Georgia's Conservative Politicians Want More Death

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Reductive Fallacy....

Here let me apply the same fallacy in the other direction.

"Death Penalty advocates (I am not one of them) want the guilty to pay the ultimate price for the most heinous crimes, Abortion advocates want the most innocent to pay the ultimate price for their own convenience and without a hearing..."

Fun, isn't it?

If a fetus is "the most innocent", then that rock out there is also "the most innocent", because they have exactly as much personhood.

Dumbass.

KILL THE UNBORN! WATCH THE SUFFER, EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T CAPABLE OF FEELING PAIN OR HUMAN EMOTIONS!

 

[Damocles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schaivo#Palm_Sunday_Compromise

Autopsy

After her death, Schiavo's body was taken to the Office of the District 6 Medical Examiner for Pinellas and Pasco counties, based in Largo, Fla. The autopsy occurred on April 1, 2005. It revealed extensive brain damage. The manner of death was certified as "undetermined". The autopsy was led by Chief Medical Examiner Jon R. Thogmartin, M.D. In addition to consultation with a neuropathologist (Stephen J. Nelson, M.D.), Dr. Thogmartin also arranged for specialized cardiac and genetic examinations to be made. The official autopsy report[25] was released on June 15, 2005. In addition to studying Mrs. Schiavo's remains, Thogmartin scoured court, medical and other records and interviewed her family members, doctors and other relevant parties.

Examination of Schiavo’s nervous system by neuropathologist Stephen J. Nelson, M.D., revealed extensive injury. The brain itself weighed only 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."[59]

Shiavo should have been supported by conservatives rather than demonized. This was a family issue, the same type of decision made by unhappy families everywhere.

It was easy to be caught up in the emotion of it all, and when reading stories that made it appear that Michael was attempting to simply get rid of her, that all tests hadn't been done and that he might be making the decision while insisting that any added information was unnecessary out of fear.

Basically, depending on where you were getting the story from, it often appeared as if Michael was trying to keep her from getting testing that might prove that she might be 'in there' so that he could be 'free' of her.

Reality, however, is that no doctor, let alone many as it appeared she had been seen by after deeper examination of the story, would tell him that she had no activity of note up there if there was any because there would be an extreme fear of lawsuit from other interested parties. In short, they'd be extra careful because they knew her family would use any means to make them pay if they had made a mistake.

If such a thing happens to your wife, your husband, (hope it never does to anybody, let alone you people who I 'know') your child, etc. Do you think you should be put through what Michael had to go through in order to do what appeared to be the right thing?

The right of the individual, of the family, etc. This is what conservatives are supposed to be concerned with, not the insistence that years of doctors who fear lawsuits from the extended family would insist that she be taken off life support just because they wanted to so we must have the government intervene in every decision....

I'm rambling.

Basically what I am saying is, I would rather be able to make the decision in private than to have to go through what Michael had to go through. I feel for him, I feel for her family too. It was a terrible thing that happened to her, but she wasn't 'there' to save and they knew it.

 

[Damocles]

If a fetus is "the most innocent", then that rock out there is also "the most innocent", because they have exactly as much personhood.

Dumbass.

KILL THE UNBORN! WATCH THE SUFFER, EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T CAPABLE OF FEELING PAIN OR HUMAN EMOTIONS!

LOL. See? It is fun to practice the reductive fallacy!

 

[Damocles]

If a fetus is "the most innocent", then that rock out there is also "the most innocent", because they have exactly as much personhood.

Dumbass.

KILL THE UNBORN! WATCH THE SUFFER, EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T CAPABLE OF FEELING PAIN OR HUMAN EMOTIONS!

BTW - "Personhood" is a philosophical argument based on a belief of when either "personhood" becomes possible, or when a person gains a "soul", while calling a fetus a human life is based on scientific knowledge.

Personhood is arbitrary and can change by simply believing something differently than you.

The rock is not a human life, in fact the rock is not alive.

 

[uscitizen]

Is there anything that arouses a righty more than death?


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/12/18/0177/8416


Georgia's Conservative Politicians Want More Death
By TChris, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:17:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If a unanimous verdict is required to convict, it is sensible to think that a unanimous verdict should be required to impose a death sentence. Sensible thought has eluded Georgia's conservative politicians who (as Jeralyn noted here) have declared war on the unanimity requirement because only nine jurors voted to kill Brian Nichols.

Now, just days after the decision, Georgia legislators have begun lining up to introduce bills eliminating the requirement that juries be unanimous for a death sentence. Hard-on-crime lawmakers have long favored easier rules on death sentencing, but the Nichols sentence has given new urgency to their cause.

The argument that some "death qualified" jurors are secretly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances would be easier to swallow if only one juror dissented from death. When a quarter of the jurors think the case for death hasn't been made, only those overcome by blood lust could believe the defendant should be executed. [more ...]

Basing the ultimate punishment on anything less than unanimity is of dubious constitutionality.

Carol Steiker, a death penalty expert at Harvard Law School, said it could violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process and the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Although the Supreme Court allows non-unanimous juries in many cases, Ms. Steiker said, death sentences require the highest standards.

“As the Supreme Court tends to say, ‘Death is different,’ ” she said. “It’s different in severity and it’s different in finality. This case really illustrates one of the problems with states trying to maintain thoughtful and circumscribed death penalty rules. There’s incredible pressure on these legislatures to change the laws at critical moments after high-profile cases.”

Rather than recognizing that Nichols' lawyers did an outstanding job of persuading jurors that there was more to Nichols than than his horrific actions on a single day of his life, Georgia's conservatives are blaming the defense attorneys for getting in the way of a nice clean execution.

State Senator Preston W. Smith, a Rome Republican, accused defense lawyers of spending like “drunken sailors on shore leave” to provide an “O. J. Simpson-style defense, all on the taxpayer’s dime.”

Never mind that the prosecution spent $3 million to convict Nichols. It's always the cost of defense that's viewed as a waste of money -- particularly when the defense is successful.

Of course it is the bible belt remember ?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Damo, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your evaluation of the facts. Terri Schiavo was not unconscious, she was responsive to certain things, and her mother and father found joy in her living, and didn't mind the burden. Her husband had moved on with life, had actually been living with another woman and had fathered a child with her. Indeed, it was a case of Micheal Schiavo wanting to rid himself of obligation to care for Terri, an obligation he made when he accepted a huge court awarded payment in her name. He presented a convincing argument, and had doctors say her condition was consistent with a person in a persistent vegetative state, but people who are PVS are not conscious, and certainly don't respond to balloons and voices in the room. She indeed was "in there" and her parents did everything to save her life. They were completely shut out of the legal proceedings, not allowed to testify, not allowed to present their evidence to contradict Micheal. Terri Schiavo had no legal representation.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Damo, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your evaluation of the facts. Terri Schiavo was not unconscious, she was responsive to certain things, and her mother and father found joy in her living, and didn't mind the burden. Her husband had moved on with life, had actually been living with another woman and had fathered a child with her. Indeed, it was a case of Micheal Schiavo wanting to rid himself of obligation to care for Terri, an obligation he made when he accepted a huge court awarded payment in her name. He presented a convincing argument, and had doctors say her condition was consistent with a person in a persistent vegetative state, but people who are PVS are not conscious, and certainly don't respond to balloons and voices in the room. She indeed was "in there" and her parents did everything to save her life. They were completely shut out of the legal proceedings, not allowed to testify, not allowed to present their evidence to contradict Micheal. Terri Schiavo had no legal representation.

In the event of spousal issues like this, it is the spouses responsibility, not the parents. That is common law and has been for eons. The parents weren't allowed to intervene because it wasn't their right anymore.

 

[Jarod]

ONce you get married those rights are taken from the parents and given to the spouse. That is the way it should be. Conservatives would be screaming about the santicity of marriage were it the parents who wanted to let her go, and the spouse who wanted to keep feeeding her artificially.