Last week, the South Dakota Supreme Court cleared the way for the state to execute convicted killer Eric Robert. The Supreme Court reviewed the death sentence against the condemned man's wishes; even though Robert wants to die as fast as possible, state law requires the high court to review every death sentence.
Last fall I said the murderer was goading us into suicide by state and that Judge Bradley Zell, by issuing the death sentence, was giving in to the murderer's "anger and controlling behavior." The Supreme Court said the state was doing no such thing... and that if the state had, the Court would have been obliged to overturn the death sentence:
Perhaps the obvious manner in which Robert fights so vigorously for his execution calls us to review the propriety of it. Robert's passion toward this end generates an examination of the manner in which the sentence was imposed. Robert's persistent efforts to hasten his own death necessitate intense scrutiny to guarantee his desire to die was not a consideration in the sentencing determination. We do not participate in a program of state-assisted suicide. "The State must not become an unwitting partner in a defendant's suicide by placing the personal desires of the defendant above the societal interests in assuring that the death penalty is imposed in a rational, non-arbitrary fashion." Grasso v. State, 857 P.2d 802, 811 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993) (Chapel, Judge, concurring). Indeed, had the sentencing determination been based in any degree on Robert's desire to die, the sentence may have been impermissibly imposed based on a non-statutory arbitrary factor—Robert's suicide wish. See Lenhard v. Wolff, 444 U.S. 807, 815, 100 S. Ct. 29, 33 (1979) (Marshall, J., dissenting). If that were the case, and the record revealed that the circuit court based its decision on Robert's desire to die, this Court would be obligated to reverse the sentence of death and remand for resentencing. See SDCL 23A-27A-13. It is not a statutory aggravating circumstance to invoke the death penalty. See SDCL 23A-27A-1. However, the circuit court went out of its way to make it clear that the sentencing decision was based in no part on Robert's desire to die. This Court can affirm the constitutional imposition of the death penalty imposed in accordance with our statutes; it will not sanction state-assisted suicide [Chief Justice David Gilbertson, State of South Dakota v. Eric Donald Robert, review of death sentence, 2012 S.D. 60, August 15, 2012, pp. 12&ndash13].
The Court can point to numerous other factors that statutorially justify a death sentence. But even if we are acting rationally and in the interest of society, we are still going to kill a man immorally and unnecessarily. A bad man wants to commit suicide, and we are doing the job for him.
Whatever happended to the anti-death penalty argument that because we might make a mistake, we should not have the death penalty.
So now we have a 100% certain case of guilt of premeditated murder, with forensic evidence, a confession and an admisison of guilt--using the ANTI-DEATH penalty argument about UNcertainity, the absolute CERTAINTY of this case demands the death penalty, right?
So many death row inmates find god, and so often we're told that this conversion is sincere and real, and thus, we must respect it. Yet, when a death row inmate actually takes RESPONSIBILITY for his actions, and is ready & willing to accept the consequences, these anti-death penalty nutjobs refuse to believe it and argue against the wishes of the jury, the victims, and the guilty!!!
Suicide? You know what would be suicide? To have to guard this killer if he's given life. Step up Cory. If you truly believe life is the proper sentence, volunteer to guard him for the rest of his life. Man up. Put your actions behind your beliefs.
Otherwise, you're just another blabbering, spineless lib.
I'm willing to start the gas--are you willing to guard him for the rest of his life?
Eric Robert should donate his brain for research.
I see both sides of this argument, however I see where the court is coming from most clearly.
Its a slippery slope to stay a death penalty just because the condemned person wants to die. It starts out by establishing a precedence like this and ends with people requesting the death penalty to avoid it.
--The Court can point to numerous other factors that statutorially justify a death sentence. But even if we are acting rationally and in the interest of society, we are still going to kill a man immorally and unnecessarily
One cannot act immorally when acting rationally and in the interest of society.
Stringing words together does not make a coherent argument.
-Stringing words together does not make a coherent argument. Now yer plagiarizing, "Julie."
I've acknowledged that the "might make a mistake" argument is not relevant to this case, Julie. Appeals to machismo are also irrelevant. The state has the resources to effectively restrain any convict. We as a state lack the courage to take on that practical and moral challenge.
"One cannot act immorally when acting rationally and in the interest of society." Two challenges:
(1) Legalizing drugs and prostitution will produce increased tax revenue. It will allow the state to better protect producers and consumers alike in those industries with safety standards and regulation. It is thus in the interest of society to legalize drugs and prostitution... even though using drugs and engaging in sex for hire are immoral acts.
(2) It is not in the interest of society to sanction unnecessary killing.
Cory,
You know we agree on the merits of the death penalty. This said, the suicide argument is a distraction. Protection of the dignity of human life doesn't (and shouldn't) require the consent of an individual and whether Robert wants to live or die or is willing to accept or not accept the consequences of his action is irrelevant. The dignity of human life transcends one person. Always.
For me a government that is powerful enough to kill is too powerful, a government that stands by why it allows other to kill is too impotent. A government that gets neither right has messed up priorities.
--It is thus in the interest of society to legalize drugs and prostitution… even though using drugs and engaging in sex for hire are immoral acts.
Wow, now there are two red herrings in one response!
--(2) It is not in the interest of society to sanction unnecessary killing.
It is an IMMORAL society that extends mercy to those have shown no mercy. In this case, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to remove this person from society to protect society. Why it is necessary? Because this person has PROVEN to possess a depraved heat and a wanton disregard for human life. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
--Appeals to machismo are also irrelevant.
Typcial liberal: let someone else take care of the consequences of your dangerous public policies. At least I am willing to walk the talk when it comes to capitol punishment--you'd rather let some low-paid civil servant suffer the consequences of minding the most evil among us at your request. That's not just a lack of machismo-it's an absence of moral conviction. But, no moral conviction = spineless = lib.
Typical lib: do as I say, not as I do, and you have to pay for it!
--The state has the resources to effectively restrain any convict.
Obviously not--the ONLY way to effetcively restrain this type of killer is to avoid any and all human contact with the inmate--in other words, to house, move ,feed, and clean up after the inmate as an animal. That's inhumane. The most HUMANE way to treat the worst of the worst is capital punishment.
--We as a state lack the courage to take on that practical and moral challenge.
Who lacks the courage? You won't even volunteer to back up your position by supervising these killers! Yeah, what a courageous position you have: let someone else watch these killers while you spout off about morality and blah blah blah.
I on the other hand, have the courage and conviction of my beliefs to volunteering to let the needle flow.
Yeah, find some courage Little Lion Cory!
DD should proclaim side by side executions a state holiday: Dakota Campaign Store could sell bobble-heads with their eyes ++'d out.
Just in time for Halloween: three hangings for the price of one!
http://theeditorsthoughts.tumblr.com/post/29838470097/witnessing-an-execution
--No matter what your view of the death penalty, some sobering weeks lie ahead here.
Well, no doubt where those editors come down on the DP.
Sobering?
Why is it that when someone like Jerry Sandusky or some other sex offender is sentenced, NO ONE talks about how "sobering" it is? People are JOYFUL that such a creep is going to be behind bars for a long time.
Yet, why is there this moral hesitancy to appropriately celebrate the imposition of justice in DP cases?
One might suggest that a killer meeting his sentence is comforting to those who believe in justice.
To morally hesitate upon the imposition of a due sentence--to be sober--is to MINIMIZE the damage that these killers do and did to their victims & society.
According to the dictionary, sober in this situation means: "marked by seriousness, gravity, solemnity, etc., as of demeanor, speech, etc.: a sober occasion."
Again, no matter your view on the death penalty, one should reflect on the gravity of the occassion, the circumstances that lead to the sentence, the effect on the victim and family, the effect on the condemned family, and the reality we have evil in the world. To be otherwise, minimizes everything human's should value, including the dignity of every human life.
Our government killing a human being should not be a taken lightly but with the sobering reality it is. No matter your view on the death penalty.
To field Julie's challenge and present her with another one, I would gladly agree to be a prison guard on death row for a time if it meant the abolishment of capital punishment. I've done that type of duty before in my youth. (Worked as a psychiatric aid on a prison ward for the criminally insane. Five murderers on the ward at the time I was there.)
I would never, on the other hand, volunteer to administer the poison that took another human being's life, nor would I ever ask Julie to do it on my behalf. I'm not even going to ask Julie if she wants to be the one who kills the condemned person, because I don't want to know.
Couldn't have said it better myself, BF.
There is no way to safely incarcerate these killers. That is why I favor the death penalty. While Bill volunteers to risk his life in that effort; what about the idiots who assign him that task? Is that not sending Bill to his doom?
Possibly we could put killers in steel tubes with an "in" hole and an "out" hole to allow food and water to enter and exit without endangering the human who tends the cylinder. But I bet someone would sue and claim that was not humane enough. Then we would again put other people at risk to feed and care for them.
The death penalty was certainly considered normal by our nation's founders. To me it seems the only way to protect society from these animals. We kill rabid dogs because they are too dangerous to keep around. We don't hate the dog. It likely is the owners fault and we may feel sympathy. But who would care for a rabid dog?
What is more dangerous than a rabid human?
Jeff: "What is more dangerous than a rabid human?"
A government who kills its citizens?
I guess I'm unusual here in that I don't have a problem with either euthanasia or the death penalty, other than the cost of a long death row term. Since he won't appeal I think we are doing the right thing.
--Jeff: “What is more dangerous than a rabid human?â€
--A government who kills its citizens?
To equate the actions of a premeditated murderer with a jury (sometimes TWO juries) and a trial judge and 5 justices on the Sup.Ct. who all impose or review the imposition of the death penalty is simply devoid of any outwardly inidication of intelligence.
It's not the "gov't" that imposes the DP--it's a jury of 12 CITIZENS. It's US.
--I’m not even going to ask Julie if she wants to be the one who kills the condemned person, because I don’t want to know.
Why not? What problem would you have with another person backing up her words with the courage and the conviction of acting on those words?
Unlike uh, Cory!
Julie, are you telling us you think you are intelligent?
Or are you insinuating that I am not?
Jesus was condemned to death by a jury of his peers, and their occupier government carried out their will.
That's not all that impressive to me. Nor is your half baked rebuttal.
Should we be in the business of asking our government to execute people?
Is that your position?
How about this opinion from the court, Julie?
"Death is... an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of common human dignity.' [quoting himself from Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 257 (1972)] As such it is a penalty that 'subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by the [Clause].' [quoting C.J. Warren from Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)] I therefore would hold, on that ground alone, that death is today a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Clause... I would set aside the death sentences imposed... as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments."
William J. Brennan, JD
Justice of the US Supreme Court
Dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia (347 KB)
July 2, 1976
--How about this opinion from the court, Julie?
No, that's an opinion from a justice.
I could find 10 other opinions supporting the DP.
Crucify the three criminals in Falls Park and let PP's kids in to stroke their naked bodies covered in maggots: Pat could lance the middle one in the heart.
--Or are you insinuating that I am not?
There was no insinuation: ANYONE who equates the acts of a murderer with the imposition of the DP lacks sufficient cognition.
--Jesus was condemned to death by a jury of his peers, and their occupier government carried out their will.
1. Religion has no place in a discussion of the morality of the DP. 2. While hanging with condemned murderers, Christ had the opportunity to denounce capital punishment--he did not.
--Should we be in the business of asking our government to execute people?
We, as a society, excute criminals. Just as we, as a society, determine the guilt of other criminals. We, as a society, remove criminals from society through incarceration.
Should we be in the business of asking our government to incarcerate people? OBVIOUSLY YES!
Should we be in the business of asking our government to deprive others of their lives, liberties or property? OBVIOUSLY YES! We have written constitutions that address such things. Ever read them?
Yet W, the Dick, Cheney and Henry Kissinger walk the streets.
kill one person: yer a murderer. kill thousands and yer a president.
--Our government killing a human being should not be a taken lightly but with the sobering reality it is. No matter your view on the death penalty.
Even the language you use seems inappropriate: murderers kill; the imposition of the DP is an execution.
If I take the life of a person who tried to kill me (i.e., self-defense) , does that make me a "killer"? I don't think "killer" is appropriate. Technically, I did "kill" someone, but the common association of "killer" with "murderer" is too close to make "killer" the appropriate word.
As a just and merciful society, we should act and feel very comfortable with the proper imposition of the DP.
I don't think we should be any more "sober" for a DP case than 20 life sentences for Sandusky for 10 years for 7th DUI. What's the difference between enduring 30-40-50 years of incarceration or being injected with painless yet lethal drugs?
I suggest the latter is more humane.
--Yet W, the Dick, Cheney and Henry Kissinger walk the streets.
None of them actually ordered the assassination of any US citizen.
Unlike Barry Obama, who not only walks the streets, but wants to re-occupy the White House.
yer right, "Julie:" you don't think, you react. Just like Pat Powers: no solutions, just problems...many problems.
Julie,
1. How do you know that the people hanging on the crosses beside Jesus were murderers? I've heard they were thieves? Should we the people have the government execute thieves too? Are you telling us Jesus would condone that?
2. I thought the whole point of the thieves on the Cross story was that in the Christ-like mind, every sinner is redeemable. Are you saying the people's collective opinion has more validity than Christ's in this regard?
(...you pro-death-penalty folks may want to find someone other than Julie Gross (NE) to carry your water for you here. I'm just sayin'.)
--Should we the people have the government execute thieves too? Are you telling us Jesus would condone that?
You may be correct. Whether thieves or murderers, Christ did not condemn the DP for them, did he? Using YOUR religion-based "logic", the DP would be acceptable for theft, right?
--Are you saying the people’s collective opinion has more validity than Christ’s in this regard?
Yes. Christ's opinion is irrelevant to discussions of public policy like the DP.
The Jews killed Christ: nuke 'em.
--(…you pro-death-penalty folks may want to find someone other than Julie Gross (NE) to carry your water for you here. I’m just sayin’.)
We all recognize that when lefty touchy-feely wingnuts resort to their juvenile & superficial understanding of religion to further their causes, they've lost the argument.
Bye then, "Julie:" yer contributions have been titillating.
The death penalty is most aptly reasoned in a religious context, Julie. It is a matter of ethics, morality, spirituality and social justice, and some of the best thinking on the subject comes from people of faith.
"Retribution is just another word for revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the lowest human emotions — perhaps sometimes understandable, but not really a rational response to a critical situation. To kill the person who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the offender. That this execution somehow give 'closure' to a tragedy is a myth. Expressing one’s violence simply reinforces the desire to express it. Just as expressing anger simply makes us more angry. It does not drain away. It contaminates the otherwise good will which any human being needs to progress in love and understanding."
Raymond A. Schroth, SJ
Jesuit Priest and Community Professor of the Humanities at St. Peter's College
Email to ProCon.org
Sep. 5, 2008
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
--The death penalty is most aptly reasoned in a religious context, Julie. It is a matter of ethics, morality, spirituality and social justice, and some of the best thinking on the subject comes from people of faith.
The DP is a matter of secular jurisprudence. Your desire to use religion in this context is a sign of deperation.
Do you respect others' desires to invoke religion in the context of the abortion discussion?
Julie, yes. It is their only argument. I'm my opinion, arguing for human dignity in a single-celled zygote is a bit of a stretch, but I do take their point. Arguing for your human dignity on the other hand is not. I will defend it even when you do not.
Not "I'm"... "IN my opinion", sorry.
--single-celled zygote
In animal reproduction, the zygote commonly means the collection of the initial division of CELLS (plural).
--It is their only argument.
No, it's not. I'm surprised that you're not aware or secular and atheist opposition to abortion.
And Bill, there's no need to correct typos--we all can read through them.
"In animal development, the term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula."
A zygote is the fertilized egg prior to the first cell division. You'll argue about anything won't you Julie? What's up with that? Why so angry and hostile?
p.s. Julie, I'll correct my typos if I feel like it, if you don't mind... or, for that matter, even if you do mind. ;^)
Facts matter.
You spoke of "human dignity"--what consitutes human-ness?
The number of cells?
INtelligence?
Productivity?
Ayt what point does that group of cells gain human dignity?
And if human-ness/dignity attaches at some point after fertilization, surely then it can detach at some point later, right?
I would be interested to hear your athiest, secular arguments against abortion, Julie Gross (NE), ...especially as they can also be applied to arguments for or against capital punishment (i.e. the current context.)
Please elaborate.
Julie,
The word "kill" has a very clear definition ("to deprive of life in any manner"). It has no connotation positive or negative (except maybe to you) by itself. Only in context. In the context of a soldier who kills an enemy combatant or a person protecting a family member who kills an assailant there is no negative connotatoin. A rapist who kills his victim there is a negative connotation.
But even in the context of a soldier or a person protecting a family member, the context is sobering as it speaks to so much brokenness in our world, just as the Sandusky matter is sobering, the shooting in the theatre is sobering, etc. If you don't find this and all the problems in our society sobering, I . . . I just don't know what to say. . . .
The death penalty is a irreversible action depriving a person of his life which by itself is sobering. The death penalty touches on many important issues which people of good will can and do disagree:
1) The dignity of human life and what that means. Does our outrage for the affront on the dignity of the victim require us to react with like punishment (eye for an eye) or does it require us to not kill to show how much dignity we have for human life?
2) Is the death penalty visceral retribution for an injustice (two wrongs make a right) or justice (giving one his due)?
3) Does it indicate a government too powerful or one legitimately protecting society?
I come down firmly on one side of these questions. But, I do not lightly dismiss those who come down on the other side. I respect their position even in disagreement. People of goodwill do disagree. Characterizing death penalty opponents as wingnuts does not respect the dignity of one's opponent. While technically state execution is by definition of murder (killing with forethought and intent), I do not agree with using the term to describe death penalty advocates because "murder" does have an implied connotation of being also unjust (as I said before, there is a honest disagreement of justice (giving one his due) on this matter so the use of "murderer" implies a connotatoin that is not correct).
Societies that flourish promote virtue, reasoned discourse and respect for the dignity of the human person. If we compromise these attributes which helped make America great, inevitably we weaken our nation and render an injustice to our posterity.
P.S. By the way, I think Christ's opinion on this and everything is absolutely most relevant. The problem is we seem to have a problem discerning His opinion on most matters and people of good will disagree.
Yes, facts matter. I used the proper, technical definition of the word "zygote" which is that it is a single celled organism. You, on the other hand did not.
Does every one of your skin cells have "human dignity" Julie?
Good question.
THE question, in fact.
Bill,
That is a red herring. A skin cell has no potential to become a distinct human life. No comparison. To assert it is scientific foolishness.
"A cloned human embryo has been produced for the first time from a skin cell, raising the prospect that such embryos could be made to provide stem cells tailored to any patient." New Scientist
Troy, see Larry's comment. Every cell in your body has the potential to become a distinct life. In fact, every cell in your body IS a distinct human life by the same standard as you would assign a human zygote. i.e. not a red herring, but rather, a scientific fact.
--Troy, see Larry’s comment
Once you have referenced a comment of larry's, YOU ARE DONE!
There's been NO human cloning from a human skin cell.
lemme get this straight: a cloned embryo is not a person?
Julie, for purposes of this argument, the only thing that matters is the answer to the question "do human cells have human dignity?" If so, you kill a lot of them when you execute a prisioner.
...prisoner...
--do human cells have human dignity?â€
In a philosophical sense, human-ness is surely more that the brain, the heart, or all cells working in unison, right?
Is human-ness or human dignity found IN cells?
Julie, exactly. That's the question. Good work.
"If so, you kill a lot of them when you execute a prisioner."
And a lot more when you execute an unborn without due process.
--That’s the question.
In your view, yes or no?
is an embryo conceived in vitro a person?
Oh, but Julie, there could be a person created from that skin cell. Cloning could be done. That's potential. If you hinge an argument on cellular human dignity on the word "potential," you're hosed... and so are nose jobs.
Clones are always the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes, Larry. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Clone
Yes, Cory, Julie's argument folded like a lawn chair quite a while back. Out of respect for her dignity, I'm giving her a little time to review, reflect, realize, and resign. I'll leave it to Troy to assign her repentance penance. ;-)
--Julie’s argument folded like a lawn chair quite a while back.
I'm waiting for a response, oh wise one.
--Oh, but Julie, there could be a person created from that skin cell.
Please, GO LOOK AT THE SCIENCE. There was no "cloned human" from a skin cell.
--If you hinge an argument on cellular human dignity on the word “potential,â€
On what do you hinge human dignity?
Julie, I don't know and neither do you.
...not well enough to make grand generalizations or specific legislation, that's for sure, Bill.
Correct
Mr. Fleming, I miss our breakfast rants. Why has it come to this?
I, for one, will rant at you tomorrow at breakfast and ignore the rest of these silly bunnies.
Sure, I believe that state-imposed capital punishment is nothing short of torture; but, this Roberts guy is a slimeball and slicing his brain up after a lethal injection would likely expose an industry quizzically calling itself Corrections (they apparently failed at correcting Eric...right?) as just another red state perp contemplating the refusal of Medicaid in an era when access to free mental health care should have been included in the Affordable Care Act during the first go-round.
Whad'ya think: should he donate his brain to science? #ericrobertsbrain
AP reporting that Eric Robert will be going home to Jesus Monday.
Anyone hear obese white man Justice Gilbertson today on Bill Janklow's idea of public radio proposing drug courts for those addicted to substances other than GMO teevee dinners?
I had to laugh like hell.