Green Mountain Daily - Recent Comments

here's the crux of what we should expect to hear

mydog — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:21:05 GMT

...multiple and fully safe tools exist to protect society from the most dangerous criminals in our midst.

I don't believe the most pressing question will be about capital punishment. What I expect to hear is a fully impassioned debate about whether or not the "safe tools" are protecting Vermonters.

In my frank opinion, the Brooke Bennett case is an example of failure in our judiciary and parole system by not providing adequate safety measures. I think it is also extremely important to recognize that Vermont has not funded the judiciary and parole system adequately for judges and POs to have the resources (and numbers) to do their job to the best of their ability.

And, going back to my earlier comment on ideological-based decision making and judgment rulings, it might be useful to note that such broad, sweeping categorizations impact the many when we are bothered by the few. The issues surrounding Brooke Bennett are complicated. If we agree to respond with a simple response, whether it is Brian Dubie's advocacy for "Jessica's Law" or on another end of the spectrum, advocacy against capital punishment in general, then the entire argument misses the most important part of the discussion. What happened? Who did it? Why did this/these individual(s) do it? How do we respond in a manner to ensure public safety in the future.

In my opinion, because a crime this heinous occurred, and because the sexual abuse component seems to have been perpetrated for at least five years, then I would not be quick to rule out any form of judgment whatsoever.

Admittedly, we all have our own emotional impulse, myself included. Let's just say that, in my childhood experience I learned firsthand what molestation by a trusted older person of the opposite sex means. There are more "survivors" out there than we might like to know.

In fact, maybe the entire discussion might bear more fruit if it was based on the actual subject at hand: sexual molestation of children. It's a global crisis with a long, long history.

Check out www.StopItNow.com

The calculus hasnt changed

odum — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:19:52 GMT

I'd still support him over Hillary Clinton. I knew he was a centrist. Clinton is centrist-to-conservative, depending on the issue, with leftist flashes on health care (but certainly not far left).

The point is whether or not Obama is listening to old-school, bad advice. With a different demographic at play, different political rules may be in order. In particular, a mad dash to the right might send that different demographic right back where they came from - checked out and pissed off.

Great holiday for us

Jack McCullough — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:53:57 GMT

Thursday: Montpelier's Fourth of July parade. The torrential rains stopped just before we had to form up for the parade. Gaye Symington marched with the Democrats, along with State Senate candidates Kim Cheney and Laura Moore, and State Representative candidates Warren Kitzmiller, Mary Hooper, Tony Klein, and Janet Ancel. Being in the parade I didn't see much of it, but I did have the pleasant surprise of running into my son Adam, who had the day off from VYCC and came to Montpelier with his whole crew. Then: fair food at the State House Lawn and fireworks viewed from the graveyard outside of my back yard (again, with Adam and his crew).
Friday: a relaxing day off, capped off by finishing Moby Dick, which I've been reading for a few weeks.
Saturday: errands, lunch out with my wife when she got off work, and a holiday barbecue with friends.
Today: not sure yet, but it's good to have the three-day weekend.

"by all standards of morality"

odum — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:51:11 GMT

I take issue with the word "all." By the standard of morality I ascribe to (and many others), such a person should not be executed. By using the word "all," you are implying (unintentionally, I'm sure) that my morality does not qualify under your definition of "all standards of morality."

And that's the trick right-wingers use all the time to marginalize us. They tell us we don't have any morals. Not that we have different ones, but that we dont have them at all. What they might really mean is that our morals don't meet with their approval. That would be fair enough, but its not effective enough if the goal is to claim the very concept of morality as their own political tool.

I dont see an irony

odum — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:45:56 GMT

Because I don't see the equivalence. It's not "ironic" that many from the vegan crowd also wash their hands with antibacterial soap, for instance.

I think we make a mistake when we casually conflate the two issues.

Yeah, I know that's what you say

Jack McCullough — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:42:27 GMT

but you seem to think I should ignore the numerous posts you've made talking about how you're souring on Obama, turning away from him, how one position or another is a deal breaker for you. I can't predict how you're going to vote, but I know that no candidate could realistically be expected to twist himself into the kind of pretzel it would take to get your public support.

Theory & Practice

Mike Eldred — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:42:10 GMT

On top of that, the recent use of DNA to clear defendants of rape and murder charges proves beyond a reasonable ... nay ... beyond a shadow of a doubt that our system of evidence has huge flaws in it.

Good point. Beyond the philosophical objections, we have proof that innocent people are on death row, and little doubt that innocent people have been executed. What kind of excuse can there be to support that? None at all.

I could never cede the privilege of killing civilians

Caoimhin Laochdha — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:31:36 GMT

to my government. No activity justifies bureaucratic extermination of citizens when multiple and fully safe tools exist to protect society from the most dangerous criminals in our midst.

We also have the ability, through lifetime imprisonment, to mete out a vicious punishment that is more than adequately inadequate from society's perspective. While no punishment can make up for a murder, life in prison is adequate punishment for society in general and more than adequate from the standpoint of public health safety and welfare.

That said, I fully agree and think you correctly assess the situation when you point out that

our justice system is far from perfect and execution is not a punishment that can be undone in the event of a miscarriage of justice. In a world where crime labs are faulty, juries are prejudiced and judges sometimes indifferent, the death penalty simply isn't ethical. We have an imperfect system with imperfect results and the death penalty does not afford a margin for error.

Aside from the visceral reactions from the pro-state killing camp and the anti-state imposed murder camp, these underlying facts are more than enough to quash any reasonable advocacy of state killing in 21st century United States.

Read above

Rama Schneider — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:01:01 GMT

You mean you want me to give you a vote of Obama's...

JulieWaters — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:38:24 GMT

...that affirms the law as it currently exists?

Senators don't generally vote on laws that say "Let's continue with things where they currently stand."

Can you show me anything which suggests that he's anything but pro-choice?