This week, as the Washington Post points out today, the United States Supreme Court will take up the question of capital punishment.
At issue is not whether capital punishment is constitutional but whether lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
In question is Kentucky's use of lethal injection.
"Lethal injection," the Post writes, "was conceived 30 years ago as a more humane alternative to electrocution." But "should states be held to a tougher standard, as Kentucky death row inmates ... urge, and be forced to change or abandon a technique if it carries an 'unnecessary risk of pain and suffering'?"
The Post admits that it has been a long-time opponent of the death penalty. "But if capital punishment is to be carried out, it should be done as humanely as possible by a method that causes no pain. Evidence submitted in the Supreme Court case suggests that the current protocol for administering lethal injection cannot meet this standard."
The Post concludes, "There is a danger that the justices will get so deeply involved in parsing the technical aspects of this case that they become micromanagers of state execution methods. ... They should insist simply that states not rely on a flawed execution method that carries the unnecessary risk of pain when a more humane alternative is available."
The Chicago Sun-Times puts it a little more bluntly: Fix the death penalty, it says, or end it.
The latter may be closer to becoming a reality than you might think, according to the Sun-Times.
"Ultimately," the newspaper says, "reforms might be irrelevant because juries increasingly are rejecting the death penalty."
Here in Texas (which became the first state to use lethal injection in 1982) and in other Southern states, that may not seem to be the case, but in Illinois, the Sun-Times goes on to say,"[j]uries in recent years have approved the death penalty in only one or two cases each year, down from 15 or more in the 1990s. In Illinois, the death penalty is all but dead already."
Showing posts with label editorials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorials. Show all posts
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Some Editorial Rumblings
The 2008 voting season kicks off on Thursday with the Iowa caucuses.
Here's what some newspapers and their columnists are saying a few days before the event.
* The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wonders, "Is this the best the two parties can do?" when it comes to potential nominees.
"Neither the Democratic nor the Republican slate of candidates seems ... to contain an excellent future president," worries the Post-Gazette, which goes on to pick apart the shortcomings of every candidate.
The fact is, every future president has been considered inadequate in some way before taking office. After becoming president, some never exceed the expectations of mediocrity that were established by the media and their fellow citizens, but truly great presidents prove themselves on the job, not on the campaign trail. That's been true from the early presidencies of Washington and Jefferson to the present day.
In 1860, no one was saying that Abraham Lincoln would be the next George Washington. In fact, Lincoln may have had more than his share of detractors. In 1901, when Theodore Roosevelt became president after William McKinley's assassination, no one said he would be the next Lincoln. And no one thought Harry Truman could measure up to Franklin Roosevelt when he succeeded FDR in 1945.
You can find other, similar examples throughout American history.
Think of every president you consider to be great, then go back and read about the period before he became president. You'll find that there were many times when that president was accused by his rivals of being mediocre. But his performance in office exceeded expectations.
You know the old saying. "You can't judge a book by its cover."
Actually, that brings up another point. Pundits and politicians alike tend to treat running mates as valuable only for what they can bring to the ticket electorally.
But running mates are more important than that. Between 1841 and 1974, a vice president became president (due to the death or resignation of a president) about every 15 years. It has now been 33 years since a vice president became president following a death or resignation so we're way overdue.
The next vice president might well become president. That's more important than whether he can put his home state into your column on Election Day.
It's an issue that was addressed as part of the storyline in the TV series, "Commander in Chief." Geena Davis played a vice president who became president when the chief executive died. Davis' character had been chosen as running mate primarily because of her gender and which votes she could attract to the ticket. When the president died, people in her party and outside the party had to confront questions about her policies, of which they knew little or nothing.
Even though the story is fictitious and the show is no longer on the air, it's a cautionary tale.
* The Manchester Union Leader wonders about Hillary Clinton's "experience" during her husband's presidency in the 1990s.
Mrs. Clinton claims to have been a part of the "White House team" that molded policy during the Clinton years. The Union Leader rightfully says that voters are entitled "to see exactly what experience she really has. Which policies did she help shape? Which did she oppose? Did she serve as a de facto staff member or did her role primarily consist of whispering suggestions into her husband's ear?"
The Clintons have claimed that the National Archives won't release the records, but an Archives official has said Bill Clinton hasn't authorized release of the records. "That history is blackened out, and [Mrs. Clinton] is keeping it that way. Why?" asks the Union Leader.
It's a fair question.
Is there something in the records Mrs. Clinton doesn't want the public to see? Or is it the absence of her name at those White House meetings that she doesn't want the public to see?
* In the United Kingdom, Andrew Sullivan writes, in the Sunday Times, that voters in the United States have a "clear-cut choice: the candidates of hope or fear."
In one of his most remarkable statements, Sullivan suggests, "After following this race for an almost interminable preamble, all I can say is that I can’t imagine a more constructive race than one between [Barack] Obama and [John] McCain. The odds are still against it. But it is more imaginable now than at any time in the past year."
Just something to think about when the voting gets started.
* Also from the United Kingdom, The Guardian says, "Our challenge is to restore faith in the power of global liberty."
And The Guardian warns its readers that Great Britain "cannot afford to wait and see what kind of president emerges to replace George W. Bush. [British Prime Minister] Gordon Brown must use his influence abroad and his power at home to make Britain a beacon of liberal democracy."
Here's what some newspapers and their columnists are saying a few days before the event.
* The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wonders, "Is this the best the two parties can do?" when it comes to potential nominees.
"Neither the Democratic nor the Republican slate of candidates seems ... to contain an excellent future president," worries the Post-Gazette, which goes on to pick apart the shortcomings of every candidate.
The fact is, every future president has been considered inadequate in some way before taking office. After becoming president, some never exceed the expectations of mediocrity that were established by the media and their fellow citizens, but truly great presidents prove themselves on the job, not on the campaign trail. That's been true from the early presidencies of Washington and Jefferson to the present day.
In 1860, no one was saying that Abraham Lincoln would be the next George Washington. In fact, Lincoln may have had more than his share of detractors. In 1901, when Theodore Roosevelt became president after William McKinley's assassination, no one said he would be the next Lincoln. And no one thought Harry Truman could measure up to Franklin Roosevelt when he succeeded FDR in 1945.
You can find other, similar examples throughout American history.
Think of every president you consider to be great, then go back and read about the period before he became president. You'll find that there were many times when that president was accused by his rivals of being mediocre. But his performance in office exceeded expectations.
You know the old saying. "You can't judge a book by its cover."
Actually, that brings up another point. Pundits and politicians alike tend to treat running mates as valuable only for what they can bring to the ticket electorally.
But running mates are more important than that. Between 1841 and 1974, a vice president became president (due to the death or resignation of a president) about every 15 years. It has now been 33 years since a vice president became president following a death or resignation so we're way overdue.
The next vice president might well become president. That's more important than whether he can put his home state into your column on Election Day.
It's an issue that was addressed as part of the storyline in the TV series, "Commander in Chief." Geena Davis played a vice president who became president when the chief executive died. Davis' character had been chosen as running mate primarily because of her gender and which votes she could attract to the ticket. When the president died, people in her party and outside the party had to confront questions about her policies, of which they knew little or nothing.
Even though the story is fictitious and the show is no longer on the air, it's a cautionary tale.
* The Manchester Union Leader wonders about Hillary Clinton's "experience" during her husband's presidency in the 1990s.
Mrs. Clinton claims to have been a part of the "White House team" that molded policy during the Clinton years. The Union Leader rightfully says that voters are entitled "to see exactly what experience she really has. Which policies did she help shape? Which did she oppose? Did she serve as a de facto staff member or did her role primarily consist of whispering suggestions into her husband's ear?"
The Clintons have claimed that the National Archives won't release the records, but an Archives official has said Bill Clinton hasn't authorized release of the records. "That history is blackened out, and [Mrs. Clinton] is keeping it that way. Why?" asks the Union Leader.
It's a fair question.
Is there something in the records Mrs. Clinton doesn't want the public to see? Or is it the absence of her name at those White House meetings that she doesn't want the public to see?
* In the United Kingdom, Andrew Sullivan writes, in the Sunday Times, that voters in the United States have a "clear-cut choice: the candidates of hope or fear."
In one of his most remarkable statements, Sullivan suggests, "After following this race for an almost interminable preamble, all I can say is that I can’t imagine a more constructive race than one between [Barack] Obama and [John] McCain. The odds are still against it. But it is more imaginable now than at any time in the past year."
Just something to think about when the voting gets started.
* Also from the United Kingdom, The Guardian says, "Our challenge is to restore faith in the power of global liberty."
And The Guardian warns its readers that Great Britain "cannot afford to wait and see what kind of president emerges to replace George W. Bush. [British Prime Minister] Gordon Brown must use his influence abroad and his power at home to make Britain a beacon of liberal democracy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
