Martin O'Malley is a failure. He should keep his mouth shut when it comes to issues of murder and capital punishment. He was embarrassingly ineffective in Baltimore City (in more areas than murder).
The full liberal agenda is being put forth in Annapolis this year. O'Malley has said that he will sign any legislation ending the death penalty in Maryland. He is actually going to testify against it. In this state abolishing the death penalty is kind of like selling your fifth house. You have it but you don't get there that often and it only costs you money. Maryland has executed 10 people since 1976. Maryland currently has 16 people on death row (as of October 2006). With state's attorneys like Jessamy who refuse to seek the death penalty it is no wonder Baltimore City has a murder rate of 300+ year in and year out. I am one of those crazy conservatives that could care less about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. I want the death penalty as pure punishment. If it deters others from killing then that's great but that is not the purpose of the death penalty. The purpose of the death penalty is to punish for the taking of another life.
The anti-death penalty folks always throw the "deterrent card" and the "race card." I have looked into the statistics on the death penalty and it does appear that there are some racial problems. When the victim is white the death penalty is sought at a higher rate. This is wrong. Conservatives need to see that, admit that, and work with democrats to fix that. However, abolition is not the right way to fix it.
O'Malley is using this issue to cater to African-Americans in preparation for his future political excursions. The fact is, we do not execute people in Maryland. We could not even execute the beltway snipers. He has said that he is afraid that we may execute someone innocently. Once again, we do not execute people in Maryland. And if that is the problem why not fix that problem. I am an advocate for a DNA requirement in capital crimes. Rape and murder should equal the death penalty, Multiple murders should equal the death penalty, Gang style executions should equal the death penalty, etc…
The democrats once again appear to be anti-protection. They want us to give up our right to protect ourselves by opposing the right to bare arms. Now they want to take away a prosecutors ability to seek the death penalty. Criminals by definition do not follow the law so the death penalty will not deter them. But, it will punish them when they commit the ultimate, irreversible crime of murder.
I see the law of unintended consequences all over this one. The thugs in Baltimore City already have a pass because of a failed judicial system. O'Malley is now trying to weaken the rest of the State so that we can all be like Baltimore.
Baltimore Sun: His faith, party put Mooney at crossroads, Conservative senator could decide death penalty issue
Does O’Malley care more about convicts’ right to life over unborn childrens right to life? It’s true, the Catholic O’Malley is pro choice when it comes to babies but he is determined to save the life of those that killed others.
The new gov has to realize sometime soon that we as a state are short almost 500 prison guards. The new gov included in his capital budget room for an extra 150 guards once we make up the 500 guards we have spots open for now, so we are going to have room for almost 650 more prison guards.
All I’m asking is, if O’Malley gets his wish and we have no death penalty in MD, who in their right mind is going to fill those 650ish prison guard spots. Any takers?
http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/employment/announcements.shtml
Certainly opposing the death penalty is not a pander. I’ve so far not seen anything written by or about the Gov. that talks about how his Catholic faith informs his positions. I would suggest it would be wrong for him to impose his faith on the laws of the state, but most folks agree that it is reasonable for leaders to draw from the moral teachings by which they were formed. BTW it probably is a good idea to take care with the ethnic suggestiveness in your title. I don’t imagine you’d want people to think you intolerant. Peace.
John,
To be honest, I’m not really worried about it. I know I’m not a racist so I have a freedom to say things as they really are. As you read you saw that I was disturbed by the racial application of the death penalty and said we should work with democrats to fix it. The fact remains the same. This is a ploy for minority votes in the future. If you meant the Irish O’ then you should see my family; red heads all over the place.
I think O’Malley truly believes that the death penalty is wrong. I don’t think he believes it’s wrong for moral reasons, but rather he has no faith in the justice system, as most liberals do not. All liberals don’t believe in the death penalty, but that doesn’t mean they’re pandering, they’re just extremley misguided.
The death penatly’s racial problem is because local state’s attorneys have too much discrection in the application of the death penalty. If Baltimore doesn’t want a death penalty (which it pretty much doesn’t) that is their choice. That is the point of local control. So the local voters can decide on how they want to be represented. But if you come to Harford County and rape and murder our children, family or nieghbors. Then we should be able to determine the punishment that fits the crime.
Here’s a math problem for you: A prison bus is travelling from Hagerstown to Baltimore City at 55 miles per hour. An inmate commits a crime on that bus and the Baltimore County State’s Attorney who tries the crime seeks the death penalty. How does the case end up in Harford County Circuit Court?
I don’t know, but we clearly don’t have local control over the death penalty. Maryland’s next death sentence might be issued in Harford County Circuit Court this summer. Initial hearings in the Kevin Johns Jr. case will take place at the Harford County Circuit Court on Monday, April 16th. If you think that the death penalty needs to be fixed (or abolished) before a Harford County jury is asked to issue the next execution order, be there to show the media and the State’s Attorney’s office that we are against killing in any form. Stay tuned for more info.
Counter-protests welcome too.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-slaying0215,0,2700916.story?coll=bal-local-harford
Mr. Bittner:
That was an interesting article you pasted after your statement. In fact the part that said:
“On the day before Parker died, he had testified at Johns’ sentencing for the 2004 murder of a prisoner at the Maryland Correctional Training Center near Hagerstown. Johns, who was originally imprisoned for murdering an uncle in Baltimore, told the judge at the Hagerstown hearing that unless he received psychiatric treatment, he would kill again.” He didn’t care to mention that the person he was going to kill was the person who testified against him
Another math question:
1 life sentence + 1 life sentence = No punishment for the murder of inmate Parker if you ask Mr. Bittner.
If someone kills a police officer or correctional officer is the death penalty ok then.
If someone rides around the Washington D.C area shooting and killing people at random for weeks at a time, does he deserve the penalty?
If area punks call a cab to a certain location in Harford Co. so they could rob and murder him so they could be part of a gang, do they not deserve the death penalty?
If someone kills 5, 10, 50 or more people, is the death penalty ok then?
At what point in time did the perpetrators get more rights and respect then the people they made victims.
If you read the article it says “Ann Brobst, a Baltimore County assistant state’s attorney who is prosecuting the case, …” so although the case may be tried in Harford it is still under the control of Baltimore County’s prosecutor. Local control has been maintained.
The trial is occuring in Harford County to eliminate fears of a conflict of interest in Baltimore County, yet folks against the Death Penalty object. The reason the current Death Penalty is under review by the Court of Appeals is because of a change made to appease anti-death penalty groups. If this crime had occured in Harford County, I would hope that the State’s Attorney here would of pursued the Death Penalty as well. This case is a highlight of why we need the death penalty, a murderer, murdered the witness of his crime, and that elevated him to the Death Penalty. Witness intimidation, the execution of police officers and correction deputies are the reasons we need to have the ultimate punishment for these crimes.
In none of the above cases should the state execute a person in order to demonstrate the immorality of killing. You don’t show “respect” for someone by killing in their name. The state is hypocritical and illogical for killing people in retaliation for murder. If we really possessed “local control” over death sentences, than we would be just as culpable for perpetuating the cycle of violence.
There is no conflict of interest in the Johns case – the prosecutors think that a jury won’t hand down an execution in Baltimore County but a Harford County jury will. We’re being used for our anger. Everybody gets angry sometimes, which is why we ought to keep the tools of state-sponsored murder out of our hands. With all the complaining on this site about politicians from both parties, why would you trust them to decide to kill a person?
A Baltimore County jury won’t hand down a death sentence? Are you aware that a plurality of death penalty convictions come from Baltimore County? Or that the reason the former Baltimore County State’s Attorney was so popular with the voters was because she insisted on going after the death penalty in every possible case.
Brian, You have not addressed the issue of what punishment is due someone that is already in prison for a life sentence and kills a prison guard. Someone once told me that they would be against the death penalty if prison was tougher and I would probably agree with that. If we could lock prisoners in solitary confinement, take away their HBO, or force them to hard labor work then perhaps the death penalty would not be needed.
Brian,
I find no hypocrisy in the government applying the law. I find hypocrisy (or negligence) in state’s attorneys who refuse to apply the law when it is their job to do so. I think it is natural for people to want an “eye for an eye” and Jesus is just alright with me when he said, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” It is not anger when 9 people all come to the same conclusion of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of the county. It is not the politicians who decide to kill people, juries and judges do that.
I’m a little surprised by how unpersuasive your logic is on this issue. I expect the government to protect me from these people by any means necessary. We have the death penalty on the books so I say we use it before we say we need to get rid of it.
I can only speculate on how a case connected to three other jurisdictions ended up in Harford County. Both Harford County and Baltimore County have told me that the other is responsible for this case and can’t give me any more information.
I’m not interested in dreaming up new and fascinating punishments to hand out. I don’t think punishment is working very well, and that’s why our criminal justice system is based on rehabiliation, not punishment. Solitary confinement and hard labor are not going to help anyone become less violent. Kevin Johns told the judge that he would kill again if he couldn’t get psychological help, and it’s likely that he didn’t. Regardless of the specifics of that case, we know that there is an epidemic of mental illness among prisoners, and the type of punishment you advocate is making them more, not less, violent. I would leave any recommendations up to the prison specialists, because they are more qualified to make up treatments and because their goal, like mine, is to create an environment that cultivates productive, non-violent rehabiliation.
I’d be careful about reading Jesus’s mind re the death penalty. That sword might just cut both ways…. don’t we,as the executioners, “take the sword” ?
There’s also “Judge not lest ye be judged” and “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive…”. and “Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord”. I have to say that I have a hard time accepting that cold blooded murder is the right response to cold blooded murder. I try to teach my students that just because someone” did it first” does not make it right to respond in kind.
I certainly don’t have the answers to this deeply moral question but I do think it is way more complex than “an eye for an eye” I think it was Ghandi who said that such a philosphy can only result in blindness.
indy ed,
I agree with you whole heartedly but I also believe that the intelligent designer (God) places governments in power and those governments are supposed to govern. We are governed by their laws and in almost every civilization in history the punishment for the wrongful murder of another is death. In my opinion “Turn the other cheek” cannot be applied here. If we turn the other cheek to a murderer we are letting them kill again. I also think we can forgive and still demand the punishment. I can forgive someone for stealing from me but I want them to go to jail.
BTW that “Judge not lest ye be judged” is used against Christians out of context on almost every issue just to shut them up. The next line says “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged.” If I kill someone, kill me.
Forgiveness does not preclude punishment. Punishment should fit the crime.
Is the point of life in prison without the possibility of parole for rehabilitation? This is the alternative proposed to the end of the death penalty does not promise anyone a future if they become rehabilitated, but rather wipes the guilt off folks hands. I also agree with you to leave this sort of judgement up to the people involved in the criminal justice system. That is why I support the local control of State’s Attorneys to try these cases as they see fit. I don’t mind that Baltimore City does not pursue the death penalty, but I also say that a racial discrepincy is the bi-product of this local control since more black victims live in Baltimore City. A majority of folks involved in the criminal justice system support the death penalty when you factor in police officers, prosecutors, correctional officers, judges, despite the defense attorneys. The people on the front lines of correctional facilities need this protection. Life without the possibility of parole does not offer a rehabilitative future, but the death penalty does provide the protection needed for the most violent offenders.
[quote post="246"]I also believe that the intelligent designer (God) places governments in power and those governments are supposed to govern.[/quote]
Interesting concept….. So then the leadership of countries and those who make the laws are instruments of the Lord? Why then such radical differences between governments and even regimes? I wonder how many governments- other than those of Muslim countries – still practice the death penelty? Anybody out there know?
I truly don’t mean to be glib, and I have been pondering this beyond the immediate quotes from the New Testement that I mentioned. How about the death of our Savior Himself? Here was an innocent sent to a hideous death by some characters who certainly knew exactly what they were doing. They were “the government”- both religious and civil-and the execution was cold blooded murder. They most likely went on to murder again. Yet. Jesus did not respond in kind- not even in self defense. And he admonished his followers from reacting violently. Gives me pause…
Here is the best list I could find of countries that do/do not practice capital punishment world wide. It is interesting to see what governments have gone yay or nay on this…..
Death Penalty Outlawed (year)1
Andorra (1990)
Angola (1992)
Armenia (2003)
Australia (1984)
Austria (1950)
Azerbaijan (1998)
Belgium (1996)
Bermuda (1999)
Bhutan (2004)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1997)
Bulgaria (1998)
Cambodia (1989)
Canada (1976)
Cape Verde (1981)
Colombia (1910)
Costa Rica (1877)
Côte d’Ivoire (2000)
Croatia (1990)
Cyprus (1983)
Czech Republic (1990)
Denmark (1933)
Djibouti (1995)
Dominican Republic (1966)
East Timor (1999)
Ecuador (1906)
Estonia (1998)
Finland (1949)
France (1981)
Georgia (1997)
Germany (1949)
Greece (1993)
Guinea-Bissau (1993)
Haiti (1987)
Honduras (1956)
Hungary (1990)
Iceland (1928)
Ireland (1990)
Italy (1947)
Kiribati (1979)
Liberia (2005)
Liechtenstein (1987)
Lithuania (1998)
Luxembourg (1979)
Macedonia (1991)
Malta (1971)
Marshall Islands (1986)
Mauritius (1995)
Mexico (2005)
Micronesia (1986)
Moldova (1995)
Monaco (1962)
Montenegro (2002)
Mozambique (1990)
Namibia (1990)
Nepal (1990)
Netherlands (1870)
New Zealand (1961)
Nicaragua (1979)
Niue (n.a.)
Norway (1905)
Palau (n.a.)
Panama (1903)
Paraguay (1992)
Poland (1997)
Portugal (1867)
Philippines (2006)
Romania (1989)
Samoa (2004)
San Marino (1848)
São Tomé and PrÃncipe (1990)
Senegal (2004)
Serbia (2002)
Seychelles (1993)
Slovak Republic (1990)
Slovenia (1989)
Solomon Islands (1966)
South Africa (1995)
Spain (1978)
Sweden (1921)
Switzerland (1942)
Turkey (2002)
Turkmenistan (1999)
Tuvalu (1978)
Ukraine (1999)
United Kingdom (1973)
Uruguay (1907)
Vanuatu (1980)
Vatican City (1969)
Venezuela (1863)
Death Penalty Outlawed for Ordinary Crimes2 (year)
Albania (2000)
Argentina (1984)
Bolivia (1997)
Brazil (1979)
Chile (2001)
Cook Islands (n.a.)
El Salvador (1983)
Fiji (1979)
Israel (1954)
Latvia (1999)
Peru (1979)
De Facto Ban on Death Penalty3 (year)4
Algeria (1993)
Benin (1987)
Brunei Darussalam (1957)
Burkina Faso (1988)
Central African Republic (1981)
Congo (Republic) (1982)
Gambia (1981)
Grenada (1978)
Kenya (n.a.)
Madagascar (1958)
Maldives (1952)
Mali (1980)
Mauritania (1987)
Morocco (1993)
Myanmar (1993)
Nauru (1968)
Niger (1976)
Papua New Guinea (1950)
Russia (1999)
Sri Lanka (1976)
Suriname (1982)
Togo (n.a.)
Tonga (1982)
Tunisia (1990)
Death Penalty Permitted
Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People’s Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
NOTE: n.a. = date not available. 1. If death penalty was outlawed for ordinary crimes before it was outlawed in all cases, the earlier date is given.
2. Death penalty is permitted only for exceptional crimes, such as crimes committed under military law or in wartime.
3. Death penalty is sanctioned by law but has not been the practice for ten or more years.
4. Year of last execution. Source: Amnesty International.
Information Please® Database, © 2007 Pearson Education, Inc.
Bittner,
I have to take issue with your comment that ” the type of punishment you advocate is making them more, not less, violent”. Simply put, dead criminals are not violent. I guess if we did things your way, we would all sit around the campfire and sing kum-ba-ya with cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal in hopes that he would be rehabilitated. If I fail to exercise self -control (for whatever reason-mental illness, anger…) and commit murder, I would expect the government to punish me, not try to rehabilitate me.
Here is the problem with liberals (and I don’t mean this personally, I’m sure you’re a great guy and fun to drink beer with)- you fail to acknowledge evil in this world – liberals always have some excuse for people’s behavior. If public schools are a disaster, it’s because they were underfunded. If someone rapes and kills, they are just victims of society because there weren’t enough social programs to help them. If terrorists hijack civilian aircraft and target and kill thousands of innocent civilians, then it’s our government’s fault because we offended them. There is no right or wrong, no personal responsiblilty.
Brian, the fact is, there are very bad people in this world who wish to do harm to others and will do so at every available opportunity. Those who would deprive others of their constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be removed from society like a doctor attempts to remove cancer from a patient. We as a society cannot afford to allow these vermin to walk the streets preying on the innocent while liberals offer to tax us out of the problem by creating more social programs and redistributing wealth.
Indy Ed.,
I am not a theologian, but as I read the scriptures, my understanding is that civil governments are set up to administer justice- in short, to punish the wicked and protect the innocent. That seems to be the most basic function of government. Therefore, if an individual is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of his peers, of cold-blooded murder- then that civil government has a duty to remove (exterminate) that murderer from society. Giving someone a fair trial and ample opportunity for appeal, and sentencing that person to death afterwards is not “cold blooded murder” as you stated, it is merely the administration of justice, necessary for the preservation of individual rights. Biblical instructions for civil government are not always the same as instructions for individuals. The Bible instructs individuals not to kill, etc. – however, governments legitimately conduct wars, make and enforce laws, seize property, issue judgments and carry out those judgments with sentences- all things we as individuals are not permitted to do. Your post makes no differentiation from individuals and civil governments.
Having said all that, I am not naive enough to think that all prosecutors, police, government agents, etc.. have the purest of motives at all times. There are many systemic problems that need to be addressed, but that doesn’t mean we should do away with the death penalty completely.
indy ed,
One more verse, Provers 8:15 “By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just.” So a literal translation would also apply to ruthless regimes. It all has a purpose somehow. Wow, we have become a mini-seminary here. The problem is these issues do touch the religion third rail. If the Roman’s and Jews did not have the death penalty we all would be in a little trouble wouldn’t we? At least as far as the whole Savior thing goes. Wait a minute, they just found Jesus’s bone box so we are already in trouble. (I always look forward to the Easter season denial of Christ’s existence/importance)
Using the Jesus situation, no one is advocating that was just and no one is trying to convince anyone that that was a legitimate application of the law. Bribery was used several times. However, we have a system that is protected from mob rule. 9 reasonable individuals have to make the same decision or no one dies. I trust the system. I would trust it more with a DNA requirement. DNA is being used more and more now to get people off death row and I think it should be applied retroactively to everyone on death row. If the DNA is there or their is a confession or multiple witnesses then the law should be applied.
Thanks for your writing and your research. This site works because of people like you.
I think this discussion of Jesus’s execution shows that while the Bible may be a good resource for personal living, it is a poor guide for public policy. It it written in metaphors and symbolism, the characters are archetypes and exaggerations, and the stories are not consistent. The part where God said “Thou shall not kill” does not have an asterisk. A million immoral things happen every day but God does not stop them because we have free will to do what we please. This doesn’t mean he has invited us to re-write his rules, it means we try our best to fulfill them and we take our judgement from him when we go. You can debate God on all the executions you supported; I will tell him that I tried my best to stop them when I could. Like April 16th.
Dave,
I completely agree with your analysis of the liberal frame of mind. I’m not a liberal, nor am I a conservative. I don’t think we’ll ever solve a lot of these problems as long as there are only two acceptable points of view available. They both have their problems and we have to find a middle ground. Mocking the most extreme point of view doesn’t help.
I also agree with you that there are some people who do evil things and are beyond rehabilition. But your “vermin walking the streets” imagery doesn’t accurately represent the problems with state executions. There are 6 people on Maryland’s death row right now, not some swarm of evil-doers. In the last twenty years, the state of Maryland has determined that six people are beyond rehabilition. If those trials were fair and the decison was correct, I’m fine with that. Those people can stay in jail forever if rehabilitation has been tried and failed. Executing them will not deter future murders and will not keep the streets safe from six people who are never leaving prison again.
And while I appreciate the death of responsibility you take for your actions, it’s not so easy for everybody. While you would want punishment for something you did “for whatever reason”, including mental illness, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you are not mentally ill, and if you are, you are under some sort of treatment. Many of the people we punish every day are mentally ill and have not been treated and shouldn’t be expected to take the same responsibility you do for their actions. All I’m saying is that if a person cannot be rehabilitated, we ought to have mercy on them before we decide to stoop to their level and kill them. We can revisit the strain this is putting on the system when it takes more than two hands to count them.
Brian,
Mocking the most extreme point of view may not help, but it can be fun while illustrating logical consequences of various courses of action.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you’re saying, but it sounds like you do not think everyone should be held to the same consistent set of standards, rules, and laws. This is not an effective way to govern any group of people regardless of size. A (reasonably) orderly society requires that individuals play by basically the same rules. Even small children quickly learn how to manipulate weak teachers, parents, etc. who apply rules and warnings inconsistently.
I agree with your assertion that the death penalty is not a deterrent to other criminals the way it is currently being administered. Perhaps if we executed these murderers closer to the time they commited the crime ( as opposed to 20-30 years later) this could be different.
Dave, just to clarify my definition of ” cold blooded murder”: Enacting a plan to take a life with rational forethought without any mitigating factors such as mental illness or mental incapacity.
Also, Brian, to clarify my take on the execution of Jesus: It seems to be apt commentary on capital punishment as He was a victim of it’s practice by both the civil and religious government of His time AND conversely He chose not to Himself apply the death penalty to those who chose to murder Him.
Dave,
You are right, mockery can be fun and effective. But to be clear, I do not advocate sing-alongs as effective criminal justice measures.
I do believe in a consistent set of legal standards. The death penalty violates consistency and applies an irreversible punishment. Every person executed in Maryland since 1978 or currently on death row killed a white person, even though hundreds of black people are killed in Maryland every year and the death penalty is never applied to those murders.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-ha.capital04mar04,0,2591817.story?coll=bal-local-harford
(WJZ) The fallout continues after a state police ballistics expert commits suicide and his testimony in hundreds of cases is called into question. Joseph Kopera’s college degree didn’t exist. When challenged by a public defender about his degree, Kopera provided a University of Maryland transcript that turned out to be fake. At least two men have been put to death with the help of his testimony…
Last Thursday, Kopera committed suicide and the state police say they since learned he doesn’t have the college degree he claimed he’d earned. Kopera’s expert testimony has played a role in many hight profile cases statewide, like that of Shawn Woodson, convicted of murdering a policeman. Kopera testified against Flint Greggory Hunt and Westley Baker; both were put to death. Now hundreds of murder and shooting cases may be challenged by the public defender because of questions about Kopera’s truthfulness.
http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_067224913.html
Brian,
The link to the story is not the same text as the story you posted.
The link is to a WJZ story which has changed as the story has been updated. The text is different, but the point is still the same. Either because of procedural errors or (in the worst case, like this one) outright lies, cases are re-examined and re-opened all the time. Sentences are reconsidered and many prisoners are released, except for the ones who are executed.