posted on March 2, 2005 01:53:52 PM new
KD said: If parents were actually responsible for whatever their children did while under the age of 18, I bet there would be a lot more parenting going on.
They are legally responsible until their children reach the age of majority. If they get into too much legal trouble the courts will take guardianship away from the parents and make them 'wards of the court'. Then the state becomes responsible for their actions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 2, 2005 01:57:28 PM newYou WEREN'T talking about your OWN morals/values....you were talking about the President's.
That will not change the fact that Bush and the others like him are hyprocrites. Bush (and many other like him) is preaching about moral values and the destruction of society. Well killing people is not a moral value regardless of the age or the reason why it is done. The ends do not justify the means.
As I said before the death penalty does not act as deterant so there is no value in it except the state has one less person to "take care of".
just like we don't agree on how the Bible refers to your chosen lifestyle.
When you can prove, I chose to be gay then I may give you argument some credibility.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 2, 2005 02:10:32 PM new
logan - You are leading us WAY off topic.
That will not change the fact that Bush and the others like him are hyprocrites.
By many others are you ALSO referring to those who are against the death penalty but pro-choice/pro abortion?
Bush (and many other like him) is preaching about moral values and the destruction of society. Well killing people is not a moral value regardless of the age or the reason why it is done.
I think most can see a HUGE difference between killing the unborn child and someone who has taken the life of another [or many other] people.
The ends do not justify the means. That's your opinion.....we all have them.
As I said before the death penalty does not act as deterant so there is no value in it except the state has one less person to "take care of". Again...your opinion. Many millions of Americans support the death penalty for different reasons. It's value to me is they can't hurt anyone else.
When you can prove, I chose to be gay then I may give you argument some credibility.
I have no reason/interest in rehashing what we've already discussed a million times. No gene has been found to prove that one is 'born' gay.
But you've missed my point. You choose to use the Bible and interpret it to be approving of your lifestyle. I use it to show nowhere did God, in this ten commandments say that society cannot/should not take the lives of murders.
Point = It's the same thing....how we each choose to interpret what the Bible says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 2, 2005 03:02:05 PM new
Logan, nobody deals with the problem, just the outcome. It seems most people would rather see a child fry than push for rehabilitation or making parents take part of the blame and punishment. If people think that a child's only value is in the sum of it's crimes, how can you change that way of thinking?
Linda, no gene has been found to prove a person is "born" heterosexual either.
posted on March 2, 2005 04:03:40 PM new
THE NATION
Supreme Court Bans Execution of Juveniles
The ruling will spare 72 convicts who killed before 18. The majority opinion cites 'evolving standards of decency' as well as global norms.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles Tuesday, ruling that it was excessive and cruel to execute a person who was under 18 when the crime was committed.
Juveniles are less mature than adults and, no matter how heinous their crimes, they are not among "the worst offenders" who deserve to die, the 5-4 majority said.
Three years ago, the court struck down the death penalty for mentally retarded criminals; the logic of that ruling called for a similar stance on juvenile offenders, the court said.
Tuesday's decision means that 72 convicted murderers on death rows in 12 states will be resentenced.
The ruling will also prohibit execution of defendants in pending cases — including Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the snipers who terrorized Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs in 2002.
Because he was 17 when the crimes occurred, Malvo was tried in Virginia — which permitted the execution of juveniles. But in his first trial, in Fairfax County, he was sentenced to life in prison. Until Tuesday, prosecutors hoping to win a death sentence had planned to retry Malvo in another Virginia county where one of the shootings occurred.
The Constitution bars "cruel and unusual punishments," and the majority opinion — quoting Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 — said this rule must be judged by "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
By that standard, the practice of executing young killers has become rare, outmoded and unwarranted, the majority said.
In the U.S., only Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia have executed juveniles in the last decade.
Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo and China have executed juvenile offenders since 1990, the court said, but those nations since have disavowed the practice.
"The stark reality is that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote for the majority.
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," he said. "While not controlling our outcome, [it] does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."
That comment drew a strong rebuke from Justice Antonin Scalia — another Reagan appointee — whose dissent accused the majority of changing the Constitution to fit its own shifting views of what was proper. He said international opinion should play no role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
"The court proclaims itself the sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards — and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures," Scalia said. "I do not believe that the meaning of our [Constitution] should be determined by the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners."
Scalia said the court should have allowed juries to continue to decide whether young killers deserved to die.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined Kennedy's opinion setting 18 as the minimum age for capital punishment. They noted that in nearly every state, 18 is the minimum age for voting, serving on juries and obtaining marriage licenses without parental permission.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia's dissent.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's usual swing vote, dissented separately. She said she agreed with Kennedy that the court should look to "evolving standards of decency," but she disagreed that there was a "national consensus" against executing young killers.
Since 1976, when the court upheld a new generation of capital punishment laws, the justices have been considering limits on such sentences.
In 1977, the court abolished the death penalty for crimes short of murder. Eleven years later, it ruled that capital punishment could not be imposed on anyone 15 or younger — although in 1989 it upheld death sentences for 16- and 17-year-olds.
Human rights activists and death penalty foes hailed the court's ruling Tuesday.
"This decision confirms what we all know and what science recently has proven: Kids are different," said Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. "Kids are different from adults, and by their very nature cannot qualify as the 'worst of the worst' standard used by some to justify a sentence of death."
Former President Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, also praised the outcome. "With this ruling, the United States … joins the community of nations, which uniformly renounces this practice," Carter said.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was "very encouraged" that the court was moving toward abolishing capital punishment.
Death penalty advocates were strongly critical of the ruling. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America — a coalition of law enforcement professionals — called the decision "an abomination of justice." Spokesman Kevin Watson said the decision showed "the strong need to appoint the right judges. There are some judges who want to weaken our criminal justice system and some who do not."
Kennedy rarely has been perceived as soft on crime. In 1989, he cast the key vote to uphold mandatory drug testing for certain federal government jobs, and he once delivered a 5-4 ruling that upheld a life prison term for a Michigan man convicted of his first drug offense.
He also cast the key vote to uphold California's "three strikes" law in a ruling that sent a shoplifter to prison for life.
Like Scalia, Kennedy is a Roman Catholic who says his faith strongly influences his life. But unlike Scalia, he believes the court must give a broad interpretation to the basic freedoms and liberties in the Constitution.
Two years ago, he spoke for the court in saying that gays and lesbians were entitled to dignity and respect in their private lives. His opinion struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law that allowed the arrest and prosecution of gay men for having sex at home.
Kennedy says he strongly opposes abortion personally and morally; but in 1992, he cast a key vote to preserve the basic right of women to choose abortion.
When the court took up the issue of the death penalty for juveniles, it was clear the outcome would depend on Kennedy and O'Connor. The four most liberal justices already had said they viewed the practice as archaic and unconstitutional. The three staunchest conservatives made clear their view that states and juries should decide the punishment for murder.
When Kennedy began reading his opinion Tuesday, he described the murder perpetrated by Christopher Simmons, then 17. In 1993, Simmons and two younger accomplices broke into a neighbor's home, intending to burglarize it. When the neighbor, Shirley Crook, awoke and recognized him, Simmons tied her up, put duct tape over her eyes and mouth, put her in a minivan and threw her off a railroad bridge south of St. Louis. She drowned in the waters below.
Simmons bragged about the crime, and soon was arrested and charged with kidnapping and capital murder. Prosecutors described the crime as "wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman," and the jury sentenced Simmons to die.
Two years ago, Missouri's highest court overturned that sentence because of his age at the time of the crime, forcing the Supreme Court to revisit the issue in Roper vs. Simmons.
Kennedy concluded that even the "coldblooded nature" of a crime like this did not call for execution: "When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the basic liberties, but [it] cannot extinguish his life."
posted on March 2, 2005 05:30:43 PM new
"How many of you would change your mind if you had a personal aquaintance that was sitting on death row or actually given the death penalty for a crime he did not commit."
posted on March 2, 2005 06:10:50 PM newlogan - You are leading us WAY off topic.
Please explain, because I do not think so. I have stuck to the topic of executions.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 2, 2005 07:39:05 PM new
"given the death penalty for a crime he did not commit."
And there are exactly HOW MANY documented cases of this happening?
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on March 2, 2005 09:24:18 PM new
I see no one answered replay's question either. Most likely because they don't want to admit the answer is 'very few' compared to the number that are given the death penalty.
The system isn't perfect....but it's worked for generations.
---------
And logan, once again, fails to answer my question.
He said: That will not change the fact that Bush and the others like him are hyprocrites.
I then asked: By many others are you ALSO referring to those who are against the death penalty but pro-choice/pro abortion?
Don't want to answer logansdad? Could it be that you don't want to say that many of your like-minded posters here who fully support 'abortion on demand' while you believe it's totally wrong might not like having you call them hypocrites too? I wouldn't ever expect you to 'ride' them about their positions you don't agree with. Wouldn't go over to well. Much easier to just ignore my question than to put them in the same catagory you wish to place our President in....as hypocrites.
---------------
helen's copy and paste is exactly what I've noticed recently. It's not just kennedy who is starting to speak this 'world' has a say in our Constitutional process....but one of the USSC women judges not to long ago did too.
That's exactly why I very hope this President will have the opportunity to replace one, two or three of them in the next four years...with more moderate judges who aren't so concerned with basing our decisions on what the world approves of.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 2, 2005 10:31:14 PM new
I cannot believe that this country has been herded into doing something with reasoning that "the rest of the world is doing it this way". Maybe they are but our youth, ours are not that nice or naive. Our youth stands up and blasts people away. How can we possibly think that solving our problem with a solution that doesn't apply is right? But - - - beyond that we need to be very upset that the Supreme Court has used an argument that is striking in it's line of thought. The court is supposed to "uphold the constitution" by applying it to the cases they hear. I checked twice and do not see a "everybody else is doing it" in our constitution.
posted on March 3, 2005 02:28:30 AM new
profe- Sorry it took so long to answer...
My children are grown and have turned out well. My daughter graduated from college, is a caseworker and has never been in trouble with the law. My son will probably be in a hospital for the rest of his life.
The children I see now when I venture out are, for the most part, unruly, screaming, hitting their parents and desperately NEEDING a swat on the butt. I agree there are alot of parents using excuses for not parenting their own. But for those who do, their is the threat of CPS. (And kids know how to dial a phone themselves.)
posted on March 3, 2005 04:39:52 AM new
Twig, while I'm not 100% against the occaisional swat when a kid needs it, I'd have to say that there's usually something pretty wrong with a parent whose primary discipline is corporal punishment. I see those kids you're talking about too. My feeling is that if their parents had begun from the get-go putting their needs first, and proactively set good examples, high expectations and definite behavioral expectations and consequences, the little hellions wouldn't end up needing to be spanked. I don't believe in the "Bad Seed". This isn't a boast, but I've dealt with hundreds, maybe thousands of kids and parents over the last 25+ years, and I can tell you, the apple hardly ever falls very far from the tree.
I remember reading about one of Columbine killers. His parents didn't know he was building pipe bombs in their very own basement!!
They should be in prison too.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
I see no one answered replay's question either. Most likely because they don't want to admit the answer is 'very few' compared to the number that are given the death penalty.
I am surprised the Google Queen could not do a little research on her own. I mentioned the statistics earlier but I guess you can not read Linda.
Whether you consider 118 very few or not, how would you like to be convicted of a crime that you know you did not commit? And then have to face death on top of it.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 3, 2005 06:43:02 AM newBy many others are you ALSO referring to those who are against the death penalty but pro-choice/pro abortion?
To answer your question, I would say they are hypocrites as well.
with more moderate judges who aren't so concerned with basing our decisions on what the world approves of.
And you really think that the rest of the world will look up to a country that executes its youth. What does that say about our society? That we do not care about our own children.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 3, 2005 06:55:40 AM new
And besides that...only ONE innocent person killed by the state is too many. Even those who formerly supported the death penalty are changing their opinion based on the possibility that innocent people may be executed.
posted on March 3, 2005 09:46:49 AM newJuveniles are less mature than adults and, no matter how heinous their crimes, they are not among "the worst offenders" who deserve to die, the 5-4 majority said.
And if they had a 13 or 14 year old daughter that was gang raped and killed, would they feel the same way? I doubt it.
posted on March 3, 2005 10:17:31 AM new
The list of minors committing murders goes on and on bear. Just yesterday, in Yahoo news I believe, it was reported that two youths ages 12 and 13 had murdered [assumed to have] a gentleman in his 80's. The police believe they beat him to death with their skateboard....after they had stolen his car and taken a joy ride and robbed his home. These youths don't have a conscience, imo.
------------
helen says more and more are against the death penalty. But while doing some searching of my own...I read that either 2/3 of Americans support the death penalty or 2/3 of the states still have a death penalty law. Can't remember which. :-p
----------
logan - I'm pleased to see you say what you did about the hyrocrites on the left being the same, in your opinion.
Being the queen of search, as you say , I pulled up the Department of Justice website to get more accurate information and stats. Here's part of what their site says:
From January 1, 1977, through December 31, 2003, stats for 2004 don't appear to be available yet. 32 states and the federal government executed 885 prisoners.
Of the 7,061 people under a death sentence between 1977 and 2003, 12 percent were executed, 4 percent died by causes other than execution, 36 percent were removed from death row for various reasons and 48 percent were still on death row as of last December 31.
posted on March 3, 2005 10:30:57 AM new
Here's the latest poll I could find...in a hurry...on who supports the death penalty and by how much.
---
WHO SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY?
By Joseph Carroll, Gallup Poll Assistant Editor
November 16, 2004
Since 1936, Gallup has been asking Americans, "Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?" The percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty has fluctuated significantly over the years, ranging from a low of 42% in 1966, during a revival of the anti-death penalty movement, to a high of 80% in 1994.
More recently, public opinion on the death penalty has been more stable, with upward of two in three Americans supporting it.
Gallup has asked Americans this question at least twice a year since 2001. To examine responses to this question more closely, Gallup combined the results of the nine surveys that asked this question from 2001 through 2004 on a year-by-year basis*.
Overall, the data show that 67% of Americans supported the death penalty for convicted murderers in 2001. This percentage increased slightly to 71% in 2002, before dropping back to 67% in 2003. Results for this year show essentially no change since last year.
Politics and Capital Punishment
[bRepublicans' and Democrats' opinions on the death penalty differ, although a majority in both groups endorses it[/b]. Eighty percent of Republicans support the death penalty, while 65% of independents and 58% of Democrats support it.
Americans who identify themselves as political conservatives are also more likely to support the death penalty than are moderates or liberals. Nearly three in four conservatives (74%) support capital punishment, compared with 68% of moderates and 54% of liberals.
Men vs. Women on the Death Penalty
Although a majority of both men and women support the death penalty, men are much more likely to do so than are women. More than 7 in 10 men (74%) support the death penalty, compared with 62% of women.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=23&did=1266
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 3, 2005 10:34 AM ]
posted on March 3, 2005 10:31:33 AM new
Linda, and what punishment do the parents get? Maybe if your child murders someone, one parent should spend time in jail with them each night for half their sentence. Would that be enough to give parents a slap on the head to tell them to start raising their children properly or don't have any? What is it going to take?
posted on March 3, 2005 10:47:23 AM new
An excellent site that is pro-death penalty and some of their 'corrections' of those who throw out their anti-death penalty statements.
---
Our USSC said - when re-activating the death penalty:
Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."
-- Supreme Court of the United States
INNOCENCE ISSUES -- THE DEATH PENALTY
by Dudley Sharp
A thorough review finds that death penalty opponents have lied, extensively, regarding the numbers of innocents sentenced to death, that such risk is extraordinarily low and that the cessation of executions will put many more innocents at risk.
I. Innocents Released from Death Row: A Critical Review of the Claims
Death penalty opponents claim that "Since 1973, 102 (now 114) people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence," (1)
That is a blatantly false claim.
The foundation for these claims begins in 1993, when a study, released by US Rep. Don Edwards, purported to find that 48 innocents had been released from death row since 1973 (2). Rep. Edwards concluded that "Under the law, there is no distinction between definitively innocent and those found innocent after a trial."
Rep. Edwards was wrong.
The law recognizes the specific distinction between those legally innocent and those actually innocent, just as common sense dictates. Yes, there is a difference between the truly "I had no connection to the murder" cases and "I did it but I got off because of legal error" cases.
Rep. Edwards and bother death penalty opponents combine these two conflicting groups to increase their "innocents" number. This is a continuation of a pattern of deception by death penalty opponents, that had been obvious for years.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 3, 2005 10:53 AM ]
posted on March 3, 2005 10:57:42 AM new
Linda, are you aware of Barry Scheck and his DNA project? Here's the link:
"A longtime advocate for DNA testing, (Barry) Scheck co-founded The Innocence Project in 1992 with his colleague Peter Neufeld. This non-profit legal clinic has used DNA evidence to exonerate more than 150 wrongfully imprisoned people, some of whom were on death row or had been incarcerated for decades. Profiles of the exonerated can be found at:"
posted on March 3, 2005 11:00:53 AM newThe list of minors committing murders goes on and on bear. Just yesterday, in Yahoo news I believe, it was reported that two youths ages 12 and 13 had murdered [assumed to have] a gentleman in his 80's. The police believe they beat him to death with their skateboard....after they had stolen his car and taken a joy ride and robbed his home. These youths don't have a conscience, imo.
What does this tell you about the parents of these kids? What does this tell you about these kids' teachers?
If these kids are convicted and sentenced to death, what does this tell you about the way our society treats our children? Society does not value anyone's life just like these kids didn't. I guess two wrongs make a right in this case.
If you give these kids a death sentence, do you think it is going to stop future kids from doing the same thing?
Has the executions of John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy and the death of Jeffry Dahmer prevented other serial killers from comiiting their crimes?
"Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."-- Supreme Court of the United States
This was said back in the 1970's?
Don't you find it ironic that the leader of the our country is preaching his faith-based initiatives and preaching how we need moral values in this country but yet still believes in capital punishment? Where is his faith and morals when it comes to killing.
I know that Bush belives what people do in their bedrooms is more his concern than the execution of criminals.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 3, 2005 11:01:07 AM new
KD - I'm running late in meeting friends for lunch so should you reply or have another questions I'll answer it when I return.
I think part of why you think that would be a solution is because you've never had children, especially teens, of your own and haven't faced the reality of dealing with them while they go through their growing-up stages. Maybe I'm wrong...but that's truly what I believe.
Imo, if a parent hasn't instilled values or morals [taught them right from wrong] in their children's VERY EARLY lives, not waiting until they're in their teens, those kids are lost maybe forever. And as I mentioned above already....IF the parents can't control their children...the state will take away their custody.
To me, other than losing parental rights...you can't put a parent in jail for the actions of anyone other than their own actions. They didn't murder anyone....they didn't commit a crime. And it's certainly not a crime to not be a irresponsible parent. And there are some responsible parents that HAVE done their best to raise their children with values/morals who STILL will go down the wrong path.
bbl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
edited to change responsible to irresponsible.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 3, 2005 04:15 PM ]
posted on March 3, 2005 11:05:31 AM new
This is REALLY why neocons in here want (and LIKE) the death penalty.......
"""Racism and the Death Penalty
Racial and economic desparities on the Federal level have caused much debate on the use of the death penalty in recent years. Since 1988, the federal government has authorized seeking the death penalty against 211 defendants. Of the 211 approved prosecutions, 158 (75%) were against minority defendants. Of these defendants, 53 have been white, 39 Hispanic, 12 Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander, 2 Arab and 105 African American. Of the twenty inmates currently on federal death row, 17 (85%) are members of a minority group. For a summary of the cases authorized for the federal death penalty.
Of the 211 federal death penalty prosecutions authorized by the Attorney General since 1988, 75% have been against minorities:
53 white
39 Hispanic
14 Asian/Indian/Arab
105 African-American.
211 prosecutions - 158 (75%) were against minority defendants
posted on March 3, 2005 11:22:57 AM newAnd where did the parents learn their parenting skills?...from their parents!....And so it goes.
Ugh. This kind of excuse-making contributes to the problem. Just because someone had a bad parent or parents, does not doom them to being bad parents. I had an absentee father. He worked all the time and when he was home, he pretty much ignored the kids and sat in front of the TV with a bottle of Crown Royal. Every night. My father wasn't a mean drunk but he did not participate in our lives in any meaningful way.
Now I am a father to four year old twin boys. If I told you that I spent my evenings with a bottle of Crown Royal in front of the TV, who's fault would it be? After all, thats all I saw from my Dad while I was growing up.
It takes a village.
Wrong. It takes an ability to realize right from wrong and to take responsibility for your actions. I didn't need a village when I was a child to realize that spending my life on the couch in a drunken stouper was not great fathering. I chose to view my Dad's actions as an example of what not to do when I became a father. To me, its simple common sense and the realization that I am, and have always been, in control of who I am.
Well, congratulations, fiset. You were one of the rare exceptions that Profe mentioned when he said that the apple hardly ever falls far from the tree. Good for you!
I suggest that you review what was said before my response.
posted on March 3, 2005 04:02:33 PM new
helen - The profe is a "HE" not a "she".
----------
And then CF gives stats, from heaven knows where, that speak to racial issues. Totally NOT what the Department of Justice stats show. Of course using 'prosecutions vs actual convictions' does make a difference.
And the justice department says MORE than half of the capital case convictions are WHITE.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/drrace.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
edited to add:
In 2004, 59 inmates were executed, 6 fewer than in 2003.
Executions, 1930-2004
In 2003, 65 persons in 11 States and the Federal system were executed -- 24 in Texas; 14 in Oklahoma, 7 in North Carolina; 3 each in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio; 2 each in Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia; and 1 each in Arkansas and the Federal system.
Of persons executed in 2003:
-- 41 were white
-- 20 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 American Indian
Of those executed in 2003:
-- 65 were men
Lethal injection accounted for 64 of the executions; 1 was carried out by electrocution.
Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2003 had capital statutes.
Prisoners under sentence of death
The number of prisoners under sentence of death at year end 2003 decreased for the third consecutive year.
Prisoners on death row, 1953-2003
At year end 2003, 37 States and the Federal prison system held 3,374 prisoners under sentence of death, 188 fewer than at year end 2002.
Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up more than half of the number under sentence of death.
Prisoners on death row by race, 1968-2003
Of persons under sentence of death in 2003:
-- 1,878 were white
-- 1,418 were black
-- 29 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 14 were of unknown race.
Forty-seven women were under a sentence of death.
The 369 Hispanic inmates under sentence of death accounted for 12% of inmates with a known ethnicity.
Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal histories:
-- nearly 2 in 3 had a prior felony conviction
-- about 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction.
Among persons for whom arrest information was available, the average age at time of arrest was 28; 2% of inmates were age 17 or younger.
At year end, the youngest inmate under sentence of death was 19; the oldest was 88.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 3, 2005 04:11 PM ]
I wouldn't ever expect you to 'ride' them about their positions you don't agree with. Wouldn't go over to well. Much easier to just ignore my question than to put them in the same catagory you wish to place our President in....as hypocrites.
, I pulled up the Department of Justice website to get more accurate information and stats. Here's part of what their site says:
