And I think to myself ... what a wonderful world ...
Or maybe it's just wishful thinking ....
A Washington Post article today on the New Improved Patriot Act explains some of the death penalty revisions that have been added on by the House in the past couple months. On the plus side, the Senate believes that these provisions are "extraneous" and should not be passed without further debate. However, they were overwhelmingly approved by the House, so who knows what will happen.
As a big surprise, the amendment was added on by a Representative John Carter from Texas, who originally was calling it the "Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act" because, as his spokeswoman put it, "The congressman believes capital punishment is a deterrent for all kinds of crimes, including terrorism."
Oh, I get it, I see. He really does have a good point there. After all, the possibility of being executed would be a sure-fire deterrent from my wanting to be a suicide bomber. Oh wait .... if I was a suicide bomber, they couldn't kill me .... hmmmmm .....
Right now, there are 20 acts of terrorism that "qualify" for the death penalty. This would add 41 more acts --- which would triple the number of possibilities. This includes situations where the individual does not even have the intent to kill. If their money is used, even unknowingly, to perform acts of violence .... well, there you go.
Hmmmm .... I wonder how that fits with the money we pay into our governments to kill people in such situations as war, executions, etc.....
Oh yeah, one other thing .... if a jury can't agree on assigning the death penalty as the punishment, no more of this mamby-pamby "life sentence." Nah, let's just get another jury and re-try the whole thing. Eventually we'll get to kill them.
Of course, what about the money spent in the multiple retrials that is being taken out of the social service system? Cuz couldn't that lead to unnecessary deaths? Which could possibly be labelled as acts of violence?
David Bruck, death penalty expert at Washington & Lee University Law School points out: "The chances are that if a jury disagrees the first time, they'll disagree the next time and the next time, no matter how much time and how many millions of dollars you waste on it. If you can't get a unanimous jury to decide that a particular case is one of the worst of the worst, that tells you something. "
Nah. If at first you don't succeed, keep stepping on toes till you get things your way.
Hey, it's just like Burger King!
I still just love the title of the Death Penalty Enhancement Act. Because really, truly, the best way to enhance our system is definitely to upgrade our ability to kill people. After all, those people have killed people. And we think killing is just plain wrong. So let's just kill them all.
But, the bell is about to ring. Time to go teach my kids Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God -- loving our enemies, forgiving, turning the other cheek, etc. You know, all that Christian stuff that our nation is based on.
Peace out, folks.
A Washington Post article today on the New Improved Patriot Act explains some of the death penalty revisions that have been added on by the House in the past couple months. On the plus side, the Senate believes that these provisions are "extraneous" and should not be passed without further debate. However, they were overwhelmingly approved by the House, so who knows what will happen.
As a big surprise, the amendment was added on by a Representative John Carter from Texas, who originally was calling it the "Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act" because, as his spokeswoman put it, "The congressman believes capital punishment is a deterrent for all kinds of crimes, including terrorism."
Oh, I get it, I see. He really does have a good point there. After all, the possibility of being executed would be a sure-fire deterrent from my wanting to be a suicide bomber. Oh wait .... if I was a suicide bomber, they couldn't kill me .... hmmmmm .....
Right now, there are 20 acts of terrorism that "qualify" for the death penalty. This would add 41 more acts --- which would triple the number of possibilities. This includes situations where the individual does not even have the intent to kill. If their money is used, even unknowingly, to perform acts of violence .... well, there you go.
Hmmmm .... I wonder how that fits with the money we pay into our governments to kill people in such situations as war, executions, etc.....
Oh yeah, one other thing .... if a jury can't agree on assigning the death penalty as the punishment, no more of this mamby-pamby "life sentence." Nah, let's just get another jury and re-try the whole thing. Eventually we'll get to kill them.
Of course, what about the money spent in the multiple retrials that is being taken out of the social service system? Cuz couldn't that lead to unnecessary deaths? Which could possibly be labelled as acts of violence?
David Bruck, death penalty expert at Washington & Lee University Law School points out: "The chances are that if a jury disagrees the first time, they'll disagree the next time and the next time, no matter how much time and how many millions of dollars you waste on it. If you can't get a unanimous jury to decide that a particular case is one of the worst of the worst, that tells you something. "
Nah. If at first you don't succeed, keep stepping on toes till you get things your way.
Hey, it's just like Burger King!
I still just love the title of the Death Penalty Enhancement Act. Because really, truly, the best way to enhance our system is definitely to upgrade our ability to kill people. After all, those people have killed people. And we think killing is just plain wrong. So let's just kill them all.
But, the bell is about to ring. Time to go teach my kids Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God -- loving our enemies, forgiving, turning the other cheek, etc. You know, all that Christian stuff that our nation is based on.
Peace out, folks.
posted by Steph Youstra at 7:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home