U know, I have never ever seen a really good looking hippy? Not from the 60's at festivals or whatever or nowadays even?

Hippies are ugly.

I guess the dresses just ain't attractive to me?

Or maybe all hippies are ugly?

The possiblity being that they wore stinky rags, never shaved, took drugs could have something to do with it

you are saying i am ugly ?





nice ... real nice

Emancipation88 said:

stereo-typer....

Man, you've got a face like a bucket of smashed crabs -

who are you to talk.

wallysafford said:

TheFrog said:

thesexofit said:

cold hearted.




Yeah Mach, Jimi was a pretty sexy hippy.

hippy*
[Edited 3/21/05 7:51am]

Cher was HAWT when she was a hippie

Bob Marley too.

oops
[Edited 3/21/05 8:49am]

thesexofit said:

What the foo'k are ya man?











Da Norwich Bomb!

Maybe i should rephrase.

I find them unattractive.

Same with skinny ass models too.

thesexofit said:

kewl

TheFrog said:

something wrong?

So you could imagine the horror I witnessed at the RNC protests.




Bunch of mangy cockroaches.

wallysafford said:

The word hippy its self is a sterotype word, at less when I hear it because people always use it to me cause I have sorta long hair and I protest or more nag about God and the government.
[Edited 3/21/05 23:29pm]

Mach said:

oooooh hell yeah the sexiest hippy ever RIP Jim

wallysafford said:

well, as you asked, & if you've got a moment, yes. Thanks for caring!

I profoundly disagree with the following pro-death penalty articles, and it irritates me that people who clearly only share a single brain cell between them insist on publishing such weak arguments and distortions of the truth:

.....
Governor Mitt Romney has charged a blue-ribbon commission with drafting a death-penalty law for Massachusetts that can be applied with 100 percent infallibility. The commission will not be able to do so -- no legal instrument can be 100 percent infallible -- but I don't blame the governor for wanting it to try.

In recent years, anti-death penalty propagandists have succeeded in stoking the fear that capital punishment is being carelessly meted out. But it's a bogus accusation: Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent. Widely trumpeted claims meant to illustrate the system's sloppiness -- that more than 100 innocent men have been freed from Death Row, for example, or that death-penalty cases have a 68 percent error rate -- fall apart under scrutiny. In fact, so exacting is the due process in these cases that the death penalty in America is probably the most accurately administered criminal sanction in the world.

The propaganda has taken its toll, however. Romney knows that many people who would otherwise support capital punishment now hesitate for fear it may lead to an awful miscarriage of justice. Hence his call for "a standard of proof that is incontrovertible" -- an uncompromising benchmark endorsed by members of the new panel. "In this work," says co-chairman Frederick Bieber, a geneticist at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, "there is no room for error."

That is a worthy goal, but it cannot be an absolute criterion. No worthwhile human endeavor is utterly foolproof. Dr. Bieber's hospital would have to shut down its operating rooms if surgeons had to guarantee their infallibility. Even at hospitals as renowned as the Brigham, patients sometimes die on the operating table because of blunders or inadvertence. Is that an argument for abolishing surgery? Should air travel be banned because innocent passengers may lose their lives in crashes? Should the pharmaceutical industry be shut down because the wrong drug or dosage, mistakenly taken or prescribed, can kill?

To make the perfect the enemy of the good is irrational and counterproductive. The benefits of surgery, air travel, and prescription drugs are enormous -- far too valuable to give up even though we know that people will die because of the fallibility of doctors and pilots and people who handle medicine. The same is true of capital punishment: The benefits of a legal system in which judges and juries have the option of sentencing the cruelest or coldest murderers to death far outweigh the potential risk of executing an innocent person. And there is this added reassurance: The risk of an erroneous execution is infinitesimal, and getting smaller all the time.

And the benefits? First and foremost, the death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits his own right to remain alive.

When a vicious killer is sent to the electric chair or strapped onto a gurney for a lethal injection, society is condemning his crime with a seriousness and intensity that no other punishment achieves. By contrast, a society that sentences killers to nothing worse than prison -- no matter how depraved the killing or how innocent the victim -- is a society that doesn't *really* think murder is so terrible.

But there is more to executions than justice for the dead. There is also protection for the living.

Though Romney didn't say so when he introduced his new commission, the real threat to innocent life is not the availability of the death penalty, but the absence of one. For every time a murderer is executed, innocent lives are saved.

The foes of capital punishment have denied for years that putting murderers to death has a deterrent effect on other potential killers. That has always flown in the face of common sense and history -- after all, wherever murder is made punishable by death, murder rates generally decline. But it also flies in the face of a lengthening shelf of research that confirms the death penalty's deterrent effect.

A recent study at the University of Colorado, for instance, finds "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons, and homicide. Specifically, each additional execution reduces homicides by five to six." A paper by three Emory University economists concludes: "Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. . . . In particular, each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10."

Comparable results have been reached by scholars at the University of Houston, SUNY Buffalo, Clemson, and the Federal Communications Commission. All these studies have been published within the past three years. And all of them underscore an inescapable bottom line: The execution of murderers protects innocent life.


(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

.....

Death Decisions
By Michael Nevin (04/08/04)

In 1965 Robert Lee Massie killed Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, California while robbing her and her husband. He received the death penalty. However, in 1972 all the death sentences in California were commuted to life, so in 1978 Massie was paroled. On January 3, 1979 Robert Massie shot and killed San Francisco liquor store owner Boris Naumoff and wounded a store clerk during yet another robbery.[1]

On February 6, 2001 San Francisco District Attorney Terrence Hallinan addressed a San Francisco court refusing to file a motion to set the execution date for Robert Lee Massie. Hallinan told the court, “The death penalty does not constitute any more deterrent than life without parole.”[2] Hallinan, a longtime and outspoken opponent of the death penalty, let his personal feelings outweigh his duty as a district attorney to carry out state law. The California State Attorney General’s office was forced to step in and set the date of execution. Although it was too late for one San Francisco liquor store owner, Massie faced the ultimate deterrent as fate would eventually catch up with him.

Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, who commuted the death sentences of all 167 Illinois inmates in 2002, addressed the California Legislature last year saying, “I don’t know what’s wrong with calling a delay for a couple years.”[3] Ryan, who is under federal indictment for taking payoffs while Illinois Secretary of State, was nominated for the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to stop the death penalty.[4] He joined illustrious company that includes California death row inmate and L.A. Crips street gang co-founder Stanley “Tookie” Williams. Williams, a convicted killer of four, was nominated twice for the same peace award.[5] I would suspect Mumia Abu-Jamal, honorary citizen of Paris and executioner of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, would lend his support for Ryan’s nomination.

Ryan called for a moratorium in California where only 10 people have been put to death since 1977, although the state has sentenced 795 people to death between 1976 and 2002. Imperial County District Attorney Gilbert Otero stated, “The state’s citizens can take solace in the extraordinary safeguards used to ensure that only those murderers who are most deserving receive the death penalty. There is no need whatsoever to impose a so-called ‘moratorium’ in California.” California limits the death penalty to first-degree murder with special circumstances, train wrecking, treason, or perjury causing execution. A Cornell University study released in March 2004 found that California has a death sentence rate of only 1.3% while the national average stood at 2.2%.[6]

Several myths about the death penalty have been reported but continue to be debunked upon closer examination. The Liebman study at Columbia University, “Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995,” released its results in 2000 claiming serious flaws in the system, including a high “error” rate. It was later revealed that the misleading “error” included any issue requiring further review by a lower court, even when the court upheld the sentence. The 23-year study found no cases of mistaken executions.[7] The numerous appeals in capital cases demonstrate the extraordinary adherence to due process. The fallacy that innocent people are being executed cannot be validated, and it is intellectually dishonest for opponents of the death penalty to perpetrate this myth. The death penalty in America is undoubtedly one of the most accurately administered criminal justice procedures in the world.

The issue of race has been cited by critics, who complain that minorities are unfairly chosen for death sentences. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up more than half of those under sentence of death. In 2002, 71 persons in 13 states were executed: 53 were white and 18 were black. The Cornell University study found that African Americans represented 41.3% of condemned inmates while they committed 51.5% of homicides.[8]

Upon closer examination, an issue can be made of the small number of executions compared to the number of people under sentence of death. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, at yearend 2002, 37 states and the federal prison system held 3,557 prisoners under sentence of death (all for committing murder), but only 71 were executed. In 1954 147 prisoners were under sentence of death, and 81 were executed. Many condemned inmates today are more likely to die of old age than lethal injection. Of the 6,912 people under sentence of death between 1977 and 2002 only 12% were executed.[9] A 2003 Clemson University study by Professor Joanna Shepherd concluded: “If criminals prefer lengthy death row waits to short ones, as their numerous appeals and requests for stays suggest, then shortening the time until execution could increase the death penalty’s deterrent impact…I find that shorter waits on death row increase deterrence. Specifically, one extra murder is deterred for every 2.75-years reduction in the death row wait before each execution.”[10] People behave economically by weighing cost and benefit. Incentive is a human behavior that cannot be overlooked when it comes to deterrence. The death penalty saves innocent lives when it is properly administered, making it a worthy punishment.

States that have the death penalty must provide extraordinary safeguards to ensure guilt. Once guilt has been established and appeals are exhausted, justice should be swift. The families of the victims deserve nothing less. The Pro-Death Penalty.com website offers a startling statistic: “The 518 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2003 had murdered at least 1111 people. That is an average of 2.14 victims per executed killer.” The people on death row made disastrous decisions while members of society. The next decision these killers should make is choosing menu items for a final meal.

.....

Nearly 18 years ago, David Brewer called up Sherry Byrne and lured her to a motel. He raped her, then stuffed her in the trunk of his car where she was trapped for 10 hours, bound and gagged with wire and duct tape.

She made a "Help Me" sign with lipstick, and several motorists saw it sticking out of the trunk and reported it to police. But Brewer drove her to a secluded farm lane. He strangled her with a necktie, broke her neck, stabbed her 14 times and slit her throat, then stuffed the body back in his trunk and drove home to his wife.

Now he sits on death row, where he belongs. After 18 years of appeals, the Supreme Court has rejected his case.

Salt in the wounds

But wait: Nine University of Cincinnati law students say his sentence should be reviewed.

Whom do we believe? Prosecutors who convicted Brewer? Dozens of judges who have been involved in the case? Or nine law students working on an Innocence Project to save killers like Brewer?

I believe Joe Byrne, who knows this case inside and out. Sherry was his wife. His scars never healed. And now a few misguided students have rubbed salt in his wounds.

"There is nobody on this planet who could look at that case and say he's not guilty," he said.

Mr. Byrne, now a New Jersey accounting executive, grew up in southwest Ohio and worked at the Chiquita Center on the day his wife of seven months was murdered. "Sherry called me at 10:15 a.m. at my office in downtown Cincinnati to excitedly relay that a friend of ours, and my college fraternity `Big Brother,' David Brewer, had just called her and invited her to come and see him and his wife, Cathy, at a motel near our home in Springdale," he recalled.

Sherry took along her puppy, "Bo." Brewer was waiting for her alone. It was the last Joe Byrne ever heard from his wife.

Brewer confessed. The case was airtight.

A lawyer game

But the UC law students applied standards used by former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, who commuted more than 160 death sentences as he left office.

The students said on Jan. 17 that 88 of the 204 men on death row in Ohio deserve "substantial review.''

That's a cruel joke to the families of victims, who have endured years of stalling appeals, flimsy technicalities and lies.

"The appeals process is needed for sure, but there is clearly a time where it becomes nothing but a game to the lawyers," Byrne said.

He says the law students' research was "extraordinarily superficial." He should know. Brewer's brutal crime meets the rape and kidnapping standard for capital punishment in Ohio. And it also meets the Illinois test, which includes torture of murder victims.

Sherry Byrne, 21, was tortured for 10 hours - raped, beaten and stuffed in the trunk of a car. Maybe the law students missed that.

Death penalty opponents who twist the truth to protect killers are also torturing victims' families.

Where's the compassion for them?

.....

George E. Pataki, Governor of New York State
USA Today - March 1997
Capital punishment gives killers good cause to fear arrest and conviction.

SEPT. 1, 1995, marked the end of a long fight for justice in New York and the beginning of a new era in our state that promises safer communities, fewer victims of crime, and renewed personal freedom. For 22 consecutive years, my predecessors had ignored the urgent calls for justice from our citizens their repeated and pressing demands for the death penalty in New York State. Even after the legislature passed a reinstatement of the capital punishment law, it was vetoed for 18 years in a row. (Twelve of those vetoes came from the pen of former Gov. Mario Cuomo.)

That was wrong. To fight and deter crime effectively, individuals must have every tool government can afford them, including the death penalty. Upon taking office, I immediately began the process of reinstating the death penalty. Two months later, I signed the death penalty into law for the most heinous and ruthless killers in our society.

Protecting the residents of New York against crime and violence is my first priority. Indeed, it is the most fundamental duty of government. For too long, coddling of criminals allowed unacceptable levels of violence to permeate the streets. They were not subject to swift and certain punishment and, as a result, violent criminal acts were not deterred.

For more than two decades, New York was without the death penalty. During this time, fear of crime was compounded by the fact that, too often, it largely went unpunished.

No more. In New York, the death penalty has turned the tables on fear and put it back where it belongs-in the hearts of criminals. Within just one year, the death penalty helped produce a dramatic drop in violent crime. Just as important, it has restored New Yorkers' confidence in the justice system because they know their government genuinely is committed to their safety.

Honest, hard-working people share my vision for a safer New York, a place where children can play outside without worry; parents can send their kids to school with peace of mind; people can turn to each other on any street corner, in any subway, at any hour, without casting a suspicious eye; and New York citizens of all races, religions, and ages pull together and stand firm against crime.

In short, we are creating a state where law-abiding citizens have unlimited freedom from crime - a state where all can raise a family and follow their dreams in neighborhoods, streets, and schools that are free from the scourge of crime and violence. We've made tremendous progress. Although the death penalty has contributed to that progress, it's just one facet of New York's broad anti-crime strategy.

Other major reforms include substantially increasing the sentences for all violent criminals; eliminating parole eligibility for virtually all repeat violent offenders; barring murderers and sex offenders from participating in work release programs; toughening penalties for perpetrators of domestic violence; notifying communities as to the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders; overturning court created criminal-friendly loopholes to make it easier to prosecute violent criminals; and allowing juries to impose a sentence of life without parole for killers.

Arthur Shawcross (left) was paroled after serving 15 years for the brutal rape and murder of two children in upstate New York. In a subsequent 21 month killing spree, he took 11 more lives before being caught. Serial killer Nathaniel White triggered this outburst from the mother of one of his victims: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." With the death penalty reinstated in New York, such ruthless killers will face execution, rather than being released from prison for good behavior.

These new laws are working. Since I took office in 1995, violent crime has dropped 23, assaults are down 22, and murders have dropped by nearly one-third. New Yorkers now live in safer communities because we finally have begun to create a climate that protects and empowers our citizens, while giving criminals good cause to fear arrest and conviction. I believe this has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty and our other tough new laws sent to violent criminals and murderers: You will be punished with the full force of the law. Shortly before the death penalty went into effect, I listened to the families of 20 murder victims as they told of their pain. No loved ones should have to go through such a wrenching experience. I never will forget the words of Janice Hunter, whose 27-year-old daughter, Adrien, was stabbed 47 times by serial killer Nathaniel White in 1992. Mrs. Hunter spoke for every family member when she said, "It's a heartache that all parents suffer. I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." Although no law can bring back Mrs. Hunter's daughter, our laws can and must take every responsible step to prevent others from enduring the heartache suffered by her and her family. Before becoming Governor, I supported the death penalty because of my firm conviction that it would act as a significant deterrent and provide a true measure of justice to murder victims and their loved ones.

I know, as do most New Yorkers, that by restoring the death penalty, we have saved lives. Somebody's mother, somebody's brother, somebody's child is alive today because we were strong enough to be tough enough to care enough to do what was necessary to protect the innocent. Preventing a crime from being committed ultimately is more important than punishing criminals after they have shattered innocent lives.

No case illustrates this point more clearly than that of Arthur Shawcross. In 1973, Shawcross, one of New York's most ruthless serial killers, was convicted of the brutal rape and murder of two children in upstate New York. Since the death penalty had been declared unconstitutional, Shawcross was sentenced to prison. After serving just 15 years-an absurd prison term given the crime-he was paroled in 1988. In a horrific 21-month killing spree, Shawcross took 11 more lives. That is 11 innocent people who would be alive today had justice been served 24 years ago; 11 families that would have been spared the pain and agony of losing a loved one.

By reinstating the death penalty, New York has sent a clear message to criminals that the lives of our children are worth more than just a IS-year prison term. Moreover, it has given prosecutors the legal wherewithal to ensure New York State never has another Arthur Shawcross. Applying the ultimate punishment Too often, we are confronted with wanton acts of violence that cry out for justice. The World Trade Center bombing and the murderous rampage on the Long Island Rail Road by Colin Ferguson are but two examples. The slaying of a police officer in the line of duty is another. To kill a police officer is to commit an act of war against civilized society.

A person who knowingly commits such a heinous act poses a serious threat to us all, for government can not protect citizens without doing everything it can to protect those charged with our safety. Police officers put their lives on the line, not knowing whether their next traffic stop or call to duty will be their last.

Under New York's death penalty law, those who murder a police officer; a probation, parole, court, or corrections officer; a judge; or a witness or member of a witness' family can face the death penalty. Someone who murders while already serving life in prison, escaping from prison, or committing other serious felonies can face the death penalty.

Contract killers, serial murderers, those who torture their victims, or those who have murdered before also can be sentenced to death. In determining whether the death penalty should be imposed on anyone convicted of first-degree murder, the bill expressly authorizes juries to hear and consider additional evidence whenever the murder was committed as part of an act of terrorism or by someone with two or more prior serious felony convictions.

New York's death penalty is crafted carefully so that only the most inhuman murderers are eligible for it. Upon the conviction of the defendant, a separate sentencing phase is conducted during which the original jury, or a new jury under special circumstances, weighs the facts of the case.

The jury must consider the defendant's prior criminal history, mental capacity, character, background, state of mind, and the extent of his or her participation in the crime. It then compares this evidence with the facts. For the death penalty to be imposed, the jury must reach a verdict unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our state lived without adequate protection for 22 years. That is 22 years too long. Now, finally, we have begun to empower New Yorkers with the legal tools they need to make their communities safe.

At the same time, we have put lawless sociopaths like Arthur Shawcross on notice. The time that Shawcross spent in prison was not punishment; it was a mere inconvenience that offered New Yorkers nothing more than a 15-year moratorium from his murderous acts.

Our resolve to end crime is only as strong as the laws we pass to punish criminals. By making the death penalty the law of the land in New York, we have demonstrated that resolve, thus strengthening the promise that our children and future generations will grow up in a state that is free of violence. The death penalty and the other tough initiatives we have passed are just the beginning of an aggressive and comprehensive plan to reclaim our streets and give New Yorkers back the fundamental freedoms they too often felt had been lost to crime and violence. We will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the lives of New Yorkers are unencumbered by violence, and that is why we will continue to pass laws that give our people unlimited Freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 30, 1996

Statement on Anniversary of Death Penalty by Governor Pataki


Since I became Governor, violent crime has declined 11 percent, with murder showing the largest decline at even more than 22 percent. New Yorkers live in safer communities today because we are finally creating a climate that protects our citizens and causes criminals to fear arrest, prosecution and punishment.

We believe that this has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty sent to violent criminals and murderers: we won't excuse criminals, we will punish them. Last September 1 marked a new era in our fight against crime. The death penalty became the law of New York State.

Shortly before the death penalty went into effect I listened to the families of 20 murder victims as they told of their pain. No family should have to go through such a wrenching experience. I will never forget the words of Janice Hunter, whose 27-year-old daughter was stabbed 47 times by serial killer Nathaniel White in 1992.

Mrs. Hunter spoke for all the families when she said, "It's a heartache that all parents suffer. I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair."

While no law can bring back Mrs. Hunter's daughter, our laws can and must take every responsible step to prevent other families from suffering the heartache suffered by Mrs. Hunter and her family. I sponsored the death penalty laws because of my firm conviction that it would act as a significant deterrent and provide a true measure of justice to murder victims and their loved ones.

I know, and most New Yorkers know, that by restoring the death penalty we have saved lives. There are loved ones alive today because we were strong enough to be tough enough to care enough to do what was necessary to protect innocent people. Preventing a crime from being a crime is ultimately more important than punishing criminals for crime after crime.

My administration has been actively monitoring our death penalty law. I have every confidence that it will continue to deter murders, will continue to enhance public safety and will be enforced fairly and justly.

We have a right to be proud. By standing strong, we have moved New York forward to becoming a safer and better place to live.

.....

The case against capital punishment relies on myth, misinformation, and misplaced emotionalism.

Renewed attacks on the death penalty are likely as the trial of accused Twin Tower bombing accomplice Zacharias Moussaoui proceeds. Federal officials have charged Moussaoui with six crimes, four of which carry a potential death sentence. Amnesty International has already issued an "urgent action alert" to call on the world to condemn this "outdated punishment" in the United States. Therefore, there is no time like the present to review some of the misinformation and faulty reasoning of capital punishment opponents.

Fallacy #1: Racism

"The death penalty is racist.... [T]he federal death penalty is used disproportionately against minorities, especially African Americans.... According to [Justice Department] figures, nearly 80 percent of inmates on federal death row are Black, Hispanic, or from another minority group." (Campaign to End the Death Penalty)

"The imposition of the death penalty is racially biased: Nearly 90% of persons executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color make up over half of all homicide victims in the United States." (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty)

"Death row in the U.S. has always held a disproportionately large population of people of color relative to the general population." (ACLU Briefing Paper on the Death Penalty)

Correction: The claim that the death penalty unfairly impacts blacks and minorities is a deliberate fraud. The majority of those executed since 1976 have been white, even though black criminals commit a slim majority of murders. If the death penalty is racist, it is biased against white murderers and not blacks.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks committed 51.5% of murders between 1976 and 1999, while whites committed 46.5%. Yet even though blacks committed a majority of murders, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports: "Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up the majority of those under sentence of death." (Emphasis added.) Whites continued to comprise the majority on death row in the year 2000 (1,990 whites to 1,535 blacks and 68 others). In the year 2000, 49 of the 85 people actually put to death were whites.

So how can abolitionists claim that the death penalty unfairly punishes black people and other minorities? The statistics they cite are often technically accurate (though not always), but they don’t mean what most people assume they mean. Abolitionists often start by analyzing the race of the victims rather than the murderers. Because most murders are intra-racial (white murderers mostly kill other whites and most black murderers kill other blacks), imposing the death penalty more frequently on white murderers means that killers of white people will more likely be executed. In essence, abolitionists playing the race card argue that black murder victims are not receiving justice because only the murderers of white people are punished with the death penalty. Death penalty proponents may consider this denying justice to black people.

Fallacy #2: Cost

"It costs more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. A 1993 California study argues that each death penalty case costs at least $1.25 million more than a regular murder case and a sentence of life without the possibility of parole." (deathpenalty.org)

Correction: While these figures are dubious at best, this argument deserves no response. Justice isn’t up for sale to the lowest bidder.

Fallacy #3: Innocence

"A review of death penalty judgments over a 23-year period found a national error rate of 68%." (ACLU Death Penalty Campaign statement)

"[S]erious error -- error substantially undermining the reliability of capital verdicts -- has reached epidemic proportions throughout our death penalty system. More than two out of every three capital judgments reviewed by the courts during the 23-year study period were found to be seriously flawed." ("Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995" by James Liebman et al.)

Correction: The major media reported this highly publicized Columbia University study uncritically when it was first released in 2000. But Reg Brown from the Florida governor’s office exploded it: "The ‘study’ defines ‘error’ to include any issue requiring further review by a lower court.... Using the authors’ misleading definition, the ‘study’ does, however, conclude that 64 Florida post-conviction cases were rife with ‘error’ -- even though none of these Florida cases was ultimately resolved by a ‘not guilty’ verdict, a pardon or a dismissal of murder charges."

Brown noted that even political overturning of death penalty cases added to the figure. "[T]he nearly 40 death penalty convictions that were reversed by the California Supreme Court during the tenure of liberal activist Rose Bird are treated as ‘error cases’ when in fact ideological bias was arguably at work." Paul G. Cassell of the Wall Street Journal explained how the 68 percent figure is deceptive: "After reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, the study’s authors (like other researchers) were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed. Thus, the most important error rate -- the rate of mistaken executions -- is zero."

Fallacy #4: DNA Evidence

"Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that capital punishment is not ‘cruel and unusual,’ 618 prisoners have been executed across the nation and about 80 have been exonerated.... Those disturbing odds beg the question: If the chances of executing an innocent person are so high, should we have capital punishment?" (ABCNews.com, March 6, 2000)

Correction: While most of those released from death row have been released for political purposes or for technical reasons unrelated to guilt, it is true that a small number have been released because DNA evidence has proven innocence.

Fallacy #5: "Cruel and Unusual"

"The death penalty: Always cruel, always inhuman, always degrading … there can be no masking the inherent cruelty of the death penalty." (Amnesty International)

"Capital punishment, the ultimate denial of civil liberties, is a costly, irreversible and barbaric practice, the epitome of cruel and unusual punishment." (ACLU Briefing Paper on the Death Penalty)

Correction: The death penalty is not unusual. All of the nations of the world have had the death penalty on the lawbooks throughout most of their recorded history, and the death penalty remains on the statute books of about half of the nations of the world. The death penalty was on the statute books of all the states of the U.S. when the Constitution was adopted. It is far more unusual to have no death penalty than to have a death penalty.

More importantly, the Founding Fathers who adopted the Bill of Rights banning "cruel and unusual punishment" had no problem with implementing the death penalty.

Fallacy #6: Pro-Life Consistency

"We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting a Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’" (U.S. Catholic Conference)

Correction: If capital punishment teaches that it’s permissible to kill, do prison sentences teach that it’s permissible to hold someone against his will, and do fines teach that it’s permissible to steal? In actuality, this fallacy confuses killing the innocent with punishing the guilty. To punish the guilty via the death penalty is not to condone the shedding of innocent blood. Just the opposite, in fact, since capital punishment sends a strong message that murder and other capital crimes will not be tolerated.

A related fallacy is that the pro-lifer who defends the right to life of an unborn baby in the mother’s womb, but who does not defend the right to life of a convicted murderer on death row, is being morally inconsistent. But there is no inconsistency here: The unborn baby is innocent; the convicted murderer is not. It is the pro-abortion/anti-death penalty liberal who is morally inconsistent, since he supports putting to death only the innocent.

Pro-lifers deceive themselves if they imagine abolishing the death penalty will lead to abolishing abortion or a greater respect for life. To the contrary, nations with the death penalty generally restrict abortion more than nations who have abolished the death penalty. Islamic nations and African nations have the death penalty and also have the most prohibitive abortion laws. By contrast, European nations have abolished the death penalty and have liberal abortion laws. Do pro-lifers really want to follow the example of Europe?

Fallacy #7: The Company We Keep

"The USA is keeping company with notorious human rights abusers. The vast majority of countries in Western Europe, North America and South America -- more than 105 nations worldwide -- have abandoned capital punishment. The United States remains in the same company as Iraq, Iran, and China as one of the major advocates and users of capital punishment." (deathpenalty.org)

Correction: The arbitrary use of capital punishment in totalitarian societies argues for ensuring that government never abuses this power; it does not argue against the principle of capital punishment, which, in a free society, is applied justly under the rule of law.

The reference to Europe is misleading. Capital punishment advocates are the ones keeping company with common Europeans, while abolitionists are merely keeping company with their elitist governments. Public opinion remains in favor of the death penalty for the most severe murderers throughout much of Europe, but elitist European governments have eliminated using capital punishment.

Fallacy #8: No Deterrence

"Capital Punishment does not deter crime. Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime." (Death Penalty Focus)

Correction: Death penalty opponents love to assume that the principal purpose for capital punishment is deterrence, possibly realizing it is a perfect straw argument. Tangible proof of deterrence alone is not a valid reason for capital punishment (or any other form of punishment, for that matter), nor is it the main rationale employed by astute death penalty advocates. As Christian writer C.S. Lewis observes, "[deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it." Inflicting a penalty merely to deter -- rather than to punish for deeds done -- is the very definition of cruelty. A purely deterrent penalty is one where a man is punished -- not for something that he did -- but for something someone else might do. Lewis explained the logical end of this argument: "If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."

Men should be punished for their own crimes and not merely to deter others. That said, the death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes.

Fallacy #9: Christian Forgiveness and Vengeance

"The death penalty appears to oppose the spirit of the Gospel. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus urges us to replace the old law of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ with an attitude of charity, even toward those who would commit evil against us (Mw 5:38-48). When asked for his opinion in the case of the woman convicted of adultery, a crime that carried the penalty of death, he immediately pardoned the offender, while deploring the action, the sin (Jn 8). It is difficult for us to accommodate Jesus’ injunction to forgive and love, to reconcile and heal, with the practices of executing criminals." (Statement on Capital Punishment by the Christian Council of Delaware and Maryland’s Eastern Shore)

"In Leviticus, the Lord Commanded ‘You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people.’ Here the Old Testament anticipated Jesus’ teaching: ‘You have heard it said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other one also.’ Paul likewise proclaimed that vengeance is reserved for God and that Christians should feed their enemies, overcoming evil with good (Rom 12:19-21)." (Christianity Today 4-6-98)

Correction: Punishment -- sometimes called retribution -- is the main reason for imposing the death penalty. The so-called "Christian" case against the death penalty can be summed up in one sentence: We cannot punish wrongdoers because punishment is always a form of vengeance.

A careful reading of the Bible does not back up the idea that punishment is synonymous with vengeance. The proportionate retribution required by the Old Testament generally replaced disproportionate vengeance. The same Old Testament that ordered "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" also prohibited vengeance. Evidently, the Hebrew scriptures view retribution and vengeance as two separate things.

In the New Testament, Jesus denied trying to overturn the Old Testament law. "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them, but to complete them." (Matthew 5:17) The apostle Paul told the Romans that revenge and retribution are different things entirely. "Never try to get revenge: leave that, my dear friends, to the retribution. As Scripture says, vengeance is mine -- I will pay them back, the Lord promises." But then just a few verses later, Paul notes that "if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers." (Romans 13:4) "Authority" refers to the state, which is empowered to put evildoers to the "sword." Paul asserts that the state’s retribution of capital punishment is the retribution of God.

By forgiving the adulterous woman, Jesus was not making a statement against the death penalty. Jesus’ enemies thought they had put Christ into a no-win situation by presenting the adulterous woman to him. If Christ ordered the woman’s release, they could discredit Him for opposing the Law of Moses. But if He ordered her put to death, then Christ could be handed over to the Roman authorities for the crime of orchestrating a murder. Either way, His opponents figured, they had Him. Christ, of course, knew the hypocritical aims of His enemies had nothing to do with justice. The absence of the man who had committed adultery with the woman "caught in the very act" must have been glaring. His rebuke to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was the perfect reply; it highlighted the hypocrisy. Christ’s response was in no way a commentary about the death penalty.

Fallacy #10: No Mercy

"Capital punishment is society’s final assertion that it will not forgive." (Martin Luther King)

"It is a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he’s got, and all he’s ever gonna have." (Clint Eastwood’s character in the movie Unforgiven)

Correction: The person opposing the death penalty on these principles opposes it from worldly reasoning rather than spiritual reasoning. The above statement by Clint Eastwood’s character in the movie Unforgiven typifies this surprisingly common "religious" objection to capital punishment. The underlying assumption is that this world and this life is all that exists. It suggests that only a hateful and vengeful person would seek to take everything from anyone.

But it is not true that most supporters of capital punishment seek to take everything from the murderers. Thomas Aquinas noted in his Summa Theologica that "if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good." The death penalty for murderers, the Catholic Church’s most famous theologian argued, was a form of retributive punishment. He explained that this "punishment may be considered as a medicine, not only healing the past sin, but also preserving from future sin." Though life may be taken from a murderer, he will be better off with the punishment because "spiritual goods are of the greatest consequence, while temporal goods are least important."

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to dawn on proponents employing this faulty reasoning that perhaps a just punishment in this world would best prepare a criminal for the next.

Mach said:

Well, maybe he was good looking, but surely Morrisson was a bit of a wanker?

Vocals - check
Frontman charisma - check
Hippy - HUH?! Arrogant alcoholic, more like.


Not washing properly and having messy hair does not a hippy make.

RocknRollDave said:

I agree.


Does anyone have this book? It's great.