Comments on: No shortage of material http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/ News and views from Maryland's Eastern Shore since 2005, and home site of the Liberty Features syndicated columnist. Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:04:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: swampcritter2 http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99711 swampcritter2 Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:53:34 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99711 ??? ???

]]> By: Marc http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99634 Marc Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:31:56 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99634 I'm not waffling -- I'm simply stating my position. I hold pro-life views, but I see the problems with banning abortion. I think the death penalty is warranted for some crimes, but I see the problems in its application. That doesn't mean I don't know where I stand. In fact, it means I probably know where I stand better than those who dismiss their opponents as being "almost always wrong." If you can't see the other side's argument then you have a very shallow view of an issue. People who disagree with you do so for very good reasons. They see the issue differently than you do and if you are to understand an issue you should be able to see why they believe what they do. You should also acknowledge when they make good points about the weaknesses in your own views. Failing to appreciate criticism leads to a very weak understanding of a subject. And the anti-death penalty crowd isn't "almost always wrong." It raises good points about the wrongfully convicted and the problems that plague our justice system. If you think prosecutors and judges don't make mistakes, then you're living in a dream world. If we are to have the death penalty then we need to make sure that it is applied only to those we are 100% sure committed the crime. I’m not waffling — I’m simply stating my position. I hold pro-life views, but I see the problems with banning abortion. I think the death penalty is warranted for some crimes, but I see the problems in its application. That doesn’t mean I don’t know where I stand. In fact, it means I probably know where I stand better than those who dismiss their opponents as being “almost always wrong.” If you can’t see the other side’s argument then you have a very shallow view of an issue. People who disagree with you do so for very good reasons. They see the issue differently than you do and if you are to understand an issue you should be able to see why they believe what they do. You should also acknowledge when they make good points about the weaknesses in your own views. Failing to appreciate criticism leads to a very weak understanding of a subject.

And the anti-death penalty crowd isn’t “almost always wrong.” It raises good points about the wrongfully convicted and the problems that plague our justice system. If you think prosecutors and judges don’t make mistakes, then you’re living in a dream world. If we are to have the death penalty then we need to make sure that it is applied only to those we are 100% sure committed the crime.

]]> By: swampcritter2 http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99627 swampcritter2 Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:53:10 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99627 Marc, You sound as though you're waffling. My initial remarks however were facetious.I think I know where you stand, I'm not sure if you do however. I never concern myself about what the pro-choice crowd, or the anti-death penalty bunch thinks, because they're almost always wrong. I never say that I am basically this, or basically that, because it sounds as though I am trying to qualify myself. I do not compromise myself or go to someone I disagree with my hat in my hand. I'm not begging for understanding, or even that my ideas be understood. I do demand that they be respected. Marc, You sound as though you’re waffling. My initial remarks however were facetious.I think I know where you stand, I’m not sure if you do however.
I never concern myself about what the pro-choice crowd, or the anti-death penalty bunch thinks, because they’re almost always wrong.
I never say that I am basically this, or basically that, because it sounds as though I am trying to qualify myself. I do not compromise myself or go to someone I disagree with my hat in my hand. I’m not begging for understanding, or even that my ideas be understood. I do demand that they be respected.

]]> By: Marc http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99614 Marc Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:35:17 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99614 Swamp, do you assume I'm pro-choice? I'm basically pro-life and basically pro-death penalty. I don't get too worked up on either issue, though. Swamp, do you assume I’m pro-choice? I’m basically pro-life and basically pro-death penalty. I don’t get too worked up on either issue, though.

]]> By: swampcritter2 http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99613 swampcritter2 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:59:56 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99613 Marc, How about we simply call the Death Penalty a Post-Partem Societal Abortion. Would that make it more palatable? Marc, How about we simply call the Death Penalty a Post-Partem Societal Abortion. Would that make it more palatable?

]]> By: Marc http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99608 Marc Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:20:44 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99608 If the compromise was a step in the right direction, it should be supported. Barring executions based solely on eyewitness testimony is a very good thing. Yes, the anti-death penalty forces want to go further. So what? This is a good reform. It should be applauded. Your view reminds me of many pro-choice people who oppose partial birth abortion bans. These folks will say that partial birth abortion is a gruesom procedure and shouldn't really be performed, but they don't support the ban because it's something that's desired by pro-life folks. Does that make any sense to you? Honestly, the best way to preserve the death penalty as an option is to make sure it's only used when there is 100% cetainty the person being executed is the right person. This reform helps to accomplish this. The sloppier the application of the death penalty, the more people who will oppose it. You've got a lot of people like me who are in favor of the death penalty in theory but who have serious questions about some of the cases of those who are on death row. If you can help to alleviate our concerns that innocent people are on death row then you can blunt the move to eliminate the death penalty. As it is, many of those with my view either already have or are considering opposing the death penalty just to ensure that no innocent person is executed. If the compromise was a step in the right direction, it should be supported. Barring executions based solely on eyewitness testimony is a very good thing. Yes, the anti-death penalty forces want to go further. So what? This is a good reform. It should be applauded.

Your view reminds me of many pro-choice people who oppose partial birth abortion bans. These folks will say that partial birth abortion is a gruesom procedure and shouldn’t really be performed, but they don’t support the ban because it’s something that’s desired by pro-life folks. Does that make any sense to you?

Honestly, the best way to preserve the death penalty as an option is to make sure it’s only used when there is 100% cetainty the person being executed is the right person. This reform helps to accomplish this. The sloppier the application of the death penalty, the more people who will oppose it. You’ve got a lot of people like me who are in favor of the death penalty in theory but who have serious questions about some of the cases of those who are on death row. If you can help to alleviate our concerns that innocent people are on death row then you can blunt the move to eliminate the death penalty. As it is, many of those with my view either already have or are considering opposing the death penalty just to ensure that no innocent person is executed.

]]> By: Michael http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99607 Michael Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:42:56 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99607 My biggest problem with this compromise is the incrementalism involved. First we eliminate eyewitness testimony. Then someday we'll have a case where the video evidence isn't clear enough or is doctored and they'll take that away, then it will be a case where the DNA evidence is mixed up somehow and that will be called into question. The key argument opponents of the death penalty like to use is that it costs more to fight the battles in court than it does to lock the felon up for decades, which I seriously doubt would be the case if the judicial process is streamlined. While I haven't read the bill in question fully, something tells me that nothing was changed about the lengthy appeals process, just further restricting the nature of the evidence which can be used. I really don't see this as a true compromise because the anti-death penalty side really didn't give up anything insofar as I know. My biggest problem with this compromise is the incrementalism involved. First we eliminate eyewitness testimony. Then someday we’ll have a case where the video evidence isn’t clear enough or is doctored and they’ll take that away, then it will be a case where the DNA evidence is mixed up somehow and that will be called into question.

The key argument opponents of the death penalty like to use is that it costs more to fight the battles in court than it does to lock the felon up for decades, which I seriously doubt would be the case if the judicial process is streamlined. While I haven’t read the bill in question fully, something tells me that nothing was changed about the lengthy appeals process, just further restricting the nature of the evidence which can be used.

I really don’t see this as a true compromise because the anti-death penalty side really didn’t give up anything insofar as I know.

]]> By: Marc http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99605 Marc Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:31:28 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99605 You'll have to explain further. If you don't disagree that eyewitnesses are unreliable and that, if the state is going to put people to death, it should be based on more reliable evidence, why blast the compromise? I think it would have been a bad thing to ban the death penalty but am quite pleased with the compromise they came up with. It improved the death penalty process while still preserving it. How is that a bad thing? You’ll have to explain further. If you don’t disagree that eyewitnesses are unreliable and that, if the state is going to put people to death, it should be based on more reliable evidence, why blast the compromise? I think it would have been a bad thing to ban the death penalty but am quite pleased with the compromise they came up with. It improved the death penalty process while still preserving it. How is that a bad thing?

]]> By: Michael http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99599 Michael Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:17:07 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99599 I don't disagree, but I saw nothing wrong with the protocol as it was. Certainly I exaggerated the example to make a point but sometimes this has to be done to promote the argument. Remember, the original intention of the General Assembly was to eliminate the deterrent altogether so this "compromise" is at best a Pyrrhic victory. I don’t disagree, but I saw nothing wrong with the protocol as it was. Certainly I exaggerated the example to make a point but sometimes this has to be done to promote the argument. Remember, the original intention of the General Assembly was to eliminate the deterrent altogether so this “compromise” is at best a Pyrrhic victory.

]]> By: Marc http://monoblogue.us/2009/04/01/no-shortage-of-material/comment-page-1/#comment-99595 Marc Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:13:10 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3894#comment-99595 I generally agree with your take on our General Assembly's activity, but I take exception to your death penalty comments. I'm in favor of the death penalty in theory. I think some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment. But there is a lot of problem with relying solely on eyewitness identification in criminal trials. Eyewitnesses are unreliable and often contradictory. If the state is going to take someone's life, it needs to be based on evidence that is far more reliable than simply the word or one or two eyewitnesses. I generally agree with your take on our General Assembly’s activity, but I take exception to your death penalty comments. I’m in favor of the death penalty in theory. I think some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment. But there is a lot of problem with relying solely on eyewitness identification in criminal trials. Eyewitnesses are unreliable and often contradictory. If the state is going to take someone’s life, it needs to be based on evidence that is far more reliable than simply the word or one or two eyewitnesses.

]]>