as one who was pretty well screwed for a time by our justice system, it is as close as any system out there. Perfection is the enemy of the possible. Yes innocent men have been put to death, but do those miscarriages trump the good the system does do? My problem is why should the victims families have to pay to support some scumbag on life for the next 40-50 + years? Better they only have to pay one power bill, and be done and able to move on. It also comes back to the value of human life. If you murder someone, and are convicted by your peers, then your life is forfeit, in my view. If you don’t want to die, it’s easy, don’t murder. Why should the perpetrator be given quarter when the victim was given no such luxury?

I was pro-death penalty until the news started coming out about the 17 innocent people on death row in Illinois. Not just people who didn't get a fair trial, or people coerced into making confessions, but INNOCENT. They DIDN'T DO IT, and the state was going to KILL THEM.

I'm sorry, but "oops, we might have killed some innocent people? You can live with that? I can't.

Me neither; not no way, not no HOW. One innocent person dying in any way shape or form completely turns the term "justice" on it's ear. Putting someone to death is something we do intentioanlly. It's not an accident, it's not an act of fate ~ we willfully throw the switch or pull the plunger. And therefore it's implicitly our responsibility to make sure it's done without reservation or duplicity ~ that every single person in that situation was held to the highest standards: of respresentation, prosecution and indesputable evidentiary procedures. It has to be rock solid physical evidence ~ not a 'snitch', not one person 'I seen him do it' ~ rock solid. I could give a rat's a$$ what it costs us to keep someone alive long enough to prove their innocence.

Lisa, the problem there is not the death penalty, but the system has a problem that needs to be fixed. Are you saying that if those 17 got life in prison, then you would be Ok with it? I hope not, but the problem is NOT the death penalty, but the broken system that let 17 people get that far in without any justice. I was run thru the system for over 2 years for a felony that I did not commit, but I understand that it is the nature of any imperfect system to have these things occur. By the same reasoning, we should stop performing surgery, as how many people die needlessly during surgery, or due to a wrong diagnosis, right? Who cares about the good that surgery brings, there are people dying! Would it not be better to fix the courts (train Drs), to reduce the number of ones slipping thru? You must weigh the cost/benefit, pure and simple.

Well, at least if they had gotten life in prison, they could have been set free when their innocence was discovered. If they were already dead, then what would you do? Hold a press conference and saying, "Well, sorry, our bad!"

I work for a judge. We had two cases last summer, both murders. In the first case, two drunks got into a fight and one beat the other to death with a piece of firewood. He then went to his friends and confessed. He was charged with first-degree murder, and faced life in prison without parole.

The other case was one where a young girl was abducted by an ex-boyfriend and later raped and killed. He was charged with capital murder, and faced the death penalty.

Why one and not the other? Both victims were just as dead as the other, both set of parents grieved equally. Why was the death of the girl worse than the death of a father of two young children?

I'll answer that. Because it was POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT. The life of a young woman is worth more to our prosecutor (who is running for attorney general) than the life of a troubled man.

That's abhorent to me. Until the day comes when we can apply it without thinking of the race or sex of the victim, or race of sex of the defendant, when it is applied FAIRLY, then we need a moratorium.

Sis, I agree that the bar should be set high in capital cases. Scott Peterson is a perfect example. No way in Hell should he have gotten the death penalty. But the problem is that the general populace does not know it's ass from a hole in the ground about our legal system, and neither do many in the legal system, it seems. (Sorry Dave J, not you.)
But one innocent person turning justice on its ear? A bit hyperbolic methinks. But it is OK if they rot in jail for the rest of their life, and die there, still innocent? Howinthehell is that any different? That they have the chance at an appeal? What if that never occurs? They both end up dead, for something they did not do. As I said, fix the system, and the wrongful convictions could be brought down, but never eliminated. But the fact that the system is noit, nor will ever be, perfect is not reason to eliminate the death penalty, IMO.

Why one and not the other? Both victims were just as dead as the other, both set of parents grieved equally. Why was the death of the girl worse than the death of a father of two young children?

I'll answer that. Because it was POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT. The life of a young woman is worth more to our prosecutor (who is running for attorney general) than the life of a troubled man.

No offense, but if you work for a judge, and cannot see the difference, then I see why the system is in the state it is. Are you trying to tell me that you cannot see that both people in the first case, having willfully drank and involved themselves in the fight, had culpability, hence making it not the same as another person being abducted, raped and killed, as in the second case?

Oh, hell, yeah! Scott Peterson's THE perfect example and precisely what Lisa was talking about (and I DO agree with you about the drunks rumbling)~ pretty pregnant wife, completely skanky/unlikable defendant, all the media pundits all over it condemning him from the outset but not a damn thing to physically nail him for it. Somebody killed her, so it musta been him, right? Maybe it was those kids in Aruba. That was complete bullsh$t.

Oh and you've missed my point. I never said eliminate the death penalty at all! I said discriminate and eliminate the possibility of mistakes. It CAN be done with due diligence. And not hyperbolic at all, cheeky creature. If they eventually die in jail, they still had a shot at someone finding out the truth during all that time. Fate and circumstances might kill them ~ anyone could get hit by a bus tomorrow, right? ~ as long as the STATE didn't. But if the state kills them (and the time period twixt conviction and execution gets shorter all the time) in a timely and expedient manner? Pfft. They don't get the chance to stay alive and hope. The way I see it, no one dies ~ we don't kill a soul ~ unless the parameters I laid out are met. And get fixing the system.

In a perfect world, those who were convicted without a shadow of a doubt wouldn't die in slumber. The Randy Kraft, Richard Ramirez, JW Gacy and Carlie Brucia killing monsters of the world would die the same way their victims did.

Only slower. Now THAT's a deterrent.

I think the ambiguity of our system allows us to better deal with more or less heinous crimes based on the crimes themselves. An "across the board 'fair' system" does less to ensure fairness for all and more to limit what can be done within the system.

I don't think that the life of any citizen is worth more than any other. However, punishment for those who kill cops tends to be more severe because an attack on them is also an attack on our society. But, sadly, as you say Lisa there are cases where prosecuters look for 'sexy' cases to glam up their profiles ahead of the next election cycle, no doubt. Not knowing all the details I really can't say here.

Bing, following the logic of your argument, committing any crime is an attack on society. That is, the law is an agreed upon set of rules by society. Ergo, breaking them is an affront to the society that set them.

So, where do you draw the line?

I don't think that any life is necessarily worth more than another. No, actually that's a lie. I do think that some lives are worth more than others. The men and women of the armed forces, police officer, fire fighters. I think these individuals -- volunteers for the greater good of society -- have proven themselves to be of a higher caliber than many of their bretheren.

But, on point, theorectically I don't think any life is worth more than another, but I do think that when one person kills another, in cold blood, they forfeit their right to life.

Offense taken.

"If you murder someone, and are convicted by your peers, then your life is forfeit, in my view. If you don’t want to die, it’s easy, don’t murder. Why should the perpetrator be given quarter when the victim was given no such luxury?"

If you're comfortable enough to say kill the guy who killed the girl, then you ought to be comfortable enough to say kill the guy who killed the drunk. THEY BOTH TOOK SOMEONE'S LIFE, and IN YOUR OWN WORDS, their lives should be "forfeit", right? Or the state should only kill people who kill cute white girls?

The point I was trying to make is that the death penalty ISN'T applied "based on the crimes themselves" on the whole. It's based on who the victim is, who the defendant is, who the prosecutor is, what the political climate is.

That was all I was trying to point out. Guess I didn't. My bad.

The point I was trying to make is that the death penalty ISN'T applied "based on the crimes themselves" on the whole. It's based on who the victim is, who the defendant is, who the prosecutor is, what the political climate is.

I agree Lisa. I wish there wasn't reason for me to. And that's part of the reason why, in spite of my lack of regret, hell, my glee, at many of these folks being executed, if push comes to shove I'm not a death penalty supporter. I want life in prison, no chance of parole, and no country-club lifestyle for these folks.

Oh, believe me, I shed no tears for Tookie Williams. Or any other person who knowingly takes the life of another.

I'm with you. Make "life" mean LIFE, and make it hell for their next 40-50 years.

For the record, I didn't support the death penalty for Susan Smith. As a mother, I want her to live for the next 50+ plus years knowing what she did to those babies, having to live with their screams in her ears for the rest of her life. The death penalty would be mercy in her case.

Cullen, as I've said before (and not originally, either) "the problem with logic is that it allows you to be wrong with confidence." You have to draw the line somewhere, and police officers is a reasonable place. But it's not unreasonable to say, as you do, that all are equal and punish accordingly. I agree that they should forfeit their life...of freedom. Put them in jail forever. And that way you don't kill any innocents, and the guilty never are free to harm society again.

I didn't support the death penalty for Susan Smith

OH, ditto frickin' THAT!! But I don't think her children crying meant bumpkiss to her and I doubt she gave it another thought. Nope, the reason life without parole is the perfect punishment? Because the narcissistic, manipulative, soulless little bitch can't be the center of attention and that is torment and hell, indeed. May she wither and shrivel.

If you're comfortable enough to say kill the guy who killed the girl, then you ought to be comfortable enough to say kill the guy who killed the drunk. THEY BOTH TOOK SOMEONE'S LIFE, and IN YOUR OWN WORDS, their lives should be "forfeit", right? Or the state should only kill people who kill cute white girls?

Lisa, actually I said “If you murder someone, and are convicted by your peers, then your life is forfeit…”, and the 2 drunks was not a premeditated act, by the details you have given, while the second case most assuredly was. If you don’t know the difference, then I'll try to illustrate. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murder, hence my specific wording. And our system, rightly, takes that into account for sentencing. Not that politics doesn’t play a (wrong) part, but you picked the wrong cases to make your point with.

I agree that in a death penalty case, mandatory DNA testing ought to be enforced, with some way to physically tie the defendant to the crime. We don't want to punish the innocent. But we can't omit justice entirely because of the possibility of errors, even if, on the whole, that possibility means that a few innocents are definitely executed.

In a sense it's much like war. It's a certainty that, as careful as you may choose to be, some people are going to snuff it unfairly - they'll stray into firefights or panic at checkpoints, or fall victim to poor intelligence or misplaced ordinance. Some people think therefore that no war can ever be waged by a decent society, and the more decent it is, the more strictly it will avoid war. This is logical, sensible, and noble, and has the effect of ensuring that war is only waged by the cruel and careless, who deliberately target civilians when they're not enslaving them and driving them to starve in every ditch in the countryside.

In other words, to restrain such, it's sometimes the lesser evil for a decent society to wage war. Not that it isn't still terrible. (If war wasn't terrible we'd have much more of it than we already do.) Not that innocents don't die in wars. But many more would die, and more beyond that would have their lives ruined or suffer great hardship, if good nations stood by wringing their hands.

To personalize this, let's say that I'm the innocent chap in jail. I can't say for sure what I'd do, especially since one of my worst flaws is to gripe about small things, and prison is no small thing - certainly I'd try to clear my name and be freed. But if it came to the worst and they set me up a date with Sparky, I'd have to pray for the grace to accept it as one of the risks of living in a society of law. And if you think about it, there's far worse that could happen to a man: outside, I could be stabbed, crushed, or maimed, left as an inert, living shell for forty years; I could suffer a debilitating, chronic, and painful illness with a lingering death; I could bankrupt my family and cause them hardship for years after I've passed on.

Moreover, I'm innocent, so my soul is in no further peril than it was going in, plus I have a quite literal deadline to be able to seek final repentance. This is not a sufficient recompense for my freedom and my life as an innocent man, but for the guilty, it represents mercy in the midst of justice. It beats dying in sin on the streets, shot by fellow thugs and left to die in a gutter like some mangy stray cat.

(Jeez, I sure don't want any of you guys in my falsely accused corner. "Suck it up, Sis! You're going to a better place." That might well be true, but I'm doing some serious raging against the dying of the light right up to the plunger, baby.)

No one is saying we want to omit justice. Why is it when you say you're opposed to the death penalty, that AUTOMATICALLY means you advocate lenient sentencing or setting murderers free? No one here has said that, in fact just the opposite. Less prison perks, life meaning life, I fully support all of that.

What the problem was in Illinois (which is why I jumped into this discussion in the first place) is that people were being sentenced to death -- some by more than one jury -- AND THEY WERE INNOCENT. One guy was proven innocent by DNA, plus another man confessed to the crime, but the prosecutors still to this day say they got the right man. I'm sorry, but that is EFFED. UP.

And that's just the ones they found once they started looking! How many more have they missed over the years?

The wheels of justice can turn awfully slowly, and I'd hate to think that I could have killed an innocent man. There is no 'undo' on the death penalty. Life in prison is just.

Bing, I never said that logic doesn't necessarily lead you to the wrong conclusion. However, if you're going to make the argument that a "crime against society" carry more weight than another kind of crime, you have to quantify that (as you have later done). And I think my argument that any crime is, technically, a crime against society. But, I also agree that you have to define what crime are more heinous than others.

Death carries a heavier stigma than a life sentence does. While, logically, it may actually be a "lesser" punishment, it is empirically final. In this world, anyway.

I must emphatically agree with Fly. We shed the blood of innocents in the name of our system of government across the globe. In the name of "good." What have you. I, for one, believe in the good of our system. Sometimes, in war, you kill innocents. It happens. It is a true tragedy. I cannot emphasize that enough. But we are the greatest, most ethical fighting force in the world. Regardless of error.

I feel the same way about our legal system. I may wish for things to be better, but I think there are ways to ensure the system improves without handicapping it. Mandatory DNA testing would be a good thing.

This: And I think my argument that any crime is, technically, a crime against society.

Should say this: And I think my argument that any crime is, technically, a crime against society is sound.

What the problem was in Illinois (which is why I jumped into this discussion in the first place) is that people were being sentenced to death -- some by more than one jury -- AND THEY WERE INNOCENT. One guy was proven innocent by DNA, plus another man confessed to the crime, but the prosecutors still to this day say they got the right man. I'm sorry, but that is EFFED. UP.

I agree Lisa, and I hope you forgive my harshness, as criminal justice is a topic I have had personal experience with, and it hits quite close to home for me. In the cases that you cite above, the elected officials should step in (can the Governer pardon them?), and there should be a look at using whatever electoral means to get the prosecutors in those case removed, as they don't seem quite up to the task. Not sure what legal means are available in Illinois, but thoise are miscarriages for sure.

Jeez, I sure don't want any of you guys in my falsely accused corner. "Suck it up, Sis! You're going to a better place."

That would depend on who was saying it. If it was one of the attorneys, I think you could be forgiven for immediately becoming guilty of what you were just convicted of.

Trust me, I didn't use myself as my example for my virtue, but for precisely the same reason that you objected. I can't tell someone else to suck it up, but I can suck it up myself. That's one of the natural consequences of my support of the justice of capital punishment. I can try to accept the remote possibility of a flaw in my own case rather than demand that the whole notion of justice be overturned or weakened to spare me. (Of course no-one here has said that this is what they want, nor do I wish to suggest it.)

To use Lisa's example, the governor of Illinois, on his way out of the door, decided to commute every death sentence in his whole state rather than the 17 that were proven false. I don't agree with that. Many of those people were certainly guilty. Then again, life without parole could be considered to be a more fitting punishment than simple death. Possibly, but possibly not. At least, someone already condemned for life in prison is a risk to kill other inmates or guards - what else can be done to him if you won't execute him? Even his fellow prisoners deserve a better death than this.

(Also, I said "17 people" from memory, but much like the Humbug in Phantom Tollbooth, I may simply be first with the wrong answer.)

Bing, sent you trackback!

It's 13. Sorry, that's my bad.

I could quote from it at length (which I won't because I don't want to eat up the Bandwith of Swill) but Scott Turow's book Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty is an excellent resource to understanding the problems in Illinois.

He served on the Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment.

Thanks Cullen, I put it through. I have no idea why Movable Type consistently rates any trackbacks from you as 'junk'. Maybe Wunder put you on a list...

I have to add that I love and greatly appreciate the discussion in this thread. Folks who lean towards our side of the aisle are so often assumed to be in lock-step with eachother as we tromp about in our jackboots, polished to a glimmer by the blood and sweat of those we trod upon, that there are many folks who would be astoundulated by the range of intelligent, well-thought out positions that y'all have postulated. I'm honored to be host to it.

Lisa, you can eat my bandwidth all day.

Oops...

I thought this was a family thread!!!

I am just happy to be able toshare these kind of conversations with you folks.

Cullen, it's quite family-friendly here as long as you dodge the goating community. =P But agreed about the conversation. This is the next best thing to a large round table with excellent beer and a crackling fireplace. (Of course I think Mr. B works at a round table with beer and a fireplace, so...)

Ooh, speaking of fireplaces and beer...what time tonight at RedHeads, 'Fly?

You bastards. Sometime in the future, Kraut and I are going to take a trip down to the 'Cola and have meet up with THS. Won't you be jealous!

Yes, I will! The eats'll be to die for (or from, if she gets forgetfull with the shellfish again...)

Don't you people have jobs? No death penalty unless irrefutable evidence like a solid DNA match or the smoking gun is in your back pocket etc. is provided. An eyewitness would be good to. Then fry them. If not, life with NO parole no matter how many kiddie books you write.

Kumbaya my lord,
kumbaya,
Kumbaya my lord,
kumbaya.

Oh brother......

Oh, apparently we have one of the country's most famous sausage retailers just 30 mins. down the road from us.

Called Striplings General Store in Cordele, Ga. Fantastic meats and great sauces. I picked up an apple/cinnamon barcecue sauce there that is to die for (I know, you don't do the sauce like we do the sauce, Bing, just take it from me that it's fantastic).

Here's the BBQ sauce I was talking about.

Maj. D, I work for the Marine Corps, you know I don't have a job.

Nightfly and I will raise a toast tonight to you and your sausage, Cullen, if he ever tells me what time...

Hmm, I'm not sure that came out quite right.

Nine o'clock, Mr. B, and welcome!

Cullen, if it makes you feel any better I'm a little envious myself about the southern Swilling segment. I'd love to swing through the penninsula on my next trip down, but I only have four days with the family as it is.

And jobs? Don't you know we're lazy and shiftless?

Heck, I haven't dropped Kraut a line in quite some time and I'm in the same town!

Speaking of which *note to self, call Kraut*

(Man, I leave for a couple hours and it's right back to goats, bandywidth and drinking by lazy, shifty people.)

Didn't I violate some law by mentioning Hitler in the very first comment?

Cullen, Wunder is so busy fielding calls from casting agents after his tv gig that I'm sure he doesn't have time for phones calls from us little people anymore.

Godwin's Law. You might have violated the letter but not the intent.

Mr. Bingley, don't you like to violate laws? Or is that Mr. Summers....?

I don't know what Bing likes to violate, but Ken is a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad man.

I violate laws
Ken violates nature

"Why was the death of the girl worse than the death of a father of two young children?"

Most deaths are not crimes, but does make some "worse" in some qualitative sense than others? Not all killing is homicide, not all homicide is murder, and not all murder is capital murder.

"If you're comfortable enough to say kill the guy who killed the girl, then you ought to be comfortable enough to say kill the guy who killed the drunk."

But being comfortable with it isn't the initial question there. Even not knowing all the details of Arkansas law on the subject, it's pretty clear that one case could be capital murder (for multiple reasons: it was intentional AND it was felony-murder) and the other could not be. I'm sure political expediency played a part as you say, but you can't flip the coin and then say, well, these situations were equally wrong and so the prosecutor should have sought the death penalty in BOTH cases: I'm absolutely certain the law wouldn't have allowed for it in the case of the two drunks.

I violate good taste.

Scott Turow mentions the felony murder controversy in his book, and he makes a better point than I did (in the two drunks case, I should have mentioned that the fight was over and the defendant THEN attacked the dead guy and killed him, but. . .well. . .whatever. . .moving along).

Mr. Turow says that in Illinois, one of the 21 ways a crime qualifies for the death penalty is felony murder, which is a murder in the course of committing another felony.

He says, "Yet felony murder always struck me as a logical mess. Why should a murder in the course of a rape be death-eligible, if the same defendant could rape a woman one day and murder her for laughs the next without facing death? Does timing really make the crime any graver? More important, felony-murder by its nature aims at crimes that started out with another purpose. Aren't long-contemplated murders more aggravated than murders committed on impulse. . .?

These thoughts had not stopped the Illinois legislature, which had continued adding forcible crimes to the list of felony-murders punishable by death until they numbered sixteen. This statuatory breadth vests prosecutors with great discretion about whether to seek the death penalty, and experience seems to teach that uncabined discretion, exercised by 102 different State's Attorneys, will inevitably lead to unfair results."

Now. Can't we talk about abortion today?

Cullen if you worked for the Navy it would be an adventure but since your "job" is with the Marines I know you never work because everyday is a Holiday in the Corps.

"These thoughts had not stopped the Illinois legislature, which had continued adding forcible crimes to the list of felony-murders punishable by death until they numbered sixteen."

That's true to one degree or another of every state that has the death penalty. Of course, under the common law of England, ANY felony was punishable by death (and by corruption of the blood, forfeiting all the felon's property to the Crown). Seen in that light, the felony-murder rule is a vestige of that that actually exercises moderation on the part of the state.

"...uncabined discretion, exercised by 102 different State's Attorneys, will inevitably lead to unfair results."

It seems to me that that's an argument for all crimes statewide being prosecuted by one central office. Does that make sense? Couldn't, say, the state AG be just as capricious as the local DA? Indeed, is there any reason at all to think otherwise?

"Why should a murder in the course of a rape be death-eligible, if the same defendant could rape a woman one day and murder her for laughs the next without facing death?"

That's an argument for revising the statutes so this hypothetical defendant would be death-eligible in both cases. In Florida, I know he would be.

"Can't we talk about abortion today?"

I'd be happy to. Where do you want to start?

It's a holiday in the sense that around here everyone's minds are on vacation.

Maybe death penalty crimes SHOULD be tried by one central office. The ultimate punishment deserves the ultimate scrutiny, don't you think?

There's probably something to that idea, Lisa. Ultimate, and uniform.

*cough* Star Chamber *cough*

So, anyhow, these two harvested stem cells walk out of an abortion clinic, and one says to the other "Is that the sun or the moon?"

And the other one answers "I don't know; I'm not from around here."

Star Chamber? I don't speak geek, but is that like Sanctuary?

;)

It appears to have been Cullen's response to your calling for one central office to prosecute capital offenses. For some background on the Court of the Star Chamber, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

Personally, I don't see the absolute merits of such centralized treatment: uniform can just as easily mean uniformly bad. And presumably you'd still have different individual prosecutors, defense counsel, judges and juries in each case, so there's a sense in which uniformity is meaningless, because every case IS different.

Cya’… “Tookie”

There are six billion people on the planet. And the State of California off’s one back-shootin’, gang-bangin’, guilty-as-charged, jive-talkin’ n*****! And all the dysfunctional 'Hanoi Jane' liberal left-wing, cry-baby moanin’, tree-huggin', sign carrying jerk-off's... deside to demonstrate for clemency because poor “Tookie” wrote children’s books while on San Quinton’s death row! Well, I don’t care if “Tookie” is Mother “fucking” Goose in drag... he got what he deserved... and deserved what he got!

Which is more than the four unarmed innocent people he killed in cold-blood for $120.00 got; and, the taxpayers of California, were given the bill to pay for the best legal counsel their misspent money could ever buy... giving him an additional 26 years of life which he didn’t deserve. Now, if, he had committed these crimes in Texas, he would have been D-E-A-D in three years.

And one more thing... if he really is a converted new man... my suggestion to “Tookie”, is to tell it to Saint Peter, cause your story don’t mean shit down here on earth.

Adios, “Tookie!”... and good riddens'!

owner's note: racial slurs of this nature will not be tolerated. The 'N' word, and the thoughts behind it, ain't welcome here. Take it elsewhere