I’m not quite cynical enough to believe that death penalty politics will help Rick Perry in the general election, but apparently some people are:
Michael Rushford, president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a California-based pro-death penalty group, said he hopes and expects the issue will continue to be to Perry’s advantage if he wins the nomination and goes into the general election against President Barack Obama, who advocated for death penalty reform during his legislative career but supports capital punishment for “heinous” crimes.
[….]In the time between now and November 2012, “there will be some terrible murders,” Rushford said. “All it takes is one or two to galvanize the public on an issue. There will be a candidate on the Republican side who can come up and say, ‘I know how we’d handle this guy in Texas, but I don’t know what President Obama and his Justice Department will do.’”
One my favorite serious people, Charles Lane is an obsessive pro-death penalty fanatic (seriously, he wrote a whole about how we can “save” the death penalty), so we can look forward to lots of reasonably repulsive execution porn in the Kaplan Daily between now and November 2012.
Linda Featheringill
We have to save our customs of human sacrifice.
Corner Stone
God. Just shut up Derrr.
Yutsano
And Rushford is practically giddy at the prospect. But hey anything to get the damn nigra out amirite?
Corner Stone
Derrr, really?
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
No lyrics? How bout this from country joe?
Death Sound Blues
JPL
Killing an innocent man occasionally doesn’t negate the need for the death penalty. It does keep us safe from murderers on death row after all.
d. b. cooper
This makes no sense. Nobody care about the death penalty on a federal level. I could see it being effective in a conservative state in a state-wide race. It’s just not a federal issue.
Triassic Sands
I wouldn’t feel safe at night unless I’d gone to bed secure in the knowledge that somewhere in the US (probably Texas) an innocent person is on death row. Then, if they (that is the Innocence Project or some such group not affiliated with “We the Executioners”) manage to free most of the innocent people, my confidence in the system is renewed. If a few slip through the cracks…well, nobody’s perfect.
Big Baby DougJ
@d. b. cooper:
I agree with you. I think that the general tough guy aspect of it will help Perry with the teahadists though.
Triassic Sands
@d. b. cooper:
Maybe you should ask Michael Dukakis about that.
Valdivia
maybe he will advocate for public televised executions!
srv
The death penalty is for wimps. I can’t believe it’s even brought up. Real men know that torture works, so if it works, it should be used more. The police should be empowered to do whatever is necessary to catch criminals and stop all the ticking time bombs that are going off.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I can see that he’s already rubbing his hands together with glee over the future dead that he can use to achieve his ends. What he ignores is that Guv Goodhair already murdered an innocent man and then covered it up.
Yutsano
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Which no one in the media will be allowed to discuss lest they be labeled partisan and uncivil.
Roger Moore
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
You make it sound like murder and obstruction of justice is a bad thing. Killing trashy poor people who must have done something wrong isn’t really murder in the first place, and obstruction of justice is a great Republican tradition. If it was good enough for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, it should be good enough for Perry, too.
Violet
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
As with most things like this, it’s not the murder, it’s the coverup that matters. I think media will talk about it. The media loves a scandal and sending an innocent man to his death (A white man! Bonus!) and covering it up has the potential to be juicy. Karl Rove is not fond of Perry and I suspect he’ll find a way to use that information in a way that will get it out so the media will feel it’s irresponsible not to speculate about its effects on Perry’s candidacy.
mikefromArlington
If you haven’t already, you should really read this New Yorker article about the execution of an innocent man in Texas. http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
TooManyJens
@efgoldman: Actually, the probably-innocent man that Perry’s Texas killed was white. Gotta have a change of pace every once in a while.
Roger Moore
@efgoldman:
Not fixt. Willingham was a poor white guy, not a poor black guy. I don’t think it really matters to the Death Eaters. They figure anyone on death row must have done something wrong, even if they’re not guilty of the specific thing that put them there. If he had been a good person, he would have been rich enough to afford a good lawyer.
Mike in NC
@d. b. cooper:
True. In Texas executions are a spectator sport slightly less popular than high school football. Dubya was a huge fan of the death penalty; some said it was his favorite part of being governor.
Warren Terra
There may be some way to express this sentiment that isn’t dripping with ghoulish anticipation, but if there is Rushford hasn’t found it yet.
The Commish
I used to think it hypocritical that so many fundamentalist “Christians” are also pro-death. Then I realized: it’s all part of the faith-based mindset. They don’t care whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent or not. Capital punishment is a 21st century form of human sacrifice, an offering to “Justice.”
Chris
@Mike in NC:
Christ.
It’s like the fucking gladiator games 2.0.
Violet
@Mike in NC:
If standing outside the prison in Huntsville when an execution is scheduled makes it a “spectator sport” then I guess you’re right. Who actually gets to witness the execution itself is controlled and limited.
kth
There’s a sensational murder on cable TV every month or so (Scott Peterson, Menendez brothers, that British au pair), but I don’t remember any of them being politicized in an especially effective way. Not even OJ.
d. b. cooper
@Triassic Sands I remember Dukakis. That was 1988. Different time.
d. b. cooper
@Triassic Sands I remember Dukakis. That was 1988. Different time.
burnspbesq
@Triassic Sands:
If there are only dozens (as opposed to hundreds or thousands) of people on death row who did not do the crimes that landed them there, I would count us as spectacularly lucky.
I’m not opposed to the death penalty because I don’t think it deters killers, although the evidence is pretty ambiguous on that point. I’m opposed to the death penalty because even one “false positive” is two too many.
gnomedad
When the Repubs are in power, they accuse the Dems of wanting the economy to suck so Ds will profit politically. So now Rushford is hoping for some juicy murders?
dmsilev
Does Mr. Rushford, in his haste to drool over Rick Perry’s killin record, remember that the vast majority of crimes (including things like most murders) are state jurisdiction, and that Obama’s Justice Department wouldn’t have anything to do with them? Oh, of course he does, but why let complicated facts get in the way of a good old fashioned political blow job?
grandpajohn
@The Commish: Well at least they don’t still demand that it be by stoning.
dmsilev
@burnspbesq:
Amen, and amen. That was the argument used here in Illinois several years back when the governor commuted all of the pending death sentences down to life w/o parole. For all of his crimes and other misdeeds, that one action makes George Ryan an infinitely better human being than Rick Perry.
burnspbesq
@The Commish:
Try explaining to a pro-life Catholic sometime that even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops understands and teaches that a consistent theory of respect for human life requires that anyone who is opposed to abortion should also be opposed to capital punishment. You can hear it all the way across town when their head explodes.
GregB
The man who wants to make government inconsequential in our lives has used the power of government to kill hundreds of his own citizens. The power to give or take life being the greatest power of all.
Neat trick.
Nevgu
It’s important to remember that primary rhetoric is much different than general election rhetoric. Especially when you have the Rethug party lurching far right of where the country is.
JGabriel
burnspbesq:
And yet, while some of those bishops will refuse a Democratic candidate the sacrament of communion over their support for pro-choice positions, no Republican has ever been denied communion for their death penalty support.
It’s hard to respect the ostensible consistency of their position, when the application is so variable.
.
Lolis
I wonder what Rick Perry thinks about Palin’s clear attacks on him. They used to be BFFs so it would be fun to watch them try to strike death blows at each other. It makes me want Palin to run for president. They both think they are the most macho. Who would win?
Linda Featheringill
@burnspbesq: # 38
Catholics:
True. But I have known a few that were anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty, and antiwar.
Those people I respect.
Chris
@JGabriel:
You beat me to it. Strictly speaking, the Catholic Church’s position is liberal more often than not. But the two pet issues of conservatives (abortion and gay marriage) are the only ones they’ll ever flex their political muscles on. I’ve never heard of the USCCB putting any pressure on the politicians for the Iraq war either, or their stated policies towards the poor.
@Linda Featheringill:
Quite a few. But the top ranks are crawling with all-out movement conservatives.
Omnes Omnibus
Charles Lane is much more odious than he seemed in “Shattered Glass.”
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq: One can try to make up for undeserved years in prison. One can never make up for an execution.
Ruckus
@JGabriel:
It’s hard to respect the ostensible consistency of their position, when the application is so variable
This.
Maude
@GregB:
That would go right over a teatad’s head. They don’t do thought or distinction or reasoning.
JGabriel
I don’t know either. Why don’t you ask bin Laden, asshole?
.
JPL
@JGabriel: lol… I appoint the Frank Luntz of the democratic party.
JGabriel
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yeah, people do tend to look a lot better when they’re being played by Peter Sarsgaard, aka Maggie Gyllenhal’s husband.
.
Hal
If you ever wondered if anyone fantasized about Willie Horton, look no further.
BTW, what would the Justice Department have to do with local state murders? Wouldn’t that be in the jurisdiction of local police and prosecutors?
Omnes Omnibus
@JGabriel: The dude that Sarsgaard played in “Boys Don’t Cry” still seemed pretty odious.
JPL
@Lolis: Depends on the meaning of macho or at least how the Tea Party defines macho.
JGabriel
@Omnes Omnibus: Surprisingly, I haven’t seen “Boy Don’t Cry” yet. Will probably get around to it, someday …
.
PeakVT
O/T: It’s going to be a rough night for people in southern Vermont.
Sly
@Omnes Omnibus:
It’s not very difficult for a character to look good when he is the antagonist of Stephen Glass.
Omnes Omnibus
@JGabriel: It is one of those movies that I recommend watching once.
Maude
@Sly:
There’s a communication problem in Burlington so the report isn’t being given in text.
I hope everyone stays safe.
Sam Houston
@Linda Featheringill: “Don’t forget us Christian Universalists and Quakers that are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and anti-war,” said a small reedy voice from the back of the room; followed by a muttered, “no, sir, you’re thinking of Mennonites. No problem, it happens all the time.”
dm9871
It’s worth knowing who the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation is. They are a bunch of smart, angry, hateful lunatics that mis-use the idea of victims’ rights as a way to promote their hateful agenda. I wouldn’t take their views of the politics of the death penalty too seriously.
Maude
@Maude:
That was meant for Peak. Oops. Sorry Sly.
AA+ Bonds
AA+ Bonds
Abolishing the death penalty is one of those qualifiers for being a civilized country, like basic national health care.
Corner Stone
@dm9871:
Are they against the death penalty?
JPL
One of the fall tv shows has to do with revenge. IMO, that shows how far we have fallen.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: That was all I could handle. But it really should be watched. Hilary Swank earned every molecule of her statue for that.
Dennis SGMM
Here in CA some pointy-headed types did an actual study of the costs of condemning someone to death versus sentencing them to life in prison without possibility of parole. The cost of condemning someone is astronomically higher than sentencing them to life. The death penalty is like most of the other Republican policy positions in that its advocates deliberately ignore every associated cost that attaches to their simple minded solutions for America’s woes.
AA+ Bonds
@burnspbesq:
That’s not fair – there are quite a few pro-life Catholics who understand that the death penalty is against their beliefs. Certainly the priests who are out there protesting for whichever cause do, and they are often the same priests you will see out protesting the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The Catholic League Republicans don’t, but they’re idiots, practical Protestants.
The selective manipulation of the catechism and papal statements by bishops is extremely irritating, and it’s not new. See the treatment of Communists and Nazis in World War II despite clear declarations on party membership and the communion in both cases. Despicable, I agree.
Finally, the votes of Catholics, split nearly 50/50, have seesawed majorities back and forth across Democrats and Republicans in the last few national elections – my theory is that the trend benefits Democrats and 2010 reflected high Republican turnout overall.
I heartily encourage Democrats in most states to adopt terms that specifically appeal to Catholic theology to describe their ideas and beliefs about the value of people. There’s no downside to swiping these terms, which have already been crafted by the Vatican for wide dissemination.
CT Voter
Huh. I guess I must have somehow in the last few months passed an invisible line, because I’m quite sure that some grisly and awful murder will be used, if Perry is the nominee, to paint Obama as weak, ineffectual, and inexperienced with dealing with such matters. Of course, there will be a media chorus willing to jump onto the “weak, ineffectual, and inexperienced” bandwagon, while salivating over Rick Perry’s awesome manliness.
The only thing that could save us from a Rick Perry Presidency is, well, the way Rick Perry eerily looks and sounds like George W. Bush. One of the things I still find encouraging about the voters of the US is that a majority still firmly places the blame on W. for this economic morass we’re in.
But, that might change, of course, with all the love tossed Perry’s way. I look forward to Maureen Dowd’s newest column where she slobbers over the manliness of Perry. Peggy Noonan has already gone there. Could MoDo be far behind?
El Cid
@Dennis SGMM: Sometimes vengeance, even if only distant, imagined, or even misplaced, is expensive. But if an American community is not willing to come together around the bedrock principle of vengeance and suffering upon the unworthy, then maybe freedom’s just too high a price to pay.
dm9871
@ Cornerstone
They are pro death penalty. Actually “pro” doesn’t quite capture how in favor of it they are.
AA+ Bonds
@El Cid:
Sarcasm aside, we are a good case for Schuld/Schulden. We consider the satisfaction of the victim’s family to be a case for state killings, here or abroad.
John
Better that ten innocent men are put to death than that one guilty man goes to prison for the rest of his natural life.
El Cid
@AA+ Bonds: If this only applied in situations in which I thought the broader public identified with the victim’s family enough to (a) care about its satisfaction and (b) give a damn whether or not it had been sated by the right perpetrator, it would be a good thing.
Instead I see vengeance as a major motivator in and of itself, most gloriously when the target of vengeance fulfills enough tropes of figures upon whom we feeling like having us some vengeance anyways.
Worrying about the victim’s family’s satisfaction suggests a moral enough motivation that we’d expect similar support for policies which effectively reduced the rate of such victims being created. Whatever — the structures of sentencing, the treatments of drug and alcohol addiction, the monitoring of repeat offenders and particularly domestic abusers, and so forth.
Nope. We don’t want none of that fancy ‘harm reduction’ getting in the way of seeking brute, thrilling vengeance, oh, whoops, I mean, caring about the satisfaction of the victim’s family.
El Cid
@John: Better yet that all 11 do.
AA+ Bonds
@El Cid:
The question is whether the feeling of brute thrilling vengeance is the same thing as the satisfaction of the victim’s family. If so, how do we feel about that? Cool? Uncool?
AA+ Bonds
@El Cid:
I mean, Osama wasn’t much of a threat when we aced him, and a week’s worth of press releases about his laptop full of vetoed loony plans couldn’t convince anyone otherwise. Just sayin’.
How much does the vengeance of the families of those who died on 9/11 weigh in when we consider whether it was right or wrong to shoot Osama bin Laden or even try to shoot him?
How about our vengeance against him as Americans for making us feel unpleasant feelings?
SiubhanDuinne
@John:
I hope to gods you forgot/purposely omitted the snark tag
Dennis SGMM
During my year in that other, other war, I killed human beings (Who were doing their bet to kill me an my unit) in fire fights at at ranges of seven meters or less. In those situations people don’t have much choice. In the case of murderers the state does have choices. People who decide to kill other people do so for any number of reasons, the death penalty is no deterrent to them.
Triassic Sands
@burnspbesq:
I oppose the death penalty in all cases (though I must admit to weakening when considering guys like Dick Cheney), because there is no justification for it that I find satisfactory, and no justification could possibly surmount the potential for wrongful execution.
However, for those who favor the death penalty, it seems to me that there is only one morally acceptable position possible — the defendant has to be found guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever. Not a reasonable doubt standard; that guarantees that innocent people will end up on death row, which means eventually one will be executed. No Doubt Whatsoever. And how many cases would qualify for that standard?
The no doubt whatsoever standard means that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been executed, but Jack Ruby would have qualified. That certainly wouldn’t have satisfied very many people. Eyewitness testimony would never be enough for a guilty BADW verdict. Eyewitnesses are wrong all the time; they make mistakes and they lie, sometimes with the assistance (coercion) of the police. Neither would an admission of guilt (alone) be enough. People admit to crimes they didn’t commit, sometimes with the helpful assistance of police misconduct. If the murder isn’t seen on live TV or recorded in a way that is beyond question, or if the murderer is not apprehended at the scene of the crime, immediately following the act, which was viewed by multiple witnesses, all of whom agree on the murderer’s guilt, then no death penalty.
Say, John Cole is particularly upset by the performance of the Steelers’ coach. He jumps the railing, sprints past security to the bench, and empties his Glock Super High Capacity 33 round magazine into the coach in front of a capacity crowd. With the firing of the last round Mr. Cole is tackled by one or more players and held in front of a stadium full of people until the police take him into custody. Fortunately, the TV cameras caught Mr. Cole throughout the commission of the crime and his apprehension. Unless his lawyer can plausibly claim that the police secretly replaced the real killer with Mr. Cole on the ride to the police station, Mr. Cole would be eligible for the death penalty.
If Lochner (Gifford’s shooter and murderer of others) weren’t mentally ill, he would probably qualify. An honest prosecutor could probably assemble a genuine guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever case against Lochner. But that’s an exceptional case.
With the “no doubt whatsoever standard” there would be very few qualifying cases. So few, in fact, that proponents would probably lose interest altogether. And we’d all be better off.
Triassic Sands
@efgoldman:
Yeah, you’re (sadly) probably right. In fact, if by some miracle capital punishment were limited to cases of incontrovertible guilt, it would probably inspire the Right in this country to begin fighting for a constitutional amendment that mandated the death penalty for any guilty verdict in a first degree murder trial (and maybe even for 2nd degree), as well as for other non-murder violent crimes like rape.
Elias Isquith
Even if Perry knew Willingham was innocent, had him killed for kicks, then sabotaged the inquiry so he could kill again, because it’s what he thinks brings him closer to god and because he’s in some kind of blood cult—even if all of that’s true, Charles Lane is still the real monster here.
Corner Stone
@Elias Isquith: I don’t know Elias. I was previously more amenable to your arguments.
Now. Not so much.