Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 16, 2014

A federal judge in Orange County ruled Wednesday that California's death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, ruled on a petition by death row inmate Ernest Dewayne Jones, who was sentenced to die nearly two decades ago. In overturning Jones' death sentence, Carney noted that the inmate faced "complete uncertainty as to when, or even whether" he will be executed. The "random few" who will be executed "will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary," Carney said. "No rational person, can question that the execution of an individual carries with it the solemn obligation of the government to ensure that the punishment is not arbitrarily imposed and that it furthers the interests of society."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

et_al

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"No rational person can question..."

Bets on who here irrationally will?

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-16 06:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The death penalty. The ULTIMATE in hypocrisy.

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-16 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

We only execute poor people we don't know.

The system is arbitrary.

Prosecutors decided it would be impossible to execute the rich OJ, so they didn't even try.

#3 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-16 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

so ...was this a cop killer...that's who west coast types usually love more than the lives of their victims....

but hasn't the SC ruled on this.....and said differently....and does that make this just a plea for attention ??

or just another liberal anti victim pile of goo...

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-16 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

FREE CHARLIE!

#5 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-07-16 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one deserves to have their life ended prematurely.

If someone commits a crime so heinous, they should be sent to prison in Alaska or some other barren wasteland. They don't get to serve time in good conditions. West Texas, New Mexico, Southern Arizona and Oklahoma are other good places.

#6 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-07-16 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not an anti-death penalty absolutist, particularly in regard to predators who kill children, but it's hard to argue with the judge's logic. If you have to wait decades before you might or might not be executed, it's a pretty capricious system. It's also incredibly expensive, and studies have shown that innocent people sometimes get executed.

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

so ...was this a cop killer...that's who west coast types usually love more than the lives of their victims....

Nobody here should explain to Afk that his question is answered in the linked story. Let's drag out his shame as long as possible.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 6

Read the story for once, BLT. Your knee jerk reactions are predictable and beyond tiresome.

#9 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-07-16 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 8

I think we should fence off a chunk of land in some godforsaken state - North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, or one of the other hellholes, and let this type of criminal make a life there amongst all the other similar convicts. Dump a pile of fertilizer in there every once in a while from an aircraft, and give them the tools to farm and bury their feces and their dead, if they choose.

No guards, no infrastructure, no tv.

Then use the billions we save for schools and other social programs that are proven to keep most people from going down this path.

#10 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-16 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

So this killer's girlfriend's mother was a cop? She shoulda armed herself.

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-16 07:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

All the Kenneth McDuffs of the US need to move to Cali to get some compassion.

#12 | Posted by aescal at 2014-07-16 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol. I had three copies of this judges ruling forwarded to me on my email at work today.

The reality of the DP in California is that the people love the idea of putting horrible evil killers to death, but are repulsed by the actual act of doing so. imo

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-16 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I say we drop them into Johnson Island, site of a couple of H bomb tests, recently the disposal site of the chemical arsenals of the US and the USSR, the most isolated place on the planet. Total exile, no visitors, no communication, dropped in with a food drop every month or so. Sort of like the set up to Escape from New York, That also might be an idea whose time is come. On maybe San Francisco, or Chicago etc.

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-07-16 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Under the Constitution, if convicted, the individual can be sold as a slave.

That would also be an easy way to deal with illegal aliens - convict and sell.

#15 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-07-16 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you have to wait decades before you might or might not be executed, it's a pretty capricious system. It's also incredibly expensive, and studies have shown that innocent people sometimes get executed.
#7 | POSTED BY RCADE

Its interesting in reflecting on why they used to burn people at the stake.

I am looking for the article. But basically they would sentence the man to a burn at the stake, but if he confessed he would only have a smaller sentence, and the person would either put up a fight, and thus be found innocent, or confess.

I will look for the article.

But the "wait" as you all it is self induced, if the person is guilty, but keeps putting up barriers, thats his or her doing.

"No rational person, can question that the execution of an individual carries with it the solemn obligation of the government to ensure that the punishment is not arbitrarily imposed and that it furthers the interests of society." - FTA

You can't argue with the proposal, but the execution of this is full of gray. I would deem the person who murders another has given up the social contract, removing them from society in all forms furthers the interest of society, and is not arbitrary. The society owes him nothing. If you want to put in on an island without food or water being supplied, so be it. But his further existence should not be the burden of the state.

The reality of the DP in California is that the people love the idea of putting horrible evil killers to death, but are repulsed by the actual act of doing so. imo
#13 | POSTED BY MODER8

I agree, and its a good thing, being overly zealous about the actual execution would be a problem. Certainly we shouldn't do it for profit (see RunningMan). But the again, we are a bunch of bleeding hearts ;)

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-16 08:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

against death penalty. always have been, so.

#17 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-07-16 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Certainly we shouldn't do it for profit (see RunningMan). But the again, we are a bunch of bleeding hearts ;)
#16 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

A Running Man reference!? MACKRIS, you've won me over for good this time!

:-D

#18 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The society owes him nothing. If you want to put in on an island without food or water being supplied, so be it. But his further existence should not be the burden of the state.

Though, you do understand why there's so many appeals, right? And why they are constitutionally protected?

We are talking about the ultimate form of punishment. The clearance rate for capital punishment was nearly 100% prior to DNA evidence. It's not dropped to something under 70%. That's a significant advancement and proves the capital punishment system is desperately broken. With so much uncertainty, we must not rely on a punishment that is so final and without recourse.

#19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

*It's now dropped to something under 70%.

#20 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

But the "wait" as you all it is self induced, if the person is guilty, but keeps putting up barriers, thats his or her doing.

I don't think you bypass some requirements. You have to pass a law that speeds of the process like many states are doing. Maybe someone else can speak to that. But, if you have rights to appeal why wouldn't you use them? And without those rights wouldn't we be killing even more innocent people than we already are?

You would think Pro-Life people would be all over this. As All Life is Sacred. Or so they say. Even the screwed up ones.

I guess being Pro-Life means never having to say you are sorry that you only care about "potential people".

Not the ones already here.

The Death Penalty should be abolished until we have a perfect Justice System that is truly impartial and never makes mistakes.

Which, of course, means the Death Penalty should just be abolished.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The death penalty needs reserved for the most vile and those definitively guilty and not those based upon politics and circumstantial evidence. Even the most liberal anti death penalty proponents inevitably see cases that they would support a death penalty. Human nature has an element of vindictiveness that will always rise to meet the cruelty of others.

#22 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-16 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some cretin just executed a two yo in front of the father here near detroit....many witnesses as it was during broad daylight....death penalty? Or feed him for the rest of his life? What to do....devolution is real.

#23 | Posted by mutant at 2014-07-16 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again, the graves of victims are ------- on by a judge.

#24 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-07-16 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

What to do....devolution is real.
#23 | POSTED BY MUTANT

How about we adhere to the Constitution. But if we do that, putting him to death will cost VASTLY more than to feed, clothe, and house him for the rest of his life. So you want to abide by the Constitution and be fiscally conservative? You had better vote against capital punishment. Otherwise, you're logically inconsistent.

Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

#25 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even the most liberal anti death penalty proponents inevitably see cases that they would support a death penalty. Human nature has an element of vindictiveness that will always rise to meet the cruelty of others.
#22 | POSTED BY ROBSON

Only depends if you believe that death is worse than life in solitary confinement. Listen, there is a reason why a high percentage of solitary confinement inmates attempt suicide. If you're really into justice for the victims, you'd support solitary confinement for life over capital punishment.

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you're really into justice for the victims, you'd support solitary confinement for life over capital punishment.

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11

If you really believed in the intent and indeed the actual wording of the US Constitution you would support neither.

Both are cruel and usual punishment.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have to pass a law that speeds of the process like many states are doing. Maybe someone else can speak to that. But, if you have rights to appeal why wouldn't you use them?

In most states, appeals in capital punishment cases are automatic and required. Texas streamlined their process, but....

And without those rights wouldn't we be killing even more innocent people than we already are?

Yes, Texas has found that it has put innocent people to death as recent as 2011.

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26. I'll probably go with what that father wants as he was only injured in the assassination of his two year old daughter...the Perp wanted it to be the last thing he saw but he was a bad shot and only injured him...this all happened during the day on the front porch of his house...shot to a head btw....a two year old....

#29 | Posted by mutant at 2014-07-16 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

At least we stopped execution for traitors....since the 1940s

#30 | Posted by mutant at 2014-07-16 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

But the "wait" as you all it is self induced, if the person is guilty, but keeps putting up barriers, thats his or her doing.

That's the point of this decision. It is not "his or her doing." It is the doing of the system. Of the 900 or so sentenced since reinstating the death penalty in CA, excluding the dozen or so executed, there are only 17 that have completed the process and awaiting execution (why they wait is another story). The delays start at the beginning. The first appeal is automatic, as in all states I think, yet it takes some 3 to 5 years for an attorney to be appointed for that first appeal. The totality of the systemic delays average 25 years. The recitation of the systemic delays is appalling. Here is the relatively short, 29 pages, opinion. documents.latimes.com

Here is another article that delves further into the numbers. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/16/ 5910101/californias-death- penalty-ruled- unconstitutional-heres-why The article links to an appendix to the court's opinion that lists the current status of the 500 or so sentenced to death between 1978 and 1997.

#31 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-16 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, Texas has found that it has put innocent people to death as recent as 2011.

There is one that I am convinced was innocent, Carlos DeLuna. Willingham and Cantu, I'm not so sure.

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-16 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess being Pro-Life means never having to say you are sorry that you only care about "potential people".

I am pro life and I am against the death penalty. I am not an anomaly either. It is just that referencing the group who is both pro-life/pro death penalty is one of the mandatory talking points for the pro-choice people. They believe it gives them some kind kind of moral high ground.

It doesn't. It is a lazy argument.

The perceived hypocracy by the way could be easily reversed. Pro-choice people could easily be accused of wishing to protecting the life of the guilty but turning a blind eye to the life of the innocent.

The truth of the matter is that the abortion issue and the death penalty are two very separate issues, with very differing kinds of arguments on all sides. Linking to the two issues and requiring some kind of consistency over simplifies both.

#33 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-07-16 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again california leads the way.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-16 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those who have the gold make the rules.

The real issue being not that the death penalty is cruel, but rather that the entire system of justice is nothing more than plastic wrap for fascism.

Steal 10 dollars from store = jail

Steal 10 TRILLION = get a bailout.

The only question is how much longer until you people stop believing all the garbage you are told.

#35 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-16 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#24 | Posted by USAF242
"Once again, the graves of victims are ------- on by a judge."

If that's all it is, it's not worth discussing.
A grave is a hole in the ground, with some carbon and calcium in it.
It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, and it certainly doesn't get offended.

#36 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-16 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am not an anomaly either.

I wish that were true.

I think that maybe YOU are more special than you think.

Pro-choice people could easily be accused of wishing to protecting the life of the guilty but turning a blind eye to the life of the innocent.

You could do that, of course, wouldn't make it any truer. I think that we are generally just more realistic about it. We the People are already turning a blind eye state sponsored killing of innocents.

And that is why We the Liberals can support abortion (individual rights) but not the Death Penalty and we want it to stop. And I would argue that an unborn live is not innocent yet as it can't be...it is only a potential life...not an actual life.

Linking to the two issues and requiring some kind of consistency over simplifies both.

#33 | Posted by Grendel

I think that denying the link requires a special kind of dissonance.

But, I do agree some pro-life conservatives (including Christians) are now actually making the case for abolishing the Death Penalty now which gives me hope.

And I think it is simpler than you think.

We should stop supporting State Sponsored (Big Government) killings in any form.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

unborn live = unborn life

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

The truth of the matter is that the abortion issue and the death penalty are two very separate issues, with very differing kinds of arguments on all sides. Linking to the two issues and requiring some kind of consistency over simplifies both.

#33 | Posted by Grendel

One can hold that all human life is sacred but that human life does not form at conception BUT you can not claim that human life is Sacred then claim you are for the death penalty.
so in this sense you are partially right

#39 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-07-16 10:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am not an anomaly either.
I wish that were true.

"The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary."
-- Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

www.usccb.org

#40 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-07-16 10:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

One can hold that all human life is sacred but that human life does not form at conception BUT you can not claim that human life is Sacred then claim you are for the death penalty.
so in this sense you are partially right

Arguments against the death penalty and against abortion can be made without recourse to religious beliefs and thus labeling life sacred.

One could simply say innocent human life should be protected and lives guilty of taking a life, forfeit their own.

My position against abortion coincides with my religious beliefs but is not dependent upon it. I would be against abortion if I were an atheist.

#41 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-07-16 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

One could simply say innocent human life should be protected and lives guilty of taking a life, forfeit their own.

One could if One were a Perfect God or One with the power to restore Life if it was later determined that one was taken inappropriately.

We are but mortal Men and as such are subject to Human error and Human prejudices.

We are currently NOT protecting innocent lives. So who forfeits a life when the State is guilty of taking one? The State?

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

One could if One were a Perfect God or One with the power to restore Life if it was later determined that one was taken inappropriately

Interesting, your objection to the death penalty is based on not whether the guilty deserve it--apparently they do for you--but on whether some innocent people my undeservedly get executed.

When the argument is put forth that pro life people should also be against the death penalty, the supposed hypocracy doesn't generally factor in the guilt or the innocence of those on death row.

I am against the death penalty for the guilty, not just to save the potentially innocent.

#43 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-07-16 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#41 | Posted by Grendel

True you could could be against abortion with out being religious.
but those who are religious and against abortion because they claim all life is sacred are made into hypocrites when they are for the death penalty

#44 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-07-17 12:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

True you could could be against abortion with out being religious.
but those who are religious and against abortion because they claim all life is sacred are made into hypocrites when they are for the death penalty

I don't want to be placed in the position of arguing against you as I am not in favor of the death penalty, but arguments exist among some religious folk in which they aver that the sacredness of life does not trump justice. In fact they believe the opposite. I don't agree, but they have arguments. It is all very complex as these terms, justice and sacredness, are not absolutely fixed values mutually agreed upon by all.

Ultimately your assertion of their hypocracy is baseless to them.

If you wish to argue it further,you will have to take it up with them.

#45 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-07-17 07:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Once again, the graves of victims are ------- on by a judge.

Your problem isn't with the judge, it's with the Constitution. If another country was making prisoners live for decades under the threat of being executed, and only some of them were randomly chosen for this fate, it would be regarded here as barbaric.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-17 07:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Once again, the graves of victims are ------- on by a judge.

Move to Iran. They don't have the problem of judges over there.

#47 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-17 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

#36-. Mutant "At least we stopped execution for traitors...since 40s."

That was self protective because they recognized we have more traitors in Congress that would sell out America for politics, donations and bribes than in the general society.

#48 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-17 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But the "wait" as you all it is self induced, if the person is guilty, but keeps putting up barriers, thats his or her doing.
#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris"

That is often not the case. Many convicts in many states have tried to waive their appeals in order to be put to death quickly, and the courts go through the appeals processes anyway.

#49 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-17 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting, your objection to the death penalty is based on not whether the guilty deserve it--apparently they do for you--but on whether some innocent people my undeservedly get executed.

No. Not all of my objections. But, it is a huge consideration. ...Personally I do not support suffering in any form. But, if I go that route it is a losing argument with conservatives in that I become a wussy liberal (and not even a Christian) in their eyes discounting and preventing any further discussion. So I direct my efforts where they will do the most good and where I can easily prove the injustices that are being done by the system. Like the costs and the fact that we are currently allowing the State to kill innocent people.

And I enjoy arguing with you much more than most Religulous folks. You are actually reasonable about it.

Ultimately your assertion of their hypocracy is baseless to them.

Exactly. But, I can still try to shame them and point out their obvious hypocrisies (at least as I see them). And as I said...I do appreciate you pointing out that there are some Conservations that are reevaluating their rigid positions on the Death Penalty.

It does give one hope that someday we will join with the 150 or so other developed countries that no longer execute their own people.

#50 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-17 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Conservations = Conservatives

#51 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-17 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm against any killing be it war, death penalty, abortion, even self-defense. I won't own a gun because I won't shoot a human.

Now, I might take a ball bat to their knees. just to render them harmless until the cops get there. But, I'm not killing anybody.

#52 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-17 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I enjoy arguing with you much more than most Religulous folks. You are actually reasonable about it.

Right back at ya.

Pax

#53 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-07-17 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pax

#53 | Posted by Grendel

Semper Fi

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-17 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is that there are many thing worse than death. When you have total control of a life you can, given the time take his mind, and tear it to pieces. The Soviets did this for decades to their trouble makers and dissidents. The VA is doing it now, to a lesser extent. No, I don't want our government to have that type of power.

#55 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-07-17 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I lean right but do not support the death penalty except for rare situations. Bundy, Dahmer and McVeigh would meet my criteria. Some of the people that Texas has put to death is pretty revolting when you dig into it. People keep killing, so the notion that it deters is invalid. Make their life miserable and let them die in prison.

#56 | Posted by CaseyJones at 2014-07-17 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some of the people that Texas has put to death is pretty revolting when you dig into it.

So, dig into it.

Make their life miserable and let them die in prison.

So you support exactly what this judge ruled unconstitutional while claiming to be anti-death penalty; "Life sentence with the arbitrary possibility of execution." Sometime, maybe, in the future, if I don't have to face it, or pay for it, I just don't want to know about it, ever...

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-18 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

I do not favor the death penalty except in a couple of very rare instances.
That said, it is difficult to call it unconstitutional when it is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

#58 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-07-18 03:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Were the Founders, who wrote the Constitution, against the death penalty? If they thought that was cruel and unusual punishment then I'm sure that it was banned in their 13 colonies - right?

One of the phrases in the Fifth Amendment: '... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,...'

Appears to acknowledge that a 'death penalty' does exist and was not considered as cruel or unusual punishment, does it not?

#59 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-07-18 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#59

You misapprehend the opinion. It does not hold the death penalty, per se, cruel and unusual. It hold the CA system that administers it, rife with delay, cruel and unusual.

Here is a critique, A weak opinion striking down California's death penalty. I had some the same thoughts as I read the opinion.

#60 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-18 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

The judge just spit on the graves of real victims.

The judge willfully and intentionally put the killers on a moral equivalent level with victims.

I realize there are scum out there that just don't care ANYTHING about their fellow man (unless the man is property), but we should work harder to keep them off the bench.

#61 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-07-18 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

i saw ol yellar put down with one bullet... why not the people who deserve it as well? its beyond ridiculous that the most damaged, damaging individuals to society are even empathized/sympathized with. Its like placating a manipulative five year old, youre just encouraging them to be them. It seems barbaric, but its inhumane to keep them locked up, and its inhumane to unleash them upon the public who deserve to be rid of them. No we cant afford to house them and med them and make sure they live a comfier life than families and people that need it.

#62 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-07-18 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort