I clearly remember the current President while campaigning stating, "I am not concerned an innocent man was executed in Texas during my governorship. The were all convicted."
This in response to evidence that 13 death row inmates in Illinois were proven innocent by DNA testing and evidence that at least three of the accused attorneys slept through most of the trial.
Being pro life this concerns me.
George W. Bush has presided over an execution in Texas almost every two weeks since his election. Why isn't that a campaign issue?
By Christopher Hitchens
August 07, 1999 | I n rather the same way as new movies are now "reviewed" in terms of their first weekend gross, new candidates have become subject to evaluation by the dimensions of their "war chest." This silly archaic expression defines other equally vapid terms like "credibility" and "electability" and "name recognition," which become subliminally attached to it.
In many cases, the crude cash-flow measure is as useful in deciding on a politician as it is in making a choice at the multiplex; you might as well see the worthless movie that everyone else has seen, or express an interest in the unbearably light "front runner," so as not to be left out of the national "conversation."
The hidden costs, alas, include a complete erosion of the critical faculties. I am as enthralled as the next person by the sheaves of money assembled for George Walker Bush. </news/feature/1999/05/06/bush/index.html> (What did he do to be shorn at birth of his Herbert?) But I'm even more fascinated by the fact that, as I write, he is about to sign his 93rd death > warrant. There was an execution on the day of his inauguration as governor of Texas, which I don't count, and there has been one every two and a half weeks or so ever since.
Part of a governor's job is to review capital cases. The staggering pace of executions in Texas means that Bush has either a) been doing little else but reviewing death sentences or b) been signing death warrants as fast as they can be put in front of him.
This may also be helping him gain some of that much needed "foreign policy experience" about which the pundits have made the occasional frown. State officials from the Philippines and Guatemala have been touring lethal chambers in the United States as part of their research into improved methods, and according to Amnesty International a Filipino official was allowed to watch a killing in Texas in 1997.
The thorny question of race -- always such a minefield for the aspiring Republican candidate -- also gets a workout by this means. Many people remember the case of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again pickax-murderess who showed -- at least by the standard of Christian fundamentalism -- signs of having been rehabilitated. Gov. Bush snuffed her in February of last year, over the protests of Pat Robertson and others.
But had he commuted her sentence, he would have been faced with executing a black woman, Erica Sheppard, who was next in line on the female death row and had foregone her appeal. . (Sheppard has since recovered her determination to appeal, and recently took part in a protest against the strip-searching of female inmates in front of male guards, another distinguishing feature of the Texas criminal justice system.)
Feb 13, '04
Many people remember the case of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again pickax-murderess who showed -- at least by the standard of Christian fundamentalism -- signs of having been rehabilitated. Gov. Bush snuffed her in February of last year, over the protests of Pat Robertson and others.
As A Proud Texan I am happy that we use the death penalty inthis state. It is a deterrent. That is one less criminal I have to think about ever being on the street again. As flor Karla Faye Tucker, she was hiding behind her "religion" to avoid her sentance. Rememeber that this lady stabbed a guy 17
times with the pickaxe and she said that she orgasmed every time it went in. Tell me she was "rehabilitated". Yeah right
Last edit by Dplear on Feb 13, '04
: Reason: really crappy keyboard
Feb 13, '04
Quote from spacenurse
I am concerned that he was certain that no innocent person was ever convicted.
I think life without parole needs to be just that. NO PAROLE! Dangerous killers and rapists must NOT be free.
I am too
but my question: where do we HOUSE THESE MONSTERS and how do we PAY FOR IT??????
we are broke as it is, budget wise. and people like me are NOT really eager to pay even more for their upkeep. Their needs are NOT my priority, I will admit. NO I do NOT condone abuses, but I they arenot at the top of my list of things/issues to spend money on here.
Let's face it: life w/o possiblity of parole means $$$$$ to the community that houses them. There is NO corrective custody going on here. If even if they WERE TO get out, (and do, as in the case of Carlie Brucia's killer), it's often as even more cunning, violent and worse criminals then when they got in. But somebody's got to pay for it if we house them for life. Who?
Last edit by SmilingBluEyes on Feb 13, '04