published Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

Lethal Injection

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
OllieH said...

That is FUNNY... in a really disturbing way.

December 2, 2010 at 12:20 a.m.
EaTn said...

The death-row inmates should not be given any more humane considerations than they gave their victims. Excruciation executions is probably warranted in most cases and to sanitize them is an injustice to the victims.

December 2, 2010 at 4:44 a.m.
woody said...

And therein lies the problem...

We, as a society, seem to be overly concerned about the welfare of someone who has been sentenced to death. Granted, there are unfortunately, a few now and again, that 'fall through the cracks', but can we, in perpetuity, sustain a prison system without "the ultimate punishment?"

It has been said, "...better 10 guilty persons go free than to unduly punish one innocent person...." Even God allowed Abraham to talk him into sparing Sodom and Gomorrah if there were five righteous people living there.

And yet, even The Creator finally realized, in some instances the death penalty is called for. And when administering His death penalty God didn't appear to be overtly concerned with humane treatment.

I say this because some need to be reminded of the less-than-humane ways in which the victims of crime are treated on a daily basis. Should we really be that concerned about putting someone to death in a more humane fashion than those they, themselves, put to death in the first place??

I think not, Woody

December 2, 2010 at 6:11 a.m.
Rivieravol said...

Why am I not surprised Bennett is more worried about the well being of the criminal rather than the victim?

December 2, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.
rolando said...

Nor should you be surprised, Riveravol.

It is Clay's job to be well as being uber-Liberal.

He succeeds rather well at both.

December 2, 2010 at 8:42 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Along Woody's line, since execution by stoning was good enough for God to have Moses use it, it'd be fine with me; the laws God gave Moses were exactly the laws Moses needed, though some things have changed since (!).

If we want to be nice, Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact magazine awhile back suggested execution by making them breathe pure nitrogen. The air we breathe is 80% nitrogen anyway.

December 2, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.
Dumbledore403 said...

I am not sure what side I am on for this subject quite frankly. On the one hand I recognize that Government has been given the right to execute wrong doers for such things as murder, and as such I don't have the problem if they are truly guilty of the crime. And there lies the rub...there has been too many cases of innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not do, and I know one person convicted wrongly is one person too many. But since there is going to be disagreement on this one Ladies and Gentlemen, let me ask for civility. There is good people that disagree on both sides of the fence on this one. And all the name calling in this world is not going to change anyone's mind.

December 2, 2010 at 9:26 a.m.
MTJohn said...

The important point that advocates for the death penalty keeping missing is this trivial matter called the U.S. Constitution. History has clearly demonstrated, affirmed by several comments already posted in this exchange, that we are unable to administer the death penalty as "justice" rather than as retribution; that we are unable to administer the death penalty fairly; and, that we are unable to administer the death penalty without significant risk of executing innocents.

December 2, 2010 at 9:32 a.m.
mmlj said...

Michigan State provides an excellent site for the topic of the death penalty. Both sides of the argument will find plenty of convincing material to defend their case. Some time at this site, including their interactive maps and their arguments for and against the death penalty, is a great educational lesson on the issue:

December 2, 2010 at 10:12 a.m.
Reardon said...

Murder is murder.

December 2, 2010 at 2:22 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn said" History has . . . demonstrated. . . we are unable to administer the death penalty as "justice" rather than as retribution; that we are unable to administer the death penalty fairly; and, that we are unable to administer the death penalty without significant risk of executing innocents."

I believe what you said is very true, MTJohn. But I don’t think those who support and advocate for the death penalty are as conscientious as you about fairness and/or as willing as you to acknowledge the kind of basic human limitations that you’ve so aptly identified.

December 2, 2010 at 2:41 p.m.
woody said...

I thought I might wait until tomorrow before 'chiming in' again, but a couple things needs to be said.

First of all, Mountainlaurel, retribution means.."Punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved...." So, what is "justice" if not retribution??

Secondly, Reardon, I can only assume that if anyone (not necessarily just you) can't tell the difference between murder and a state-sanctioned execution, the only thing left to say is ignorance is ignorance.

Peace be with you, Woody

December 2, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.
Clara said...

When my daughter was attacked and would, probably, have been killed, I was ready for retribution by my own hands. I don't think the person who did it was ever caught, although there were similar incidents in the area.

It took several weeks to analyze the anger and realize the police were trying their best.

It's about 40 years later, and I'm sure I'd feel the same if I ever met the attacker.

I am not qualified to be intirely objective on this subject.

I know, intellectually, and like Jimmy Carter in the 70's, that the death sentence does not prevent crime. It is purely retribution against a heinous act. But emotionally, I inwardly rage!

My daughter's behaviour, even before the crime, and as a child was questionable, and people will say,"She asked for it", but that isn't true.

Her family knows not where she is and what has happened to her for the past 2 years except that she attempted, with all the distorted emotions governing her behaviour, to gain a life for herself at the expense of others.

We know her 16 year old son was a truant, and now lives a suspect life alone? probably as a gang member and has lied, stolen, and cheated for years. We don't know how to help them, but hope that she has been placed in an institution and is being cared for.

Her son is somewhere in the West and probably dealing drugs to survive. He is under watch as he is only 16 and yet again a truant.

None of us could cope with them when they lived with different family members and friends for short periods. She said she gave birth to her son so that she would have someone to take care of her when she grew old.

We think a lot about them, and wonder, yet, how we could help them. They seem not to realize how much they've hurt themselves and others,

So... I withdraw!

December 2, 2010 at 7:39 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Woody - I probably should have said "revenge" rather than "retribution" in my original post.

December 2, 2010 at 7:45 p.m.
Reardon said...

Woody -- who has the intrinsic right to take another's life by force?

All the "state" is is a bunch of elected and appointed individuals -- what truly is so special about such a hodge-podge of people having the divine right to end a man's life?

December 2, 2010 at 8:09 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Woody said: "So, what is "justice" if not retribution??"

I believe the meaning of word “justice” has some connotations attached to it that the word “retribution” does not. For example, the word “justice” is most frequently used to denote a certain sense of fairness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. The word “retribution” on the other hand is more of a “eye for an eye” punishment kind of thing.

Incidentally, I note the State of Texas will be holding a hearing in December to decide whether the death penalty is unconstitutional in the state based on the disproportionately high risk of wrongful convictions in Texas:

“At a hearing scheduled for Monday, December 6, a district court in Texas will decide whether the death penalty is unconstitutional in the state based on the disproportionately high risk of wrongful convictions in Texas. This is the first time in the state's history that a court will examine the problem of innocent people being executed in a Texas capital trial.

John Edward Green, Jr., the defendant in Texas v. Green, is charged in the fatal shooting of a 34-year-old Houston woman during a 2008 robbery. According to legal documents obtained by HuffPost, Green's defense attorneys will be arguing on Monday that a number of factors in Texas's legal system increase the risk of wrongful executions there, including a lack of safeguards to protect against mistaken eyewitness identification, faulty forensic evidence, incompetent lawyers at the appellate level, failures to guard against false confessions and a history of racial discrimination in jury selection.”

December 2, 2010 at 8:47 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...


Your rage is certainly understandable and it’s unfortunate that your daughter’s attacker was never convicted. It wouldn't have taken away all the pain, but it might have helped.

December 2, 2010 at 10:16 p.m.
hambone said...

now days, someone is convicted of a hidious crime, sentenced to death, lounges around on death row for 20-25 years and is put to sleep with a painless injection.

Where's the deterrent in that?

I say, convict them fairly, give them a reasonable time for appeal and carry out the sentence with a moderate amount of pain.

Then the death penalty will not be needed as often!

December 2, 2010 at 10:56 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Woody said: "We, as a society, seem to be overly concerned about the welfare of someone who has been sentenced to death. Granted, there are unfortunately, a few now and again, that 'fall through the cracks."

Is this you way of telling us that if you should be one of those innocents who fall through the cracks you don't want any of us to be overly concerned about your welfare?

December 2, 2010 at 11:29 p.m.
fairmon said...

The death penalty may not be a deterrent but is certainly cuts down on repeat offenders. When there is no doubt as in the case of Robert Kennedy's killer, Sirhan, there should be a rapid legal processing, including appeals, and execution. What justification is there for allowing Manson to live and be supported by tax payers. Where there exist a possibility of innocence then and only then should the death penalty be withheld. The expense to tax payers to support those where no doubt of guilt exist is staggering. We are more protective of the criminal than we are of their victims. Who cares if there is pain or some extensive discomfort, their victim and the victims familiy certainly felt immense pain and suffering.

The insanity plea is the most ridiculous defense allowed. If the crime was committed because the person was insane then the death penalty should still be carried out. It is evident some degree of insanity has to exist to commit murder, aggravated rape, child molestation and other heinous crimes. I have heard nothing to convince me when the evidence leaves "no doubt" and not just "reasonable doubt" that the death penalty should not be used. If my opinion offends bleeding heart sympathizers that is just tough don't bother trying to convince me I'm wrong.

December 3, 2010 at 12:22 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"The death penalty may not be a deterrent but is certainly cuts down on repeat offenders."

I agree with the second part.

The problem with the first part is that if one is to accept that there is no deterrent effect caused by a certainty that if caught, intentionally and with aforethought, killing another humans, one will meet a ghastly end at the hands of the state, then, one should logically assume that all types of punishment are ineffective and should cease.

A punishment is a punishment, right? Some more serious and costly than others, but the same none the less.

I know you, h339, are not advocating this, I'm just pointing out the failure of logic coming from the "It's not a deterrent" crowd.

I'm all for giving everyone a fair trial and a chance to appeal a conviction, BUT, as soon as that process has been expedited to it's conclusion, put 'em down forthwith and dispense with the "humanely" crap.

On a side trail of the same logical route, suppose that a criminal were contemplating a robbery at one of two residences. If the criminal saw that one of the homes had "Security by Smith&Wesson" and "Never Mind the Dog, Beware of Owner" signs on the fence, and the other had "Peace" and "Can't We All Just Get Along" signs, which one would be the more likely target?


Deterrence due to fear of death?

December 3, 2010 at 1:27 a.m.
woody said...

Woody - I probably should have said "revenge" rather than "retribution" in my original post.

And to that MTJohn, I would have to say..we are on the same page.

Woody -- who has the intrinsic right to take another's life by force?

Well, Reardon, you and I (assuming of course we both voted for them) gave those elected officials the "right" whether "intrinsic" or not. Face it.."The Buck" has to stop somewhere.

Woody said: "We, as a society, seem to be overly concerned about the welfare of someone who has been sentenced to death. Granted, there are unfortunately, a few now and again, that 'fall through the cracks."

Is this you way of telling us that if you should be one of those innocents who fall through the cracks you don't want any of us to be overly concerned about your welfare?

Mountainlaurel, you've asked a very valid question. To which I can only say, if I were in that position, having gone through the trial and all of the appeals possible, it would come down to whether I was ready to die.

Not for the crime I didn't commit, but ready in my heart and soul to die. Not to sound too much like one of our 'brother posters' but Jesus was executed on behalf of all of us and never committed a sin. I am not likening myself to Jesus, only his set of circumstances.

It may be that being executed unjustly might be the very reason I was put on this earth. I would certainly put up a fight and would expect others to do likewise..but if after all that it came down to being executed unjustly..well a purpose is a purpose.

I guess what it all 'boils down to' is that no "truly innocent" person should ever get as far as 'death row' but should it happen, I have to believe it will serve a higher purpose.

One man's opinion, Woody

December 3, 2010 at 6:43 a.m.
Sailorman said...

harp said

"The expense to tax payers to support those where no doubt of guilt exist is staggering. We are more protective of the criminal than we are of their victims"

MSNBC aired a series called (I think) SuperMax. It was about the trials and tribulations of inmates at high security prisons. After five minutes, one wonders why these animals haven't been put down. Super Max indeed. In fact, super expensive, super dangerous for the guards, and a super waste of resources.

December 3, 2010 at 7:07 a.m.
alprova said...

I wonder if anyone seriously thinks that a criminal ever ponders for one second, the consequences of their actions and/or what may happen IF they are caught, tried, and found guilty of an offense that may result in the death penalty.

The death penalty is no more a deterrent to crime than are fines set forth to deter speeding on our highways.

While I feel that there are certain criminal acts that warrant the death penalty, if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I have little or no concern for any amount of pain or discomfort that one may experience in the final moments of their life.

But here's the thing -- If I were to sit on a jury and are asked to vote in judgment as to whether or not to end someone's life for their criminal act, I'm going to have to be very convinced that they did the crime. The evidence is going to have to be leaving little or no doubt whatsoever that they did the deed that deserves their execution.

After the Tonya Craft trial, which of course was not a death penalty case, but a guilty verdict would have derailed her life for decades, I have lost a considerable amount of faith in our system of justice, especially at the local level.

Yes, justice prevailed, but the bigger question remains. Why was that case ever prosecuted in the first place?

How many people out there HAVE been prosecuted by attorneys trying to make a name for themselves as civil servants, so that they can try further their careers with a win in a nationally publicized case under their belts?

How many people who have been put on death row in prisons across this nation did not have a decent lawyer to represent them in court during their trial? Would Tonya Craft's case had the same outcome if she had only been represented by a local court-appointed attorney?

I doubt there is one person who would say "yes."

Suspending the death penalty due to any concerns of humanity is rather silly.

I can think of more valid reasons for suspending the death penalty due to our lopsided system of justice that quite often puts people in the position of facing a jury that votes to put people to death.

December 3, 2010 at 7:14 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova, The death penalty and execution should only occur when there is no doubt as to guilt. Sirhan Sirhan was on video assassinating candidate Robert Kennedy. He should have been tried, convicted and fried immediately, if there was discomfort to him due to the method, tough stuff. Manson should have been executed years ago. There are thousands of examples such as these.

I agree the only ones that say we have the greatest justice system in the world are lawyers or those parroting lawyers. Our system is broken and I would hesitate to execute based on circumstantial evidence only. But, suspending it with no exceptions would not be wise. There are cases where I would volunteer to carry out the penalty in the prescribed form.

Requiring the prosecuting entity to reimburse the defendants legal expenses when there was a finding of innocent and shared cost if the ruling was not guilty would discourage prosecuting when evidence was not sufficient. I am suggesting there is a difference in a verdict of innocent and a not guilty verdict.

December 3, 2010 at 8 a.m.
alprova said...

Woody, no offense, but I cannot believe that God would put a life down here on Earth, who's only "purpose" is to die for a criminal offense that he or she did not commit.

The very fact that it happens at all is proof, at least in my opinion, that God does not interfere in the affairs of Earth under ANY circumstances.

For if he did, crime would not exist to begin with. Prayers would save the lives of all those about to be murdered, who ask for devine intervention. God's justice would be swift and instant.

"Purpose," pertaining to a life, is a word used by those who cannot explain that which can never be explained. None of us knows what our true purpose on Earth is, from day to day. Others use the phrase, "God's will" to explain the inexplicable.

All that aside, I hope that I am not ever accused of a crime that I have not committed. However, if I am, I hope that I will not be put to death for it, and again, no offense, I sure hope you are not on the jury, in the off-chance that you think that my purpose in life is to die for a crime I may not have committed.

December 3, 2010 at 8:10 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Woody said: "Ready in my heart and soul to die."

You’re such a “dear,” I suspect your family and friends would be in a great deal of pain if, indeed, you came to be among those who as you say “fell through the cracks” of a faulty court system.

But what should your family and friends do after you’ve been wrongfully executed? Clearly, they know of your innocence, and know only too well of the flaws within the court system? Should they seek retribution? I doubt they will be able to simply walk away, and say, oh well, Woody’s gone.

December 3, 2010 at 8:14 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Hambone said: “Where's the deterrent in that?”

And if an innocent person is wrongfully executed, hambone? What sort of penalty and deterrent do you recommend for this? Oops, hardly seems “just” to me.

And what if the “wrongful execution” involves the integrity of the prosecutors, should we prosecute the prosecutors for reckless endangerment? . . . An incompetent lawyer for gross negligence? What should we do to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

Clearly, we, as a society, must do something to deter wrongful executions. If no one has anything to lose, no one will care and wrongful executions will continue to occur.

December 3, 2010 at 8:22 a.m.
woody said...

Mountainlaurel, I can assure you, I've been thought of as quite a few things in my life, but "a dear" was probably not one of them. Honest about what I believe in, right or wrong, politically correct or not, definitely..but I'll show your sentiment to my wife and she if she laughs.

If not maybe there is hope for me yet.

Back on target, though, what my family and friends might do is out of my control. However, as I stated earlier, I would hope my unjust death would lead to a "higher purpose"..but hopefully I will never have to find for sure.

As for your comment, Alprova.. "Woody, no offense, but I cannot believe that God would put a life down here on Earth, who's only "purpose" is to die for a criminal offense that he or she did not commit...."

For murder, exclusively, I could only assume the number might be at least one and less than ??? However, it is my belief we are all 'placed' here for a specific purpose, for a predetermined amount of time, and when "it" is accomplished we pass from the scene.

Again..this is just one man's opinion or belief.. and I may be proven wrong someday, but it will not be by anyone here, I dare say..with all due respect to you and your particular beliefs.

Still friends, Woody

December 3, 2010 at 8:43 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

This was nice and fuzzy but what happened to the real news about the state of our financial affairs as a country. Now I'm not a smart man like so many on here but as I listened to both sides of the isle describe where we are and what needs to be done I believe I actually heard the word DEPRESSION from the mouth of a DEMOCRAT. It appears they all must be listeners of Limbaugh, Beck & crew and the rest of the conservative crazies because this is what they have been saying for a few years. Maybe it was just a dream. I'll watch the news until Barney Frank tells me it's O.K. After all, he was right about Fannie & Freddie, wasn't he? It sure did seem real though. And Woody was so astute to point out that what happens in theis country is nobodys fault but our own. We own the whole thing.

December 3, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "I am suggesting there is a difference in a verdict of innocent and a not guilty verdict."

There is no such thing in the United States as a "verdict of innocent."

A jury is never asked to determine if the defendant is factually innocent. They are asked to determine if the prosecution meets the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, a defendant could be quite guilty, but the prosecution failed to prove such guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trials based solely on circumstantial evidence are a good example of a likely guilty defendant, but who was not prosecuted because the evidence presented in court was not backed up with solid and undeniable evidence of a more solid nature.

Innocence or guilt of someone is a determination made in the minds of those who have formed an opinion, based on what they deem to be the relevant proof offered in court, one way or the other.

O.J. Simpson was found not-guilty by a jury, but there are very few people in this country who truly feel he was innocent of the crime of murdering two people. That being said, despite my feeling that he was guilty of the crime he was charged with, I could not vote to condemn the man to death.

Are innocent people found guilty of a crime? You bet, and more frequently that you would ever expect.

Here is but one irrefutable case that came to light a couple of years ago. Although he was not put to death for his alleged crime, he died in prison, a completely innocent man;

Please devote the time to read all three parts that came to conclusively prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was an innocent man.

December 3, 2010 at 9:01 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Lethal injection is good enough for dogs and cats at the shelters and they haven't even committed a crime. Wonder if they will stop that, too?

December 3, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...


Informative and excellent posts, thank you. Harp and Woody may be a bit cavalier now about your efforts, but I’m confident this would change if they suddenly found themselves or one of their family members among the innocent who as Woody says, “fell through the cracks.”

In fact, I suspect Harp and Woody would be thinking of you almost daily and chastising themselves over and over again for failing to see and acknowledge the flaws that exist within our legal system and the obvious risks of wrongfully executing an innocent person.

December 3, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
woody said...

Mountainlaurel, I know you mean well. I'm just confused as to which definition of "cavalier" did you have in mind for Harp and me??

[kav-uh-leer, kav-uh-leer]


1.a horseman, esp. a mounted soldier; knight. having the spirit or bearing of a knight; a courtly gentleman; gallant. 3.a man escorting a woman or acting as her partner in dancing. 4.( initial capital letter ) an adherent of Charles I of England in his contest with Parliament.

–adjective 5.haughty, disdainful, or supercilious: an arrogant and cavalier attitude toward others. 6.offhand or unceremonious: The very dignified officials were confused by his cavalier manner. 7.( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Cavaliers. 8.( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Cavalier poets or their work.

–verb (used without object) play the cavalier. be haughty or domineering.

As to whether or not I might eventually chastise myself for airing a 'different' opinion here today than that of Alprova (because I can't speak for Harp)..probably not.

And the reason is due to the fact I do acknowledge the flaws in our legal system and I also admit to not having the 'power' to do anything to change them. I can, on occasion, vote for someone who might be in a position to help change the law, but likely won't unless he or she sees an advantage to do so.

Until's up to fate..or "God's Plan", whichever you subscribe to...

P.S. I also enjoy Al's posts.. Woody

December 3, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.
sd said...

I think Clay's cartoon refers more to the irony of the definition, "cruel and unusual," rather than the basic right/wrongness of the death penalty itself.

While I'm sure there are those who, "need killin'," as the saying goes, I'll never be entirely comfortable with giving the State the authority to execute American citizens. I hate to say this, but if it were as simple as five bullets, rather than a $1 million all-expenses-taxpayer-funded trip to the afterlife, I might be more easily persuaded. But then there are the therapy bills when the members of the firing squad all develop PTSD...

The debate over the definition of "cruel and unusual," is kind of interesting. Obviously we, as a society, believe that execution should be reasonably uncomfortable--otherwise, we'd just give them tons of sleeping pills and a bottle of Jack. But we also don't want it to be too painful, either, which rules out burning, drowning, beating, quartering, and other ghastly ends.

My guess is that, aside from dying in one's sleep, death is pretty damn unpleasant no matter how you slice it. A judge has ruled that lethal injection in TN is too unpleasant, and is thus "cruel and unusual," but again, what is a reasonable level of suffering?

Of course, the second factor is the executioner. A bullet to the head, which (should) result in instant death, could be a merciful end for the condemned, but is not so merciful for the gunman. We strive for methods that punish enough, but not too much, while affecting the health and well being of others as little as possible. That's a pretty tricky set of criteria.

December 3, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL. Don't be deceived by foolishness & trickery. Go back, It's a trick!!!

December 3, 2010 at 3:29 p.m.
fairmon said...

let me try again to make myself clear. I am not advocating death for all convictions. I do think when there is no doubt as was the case with Robert Kennedy's killer and others on video tape and others that have publicly bragged about their crime there should be no hesitation to use the death penalty. I don't agree that if a jury concludes guilt when there is not conclusive evidence beyond eye witnesses the death penalty is appropriate. But, when there is "no Doubt" snuff them out.

I am in no way a violent person however If someone attacks my daughter and I know who they are I promise you the legal system will be trying me instead of them, I will be guilty of executing the attacker, I won't take the chance on the system failing to invoke the death penalty.

December 3, 2010 at 5:31 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Woody said: “Which definition of "cavalier" did you have in mind?”

A “bit” cavalier, Woody, is what I think I said. I was referencing the “haughty” definition, which I believe means, “behaving in sort of a superior, condescending way.”

I felt this way mostly because of your statement -- “We, as a society, seem to be overly concerned about the welfare of someone who has been sentenced to death. 
Granted, there are unfortunately, a few now and again, that fall through the cracks etc.” -- This just sounded a bit cavalier to me.

As to God’s plan, let me say I only know God did not set up our flawed legal system which sometimes leads to wrongful executions. No, we did this, and we need to do something to prevent it from happening. While we may not have the power to directly change it on our own, we still need to speak out about the problem. If we don’t speak out, nothing will ever change.

December 3, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

mountainlaurel is haughty. Or is it cavalier. God's plan??? So please explain what this is??? I hear many versions of this idea. Imaginary at best. There are a few that as you say "Fall between the cracks." The fact is that many of these poor unfortunate souls lives teeter on someone's political future and creating a perp. As is always the case, when the evidence points directly away from the convicted, some jackhole prosecutor spews his rhetoric about how the verdict is without any flaws and the person behind bars is guilty. It is just as difficult for a governor to commute a sentence. I don't think you would fair any better in front of a jury of your peers. At least not this crazed god fearing bunch. You would need to do more than to speak up as you say. Did you hear Walmart hates jesus and god. It's true. They gave away all their christmas trees. Just ask Bearman at FM 101. What a hole!!

December 3, 2010 at 7 p.m.
yaffay said...

If any of you are unfamiliar with The Innocence Project, visit It is a non-profit legal clinic dedicated to using DNA testing to exonerate innocent people who have been wrongly convicted. Since 2000, they have won 194 exonerations of innocent people.

The flip side of this issue is that every time an innocent person is convicted, a guilty person is roaming the streets.

I don't imagine any god wants credit for such a flawed system.

December 3, 2010 at 8:27 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339: “The death penalty and execution should only occur when there is no doubt as to guilt.”

But aren’t you missing the point, Harp3339? People are being wrongfully executed because somebody felt “there was no doubt as to guilt.” And according to the article I linked earlier on this thread, wrongful executions have occurred even in cases involving alleged eyewitnesses.

December 3, 2010 at 9:51 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Can anyone tell me what bible verse 'lethal injection' is in? Remeber this nation was founded of 'christian' values.

December 4, 2010 at 7:15 p.m.
malcomb said...

It's suppossed to be a punishment not a trip to a day spa. Light their @## up! These criminals didn't give their victims a choice as to how they wanted to die or offer to make their deaths "comfortable". They damn sure didn't get 20+ years to appeal their case. Vote these sorry liberal @## lawmakers and judges out! You can bet if their wife and/or daughter had suffered at the hands of these animals they wouldn't be so concerned for the "rights" of these criminals. What about the rights of those poor victims and their families?

December 5, 2010 at 12:35 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.