The Campaign For DA

1.28.2015

"I Will No Longer Tinker With The Machinery Of Death" *


The DA in San Antonio announced that he (and his staff) will not seek the death penalty against a suspect accused of killing a cop.

I don't have a problem with the decision, because the death penalty needs to be abolished outright. But what a crazy system we currently have. A DA has the right, without any oversight or rules, to decide whether someone lives.   Truly.  If this DA had sought the death penalty, we can't rule out the fact that he might have received it from a jury. But it he doesn't ask for it(based upon whatever reason he wants), it cannot happen.

One guy. A government worker. He can decide to shield a man from death. Heck, it's a one man death panel.

And for the life of me, I don't know how to fix it. Other than to abolish the death penalty option all the way around.
______
* Words from the greatest dissent in the history of the Supreme Court.

31 comments:

whisky O said...

My thoughts exactly......on abortion.

Anonymous said...

Hell, let's just do away with the legal system all together. What gives us the right to take away one's freedom and lock them up just because they raped or murdered someone?

GEEZ, you are one scary person, Green.

Anonymous said...

The death penalty should be abolished.

Anonymous said...

I'm pro abortion and pro death penalty. We just need to get rid of some people. Just saying.

Anonymous said...

Most all institutions of man are consistently inconsistent. Anyone in prison should be on a work farm and work for their sustenance. It is ridiculous for the taxpayer to support a violent criminal that will not be rehabilitated for years. Anyone against the death penalty yet supports abortion is as inconsistent nut job. Some call them liberal...the point is they are unstable in all their ways.

Sam Brows said...

I'd like to better understand the reason or reasons why you (Barry) do not believe in the Death Penalty. If I understood such, then perhaps I could offer up a variety of ways to fix the system to your satisfaction.

On a base level it seems difficult for me to understand how in the wide wide world of sports we can live in a society where taking the live of another human being does NOT carry with it the ultimate penalty. I'm not talking accidents, or drunken/drug addled minds that elect to do something they later regret, I'm talking gee I'd like to know what it feels like to kill someone and that rotten mother !@#$%er, i'll come up with a plot, plan or scheme and kill him for that type slayings. People that kill on purpose ought to have to pay the ultimate price for doing so. And the payment of that price ought to be an incredibly public thing.

Anonymous said...

Wish the death penalty would be abolished for the victims. Usually no trial, no warning, no goodbyes, just dead. Your crime that got you the death penalty? Well, you decided to take a walk in Washington DC to see a friend. Or, you wanted to stop at the flower shop to pick your wife up something on the way home from work and you got in the way of someone who flushed their bad day with a bunch of beer. GUILTY. DEAD. Just that fast.

Anonymous said...

Well, the greatest dissent in the history of the Supreme Court contains a word that's not spelled correctly. You'd think a Supreme Court justice composing one of the greatest legal opinions of all time would spell the word right.

Anonymous said...

There is an absolute fix to the death penalty problem. Those we are trying to protect from it just need to stop killing people.

Anonymous said...

One guy. A government worker. He can decide to shield a man from death. Heck, it's a one man death panel.

Easy there, Hoss. Actually, your example is more of a 'one man life squad, but I digress, or something.

Apparently this is all quite remarkable to you, but it shouldn't be. From ordinary schlubs to the high and mighty, people everyday make decisions, many of which have significant consequences, including mortality.

One person on a cap case jury holds the same power, couldn't you say?

Anonymous said...

On a base level

WEll, you've described it perfectly. Base.

it seems difficult for me to understand how in the wide wide world of sports we can live in a society where taking the live of another human being does NOT carry with it the ultimate penalty

We are the only first world country that does it actively.

But if you want a practical reason, it's more expensive to execute someone, and our system is built on humans, who are inherently infallible. How can you risk killing someone that may be exonerated later by some other form of evidence, or a snitch recanting, or finding the right guy after all, especially in a prosecutorial culture that is rewarded for convictions at any cost, where evidence is hidden, and excluded by judges who are basically a prosecutor wearing a robe?

But hey, I'm with you right? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

That's what Jesus would do... Right?

Rage


Anonymous said...

Maybe we should take the death penalty out of the hands of the prosecutor, and make it available to the jury in all felony cases. And carry it out swiftly. And change the consideration from "does this crime deserve the ultimate punishment?" to "is there any good reason *not* to execute this worthless SOB?" or "is there any real probability that this guy will ever have value in society if we let him live?"

Anonymous said...

/fallible

We're not all popes, after all.

Rage

Anonymous said...

First of all, I am FOR the death penalty. HOWEVER, the cost of a capital murder trial in Texas is getting to the point where it is not financially feasible. Most defendants are going to request a public defender, so the county ends up paying for BOTH sides. Add in attorney expenses, expert witnesses and appeals, and it is not uncommon to end up with a$250,000 price tag for a trial (some documented to $800,000+). That is a lot of money that could be better spent by a county.

Anonymous said...

I bet ol' 1:22 is a--wait--claims to be a Christian.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Death is not for man to decide.

ZetaTalk: Keep In Line
Note: written by Jul 15, 1995.

How does the Council of Worlds keep the Service-to-Self crowd in line? Easier said than done, it would seem, as they are all, essentially, ruthless criminals. However, what humans, struggling with 3rd Density limitations, might deem the limit of benign restraint mechanisms is not nearly the limit available to entities in higher densities. Humans think of physical restraints, or, at most, perhaps drugging the recalcitrant subject so they involuntarily abstain from the criminal behavior. At the far reaches of human restraint mechanisms are such tools as lobotomy for violent mental patients or castration for rapists and pedophiles, and of course imprisonment or the death sentence.

The Council of Worlds has recourse to methods beyond the physical, and these methods would amaze humans in their effectiveness. Essentially, this is a block that prevents any physical or mental action not authorized. It is as though the errant entity is trying to walk into a brick wall, or at least that is the effect. There is no need to drag the errant entity into court, to place them in irons, or to alert others to watch them closely. How does this work?

This is done by computer, a computer similar to the one by which we maintain our extensive communications with each other. The Council of Worlds relies on a very high level density substance in this regard, which cannot be altered or interfered with by lower densities. No tampering with the controls! The reader can relate this to bugging telephones to insure that all calls are correct. This surveillance is constant and complete. There is no evasion. It's all on automatic.

Anonymous said...

2:03 Unless it's your own death and you need assistance.

Shay Isham said...

Eddie Ray Routh jury qualification Feb 5-6 and selection starts Feb 9. Trial to immediately follow in Stephenville.

Anonymous said...

We are not them. We are the people. When the media says such things as "We need boots on the ground, etc..." they are not speaking for us (The good people) they are speaking for the elite – the wealthy and politically powerful in the world for profits they will make. Think about what you are saying when you say such things as: We need to do this and that; We need to just kill him or them; Our military is supreme; We are patriots. Ask yourself who are we.

Anonymous said...

Us and them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me and you
God only knows
It's not what we would choose to do...

Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and down
And in the end it's only round 'n round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.

Down and out
It can't be helped that there's a lot of it about
With, without
And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?
Out of the way
It's a busy day
I've got things on my mind
For the want of the price
Of tea and a slice
The old man died.--Pink Floyd

Anonymous said...

Couselor, your are catagorically wrong...again...and...you know it.

The DA does not have the right, without any oversight or rules, to decide whether someone lives.

Twelve jury members decide whether someone lives or not.

The DA can only seek the death penalty, he cannot sentence someone to die. So, your jury is the 12 person death panel.

Terrible effort trying to lay all the blame on the DA, instead of a jury of peers.

You should alway remember that you said something this ridiculous.

Stay Classy

Anonymous said...

What is it to seek? To hunt to death thou we part. Nothing against hunters, if you eat what you have killed.

Anonymous said...

Stay Classy, you should have stayed home on this one.

Rage

Anonymous said...

We elect public officials at the local level to exercise all manner and means of decision making including prosecution. Barry don't forget that you were in that position at one time and you exercised and used your background and experience to make some pretty for reaching decisions that may have affected people the same as life and death. We elect prosecutors in this state and give them the discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute criminal cases. To do otherwise would leave it to the Attorney General of Texas with its government employees. I would not want that. I want local people with discretion to make these decisions. Not Austin or Washington.

Anonymous said...

The new revolution: We are approaching majority. We see corruption and will not tolerate it. How to accomplish this: Mass exposure of the deviant and corrupt.

Anonymous said...

I think we should have Roger Goodell decide who lives or dies. He is an expert decision maker. Ignorance is no excuse.

DF Thomas Edward Patrick Brady, Jr.

Anonymous said...

4:17. The people know who you are and what you've done. You can run but you can't hide. We do not want you in our lives.

Anonymous said...

We. We use the word a lot. I's up to you to determine the true meaning.

Do you want to know some but not all that is knowable? Just ask.

Anonymous said...

I have a different solution . If you are twenty five and you get forty years , whack you now. Why feed, medicate, clothe, educate a P O S then let him retire on social security he hasn't earned. Bulls@#$. Oh I know it would put a lot of people in the legal system out of work but maybe they could retrain. Pro rate every crime and no GOOD time. The reason for the death penalty should be increased instead of abolished. No freaking wonder the whole country is broke .

Anonymous said...

Amen 6:36. Amen.

We'd have a lot more resources to do smart things if we just quit doing dumb things for/to dumb people. Hell, your way might even ameliorate global warming.

Count me in

Anonymous said...

I'll bet 'ol 2:03 is--wait for it--an a**hole.