So Huckabee thinks he can determine better than a judge and jury when a murderer should be released? That is poor judgement and very scary indeed!

Of course, MIke – I know I’ve NEVER seen an example of a judge and jury who made a mistaken judgment.

Is it “merciful” to release back into society hordes of convicted murderers, rapists and other predators? Their victims might disagree. Ask the family of Carol Sue Shields, raped and suffocated by Wayne Dumond less than six weeks after he was pardoned by Huckabee in 1997.
In ten years as governor, Huckabee issued 1,033 pardons.
Jake, I’m sure judges and juries do make mistakes from time to time, and I’m glad governors have the ability to overrule them. But Huckabee freed over 100 criminals a year, every year. What vast Solomonic insight enabled him to gauge all of these duly convicted lawbreakers either innocent or incapable of further harm?
Governors and presidents should be legally liable for crimes committed by those they free. That way, it’s not just others who will be forced to count the cost for their cavalier compassion.

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy” (Mt 5:7).
Romney’s eagerness NOT to be counted among the merciful, while invoking the name of Jesus Christ to aid his campaign, is blasphemous. Yet, Christian opinion leaders seem more concerned that Romney’s church doesn’t believe that Jesus is “one in being with the Father.”
Is the language of the Nicene Creed, which most Christians don’t understand, more important than the words of Jesus himself? No wonder the global Body of Christ is embarrassed by our witness. And no wonder atheism is more popular (and profitable) than ever.
All of us need God’s mercy– politicians, pastors, pundits … not to mention people who comment on weblogs while they should be working.
Peace.

You know, my husband says the problem with many Christians is that they don’t get past the Old Testament. They like the idea of redemption for themselves and people just like themselves, but not for anyone else. They reject what Jesus has to say.
Bush was also proud of his lack of mercy. When we get a whole lot of candidates talking about how full of vengeance they will be if we just elect them
I’m beginning to think that our collective need for vengeance and punishment of the “wicked” is our major moral problem. There is a coldness about Mitt that tells me there won’t be any more compassion for the American people than for those he considers beyond redemption.
Jesus says we will be judged on how we treat the least among us.. It is one thing to keep the community safe and quite another to create an alternative and dehumanizing culture (the prison culture) for those who have broken the law. Are people redeemed by cruelty? Justice is not about an eye for an eye. As Gandhi said, it just makes the whole world blind. It is about the possibility of redemption.
Gradually, we are being converted from both abortion and captial punishment. Perhaps someday we will see the uselessness of war. We are awakening to the violence of over consumption. God is in it all.

Vengeance and justice are part of the NT as well — the book of Revelation would be a good place to start looking.

Just a note: Clemency doesn’t equate to releasing back to the public. People are mixing up terms and getting the process confused. Also, in Arkansas, the governor doesn’t have the final approval on paroles (releasing back to public), the Parole Board does. Finally, pardons may or may not release someone from prison. Sometimes pardons are after-the-fact to allow someone who has paid their time to no longer be bound for life with the shadow of the conviction on their record.
One of the things I think is missing in the whole “get-tough-on-crime” error we live in is the lack of mercy and forgiveness for the criminal who has paid their debt to society. We wonder why we have such a high repeat rate, when ex-convicts can’t get housing, can’t get jobs, and are forever cast out of society, we need to look to how we treat them.

Mercy is no longer living in Iowa while these ads are airing.

Meanwhile, my close friend who is Mormon, is one of the most generous, forgiving and compassionate people I know–but then, she’s not a plastic action figure running for president in the Republican Party.
I must say, that regardless of the importance of this topic–mercy–it is gratifying to see that a party which purged itself long ago of anyone holding rational, moderate views has condensed down into a band of pro-torturers, liars, and extreme fundamentalists and is now in the middle of a circular firing death squad that after this election cycle, will be a power no more.

Mercy for who? Do not the people deserve to be safe from these killers and rapists? Do not the victims and their families deserve justice and closure? It seems to me the perpetrator got mercy when he was sentenced to prison and not immediately summarily executed as some countries do. Our system of justice is the merciful part in this equation. Even those sentenced to die were mercifully given trials and hearings Ad nauseam.

JLFuller:
Romney keeps the citizens safe from people like the following:
Left out of the spot is perhaps Romney’s most noteworthy pardon denial: his rejection of the request of an Iraq war veteran who was trying to become a police officer after his National Guard service.
Anthony Circosta’s offense? Shooting a friend in the arm with a BB gun as 13-year-old. The impact didn’t break the skin.
In 2005, while serving in Iraq, Circosta filed for a pardon, seeking to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer. It was denied twice, despite a favorable recommendation from the state’s Board of Pardons.
Circosta returned home a Bronze Star winner after leading a platoon in Iraq’s deadly Sunni triangle.
Romney denied any political motivation while speaking with reporters on Monday, the same day his campaign began airing its “Judgment” ad against Huckabee.
“We looked at the cases one by one, and I did not want to provide commutations to people who had had weapons violations that were going to be asking to use weapons in their new capacity,” Romney said.
He said the only reasons he would have issued a pardon or commutation would have been if he found evidence that proved a wrongful conviction, prosecutorial misconduct or errors in the judicial process.
Today, Romney uses the latter rationales for explaining why he would be open to considering a pardon for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former White House aide convicted of perjury in the CIA leak case.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_po/romney_fact_check;_ylt=At_QwyDTPIuFD2f82RB.xs2s0NUE

JL Fuller, when your time comes to give an account to God for your life, will you be satisfied with God’s mercy so long as you are “given trials and hearings ad nauseam?”
As a sinner, I need much more than due process to get into heaven. Thankfully, Jesus promises me that I’ll receive the extravagant mercy I desperately need. I believe we owe a measure of that mercy to our sisters and brothers. That doesn’t mean we should empty our prisons, but at a minimum, it means recognizing that we shouldn’t take someone who is proud of his lack of mercy and make him the most powerful man in the world.
Peace.

Mercy is not about letting dangerous people out of prison. it is about seeing those people as human beings capable of good at some level. There are those who are so broken they will never be able to live among us. But, to put them into a setting where there is never a possibility of remembering their own humanity – look at our prison systems – really look at them – they are appalling. And we like it that way.

Mr.Kuo
I find your choice of words interesting to say the least..
“One of Romney’s attacks is on Hucakbee’s granting of clemency for some prisoners…. ”
That’s not an attack. An attack would be on someones character, personal life, the church they go to etc. Romney has brought up valid points about Huckabee’s clemency record.
“One of Romney’s attacks is on Hucakbee’s granting of clemency for some prisoners.”
For SOME prisoners? Are you kidding me here? SOME would be like, maybe, 10. But 1033 you call SOME? I wonder what you would call “a bunch.”
“Focus on the single point that Mitt Romney didn’t find a single person in the entire commonwealth of Massachusetts – in prison or released from prison – who deserved a pardon, a commutation, any sort of clemency. Is that utter disregard for mercy something we want to reward?”
Another interesting choice of words. Romney didn’t “find” a single person who deserved a pardon etc. Maybe, just maybe Romney was busy digging Mass. out the mess they were in. I don’t think it’s the govenors job to go “finding” people to pardon. Huckabee on the other hand didn’t just find, he practically ran from prison to prison looking for those to grant forgiveness to. Thanks but no thanks.
“But it is hardly a badge of shame to be governor for 10 years and have a streak of mercy.”
Streak of mercy? Youve got to be kidding me right? Your streak of mercy is one hell of a big get out of jail free card. We’ve only hit the tip of the iceburg with the “stories” behind all these “streaks of mercy” as you call it. How many of them were “saved” by a preacher that was a friend of a friend of a friend?
Maybe if your family has had a life taken because someone decided one afternoon to kill you’d see things differently. It is gross on too many levels that one would use their power to let a murderer out because he thought they deserved forgiveness. Not his to decide in my eyes. Most evangelicals I know do not wish to talk about Huckabees record in that regard. Why? Because it can’t be justified. There are just too many. Period. YOU can’t justify it either. So, you point the finger at the opponent and say “look who isn’t compassionate enough, he must not be a good christian, oh, that’s right I forgot, he’s not even a christian is he?”
“Romney should apologize for this lack of mercy”
No sir, the apology should be from Huckabee. His mercy came at the cost of 2 women’s lives. But you forgot to include that in your article today didn’t you?

Gurban, from my perspective the problem we keep running into as a country is the inability to distinguish. We want all prisoners to stay locked up, assuming they’re guilty. We want all terror suspects tortured and locked away, assuming they’re guilty. We seem to need a death penalty for undocumented immigrants.
I certainly wouldn’t want to give the impression that I’m comfortable with Huckabee’s clemency habit. I have a big problem if conversion to Christianity was considered a plus and conversion to Islam was not, for example. But at least with a number greater than zero, you can hope individual cases were considered individually and thoughtfully. With zero, that’s a tough case to make.

Oh, and one thing I’d add to the above. The case you refer to sounds BAD. It sounds like a man was released to kill and rape because partisans who think there’s an entitlement on Earth for Christian Republicans whined and got Huckabee’s support which led to tworapes and deaths. If that’s the case, Huckabee deserves to lose the nomination over that, in my opinion. I don’t know yet how accurate all of that is, but I agree that if the story is as described, he’s not fit for the Presidency.
But more generally, people make decisions every day and sometimes terrible things happen as a result. The fact that Huckabee pardoned 1033 people and one went on to kill does not, by itself, make him unfit for the office. Again, that’s my opinion, but we sure waste a lot trying to never be wrong.

So the deal here is that while Huckabee and Romney beat each other’s brains out with Bibles and Books of Mormon, and maybe land a few below the belt punches as well, the boys in the back room have decided that perhaps McCain isn’t such a loose cannon after all. In fact, maybe he’s a tame cannon. He drank his Iraq Kool-Aide…he’s okay after all.
Look for the smart GOP money to desert the Battle of the Religious Nut Jobs and board the Straight Talk Express.

John15: The issue in the Drummond case is not that the bad guy went on and killed 2 people. The issue is that the Huck intervened on his behalf at the urging of many Republic faithful who felt he (Drummond) had been railroaded b/c his first victim was a DISTANT relation to Bill Clinton. The issue is that the Huck allegedly put pressure on the clemency board to grant clemency.
And Hear, Hear to Doug: “But at least with a number greater than zero, you can hope individual cases were considered individually and thoughtfully. With zero, that’s a tough case to make.” It is clear that Romney was afraid of Willy Horton and that is what drove him.
It seems as if the Republic party base is pushing each of its candidates to be meaner than the next. (Yes, I say that as a Democrat.)

“But more generally, people make decisions every day and sometimes terrible things happen as a result. The fact that Huckabee pardoned 1033 people and one went on to kill does not, by itself, make him unfit for the office. Again, that’s my opinion, but we sure waste a lot trying to never be wrong.”
Michael Dukakis has to be laughing at this situation.

A pardon is an extraordinary remedy. If a governor is truly justified in granting over a thousand pardons, there must be either something grossly amiss in the state’s judicial system or misuse of this remedy. Either way, it does not reflect well on a presidential candidate.
As for Romney, it would seem unlikely that his state’s judicial system is that good that there are no worthy cases for pardon. Would seem he took a stand against pardons across the board. This also demonstrates perhaps an unyeilding attitude not suitable for a president.
Both situations are extremes and I doubt that they have anything to do with the concept of mercy, but rather politics.

“Do Americans really want a president who is so merciless, so unforgiving that he wouldn’t grant a pardon or clemency to a single prisoner?”
YES!
Why do you think the majority of people voted to re-elect George W. Bush? According to polls, why did the majority of Evangelicals vote to re-elect him when there was no real justification for war with Iraq. Most conservative estimates put the Iraqi civilian death toll @ 30,000+.
Why do Republicans want to deny low income children health coverage under the S-Chip program?
“It seems as if the Republic party base is pushing each of its candidates to be meaner than the next.”
If Huckabee starts to seem calculating he’s only gonna turn off average people from the Evangelical message more.
I do find it interesting that Evangelicals and Republicans have become obtuse about Bush. He’s probably done a lot to turn away average Joes from Evangelical Christianity… more than any liberal educator or Hollywood type.

That’s the Mitt we got to know so well here in the Bay State. He achieves perfection in a whole variety of ways, few of them truly pleasing or compassionate.
IIRC Bush also had a perfect or near-perfect record of no pardons in Texas.

Another problem with the ad is that there is a fundamental inconsistency within it. He starts off by saying that both he and Huckabee oppose abortion and gay marriage, implying that the slate was wiped clean at the beginning of the presidential primary campaign, but then he starts dredging up Huckabee’s record as governor on other issues. Romney has his own record as governor on abortion and gay marriage. Where does he get off digging up his opponent’s past while attempting to run away from his own?

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that Mitt Romney isn’t a merciful person. It’s that Romney is willing to say or do ANYTHING to win. Not just changing all his political positions, but even hurting people. There was an Iraq war veteran, bronze star recipient, who wanted to be a cop and needed a pardon for shooting a kid with a BB gun when he was a 13 yo. Romney denied it because it wasn’t good politics – he wanted to run for president saying he’d never pardoned anyone.
How can anybody, in clear conscience, considering supporting Romney in either the primary or the general?

Another problem with the ad is saying Romney was a pro-life governor. In fact, after Romney’s supposed conversion, he signed into law legislation that would use taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions. ($50 for an abortion, courtesy of the taxpayers – thanks Mitt!) The Thompson campaign has hit on that, I saw it posted in The Corner recently.

I don’t often agree COMPLETELY with your posts, but I do on this one. You hit the nail on the head. I do want to note that Romney’s add is misleading on a number of fronts, especially in how he lumps pardons and commutations together as if they are the same thing. Commutations are reductions in sentence and can happen for a variety of reasons (often because legislated minimum sentences don’t take into account the severity – or lack thereof – of crimes, or any extenuating circumstances). And pardons are unconditional, meaning that they restore certain rights unable to be recovered without them (even when released from prison). But even pardons can come after an appropriate amounts of jail time have been served. And they often do.
So what Huckabee did was often merciful, and at times courageous. If other governors did this we might see less injustice in our legal system.

David:
At least Rod Dreher is honest enough to admit he is a Huck fan, and that he dislikes Romney. (And has been most clear enough to satisfy his readers that his differences with the ex-Governor of Massachusetts are political, not religious.)
From what I can tell, Huck is doing the exact same things to Romney that Romney is doing to Huck — just under the radar and subliminally rather than in public.
Frankly — though it will probably backfire on Romney in negative campaigning-phobic Iowa — I think he’s the more honest of the two men in this fight.

The length of the U.S. political campaign process inevitably feeds this kind of stuff. A candidate has to keep themselves in the media’s eye for an eternity and we’re supposed to be surprised when they start shovelling dirt? We then critique the bejeebers out of it in time to feed the morning news shows in order to perpetuate the Monster?
Most western democracies understand that politicians are often full of bs, especially so at election time, and thankfully place some time restrictions on the process. You guys ought to try it sometime.

The shocking, and I might add disgusting, cynical and self-serving refusal of Romney as governor to pardon a decorated Iraq vet for a trival childhood incident with a BB gun– which poster James Besuden mentioned above– is documented in an AP story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19586943/
Forget ‘heretic’. How about heartless jerk.

No Mercy?
Pardons are something I have some professional experience with given I spent 20 years as a parole officer. I have actually conducted pardon investigations. Pardons are about how the offender has behaved since release as much as about his public face. Investigators should look at every phase of the applicant’s life and make a judgment about the whole person not just his appeal for forgiveness from the “system”.
In every case I investigated there was way more than what met the eye. If there was an even-handed report provided to the reviewers it would include the broadest range of behaviors and history. In the cases mentioned above, we only see the version most favorable to the petitioner’s case. His public face is not his private face. Keep that in mind. In short you don’t know enough to judge whether what you see is the real story.
For those who make snap decisions in these matters based on the public face the petitioner presents, you should hope your family is not the victim of a governor who is more interested in his public image than your safety. At least with a criminal record there is some trail to pick up if need be. Somewhere in that mess of pardon applications lurk people you do not want for a neighbor.

I just thought I’d point something out: Massachusetts doesn’t execute convicted murderers. Massachusetts doesn’t have a death row.
So, while it MAY be unfortunate that Mitt Romney didn’t grant any pardons while he was governor, it’s NOT as if anybody died as a result.

You know this is another subject that makes me cringe at the GOP. If we are to believe the media, the ‘base’ of the GOP (who unfortunately now is regarded by many Americans as the same as Evangelicals) apparently is believes lying is OK – as long as the liar is part of the GOP. Torture is OK. Pre-emptive war for no defensible reason is OK. No mercy is OK – even laudable.
I’m having a hard time putting what I’m feeling into words, I do admit. But isn’t there something wrong with this picture? We’re so afraid of EVERYTHING, we want our government to lash out at everyone (except ourselves, of course).
I hear talk about how illegal aliens are taking our jobs – when I see help wanted signs in almost every store window. We want to build a fence around this country – not 20 years after the Berlin wall came down. We want to try children as adults. We regard everyone as guilty if they are arrested. I’m starting to see those who claim to believe in a ‘strong defense’ as scared little bullies afraid of facing life.
Look, I don’t want ANY official to be stupid about clemencies or pardons. And yes, I have known people in prison ministries who have the attitude of this person has accepted Jesus so they must now be OK to be let back on the streets. I don’t want anyone let out who could be a danger to others. But you know, I also don’t want someones life ruined because a mistake was made. And I believe in second chances (I also believed those chances should be earned).
This is not a case of either/or – Either give everyone who asks a pardon or don’t give any parden at all. I think that this debate shows one of the basic flaws in the GOP. What ever happened to common sense and balance?

Charity said; “But you know, I also don’t want someones life ruined because a mistake was made. And I believe in second chances (I also believed those chances should be earned).” The reality is that people have to try really really hard over a long period of time to get an invitation to the pen. You don’t get there on the first, second, third or fourth try. No body’s innocent mistake sent them to the joint. That is a fairy tale that is not supported by the evidence.
Every convict who gets close to his parole board date finds Jesus and lines up the religious volunteers to testify on his behalf at the hearing. It is so common that it is a joke. Sex offenders and killers seem to scream the loudest when it comes to the “I am not the same person I was” routine. But they lie. They are the same person they were. It is axiomatic in the criminal justice business that criminals lie. It is part of the dynamic. It is who they are.
87% of people locked up have substance abuse problems. When they get out they go right back to it. In fact over 50% will be back with in 5 years. The best the system can hope for is the offender will commit a lesser offense next time.
Charity’s comments, while I am sure are heart felt and sincere, are part of the problem and NO part of the solution. What works is 1. Keeping offenders clean and sober by limiting their exposure to adverse influences. 2.Dealing with little problems before they get to be big problems. 3.Changing the way offenders think about who they are and how they fit in society. The outside influences are those that tell the offender he/she is not at fault and are a product of their environment and an oppressive unrelenting system. The only difference often is that some of these types provide mind altering chemicals and some don’t but the message is the same.

I have noticed a lot of stinkin’ thinkin’ in the posts above. Dave says all we want is to lock everyone up and keep them there. You know, a little research would help keep the blarney down. If you want to know what the REAL story is go the Manhattan Institute or the University of Cincinnati or the US Dept of Justice. Do a little research.

Uh, JL, would that “stinkin’ thinkin’ in the posts above” include your own?

canucklehead asks: “Uh, JL, would that “stinkin’ thinkin’ in the posts above” include your own?”
Gee, let’s hope not.

JLFuller noted that: “87% of people locked up have substance abuse problems. When they get out they go right back to it. In fact over 50% will be back with in 5 years. The best the system can hope for is the offender will commit a lesser offense next time.”
Doesn’t this suggest a pitifully ill-conceived system? Sounds to me like a colossal failure.

Skipchurch
No. Not really. People are accountable for their behavior and substance abuse is no excuse. In the real world of what works, punishment, in this case removal from the streets, may be the only way of getting the person sober long enough to implant some new ideas in his cooking brain. The problem is that we don’t have enough of the proper type of long term low security facilities where this can happen. What works requires the ability for offices to hook the offender up and toss him in the jug for a few days when he does not stay sober.
The public image is that we toss in prison and throw the key away. That image makes good TV and movies of the week but it is highly inaccurate. If an inmate is serious about changing his life there are many opportunities to do so. The stories about no such chances are just not accurate. Next to security people, the largest number of prison staff is teachers and counselors.
Think of this in terms of how you learn. I am sure you have heard that necessity is the mother of invention. That is what the Criminal Justice system attempts to do. We attempt to create a crisis in the person’s life at the same time recourses are available along with professional guidance. But, as with any human endeavor, there has to be the assurance that failure to follow through has very real consequences.
When the offender is told that his behavior his not his fault, a chink opens in the system through which the offender clamors. It allows him to get right back into the same sewer the system tried to pull him out of. Hence, Charity’s assertions are part of the problem and none of the solution.
If people really want the offender to succeed they should employ the tough love we hear about but never seem to practice. If families did the offender becomes empowered. But that takes a lot of grit on the loved one’s part to be consistent and support of what the judge, parole commission and parole officer are trying to accomplish. People who interrupt the process do not have the offender’s best interest at heart but their own.

The notional image of prison may come the exceptions rather than the rule. Most inmates are locked up for less than four years. In many states the average is two. The first six months are in diagnosis and holding facilities. After that, they are assigned to a medium or minimum custody facility depending on their risk/needs classification. They transition to the lowest custody facility within six months of their projected release. Often it is at that time the inmate has his greatest opportunity to get involved in programs that allow him to transition to the outside. This is where families and other loved ones can begin to participate in the release plan. Inmates have plans for how the will accomplish the things they and their counselors have decided will best meet the inmate’s release requirements. They are also know as terms for conditional release. That means he is still accountable to the releasing authority and can be recalled to finish serving his sentence inside.
Now, if you will, inject the “you are not at fault and have been bum beefed by the system” into the inmates thinking. How sincere do you think he will be after that?

Well, JL, I may indeed be part of the problem. I will concede that I do not have the experience or knowledge to make a judgment of whether someone deserves a pardon or clemency. Thank goodness, that’s not my job. I would like to be able to trust the people whose job it is to do a good job of it, up to and including our elected officials.
Personally, I don’t want to see sex offenders let out ever. (Actually, I think they should be put down – not for justice but to keep them from creating other predators like themselves and more prey – but I freely admit that I’m a little savage).
If 50% who are released end up back in prison, I agree with SkipChurch – the systems broken. Plus, if we have to let dangerous criminals out because there isn’t enough room – what does that say about our society and the fact that so many in our society end up in jail?
That said, the point of my post wasn’t to advocate for blanket pardons or clemencies or diss the prison system. It was to express my discomfort with the GOP and it’s frankly bizzare principles that seem to be coming out in the last 4-6 years. Where we have to keep the druggies locked up, but the people who OK torture and spying on American citizens are not to be held to ANY type of accountability.
I have a problem with the hypocrisy – that’s all.

Charity said “It was to express my discomfort with the GOP and it’s frankly bizzare principles”
The Dems passed the regs and ran the Department of Justice which codified what I spoke about. The Dems provided all the money and resources in the 60′s 70′s and 80′s that made the system what it is today. It was the Warren court and liberal majorities that made the case law which governs how prisoners are treated. The Republicans had very little to do with it. Just because the Republicans were in charge for short period don’t assume the “system” belongs to them. It began in the 1960′s with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, a Democrat animal and has been built upon by succeeding Democrat Congresses. The current system is 95% attributable to the Democrats and liberal court rulings. Check it out.

Charity said:”If 50% who are released end up back in prison, I agree with SkipChurch – the systems broken.”
No Charity, people are broken. People are incarcerated for what they have already done. The Supreme court said you can’t hold someone accountable for what they might do. No one is responsible for no one but themselves. If a free man or woman makes really bad choices time after time, knowing full well what they are doing and know full well how to stop it, how long should society allow it to go on? Responsible people who look at the entire story of each individual, giving the person every benefit of the doubt, finally decide enough is enough. For every crime a person is found guilty of, he is like to have committed several dozen others. But we can’t punish someone for the ones we don’t know of. With that knowledge, however, most people find their sympathies somewhat muted.
You are not a bad person Charity for thinking the way you do. You just don’t know enough. Don’t buy off on the hype. Look at the source. Who has an ax to grind and who makes money on the story?

Charity said ” It was to express my discomfort with the GOP and it’s frankly bizzare principles that seem to be coming out in the last 4-6 years. Where we have to keep the druggies locked up, but the people who OK torture and spying on American citizens are not to be held to ANY type of accountability.”
Suppose your city was targeted for ann attack that would likely kill thousands of people and permanently maim tens of thousands more. How far would you want someone to go to get the information that could save you your family. This is not some pie-in-the-sky thing. It is real. You, as part of your job, now have th opportunity to make that decision. What are you going to do?

It began in the 1960′s with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, a Democrat animal and has been built upon by succeeding Democrat Congresses. The current system is 95% attributable to the Democrats and liberal court rulings. Check it out.
Oh please. Before 1994, or 2002, there wasn’t such a thing as a liberal Democratic Congress.
I didn’t know the Rehnquist Court was “liberal” toward the penal system, looking at their reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, the Richardson v Ramirez travesty in 1974, and so on.
There was a peak in rates of crime and many other indicators of social disarray or degeneration around 1980-82. (Gun ownership rates, abortions, et cetera) Yeah, I’m sure the Reagan DoJ was all about coddling criminals. Actually, in the penal system the early 80s are noted for the giving up of a lot of the rehabilitative goal of incarceration, which was only limitedly implemented, and just turning it into punishment.

Jillian
Check your history my friend. Jones v. Cunningham (1963), Cooper v. Pate (1964), Talley v. Stevens (1965) and Holt v. Sarver (1969) are the foundations upon which much of the current case law is based. Holt v. Sarver (1969)actually declared the entire Arkansas prison system unconstitutional. Other more recent case law is built on these foundational findings resulting the in the landslide of prisoner rights law suits we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. Wolf established the rights prisoners had to minimal due process while inside prison. To say the Republicans are responsible for a damaged CJ system is preposterous and ill informed. All of the case law noted above was decided under Democrat presidencies and Democrat majorities in congress and liberal US supreme courts. You should also note that liberal supreme court under Chief Justice Earl Warren sat from 1953 to 1969.

Jullian said: “Yeah, I’m sure the Reagan DoJ was all about coddling criminals. Actually, in the penal system the early 80s are noted for the giving up of a lot of the rehabilitative goal of incarceration, which was only limitedly implemented, and just turning it into punishment.”
Under the US code, a 1983 action is euphemistically called the Lawyers Retirement Act for a reason. Section 1983 of the US Code declares that a petitioner who prevails on just one claim in Federal court is entitled to a minimum of attorneys fees and costs in addition to relief, if any. The ACLU and others thrive on such cases collecting hundreds of thousands or millions in attorney fees from the government. It is bread and butter for them. It is how they exist and prosper. To suggest they would not file a law suit if ANY of the previously established case law was not being strictly enforced is not reasonable.

David Kuo is well meaning but doesn’t understand the balance between justice and mercy. Mercy cannot in the end rob justice, because God has promised justice.
There is not one documented case in the U.S. of an execution of an innocent man. The reviews are thorough. Our law-based courts of justice make their decisions as the process unfolds. Why would a governor interfere with that?
The most heinous crimes committed, e.g. rape and killing of children for momentary sexual gratification. Serial killers who enjoy the very act of killing innocent people in the midst of their lives. We could go on and on. Are they not deserving of the highest punishment?
Capital punishment can, in many cases, be merciful to the criminal and to society.

I don’t have much time, but there is one thing I wanted to respond to.
Suppose your city was targeted for an attack that would likely kill thousands of people and permanently maim tens of thousands more. How far would you want someone to go to get the information that could save you your family. This is not some pie-in-the-sky thing. It is real. You, as part of your job, now have th opportunity to make that decision. What are you going to do?
This is what I HATE about what we are doing to one another. Concerns about torture being wrong is turned around with a no-so-subtle threat that it is only because people are willing to ‘torture to protect’ that I keeping my family from harm. frankly, I don’t believe torture serves a purpose, since standard police practices work better because they are more likely to get to the truth, and not just the suspect telling the torturer what they want to hear.
Second, I’ve already made that choice. Until recently, my only child was in day care in a Federal building and where I work we have had to evacuate due to bomb threats. And STILL I do NOT want people tortured on my behalf.
Say that you are right and I and/or my family are killed because torture wasn’t used. (or, if you rather ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’). Still, I would say no.
Why? Because (1) some things are flat out WRONG, and (2) when we resort to that level, we become the very thing we claim to be fighting (3) what we do should not be about their behavior, but about ours. Frankly, I am better than that, and (3) there are worse things in this life than death – and losing our very humanity is worse than death, IMO. My life, or even that of my child, isn’t worth the price the one who tortures pays with his/her soul.
Finally, I do not like or appreciate the not-so-subtle threat of you basically holding the safety of my family hostage to make your point. You will claim you didn’t do this, but by using this highly unlikely scenario, you tried to provoke a fear response in me, and I do not appreciate it. Can I or my loved ones die as a result of a terrorist attack? Yes – but the fact of the matter is they are much more likely to die of some young person going on a shooting rampage because his/her girl-boyriend broke up with him/her. Or because they are just nuts.
Life is not safe, it never has been. So I personally CHOOSE to not to condone torture and I choose to advocate mercy where appropriate. Not willy-nilly like to many claim of liberals – but responsibly and using the discernment God gave us all. And I will also say, that I expect justice to go with the mercy and mercy to go with the justice. And not punishment for the sake of punishment.
Micah 6:8 “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
Now I must go. But I wish all on this blog a Merry Christmas. And my you find tomorrow night a moment of “silent night, holy night.”
God bless us all.

Drigby:
No, because that would be impossible to prove after the fact. (Though I understand death penalty opponents are trying anyway in one particular Missouri case.)
But dozens of men on death row have been spared execution after new DNA evidence.
Your stance is kind of like the old Puritan idea about witches — they would weigh someone down with stones in water like Virginia Woolf; if they drowned immediately, they were innocent if dead, and at least G-d would take care of them in heaven; if they survived, then it showed they WERE a witch, and a more effective method of execution needed to be found.
Sheesh.

Choosing life or death for thousands of others is the very real choice many others have to make. Some choose to stick their heads in the sand and sigh a hearty “whatever”. Those who chose not to make that choice should be glad these other folks are willing. But that has always been the way it is. War, law enforcement, prisons are just too “icky” to think about. The “Let some other guy do all the nasty stuff so we can maintain our privileges and high moral ground” is a comfortable place to sit and watch. Well, you don’t have to get your hands dirty and you don’t have to make hard choices. Those who are have made the choices for you. But don’t you worry your little head about such things. After all, we wouldn’t want to disturb you while you sitting perched on the high moral ground. But the absolute minimum level of support ought to be a thank you. Sometimes I wonder who the real enemy is.

JLFuller:
I’ve read the whole “sheep, sheepdog, wolf” story percolating around the Internet. And, if you will note carefully, it does NOT say it is evil to be a sheep. In fact, it says it is good to be a sheep as long as you are grateful to sheepdogs (first responders and military) for protecting you from wolves. Which I am.
But you’re not talking about thanking prison guards — you’re talking about thanking the people who stick the needles in the arms of those who may or may not have murdered someone. And they, I cannot thank …(HTTP://)
community.beliefnet.com/blogs/4268

One of the issues we forget is what capital punishment does to us. It has already made us a people willing to try a person based on evidence produced and reported on the local news. And that very local news has little or no understanding of the law. For that matter, we’re going through an administration that has little or no understanding of the law. The law is too merciful. It finds people innocent when we know they are guilty – it was on the news.. WE are not people willing to allow the untrained security guys to carry and use taser guns at will. 11 people died of taser shots last year. Don’t ask any questions, talk back to an officer, move too fast, – a taser will find your way. I’ve watched SWAT teams show up two blocs away – going after schizophrenic woman who they thought had “scissors”. For God’s sake – are we silly, do we look like cartoon characters with cartoon solutions – all violent? The hardest job I can think of is that of law enforcement, but training as discipline within this profession is currently wanting.
What happens to the executioner? What spiritual, emotional, ethicial torment does that person have going?
Vengeance doesn’t work – ever. It scares people and lets their rage simmer.
There are people who should never ever be on the streets again. So, must we place such a person in a place where violence and torment are the only motivations to keep going. These already broken, brutalized and brutal human beings take training in the fine points of such brutality and then they are released. Soo smart. I believe Capital Punishment is about us, not about them. And perhaps it is our need for vengeance as a blood sport that must be addressed.

Larry
I am not sure you accurately read what I wrote. I think people who sit back and watch while other people do the dirty dangerous work, should have little to say about the issue. If people are not willing to stick their neck out where it might just get whacked but yet complain loudly about how it is done, ought not open their mouths. I might disagree a bunch with John McCain’s comments about torture but I will listen to him because he knows about it more than I do. It hasn’t changed my mind but at least I listened respectfully.
I take issue with people making the same argument whose only risk is a paper cut. The point is, do something besides talk or march in somebodies anti-this or that parade. Put your life on the line a few times and feel what it is like to wonder if this is your last day or when faced with shoot-don’t shoot situation and the consequences of taking another human life. That is cause for the disgust I feel for people who do not do the dirty dangerous stuff but like to tell others how to do it. They can have an opinion but they should keep it to themselves and just say thanks to the people doing the thgs they themselves refuse to do.