Alito Opposes Mo. Execution

[SmellyFed]

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservative Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection. Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.


LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/01/D8FGN8509.html)

I confess, I'm not a big supporter of the death penalty. As a deterrent, it's effective in theory, but in practice it takes 20 years to put a person to death and the effect of deterrence is lost to decades of ambiguity and appeals.

They say its cheaper to imprison for life... since deterrence doesn't seem to be effective (in my layman opinion) I'm for the inexpensive option.

Call me a softy.

[Melz]

I don't care if the death penalty is/is not a deterrent OR if it is less/more profitable.

It is justice. We have a justice system for such behaviour, and the death pentalty is the consequence for certain actions. A valid one even.

[SmellyFed]

I don't disagree with you Melz, but the process we have for putting a convicted criminal to death is so corrupt that it becomes nearly pointless.

Who was the fellow recently who said he was too old to be put to death... that guy has lived in prison for 30 years and NOW they are going to put him to death?

I guess if he's been in mental anguish for 30 years, I can dig it. I just don't see the system as being effective. Bleeding hearts have pulled the teeth out of the death penalty, one by one.

[BuckeyeMike]

LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/01/D8FGN8509.html)

I confess, I'm not a big supporter of the death penalty. As a deterrent, it's effective in theory, but in practice it takes 20 years to put a person to death and the effect of deterrence is lost to decades of ambiguity and appeals.

They say its cheaper to imprison for life... since deterrence doesn't seem to be effective (in my layman opinion) I'm for the inexpensive option.

Call me a softy.

It's not supposed to be a "deterent" for others, it's supposed to be a "penalty" paid by that low-life that has received that sentence for his/her crimes. The appeals process should be changed drastically. The only ones that condone the present system are the weep-easys, and, of course the lawyers....there's big money and reputations at stake.

It's just as expensive to house the scum for life as it is to execute him/her. Even the "lifers" tie up the courts, use attorneys at our expense to try to get their sentences overturned.

[Melz]

I don't disagree with you Melz, but the process we have for putting a convicted criminal to death is so corrupt that it becomes nearly pointless.

Who was the fellow recently who said he was too old to be put to death... that guy has lived in prison for 30 years and NOW they are going to put him to death?

I guess if he's been in mental anguish for 30 years, I can dig it. I just don't see the system as being effective. Bleeding hearts have pulled the teeth out of the death penalty, one by one.

Then I say get rid of that idiot 20 year appeals process. I will not oppose the death penalty just because the system is inefficient, I will just support revamping it some :) I am ready to shine the death-ray on a good lot of folks who will never see the inside of a jail cell, so I am certainly all for taking out the trash. The sooner the better!

[SmellyFed]

Make no mistake, deterrence is a major part of the at-large, pro-death penalty arguement.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

And I remain unconvinced.

[SmellyFed]

It's not supposed to be a "deterent" for others, it's supposed to be a "penalty" paid by that low-life that has received that sentence for his/her crimes.

No, it IS supposed to be a deterrent.

[Melz]

If I were one to kill and such, I wouldn't even see it as a deterrent though. 20 years of appeals? How much can change in that time? Had I been a murderous thug, never would the potential of death deter me. Most of these people have that potential every day walking down the streets it seems.

To me, it is simply a deserved punishment. I hope that if ever contemplated by a judge in this state, that person thinks the same way, rather than base a decision on the deterrent factor.

[Warlady]

Someone posted a study on FC not long ago that showed that states that have the death penalty and utilize it have less murders than states that do not. I wish I could remember where that thread was. I'm not sure why Alito sided against the others but it could be because he hasn't had time to read up on the case. Hell he's only been a Justice for one day.

[BuckeyeMike]

Make no mistake, deterrence is a major part of the at-large, pro-death penalty arguement.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

And I remain unconvinced.


You read that and you remain unconvinced? From what I gleaned from it, my original post is spot on!

[SmellyFed]

If I were one to kill and such, I wouldn't even see it as a deterrent though. 20 years of appeals? How much can change in that time? Had I been a murderous thug, never would the potential of death deter me.

If you're murdering someone in a fit of rage, you probably wouldn't consider the death penalty. If you're premeditating a murder, weighing the pros and cons of trying to get away with it, it should cross your mind and be considered. ie. "Whats the worst that could happen if I get caught?"

If dying in the electric chair as a possible consequence even crosses your mind, there has been some at least some effect of deterrence.

[SmellyFed]

You readthat and you remain unconvinced? From what I gleaned from it, my original post is spot on!

Your original post said that the death penalty was not intended for deterrence. Clearly, if you read that document, it is.

As I said though, I'm not convinced that the appeals process hasn't completely robbed the death penalty of its effectiveness as a deterrent.

[Melz]

From Fed:

"As I said though, I'm not convinced that the appeals process hasn't completely robbed the death penalty of its effectiveness as a deterrent."

That is exactly my point dear! I stand by it as the best punishment though. I do believe that the appeals process robs it of the deterrent it is meant to be. So I guess that just leaves a bunch of hopefull killers out there, hoping they get to spend the rest of their worthless lives in prison.

Not good enough for me!

Take care and goodnight :)

[SmellyFed]

From Fed:

"As I said though, I'm not convinced that the appeals process hasn't completely robbed the death penalty of its effectiveness as a deterrent."

That is exactly my point dear! :)

Actually that is MY point that I've been making since the first post in the thread. So we agree.

[Warlady]

Does anyone remember where the stats are posted that prove the death penalty is a deterrent? It's on this board somewhere.

[Melz]

I typed in "death penalty" and "execution" in the search functions and did not come up with it. I do know what thread you are talking of though, I will look back tomorrow to see if someone has reached it. I really have to make myself go to bed now..argh.

Take care :)

[Warlady]

I know what you mean Melz. I can't sleep either when I'm stuck on something. Good night sis.

[DoctorDoom]

WADR, it is known as the DEATH PENALTY, not the MURDER DETERRENT. Criminal law exists to define what is a crime and to specify a penalty for committing the crime. The problem is that criminals by definition break laws, knowing very well that they are doing so and inviting the punishment if they are captured, tried and convicted. It is blatantly obvious that the law is not deterring those who break it.

Why not? Very simple: criminals don't expect to be be caught. They do not spend hours pondering, "Gee willikers, what if I do my crime and the man nabs my sorry ass? Golly gosh, I can't risk that." Their only interest is doing it and getting away.

Inasmuch as no law deters the lawbreaker, it is inane to condemn the DP because it does not deter those who commit capital crimes. Laws against rape don't deter rapists. Laws against robbery don't deter robbers. And laws against murder don't deter murderers. Yes, the laws MIGHT act as deterrents, but they are not intended to do so.

What good are those laws, then? A: they serve as the basis for penalizing the lawbreakers when (or if) they are arrested, tried and found guilty. Criminal law is after-the-fact. It does not prevent crime. It punishes it.

The DP is a punishment for a category of abhorrent crimes that justify it. It has not a damn thing to do with deterring the crimes.

[Warlady]

Doc what is WADR?

[Republican_Legion]

When I watched the "state of the union speech' I was wondering why roberts and thomas looked like best friends but Alito looked like he was hanging around with breyer/souter and already Alito has now voted with souter/breyer/stevens/ginsburg/kennedy.

Alito may very well have voted that way because he wants to make himself look like a moderate without doing something Super bad like tossing out the 'partial birth abortion BAN' or defending 'Roe Vs Wade'.
Suppose he is trying to find his way to make it seem that a Anti-Abortion Scotus judge can be moderate in the eyes of the MSM. This could very well make it easier for another A+ judge to be appointed after Justice steven croaks. And after the court shifts 5-4 in favor of conservatives then we can expect everything to fine.

Janice Rogers Brown is my favorite to replace Justice Stevens.
The GOP could use 'Affirmitive Action' and 'equality for women' to get her easily appointed. Never has there been an African American Woman nominated to the SCOTUS. The democrats would be commiting suicide if they were to filbuster and oppose her. When she was filbustered for the job as a federal court judge they were able to because it wasnt heavily media covered like the SCOTUS battle is and less americans pay attention to non-scotus nominations. And they did it in combination with pryor and owens.

And by then there may very well be a Republican senator from Maryland called 'Senator Steele(R-MD)' who is african american btw.
And there also may very well be the first African American Republican Govenor of Ohio called 'Govenor Blackwell' by the time justice stevens steps down. Those 2 politicians I just named will be able to rally around Janice Rogers Brown and accuse critics like Ted Kennedy of racism. The public outcry against democrats will lose the democrats elections and they may very well lose the black vote.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Doc what is WADR?

With Doc's pardon, I think that means "with all due respect" -- did I get that one right Doc? (I'm gettin' so nifty on this here computer thingy, LOL)

[Warlady]

"When I watched the "state of the union speech' I was wondering why roberts and thomas looked like best friends but Alito looked like he was hanging around with breyer/souter and already Alito has now voted with souter/breyer/stevens/ginsburg/kennedy."

Huh? Were we watching the same SOTUA? They all looked seated next to one another to me. I didn't see any "clique" you apparently saw.

[Warlady]

Thanks Homes

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Okay, another perspective from the peanut gallery, :smirky: .

While the "deterence" aspect may be a part of the argument in support of the death penalty, I do not believe it to be the most overwhelming one, and actually believe it is just one of those which helps the case (for or against).

As Doc brilliantly pointed out, the DP in effect, is punishment for a crime. You kill(ed), you forfeit(ed) your life in return for the one(s) you took. That is the essence of justice; the DP is as fair as can be established and is the only equitable option.

It may ALSO serve as a deterent for some (we don't know, can't know ... how do you quantifiy and qualify crimes NOT committed because one was afraid of the DP?) We DO know it will guarantee deterence of the recipient (of the DP) from committing further crimes.

It is also, when carried out expeditiously, cost effective -- that the astoundingly long-and-drawn-out appeals process has CHANGED this, in NO WAY negates the fact. If a reasonable, reliable appeals process were established, and the IDIOTIC bleeding-hearts finally put on the shelf where they belong (i.e. no longer listened to, because their arguments carry no weight regarding justice) then the taxpayer burden WOULD be lightened, and for the record, I DO think capital crimes WOULD reduce.

MOST criminals who have earned the DP are CAREER criminals, not 'one-timer's. The crimes are USUALLY heinous and abhorrent, extremely violent or horrific, and maximized by special circumstances (crimes against a child, the vicious nature of the attack or weapon, etc.)

EVEN IF we suspend the DP for trial-by-jury convicted murderers, why can't we AT LEAST expedite the executions of those who ADMIT their crimes? I'm thinking specifically now about a local case -- that of Gainesville Serial Murderer Danny Rolling ... even the (FL) female serial killer (Eileen Wuornos) was put to death before this pieces of crime who ADMITTED in OPEN COURT his crime(s).

Okay, off my :soap: . I'm willing to give Justice Alito the benefit of the doubt on this case -- he DID just start the job yesterday, perhaps he wants to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. One question though, did he HAVE to rule yesterday? Doesn't he have an option as a justice to extend his ruling period? Just a thought.

[SmellyFed]

The DP is a punishment for a category of abhorrent crimes that justify it. It has not a damn thing to do with deterring the crimes.

With all due respect Mr. Doom, that is a well argued opinion but it frankly isn't true.

[SmellyFed]

The Death Penalty isn't anything we have done uniquely - it goes back through history for thousands of years and has always been done as a matter of deterrence.

When the Romans would crucify a man, they did so as a public spectacle so that all could see the punishment for such a crime. Nero crucified countless Christians as the historian Tacticus recounts and it was done so in a brutal manner, in front of all of Rome as a punishment for fictious crimes and as a deterrent against Christianity.

Roman military units were known for their practice of "decimare" from which our modern word decimate originates - in order to quell a rebellious military unit, they would pull every 10th man out of line and kill him in front of the rest. The effect was deterrence.

In Medieval Europe, when a thief was caught in a market, his ear would be nailed to the wheel of a cart and the cart set rolling down a hill - often resulting in the death of the thief. The effect was deterrence.

In Napoleonic war - including our own Civil War, deserters who were captured were forced to dig their own graves in front of their regiment. And as that regiment stood at attention, three men were chosen out of the ranks who became the defacto firing squad while the deserter stood in front of his own grave and waited for his punishment. The effect of deterrence.

If you look down through history at the various methods of capitial punishment - the guillotine, the gallows, the development of the electric chair... they have all been done as a method of deterrence and almost always done as a very PUBLIC spectacle.

If you really think deterrence has nothing to do with the death penalty, you're being incredibly naive.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

If you really think deterrence has nothing to do with the death penalty, you're being incredibly naive.

I'm assuming this was not directed at me -- I do not beleive deterrence has nothing to do with the death penalty, I just do not believe it to be the overwhelming reason for it. First and foremost, it is punishment http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I will grant, the visualization process (public forum, witness gallery, televised ... yes, I believe that one day it will happen, etc.) is relevant to the deterrence aspect.

The DP is the only just punishment for a legal conviction of a capital crime.

[USPatriot8320]

Woohoo Must See Execution TV... :-) I've always been pro-death penalty myself.. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life...

[Republican_Legion]

"When I watched the "state of the union speech' I was wondering why roberts and thomas looked like best friends but Alito looked like he was hanging around with breyer/souter and already Alito has now voted with souter/breyer/stevens/ginsburg/kennedy."

Huh? Were we watching the same SOTUA? They all looked seated next to one another to me. I didn't see any "clique" you apparently saw.

You didnt notice clarence and roberts standing and siting together ?
Alito sat and stood away from them and next to that other judge either souter or breyer whatever. And yes it was the same SOTUA, I can pay attention very well and I catch things and remember them very good.
Remembering things is one of my benifets of Asperber syndrome.

Who politicians or Judges stand and sit next too might mean alot of how they might rule/vote. When Zell Miller began to sit next to the republicans it was a definate sign he was changing. When McCain started to sit next to Kerry it was a sign. When Senator Ben Nelson(D-NE) stood up during the SOTUA it was a sign.

[Lazarus]

They say its cheaper to imprison for life... since deterrence doesn't seem to be effective (in my layman opinion) I'm for the inexpensive option.

Call me a softy.You Big Softy!!! There - got that out of the way...:licky:

Whoever "They" are who say its cheaper to keep them up for life vs killing them is (with all due respect for my friend SmellyFed) full of Shi'ite!!! What kind of alternate universe do "They" live in? Fed I think that "statistic" comes directly from some anti-death penalty panty-waist pinko fags... I wouldnt place a lot of value in that scientific observation...

One of the sad facts about the disintegration of our society today is that the general public has lost the concept and definition of JUSTICE... The Death Penalty NEVER was intended to be a deterent to crime - if it has any deterring effect that is just a side effect...

The Death Penalty is meant to provide justice and honor to the victim in the name of the people... It relieves the loved ones of the victims from taking the law in their own hands...

I agree that the long appeal process dilutes the justice of the penalty, but that is no reason to oppose the penalty itself - it is reason to oppose an appeals process that has become just a delaying tactic of defense lawyers... Appeals were never meant to be a tool to thwart justice - The Appeal process is meant to allow the justice system a chance to test the verdict with reasonable certainty...

So dont oppose the Death Penalty simply because the Appeals process has been hijacked by trial lawyers - Change the Appeals process and return to giving Justice to the victim...

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

For the record, Alito voted with the four liberals and Kennedy to deny the state's request to vacate the 8th Circuit's stay. Vacating a stay and issuing a stay are two very different things. Some judges/justices feel it inappropriate to vacate a stay unless the lower Court was clearly disregarding the current state of the law. (9th Circuit, anyone?) For example, you'll often see Justice Souter vote to deny an inmate's request for a stay of execution, but vote in other cases to deny requests by the states to vacate a lower court's stay.

Another thing to think about... If the Court followed its usual procedure of voting, then the vote was already 5-3 by the time it got to him, so perhaps he didn't feel the need to be combative on his first day.

Also, as Warlady pointed out, he didn't have much time to review the details of the case, so pushing to lift the stay of execution in a case he didn't really know much about wouldn't have been a good idea, given the irreversability of the sentence.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Another thing to think about... If the Court followed its usual procedure of voting, then the vote was already 5-3 by the time it got to him, so perhaps he didn't feel the need to be combative on his first day.

Thomas, I was listening to Rush today and he was discussing this. He said that in the question and answer period during the confirmation hearing, Justice Alito said that if four of the justices had voted for a stay, that he would vote with them as a .... oooh, I can't remember the word, but it's something like "professional courtesy" ... because he thinks it should be handled thoroughly and no rush to action. So this was a foreshadowing of his behavior, should not have been unexpected, and is in no way indicative of how he would rule in future/other DP cases brought before the SCOTUS.

I hope I made sense ... Rush sure did, and it answered a lot of my questions about the issue at hand (Alito's siding with the other liberal justices in an "apparent" break from the conservatives).

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

When I watched the "state of the union speech' I was wondering why roberts and thomas looked like best friends but Alito looked like he was hanging around with breyer/souter and already Alito has now voted with souter/breyer/stevens/ginsburg/kennedy.

The justices were sitting in order of seniority: CJ Roberts , then Thomas, Breyer, and JJ Alito, so it would have been very difficult for Alito to get chummy with Roberts or Thomas without also having been very rude.

Alito may very well have voted that way...

That's an interesting theory, but let's wait until we have some of his opinions in our hands before saying that he wants to appear moderate.

[Rhino]

I'm a fence sitter now. I used to firmly support the death penalty as both a punishment and a deterrent, but with DNA exonerating so many convicted people, I can't discount the possibility that we will execute an innocent person, if we haven't done so already. I can't really say I'm opposed to it either, though. I just don't know how to make it better, and, for lack of a better term, accurate. I do agree the appeals and delaying process is far out of control, and that does indeed tend to water down the deterrent effect. And yes, I firmly agree that there is a deterrent effect.

[Jim Sentry]

Alito simply voted to delay the execution, which the hearing judge requested, so he, the hearing judge, could have more time to determine if the punishment was "cruel and unusual"

If it is determined that it would be then the method of execution would be changed, if not then the execution would proceed.

Got all that from Judge Napolitano on Fox.

[Warlady]

Jim you beat me to it. I watched the same explanation. The title of this thread is incorrect and very deceptive. Alito didn't vote against a MO execution. He voted to give the trial judge more time. Something he testified he would do in the confirmation hearings.

[SmellyFed]

The title of this thread is incorrect and very deceptive. Alito didn't vote against a MO execution. He voted to give the trial judge more time.

The title of the thread is actually the name of the Breitbart article which is linked in the first post but feel free to change it. Won't offend me any.

[nene]

It makes no difference to me whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. It is a necessary punishment for certain crimes. The problem I see is that this penalty is not used more often. IMO, all habitual criminals (felony offenders) should be executed.

[Warlady]

Fed I wasn't criticizing you. I was criticizing the author of the article. Sorry for the confusion.

[UnkHiram]

Smelly Fed

I would argue that the Death Penalty is a deterant. My argument is based on one indisputable fact ---- Every single person that it has been used on never committed another crime of any kind. I suspect it would be a more effective Death Penalty if it was used quicker but we will probably never know that for sure.

[Republican_Legion]

IMO, all habitual criminals (felony offenders) should be executed.

Cute. So all small time thiefs should be rounded up and shot according to your view ? Whats next ? Executing people for for cussing too much and for not being polite at the dinner table. OK.

[Republican_Legion]

I'm a fence sitter now. I used to firmly support the death penalty as both a punishment and a deterrent, but with DNA exonerating so many convicted people, I can't discount the possibility that we will execute an innocent person, if we haven't done so already. I can't really say I'm opposed to it either, though. I just don't know how to make it better, and, for lack of a better term, accurate. I do agree the appeals and delaying process is far out of control, and that does indeed tend to water down the deterrent effect. And yes, I firmly agree that there is a deterrent effect.

We have more then likely done it in the past like in the 1800's when people were hanged without evidence of crime except for 1 persons word against another.

Some people who were guilty back then got away with it because it was easier to frame someone back then and the system was impulsive back then in the way it would find somebody and quickly convict based on almost nothing and then hang em while the real killer gets away.

Some people who are guilty today get away with it because of 'Civil Libertys' and 'Affirmitive action'. The Death penalty does need to be fixed to where murderers are executed instantly after conviction but the conviction must require DNA if the ADA wants to apply the death penalty on the defendant.

[maxparrish]

Thomas, I was listening to Rush today and he was discussing this. He said that in the question and answer period during the confirmation hearing, Justice Alito said that if four of the justices had voted for a stay, that he would vote with them as a .... oooh, I can't remember the word, but it's something like "professional courtesy" ... because he thinks it should be handled thoroughly and no rush to action. So this was a foreshadowing of his behavior, should not have been unexpected, and is in no way indicative of how he would rule in future/other DP cases brought before the SCOTUS.

I hope I made sense ... Rush sure did, and it answered a lot of my questions about the issue at hand (Alito's siding with the other liberal justices in an "apparent" break from the conservatives).

Well, I was relieved to here a similar explanation from Laura Ingraham; she said the level of evidence to "lift" a lower court stay is pretty high and she said it would be normal not to do so. And she insited, absolutely in no uncertain terms, that Alito is a super judge and will do the right thing.

Still, I got a little quesy when I heard this. If Alito turns out a dud this will convince me that we have got to nominate individuals who are open idealogues. Thomas, Scalia, Bork, and Rehnquist all published outside their juidical experience - all had proud conservative opinions. Alito had many good signs (federalist society, abortion opinon, etc.) BUT like Roberts he was not a 'theorist'...

Alto was chosen over Luttig because he was not a theorist; and over Jones, Brown, Owens because he had never gotten publically on record. Geeeeezzzzzzze, if this is another blown nomination I'm going to puke.

What the f, why can't we just put the "ON THE RECORD" originalist/conservative in front of the jackels...I don't want to panic..but we will have to wait.

[SmellyFed]

Smelly Fed

I would argue that the Death Penalty is a deterant. My argument is based on one indisputable fact ---- Every single person that it has been used on never committed another crime of any kind.

No doubt about that but when we talk about deterrence, historically we're talking about the masses of people who see the penalty for the crime and take that into consideration in premeditating their own crimes.

Long ago, when captial punishments were carried out in close order with the commitment of the crime, the effect of deterrence was much greater in my estimation then what it is today.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Well, I was relieved to here a similar explanation from Laura Ingraham; she said the level of evidence to "lift" a lower court stay is pretty high and she said it would be normal not to do so. And she insited, absolutely in no uncertain terms, that Alito is a super judge and will do the right thing.


Exactly. All Alito did is vote to refuse the state's request to lift the lower court's stay. Let's not freak out over nothing.

[Warlady]

Homes, did you read my post and Jim's about Napalitano's explanation? It doesn't sound like it.

[Warlady]

Thanks Thomas. I'm glad your voice of reason finally showed up.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homes, did you read my post and Jim's about Napalitano's explanation? It doesn't sound like it.

Warlady,
I read your post after I had already posted mine -- my info came from Rush, as I was listening to him when he address the situation. Either way, I still don't think it's any big deal -- I think it was not unexpected, or at least it shouldn't have been in light of his testimony at the confirmation hearings, and so did nothing wrong. I hope that the Mainslime Media doesn't try to use this as a wedge to try to drive between conservatives. I feel like Rush got on top of it pretty good, and so wasn't bothered when I heard all the news-coverage of the issue on my local talk-radio station and local news, etc.

[Tumblehome]

A very basic principle of criminal law is that it is based upon deterence, rehabilitation, and public safety. Those are the 3. Punishment is not one of them. Vengeance, revenge, etc do not belong in a court room.

Criminal law exists for the good of society. Punishment itself (aside from one of the 3 foregoing) does not benefit society as a whole.

If you want to argue for the death penalty, I suggest that you to argue how it keeps the dangerous offender from re-offending (public safety) that rehabilitation is not possible or is too risky and that it may deter others from similar behaviour.

[Rhino]

Deterence has at it's heart the fear of punishment, and thus punishment is very much a part of criminal law.

[The Hard Truth]

I'm not sure why Alito sided against the others but it could be because he hasn't had time to read up on the case. Hell he's only been a Justice for one day.

If he wasn't familiar with the case, he shouldn't have voted at all.

[The Hard Truth]

Well, I was relieved to here a similar explanation from Laura Ingraham; she said the level of evidence to "lift" a lower court stay is pretty high and she said it would be normal not to do so. And she insited, absolutely in no uncertain terms, that Alito is a super judge and will do the right thing.


The "level of evidence" was high enough to convince all of the other Justices who are considered "Conservatives". So why wouldn't Alito side with them?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The "level of evidence" was high enough to convince all of the other Justices who are considered "Conservatives". So why wouldn't Alito side with them?

Prudence. I'm glad he is his own man, and doesn't merely follow. I have no qualm with his decsion ... I'll reserve my opinion regarding the official outcome for when it occurs.

[The Hard Truth]

Prudence. I'm glad he is his own man, and doesn't merely follow. I have no qualm with his decsion ... I'll reserve my opinion regarding the official outcome for when it occurs.

So the other "conservative" Justices are NOT prudent?

If he had sided with the liberals on an abortion case, would you be "glad he is his own man, and doesn't merely follow."?

[The Hard Truth]

Cute. So all small time thiefs should be rounded up and shot according to your view ? Whats next ? Executing people for for cussing too much and for not being polite at the dinner table. OK.

Nene specifically referred to "felony offenders".

Petty thievery, "cussing too much" and "not being polite" aren't felonies. So it's pretty obvious that your above statements don't accurately represent nene's view.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

So the other "conservative" Justices are NOT prudent?

If he had sided with the liberals on an abortion case, would you be "glad he is his own man, and doesn't merely follow."?

I do not believe it unreasonable, considering the man just got sworn in a couple of hours prior to his decision, to do exactly what he said he would do when asked concerning the very same scenario during his confirmation hearing. It should not have been a surprise, as I understand it from the information I've been able to glean about the situation.

I do not believe it to be any indication as to how he will rule in a DP case brought before the SCOTUS. IF I am wrong, I will absolutely admit so when and if the time arises. However, this situation seems reasonable.

[The Hard Truth]

I do not believe it unreasonable, considering the man just got sworn in a couple of hours prior to his decision, to do exactly what he said he would do when asked concerning the very same scenario during his confirmation hearing. It should not have been a surprise, as I understand it from the information I've been able to glean about the situation.

I do not believe it to be any indication as to how he will rule in a DP case brought before the SCOTUS. IF I am wrong, I will absolutely admit so when and if the time arises. However, this situation seems reasonable.

There is NO question of Michael Taylor's guilt in this case. Taylor PLEADED GUILTY to the 1989 kidnapping, rape and murder of a 15-year old girl---who was waiting on her school bus when she was abducted.

To this day, Taylor has never denied his guilt. His sole reason for requesting a stay of execution is his claim that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual punishment".

IF he had been proclaiming innocence all these years, and IF new evidence had been found that might exonerate him, then I would support a stay of execution for him.

However, he is GUILTY by his own admission. So he should rightly be put to death for his heinous crime.

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Genesis 9:6, KJV

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

There is NO question of Michael Taylor's guilt in this case.

I am not arguing the facts of this case with you. I am completely pro-death penalty. I was wondering why Justice Alito ruled as he did as well. I happened to be listening to Rush when he was explaining what had happened, and he (Rush) was basing it on information he had obtained. Afterward, I concluded that it was not unreasonable for him (Alito) to rule as he did, given that he SAID he would rule that way about an almost identical fictional scenario during his confirmation hearings. I cannot quote chapter and verse all the details, perhaps someone with a 24/7 Rush membership can come up with the transcript for that particular day this was discussed for the remainder of the information.

I've been quite clear with my opinion, and it's quite obvious ours do not match. We'll have to wait and see the final outcome, but I do believe the stay will be lifted and the criminal punished. If that is NOT the final result, I will admit my err.

[The Hard Truth]

Well, I was relieved to here a similar explanation from Laura Ingraham; she said the level of evidence to "lift" a lower court stay is pretty high and she said it would be normal not to do so. And she insited, absolutely in no uncertain terms, that Alito is a super judge and will do the right thing.


Ingraham has no idea what she's talking about.

There was no "evidence" to consider. Michael Taylor pled GUILTY to the kidnap, rape and murder of a 15-year old girl in 1989.

A liberal lower court granted Taylor a last-minute stay, simply because of he and his liberal lawyers' specious claim that Missouri's death penalty law is "cruel and unusual" punishment.

It would be a different story if there were doubts of Taylor's guilt, new evidence etc. But there is none. Taylor is simply a lowlife scumbag who is using delaying tactics in order to avoid his just penalty--lawfully imposed by Missouri state law, a competent judge, and a fair jury of his peers.

I can't say I'm surprised to see Alito siding with the liberals, especially when you consider that flip-floppers like Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor were also nominated by Republicans.

[Nutrider99]

Lethal injection is among the most HUMANE ways to die. It is far an easier death than liver cancer, alzheimers, or most of the "natural" causes of death. Nobody in his right mind could ever call it cruel.

It IS unusual. However, if liquidating the murdering scumbags that infest our prisons was a more streamlined and expedited process, it would not be unusual either. Why should someone who rapes and kills chilren be entitled to free room and board for the rest of his life? I say we use them as forced labor until they can no longer carry the load, then we put them doiwn like the dogs they are.

[Rhino]

But he deserves special consideration. He spent the night before the murder with another man and he had no known girlfriends, so he must be homosexual, and you know how they hate needles.

[Riverboat]

so he must be homosexual, and you know how they hate needles.Indeed. They SO clash with their veins.