Last updated on 2011.10.27
I will not cheer the death penalty. If Judge Bradley Zell sends Eric Robert to the electric chair, I will not say, "Let him die," certainly not with enthusiasm.
But Eric Robert's own cold courtroom confession to the murder of penitentiary guard Ronald Johnson, punctuated by the cries of the bereaved, reminds me of the very ugly souls whom I would feed and clothe for life.
Robert confesses that he planned to "eliminate one of my oppressors from the prison" and escape last April:
At 8:30 on the morning of the 12th, I decided to act against senior corrections officer Ronald Johnson. At 10:30, I entered the PI building, I entered the PI garage. I executed Ronald Johnson, I changed into his clothes. At 10:45, I attempted to escape from prison. That failed, and I attempted to bait the officer that was up in the upper part of the outside of the perimeter -- I attempted to bait him into pointing his assault rifle at me so that I could grab it from him to continue to shoot officers. I wasn't able to get that from him. I lie [sic] down on the ground and gave up to the authorities [Eric Robert, confession, transcribed from courtroom audio archived in John Hult, "Inmate Pleads Guilty in Slaying," Argus Leader, 2011.09.16].
The court challenges Robert's pretentious use of the word executed and asks Robert to state the facts. He says he hit Officer Johnson with a metal pipe, than suffocated him with Saran Wrap.
Robert's crime is despicable. Robert is despicable. Let him die... in a prison cell, by no man's hand, after years of restraint and mercy on the part of civilized people.
Well said.
I can't prove it but I believe the blood lust necessary to cheer the death penalty allows the callousness necessary to create policies that create the desperation necessary to commit suicide by cop that Newquist eloquently examines
As is usual with you Cory, you choose emotion over facts. In the effort to make yourself feel better by expressing the ill conceived sentiment that you want the accused to die from old age rather than at the hands of the State, you overlook the fact that South Dakota hasn't used the electric chair since 1947, and then, has used lethal injection as the ONLY method of execution since the US Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was constitutional and justifiable in the post Furman period.
Perhaps "electric chair" is a metonym for execution in the general sense?
Anyway, I'm with Cory on this one, simply because I don't have quite enough trust in any government (and never will) to allow it to take someone's life.
Welcome back to the show, Tyler!
Alas, you resort to the strange Orwellian conservative tactic of accusing me of the sin you commit. Death penalty supporters are the ones siding with emotion. The death penalty costs us more, practically and morally, than ife imprisonment. It does not deter crime. It only satisfies an ill-advised lust for blood and revenge. The Supreme Court opinion that you non-sequiturally cite impacts none of those points. (The Supreme Court has also ruled it constitutional and justifiable to treat corporations as persons; that position is still absurd and inimical to democracy.)
And Mike, since the government is us, may I conclude that you do not trust yourself and myself enough to take the life of an imprisoned man?
What the heck is going on here? Since when to people use terms like "metonym" when commenting on a blog post?
The next thing you know, people will actually have to stay awake in English class. Then they may actually read Orwell and discover all the word games that have been used to trick them.
If that event occurs, politicians like Noem or Rick Perry might have to be prepared to actually explain their views rather than resort to sound bites.
The republic as we have come to know it may not survive. I know the slippery slope is often thought to be a logical fallacy, but can we really afford the risk?
Interesting conclusion, Cory! I never thought of it that way.
Cory, did you hear that whoosh just now? It's the point that I made going straight over your head.
In regards to your cost argument, your reasoning is specious at best. As you have noted in a previous post, it costs roughly $20-$30,000 to incarcerate someone for a "life" term. Lets split the difference and say that it costs $25,000 a year to incarcerate a prisoner in South Dakota. Next, lets look at the closest and most notable example of an executed inmate that South Dakota has (Elijah Page). Page was 25 at the time of his execution. Taking into account the average life expectancy of our time and barring any other unforeseen circumstances, he could have roughly lived another ~60 years. Total cost to incarcerate Page over those years = $1.5 million. That does not take into account what it would cost to pay for healthcare, to pay for the staff members to watch over the inmates, etc... taking those into account, it could cost about $3-$5 million to incarcerate someone in a "life" term.
Unfortunately (for the sake of this argument), South Dakota has not published what it cost taxpayers to carry out a sentence of capital punishment for Elijah Page (correct me if I'm wrong). However, taking into account the "average" cost of the appeals and execution process which we can look at in the case of Donald Moeller, it costs roughly the same for an appeals process as it does to execute someone ($1.5 million).
Can we look at all cases equally? No, and we shouldn't. Each inmate is entitled to an appeals process, and the right to due process, and as we all know, life can change in an instant. Outside factors can impact any appeals process, any prison term, and any life of an inmate, thus, offsetting what it might cost to incarcerate or execute.
Finally Cory, in regards to your moral argument, I do consider myself anti-capital punishment. My first thoughts regarding the death penalty were when Timothy McVeigh was executed, and over time and with careful research, I believe that my stance has become more affirmed. However, in this case, I believe that unfortunately, the death penalty is justified. While I am not Catholic, I believe that my feelings are similar to the Catholic Church: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." My main reasoning in unfortunately supporting the death penalty in this situation, is expressed in the first statement "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor...". Mr. Berget and Mr. Robert have shown a propensity towards violent actions and previous attempts to escape the confines of the South Dakota Penitentiary, which have culminated in the loss of Mr. Ron Johnson. The bottom line is, where do we draw the line regarding the cost and viability of imprisonment versus risk to those in the world outside.
My two cents...
I believe both sides of the issue conclude the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Elijah Page may be a different story, since he didn't pursue the appeals process. I would love to know the facts in his case.
The general population doesn't have the same agenda that drives politicians and law enforcement to believe they can use the power to kill to benefit themselves.
As Pogo may have said, "We have met the enemy and they is us." Or perhaps a subset of "us".
Bad cases make bad law. It is not so much that the evil might be killed as that the government grinds fine the innocent too. At least life sentences are reversible if new evidence proves innocence. The first man hanged in SD was innocent.
Oh, Tyler, you have to shoot pretty high to send an argument over my head. Alas, you tossed me a gutterball. Your original statement was a perfectly clear non sequitur to my original post. You accused me of making an emotional argument. My original post simply restated my commitment to not killing apprehended and subdued criminals. You treated my misstatement of South Dakota's method of execution as reason to dismiss my contention. My original point and opposition to state-sanctioned killing of prisoners stand regardless of whatever method of killing our state uses. You didn't go over my head; you didn't even get the ball off the tee.
Eric Robert is in custody. The state's failure to effectively contain his aggression does not justify the state's killing him. It obliges us to work harder to contain that threat... which won't be that hard. Put him in a cell, isolate him, never let him out on work duty in the PI building. I'm much more comfortable having that containment on my hands than his blood.
Now I'm still trying to figure out where the emotional part of that argument is.
On those numbers, could you provide the justification for adding all those other costs to the $20K–$30K inmate housing estimate provided by Moeller prosecutor and death-penalty defender Scott Abdallah?
But if we're going to make up numbers to support our positions, I posit that the financial cost of making a mistake with the death penalty is exactly one dollar more than whatever cost savings you may cite from using the death penalty on all other guilty prisoners. I suspect that is a conservative estimate of the dollar value a family would place on the life of an innocent son executed by the state. And as Doug points out, South Dakota is already and forever in the red on that account.
Mike, as Doug points out, we apparently demonstrated early in our history that we can't trust ourselves to lay that noose on the right neck.
Research shows that when an execution happens the murder rate goes up in that city for six months. Before Page was executed we had two murders on the court docet and seven the next year. Now the pen killed one and got one killed. Does it come back on us. Oh yes. Should they let lifers in the shop, absolutely not. But if people see that killing is what you do to people you really seriously do not like, then if one percent of the population mimics that example, we have problems. All the states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. South Dakota higher than North Dakota and are both rural states. Wisconsin more murders than Minnesota and both have big cities. The South has much more murders than anywhere else and have lots more murders. You get what you dish out.
I heard a speach in Rapid City a few years ago by the one hundredth person let of death row from DNA testing. The cop had a hunch and the DA went with it. The accused had parents that would never let him off if they suspected him and he learned not to defend himself as normal. Never had a felony and the DA would not take it off his record after he was aquited since it would make the DA's record look bad. The court would not give another trial till the newspaper exposed the problem.
I wish we could draft some of the folks herein as prison guards for a year and make them take care of these poor misunderstood innocent creatures... They might remember at that point that we owe it to another portion of our soceity to protect them against violent criminals.
Stace, that would be counterproductive. You don't draft wienies like me for that job any more than you draft us for the Marines. You use the best talent, technology, research, and training available to protect the security of guards and the public, to rehabilitate the many convicts who can be turned back into productive citizens. And you build strong cages and hire strong men to subdue those who can't be rehabilitated. But you don't kill 'em.
We owe society protection against violent criminals. We also owe society justice, morality, and freedom from collective guilt over unnecessary, emotion-driven killing and lethal mistakes.
And Roger: indeed, we reap what we sow.
Ahh, I was wondering how long it would take for you to sink to condescension and snark Cory.
In regards to your argument regarding "locking him up and isolating him", that's impossible. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that prisoners are entitled to outdoor exercise. Where is the difference between being outdoors and being in Pheasantland Industries? You then return to the same argument, Mssr's Robert and Berget have shown a propensity for violence and have shown that they have no regard for human life, and would most likely try to kill and escape again. I state my original point again, where do you draw the line between the cost and viability of imprisonment versus risk to those in the world outside?
In regards to "justification" for adding those costs and figures to the cost of the housing estimate, it's simple: you can't (and don't) just throw a prisoner into a cell... you have to provide healthcare for the prisoner, and it costs money to pay for the guards to watch over the prisoners. You cannot look at just the cost of housing alone, and in regards to the figure that Scott Abdallah cited, I don't think $20-$30,000 figure that he cited was a total cost estimate.
In regards to "made up" facts and figures, here's the proof. According to the SD Department of Corrections, a trained and experienced prison guard can expect to earn roughly $35,000 per year... thus, it will cost the state roughly $2.1 million over the aforementioned 60 years of incarceration to pay just one prison guard to watch over one prisoner. Also, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the State of South Dakota spends roughly $2,500 to provide medical care for an inmate. Thus, over the course of the 60 years of incarceration, it will cost the state roughly $150,000 to provide basic medical care. So:
$1.5 million to house
$2.1 million to pay the guards
$.15 million to provide medical care
= a $3.75 million expenditure to house, supervise and care for an inmate over the course of a "life" term.
Finally Cory, while your argument that the family of an innocent person who has been executed by the state has lost "$1 more than the cost to incarcerate" is noble, it is also flawed. If you want to look at the "cost" of the loss of an innocent person, you must look at the "cost" of the loss of a victim of violent crime. I would posit that the "cost" of the loss of a victim of violent crime is much higher. I could go on, but we would only be venturing further into an emotion based argument, rather than a fact based argument, and I suspect that as a previous commenter noted, both sides are more likely to agree that their way is the "less expensive" way.
Cory,
Your above posting appears to be incongrous with your sentiments about the tragic circumstances out West.
Ted Bundy, et al, cannot escape, they cannot taunt their victim's families, they cannot hurt anyone ever again.
The Ron Johnson's of the world, and their families, deserve the same protections you and I enjoy.
Tyler don't you write any more for the DWC?
Cory,
I see your point but if these men murder another police officer or guard it would be terrible.
I would vote for the Death Penalty in this case.
Wait a minute, Tyler: you open with condescension, then presume to use that as a criticism against me? What is this? Do you conservatives all go to some Reagan summer camp where they train you to make lots of noise about your opponents using the same tactics that you do?
Mike, we can't execute people on the basis of crimes they haven't committed yet (cf: Minority Report). It would be terrible if these men killed anyone else. That's we put them in cages, deny them sharp objects, and watch them very closely.
Stace, there is a key difference between the shootings of Tiger and Engen and the possible execution of Johnson's killers. Tiger and Engen were loose, on the street, armed, and doing harm. They had to be subdued. Berget and Robert are subdued. They are confined, restrained, unarmed. Deadly force is justified in the former cases, not the latter.
Try this, Stace: If armed officers had come on the scene as Robert and Berget were attacking Johnson, I would have supported the use of deadly force to stop the immediate threat they posed. Had Johnson grabbed that assault rifle and taken aim, I would have supported the use of deadly force to subdue him. But once we have the guy in cuffs, we should holster our guns (oh, sorry, Tyler, our syringes).
Back to Tyler: you keep confusing this for an argument on constitutional law. And strangely, you somehow conclude that because the Court has ruled certain forms of punishment to violate human rights, we should invoke a for of punishment that negates every human right. You and the Court are confused. I condescend to both of you.
Prison guards: o.k., so you just calculated the price of hiring one prison guard for 60 years and applied that as the cost for one prisoner. We don't have one-to-one guards.
The value of Ron Johnson's life is incalculable, like the life of any innocent person. I'm still winning that argument, though. You would have us continue irrevocable immoral actions (executions) by which we as a society have killed innocent citizens. I would have us continue revocable moral actions (incarceration) that leave madmen the opportunity to commit further wrongs. Mine is not a perfect moral scheme, but it is somewhat more moral and less emotional.
Not sure what is being argued here.
Clearly the prison guard who was killed wasn't being very well protected. I would think Mr. Nelson would be trying to find out why that was. I agree with Cory (and I assume Mr. Nelson as well) that the primary function of government is to secure the human rights of its citizenry.
In the context of this thread that would include everyone involved I would think. Society at large, the prison inmates and yes, the prison workers as well.
It seems we should be more about finding out why the system failed than about using the execution of this prisoner as a scapegoat to avoid having to face the facts about our overloaded, underfunded penal system.
Bill, you and your dang big-picture thinking. Can't you just let us wallow in the John-Wayne emotion of an argument about killing really bad dudes? ;-)
Seriously, Bill is right. Officer Johnson's death led to lots of calls for more guards, better compensation, better technology... all of which would cost more money. I'll acknowledge that my fiscal argument is not my primary argument. It can't be... because we could save all sorts of money by simply pulling all the guards out and gassing all the inmates.
Nor can I accept the argument of potential harm as justification for the death penalty. It's not just the murderers who pose a risk to guards. Drug dealers, mafiosi (do we have any real gangsters in our penitentiary?), other mean dudes could certainly decide that escaping is worth killing a guard. How many potentially violent inmates do we pre-emptively execute?
We imprison more of our people than any other nation. We can either pour more resources into confining more citizens more tightly... or we can look at reforms that keep more people from going to prison and allow us to treat convicts more justly. Killing prisoners is the last resort of a failing community.
Now you're onto it, Cory. Thanks. I don't think it hurts to read this over from time to time:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If I'm Mr. Nelson, my primary objective is to adopt the above intention as my working thesis (in whole, not just in part), and to conduct myself accordingly, regardless of how his fellow citizens behave.
To the degree his thoughts and actions run counter to the above, I submit that he should examine his conscience to determine whether or not he is indeed capable of living up to his oath.
@Bill What really rankles you is that it is already self evident within my life http://www.stacenelson.com/aboutme.html That you choose to ignore that conventional evidence of service, and repeatedly attack me, is a statement about about you.
Yes, Bill... I am a very bad man for understanding that we need to protect innocents from bad men who would slaughter them like sheep & for trying to protect our posterity from wholesale abortions.
Your idea of a person that upholds the Constitution though is one that protests our military as they are sent off to war by Congress, one that defends murderers that prey on innocents, and one who advocates for the wanton abortions of unborn children (our posterity) as an unmitigated right.
These people must need your help too Dr Bill: http://freepdfhosting.com/89b2d1354f.pdf
One of your obligations, Nelson is to defend my right to challenge you and your philosophy.
Instead, you always choose to attack me for it.
I'm not the one in office, Mr. Nelson, you are.
And when you claim to be true to your oath, I don't believe you, simply by observing your rhetoric and behavior.
I myself am not obliged to see after the entire citizenry. I have not so sworn as you have. But as I watch your behavior, it is clear to me that you consider some people to be more equal than others.
That is morally reprehensible to me in a fellow citizenl. But it is beyond the pale in an officer of the court or an elected official.
Patently unacceptable.
You should either change your philosophy and manner, or resign from office forthwith.
Mr. Nelson was given ample opportunity to explain himself on this issue on a recent thread on Mt. Blogmore and his refusal to do so speaks volumes.
His position that anyone who represents a potential danger to the safety of others should be summarily executed is egregious in the extreme, and to date, he has not withdrawn from at least giving the appearance that that is indeed his moral position.
Until such time as he does, I will continue to challenge him, as, I feel, so should all his other fellow citizens, if for no other reason than that his argument is so irrational, he doesn't even comprehend the threat he poses to himself and all his other fellow law enforcement officers.
Heaven forbid that any of them hold he same view he does.
But to the degree they do, God help us all.
Here is the Mt. Blogmore thread I referenced above. Notice how he refuses to answer Kevin Woster's question. Telling indeed.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=8141&cpage=2
Elijah Page did suicide by death penalty and now this guy is too. Just flat out told the judge how bad he was. They want out of life without parole one way or another. The death penalty is the easy way out for them.
Yeah, there seems to be more and more of that happening lately.
People wanting to do "suicide by cop." Weird. What I find disturbing is that there appear to be so many "public servants" and constituents who appear to be happy to oblige them.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0915/Texas-s-record-as-death-penalty-capital-a-help-for-Rick-Perry
Cory,
We are judging them on crimes they have committed. (we also have to weigh the possibility of it ever happening again and my feeling is that the odds are too high). suran wrap killed. People find the means to do evil in many different ways.
They could easily kill someone with their hands as opposed to a weapon.
I don't feel we can put the guards at risk again without these men facing the ultimate consequence.
I'm with Marty "RICK PERRY" Jackley on this one.
Plus if we don't hold these prisoners to account than we are simply saying everyone gets a free pass to attempt escaping from prison without any punishment. Regardless of whether or not someone is killed in the escape.
Mr. Fleming, no matter how many times you feign injury to cry victim hood or claim the higher ground while mired in the muck of the sewer, it does not change reality.
You attack me because the American public rejects the many views you espouse, to include this one.
If someone cares to review the lengthy blogmore exchange, I responded in depth to the issue. The death penalty remains the law of the land because it is a Constitutional right for Americans to defend themselves, and their family.
I support SD's death penalty law because I understood the need for Americans to be able to protect innocent people from those that would slaughter the innocents like sheep, that is my position, not the asinine projections that Bill attempts to slime me with.
Ask yourself, what kind of place would the world be in Bill's ideal place? You know, where we kill our unborn in unrestricted abortions, where murderers are considered the victims of society and allowed to continue their slaughter of innocents at will, where our military & cops are reviled for attempting to protect America from the evils of the world. Hell?
Roll with your full ideology on your sleeve Bill, be proud. Tell South Dakotans your full views and ideas. Run proudly on your platform!
How would you have scored in the freedom index top 10 Bill? See, I am encouraging your right to show the world who you are, what your views are. Be proud Bill, tell the world who you are. Stop hiding behind your attacks on me and come out of the closet on who you really are.
There you go again, Bill... You have successfully distracted yet another blog from the post as your arguments on the issue cannot stand public scrutiny...
There you go again with the shell game, Stace, refusing to answer the questions you were asked, and making up new ones instead:
Here are the real questions again for your review as posted by Blogmore moderator Kevin Woster:
……………….
Stace: So, who ultimately was responsible for the thousands of innocent lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan? On my question about threats from death-row inmates, which I think are virtually non-existent, I guess I’m arguing that it is possible to ramp up security in prison systems to the point where targeted inmates cannot ever pose a threat to anyone. Do you not believe that level of security is possible? K.W.
...
Stace: So, do you or do you not believe we have the ability to keep prisoners in secure situations where they cannot pose physical threats to anyone? K.W.
...
Stace: I can’t remember: Did you ever say whether you think our prison systems can impose security measures to assure that a certain class of inmate can’t harm anyone? K.W.
...
Stace: With all due respect, you’re trying to dance when I’m asking you to answer. Saying you don’t want your loved ones workin in close proximity to a violent criminal simply asserts your preference. It doesn’t give your opinion on whether a system could be designed to make your loved ones safe, should they work there. This seems like a “yes†or ‘no†question that deserves a “yes†or “no†answer: Do you believe the prison system in the United States is capable of structuring containment for a certain class of inmates that would protect society at large and prison staff in particular. Yes? No? Please. Please. Please. And if, finally, you consent to answer that, please feel free to expand in detail, if you’d like on your simple “yes†or “no†answer. Thanks. K.W.
...
Stace: OK, so that I’m clear, your saying you don’t believe the current corrections system in the U.S. is capable of creating an incarceration level so secure that prison workers could never be injured by the inmates? K.W.
…………
Question after question from one South Dakotata's finest reporters, and you refuse to give a straight answer. Well, you should.
Because if you don't, your position seems to be that because it is impossible to make society safe from crime via proper prisons, all criminals should be executed.
So do yourself a favor and clarify your position on this right here and now, Nelson.
This is yet one more opportunity. Don't waste it telling lies about me when the truth about you appears to be on the table.
Bill, I thought you were victimized by me not giving you a chance to espouse your views? :-D
My answers then and now:
Our laws state that it is legal for a law abiding citizen to use deadly force to protect ourselves & loved ones from even the threat of illegal force to our person or that of our family.
We require our service members to swear to protect this country against enemies both foreign & domestic while employing them in such fashion repeatedly over the last 235 years. Our Constitution gives our government that legal authority and obligates our government to take those measures to preserve this nation.
A cold blooded murder is a continuing threat to law abiding citizens. For those that have led a sheltered live and believe society is safe from such threats simply because they are incarcerated, please tell that to the family of Senior Officer Ron Johnson.
While the Good Lord indicates that he is aware even of the passing of a sparrow, He makes it very clear that the shepherd’s duty is the vigilant protection of the innocent flock from the wolves that attack..
Under the laws of this state, the murderer decided his fate when he took the life of an innocent. He alone is responsible for the crime and the appropriate measure to protect innocents from his proven threat to law abiding citizens.
-------------------------------------------
1. Locked up violent criminals remain a threat to society. The tragic proof of that danger was manifested in the murder of a Senior Officer Ron Johnson in Sioux Falls this spring. Just because a criminal is locked up does not mean they are no longer a threat to society.
2. The recidivism rate for Ted Bundy is 0, it will be so for eternity.
3. The vast majority of our society understand & accept their legal right to defend their person & family with deadly force against even offered threats of illegal force.
4. The vast majority of our society understand & accept the federal government’s responsibility to use deadly force to defend our citizenry against “enemies foreign & domestic.â€.
5. The death penalty is an extension of the individual’s duty/right to defend his person & family and is a singular example of the authority we give our government to protect our populace from threats.
In regards to the morality of the issue. First I would ask, who here would willingly surrender their loved ones to be brutally slaughtered without raising a finger to defend them? Because that is the base issue here. Do we have a morale right & duty to protect our loved ones? I believe we do. If it is meet & right for us to do so individually, clearly it is meet & right for a just society to do so objectively through the rule of law.
-----------------------------------------
@Douglas Wiken “Totally irrelevant†only if we forget the historic basis, form, & function of the US government. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our Constitution makes it clear that the authority vested in our government originates from the legal authority of the individual citizen.
Defense of self & family is written into the very fabric of individual rights of our Constitution. The death penalty is a singular extension of that duty & right to our government. Waging war is the extension on a massive scale.
------------------------------
@D.E. Bishop the above comments explain how & why we empower our government to protect us as a legal extension of our own rights under the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------
A violent criminal remains a threat to soceity regardless if they are locked up. The death penalty is as much a portion of justice as it is soceity protecting itself from an ongoing threat to its citizens.
Case in point: http://doc.sd.gov/documents/SDDOCAfter-IncidentReport5-9-11.pdf
I merely point out the origins & legal authority for the death penalty.
-----------------------------------------------
@KW I do not agree. Prison escapes happen. More importantly, prison doctors, administrators, prison guards & other inmates have to deal with these proven dangers to society. Just because a violent criminal is locked up does not magically make them safe to society at large or the small part that is still within those walls.
@Bill Those of us that serve our country in the military & as cops do not have the luxury of believing threats to our country & society will magically disappear because someone arrogantly edicts it so on a blog. The way we got our freedom from tyranny, and the way we keep our freedoms, is by hard men & women who are willing to use deadly force to protect the rights of the innocents from those that would do them harm. It is ironic that your scornful personal attack come while enjoying the freedoms that I helped provide
-------------------------------------------------
@KW Are we to forget the portions of society we are also obliged to protect within those walls that we force to be in danger to care for and be in close proximity to these proven threats. Do not the doctors, dentists, prison guards, & other inmates deserve the same protections from these confirmed threats as you and I? http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/assaults/assaults.jsp indicate that it is not sunshine & lollipops within our prison system, Senior Officer Johnson’s death is a painful reminder of those dangers. Defense & protection of society is only one aspect why I believe the death penalty is morally sound of a society. Justice, deterrent, & insurance of no recidivism are other factors.
There is no one that regrets the loss of noncombatants more than those who are forced to fight our wars. As when innocents are injured/killed by law enforcement when they are forced to use deadly force as a result of a criminal’s actions, the responsibility for those deaths are on the heads of the criminals not the cops.
--------------------------------------------
@KW Under what conditions would you be happy with such a violent criminal in close proximity of a loved one? Defense & protection of society is only one aspect why I believe the death penalty is morally sound of a society. Justice, deterrent, & insurance of no recidivism are other factors.
@Bill Reread the post, I reject your mistatements. We already had this conversation, when you were called upon to serve as I did, you declined.
@D.E. In that the Death Penalty is part of SD law, military law, & numerous state laws, I am clearly in the majority on this issue. Pretty sure the majority can agree that an armed forces & law enforcement that is unwilling to use deadly force to protect the nation/society against threats of harm, is in itself worthless.
-----------------------------------------------
@ALCON The debate WAS about the death penalty. Instead we see tactic #13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it†http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm What does Bill’s last 4 comments have to do with the subject? He does not know me, he is not a doctor, and he mistates me repeatedly in order to continue his attack.
@KW Under what conditions would you be happy with such a violent criminal in close proximity of a loved one? (Me? none) Defense & protection of society is only one aspect why I believe the death penalty is morally sound of a society. Justice, deterrent, & insurance of no recidivism are other factors.
@Bill I wrote: “Those of us that serve our country in the military & as cops do not have the luxury of believing threats to our country & society will magically disappear because someone arrogantly edicts it so on a blog. The way we got our freedom from tyranny, and the way we keep our freedoms, is by hard men & women who are willing to use deadly force to protect the rights of the innocents from those that would do them harm. It is ironic that your scornful personal attack come while enjoying the freedoms that I helped provide.†Your attempts to rewrite that statement & grasp at the air claiming demons is a reflection on you, not me.
------------------------------------------------------
(K.W. Asked) “Stace: I can’t remember: Did you ever say whether you think our prison systems can impose security measures to assure that a certain class of inmate can’t harm anyone? K.W.â€
I did:
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=8141#comment-389162
@KW Under what conditions would you be happy with such a violent criminal in close proximity of a loved one? (Me? none) Defense & protection of society is only one aspect why I believe the death penalty is morally sound of a society. Justice, deterrent, & insurance of no recidivism are other factors.
A leader does not ask someone else to do that they wont do themselves. If common sense dictates that the job is too dangerous for my loved ones, my friends, what kind of unethical SOB would ask someone else to put their life at risk to preserve a threat that society has already determined?
Of special note, the lovely personal comments come from people that have never put their lives on the line to protect this country with the authorization of the death penalty in the magazine of their weapon. Instead, they rail at those who have from the safety provided by those that do..
-------------------------------------------
@KW Your original question was “I guess I’m arguing that it is possible to ramp up security in prison systems to the point where targeted inmates cannot ever pose a threat to anyone. Do you not believe that level of security is possible? †I answered that with an explanation and a no, with a return question that you have not answered.
------------------------------------------------
Huh? A little censoring I see… Nice…
Stace: I’m not sure what you’re talking about. But we do edit and delete as we see fit here, for appropriateness and relevance. K.W.
--------------------------------------------
@KW There was an appropriate & relevant reply to your inquiry, as well as to the patient in charge, that was deleted. Although it was innocent of any malfeasance, it did not receive the same considerations you give to those that are not.
Stace: Wait, it’s possible something happened yesterday. There was a point where I couldn’t moderate posts. Then there was a point where I could only approve or delete. (I announced that on my twitter account, urging my followers to spread the word.) By late afternoon things were back to what we call normal on Blogmore. If during that period I messed up and deleted a post I shouldn’t have (which regular here will tell you happens from time to time) I apologize. And I urge you to resubmit. K.W.
-------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm, as usual, things are not as Mr. Fleming paints them...
I cut and pasted my numerous responses to the questions, Bill. It is being held up in moderation.
The death penalty is the law of the land, that is the topic, and how it should or should not be applied to the murder of Ron Johnson.
But if you can't win the arguement, keep slinging excrement, Bill... :-D
[CAH: Sorry about the delay, Stace! Length and links can trigger the auto-moderation... and I was out playing tour guide this p.m.!]
The death penalty is NOT the argument Stace, not in this instance. You have taken it into new territory, as per above. And Kevin W. and I have followed, seeking clarity on your position. The issue at hand, as far as you are concerned is prison security. You argue that since they can't be made secure, prisoners should be executed, true? Or false?
No need for any convoluted cut-and-past, btw, Nelson. A simple yes or no answer is sufficient.
One more time, as per Woster:
"Do you believe the prison system in the United States is capable of structuring containment for a certain class of inmates that would protect society at large and prison staff in particular. Yes? No? Please. Please. Please. And if, finally, you consent to answer that, please feel free to expand in detail, if you’d like on your simple “yes†or “no†answer. Thanks. K.W."
p.s. FYI, I win the argument every time you refuse to answer the question and attack me for asking it, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. "H,"
Please post my response that is held in moderation.
@Bill answered in spades. Ever the claims of the poor victim. Hanky?
oops, sorry for the "attack" again. :-D
Moses, I thought my teenage daughters could gin up the fake drama. :-O
Three strikes and you're out, baby. Nice doin' business with ya, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. "H,"
Please post my answer that is held in moderation.
Bill, for the record, you are at like a million strikes; however, if you want to claim this your 3rd and hit the bench? With that claim though< I can imagine that you play golf like Kim Hung Il http://www.oobgolf.com/content/fore+play/1-211-Kim_Jongil_Best_Golfer_in_the_World.html Must be an on the left thing.. :-D
Looks like it's just you and me, Stace.
Now it's just you.
Later big fella.
Bill, I thought you were victimized by me not giving you a chance to espouse your views?
My answers then and now:
Our laws state that it is legal for a law abiding citizen to use deadly force to protect ourselves & loved ones from even the threat of illegal force to our person or that of our family.
We require our service members to swear to protect this country against enemies both foreign & domestic while employing them in such fashion repeatedly over the last 235 years. Our Constitution gives our government that legal authority and obligates our government to take those measures to preserve this nation.
A cold blooded murder is a continuing threat to law abiding citizens. For those that have led a sheltered live and believe society is safe from such threats simply because they are incarcerated, please tell that to the family of Senior Officer Ron Johnson.
While the Good Lord indicates that he is aware even of the passing of a sparrow, He makes it very clear that the shepherd’s duty is the vigilant protection of the innocent flock from the wolves that attack..
Under the laws of this state, the murderer decided his fate when he took the life of an innocent. He alone is responsible for the crime and the appropriate measure to protect innocents from his proven threat to law abiding citizens.
1. Locked up violent criminals remain a threat to society. The tragic proof of that danger was manifested in the murder of a Senior Officer Ron Johnson in Sioux Falls this spring. Just because a criminal is locked up does not mean they are no longer a threat to society.
2. The recidivism rate for Ted Bundy is 0, it will be so for eternity.
3. The vast majority of our society understand & accept their legal right to defend their person & family with deadly force against even offered threats of illegal force.
4. The vast majority of our society understand & accept the federal government’s responsibility to use deadly force to defend our citizenry against “enemies foreign & domestic.â€.
5. The death penalty is an extension of the individual’s duty/right to defend his person & family and is a singular example of the authority we give our government to protect our populace from threats.
In regards to the morality of the issue. First I would ask, who here would willingly surrender their loved ones to be brutally slaughtered without raising a finger to defend them? Because that is the base issue here. Do we have a morale right & duty to protect our loved ones? I believe we do. If it is meet & right for us to do so individually, clearly it is meet & right for a just society to do so objectively through the rule of law.
@Douglas Wiken “Totally irrelevant†only if we forget the historic basis, form, & function of the US government. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our Constitution makes it clear that the authority vested in our government originates from the legal authority of the individual citizen.
Defense of self & family is written into the very fabric of individual rights of our Constitution. The death penalty is a singular extension of that duty & right to our government. Waging war is the extension on a massive scale.
——————————
@D.E. Bishop the above comments explain how & why we empower our government to protect us as a legal extension of our own rights under the Constitution.
@KW I do not agree. Prison escapes happen. More importantly, prison doctors, administrators, prison guards & other inmates have to deal with these proven dangers to society. Just because a violent criminal is locked up does not magically make them safe to society at large or the small part that is still within those walls.
-----
@KW Are we to forget the portions of society we are also obliged to protect within those walls that we force to be in danger to care for and be in close proximity to these proven threats. Do not the doctors, dentists, prison guards, & other inmates deserve the same protections from these confirmed threats as you and I? http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/assaults/assaults.jsp indicate that it is not sunshine & lollipops within our prison system, Senior Officer Johnson’s death is a painful reminder of those dangers. Defense & protection of society is only one aspect why I believe the death penalty is morally sound of a society. Justice, deterrent, & insurance of no recidivism are other factors.
There is no one that regrets the loss of noncombatants more than those who are forced to fight our wars. As when innocents are injured/killed by law enforcement when they are forced to use deadly force as a result of a criminal’s actions, the responsibility for those deaths are on the heads of the criminals not the cops.
(K.W. Asked) “Stace: I can’t remember: Did you ever say whether you think our prison systems can impose security measures to assure that a certain class of inmate can’t harm anyone? K.W.â€
I did:
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=8141#comment-389162
@KW Under what conditions would you be happy with such a violent criminal in close proximity of a loved one? (Me? none) Defense & protection of society is only one aspect why I believe the death penalty is morally sound of a society. Justice, deterrent, & insurance of no recidivism are other factors.
A leader does not ask someone else to do that they wont do themselves. If common sense dictates that the job is too dangerous for my loved ones, my friends, what kind of unethical SOB would ask someone else to put their life at risk to preserve a threat that society has already determined?
Of special note, the lovely personal comments come from people that have never put their lives on the line to protect this country with the authorization of the death penalty in the magazine of their weapon. Instead, they rail at those who have from the safety provided by those that do..
——————————————-
@KW Your original question was “I guess I’m arguing that it is possible to ramp up security in prison systems to the point where targeted inmates cannot ever pose a threat to anyone. Do you not believe that level of security is possible? †I answered that with an explanation and a no, with a return question that you have not answered.
————————————————
Huh? A little censoring I see… Nice…
Stace: I’m not sure what you’re talking about. But we do edit and delete as we see fit here, for appropriateness and relevance. K.W.
——————————————–
@KW There was an appropriate & relevant reply to your inquiry, as well as to the patient in charge, that was deleted. Although it was innocent of any malfeasance, it did not receive the same considerations you give to those that are not.
Stace: Wait, it’s possible something happened yesterday. There was a point where I couldn’t moderate posts. Then there was a point where I could only approve or delete. (I announced that on my twitter account, urging my followers to spread the word.) By late afternoon things were back to what we call normal on Blogmore. If during that period I messed up and deleted a post I shouldn’t have (which regular here will tell you happens from time to time) I apologize. And I urge you to resubmit. K.W.
——————————————-
Hmmmmm, as usual, things are not as Mr. Fleming paints them…
And still he will not answer the question.
It's exactly how I painted it, Stace.
Exactly.
Everything you have pasted here was part of the original link
I provided (where you evaded the question the first time).
Kevin invited you to reply and you didn't.
Same as you have done here.
Game over.
@Bill You got me, as the ample posting above indicates... I am hiding what my position is on the death penalty :-D
Yes, as long as you refuse to answer this question, your position on the death penalty remains unclear.
Again, as per your discussion with Woster:
Nelson:
"In regards to the morality of the issue. First I would ask, who here would willingly surrender their loved ones to be brutally slaughtered without raising a finger to defend them? Because that is the base issue here. Do we have a morale right & duty to protect our loved ones? I believe we do. If it is meet & right for us to do so individually, clearly it is meet & right for a just society to do so objectively through the rule of law."
Woster:
"The perpetrator in Ron Johnson’s tragic death was not on death row. Are you advocating the death penalty for all prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes? K.W."
.....
Your silence on this point, along with your hostility toward those who dare ask you a perfectly legitimate question speaks volumes, Mr. Nelson.
And please note, I sincerely doubt that there has been any moderation or modification of your comments here on Cory's page, other than your own.
I would be surprised to hear otherwise.
Now, to recap my position on the matter.
Officers who work in penal institutions deserve protection, as do the inmates incarcerated there. To be sure, it is a dangerous job, as is the job of serving in the military. But wholesale slaughter by a vigilante citizenry is not the answer (as Nelson appears to suggest it is).
Clearly the prison guard who was killed wasn’t being very well protected by the system. As per my initial comment, I would think Mr. Nelson would be trying to find out why that was. I agree with Cory (and I assume Mr. Nelson as well) that the primary function of government is to secure the human rights of its citizenry.
Roger quite smartly raises the concern of "suicide by cop," or in this case, "suicide by execution." Some of these prisoners find incarceration more harsh punishment than death (shades of patrick Henry). We should not do their bidding. And as Bill warns, we should be alarmed by politicians who facilitate such suicides for their political gain. Any person, politician or otherwise, who brags about killing is a danger to society (and, by the reasoning about potential harm offered by death penalty proponents above, should perhaps be executed?).
When our prison system fails to keep guards and citizens safe, we should not throw in the towel and shoot prisoners. We should make our prison system better. A key part of reforming our prisoner may be reforming our laws and addressing much deeper social conditions to put fewer people in prison. (Hand... sand... grasp....)
@Bill Please show me someone that has been more patient and attempted to humor your numerous assaults on civil discussion? Your repeated feigned injuries of bruising your knuckles on someone else's chin after assaulting them gets tiresome.
You do not engage in civil discussion, you highjack the topic to engage in personal attacks because you cannot win in the public eye with your views.
Your assertion that I advocate wanton slaughter of prisoners is asinine to the extreme. While having drawn my weapon on suspects hundreds of times, I avoided the use of deadly force even to the point that I was injured. I support the public's right to justice & defense of the innocents.
You flatter yourself, Bill. I have no hostility for you, that again is the projections of your mind, not mine. Your tiresome Alinsky tactics get old. If you wish patience in dealing with your repetitious attack bile, please go see the Dali Lama.
After I heard you threatened to beat some one up for posting their comments on a blog, especially after the onslaught of personal attacks that you engage in, it is clear YOU are the one with the issues of hostility.
Just remember Bill, every time you rant and point your finger at others as the problem... there are three pointing right back at the real problem...
The questions, Stace. Focus, man, focus:
As per Woster:
“The perpetrator in Ron Johnson’s tragic death was not on death row. Are you advocating the death penalty for all prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes? K.W.â€
Stace: OK, so that I’m clear, your saying you don’t believe the current corrections system in the U.S. is capable of creating an incarceration level so secure that prison workers could never be injured by the inmates? K.W.
By the way, Stace, everything I have asked you on this thread is precisely on topic.
@Bill This lengthy post was held in moderation https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/in-the-killers-words-robert-confesses-to-penitentiary-guard-murder/#comment-32184
and as indicated at the end of that, Blogmore deleted my response to Mr. Worster and my return question that he refused to answer. As with my response to your asinine assertions above, I do NOT advocate the summary execution of convicted violent criminals. Again projections, Bill. Just because you are the type of person that advocates such for the innocent unborn, you think all people share your morale makeup, they don't.
Oh brother.. well that's one down and one to go. (By the way, it was Woster's question, not mine, based on your assertion. You should be more careful what you write, perhaps.) Glad to finally hear your answer. Thank you.
Now how about the last one?
"Stace: OK, so that I’m clear, your saying you don’t believe the current corrections system in the U.S. is capable of creating an incarceration level so secure that prison workers could never be injured by the inmates? K.W."
@Bill Your comments here https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/in-the-killers-words-robert-confesses-to-penitentiary-guard-murder/#comment-32304 departed from the post and were contrived to be offensive.
I am not the subject of Mr. Heidelburger's article, you highjacked a blog once more to engage in a petty personal affront.
That post must have been where I was hostile to you and tried to keep you from expressing yourself? :-D
@Bill I answered his and your question in full https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/in-the-killers-words-robert-confesses-to-penitentiary-guard-murder/#comment-32184
Note the return question that he never answered. Feel free to expound on it.
Huh, where Bill highjacks the blog should have been https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/in-the-killers-words-robert-confesses-to-penitentiary-guard-murder/#comment-32141
Where Cory admits my post was held up in moderation is https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/in-the-killers-words-robert-confesses-to-penitentiary-guard-murder/#comment-32189
Wrong again Bill https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/in-the-killers-words-robert-confesses-to-penitentiary-guard-murder/#comment-32263
So is that a yes or a no, Stace?
Do you believe the current corrections system in the U.S. is capable of creating an incarceration level so secure that prison workers could never be injured by the inmates?
Yes? Or No. It's so simple. Try it.
@Bill I answered then and it is posted above. If you chose not to read and understand that is your problem.
There are no simple answers in the world, Bill. Only the occasional simple mind that professes as such. :-D
Besides, you struck out for the millionth time and called yourself out: https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/in-the-killers-words-robert-confesses-to-penitentiary-guard-murder/#comment-32208
Suit yourself, Stace. It seems like a simple question to me.
Seems like there would even be evidence to back it up one way or the other.
Especially if one had spent a career in law enforcement and was a duly elected SD Congressman.
But clearly, you don't intend to offer either — answer or evidence.
You could have saved yourself (and me) a lot of grief by simply saying either "I don't know" or "I don't wish to answer that question."
Maybe next time, huh?
@Bill If you choose not to read what I posted, which contains my answer, the fault for going away ignorant is yours.
Bon voyage! :-D
...pretty sure Stace is saying that "the current corrections system in the U.S. is incapable of creating an incarceration level so secure that prison workers could never be injured by the inmates?"
But I'm not going to put words in his mouth.
He hates when I do that.
But if he is indeed saying that, I would be inclined to agree with him.
It's pretty tough to create an absolutely fail safe system.
Bill: If the arugument here is not the death penalty, what is the arugument?
My opinion: He was already serving a life sentence, how is he going to be punished any furthere by adding another life sentence? In this instance, the dealth penalty is justified.
Tim, the argument is prison security and the protection human rights. See my note to Cory 2011.09.18 AT 06:58 and his concurrence immediately following. How is it that Robert was able to approach Johnson the way that he did? Where was Johnson's backup?
I agree with Bill: Stace confuses self-defense from imminent threats with operation of the criminal justice system and ends up advocating the execution of all potentially violent prisoners. In all of what Stace has written, I see no threshold that prevents a judge from sentencing to death an inmate who says to a prison guard or even another prisoner, "I'm going to kill you." I'm not even sure that explicit threat has to be made to trigger Stace's death penalty. Governor Stace Nelson would end any prison overcrowding in South Dakota... but the moral price would be enormous.
Tim, I just don't think punishment is a big part of the equation here. Whether we lock him up for life or march him to the gallows, Robert may just laugh at us. There may be nothing we can do to really hurt him... at least nothing that civilized people can do. We may thus have to abandon trying to "make him pay" and focus on keeping ourselves safe while preserving our morality. I believe we have the wherewithal to do both. And if we err, I would rather we err by keeping bad dudes alive than by killing innocent dudes.
Agreed, Cory. Err on the side of life, and leave room for redemption. Unlike discussions involving zygotes and blastocysts, there is no question whatsoever that we are dealing with a complete, fully realized human being here. And regardless of their criminal transgressions, we have a moral imperative to respect their human dignity, not just for the prisoners' sake but for everyones'. Otherwise, we become what we hate.
Cory, please forgive me.
Troy and Bill: this message is for you. How you can go to the War Toilet and put up with anonymous assaults on your characters and give that bogus blog clicks that finance your own debasement is completely beyond me.
I am embarrassed for you!
Larry, it's an old Jewish marketing mandate. "You wanna sell hats, go where the heads are." And yeah, it's not always pretty there.
Bill, there are about three heads there, the rest is illusion created by Pat's rented machinery to generate hat sales.