It is really too bad, his opinion is the minority position. Where are the anti-abortionists, with their sanctity of life slogans?!!!! They are probably getting ready to vote Republican, to continue the blood-letting in our Occupation of Iraq!!! America, we have to clear our heads and start thinking right, again!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Only the Oliphant/James libune would write a whole article focusing on an aside in a CONCURRING OPINION that upholds the lethal injection method of capital punishment.

Stevens noted that that when the Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, it did so by identifying three purposes served by capital punishment: 1) incapacitation of the offender; 2) deterrence and 3) retribution.

No. 1 - Check!
No. 2 - Check!
No. 3 - Check!

"Despite 30 years of empirical research in the area, there is no reliable statistical evidence that capital punishment in fact deters potential offenders," - Judge Stevens

But it sure is effective for THAT offender, for whom it culminates a lifetime achievement, and for whom it could be said that most of us in the Swamp could not spend a quality week-end with, and come out of that deal with all of our body parts intact.

The problem with capital punishment is not that the offender has rights. It is the simple known fact that there is a strong possibility that INNOCENT PEOPLE COULD BE EXECUTED. If even ONE single person is executed that makes the entire system unacceptable.

After Northwestern exonerated 11 men (yes 11 in one state at one time) that were sitting on death row waiting to be executed the death penalty was immediately ended in this state for good and obvious reason.

Once again the liberals like Justice Stevens get it wrong and ignore what the U.S. Constitution says. The U.S. Constitution specifically allows the death penalty in the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. And the 14th Amendment specifically says a state may execute someone. Once again this is clearly a case of liberals ignoring EXACTLY what the U.S. Constitution says. But since when did that ever bother liberals ? And yes, I DO have a degree in Constitutional Law.

Once again the liberals like Justice Stevens get it wrong and ignore what the U.S. Constitution

says. The U.S. Constitution specifically allows the death penalty in the 5th Amendment and the

14th Amendment. And the 14th Amendment specifically says a state may execute someone. Once again

this is clearly a case of liberals ignoring EXACTLY what the U.S. Constitution says. But since

when did that ever bother liberals ? And yes, I DO have a degree in Constitutional Law.

Daniel : what would you say if you later found out that an INNOCENT person had been executed???... just curious...

Mary in Fort Madison, IA,

Can't speak for Daniel P. but what I would say is this: We do the very best that we can, but there are NO perfect systems. Cars wreck, planes crash, trains derail, bridges collapse, houses catch on fire, lightning strikes, errant baseballs kills, my electric guitar could develop a short and take me out tonight, with a smile of course. Yeah, there are no shortage of unfortunate things that can happen to a person.

In Tx, though, the low-life lying on the injection gurney IS guilty. Every examination and review and appeal has been duly pursued, every stone unturned. For that piece of scum, it is NOT the 1st time that he was caught up in that kind of situation. A first time murderer in Tx is NOT going to get the death penalty without extremely conclusive evidence, like the recent Medellin appeal case. His luck ran out, but this is extremely rare, even in Tx, even for the undisputably guilty. No one can convince me with the MAY BE innocent argument that 100 guilty should be freed to save one may-be innocent. What a low standard that would be, for anyone. Justice Brandeis lifted that one from Ben Franklin, who left us in 1790.

On a 12 person jury, there will be at least 3 that would have a hard time coming to a decision to drop even so much as a boot on a cockroach. It is not at all a trivial issue in Tx, despite what liberals seem to want to believe. The typical Tx low-life death row person is not only guilty of the crime that got him there, but a couple more that he was not formally prosecuted for. His good luck just finally ran out.

The State should ALWAYS have some interest in protecting its citizens, the vast majority of whom are just trying to live an honest, life, free of violent crime, with some reasonable sense of protection from the State. Well that's what I would say. Don't imagine that liberals could ever understand this.

That is not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether the death penalty is constitutional or not. It clearly is. If you REALLY believe that it should not be, then I suggest you pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the last one was in 1992), that simply says: No person shall be put to death for conviction of a crime. (Victims of crime may be put to death though by the criminal).

You may get that amendment passed but doubt it. Have you liberals ever tried that route ? I doubt it.

Also, if you REALLY don't believe that the worst murderers should be executed, then how do you protect other inmates, such as a car thief, from becoming their next victim in prison ? This has happened many times. Or do you believe that every convicted murderer should AUTOMATICALLY get life in solitary confinement to protect other inmates ?

Daniel:

That's a straw man argument. The people on death row are separated now under our current system. What murders they would commit under life-time incarceration, they can commit NOW under our current system. They are hardly kept with the cars thieves.

And how does one guarantee that a convicted murderer will not kill a corrections officer ? his has certainly happened.

But this is NOT the point !

The question is "Is the death penalty constitutional ?" The 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment CLEARLY says that it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

If you don't like it, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION SO that the death penalty is prohibited.