Obviously, RedFury was speaking rhetorically, not literally, which you seem to have a hard time with, x. The wholesale and blatant slaughter of minorities in America is at least mostly 100 years in our past, and we are much more evolved creatures. :dubious:
But this leads me to a question. Before Bush got elected, it- er, he, was mostly known for his strongly aggressive stance on capital punishment (namely, frying everyone he had a chance to).
Since the election and subsequent re-election of Mr. Bush, capital punishment has all but disappeared from American political discourse. While it is a state-by-state law, not much has changed in the field (to my knowledge, which I admit is spotty. I am not currently up-to-date on the specifics of the field, but I do know that there haven’t been any mass executions lately).
So has Bush gone soft on pushing capital punishment? Has Karl Ro- er, Bush avoided the issue to look better politically to moderates? There certainly seems to be a kind of silence coming from the White House on this issue.
An interesting point; the US handed over Saddam saying that there would be no capital punishment for him (which is extremely ironic from the world view, to say the least). The Iraqi “government” quickly said thank you, but we think we’ll kill him anyway (a prophecy of things to come in US-Iraq relations?). What was with our position there? Shouldn’t Bush be pushing his hardline stance on violent criminals?
Why should he? Capital punishment is wrong, in my view, and the less Bush pushes his hardline stance, the more there is to legislate it away or at least reduce its use. This strikes me as a good outcome.
Like you said, it is largely a state-by-state issue. He is out of that arena now so why should he comment on it or take a stance? That is for governors, legislatures, and the people they represent to decide.
Well, I’m not sure how this ties into your OP, but its a good drive by. BTW, I’m not sure at all RedFury was speaking rhetorically. Perhaps they need a retoric smiley.
Well, I’m unsure how REALLY for capital punishment Bush was in the past. Taking for a moment it as granted that Bush in fact was fully supportive of capital punishment, I think this is generally the direction of the ‘new and improved’ Republican party. They tangentially appeal to their right wing base supporters (on issues like this and abortion for instance) with lip service while actually doing nothing to push these issues. I have to admit on this issue and the abortion issue I’m just as happy that they DON’T push these issues.
Really Zag whats the problem? I know you don’t support capital punishment…neither do I. Isn’t it a GOOD thing if Bush flip flops on this issue, or if he basically just ignores it because its not politically expediant?? I think it is.
Unfortunately not. It came out last year that Ashcroft had ordered federal prosecutors to seek the maximum sentence and avoid plea bargains. There were cases where he ordered prosecutors to seek the DP when the prosecutor didn’t feel it was appropriate. I also read an article recently about a Californian fiasco where Justice stepped in to get some death sentences for people who had already made deals with the state for life in prison. I recall the story talking about how the federal government was pushing the DP even in states that don’t execute criminals. Maybe I can find it again. Here’s a link to the maximum sentencing order:
Can we get a cite for this? In what sense did the US say “that there would be no capital punishement” for Saddam? Since we turned him over to the Iraqis, wasn’t it clear that it would THEIR decision as to the potential sentence?
Well, the Bush administration oversaw the first federal executions since the '60s. (Timothy McVeigh, Juan Raul Garza, and Louis Jones), but as has been said, it’s more of a state issue than a federal one.
In fairness, Tim McVeigh was started and mostly done during Clinton’s administration.
I think we didn’t hear much about capital punishment because Americans like it too much for a presidential candidate to be against it (or, at least, against it so much that he intends to do something about it).
I think that’s a big part of it. Another is that despite all the noise made about the federal death penalty, it’s exceedingly rare – the kinds of crimes that get people sentenced to death tend to be state crimes. Murder won’t get you a federal death penalty, though it might get you a state sentence. Murdering a federal official can get you the death penalty, but that’s not very common.
There are only 36 people on federal death row now. A few of those are under the drug laws (all for murder) or just happened to commit their murders on federal property and might reasonably make good examples for death penalty opponents to hold up. But most of them got their federal death sentences for stuff that not even most activists want to touch, if only for tactical reasons – murdering gun dealers while trying to set up a White Only nation, murder of federal witnesses, murder inside a penitentiary, etc. So you’ve got a small sample to begin with and from that sample an even smaller subset with even marginally sympathetic cases. Opponents to the death penalty can do more for more people by concentrating their efforts on states, where the death row populations are larger.
Noise about the federal death penalty? No, the noise is about the death penalty. Just because they try to get federal changes doesn’t mean they’re only interested in changing punishment of federal crimes.
Opponents to the death penalty want all executions stopped, whether state or locally imposed, at the federal level. That could happen if the SCOTUS found it cruel and unusual - again - like they did from 1967 to 1976, or if the constitution was amended with specific wording that said execution was illegal.
Aw, crap. My bad. By “noise about the federal death penalty” I was referring to noise from its proponents – specifically, the unseemly competition between President Clinton and Congress to see who could cram more stuff into the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994. Despite all the noise they made about how tough the Feds were getting, the majority of the action and the vast majority of any hope of slowing or stopping the imposition of death sentences continues to take place on the state level and anti-death penalty activists appropriately channel their resources accordingly.
If you’re unsure of how for the death penalty Bush was as Governor, it’s only because you haven’t looked very closely. Bush has even opposed simple safeguards like holding open meetings. The Texas governor has vetoed legislation which would have provided funding for basic indigent defense. He called that bill, which had bipartisan support, “a threat to public safety.” Bush also opposed legislation instituting life without parole and banning the execution of people with IQ’s less than 65. In general, he has been a leading spokesperson in favor of the death penalty.
As of 7:30pm EDT, December 7, 2000, 152 people have been executed during Bush’s tenure as governor. This makes Texas Governor George W. Bush the most-killing Governor, in the history of the United States of America.
That’s more than all the years prior to his term since the death penalty was reinstated in the 70s. Bush certainly wasn’t responsible by himself for the fast track to the death chamber in the corrupt Texas Penal System. But he was in a position to affect positive change, and he did nothing to fix it. In fact he aided the process. In case after case, at the advice of his counsel, who has now been nominated to be U.S. Attorney General, Bush turned down clemency appeals despite the obvious flaws in many cases.
I haven’t…its not a major issue to me to be honest (I was already not voting for Bush on other issues). Certainly not at the Presidential level. Thanks for the cite though.
BTW, I’m not sure at all RedFury was speaking rhetorically. Perhaps they need a retoric smiley.