Late this week comes the news that the wife of convicted killer Marco Topete was attacked last weekend, slashed in the face with a knife. The couple that attacked her were arrested and now face assault and mayhem charges.
I first heard about this on Thursday, and on Saturday it made the news in Woodland and today it makes the news in Davis.
The first thing I checked was when it occurred. Fortunately for District Attorney Jeff Reisig, the attack occurred on July 21, several days before his incendiary op-ed with Guadalupe Diaz, in which he reargued portions of the case in his heated, if inaccurate, case for the death penalty.
The authorities were quick to note that the motive for the attack remains unclear, but they do not believe there is any connection to the homicide case.
Our own independent sources have verified this. One of them is letting us know that the 28-year-old Jeffrey Card was a troubled individual, who likes to live a wannabe-gangster lifestyle but lacks the true prison time to have that type of street cred.
He will get it now as he faces perhaps 15 to 20 years, depending on just how the case is charged.
Our source tells us that Mr. Card is more likely to be part of the culture that would glorify an attack on law enforcement, rather than attempt to take revenge for it.
Nevertheless, though the district attorney is off the hook on this one, it is a reminder and a possible warning that when we lay raw emotions out to bear, there is the potential that unstable individuals will seize upon that.
For one thing, we call on the district attorney’s office to recuse themselves from the prosecuting Mr. Card for his attack on Mrs. Topete. They have already shown themselves, through their use of rhetoric both in the trial and this week, to harbor ill-will toward Mr. Topete, so why would we expect them to be able to objectively prosecute a case where Mrs. Topete was the victim?
It is a cleaner decision for them anyway. They have often asked the attorney general’s office to prosecute cases – for example, against the son of one of their investigators – in multiple cases. And even then, that individual received an extremely lenient sentence, which had us calling the process into question.
It is better for the DA’s office to allow the AG to determine how best to proceed than to risk questions being asked about the appropriate punishment.
In the meantime, the DA’s polemic appears in the Davis Enterprise this morning. They describe Deputy Tony Diaz as being “mercilessly assassinated by a vicious murderer in 2008.”
They amp up the rhetorical arguments attacking the ACLU and its agents, who they claim “are responsible for endless delays in the criminal justice system, frivolous appeals and a mountain of misinformation.”
They argue that Californians should reject “the false campaign being marketed by the ACLU and its allies.”
Why? “The reason is that Californians don’t want the most violent and heinous murderers in our society to escape justice. A total of 235 rapists/sexual assault murderers, 225 child murderers, 90 torture murderers and 43 cop killers have been sentenced to death in California.”
Then they go on to lay out in stark turns, the worst of the worst.
It was interesting to talk to Don Heller and listen to him talk about the case. Mr. Heller, a former prosecutor who helped to draft and write the 1978 Death Penalty Statute, argued that Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s op-ed released on Wednesday was so filled with errors and factual misstatements that it’s obvious intended purpose was to politicize the death penalty issue, rather than bring forth honest discussion and debate.
Mr. Reisig, unfortunately, makes the false assertion implicitly in his piece that eliminating the death penalty will allow these heinous criminals to go free. In fact, all this will do is convert their sentences to life without parole.
That conversion will save the state hundreds of millions each year in automatic appeals and solitary cells. The cost of housing a death row inmate is twice that of others.
Mr. Heller noted that, while the Diaz murder is particularly heinous, many other death convictions have been overturned on appeal.
He argued on Thursday that, unlike Governor Jerry Brown’s words to the contrary, many death penalty convictions are in fact overturned on appeal and he notes that the Diaz case could be one of them.
In this case, an overreaching prosecutor created error, and Mr. Heller believes that Mr. Reisig erred seriously in dismissing the juror without properly reading the law. He felt that Judge Richardson did not make the correct decision, and did not comply with the existing law on the interrogation and dismissal of the juror.
He believes that error could lead this case to be reversed years down the road and remanded for possibly a new penalty trial.
Of course, all of that would be moot if the voters overturn the death penalty first, this November.
The Reisig op-ed is a preview of coming attractions. Over the course of the next three and a half months, we are going to hear from prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and the families of victims. They are going to make the full emotional appeal to preserve the death penalty.
They will each have heart-wrenching stories that we need to honor and sympathize with.
It is important to remember that their grief is very real, their hurt is something that they have to live with, and that they have suffered unimaginably.
At the same time, perspective is needed.
We need to remember that families of victims do not speak with a unified voice on this. Some very much oppose the death penalty. Some have gone through restorative justice processes and reconciliation.
Research shows increasingly that the death penalty does not provide the closure or peace of mind that many believe it should or will.
The appellate process is lengthy and cumbersome by design and necessity, to the avoid the loss of innocent life.
It would be better if we could all keep our level heads on this very emotional issue so that we can all lay out the facts, determine which facts are correct and which are most salient, and then reach a rational and reasoned decision.
It does no one any good for overheated rhetoric and raw emotion to displace rational discourse. Is that too much to ask for? Looking at the first shot across the bow, yes it is.
Turning the ACLU into the message may be part of the political strategy. But folks need to remember it is not just the left-leaning ACLU and its allies pushing this. You have people like Jeanne Woodford, a former warden; Ron Briggs, the son of the senator and a conservative county supervisor; Judge Alarcon, a conservative judge; Gil Garcetti, a former LA prosecutor; and Don Heller, a former prosecutor who wrote this statute for Senator Briggs.
None of these are bleeding heart, ACLU liberals, and all of them question the effectiveness and the cost of the death penalty. Listen to what they have to say and let calmer voices be heard as clearly as those screaming.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The first thing I checked was when it occurred. Fortunately for the District Attorney Jeff Reisig, the attack occurred on July 21, several days before his incendiary op-ed with Guadalupe Diaz in which he reargued portions of the case in his heated if inaccurate case for the death penalty.”
Fortunately? Why? Either way it still wouldn’t have been his fault even though I’m sure you and others in their haste to check the dates would’ve tried to put the blame on him.
“Nevertheless, though the District Attorney is off the hook on this one, it is a reminder and a possible warning that when we lay raw emotions out to bear, there is the potential that unstable individuals will seize upon that.”
He would have never been “on the hook”.
Rusty, I don’t mean to disparage you, but I have to ask, are you really as politically naive as you come across in this comment? I saw the article in Democrat yesterday and my first thought was oh boy, here we go.
So tell me Mr. Political Saavy Siegel, as stated in this article, “The authorities were quick to note that the motive for the attack remains unclear, but they do not believe there is any connection to the homicide case. Our own independent sources have verified this”. If Resig had made his statements before this attack many would’ve been quick to blame Reisig and they all would’ve been WRONG. I rest my case.
You’re assuming the same facts would have held. I think that’s the point. This time, the attack was not linked to this rhetoric. Next time, we might not be as fortunate.
Listen to what they have to say and let calmer voices be heard as clearly as those screaming.
so the voices that are against the death penalty are “calmer” voices and those who are in favor are “screaming.” what a way to attack those with whom you disagree.
So if Reisig is ever attacked would we then be able to say it was the fault of those raising concerns over his views on the death penalty?
That’s now how I read the article. I read the article as stating that there are solid logical arguments that can be made on both sides, but what we don’t need is the overcharged rhetoric.
“So if Reisig is ever attacked would we then be able to say it was the fault of those raising concerns over his views on the death penalty?”
If Reisig is ever attacked, I would not necessarily limit my inquiry to the single issue of the death penalty, I think he has angered a lot of people on a variety of issues.
“If Reisig is ever attacked, I would not necessarily limit my inquiry to the single issue of the death penalty, I think he has angered a lot of people on a variety of issues.”
Oh, but in this case Reisig was “fortunate” that it happened before his op-ed before other possible reasons for the attack were investigated.
[quote]“The first thing I checked was when it occurred. Fortunately for the District Attorney Jeff Reisig, the attack occurred on July 21, several days before his incendiary op-ed with Guadalupe Diaz in which he reargued portions of the case in his heated if inaccurate case for the death penalty.”[/quote]Of course, you did! Hoping that you could have pinned this vicious attack on Reisig. What an odd thing to admit publicly. And with a weirdo pride about it.
I’m worried about you, David. Please get help for your sick obsession about the district attorney. Soon!
“What an odd thing to admit publicly. “
What that I checked the date of the attack? Why is that odd?
[quote]“Over the course of the next three and a half months, we are going to hear from prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and the families of victims. They are going to make the full emotional appeal to preserve the death penalty. They will each have heart wrenching stories that we need to honor and sympathize with.” [/quote]What an outrage that they would have “heart wrenching stories” to share with us.[quote]“At the same time, it is important to remember that their grief is very real, their hurt is something that they have to live with, and that they have suffered unimaginably….Research shows increasingly that the death penalty does not provide the closure or piece of mind that many believe it should or will.”[/quote]What an outrage that some victims support capital punishment when the wise ones agree with me. They all must be looking for “closure,” and I’m here to tell them they won’t find it.
No doubt, you have links to give us this research. Please do.
“I’m worried about you, David. Please get help for your sick obsession about the district attorney.”
I should say the same with your obsession with David.
“Hoping that you could have pinned this vicious attack on Reisig. What an odd thing to admit publicly.”
Acknowledging that he looked at the timing of the attack is not the same thing as admitting he hoped he could pin this on Reisig.
Nevertheless, I think the DA needs to remind himself that his job is to protect public safety, not inflame it and I think his piece this week, does the latter and forgets the former.
“No doubt, you have links to give us this research. Please do. “
While I’m not David, I think it’s fairly easy to google it and find the relevant research and points.
This is anecdotal: link ([url]http://ejusa.org/learn/victims[/url])
Here’s an older Slate article: link ([url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2006/03/for_closure.html[/url])
So let me see if I’ve got this right, even though the attack didn’t have anything to do with Reisig he’s somehow fortunate that the attack occured before his op-ed. Is this convoluted liberal thinking or what?
Rusty: No you don’t have it right and don’t assume I’m a liberal.
Siegel, don’t flatter yourself, who said I was talking to you? I was referring to the article. And by the way, I do have it right. I can read, can you?
I can read: “Nevertheless, though the district attorney is off the hook on this one, it is a reminder and a possible warning that when we lay raw emotions out to bear, there is the potential that unstable individuals will seize upon that.”
Is that really a point that is in contention here? Do you really think that if the attack occurred on say Thursday after the Wednesday op-ed, the DA’s office would have been under intense heat here? Again, I think you’re being naive here on the timing issue.
BTW, the central message here is tone it down – do we really have to disagree on that point?
[quote]“The first thing I checked was when it occurred. Fortunately for District Attorney Jeff Reisig, the attack occurred on July 21….”
“What an odd thing to admit publicly. ”
“What that I checked the date of the attack? Why is that odd?”[/quote]Because it exposes to all your unhealthy mission to find something, [u]anything[/u], with which you can discredit District Attorney Reisig.
First, I’d think you’d be embarrassed that finding a Reisig connection was the first thing on your mind when Angelique Topete (“in the wrong place at the wrong time”) is attacked by her neighbor, a deed that “had nothing to do with Marco Topete.”
I can think of many things to think about and check on, like the victim’s condition, etc. Investigating whether the DA’s op-ed was in the time horizon that somehow could connect him to this crime never, ever, would come to mind (until we read about it in the [i]Vanguard[/i] and wonder why it’s here).
Your recent, error-filled diatribe–when is a study not a study?–did not turn Reisig’s op-ed into an incendiary piece. It’s simply a typical debate paper about the upcoming proposition, of which they’re be many more, as you suggest.
You’re the only one trying to make the op-ed “incendiary” is you. And you even remotely think that Ms. Topete’s attackers could have been motivate to cut her up by reading the [i]Enterprise[/i], the D[i]aily Democrat[/i] or the [i]Vanguard[/i]?[quote]“Nevertheless, though the district attorney is off the hook on this one, it is a reminder and a possible warning that when we lay raw emotions out to bear, there is the potential that unstable individuals will seize upon that.”[/quote]What you have written if your investigation had revealed that the op-ed appeared the day [u]before[/u] the attack?
Obviously, he wouldn’t have been “off the hook,” and you would have penned an asinine story about how Reisig was connected to this attack instead of this asinine story about how you thought he [u]might[/u] have been.
And, Reisig is the one who should “chill our rhetoric”? How have you considered how your constant, unrelenting personal attacks on the district attorney might give some crazed gunslinger motivation to save the planet from big, bad prosecutors?
It’s just such a distraction from the issues every time you wander like this.
JustSaying:
“First, I’d think you’d be embarrassed that finding a Reisig connection was the first thing on your mind when Angelique Topete (“in the wrong place at the wrong time”) is attacked by her neighbor, a deed that “had nothing to do with Marco Topete.””
Why would I be? After his op-ed this week? Are you kidding?
“I can think of many things to think about and check on, like the victim’s condition, etc.”
And you know I didn’t because???
“Your recent, error-filled diatribe–when is a study not a study?”
That’s a bunch of crap. There was no study and there were no findings. That was acknowledged in the introduction of the report. They began to look into the feasibility of conducting the study, and ended up not doing it. More importantly they acknowledged the probability of uncovering inconvenient findings.
More importantly still, Mr. Reisig declared that non-study to be the only credible study, ignoring Alarcon and ignoring the LAO report.
“You’re the only one trying to make the op-ed “incendiary””
No I’m not. I noticed you were not there on Thursday. Shocking. I wish you had been, might have changed a lot of your comments on here.
JustSaying:
“First, I’d think you’d be embarrassed that finding a Reisig connection was the first thing on your mind when Angelique Topete (“in the wrong place at the wrong time”) is attacked by her neighbor, a deed that “had nothing to do with Marco Topete.””
Why would I be? After his op-ed this week? Are you kidding?
“I can think of many things to think about and check on, like the victim’s condition, etc.”
And you know I didn’t because???
“Your recent, error-filled diatribe–when is a study not a study?”
That’s a bunch of crap. There was no study and there were no findings. That was acknowledged in the introduction of the report. They began to look into the feasibility of conducting the study, and ended up not doing it. More importantly they acknowledged the probability of uncovering inconvenient findings.
More importantly still, Mr. Reisig declared that non-study to be the only credible study, ignoring Alarcon and ignoring the LAO report.
“You’re the only one trying to make the op-ed “incendiary””
No I’m not. I noticed you were not there on Thursday. Shocking. I wish you had been, might have changed a lot of your comments on here.
“It’s just such a distraction from the issues every time you wander like this. “
A distraction to what? Your venomous tirade against me and the work I do?
[quote]“Is that really a point that is in contention here? Do you really think that if the attack occurred on say Thursday after the Wednesday op-ed, the DA’s office would have been under intense heat here?”[/quote]I certainly do. That’s the entire theme of David’s commentary today.
David’s first thought (for reasons unexplained) was to check to see if Reisig’s op-ed was printed before the attack, thereby triggering it. I’m afraid you’re being naive, or, at least, revisionist.
David’s point is clear and reinforced by repetition: Reisig could have been blamed for causing this crime, but he’s “off the hook” this time because of the timing. And, he better watch out in the future.
I appreciate your links, and have read the articles. I’m interested, however, in what studies David reads that have moved him to suggest to victims that capital punishment won’t bring them closure. I tend to agree with the idea, but haven’t seen anything definitive and figure this is such a personal issue that it would be difficult to generalize.
Rusty: That is how I read it too. I guess we conservative types are just not smart enough to understand the nuance of David’s points.
The “he is lucky that it did not go down like this” argument is like me on the golf couse saying “if I would have hit that one better, it would have been a great shot!”
One problem with eliminating the death penalty is that we give wealthy bleeding hearts like Ben and Jerry an opportunity to get a cop killer relaesed on some judicial technicality.
I think forensic science has advanced, and will continue to advance, far enough to help eliminate the emotive argument of false conviction. It also should provide justification to reform the legal process so that delivering justice is much less expensive.
I don’t get why anyone would object to someone like Mr. Topete being put to death for his crimes other than pure economics. It is almost like I expect the anti-death penalty folks to be waling around with a tee shirt that says “Have You Hugged A Criminal Today?” I have empathy for Mr. Topete, but believe he has cost himself his own life. In fact, the moment Toni Diaz’s life was taken by Mr. Topete, Mr. Topete became a walking dead man, IMO. He no longer owns the right to live as a practical matter.
I say let’s fix the economics instead of allowing it to be used as a proxy for what is really driving the agenda of the most vocal of anti-death penalty advocates: dislike and/or distrust of law enforcement and our criminal justice system.
Funny how a piece about “perhaps we should tone things down”, becomes so contentious… remember, it’s David’s blog and he can rant if he wants to (last phrase stolen/paraphrased from an old song).
Jeff
[quote]I don’t get why anyone would object to someone like Mr. Topete being put to death for his crimes other than pure economics. [/quote]
My intent is not to sway you to my point of view, but to provide you with an understanding of the reasoning behind my opposition to the death penalty regardless of the nature of the perpetrator.
I truly believe that it is morally wrong for humans to choose to end the life of another human. If there is no other alternative to killing in self defense or the defense of another, I find it justifiable. There is no,
repeat, no other circumstance in which I find it acceptable.
It simply does not matter to me whether or not the state, such as California, or a given group in power, such as the Taliban, sanctions the killing. For me, it is morally wrong. If we as a society, claim that if we simply define the specific circumstances under which someone can be killed ( be it murder, or treason, or adultery), we have ceded that humans killing humans is morally acceptable under certain circumstances, which those in power get to define.
It is this premise that I reject.
[quote]I truly believe that it is morally wrong for humans to choose to end the life of another human.[/quote]Yet, abortion is legal, popular, and staunchly defended. There is no judicial process, the normal ‘crime’ is existence, and there is generally no chance for “appeals”.
Correction… should have said “medically-induced” abortion. Abortions occur a lot, when nature realizes a “mistake” has occurred, and the human body expells the ‘error’. Often, women do not realize they were pregnant when such abortions occur.
Jeff, I agree with medwoman. Totally.
Although I realize you and many others have valid reasons to support your position, I just think it’s so wrong to have our government killing us in our name. Worse yet, even those who agree with you wouldn’t want to execute an innocent, and we all realize that that’s a strong possibility.
Someday, a different Supreme Court will stop all executions. Then, the debate will switch to whether we should reinstate the death penalty. I look forward to be arguing in that setting than the present one.
BOONE RIGHT FOR ONCE
“Rusty: That is how I read it too. I guess we conservative types are just not smart enough to understand the nuance of David’s points. “
[quote]“”I can think of many things to think about and check on, like the victim’s condition, etc.”
“And you know I didn’t because???”[/quote]I know because you wrote that: “The [u]first thing[/u] I checked was[u] when it occurred[/u]. Fortunately for District Attorney Jeff Reisig….” Sorry it wasn’t clear; let me repeat the word “first thing” in my observation–I meant the [u]first[/u] thing.”[quote]“Your recent, error-filled diatribe–when is a study not a study?”
“That’s a bunch of crap. There was no study and there were no findings. That was acknowledged in the introduction of the report….[/quote]That’s bullshit. You need to read beyond the introduction of the testimony, where you’ll find Ms. Everingham repeatedly refer to the pilot study to which Reisig referred.
I have noted a number of Ms. Everingham’s references to this feasibility study–one that RAND completed and that had a number of findings about the “dearth of data” on the capital punishment expense topic. She says their study was a study; Reisig simply repeated the RAND representative’s testimony.
It’s obvious that you’re referring to a different study, one that did not get done. But, it was because of the findings RAND made in their feasibility study or their pilot study. The study to which Reisig refers was done and is described in the testimony.
How can you keep claiming that “no” study was done when RAND says one was done and describes its methodology, findings and conclusions in published testimony?
You’re just plain wrong on this point, but it’s such a critical, important factor in your “Reisig polemic” story that you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge such an obvious mischaracterization.[quote]“A distraction to what?”[/quote]A distraction from the issues that are important and on which both of us generally agree.
When I’ve pointed out that a given attack on authority–generally, and there are very many, aimed at Reisig–isn’t logical, it’s an off-handed way to strengthen support for the issues on which we agree.
For example, why muddy up your important point that Reisig ignored two contradictory, subsequent studies by charging that his RAND study wasn’t really a study? And, then stick with it in the face of such overwhelming, contrary evidence? It’s a mystery to me.
hpierce, can we agree on keeping the government out of a woman’s business and keeping the government out the killing business?
[quote]“You’re the only one trying to make the op-ed “incendiary””
“No I’m not. I noticed you were not there on Thursday. Shocking. I wish you had been, might have changed a lot of your comments on here.”
“It’s just such a distraction from the issues every time you wander like this.”
A distraction to what? Your venomous tirade against me and the work I do?[/quote]Since you know me by appearance, you know I didn’t make your important event (although I supported/promoted it here and in other venues)–I was out of town.
You’re probably correct that attending would have changed some of my attitudes although I don’t know that they’d be the ones you’d hope for. And, I have no doubt that Reisig was characterized the way you suggest at the shindig.
Since you also know me by my responses to your reports and commentaries, you know I strongly support the important work you do and agree with so many of your objectives.
I’ve stuck with you for a long time.
Whenever I’ve disagreed, it’s usually been based on the smaller things. Things like whether the reporting is complete enough to fully support the contentions or conclusions. Things that I think would strengthen the [i]Vanguard[/i] as a journalistic institution and a political power in the community.
Even when I’m disagreeing, I’ve tried to reflect respect for your effort and acknowledgment of your accomplishments. (I’ve only said “bullshit” two or three times!) The fact that you’ve come to see it so differently now is concerning.
Supporting someone’s work includes encouraging them, and I don’t want to have my modest criticisms have the opposite effect in the case of the [i]Vanguard[/i].
Probably, my category of comments seems redundant after all this time and no longer serves its original purpose. Or, maybe it’s a little obsessive, as Siegel hints.
In any case, keep up the excellent work. Make the [i]Vanguard[/i] even more successful and important. The check’s in the mail.
If David wanted to write an article about over the top political rhetoric leading to violence he could’ve easily done it without invoking Reisig into the conversation for something he had no responsibility for.
[quote]hpierce, can we agree on keeping the government out of a woman’s business and keeping the government out the killing business? [/quote]Sure, if that means the government will not impede my right to strike dead someone who murders my child.
hpierce
[quote]Yet, abortion is legal, popular, and staunchly defended. There is no judicial process, the normal ‘crime’ is existence, and there is generally no chance for “appeals”.[/quote]
First, a question. What do you mean by “popular” ?
I have worked with women making the difficult choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy, and I have never yet met anyone who found termination a good choice. Most times it is simply the best of a number of very bad choices for the woman involved.
I certainly agree that it is legal and staunchly defended.
I must disagree that there is no judicial process. There are many states in which there are judicial processes in place to limit this procedure. States that limit abortion for minors by making them obtain a parent’s or judge’s permission. States that are attempting to limit it by requiring the husbands consent. There are attempts to limit abortion by legislating restrictions that are virtually impossible to meet or those that force physicians into performing unnecessary procedures, or to tell women untruths ( the attempt to mandate informing women that their suicide risk increases after abortion, with no similar mandate to inform them that suicide risk is increased by post partum depression and psychosis).
One could also reasonably argue that forcing a waiting period, forcing a woman to watch an ultrasound of
her fetus or forcing her to hear exactly what stage of development the fetus is in ( which by the way are never forced for women choosing to continue a pregnancy) could be considered “appeals”.
I do not favor abortion. I do not favor the death penalty. However, I do see some major differences.
1) The very existence of the fetus poses risks to the mother which cannot be mitigated in any other
fashion than termination. This is not true in the case of the death penalty where LWOP exists as a
safe alternative.
2) Laws that would preclude abortion under virtually any circumstances, favor the “innocence” of the
unborn over the “innocence” of the woman carrying the pregnancy in instances of rape or incest. There
is no counterpart of this in the criminal justice system.
3) The proscription against abortion is based, almost exclusively upon religious beliefs. I find it difficult
to impose legal sanctions on women who do not adhere to the religious belief that abortion is murder.
Because I do not favor abortion, I have worked very hard to institute easy, affordable access to effective contraception as the single most effective means to decrease the number of abortions. It is the height of irony to me that those that claim to be against abortion, are amongst those who fight the hardest against affordable, easily accessible birth control.
I retract my last couple of comments… was stressed over a recently recalled incidence. My apologies to all.
BTW medwoman, though I got caught up in my recollections of a heinous crime from years ago, our views do not differ as much than one would suppose. It seems easier and easier to get caught up in an “all or nothing” approach to many issues, ignoring nuances, and the fact that “truth” may lie somewhere in between.
I specifically apologize if my earlier comments felt like they were directed personally at you.
hpierce
I am very sorry for whatever happened to cause you the distress you must have experienced. I also am very passionate about these issues and hope I have not added to your distress.
From twenty six years in the field of gynecology, my experience has taught me that there are no simple solutions, and no “one size fits all answer in the field of medicine”. What I would argue for is much patience and compassion for the feelings of others whose life experiences may have lead them to see the world differently from how we see it. I would urge this equally from all sides of these debates.
[url]http://www.mvfr.org/?page_id=6[/url]
While the link above is anything but objective, being a series of articles written by survivors of family members who were victims of violence, I do think it points out a number of different reasons why one may oppose the death penalty despite having it strike near to home.
hpierce
Big smile. No need for apology. My career has placed me in a unique position with regard to this issue.
I have stopped taking it personally a long time ago. I do however, feel that my experience may provide me with a perspective that others have not had the opportunity to see, and may be of value to those who maintain an open mind on these very controversial issues.
Here is a nuanced opinion that I’m sure biddlin will NOT understand.
I think life in prison without parole is worse that death. If I had a choice in that circumstance, I would chose death with my body parts donated to people waiting for replacement parts.. and the rest to science.
Waking up to that realization one day that LWOP is no cake walk, the anti-death penalty crowd will most certainly demand improved prision conditions that improves the quality of life for the murderers that will never be able to leave. After all, progressive indigation is just that… the bar keeps being lowered for the level of punishment as the criminal benefits from even greater attention as a victim as the memory of the REAL victims fade.
Jeff
Resorting to your speculation about what someone might want in the future as opposed to facts.
You can do better than that Jeff. And, if cost neutral, your objection to that would be ?
Just Saying:
A few points in response.
On the first thing. I didn’t phrase this point as well I should have. What I meant to say, is that the first thing I did when I read the article in the paper was check the date of the attack. Part of the reason for that is that, the article was not the first place I had heard about the attack, I heard about it from Mrs. Topete’s mother-in-law, who had told me Mrs. Topete had been attacked but was alright.
Second, I disagree that a pilot study has findings.
More importantly what you claim is not what Mr. Reisig claims: “In fact, the only objective study on the issue of costs associated with the death penalty, conducted by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. in 2008, does not even support the death penalty opponents’ claims.”
That’s inaccurate. It is inaccurate because the RAND study, if you want to call a pilot a study, doesn’t come to that conclusion and it’s inaccurate because there are two other objective studies more recently that contradict Mr. Reisig’s claims. I feel like you are splitting hairs here and arguing on technicalities when you yourself acknowledge that the crux of the point is accurate.
“The fact that you’ve come to see it so differently now is concerning.”
To be hoenst with you, I feel like you nitpick on minor points and divert the attention from the more important points. So while you have always maintained and expressed appreciation, much of the time, it doesn’t feel like it.
You point to what you call an obsession with Reisig. In fact, Reisig has rarely been a topic of conversation. He has crept into two stories – both of his own doing and deserving in my opinion. That would be the Topete Op-ed that he authored and the Clinton Parrish explosion.
Actually as I look back, there was a mention of Reisig in mid-june and it was actually relatively positive arguing that under the DA’s office, they have taken hate crimes seriously.
You think I’m obsessed. Some don’t think I’m obsessed enough. The truth is there are times when Mr. Reisig steps into the fray. I think he was ill-advised to do so this week, the day before our event. He chose to. He chose to write inaccurately and appeal to emotions. I think that was a mistake and poor public policy.
medwoman, it is not speculation. Check out Europe’s progress in sentencing. Moral outrage just resets at new levels previoulsy not worthy of a raised eybrow.
I think if the gun lobby and those of us rejecting more demands fior an end to the death penalty (and gun restrictions) thought the demands had some rational endpoint, there may be more motivation to compromise. Unfortunately what we note is that activists committed to a cause make it their life-long professional identity… their wins are short-lived as they look for the next something to do. I think we were all better served when agitation for cause was a temporary endeavor having an end goal… after which the agitator would go back to his/her real life. Unfortunatley we don’t have that option.
We will keep eroding our freedoms in the name of some factually insignificant, but highly emotive, purpose. Because of that, a stand has to be made several steps in front of the gate of reason… and in the larger context that stand is by far the most reasonable.
” We will keep eroding our freedoms in the name of some factually insignificant, but highly emotive, purpose. Because of that, a stand has to be made several steps in front of the gate of reason… and in the larger context that stand is by far the most reasonable. “
Irrational, extremely emotional and, predictably, utterly nonsense .
Jeff
[quote]We will keep eroding our freedoms in the name of some factually insignificant, but highly emotive, purpose. Because of that, a stand has to be made several steps in front of the gate of reason… and in the larger context that stand is by far the most reasonable.[/quote]
Did I really just hear you say that you had to be irrational because you feel that someone with whom you disagree may be more unreasonable in the future because someone in another country has behaved in a way you do not feel is rational ?
And you think I make emotive arguments !
“Listen to what they have to say and let calmer voices be heard as clearly as those screaming.”
My personal experience, when I discuss this issue with co-workers:
It’s kinda funny. The co-worker who is an ex-sheriff in Sac Co. always shouts. I don’t know if it’s because he is older & embarrassed to admit that he needs a hearing aid, or if it is just his nature. He is very, very agressive, and he shouts at everyone. The other proponents of the death penalty are all male. The calmer, softer-voiced people are all against it. This is not a scientific sociological survey, just my observations. The people I know who are for the death penalty have never been a victim of a violent crime. So I often wonder why they are such proponents. I conclude that they are very afraid that life termers will escape, or be released. I guess I’m just not afraid of that happening. 3 of my friends have been victims of violent crime. One of them lost her daughter to a murderer. Another was killed by her “boyfriend”. But I still don’t believe in the death penalty. And I hope the calmer voices do prevail. Peace.
Biddlin:
“Irrational, extremely emotional and, predictably, utterly nonsense.”
Jeff, obviously you’re on the right track if Biddlin says it’s nonsense.
It’s the old ‘slippery-slope’ argument. It is the core of every argument used by the NRA.
And the equally predictable sycophancy from Jeff’s bucolic chorus. These guys give lie to Davis’ oft touted educated populace claim.
What strikes me about this article is the extreme intolerance for another viewpoint. Issues tend not to be black and white, but come in all shades of gray. There are logical arguments for the death penalty; logical arguments against the death penalty. But unfortunately I feel as if the Vanguard has no tolerance for any viewpoint buts its own. The Vanguard’s patent dislike of/prejudice against Reisig is patently clear, and unfortunately permeates so many articles having to do w the justice system, whether Reisig is relevant or not to the issue at hand. Obviously Reisig was completely irrelevant to the issue of Mrs. Topete’s assault, yet somehow the Vanguard managed to slip in something that characterized Reisig as having done something wrong.
It is this sort of illogical argument that hurts the credibility of the Vanguard and frustrates readers. Then to add insult to injury, the Vanguard goes into mean-spirited attack mode against any poster that points out the obvious fallacies of the Vanguard’s arguments and its rank prejudices/biases. The irony here is that the Vanguard is calling for Reisig to tone things down, as it ratchets up its own hysteria/shrillness on its opposition to the death penalty. Frankly, I hope the editorial Board of the Vanguard takes a look at this article, and the ensuing comments, and engages in some serious soul searching…
lol just saying you may as well give it up– the vanguard will never admit it royally screwed up in its presentation and analysis. hehe
medwoman,
Re: “It simply does not matter to me whether or not the state, such as California, or a given group in power, such as the Taliban, sanctions the killing. For me, it is morally wrong. If we as a society, claim that if we simply define the specific circumstances under which someone can be killed ( be it murder, or treason, or adultery), we have ceded that humans killing humans is morally acceptable under certain circumstances, which those in power get to define.
It is this premise that I reject.”
The nub of your argument above is fallacious. Those in power do not have the authority to decide whether or not there should be a death penalty; independent of the will of the people. Although the death penalty for each individual sentenced is given final authorization by those in power, the authorities in these cases generally serve as conduits thru which the will of the majority of the population is expressed; that those guilty of certain heinous crimes should be sentenced to death. Imposition of the death penalty in our democracy is not independently determined by those in power; but is supported by the majority of the population. Are you then suggesting that some authority should be given the power to decide whether or not there should be a death penalty; independent of the will of the population? Well, the Supreme Court has indeed ruled on this! What now?
Also, the idea that society that supports the death penalty is lowering itself to the morals of a murderer is a simplistic and fallacious conclusion–the intent of society in imposing the death penalty is entirely different from the intent of the criminal in performing the heinous crime for which the sentence was handed down; the two acts are not morally equivalent.
Jimt
I do not consider the “will of the majority” to necessarily represent what is moral.
Throughout human history, the “will of the majority” frequently does not represent what I would consider a moral position. Slavery is one example. Pick any societally sanctioned genocide as another example.
We will have to remain in disagreement that these two acts are not morally equivalent. The “intent of the society” is in itself a fallacious concept as there are many different rationales within a society for imposition of the death penalty. Some believe that this is the safest option for the society, some believe it is a matter of restoration of a balance, some believe it is religiously sanctioned, and some desire retribution or revenge. There is no one unified societal purpose. Some individuals may indeed have what they believe to be a moral rationale, others may desire pure revenge, making their motive, in my opinion, no more moral than that of the original perpetrator.
To medwoman: So you believe the death penalty is immoral; others in the population disagree. How do you propose to settle the question? You don’t seem to like majority rule/the democratic way; nor Supreme Court rule/division of powers. So how is our nation to decide this important question? Or more importantly who?
Elaine
I wish I knew the answer.
I am a pacifist. I realize that this automatically puts me at odds with the majority of the population.
To me, we would be much better off as a society if we were to value individual health and well being above individual accumulation of wealth.
This also places me in the minority.
I am frequently very uncomfortable with the position of the majority, just as I would be uncomfortable with the decision of the majority in a country that sanctions the killing of women for the crime of adultery.
The only course that I see open to me is the one I have chosen. I try to live my life in as peaceful and compassionate a manner as possible. I have attempted to raise my children to live with respect and compassion for others and to always try to put themselves in the position of the other person before judging.. I will write and talk about my beliefs with anyone who is willing to listen with the hope that hearing a message of peace and reconcilliation may provide a perspective that someone may not have considered previously in the hope that it it may affect their future behavior in some small positive way.
If you can think of a better option for me, I would love to hear it.