Isn’t it funny (not ha-ha funny) how life is supposedly soooooooooooooo important to the Republican Party before a person is born and so unimportant to it afterward?
Some Georgia legislators are hoping to change state law so people like Harris could be condemned to death even if only nine jurors agree on the sentence — doing away with the unanimous jury requirement in death penalty cases.
As Shelby noted, don’t let a small inconvenience like the justice system get in the way of a good execution.
Also, if the right was truely pro-life, they would put their money where their mouth is by being in favor of pre and post-natal care as well as doing whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare. It’s a sham, people like Barry Fleming are really pro-death.
Hmm, I’m trying and failing to play devil’s advocate. I guess the point a pro-death-penalty conservative would attempt to make is that an unborn baby is innocent of any crimes and is therefore undeserving of punishment. That’s all well and good, but if you are truly fighting to preserve the sanctity of life, making it easier to execute people doesn’t go very far to support that image.
What exactly is it that gives people a boner about killing other people, even criminals, anyway? I know how strong the urge for vengeance would be if someone close to me were a victim of violent crime. But the whole point of a justice system is to mete out a reasoned response. Certainly some people deserve death, but it’s not reasonable to perform executions in such an imperfect system.
Given we just had to release a guy after 22 years incarceration on a bad conviction you just have to love the sense of timing.
What exactly is it that gives people a boner about killing other people, even criminals, anyway?
The same base emotions that lead them to proclaim the horror (horror!) of an innocent aborted feutus…without contemplating or acknowledging any of the reality-based cirumstances that preceeded it.
What’s amazing to me is that pro-death-penalty pro-lifers still use the “you’re trying to play god” card with regards to abortion, but miss the irony completely when it comes to the death penalty. Principles are not something these people understand very well.
“People morally opposed to the death penalty obviously aren’t opposed to fibbing,” Fleming said Monday.
If this is his reasoning, then he has a whole list of other sentences to include in his 9-out-of-12 rendition of the law. If only nine jurors find a preponderance of evidence in a civil case, wouldn’t that just be enough? The snowball potential here is huge.
But his problem, if it is a real issue, can already be addressed.
I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that attorneys for either side in any case have all of voir dire to size up their potential jurors. Either side can ask the pool practically any question that comes to mind. And nothing says those questions can’t be rephrased and asked again, just like nothing prevents an attorney from following-up on any answer with an individual juror. So as an attorney, you ask about the death penalty. You ask again. And when they answer, read between the lines. If you’re a lawyer of any merit, shouldn’t it just be second nature to ferret out the truth — or, at least, the slant of truth that suits or does not suit your case?
Then, so armed, strike the jury as best you can. Maybe the 12 chosen will be receptive. If not, then you’ve had all the opportunity the law allows.
Oh silly, silly Rusty… you know that a lot of conservatives don’t let the legal system stand in their way!! Case in point: the president! Hell, he has proven he doesn’t need to follow the law, so why not just start changing other ones!! woo hoo!