Aerothorn on 2/7/2008 at 00:38
(
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/25/obama-against-court-ruling-barring-execution-of-child-rapists/all-comments/)
Apologies for linking to Fox News, but my google search failed to turn this up elsewhere (obviously I fail at searches).
This really took me by surprise. Now, we all know that condemning court decisions because they don't fit your philosophy is stupid, since courts are (in theory) not making decisions based on philosophy but on pre-existing laws (though obviously courts do legislate sometimes). But politicians do it anyway because most people don't seem to understand that.
Anyway, McCain condemning this is no surprise - but Obama? From a political perspective, I don't see where this is getting him - I can't imagine this plays well to his base, so I guess it's a grab for moderates, but it seems like it would do more to sully his image than help him out. I suppose it's possible that he's just stating his opinion, politics be damned - but this is a presidential election, so I simply can't believe that political advantage is not the driving force here.
So, what do you folks think is the reason for Obama's public stance on this? Will it hurt or help him?
heretic on 2/7/2008 at 00:53
(As for why) -maybe because he doesn't want to end up like Dukakis in '88.
Really though, at the end of the day, how upset can anyone really be about a child-rapist being eligible for the death penalty?
Not very, I'd hope.
Edit: I don't care for Obama, but the following quote (end of article) of his seems entirely rational and sums it up quite well IMO.
“While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment,” he (Obama) wrote in his book “The Audacity of Hope.”
Tocky on 2/7/2008 at 01:27
OH NO! A FLIP FLOP! A FLIP FLOP!
Fox news is now finding a way to condemn him for having a heart.
WAREAGLE on 2/7/2008 at 03:43
Quote Posted by Tocky
OH NO! A FLIP FLOP! A FLIP FLOP!
Fox news is now finding a way to condemn him for having a heart.
they arent condemning him. did you read the article? i dont watch fox news or like it, but at least read it
Starrfall on 2/7/2008 at 03:44
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
So, what do you folks think is the reason for Obama's public stance on this? Will it hurt or help him?
The reason for his stance on this is that it is a reasonable stance. Despite what you think it actually is possible for a politician to hold a moderate position.
It have no real effect because no one is going to get pissed enough at the suggestion that someone who rapes a five year old should die to change their vote. Neither is anyone who was planning on voting for McCain going to run to the Obama camp because of this.
And if you think people can't disagree on what a law means (and thus condemn decisions they feel reflect a bad interpretation) just because it's a law then you are the stupid one sir.
Tocky on 2/7/2008 at 04:08
Quote Posted by WAREAGLE
they arent condemning him. did you read the article? i dont watch fox news or like it, but at least read it
True it is just an article but I was giving it the "no spin". Read the comments below it to see how conservatives no longer need the "no spin" to fall in line.
SD on 2/7/2008 at 06:26
Quote Posted by heretic
Really though, at the end of the day, how upset can anyone really be about a child-rapist being eligible for the death penalty?
Well, I'm not exactly thrilled about it. I don't believe it's ever a good thing when the state murders its own citizens, no matter what they're alleged to have done. I'm fortunate to live on a planet where most governments are progressive and enlightened enough to think the same way.
Getting back on topic though, I believe Obama is adopting this position out of political expediency. We all know someone who is anti-death penalty will have next to no chance of getting to the White House, just as an atheist or homosexual won't. In which case, I don't blame him at all for aping the McCain line, even if I believe that, deep down, he's not ideologically in favour of the death penalty.
WAREAGLE on 2/7/2008 at 06:50
Quote Posted by SD
Well, I'm not exactly thrilled about it. I don't believe it's ever a good thing when the state murders its own citizens, no matter what they're alleged to have done. I'm fortunate to live on a planet where most governments are progressive and enlightened enough to think the same way.
Getting back on topic though, I believe Obama is adopting this position out of political expediency. We all know someone who is anti-death penalty will have next to no chance of getting to the White House, just as an atheist or homosexual won't. In which case, I don't blame him at all for aping the McCain line, even if I believe that, deep down, he's not ideologically in favour of the death penalty.
Life sentences are economically infeasible. If the person is going to die in jail, just bump them off and save the money it would take keeping them alive.
heretic on 2/7/2008 at 08:42
Quote Posted by SD
I'm fortunate to live on a planet where most governments are progressive and enlightened enough to think the same way.
One man's progressive and enlightened is another man's naive and arbitrary.
Americans are somewhat split on the death penalty issue, with the majority in favor. That said, I highly doubt that even those whom are vehemently opposed to it would hop on a soapbox for a child rapist.
That's the issue here, and as such I highly doubt that Obama will lose many votes over this.
Matthew on 2/7/2008 at 08:50
Quote Posted by WAREAGLE
Life sentences are economically infeasible. If the person is going to die in jail, just bump them off and save the money it would take keeping them alive.
Does the state not have to spend a huge amount on Death Row maintenance, appeal after appeal etc, though? I'm just interested in seeing if there are any figures.
