Flamebait: Why is Dean willing to put innocent people to death?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

I label it flamebait because I will be flamed. But this is not an unfounded 'bashing' of Dean based on my characterization of what he said or passing on the ravings of some right-wing rag. This is about what Dean actually said, and as far as I can tell, what Dean believes.

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

Dean is being very clear here. He is saying it is just as bad for a convict to win a new trial on appeal as it is for an innocent person to be put to death.

It's a viewpoint I find distasteful.

[Northwind]

1. Your spine must be made of nerf

in order to get through the convolutions necessary to get that from what he said.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. new trial was ordered...every bit as heinous as putting to death someone..

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. I interpret it differently

When Dean talks about something being heinous, it was that the man got off because the witness refused to testify. I don't think he was denying that the man had a right to appeal and win another trial. What needs to be done in cases of rape, imho, is for testimony to be taped so that if, for some reason, another trial is called, the witness doesn't have to go through it all again. If there are objections from the defense, written questions/answers could be submitted to the jury.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. He is saying that winning a new trial on appeal is a 'technicality'

He is saying that winning a new trial on appeal is a 'technicality'. I don't think that way. And it disturbs me. I think the right to a fair trial is one of the things that keeps the state in check.

[blm]

28. Dean already stated that "legal technicalities"

aren't to be of concern to any judge he would appoint. NOPE. He will appoint judges that use common sense and don't get bogged down with "legal technicalities."

At least, that was what Dean said in 1997 before he became a fighting populist in January 2003.

[blm]

45. Here's what Dean desires in judges:

Our Government Needs Good Citizens
by Thom Hartmann
>>>>
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals."

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him (although the Montpelier newspaper’s letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the "technicalities" of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all the power, and that it’s only "legal technicalities" which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those "technicalities" into place. When politicians like Dean call for "swift and certain conviction of the guilty" (which actually means "swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted…at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state "regardless of technicalities," I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.
>>>>>

[indigo32]

83. Does Thomas Harthman

have any sources for those quotes?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. It is described as a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau

It is described as a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau. I haven't been able to find a transcript and that's why I've tried not to emphasize it in this thread, even though it does trouble me.

[LibInternationalist]

88. He seems to be saying...

that the person GOT OUT on a technicality -- i.e., the victim would not testify again, when her testimony would have (presumably) led to a conviction.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. sigh, one more time, the quote:

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

The person "was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial."

So yes, the person won a new trial on appeal. The new trial did not result in a conviction. So yes, since the person was not convicted, he 'GOT OUT'. That's what we do with defendants who are not convicted in this country.

" her testimony would have (presumably) led to a conviction. "

Presumably? Defendants in this country are presumed innocent. It is Dean's apparent presumption of guilt that troubles me.

[Garage Queen]

98. Jebus, are we all having problems with reading comprehension in here?

"Vengeance should never be a piece of this ... That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

He's saying that institutionalized VENGEANCE is as bad as executing an innocent person.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. That certainly is a unique interpretation

and if you just look at those few words, instead of the full context of what he said, perhaps you would reach that conclusion.

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

"Life without parole is not perfect either" - because it is possible while serving that life sentence, to have a new trial ordered.

[Garage Queen]

100. I *did* look at all the words, but decided to boil it down

to the key elements.

<sigh> Ok, so you're simply in the mood to bash Dean. That's ok.

It's your lie, you tell it any way you want, sweetie ...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

102. I think people should read the whole quote and decide for themselves

rather than accept someone else's interpretation of it.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

126. No spin from me, just the quote

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

thanks for the kick

[ThorsteinVeblen]

2. That Bastard - String him up

[bowens43]

3. That's not what he says.

He says that allowing a murderer to go free on a technicality is as bad as convicting an innocent man. My guess is you just don't like Dean.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. What's a 'technicality'? another way of saying 'right to a fair trial'

What's a 'technicality'? another way of saying 'right to a fair trial'

[cjbuchanan]

10. I am all for fair trails

but we do not know what kind of technicality happened in this case. It could have been something along the lines of failing to get a second signature on some minor paperwork or it could have been some more serious. If it was not something serious, more of a bureaucratic technicality, I can see why Dean would be so angry.

I guess what I am saying is I would want to know what the technicality was in this case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. I'm willing to hear more facts on this particular case however

I'm willing to hear more facts on this case however, the facts of any particular case are not as important as the broad conclusions we draw from them. And the conclusion Dean has drawn -- I won't characterize it again, it's right there in black and white for all to read.

[plindner]

6. Don't care for that position myself...

I'm still behind Dean though. Why? Because I believe that he will weigh the facts of each individual case. I trust that he will use facts, not idealogy to make the final decision to pardon versus execute.

Oh, and Dean vs. Bush? Take Dean anytime.

I'd like to see his record. How many people were executed in Vermont? How many were pardoned? We know the record in texas.....

[LuminousX]

7. I'm behind Dean

because he isn't judge or jury. His support of the death penalty is about as basic as you can get. No matter what reason he states, the fact of the matter, he doesn't get to decide a lot in regards to a death penalty case.

People ascribe too much power and authority to the position of President.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. The President appoints federal judges, including the Supreme Court

The President appoints federal judges, including the Supreme Court.

More links for your perusal:

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY
http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003681.html#003681

[LuminousX]

41. So you are afraid Dean is going to appoint

judges who will authorize the killing of innocent people?

And you think Congress is going to allow that?

[genius]

8. Why would anyone back a guy like that?

To me, the fightening part is not that he said it but that he did not lose all Democratic support when he said it. His comment was clearly lacking in any sense of morality. I understand that a lot of his supporters are infiltrators from the Republican Party. It's Dean's Democratic supporters that concern me the most. Is it that they want to win and they don't care what kind of man they put in office or is it that they themselves have lost all sense of morality? This is a serious inquiry.

[LuminousX]

9. Neither

We are quite aware of Dean's positions and we don't feel the whole world pivots on any one of them. Dean is the kind of man who pragmatically approaches policy making, which is a let down for the pie in the sky types who want eveything today.

Dean's position on the death penalty is a non-starter. He was opposed to it as governor but realized that to win as President, he would need to support it.

[LuminousX]

11. Dean Supports the Killing of Children

Sort of a catch-22 situation.

[dsc]

13. Then I assume you are for

Sharpton, CMB, or Kucinich who are the only three against the death penalty in all cases. BTW Dean is in favor of the Innocents protection act which would require both good lawyers and DNA tests for all prisoners in death penalty cases. He said that in the very same interview you quoted but I guess your computer cut that out.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. see post #16

[Duder]

15. A weak flame...

Howard Dean:

"I believe the death penalty should be available for extreme and heinous crimes, such as terrorism or the killing of police officers or young children. But it must be carried out with scrupulous fairness. I applaud former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, who imposed a moratorium rather than administer a system in which 13 innocent men were released from death row." (deanforamerica.com)

Believes in the use of the death penalty for heinous crimes involving children or police officers, or as a deterrent to terrorism.

John Kerry:

"I'm opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it's applied unfairly, as even Republican governors have determined, and because I'm for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life, deprived of their freedom, never to be paroled. Now, I think that's tougher." (Meet the Press, December 1, 2002)

Opposes capital punishment, except for terrorists. Believes that the system is flawed so long as innocents are in danger of being executed.

For all the candidates views regarding the death penalty without the bias from any supporter see:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=18&did=635

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. It's not about the death penalty, it's about due process.

It's not about the death penalty, it's about due process. Are our rights just 'technicalities'? Are some people obviously guilty? Should people be put to death before they have a chance to appeal? Should the prosecution have more resources than the defense?

[Duder]

19. Seems to me that's considered...

Dean: "I applaud former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, who imposed a moratorium rather than administer a system in which 13 innocent men were released from death row."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Do you have a reference for that quote so we can put it in context?

[Duder]

24. I posted the link...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=18&did=635

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. OK

OK, I didn't realize that was a quote from the death penalty link. Unfortunately, it doesn't really provide any additional context.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. I thought it was about:

Why is Dean willing to put innocent people to death?



Talk about moving goalposts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Yes, why is Dean willing to put innocent people to death rather than

Yes, why is Dean willing to put innocent people to death rather than allow them due process? Why the hurry to execute people before they can appeal?

[dsc]

26. That isn't what he said

and you know it. While I don't agree with his position he didn't say that we should kill people before they appeal. I would actually like to know the facts of the case he refered to. That might help with the discussion. But in any case he was saying that life in prison often isn't life not the point you are saying he made.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Spin it however you want, here are his words:

Spin it however you want, here are his words:

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

He is clearly saying that person should have been put to death rather than have a new trial. And since the new trial did not result in a conviction, "That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

[dsc]

31. So if the facts are

that the police illegally searched his house finding a video of him murdering the girls which got thrown out that is the same as executing a truely innocent person. Is that really your position?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Let me get this straight -

Let me get this straight - you are saying evidence that police illegally obtain should be allowed to be used as a basis for executing people? In that case, what's to stop them from fabricating evidence? Why even have trials? Just let the police lock up or execute 'the bad guys'.

[dsc]

37. No I am not

I am saying it is different from executing an innocent person.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. How do you know who is innocent and who is guilty without a fair trial?

[dsc]

39. Gee

I don't know a videotape of someone murdering someone. Hard to tell. The exclusionary rule (which is what I was using as an example) is not to give the defendent in that case a fair trial as much as it is to deter the police and thus give all defendents fair trials. But it isn't morally equilvant to kill the person in my example and a truely innocent person.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. It's really about a fundamental question of whether you believe

It's really about a fundamental question of whether you believe that rights have to be respected 'to the letter' or whether you think it's sometimes acceptable to apply 'common sense' instead.

And once you start going down that road... take your example of the videotape - if we moved toward a system that was more lax about rules of evidence - do you really think it would be long before police were manipulated video images?

[Egnever]

63. Wow nice bump and a wild boogieman too!

I dissagree it has nothing at all to do with rights being respected. It has to do with the difference between being guilty and being innocent.

You thread is dishonest on your premise. You know that though I am sure. You omit the rest of what he said where he talks about improving the defense end of the system to ensure fairer trials. wich puts the lie to the premise of the title.

But as far as the part that you chose to pick on. Explain to me how it is more or less heinous that two innoccent children were "put to death" than it is is one innocent is "put to death" sory but I find both heinous in fact I find the children more so because we knew the guy was a killer or at least had strong evidence.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. See post #69

See post #69 for the complete context.

"I dissagree it has nothing at all to do with rights being respected. It has to do with the difference between being guilty and being innocent."

Thing is, in this country, we have a tradition of deciding guilt or innocence using trials, with rules of jurisprudence that must be respected. When those rules are broken in the trial, a new trial is sometimes granted on appeal.


"You thread is dishonest on your premise. You know that though I am sure. You omit the rest of what he said where he talks about improving the defense end of the system to ensure fairer trials. wich puts the lie to the premise of the title."

As anyone can see in post 69, or by following the link to read the complete interview themselves, you are making a false statement.

"But as far as the part that you chose to pick on. Explain to me how it is more or less heinous that two innoccent children were "put to death" than it is is one innocent is "put to death" sory but I find both heinous in fact I find the children more so because we knew the guy was a killer or at least had strong evidence."

You can't see the difference between the state executing innocent people and criminals committing their depraved crimes?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Got it.

That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime.

Killing 15 and 12 year-old girls is as bad as killing an innocent person. I agree.

What's your problem with the statement?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. Context, context, I know you hate it.

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

[LibInternationalist]

89. has it ever occurred to you that it might have been a TECHNICALITY

cases do turn on ridiculous technicalities sometimes (as someone suggested earlier, an incorrect signature or the like) -- I would like to see more specifics about this case before coming to a final conclusion

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. I don't believe our right to a fair trial is a mere technicality.

I don't believe our right to a fair trial is a mere technicality. And as I've said, less important than the facts of any particular case are the broad conclusions we draw from it. It is the conclusions that Dean says he has drawn that I find troubling.

[ima_sinnic]

30. You are purposely twisting Dean's words

He didn't say anything approaching your interpretation.

--just admit you don't like him and get it over with.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. I don't need to twist, all I have to do is quote:

I don't need to twist, all I have to do is quote:

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

No spin, no twisting. Read it for yourself.

[Egnever]

65. Dont you mean quote out of context?

????

Wheres the rest we he describes strengthening the defense side of capitol cases?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Did you not read it? Or are you purposely making a false statement?

Did you not read it? Or are you purposely making a false statement?

You say " the rest we he describes strengthening the defense side of capitol cases?"

As you can see below, and this is the complete context, other than saying he supports Pat Leahy’s innocents protection bill, he says nothing about strengthening the defense side of capitol cases:

" Russert: Another debatable and controversial issue is the death penalty. This was the headline in your home state paper the other day: “Dean Aligns With Bush On Death Penalty. Former Governor Howard Dean appears to be shedding some of the liberal tendencies that have won him national attention as he now expands his support for the death penalty...His shift on the death penalty...has some questioning his motives.” “‘This doesn’t surprise me. I think Dean’s willing to do what he has to do to win,’” said Frank Bryan, a political science professor at the University of Vermont and longtime observer of Dean. ‘I really believe he’s very ambitious and he wants to win badly. He has to get to the final plateau, and I think he will take risks with his inconsistencies being discovered in order to get to the next step.’... “Eric Davis, a Middlebury College political science professor,” also from Vermont, “summed up Dean’s change in two words: South Carolina. ...‘I think what’s going on here is Dean is trying to appeal to electorates in more conservative states...’” South Carolina being the third primary after Iowa and New Hampshire.
Dean: It’s a very interesting article, and turned out to be wrong, which was kind of embarrassing. In fact, I figured I was going to get asked this. In 1964—excuse me, in 1994, in the very paper that this was printed in, they ran a series of articles saying I was rethinking the death penalty. This has nothing to do with running for president. It happened while Bill Clinton—before Bill Clinton had even run for his second term. I began to rethink the death penalty in 1994 because of the Polly Klaas case. The Polly Klaas case was the case of a young girl who was kidnapped from her house, abducted and raped, and murdered by a felon who never should have been let out of jail. We had a very similar horrible case in Vermont a few years earlier, and I began to rethink my position on the death penalty as a result of that, and the article was just plain wrong.
Russert: But in terms of rethinking—let me show you what you did say in ’92 and think about...
Dean: That’s right. You don’t have to show me. I know what I said in ’92.
Russert: But I want to talk about it...
Dean: OK.
Russert: ...because I want the country to see it because it’s important. “I don’t support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can’t really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn’t be in the business of taking people’s lives.” The Catholic bishop up in Vermont has said this, and I’ll show you and our viewers. “I am sorry that Governor Dean has expressed second thoughts on his support for the physicians’ pledge to ‘do no harm.’ ...as Governor Dean himself said: ‘I truly don’t believe it’s a deterrent.’ What then would be the motive for the death penalty except vengeance?” Do you believe there’s still a possibility, as you said, the wrong guy could be executed?
Dean: Yes.
Russert: And number two, as you said, if a state is like a parent saying don’t kill, why is the state killing?
Dean: It’s a deeply, deeply troubling issue. Let me explain to you why I changed my position and why I’ve began that process in 1994. These were two horrible murders of young children and I oppose the death penalty in most instances. Here’s the areas I’ve changed and here’s why, and I’m very supportive for exam—we don’t have a death penalty in Vermont just so most of your viewers know that we’re one of the states that doesn’t and we don’t need a death penalty. But here’s the problem, Tim, the state executes people improperly if they’re improperly convicted— Illinois was the classic case. There were a number of people that were death row that turned out to be innocent. Deeply trouble. I came to realize because of the Polly Klaas case and because of similar other cases that sometimes the state inadvertently has a hand in killing innocent people because they let people out who ought never to have been let out. And so the judicial system’s imperfection hurts us in two ways. It executes innocent people because they were convicted and put to death, which is a terrible thing which is why I support Pat Leahy’s innocents protection bill, but they also allow people to get out of jail when they’re supposed to be in there for life and then those people go and repeat their crimes, oftentimes sex offenders. So I came to the conclusion that a person who murders a child shows a depraved indifference to life which will never be—incapable of being rehabilitated. Secondly, that a mass murderer, such as a terrorist, is someone who can’t be rehabilitated and to let these people out is too dangerous and it’s too high likelihood that they’ll repeat their crime.
And thirdly, I don’t believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but I think there may be one instance where just possibly it could be and that’s the shooting of a police officer. If you’re about to pull a trigger on a guy who’s in uniform and you know that you’re going to get the death penalty and if you don’t pull the trigger something different will happen, maybe that might save the police officer’s life. The only three instances that I support the death penalty are, one, murder of a child, two, a mass murder like a terrorist and, three, the shooting of a police officer, and that’s how I came to the position that I came and I began that process in ’94 which is...
Russert: What’s wrong with life imprisonment without parole—it’s $2 million per inmate cheaper than the death penalty when you consider and factor the cost of all of the appeals?
Dean: You know, I had said this before and I’ll say it again: I don’t think what’s cheap and what’s not cheap has a bearing on whether you use the death penalty or not. Other people have said it’s cheaper to do the death penalty because you get rid of them. You don’t have to give them room and board for life. Those kinds of arguments are irrelevant here. So I just—life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed when I was lieutenant governor— the problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn’t come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn’t work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there’d be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn’t commit the crime.
Russert: We’re going to take a quick break and come back. More of our conversation with Howard Dean about defense issues; Iraq. A whole lot more right after this."


http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

[VoteClark]

66. "I believe the death penalty should be available for extreme and heinous

Crimes" Great, like maybe Murder?


:kick:
J4Clark

[Booberdawg]

25. Balderdash!

"Dean is being very clear here. He is saying it is just as bad for a convict to win a new trial on appeal as it is for an innocent person to be put to death."

You have to go though some serious contortions of the facts to draw that conclusion. He's saying it's just as bad for someone guilty of a heinous crime to be released on a technicality as it is for an innocent person to be put to death.

"Dean is being very clear here."
Yes, Dean is being very clear here. So are you. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Right - 'someone guilty' who has won an appeal for a new trial

Right - 'someone guilty' who has won an appeal for a new trial. Problem is, if they didn't have a fair trial to begin with, why assume they are guilty?

[Booberdawg]

40. Now you are changing your argument

Here is what you initially wrote:

"He is saying it is just as bad for a convict to win a new trial on appeal as it is for an innocent person to be put to death."

You said nothing about the question of guilt or innocence. You simply manipulated his words to imply that Dean is against a new trial based upon appeal. This is clearly not what he said. The context was life without parole, not the appeal process.

You are being intentionally manipulative. That doesn't work with me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Once again, I quote with full context:

Once again, I quote with full context (emphasis added):

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

As you can see if you are willing to read Dean's words, this is not a case of someone getting out on parole. It is a case where someone was convicted, appealed, won the appeal (on what Dean calls a 'technicality'), and was granted a new trial.

"You simply manipulated his words to imply that Dean is against a new trial based upon appeal."

Is there an alternate interpretation?

(edit: spelling)

[Egnever]

67. not even close to full context heres just some

of the rest

"And so the judicial system’s imperfection hurts us in two ways. It executes innocent people because they were convicted and put to death, which is a terrible thing which is why I support Pat Leahy’s innocents protection bill, but they also allow people to get out of jail when they’re supposed to be in there for life and then those people go and repeat their crimes, oftentimes sex offenders. So I came to the conclusion that a person who murders a child shows a depraved indifference to life which will never be—incapable of being rehabilitated. Secondly, that a mass murderer, such as a terrorist, is someone who can’t be rehabilitated and to let these people out is too dangerous and it’s too high likelihood that they’ll repeat their crime. And thirdly, I don’t believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but I think there may be one instance where just possibly it could be and that’s the shooting of a police officer. If you’re about to pull a trigger on a guy who’s in uniform and you know that you’re going to get the death penalty and if you don’t pull the trigger something different will happen, maybe that might save the police officer’s life. The only three instances that I support the death penalty are, one, murder of a child, two, a mass murder like a terrorist and, three, the shooting of a police officer, and that’s how I came to the position that I came and I began that process in ’94 "

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. See post #69

See post #69. Where does Dean talk about strengthening the defense?

[JohnKleeb]

43. all against death penalty here

:hi:
explains my support for DK and as a backup Kerry.

[Duder]

44. Does Kerry sound kind of sadistic?

'SEN. KERRY: I think, Tim, as people get to know me in the course of this, they’ll know the things that I have fought for and the things I stand for. I was a prosecutor. I’ve sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I’m opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it’s applied unfairly, as even Republican governors have determined, and because I’m for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life, deprived of their freedom, never to be paroled. Now, I think that’s tougher. Let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, why shouldn’t Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma building, or if John Muhammad is convicted of being a sniper here in Washington—why shouldn’t they receive the death penalty?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I think that, as I said, you know, different people have different opinions about what’s worse. I’ve seen people die and I know what it’s like to almost die. I don’t think that—you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you’re alive and you’re deprived of your freedom each day and you’re in tough circumstances—and I’m talking about tough circumstances. I’m not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I’m talking about tough. But if you’re deprived of that freedom for the rest of your living days until God decides to take you, you know, that is tough, my friend, and I think that plenty of people think that.

Now, I don’t think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people. Over 100 people have been released from death row in America in the last year with DNA evidence and other evidence showing they didn’t commit the crime for which they had been committed, some of them in jail for 10, 15 years for a crime they didn’t commit.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have a moratorium on the death penalty until there’s further research.

SEN. KERRY: I’ve said that previously. I think we need to look at it. But more importantly, Tim, that’s not affected at the federal level. That’s not where the crime of this country is fought. It’s fought state for state by state prosecutors. That’s where it’s done. And I would honor, obviously, the laws of those states and that’s the way we should proceed. But far more importantly, are we going to do the things in this country...

MR. RUSSERT: So if a state had a death penalty, you would respect it?

SEN. KERRY: Of course. You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have an exception in your moral opposition for terrorists?

SEN. KERRY: That is correct. It’s not moral. I have said that I object to it on the basis of the way it’s applied and the way that it’s not the toughest punishment, but I do believe with respect to terrorists, that is correct.'

I guess the system works more fairly for terroists and they don't get the worse punishment according to Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. So is this a sign that you concede my point?

So is this a sign that you concede my point?

I mean you posted this portion of a Kerry interview, in which he says nothing that needs defending... I'm not sure why...

As I noted above, I am disturbed by what I view as Dean's flippant view of due process and the right to a fair trial - I quoted him to show from where I derived my view of him. Suddenly, you don't want to talk about what Dean said or what he believes. So you quote Kerry saying things like:

"Now, I don’t think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people."

"You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that."

So I take this as a sign that you are not willing to defend what Dean said.

[Duder]

57. Not a sign at all but a question...

Does Kerry seem kind of sadistic?

"...you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you’re alive and you’re deprived of your freedom each day and you’re in tough circumstances—and I’m talking about tough circumstances. I’m not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I’m talking about tough."

Also, since Kerry feels the system doesn't work and that incarceration is a worse punishment, why does Kerry want the death penalty for terrorists since he says it's a criminal justice system that kills innocent people? How can he be sure that the terrorist is not innocent?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. You call that defending Dean's words?

You call that defending Dean's words? I'm waiting...

[Duder]

60. No need to defend my candidate's words

Dean:

'As President, I would:

Promptly instruct my Attorney General to evaluate the federal death penalty system, take steps to ensure that it is applied fairly and reliably, and reverse Ashcroft’s overzealous policies.

Push for passage of the federal Innocence Protection Act to strengthen protections against unjust imposition of the death penalty.

Establish a Presidential Commission on the Administration of Capital Punishment to analyze the causes of wrongful convictions around the country and recommend additional reforms at the federal and state level.

First in Texas and now as President, George Bush has carried out the death penalty in a careless and negligent manner. I will handle this important responsibility very differently.'

http://www.boomundo.com/dean/deathpenalty.htm

I know my candidate's position, it's your candidate that I had questions about. If Kerry truly believes life in prison is a worse punishment then why the death penalty for terrorists? That seems like flaky reasoning to me which perhaps is why you avoid the question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Ok, you agree with him? that's an honest position at least...

Ok, you agree with him? that's an honest position at least...



Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would "require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street."

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution - would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

"I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely"

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

--------

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

--------

In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals."


http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml

http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm

-------

Rutland Herald editorial: "Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond."

http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792
-------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2¬Found=true

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY


-------

You wanna play dueling quotes? no problem, let's keep this thread up top where everyone can read what Dean has to say about this. It really doesn't matter how you or I characterize the quotes because the readers of this forum are smart enough to read for themselves and make up their own minds.

[Duder]

72. Cheese Whiz...

Instead of answering the question you respond with a statement Dean made 48 hours after 9/11, which it turns out he was correct. It's been rehashed here a number of times but if you missed it you can go read 'Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up...?' over at http://gore4dean.blogspot.com/ where most of the crap you've posted has been debunked.

Since you seem incapable of an honest response to the question I asked: I know my candidate's position, it's your candidate that I had questions about. If Kerry truly believes life in prison is a worse punishment then why the death penalty for terrorists? I'll give you my opinion of what I think might be your candidate's reasoning.

Kerry probably doesn't believe a terrorist can be rehabilitated and so death is final and removes the threat to society. The same as Dean's view of child killers. Even though Kerry states that he believes incarceration is a worse punishment than death, having been a prosecutor he knows that the legal process can be manipulated so that a retrial could occur ten years later where the original witnesses can't/won't testify and so a danger to society could be released. Another child could be killed or building blown up. One can respect the views of those opposed to the death penalty but to try to misrepresent and suggest that Dean and Kerry's views are greatly different is less than honest. I'm sure most of the readers at DU are smart enough to see that Dean quotes out of context posted by a Kerry supporter for what they are.

Dean supports the passage of the federal Innocence Protection Act and while I don't know Kerry's position, I've tried to present his reasoning for the death penalty honestly, since you weren't able to with regards to either candidate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. Characterize it however you want. Thinking people will read Dean's words

Characterize it however you want. Thinking people will read Dean's words and decide for themselves.

[Duder]

75. And thinking people can read Kerry's words out of context

Perhaps they'll wonder if he's sadistic.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. lol

see post #69. Or follow the link to the complete interview. This is quoting out of context? lol

[Duder]

77. lol

See post #44. I'm biased but I think Kerry came out sounding worse then Dean with Russert, a little bit sadistic even but perhaps he's going for the S & M vote. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. I hope people do read it.

I hope people do read it. And your characterizations are getting funnier and funnier.

[JohnKleeb]

47. I dont know he has different reasons for opposing it than I do

My reason is simple, most of western civilization has banned it, I dont wanna take chances executing the innocent, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth is a dated way, maybe religious reasons too I dont know but I wholeheartily oppose the penalty.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. I respect that viewpoint

I respect that viewpoint and I would not oppose efforts to eliminate the death penalty entirely.

[JohnKleeb]

50. well good to see we agree

Thats something I also like about Kerry compared to Dean, the death penalty, yes I know Dean isnt GWB on it but to oppose it is better. Kucinich opposes it as does Kerry so give them a plus in my book. Western Europe used to be horrible yet they envolved so why cant the US you know. It doesnt deter crime really, and you know justice Warren and the others on the court who wrote the consenting opinion were right.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Not to argue against my own guy but

Not to argue against my own guy but Kerry is not for total elimination of the death penalty. He says how he feels about it in the interview above. It seems to be similar to mine - I am ambivalent about it. I feel mostly opposed to it but at the same time there are some who have been executed about which I have no regrets. If the mood of the country were such that the death penalty were being eliminated, I would be certainly be ok with that. I am definately against any limiting of appeals in death penalty cases.

[JohnKleeb]

53. oops sorry

Even so his issues to me make him more of a positive than Dean.

[genius]

49. It is a also racist and aimed at the lower class

A dramatically disproportionate number of death row inmates are from poor, minority backgrounds.

[JohnKleeb]

51. Yes genius so much more bad about it

:hi: thank you
Its economically and racially prejudiced, another reason why I despise it.

[gully]

54. Dean on the Death Penalty

http://deandefense.org/archives/000668.html

"I believe the death penalty should be available for extreme and heinous crimes, such as terrorism or the killing of police officers or young children. But it must be carried out with scrupulous fairness."

Although Dean supports the limited use of the death penalty, he is not the death penalty zealot some have made him out to be. Specifically, he has called for an evaluation of the federal death penalty system, passage of federal Innocence Protection Act, the establishment of a Presidential Commission that would review federal and state capital punishment systems. In addition, he has attacked the Bush Administration for its knee-jerk use of the death penalty. ("Capital Punishment" Link)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. It all depends on what your idea of scrupulousfairness is.

It all depends on what your idea of scrupulous fairness is. Your two sentence quote doesn't give us much context in which to judge what Dean means by it here.

[Egnever]

68. ROFL!

"Your two sentence quote doesn't give us much context in which to judge what Dean means by it here. "

Quite possibly the most hillarious point in this entire thread!

Pot kettle!!!!

:crazy:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. Do you have more context to provide? I'd like to hear it.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. Oh Goody

Another CDB (Chronic Dean Basher) on ignore. And my list grows . . .

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Quoting Dean qualifies as bashing him?

[VoteClark]

64. Yes, it does. Anything that man does or says is bashing himself

[genius]

79. And the Truth Shall Set You Free

I've noticed that it is not okay to tell the truth about Dean. No, telling the trust about Dean is called bashing by the Dean people. The Dean people can't come back with facts to attack the other candidates so they result to bad language, harrassment and nonsense about electability. Wouldn't it be great if we could just have an open forum to discuss where the candiates stand on the issues without fear or vicious reprisals if anyone tells the truth about Dean's position on the issues.

[indigo32]

80. I mentioned this on the other thread regarding Deans Conservativism

I frankly think that this was very poorly worded...but it was an honest acknowledgement of a fact surrounding the Death Penalty. It cannot be guarenteed that an innocent person won't be put to death... and that is all.

I am opposed to the death penalty 100%, but considering the office he is running for, and the fact the VT never had the death penatly while he was there, I'm gonna have to give him a pass on the issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. The President nominates judges to the Supreme Court

The President nominates judges to the Supreme Court. Sometimes these Supreme Court nominations can be the most lasting legacy of a President.

Give a Presidential candidate 'a pass' on basic questions about due process and the right to a fair trial?
I don't think so.

Just so you know, I am serious about these questions. I didn't know much about Dean till recently. The buzz sounded good. I've been a fan of Kerry's for many years so I knew who I wanted but I was happy that Dean seemed like the most likely other nominee -- until I read this stuff. If Dean were to address this, to say something that indicated that the impression I've gotten from this stuff is wrong, I'd be very happy.

[indigo32]

82. I think you are overstating the case

I understand how you feel about it, but I just don't see where he's
talking about abolishing due process or the right to a fair trial.
I said I had to give him a pass on the Death Penalty... not on issues of due process or fair trial. And the supreme court has already ruled the death penalty legal, unfortunately.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. I'm not saying that

I'm not saying that Dean is "talking about abolishing due process or the right to a fair trial." I'm saying that what he has said on this issue, as well as his actions as governor of Vermont, have raised alot of misgivings on my part. I am not talking about the death penalty per se so much as I am talking about Dean's statement that winning a new trial on appeal was due to a 'technicality'. I haven't been able to find a transcript of the 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau so I haven't addressed those comments here but they trouble me as well. The execution of an innocent person is not the only, but just the most extreme injustice that could arise from this.

[Duder]

84. Just curious, did you vote for Al Gore?

BG: What do you think about the Republican governor of Illinois calling a moratorium on the death penalty because there has been so much evidence that innocent people are on death row?

AG: Well, I support the death penalty.

BG: Well, so does he.

AG: I understand, and I also understand that the high-profile cases that have put a new spotlight on the error in capital convictions have put this issue in a new light. In Illinois, I don't want to make a judgment on what the circumstances are because I don't have the expertise. Nationally, I would not be in favor of a moratorium. The "Hurricane" notwithstanding.

BG: Are there people on death row elsewhere, or federal death row, who are innocent? Isn't that something we should be worried about?

AG: I would hope not. But I'll tell you this: I think that any honest and candid supporter of the death penalty has to acknowledge that that support comes in spite of the fact that there will inevitably be some mistakes. And that's a harsh concession to make, but I think it's the only honest concession to make, and it should spur us to have appreciation for habeas corpus, for the procedural safeguards for the accused, and for the fairness that's a part of the American judicial system and to resist efforts to take away the procedural safeguards.

BG: But what we've seen over the past few years from the courts and the administration is an erosion, a decrease in the ability to file federal habeas petitions. Does that bother you?

AG: I think that the pendulum swung so far in the direction of a flood of habeas petitions that the decisions of some courts to weed out the procedural abuses is justified.

http://www.sfbayguardian.com/Extra/gore.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. Al Gore isn't running for President

Al Gore isn't running for President.

But to answer your question, yes I chose Gore over Bush. You're not trying to imply that was a bad decision are you?

I'll make a slightly embarassing admission: I always vote the straight Democratic ticket. Call me a slave to the party system if you want, but as it turns out, the Democrats are always better than the Republicans on the issues in my view.

Would I have voted for Al Gore in the primaries if John Kerry had been running? No.

[genius]

92. Al Gore said on Nightline that he would consider a moritorium

on the death penalty. This was after Ryan's decision to do so because of all the overturned convictions of death row inmates.

[genius]

93. The pendulum has swung too far to the right-wing on the rights

of the accused to a fair trial. Dean wants to streamline trials, which will result in more innocent people being convicted, and doesn't care about innocent people being executed, which is about as immoral as a candidate can get. Imagine what kind of right-wing justices he will appoint. He refuses to commit to refraining from appointing justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

[genius]

130. If Dean had been appointing justices, years ago, we never would

have had the cases that gave us those technicalities: Powell v Alabama (right to an attorney during a capital trial), Gideon v Wainwright (right to an attorney during a felony trial), Mapp v. Ohio (right against unwarranted searches and seizures), Miranda v. Arizona (right against self-incrimination). If Dean doesn't like technicalities, he would be better off taking over some Stalinist-type regime.

[ErasureAcer]

94. Because Dean is evil

my opinion...but what else can explain such cruelty?

Howard Dean is EVIL.

Kucinich 04
www.kucinich.us

Who WILL end the Death Penalty by putting up a George Ryan like moratorium on all cases.

It is a fucking shame that, Ryan, a republican can notice the injustice of Capital Punishment...

but the front leading democratic candidates, including Dean support such cruelty and injustice!!!!!

This is ONE of the big reasons Dean and the other will never get my support when it comes time to face off against the chimp.

Support Dennis Kucincih for President...he has a vision to make the world a better place.

www.kucinich.us

[diamondsoul]

95. Ok.....

I hate to say this but I can't help it after sitting here and reading this quote three times.

People the entire structure of this quote is so screwy I can barely focus on what he's trying to say.

"And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead."

"That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls."

Am I the only one here who sees a striking resemblence to Dubyah-speak in these two sentences??

*ducks and prepares for the barrage of Deanite fire*

Oh, and for the record, Deanite is not something I use as an insult- I commonly refer to myself as a Kucinich-head. It's just shorthand for me.

[ProfessorPlum]

96. Here Dean is equating the death of an innocent girl

to the death of an innocent person convicted wrongly of a crime.

You may agree or disagree with that as you will, but it isn't something to get upset about.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. We the People are the ones executing the innocent person

and that's the difference. We can choose whether we are going to make sure that we don't execute innocent people. Or we can decide that we are more concerned with speedily convicting and executing.

Horrible people do commit horrible crimes. That's no justification for the state to do the same.

[ProfessorPlum]

101. I know that there is no point responding to you.

Do you know why? Every time someone makes a cogent point counter to your argument, you never stop and say, "Huh. That's a good point. But . . . " You just keep barreling on and usually do not respond to the point.

If, however, you actually want to discuss this issue, I think where Dean is coming from is that

1. It is bad when the state executes an innocent person

2. It is roughly as bad when the state fails to stop someone from killing an innocent person

In an ideal world, neither 1 nor 2 would happen. I am absolutely for strong defendents rights, because it is the price we have to pay to minimize the chance of 1 happening. But I understand the frustration of people who have seen that when we minimize the chance of 1 happening, we increase the chance of 2 happening. In an ideal world, it would be great to minimize the odds of both 1 and 2 happening at the same time.

That's all there is to it. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

And by the way, your post and your thread title have got to be the most misleading one that I have ever seen on this board. The mild basis for your wildly overblown conclusion even beats farcical post titles that I have put here, like "Governor Dean eats puppies" or "Dean drinks the blood of infants". You have finally killed satire with your effort to deliberately "misunderstand" and smear Dean. Congratulations. "Dean supports killing innocent people?" You're over the top.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

103. I don't think people need you to interpret for them.

We are all smart enough to read the Governor's words and decide for ourselves what they mean.

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

[ProfessorPlum]

104. brilliant counterargument, there, Sparky

chat with ya later.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. I can see why you want to turn this into spin and counterspin

because that takes the focus off Dean's words. You can try to goad me by belittling me with nicknames but it's just childish.

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

[ProfessorPlum]

106. there is no spin

the quote you keep posting is totally consistent with what I posted.

You can take it to mean that Dean is into ritual Satanic human sacrifice if you choose to. That doesn't mean you aren't trying to deliberately obfuscate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. spin - is when you explain what you think something means.

You are spinning, I am quoting.

[ProfessorPlum]

110. Yes and you are doing a poor job of it

From your original post:

"Dean is being very clear here. He is saying it is just as bad for a convict to win a new trial on appeal as it is for an innocent person to be put to death.

It's a viewpoint I find distasteful."

Is it not also possible that he is saying that it is just as bad for the state to fail to protect an innocent victim as it is for an innocent person to be put to death? In each case an innocent person dies. In each case the state can be held responsible. Don't you think that is a much more reasonable set of things to equate than your "spin"?

If you can admit that my interpretation is at least possible, then we can both agree that we are arguing over interpretations over something to which neither of us can prove. We will also know, however, that you will deliberately choose to pick the worst interpretation of anything Dean says.

So, is my interpretation possible or not?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. Bottom line is,

Dean is upset that this person was ordered a new trial. He is presuming that they are guilty even though the original trial was thrown out on appeal. The victims in the crime aren't protected by having the wrong person in jail. And the way we decide guilt or innocence in this country is with trials, not by gubernatorial fiat.

[ProfessorPlum]

116. Of course he is upset

so would any normal person. The guy got a new trial but then was released and went on to kill an innocent person. That should aggrieve anybody.

I believe, and this is only my opinion, that he might be upset because a little girl was killed - not the fact that someone got a new trial. Is that possible?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. It is false to say

"went on to kill an innocent person. "

that's not what Dean says happened, anyway:

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

[ProfessorPlum]

123. that is inaccurate

throughout that whole part of the interview he is talking about people who are released and who go on to kill again.

Also, in your favorite quote, you have a person who was a rapist and a serial sex offender who was convicted. He was convicted for raping, not murder (you know how I know? Because his victim was called to testify). That person gets released and goes on to murder a 15-year old girl.

That is exactly what Dean is talking about, in addition to the Polly Klaas case, which had similar circumstances.

"Went on to kill an innocent person" is 100% accurate, and it is in fact not only the context of what Dean is talking about, it is also exactly what he describes in this quote.

[ProfessorPlum]

125. As long as this stupid thread got bumped

try this:

"You are right - I had read that quote (that I posted at least 30 times) incorrectly. Sorry about the misunderstanding."

or

"Gee, I never thought about it that way before."

or

"Maybe Dean isn't the third coming of the Sta-Puft MarshMallow Man afterall."

or

maybe I'm dreaming.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

127. thanks for the kick, let's keep this thread on top where it belongs

[genius]

107. He's opposed to a right to a defense. He wants to streamline

convictions. He considers the execution of innocent people an acceptable risk. And he has the hypocracy to put down Ashcroft. It's sort of like Hitler putting down Mussolini.

[ProfessorPlum]

109. You have got to be kidding me, 'genius'

He is opposed to a right to a defense? Where in the hell does he ever say that?

I guess I really wasn't using satire when I wrote that Dean kills puppies.

There are a lot of Vermonters who are very happy with Dean's reign of terror and who would be surprised to find out that he would have liked to eliminate a person's right to a defense.

Amazing. You will literally say anything to smear the guy. He isn't perfect, but you've completely distorted him on this issue.

The state, in a state with capital punishment, will sometimes execute innocent people. That is a risk.

The state, through inaction, will sometimes allow innocent people to be killed because they failed to protect them from killers. That is also a risk.

The state has to try to balance these risks - the death of innocents in both these cases can be blamed on the state.

Do you honestly think that when an innocent is killed by someone released on a technicality (even though that may be the result of having a system which does the maximum good for the maximum number of people) that everyone rejoices that that is at least, the best possible outcome? Don't you think people grieve and worry over our flawed human nature and wish there was some way that they could protect the innocent victim better?

Even without weakening our current set of criminal defense rights, we risk punishing innocent people - taking their lives, or taking away their ability to spend their lives while not behind bars. Taking your position to the same "logical" conclusion that you have done with Dean, should we stop prosecuting killers completely because we might punish the wrong person?

Everything is a balancing act in life. Trying to lessen the total amount of evil in the world is not the worst thing ever. Go find a real topic.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

111. Dean: “My view is that the justice system is not fair"

In an interview his first week as governor, Dean made it clear where he stood: “My view is that the justice system is not fair. It’s not fair. It bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims and to society as a whole ...,” he said.

Dean subsequently supported toughening the guidelines for people qualifying for a public defender and limiting the services defenders provide to prisoners.

<snip>

Strains in relations between Dean and Appel appeared fairly early.

Months after Appel was appointed, a study was released showing that public defenders in the state were receiving low wages.

Appel was candid in his observations: “It’s a comment on the value placed on the services we provide the state, in my view,” Appel had said reacting to the results. “We provide a politically unpopular service. Constitutionally mandated, but politically unpopular.”
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/31711.html


Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself. But Dean’s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation.

Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792

[ProfessorPlum]

112. Not those two same old articles from the Rutland Herald

Come on, you can do better than that. Neither of them quote their source for their quotes from Dean.

I was about to admit that whatever you had found actually showed that Dean is completely opposed to a suspect's right to a defense, but this is too weak to justify even with satire.

edit: grammar

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. So the newspaper is part of the 'Dean bashing plot?' lol

[ProfessorPlum]

117. no, but those two articles

are useless as legitimate sources.

You are building a house of cards against Dean as if he is some kind of vampire, when that clearly isn't the case, despite his flaws.

Why not try something which is a little more defensible, like

"Dean's style is not to my taste".

or

"I think Kerry is just peachy".

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. Rutland Herald -Vermont's Pulitzer Prize newspaper

A Pulitzer for the Herald

I guess that destroyed whatever credibility they might have had.

[ProfessorPlum]

119. the articles, not

the paper. Oh what's the use? This thread deserves to die a slow lingering death. Thanks for not answering my question - we know what kind of debater you are now (as it it weren't obvious before).

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

128. Pulitzer prize winning newspaper - only credible when it praises Dean?

[Nicholas_J]

133. True

THet is the criteria for quality journalism among Dean supporters. It must praise Dean to high heaven, must distort Deans record, or cover up Deans he made in which rich buddies benefited at trhe expense of the taxpayers. The taxpayers paye 8 million dollars alone to build a bridge to be used primarily for a private company Dean was trying to lure into the Arrowhead Lake area, rezoning and entire district, and destroying thousands of acres of pristine forrest and agricultral land to but in a plastic bottle making company (suppoesdly environmentally good bevcause it recycled the plastic, but really not much more environmentally safe thatn making new plastic, but the plastics industry and politicians who want to look loke environmentalists pat each other on the back for it, and even make up awards to give each other for it)

[genius]

115. The evidence is there. Is the truth to hard for Deanies to swallow?

I guess kool-aid tastes better.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. Are you trying to insinuate something?

Would it be against DU rules to just say it? I wonder what those rules are for anyway?

Just in case you didn't get the message yet, the point of this thread is to publicize Dean's Meet the Press interview. I have my interpretation of what he meant but I don't really care how people interpret it, I think it is important for people to know who the candidates they are voting for really are, by reading what they say when interviewed by independent sources, and by examining what they've done, as reported by independent sources.

You can insult me, insinuate evil things about me - or whatever. It means nothing to me. What is important to me is that the voters make the most informed choice possible.

Keep bumping it up so everyone can read it.

[gratuitous]

131. Why would you think that?

And by the way, chuckles, the only information everyone is getting from this half-assed thread in a forgotten backwater corner of an insignificant website is about you and your obsessive posting habits. I've drawn my own conclusions, and I'm afraid you don't fare very well there. Your credibility is shot; perhaps you should find another message board that's a little more amenable to your bandwidth pollution.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

132. Because I can read and understand English

apparently unlike some who have weighed in on this interview.

Thanks for the kick!

[gratuitous]

135. Well, I haven't seen any evidence of that

So I guess I'll have to take your word for it. You're certainly adept at avoiding salient points made by several folks in this thread, and clearly you're uninterested in an actual discussion. I guess you've served your purpose, at least until this thread gets locked or rolls off.

[genius]

134. There, but by the grace of God, goes Howard Dean.

I wonder how Dean would feel if he or a close member of his family were innocent victims of a capital conviction. On his or his wife's way to the death house, would he still support the execution of the innocent?

[kang]

136. But that would never happen

given Dean's socio-economic background and his education. Only lower-income people who lack quality legal representation get wrongly convicted for murder.

For the record, I'm on the fence about the death penalty in theory, but I think most would agree that its current form is messed up and unfair. I'm not sure I understand what's so bad about LWOP (life w/out any chance of parole). Kerry may be right, rotting in a supermax is probably worse than execution.

What I find a bit intellectually dishonest (or perhaps he didn't think of this) about Gov. Dean's position on the death penalty is that high profile cases are what usually lead to wrongful convictions. The murder of children, multiple homicides, rape/murders, and killing of law enforcement officers are all cases where enormous public pressure is put on the prosecutors and police to catch and punish "somebody" so everybody's vengeance can be satisfied and the public can go on feeling safe.

So it would seem he's allowing for the cases where the most mistakes are made. Unless some new reforms are made (IL is implementing a videotape requirement for all interrogations of potential capital cases) which guarantee due process rights of the accused, innocent people will continue to end up on death row.

In my opinion, the death penalty is a losing argument for Democrats since it's one of the few issues where people often lose their ability for rational thought. However, Dean can hold his current position and always reserve the right to be wrong and change his mind later. All he is doing is avoiding the "soft on crime" attack by the GOP.

[Thomas Jefferson]

137. It's the combination of his positions that are concerning people

He wants to get rid of techicalities that are a prerequisite to a fair trial. He has cut back on funding to public defenders who already don't have the resources to protect their clients from unjust convictions. His position on the death penalty is even worse since his other positions increase the likelihood that an innocent person will be sentenced to death.