This comming from the person who wished McVeigh bombed NY Times building instead of OKC.

Nobody should take her seriously, she's a good entertainer and its funner to watch her opponents and her supporters go at it.

Well, considering what the NY Times has done...........

See, I'm a "swing" voter in the sense that I will probably never declare a political party affiliation, and will always vote based on the candidate and the issues.

Most swing voters are like me, we have our opinions (that don't change with the breeze), but neither party agrees with us 100%. So we vote for moderates, or the best choice we have, but not always the same affiliation.

What is one to do who thinks that abortion is wrong, but probably can't be illegal until there is a way to prevent 99% of unplanned pregnancies and/or raise fetuses in an artificial womb of some sort AND I think the death penalty is wrong because a) innocent people die and b) it's too expensive and c) it's too good for them, let them rot.

There is no party out there for me. I'm more Libertarian than anything else, but as long as it is ineffectual to vote for one, I'm stuck

The death penalty is too expensive, yet life in prison is an efficient alternative? I have trouble seeing the reasoning here.

Politics shouldn't be a horse race - if would-be third party voters keep thinking this way, then there will never be an effective third party in America :( Gotta be optimistic!

Mac-There is no Black and White ( or Left and Right ) on that issue. All media "breaks news".

Here is an idea for a sub-sub thread: Who would have been where on June 5-6, 1944? Who would have been on the beach? Waking up German High Command? In England on the docks or air bases?

Every media person has their "sources" and once they speak, the world just has to know.....Every paper, broadcast news and cable network et al........

And before you say anything, I read at least two of the local papers a day and watch several of the news shows at night.

If you look into the costs, currently keeping people on death row for the average length of time they're there is more expensive then tossing them in "normal" prison for life. This also includes appeals and such.

Keep in mind that I'm also against it because of other reasons.

As for third party candidates, locally, I don't need them. MOst of the time I can find a good candidate for State Rep, Sen. or Governor. Beyond that, voting for a third party candidate that hardly gets their name out, much less stands a chance at affecting the election is.. well.. ineffectual.

I'd rather change the system. Currently the Dems and GOPs have rigged it so that they will ALWAYS get on the ballot and the "other guys" may or may not make it. And they don't get to debate, etc.

I thought that publicly appointed counsel ended at the trial stage, but maybe i'm wrong, i've only been in law school for two weeks. I assumed that most appellate cases involving the death penalty were handled by private attorneys or anti-death penalty groups...somebody fill me in

It is my belief that your "assumtion" is correct Shiner..at least in the strong majority of the cases....

I thought that public defenders/legal aid can be retained through all appeals. However, if I am wrong it still costs the state. Time is money and a lot of time is sunk into those appeals.

True, while they can be retained ( a perhaps stay as a second chair), money, expertice and knowlege take over.

Not necessarily true. Democrats and Republicans spend MILLIONS of dollars trying to sway the middle from voting for a third party candidate, just because of the effect it has on an election. It was Perot that lost the election for Bush, and it was Nader that lost the election for Gore. Third party candidates have a huge effect on the outcome of an election, unfortunately, it's an adverse affect from their policy stance (Perot was more conservative, Nader more liberal).

Not saying that voting for a third party democrat is good or even something I would suggest, but it is the breaking point for a lot of elections. However, the more and more disillusioned the public becomes with both parties, the more and more people there are who will vote for a third party candidate. And, eventually, one of the two will "go out" much in the same way as it has happened in the past, and the third party will "come in."

In this case, however, it's just taken a fairly long time (almost half of the US as a political system, meaning since the republic was formed under the Constitution, has been under a Democrat v. Republican basis!).

Name one person she's shamed. Bill Maher makes it a sport of making her look foolish.

Shouting down an opponent isn't shaming a person. Screaming and throwing insults doesn't mean a person can debate. Stating facts does that.

And the GOP Agenda isn't about destroying the DNCs?

Dude back away from the kool-aid.

I believe in capital cases public defenders are retained throughout the appeals process. However, even in privately defended cases, for every motion that is filed there is cost and the prosecution (the state) must argue each time

On a national level yes, but while third party candidates can be the "spoiler" for an election there's the problem that if I want Nader to win, I probably REALLY didn't want Bush to win, but voting for Nader means Bush is more likely to win.

But if you look at the restrictions on third party candidates, there are some in place that attempt to prevent them from ever having near an equal footing in the campaign, much less the election.

But the prosecutor, the judge, the clerks, etc, all are still getting paid out of state funds.

Regardless of appeals costs (which I'm sure there are plenty in non-death penalty cases as well, although I'm aware of the auto appeal), I still can't imagine that abolishing the death penalty would really reduce punishment costs in any substantial amount (if at all).

Regarding Bill Maher, I've never seen him shame anyone. His show is a joke. He generally brings on like one republican he picked up off the street to debate himself and James Carville. The basic show is like, "alright, we're gonna have a fair debate tonight with Shannon Doherty for the GOP, and Paul Begala and John Edwards for the left...Obviously I'll be the "impartial" moderator."

Maybe not a lot, but I also think it's NOT fullproof as our legal system is full of errors. Plus I think living with what you've done is a worse punishment than dying, especially for those who welcome death. And finally, there is a chance for these people to internally redeem themselves whether by regaining faith or whatever. We shouldn't let them out of jail because of it, but giving them the chance to "repent" so to speak is, IMO, the right thing to do.

I'll try to find the citation for the cost of life imprisonment vs. death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

There's a ton of info.

shinerbock, I wouldn't be surprised if you reversed your position on the death penalty by the time you're out of law school. A lot of people do.

Thanks, interesting link though I haven't clicked around enough to determine how biased the site is (as these things all too often are ;))

Another thought I had, we are one of the few "western" countries to still have the death penalty (or at least to use it). Though some may disdain this comparison by saying that we're not trying to impress Europe etc, there is something to be said for international standards.

I'm only familiar with Illinois, but there, the Appellate Defender handles appeals/death penalty cases. I can't even IMAGINE how much it costs to take a death penalty case up to the state supreme court -- they probably hire whores -- I mean expert witnesses -- all the time, etc.

A lot of this (right to counsel) varies from state to state (as does the death penalty). I am not exactly sure what the 6th Amendment itself requires, but I do know that obviously, its requires a base minimum which states build on.

In the great Commonwealth of VA (where I anxiously await bar results) ALL death penalty cases are automatically appealed to the VA Supreme Court, whether or not the defendant desires this or not, and thus the right to appellate counsel is a state right and the public will pay for an indigent's attorney.

Yeah, its obvious that most people here oppose the death penalty. However, I don't see myself switching sides unless there is a good alternative proposed. From talking to people it seems many switch because of the cruelty aspect, which probably will have little effect on me seeing as I'm an asshole. However, if there were a way to sufficiently punish offenders which was both efficient and loophole-free, I could see myself being for it.

Shiner-believe it or not, I mostly agree with you on this policy. Yes, there are holes and errors that need to be looked at and fixed but there are some cases that I really to not see the need to provide a roof and 3 meals a day to for life..........

I think that if ALL we provided was the room and 3 meals, I'd be happier. Mass murderers do not need more than that and the religious text of their choice (Mein Kampf is not an option) Weights, basketball courts, etc... are all expendable

Being a Texan I've always been pretty much for the death penatly. I had confidence in the system and when someone's guilty, in certain instances, I used to say "give'em the shot."

However, last summer, believe it or not it, was the Michael Jackson case that made me rethink my death penalty position- not going to a fairly liberal law school. When Michael- crazy man- Jackson was acquitted of molesting that little boy I knew that the U.S. criminal justice was MESSED UP! If his nutty behind was acquitted, I had to ask how many of the innocent were sentenced to die.

So now I still think the death penalty is appropriate in some cases, but I think to have a better chance of ensuring that only the guilty are sentenced to death that the death penalty should only be on the table when there is DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime.

Most states have appellate defenders as well as public (trial) defenders.

Plus, you have to remember that the state is defending all appeals, so there is always cost to the state.

For an autographed copy of my new book:
 

For an autographed copy of my new book:

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Coulter has apparently talked about it recently, too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3358373.shtml

Wow.

I would strongly disagree with that. When republicans court the middle, they dilute their platform and alienate their conservative base. The most successful republicans, like Reagan, have been the most conservative, not the most centrist.

Yeah, this is just the latest. Here's the MSNBC story. Ann Coulter reminds me more of Fred Phelps than she does a person of God. There is a difference between politically incorrect and tactless - the things Ann Coulter says are vile...she's purposely insulting and offensive, which I do not find amusing. There are some things that just shouldn't be said because they're mean and ignorant just for the sake of being mean and ignorant.

Much of what Ann Coulter says is ill-informed. In this case her description of Christians as being "perfected Jews" is just ridiculous. Any true Christian knows that no one is perfect, and that includes Coulter.

Coulter draws fire over remarks about Jews

Conservative author offends CNBC host Donny Deutsch with comment

Conservative author Ann Coulter finds herself in the middle of a firestorm once again after remarks on a CNBC television show in which she said Jews need "to be perfected" and suggested the nation would be better off if it were all-Christian.

Appearing on "The Big Idea" with host Donny Deutsch on Monday, she said Christians were tolerant of racial diversity but that it "would be a lot easier" for Jews if they were to become Christians.

Deutsch, who described himself as a practicing Jew on the show, was clearly dismayed by the remarks, which he called "hateful" and "antisemitic," according to a transcript published on the Web by Editor and Publisher.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21257498/

ETA: let me also say that I hope that the media soon realizes that it's WRONG to give that woman a chance to go on TV and continue to spew her offensive and slanderous remarks toward widows, cancer victims, presidents, vice presidents, and the majority of the country for that matter. There are many more intelligent and thoughtful scholars in this country that I'd rather watch. Yet they've continued to invite her, knowing that she'll cause controversy and capture ratings...then they have the nerve to condemn her!

Ann Coulter check list:

Muslims - check
Liberals - Check
Arabs - check
Widows of 9/11 - Check
Jews - Check

surprise she hasn't gone after the Chinese yet.

I hate her, I always have and always will. Like PeppyGphiB said, the tv stations have some nerve to invite her on so she can spread her vile words and then when she does say something hateful (surprise, surprise) they criticize her like it's something new.

Don't buy her books, don't watch her on tv, or listen online/ on the radio. I don't think she'll ever fade into oblivion but I sure hope she would. :mad:

Can I just make an opinionated comment? I think Ann Coulter is a sociopath.