Confessed killer Eric Robert is trying to hold South Dakota hostage. During his sentencing hearing before Judge Bradley Zell yesterday, Robert threatened to kill another man and tried to shift the blame to us:
He also told Zell that failure to return a death sentence for the murder of Ronald "R.J." Johnson will put other officers at the penitentiary at risk.
"If you sentence me to life, I believe you'll read somewhere that I have killed again," Robert said. "That will be on you" [John Hult, "Robert: I'd Kill Again," that Sioux Falls paper, 2011.10.26].
No, you scum. It will not be on Judge Zell or me or any other citizen of this state. If we let you rot in a cell for the rest of the natural life you have chosen to waste, and if you choose to commit more violence, the responsibility for that violence lies entirely on you.
Robert makes clear his moral intent in asking for us to kill him:
On the 12th of April, when given the choice, I chose to kill. I chose to execute someone. I'm asking you to do the same [Robert, quoted in Hult, 2011.10.26]
Robert wants to make us the same as him. In his sick mind, he wants to justify his murderous act by eliciting a murderous act from The Man, from us.
Don't fall for it, Judge Zell. Don't fall for it, South Dakota. Don't do Eric Robert's bidding. Be better than Eric Robert. That's not a high moral bar to clear... or is it?
All too typical, I fear, Cory. It's called "blaming the victim." And Robert's not the only one doing it.
Cory, never before have I so much agreed with you.
Rhetorically I ask everyone: If a person asked you to degrade them and their inherent human dignity, would you feel you should?
Judge Zell is a good man. I pray he has the fortitude to deny this request of degradation.
"I pray he has the fortitude to deny this request of degradation."
As do I; I am afraid, however, the answer to the prayer will be no.
Did any of you ever think that this clever convict was doing exactly the opposite of what you think he was doing? By insisting the judge give him the death sentence, he was hoping that the judge would react just as Cory did herein. You are looking at Mr. Roberts through the eyes of good people who do not understand, and who have never been touched, by the evil they commit. I pray that will always be the case for you.
My prayers are with Ron Johnson's family, and Judge Zells, as they deal with the difficult decision that was forced to be made on behalf of South Dakotans.
Stace, of course you are correct. If Robert really thought he should be executed, he would have seen to it himself (see below). What I hear him saying is, "I will try to kill everyone but myself to get out of here, because being in here is the worst thing that can happen to me." In other words, he perceives himself as the supreme moral authority.
And thus, if we kill him because we are afraid of him, he wins. Let him instead come to grips with his own fear. It's his only (spiritual) way out.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/Excerpt:
"The most vociferous opponent of suicide in this period was Immanuel Kant. Kant's arguments, though they reflect earlier natural law arguments, draw upon his view of moral worth as emanating from the autonomous rational wills of individuals. (Cholbi 2000) For Kant, our rational wills are the source of our moral duty, and it is therefore a kind of practical contradiction to suppose that the same will can permissibly destroy itself. Given the distinctive worth of an autonomous rational will, suicide is an attack on the very source of moral authority.
To annihilate the subject of morality in one's person is to root out the existence of morality itself from the world as far as one can, even though morality is an end in itself. Consequently, disposing of oneself as a mere means to some discretionary end is debasing humanity in one's person… (Kant 423)"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide
Sorry about the bad link...
Looks like he got what he wanted:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/inmate-who-killed-south-dakota-penitentiary-guard-sentenced-to-death/article_108851ac-00bd-11e1-89cb-001cc4c002e0.html
At first, I thought it was an attempt at reverse psychology. If this was his intent, he was too clever by half.
But, I think it is more a desire for him to feel justified in what he did by daring us to show we as a society are no better than he is and have a "subjective" view with regard to the inherent dignity of the human and the inalienable right to life. As Bill said, we proved him right.
Yes, Troy, by refusing to commit suicide, he makes the only stand for liberty and human dignity he can. He has surrendered, by his actions, all other options. Conversely, by killing him, we deny that transcendent human dignity in him, and, by extension, in ourselves as well. He thus (paradoxically) holds the moral high ground. He wins, we lose. God have mercy on us all.
Mr. Jones, You forget this is not the end of the story for this vicious murderer and that he has everything to gain and nothing to lose even with his self indicting comments.
I disagree with you both. Although the Lord tells us he knows even of the passing of a sparrow, there is ample evidence in the Good Book that the Good Lord does not expect us to allow the wolf or lion to ravage his flock without raising the staff to defend the innocent.
The morality of defending society from further harm by Mr. Roberts, is no different than defending it from an invading horde with a professed intent of murdering en masse.
Stace, do you execute prisoners of war — sworn enemies of our country — once you have them in captivity? Is that the military code? If not, why not?
Extraordinary rendition is what Stace is all about, Bill. The guy is a spook trainer.
Larry, let Stace answer. I know his history, but that's not his job anymore. His job now is to listen to his fellow South Dakotans and think with his own mind.
"Although the Lord tells us he knows even of the passing of a sparrow, there is ample evidence in the Good Book that the Good Lord does not expect us to allow the wolf or lion to ravage his flock without raising the staff to defend the innocent."
Milosevic, Qaddafi, Saddam, Assad, Kim Jong Il, Bob Mugabe...
Stace Nelson indicted the President for joining NATO for humanitarian interventions, fer chrissake.
"It’s his only (spiritual) way out."
BIll, that is 100% wrong.
"Conversely, by killing him, we deny that transcendent human dignity in him, and, by extension, in ourselves as well."
And how many times a day does that happen in America's abortion mills?
There are women on death row, Steve; you're equating human rights with civil rights again. A fetus has no civil rights until the third trimester.
Besides, Steve, aren't you being inconsistent, using one perceived atrocity to justify another?
Steve says, "BIll, that is 100% wrong."
Why?
I confess to believing that people convicted of a capital offense SHOULD have the option of choosing life imprisonment or execution. Unlikely to happen in a collapsed red state like South Dakota.
Curious what role Stace Nelson played in THIS atrocity:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/fighting-day-court-american-tortured-us-soil
So would you want to be the executioner if someone chose that option, Larry? I certainly wouldn't want you to. Nor would I want you to do it on behalf of myself and my family.
I'm not a medical professional, Bill. Administering the three-drug cocktail is performed by an LPN, right?
I don't think so, Larry. But that's kind of dodging the question, isn't it. ;^)
http://lethal-injection-florida.blogspot.com/2008/01/profile-of-executioner.html
lf l was employed by the prison/industrial complex in the chemical toilet (Allah forbid) and was qualified to do it, sure.
If it was a choice....
ip just got thrown out of the War Toilet...again!
I didn't ask if you WOULD do it, I asked if you would WANT to.
Bill, you know that all I want to do is write, smoke pot, drink good wine, and fornicate. Killing anything or anyone is contrary to all I'm about.
Thanks, Larry, as I thought. You forgot to add "shoot the sh*t" to that list, brother ;^)
yea, verily....
Dang it: I come home from the office and find the state has decided to kill in my name again.
Troy, don't let me forget we have common ground on this issue.
Bill, you hit it just right. By choosing to kill this prisoner, we surrender our moral high ground. We surrender to fear. I hate that. I love your explanation in terms of human dignity. Interesting: can we respect human dignity even in a man who has so surrendered to indignity?
Stace, killing a man in a cell is not like killing an invading horde. If aliens land with phasers blazing, throw me a rifle, and I won't trouble you with moral conversations until we've stopped those green monsters. But we're talking here about something more like destroying the aliens' ships and weapons, encircling them in trenches and barbed wire, outnumbering them 100 to 1... and then telling our guys to shoot.
Bill, Depends if they are a uniformed combatant when taken into custody and if there are crimes associated to them.
Well known German POW's put to death: Martin Bormann, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, etc..
Well known Japanese POW's put to death: Hideki Tojo, General Masaharu Homma, Tomoyuki Yamashita, and five others.
Cory, as demonstrated with this very crime, man is the most dangerous of all God's creatures. Even if man is unarmed within controlled confinment, if he is of the mind to it, he remains a deadly threat to innocents within our society.
While I disagree with you four, I do so with no enjoyment. I truly wish that you were right; however, this case especially proves you are in error.
Uh, viruses have killed far more humans than men like you will ever hope to kill, Rep. Nelson.
Morality calls on us to do hard things, Stace. In this case, that means looking a menace to society in the eye, denying him the authority of fear, and saying, "We will hold you without killing you. We will be better than your evil."
Poverty, despair, and hopelessness kill thousands every day. What balls you must have!
@Larry Impolite Posting on your part never cease to disgust me. Guilty confession that I find amusement in your Ignorant Plight. Now scurry away.
@CAH I would argue the morale duty is protecting the Ron Johnson's of the world from such evil. Perhaps it might be a touch of arrogance or self worshipping to believe that man is powerful enough to hold such evil in captivity without it hurting the innocents. Even Lucifer reaches us from the prison the Good Lord created.
In any event, Mr. Roberts proves the error of the idea that he is "safe" to the public incarcerated away from the law abiding public.
Stace, I notice that Officer Johnson's widow musters the courage to look Johnson in the eye and call him a coward. Yet are we not cowards for thinking we cannot contain this man?
That Lucifer talk cuts both ways: perhaps the devil is reaching us by making us afraid enough to kill.
But let's not make Robert bigger than he is. He's a man, not a supernatural force. We are men. We could hold him. We could be better than him. But we've chosen not to.
Rep. Nelson: I am a Democrat committed to creating doubt in voters' minds; your seat is a target.
Cory, Please walk the million miles evident in the wear on my "shoes" when you consider my next statement. I am not afraid of anyone. I have no malice for Roberts or any other threat to my family, community, or country. I have the utmost respect for the law and for society's right for justice. I am too tired to beat you up for your staunch support of the "civil rights" of a women to defend her lifestyle from an unwanted child while you ignore society's civil rights to be free from the effects of a ruthless murderer.
Larry, you just keep rabidly attacking anything that has an (R) behind it. Just remember that while my large seat may be a target, it is also connected to my size 14 booted foot.
I haven't read all of the comments but I'm for flipping the switch.
Roberts new the law and he shouldn't have killed a good man. Roberts will get his punishment.
Marty Jackley is representing SD well in the AG's office.
Here Stace: I can afford your boots. Have the State buy you a new chair:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/27/141760591/workplaces-feel-the-impact-of-obesity
Think about it, Stace: you were the person who brought the supernatural into a discussion of civics. You used the words "lord," "good book," "good lord" and had the temerity to capitalize them. That's offensive and inappropriate to this thread.
"I am too tired to beat you up for your staunch support of the “civil rights†of a women to defend her lifestyle from an unwanted child while you ignore society’s civil rights to be free from the effects of a ruthless murderer."
Perhaps not too tired, too conflicted. You seem to make Cory's argument for him, Stace.
Ease up on the size comments, Larry.
Stace, abortion is a very different issue. Abortion is not mere defense of a "lifestyle;" it is a personal choice made by a woman whose exists separately from me and on whom I (and the state) cannot impose certain burdens. Support for the constitutional right to abort a pregnancy is about protecting a woman's bodily autonomy.
Opposition to the death penalty is a social question, in which we all as a group determine how we will impose justice on one of our members. It is none of my business whether a woman chooses to submit herself to supporting a fetus or not. It is every bit my business (and yours, and Larry's...) whether we will commit fearful murder or not.
In any case, these are not really "civil rights" issues, but rather "human rights" arguments, which trump (or at least should trump) civil rights law. i.e. If there are laws on the books that allow a government to murder its citizens in a premeditated manner, they should be abolished.
In general, I am against the Death Penalty.
In this case, I am conflicted.
Let's look at the criminal. We have basically two options as to what we can do with him. Lock in in solitary confinement (or some Hannibal Lecter-esc cell) until he dies or kill him. Killing him might actually be the more merciful of the two actions.
He is right - he cannot be allowed to interact with other people. He has proven that he can't be trusted even in the controlled environment that is prison.
Personally, if he seems so intent on dying, I would put him in solitary with a good rope and a nice stout beam or bars overhead. If he wants to die, he can die. If not, he can spend however many years he has left without human contact.
Anthony, yes, that's what solitary confinement is all about (sans rope and beam of course). He's already made it clear that he doesn't want to committ suicide (by not doing it). He wants us to kill him. We should not oblige him.
To the degree that we don't have prisons well designed enough to accomplish long term solitary confinement, we should devote sufficient resources to make sure we do. I'm simply not buying Nelson's argument that it can't be done. It seems absurd.
I worked in Yankton on the Ordway Ward for the criminally insane while I was in college, and there were no mishaps. I even shaved some of the craziest murders there several times with a straight razor. Hey, it was part of the job.
Suck it up, Nelson. I've been in those shoes. You're not the only one who has had "life experiences", you know?
Cory,
In my mind, these issues (abortion and the death penalty) are not a different issue but intricately linked to the most basic human inalienable right, the right to life and our failure to stand up for every person's inherent human dignity whether they do good, can live independently, or do the most heinous of acts we degrade our own. And it is more than a social question. If we believe there is any inalienable rights, we have no authority to justly deny what is inalienable. If there is no inalienable right to life, there are no inalienable rights.
I get the argument Stace raises regarding the obligation to protect other's right to life and sometimes lethal action is required. However, in the case of the death penalty, we have the capacity to protect our guards (and society) from those we are choosing to kill. Did you know in the last 40 years (I believe this is the right number) not a single person on death row has killed another person and only a handful of people in maximum security has killed another person? In the meantime, we have executed dozens of people proven to be innocent.
The Just War Doctrine has many "tests" for war, two of which are imminent danger and last resort. I apply this principle to the death penalty. If the person can be removed from being an imminent threat and we have another choice (maximum security incarceration), killing the person is not justified.
Furthermore, this monster's "request" to be killed as Bill articulates better than I can is a desire for us to be like him. We as individuals and collectively should aspire to be better than this scumbag.
If anyone is interested, at Mt. Blogmore, Bill and I (among others) argued this issue in the abstract (not specific to this case). If my link isn't right, it is entitled as "Should we be embarrassed by the company we keep?â€
There are some places were it appears we got off on unrelated tangents but they do tie together. Don't get distracted by the "believer vs. non-believer" discussion for in the end, the question asked is a universal human question: Are there inalienable human rights (universal freedoms, benefits or protections), do we have inherent human dignity or do we live in a society were there are only human privileges (non-universal freedomes, benefits or protections) which are granted arbitrarily and subjectively by a King, government or our neighbors?
How we look at Eric Robert, the elderly with alzheimers, children with severe physical disabilities, and the unborn tell us how whether we have universal inalienable rights or just non-universal, subjective privileges. If one person isn't entitled the right to life, there is no right to life but only a subjective privilege to live so long as you follow a higher powers concept of acceptable behavior.
Sidenote: A "freedom, benefit, or protection" which is not given to all is not a universal right but a selective privilege. A "freedom, benefit or protection" granted by another, whether it be a King, elected government, despot, or your neighbor is not inalienable but discretionary (subject to their discretion).
What "freedom, benefit or protection" do you think you deserve that should be denied to another? If you think Eric Robert should be denied his right to life, I get that. Just admit the right to life is not inalienable.
And, if the right to life isn't inalienable, what is inalienable to everyone?
Finally, if we have no inalienable rights, we at best only have rights given to us by a King, government or our neighbor which can be denied for whatever reason they decide.
P.S. Please do not think I am a Quaker-esque pacifist. Present an imminent threat, with no other option, to my country, my neighbor, or my family and I am fully prepared to take proportionate action, even if it is lethal.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=8460#comments
Awesome post, Troy.
I would just add that there is medication available to help control outbursts by unruly convicts although the court has ruled against coerced medication for though not yet convicted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Forced_medication_rulings
Excellent summary, Troy. I'm glad we agree on the important stuff.
Gents,
Conservatives believe in personal responsability. Mr Roberts is responsible for the murder of Ron Johnson and the fact that he is an obvious threat to the inalienable rights of others. Our Founding Fathers understood that it is such people who renounce their inailenable rights that we are morally obligated to protect our fellow innocent countrymen from them. It is also the reason why major oaths of service call for protecting America "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I can understand your frustrations with this specific case as it specifically refutes arguments that a dangerous persons is "safe" once they are incarcerated. The personal affronts (LK, BF) indicate they realize they have lost the argument and attempt to divert the conversation.
Mr. Jones you place the blame for Mr Roberts' loss of freedom and life at the feet of society as an arbitrary thing, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Mr. Roberts knowingly committed these crimes with the knowledge that such actions deprive him of his liberty and now his life. The bigger obligation our government has is to protect the inelianble rights of the innocents from the Mr. Roberts, not to continue giving the Mr Roberts of the world opportunities to deprive others of their life, liberty & pursuit of happiness.
Cory, you forget one important part of the abortion issue, the child....
Bill, such admissions explain a lot. Your days as a barber, shaving drugged out mental patients.
I do allow myself the twisted Marine mirth of imagining the soft handed gathering herein confronting a Mr. Roberts who happened by their residence for a cup of tea. I am sure the debate on inalienable rights would be lost at such a gathering.
Of special note, the Mr. Roberts of the world do not normally bother the well to do. It is the folks that are less fortunate enough in the world that have to deal with the carnage. Let them eat cake?
huh cut off, Bill. Should have read:
...patients trumpys my years of dealing with them one on one in the "wild." I stand deposed and bow to your normal expressed superiority.
Some conservatives believe in personal responsibility while you speak in absolutes, Rep. Nelson; the Declaration of Independence is a political document, not a legal one.
Mr. Roberts is a product of red state failure having fallen through the cracks of an underfunded mental health care system and if his mother had had access to publicly-supported reproductive care, his very existence might not have occurred at all as a "child" does not legally exist until the third trimester.
No Stace, I have not lost the argument. Nor have you made a meaningful counter to it.
Mr. Kurtz,
England, and our Founding Fathers, may disagree with you on that.
Mr. Roberts is a product of Mr. Roberts. He was blessed with living in the USA and having all the opportunities that great country afforded him.
Our conscious, and your posts/repeated affronting acronyms, indicate the definition of child begins at conception and very may well exist in the adult appearance into the latter years of life.
You have yet to explain why prisons can't be made safe enough for those working there to ensure the prisoner can live out his life in isolation without our having to murder him.
Bill, in that it is the law of the land, clearly you have lost the argument; however, if you would like to think otherwise, it would be in keeping with our normal discussions.
i'd like to enter this piece as evidence to the contrary, Rep. Nelson:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/24/dr_gabor_mat_on_the_stress
Stace, don't you find it interesting that your "law of the land" argument never works when it comes to the abortion discussion, and yet you try to use it here?
If that's the best you've got, I'll consider it your concession.
Thank you, sir.
Bill, don't you find it interesting that your a convict can be controlled and is safe inside argument is defeated with this very case; however, you still argue it?
Concession? :-D HB 1217 was not a concession.
Representative Nelson:
Huh? Where in the world would you be able to infer I think Eric Robert's situation is "loss of freedom and life at the feet of society as an arbitrary thing."
I unequivocably accept your position that Robert "knowingly committed these crimes with the knowledge that such actions deprive him of his liberty and now his life." In fact he said as much in his sentencing hearing. I reject the idea he isn't responsible for his actions nor that he shouldn't be held accountable.
I think it a grave and critical responsibility of our government to protect the inalienable rights of all people, the good, the innocent, the unborn and the guilty. If a right is inalienable, I (nor you) can't take it away. If a "freedom, benefit or protection" isn't universal, it is a privilege enjoyed only by some.
I think it also a grave and critical responsibility of our government to prevent the "Mr Roberts of the world opportunities to deprive others of their life, liberty & pursuit of happiness."
My pastor always says, "There is nothing meritorious to love those who are good or love us. The challenge is to love those who are bad or hate us." Similarly, there is nothing meritorious to defend the right to life of the healthy around us. The challenge is defending the right to life of the unborn, the sick, infirm, elderly and yes, the ugly among us.
Look, if someone can convince me that it is necessary to kill Eric Robert because it is necessary to prevent him from killing another, the danger is real (not just conceptual), and there is no other option, I'll change my view in a minute. In fact, I understand why the death penalty is used in some less developed countries who don't have our incarceration capabilities.
But, you know what, death penalty advocates always avoid the issue because the facts are against them (we can reasonably incarcerate even the most threatening from ever being a threat to anyone ever again) and they always revert to two "basic" arguments:
1) They deserve it. In fact, rather than use a drug to kill him, why not just release him into the prison population with the promise whoever beats the life out of him will get a steak dinner, a month of movies, and maybe a conjugal visit. But, similarly, every one of us "deserves Hell" too. I'm hopeful though in God's Mercy.
2) It's the law. Well, if we had perfect laws, we wouldn't need a legislature.
If the right to life is an inalienable "freedom, benefit, or protection," the death penalty is unjust in America. For the death penalty to be just, life is a privilege subject to norms set by the King, government or society (norms which can be changed).
When I look at my wife, children, or grandchildren, I know they have an inherent human dignity which includes a right to life. That is easy. Watching Eric Robert (I say his name with derision while Ron Johnson's name is said with reverence) on tv took every ounce of charity to see he has the same inherent human dignity. That was hard.
Great. Now were back to Nelson basically arguing that prisoners who might harm someone in the future should be executed. This is going from bad to worse.
Mr. Jones,
Your own comments:
".. do we live in a society were there are only human privileges (non-universal freedomes, benefits or protections) which are granted arbitrarily and subjectively by a King, government or our neighbors?"
You say this:
"I think it a grave and critical responsibility of our government to protect the inalienable rights of all people"
however, you forget in your safe security, of the people in prison and the prison guards like Mr Ron Johnson that are forced to deal with these dangerous criminals. What about their inalienable rights? Let them eat cake just as long as pride is saved from admitting one is not wrong even in the face of absurdity?
You also say this:
"Look, if someone can convince me that it is necessary to kill Eric Robert because it is necessary to prevent him from killing another"
However, you ignore the very statements made by Roberts that he will kill again in your support of sending him right back to the crime scene where he took the life of an innocent prison guard. Curious of how many innocent Ron Johnson's inalienable rights must be sacrificed before egos admit to the obvious?
Lastly, even the Good Lord points out that hell is the reward for renouncing Him and His salvation. He also points out in Romans that the government beareth not the sword in vane.
I am no advocate of the death penalty; however, I respect the law and the obvious reasons for it in order to protect society from those that are dedicated to depriving others of their inalienable rights. I also am secure in my beliefs, through my faith, that it is dutiful to protect the innocent from the wolves in our society.
Bill, we are back to you making absurd statemenst to divert attention from you losing the arguement yet again.. :-D
No Stace, I believe that is the very substance of your argument.
If it's not, explain it to us again.
I understood you to say that prison workers, other prisoners, and society in general can't be made safe from murderers. And thus, murderers should be executed.
Is that your point, or not?
Representative Nelson:
Here is the essence of our difference:
1) I believe the right to life is INALIENABLE except when there is no other remedy and UNIVERSAL (applies to all).
2) You appear to assert the privilege to live is CONDITIONAL so long as one conforms to a certain standard of conduct and SELECTIVE (your reference to the greater priority to be given to the guards, et. al. vs. the Eric Robert's of the world)
That is ok. In America, a difference of ideas and principles is part of our fabric. We just disagree.
I need to address some of your comments directly:
1) I directly and personally know people who work at the penitentiary. I think of them often and have grave concern for their safety. Eric Robert and those like him pose a greater threat to our guards who, like Eric Robert was, are in the general population. Death Row and prisoners in maximum security are of a smaller risk to our guards because of precautions taken. Personally, I think you should refrain from asserting the calumnious claim I don't think about their safety.
2) Eric Roberts statements he would kill again presumes he would be given the opportunity and precautions can't be taken. I have more confidence in our prison's ability to deal with people so identified than you do.
3) Why do you assert this is about my pride and ego? Is this grounded in yours? I've never made that accusation against you.
4) Why do you make the claim you respect the law? I presume most people do. Are you inferring I don't?
5) Why do you have the need to make a statement that you are doing God's work and comfortable in your faith? Do you think I'm doing the Devil's (I've never accused you of that)? Or do you think I'm insecure in my faith (how in the H-E double hockey stick would you know that?)?
6) I would love to know how you reconcile your advocacy on the "inalienable rights" of our innocent guards responsible for guarding prisoners in death row/max security conditions against the "inalienable rights" of those wrongfully convicted (and subsequently executed) when the latter exceeds the former over the last forty years. Or does the reality they were wrongfully convicted justification for the loss of their privilege of life? Or are they just collateral damage to a greater cause. I sincerely ask this question and am not looking for sarcasm.
Bill, you may believe in Santa Claus: however, just as I never said the absurd comment you impart on me, I also never gave evidence in your belief in the good Saint Nick.
Perhaps you spent too much time with those folks when you were cutting their hair?
Representative Nelson,
I should have given two options for your postion.
One is #2 as I described above. The other is you don't think it reasonable that prison guards, et. al. can be protected against Eric Robert in a maximum security setting.
Just address the questions, Nelson. Both Troy and I have laid it out in perfectly clear terms. If all you have are smart ass answers, you do your office a disservice. This is a serious issue.
Unchain me, Cory.
Mr Jones,
Our Constitution, and way of life, find that we are all endowed with inalienable rights from God. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being everyone's right; however, ones right to usurp other's life, liberty, and happiness is forbidden in the Ten Commandments and within our laws. The Good Lord has shown us that the rightful wages of sin, are death.
Now you and Bill are free to engage in your metaphysical ideas that we are all one with the universe all you want; however, the rest of the world is not so fortunate as to live in the lap of luxury you two happily beam down from. A criminal does not have inalienable rights to take the life of another; however, the populace's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness (being free from that threat of harm) does have the right to protect those rights from those who will illegally deprive them of those rights.
I have noticed that you and Mr Flemming have many things in common. One of those lovely commonalities is the irritating tendency to attempt to interject your own ideas and project them as what others say. Aside from being extremely rude, it makes one look like an arrogant jack ass.
My good old fashioned blue collar SD public schools English is pretty clear, you both will excuse me if I decline both your efforts to quantify them in a fashion not so expressed. If those common words leave you confused, realize that it is you that is confused.
While you and Bill are free to entertain each other and convince yourselves of your prodigious intellectual prowess beyond the grasp of mere mortals, you are encumbered with the literal facts of life that sometimes the cigar is simply a cigar.
I support the law of the land and understand the wisdom behind protecting the innocents inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Mr. Jones, If you chose to yet again derive offense in my public posting as an indictment of your ideas, person, or lofty opinion of yourself, such is your freedom to do so; however, the truth of the matter is that not everything is about you.
When the obvious answer is ignored to the point of absurdity, should not one then question the motives behind those that chose to be blind in order to support the ignorance of that which they profess?
If you gentlemen were right, we should never incarcerate anyone for the crimes they commit as to do so is to deprive them of their inalienable rights to liberty?
Again, you devour the cake of security from your wealthy position all the while demanding the masses eat the cake that you would deprive them of by placing these very threats to their security back within their society you hold yourself apart from.
While your having contact with one who would be forced to be employed in such a blue collar capacity is extremely noble, I do not understand the relevance of having first hand knowledge of truly understanding that which we discuss. I have dear friends who are wonderful physicians; however, I am not blessed with their talents and understandings of healing through that cursory contact.
What a barrage of pure bullshit.
Representative Nelson:
Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
If it can be justly taken away, it is not inalienable.
ANYBODY who denies another an inalienable right has done so unjustly. What can not be taken away, if done, is by definition unjust. Please don't assert I don't think society has a right and obligation to protect itself from those who do harm. I believe it deeply.
What Eric Robert did to Ron Johnson was heinous, unjust, and deserving of punishment. I have no compunction if the conditions of his imprisonment were let's say "primitive." Don't infer anything more into my position except I think the right to life is inalienable (using the dictionary definition). Nothing more, nothing less.
The rest of your comments I really don't have a response.
I've asked you a series of questions to try to understand how killing Eric Robert is justified and or good policy and whether you believe there is an inalienable right to life, whether it is universal or whether it is conditional based on a criteria and what is that criteria. If you don't want to answer the questions directly as I ask them, no problem.
But clarity would be helpful. Proponents of the death penalty are a majority in this nation. If you address my questions (however you choose) I might gain understanding how a nation which claims the right to life is inalienable justifies denying another life without a threat of imminent real danger when there are other remedies to as effectively protect society.
While less critical, if you can explain a justification for the reality more people have been wrongly executed in the last 40 years than killed by someone on death row or in a maximum security prison setting, I'd love to grasp this rationale as well.
P.S. Bill and I disagree more often than we agree on issues. But I understand how we can be irritating. It is not our intent even if our questions irritate you. Although you aren't my represtative, you are one who chooses to participate and articulate a position on this and other blogs. And, your new district contains at least 100 of my relatives (most of whom are relatively distant).
He's not going to answer the question, Troy. He wouldn't answer it when Kevin Woster asked it either. I'm not going to discuss this with him any more. There is no light there, just heat.
"That Justice Antonin Scalia believes in execution as a moral form of punishment is a well-known fact. That he is an observant, traditional Roman Catholic is, similarly, well-known. “If I thought that Catholic doctrine held the death penalty to be immoral, I would resign,†he told an audience at Duquesne University Law School last month. “I could not be part of a system that imposes it.â€"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/justice-scalia-speaks-for-himself-on-death-penalty-not-the-catholic-church/2011/10/26/gIQAXkueLM_story.html
Mr. Jones,
You continue to clearly confuse me with some groveling politician who has political aspirations and is willing to compromise their principles for a $50 donation, or the promise of a vote for a future office.
I hold every South Dakotan in the highest of regard, and each is received with that respect; however, that is a two way street. If you are looking for a patronizing politician, you are clearly not going to find one in your exchanges with me.
I give what I get.
If you are a hard core Republican, I am your guy. As the Conservative platform appears to been tailor made for me and I vote with it 99% of the time. You have taken umbrage with me on my support of this law and of my avocation that every recorded vote in the legislature be properly posted for the public's view. There are SDGOP planks that would indicate that Republican values are well served by my position on both these issues.
That is the second time you mentioned your affiliation to my new district. If patronization is a requirement for your support, then you have clearly misunderstood me. If it is a threat, well you do yourself and your relatives a disservice.
Evangelicals and Protestants, who tend to be rural gun and god people with less post secondary educations, tend to support capital punishment.
More: http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/28/how-catholic-conservative-could-quietly-remake-the-republican-presidential-race/
Bill, I have long understood that regardless of the answer typed, you will contrive an answer from it to justify your improper responses. Asked and answered long ago, just because you do not accept it does not mean it wasn't so.
No, Stace, I don't forget the child, or the fetus, or the embryo. Whatever you call it, its status still does not trump the woman's personal autonomy.
So let me get this straight, the life of an innocent child confined in the womb is not worth protecting; however, the life of a murderous criminal who arrogantly proclaims that he will murder again if given the opportunity is?
The woman carrying the child is the child's creator. She and nature are the sole decision makers in the question as to whether or not their mutual creation will be brought to fruition. That decision, and the subsequent endowment of natural, inalienable rights are thus reserved by the creator, not the government and it's laws.
Actually, if you throw an abortion doctor in the mix chasing the child in the womb with a big metal tool it kind of screws up the whole mother nature koombaya zen decision making thing you got going on. Also, nature does not have inalienable rights, if there were then you would have to also extend them to the child in the womb. But I digress.
Additionally, you must have missed the part that the child is actually concieved by man and a woman. The spark of life begins at conception and comes from God the Creator, so if the gaps of your failed statements are filled in, your own arguement indicates the child would have inalienable rights
It's in the Founders' papers.
Nature and Nature's God.
Not Zen. 100% American.
Again, I digress. We were not discussing how wrong it is to kill an unborn child. We were being lectured by you on how it is right to place the life of an unrepentant murderer over the inalienble rights of innocent people. Please continue.
They all have inalienable human rights, mothers, children, criminals.
Endowed by their creator. All of them.
Indeed, Stace, we do digress. Women have a personal, autonomous authority over their bodies that has no appropriate analogue in our social institutions. No doctor, no legislator, no judge, no man and no other woman has any authority over a woman's decision about what happens in her uterus. I cannot force her to destroy that fetus; I cannot force her to carry it to viable birth. Her rights on this matter trump everyone's, including whatever rights you wish to ascribe to proto-beings growing inside her.
I am not placing Robert's right to live over anyone else's. I am not advocating that anyone else surrender his or her life to keep Robert alive. I am not advocating that our prison guards lay down their weapons, open the doors, and let Robert wreak his promised mayhem. I am advocating that we impose on Robert exactly the justice he most dreads: the continued sacrifice of his liberty and his conscious experience of that sacrifice in the capable hands and under the diligent eyes of the State.
Nelson,
When was the first time I referenced your new district?
It was no threat or anything. Whatever you inferred, it was not intentional. I am just proud I have Potter, Hughes and Bon Homme roots.
But i do notice you appear to be afraid to answer my questions and can only resort to personal attacks or deflection by claiming to be a whiney victim.
Kurtz,
Scalia's conclusion of the death penalty as a concept is as mine. The death penalty is not inherently evil or good. However, from the application of my intellect and conscience, I have discerned it is unnecessay and because of its irreversible gravity its application in the US is not justified.
Jones,
In your comments on CAH's post that Rep. Kloucek and I would be in the same district.
Ask my last opponent how it worked out to dishonestly malign me. South Dakotans are smarter than folks like you give them credit. I went from being a complete unknown, with my opponent laughing that I was running and claiming misconduct that never occurred, to beating the incumbent by near 1,000 votes in a 5 way race.
Afraid of affluent latent liberals like you, surely you jest?
"..from the application of my intellect and conscience, I have discerned it is unnecessary and because of its irreversible gravity its application in the US is not justified."
Well, I am sure that will give the Johnson family much solace as they grieve Ron Johnson who was murdered in the safe settings that you edict...
Stace, there's that fear again, the fear that our system won't work, that one bad man will overcome our noble efforts, the fear that acting morally will cost us too much.
Solace is an emotion, and quite likely an elusive one. We should not kill for the sake of emotion.
Bill,
I don't want this important matter to be expanded to the abortion debate, even though for me the arguments are virtually the same. I just want to get on the record I disagree with your most recent statements regarding abortion and Mr Nelson is correct regarding taking exception that the mother is the exclusive creator. I also take exception to the argument even if the mother was the exclusive creator it gives her the right to deny what is now a person with its own inalienable right to life its life. Another debate for another day.
Duly noted, Troy.
Noted, indeed! I suspect the upcoming Legislative session will give us opportunities to hash out the abortion side of this debate at further length. I will continue to maintain that there is a profound difference between a woman's authority over her body and our collective authority over what happens in our prisons.
Of course you three do not want to involve the abortion of a child into your arguments. It requires to many morale contortions per subject for you to be able to manage both within the same discussion. Especially when the argument for the one indicts the argument for the other.
Ironic that you claim to support a woman's authority over their body in justifying the killing of an unborn innocent unthreatening child; however, you then reverse your position to say law abiding citizens inalienable rights must be subverted in order to give vicious murders like Mr Roberts safe haven in the womb of the society they threaten for the rest of their lives!
Then address the EPA's mandate to protect the unborn from ag chemicals, Stace.
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/reregistration/atrazine/
Or does Syngenta via Americans For Prosperity pay you to shut up?
You ARE on the ag committee: http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=121381
Please, Stace, you overstate the analogy. The prison is not a womb. Crime and punishment are social issues; abortion is a personal decision. Understanding and explaining that requires no moral contortion.
Red map strategy: http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/
Cory,
Keeping Roberts in solitary confinement where he will be fed, nurtured, and maintained is a perfect analogy.
The only difference is you would deprive the innocent child of the several months it needs to be a free human being while advocating for the safety and solace of a vicious murder for decades, all the while subverting the inalienable rights of innocent Americans in order to do so.
Note Rep. Nelson's avoidance of Troy's plea not to bring reproductive rights into the discussion.
Jones, With your past loud repeated proclamations that you have Conservative credentials through your numerous associations and hand shaking, I find it curious that you have more than enough energy to advocate a life long entitlement for this vicious unrepentant murderer at the cost of innocent law abiding American's inalienable rights; however, the true Conservative heart defense of the unborn should be put off "for another day."
So, Rep. Nelson: do you have an inalienable right to be obese while those without a federal and state pension do not?
because yours is a blazing hypocrisy.
You just keep blazing away Larry, don't believe the information that those items you ingest degrade your mental ability.
Noticed you weren't on the Governor's Invitational Pheasant Slaughter list, Stace. What's that about?
@Larry Ask Cory about the obvious rest of the story behind a certain state officials interesting sworn testimony. Besides, I am not an establishment party guy. I have only voted once "for the team" and that will be rectified this next session.
Stace: I am blocked from commenting at the War Toilet but have witnessed your inciting your Republican comrades there. Another disconnect?
@Larry I know it is a foreign concept; however, I always attempt to serve the best interests of those I was elected to represent. Politicians bow to the establishment line, leaders attend to their duty regardless of who is pro or con.
GIPSL? I am not familiar with that acronym, I imagine it is as offensive as the one you insult our good Congresswoman with?
Insult? You cut me to the quick. Rep. Noem is on is on every MILF list in the state. Thought you had a party to go to.
@Larry If a person claims to be a liberal like you; however, is against every liberal idea there is, are they still a liberal?
...and liberal's claim to be for the rights of women. Let's pray someone doesn't horse whip you in the street, and that young Master Booker doesn't bump into you and extend the rightful cowboy salute, for your disrespect of the good gentlewoman from SD.
Unlike you, i have no constituency and would sleep with Mrs. Noem at the drop of a party hat....
Mrs. Noem's good taste, and her good husband Byron, assure that will never be a worry.
alas...
Has anything said in this thread helped to convince you that a repeal of the death penalty might be in the best interest of the children of South Dakota while non-point pollution is?
or is the metaphor lost on you?
i am listening to Joel Salatin on KUNM as he talks about sustainable agriculture while we chat; hope that's ok.