Thursday editorial: The quality of mercy
Late Wednesday afternoon the Missouri Supreme Court postponed for at least 30 days the state’s plans to administer the death penalty for the first time in almost three years. It was the correct decision.
We say that not only because this editorial page long has opposed capital punishment in all circumstances, believing that it has no place in a civilized society. And in this particular case, the arguments against the ultimate punishment are particularly strong.
Dennis J. Skillicorn, 49, was to have been executed at 12:01 a.m. next Wednesday even though he did not kill Richard Drummond, the crime for which he was convicted in Lafayette County in 1996. Skillicorn was half a mile away when his buddy, Allen Nicklasson, shot Mr. Drummond, 47, of Excelsior Springs.
The jury knew that when it convicted Skillicorn as an accessory to capital murder. But the prosecutor in the case had painted Skillicorn as the ringleader among the three men convicted in Mr. Drummond’s death. The trio had traveled from Kansas City to St. Louis to buy drugs, and the men were returning to Kansas City on Aug. 23, 1994, when their car broke down on Interstate 70, 22 miles east of Kingdom City. Mr. Drummond, a telephone company technician, stopped to help them.
The third member of the group, Tim DeGraffenreid, 17 at the time of the crime, was convicted of second-degree murder. Skillicorn and Nicklasson both were sentenced to death. But Nicklasson, last month swore in an affadavit that “I have maintained from the day of my arrest, October 5, 1994, that Dennis had absolutely no knowledge that I would murder Mr. Richard Drummond.”
Just as important — and perhaps more so — is that since he’s been in prison, Skillicorn has been an exemplary citizen, a rare moderating influence in a place — as one inmate put it — “full of vampires.”
If the fact Skillicorn had very little to do with the actual murder isn’t enough to convince Gov. Blunt to commute his sentence, perhaps his record as a model prisoner will. The Supreme Court’s action should help him consider that record more completely.
Skillicorn’s lawyers had been denied access to prison staff and inmates as part of their efforts to draw up a clemency petition. On Wednesday, the court said this amounted to “obstruction of clemency advocacy.”
Skillicorn’s lawyers now have one month to do conduct interviews on a voluntary basis with the people who know Skillicorn best. It’s in the best interest of the Department of Corrections to cooperate.
As Neal Turnbrough, a former guard at the Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point, put it: “You’d like to have a whole prison of Dennises; it makes the job easier.”
Skillicorn is a leader in several Christian prison ministries. He helped create a hospice program to care for inmates who are sick and dying. He is the editor of “Compassion,” a bi-monthly newsletter for death row inmates nationwide, the mission of which is “promoting restorative justice and reconciliation.”
Among the letters sent to Gov. Blunt on behalf of Skillicorn’s petition for clemency is one from a fellow death row inmate who wrote, “You got a lot of love in you, my brother. And as I sit here knocking on heaven’s door, I will go forth and take with me your strength and honor and total compassion, whether I go forth in this life or the next.”
The letter was written by Marlin Gray, executed by the state of Missouri on Oct. 26, 2005. The death chamber at the prison in Bonne Terre has since gone unused as Missouri and the nation again have wrestled with issues related to capital punishment.
In April, the United States Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, that the lethal injection procedure used to administer the death penalty in Kentucky was not “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. Because 37 of the 38 states that permit capital punishment using a three-drug process similar to Kentucky’s, the death penalty had been on hold while the Kentucky case worked its way to a decision by the high court.
A similar challenge to the constitutionality of lethal injection had been brought in Missouri. The state, it turned out, did not have a formal written execution protocol. Dr. Alan Doerhoff, a Jefferson City surgeon who had supervised most of the executions in Missouri, admitted that he was dyslexic and that he sometimes had made mistakes while administering doses of the execution drugs.
A Post-Dispatch investigation revealed that Dr. Doerhoff also had been sued for medical malpractice some 20 times and that David Pinkley, a nurse who had worked with Dr. Doerhoff, was on probation for legal problems unrelated to his profession.
Larry Crawford, director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, says those problems have been corrected. Yet how tragic that a model prisoner who never actually pulled a trigger might become the test case for the new procedures and staff.
The state has a neatly-typed, five-page execution protocol that is a public document, setting forth in precise language the procedures to be followed; the dosages of each drug to be administered and in what order; the veins in which IV lines are to be inserted (primary and secondary); the position of the gurney and the timing of the procedure.
A key change, Mr. Crawford said, is that the execution team now is supposed to wait three minutes after the injection of the first drug: 5 grams of thiopental. During that waiting period, medical personnel are supposed to enter the death chamber and check to ensure that the drug, a heavy barbiturate, has taken effect and has rendered the inmate unconscious. Only then may the second drug, a paralyzing agent, and the third drug, which stops the heart, be administered.
“I’ve talked to a lot of medical people in recent months,” Mr. Crawford said, “and they all tell me that if you had to pick a way to die, this is the way to go.”
Another key change: The process is to be overseen by a board-certified anesthesiologist who is assisted by a licensed practical nurse. A licensed pharmacist will prepare the drugs. Mr. Crawford said these arrangements exceed court-ordered standards, which permit a nurse or an emergency medical technician to supervise executions.
A recently enacted state law makes the identities of medical personnel involved in state executions a secret, along with the identity of the corrections department employee assigned to start the flow of the drugs.
This confidentiality may be important to the anesthesiologist hired by the state. The ethical guidelines of the American Medical Association and the American Society of Anesthesiologists forbid physicians from participating directly or indirectly in executions.
Dennis Skillicorn’s best hope for avoiding these people lies with his request for clemency from Gov. Blunt. That’s why it’s important that corrections officers and inmates be encouraged to talk about the Dennis Skillicorn they have come to know in the last 12 years.
If the death penalty must be imposed, it must be reserved for the worst of the worse, not for someone who may have had no idea what his partner was planning. As punishment for his participation, Skillicorn deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, a sentence that would have the added benefit of letting him continue the good works to which he has devoted his life since being sent to Potosi. Religious groups from around the state have appealed for clemency, noting the tremendously positive influence Skillicorn has on other inmates.
Skillicorn’s lawyers, led by Jennifer A. Merrigan of the Public Interest Litigation Center in Kansas City, also are challenging the the way the state developed its execution protocol: adopting it without presenting it for public comment or review by the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Corrections.
In St. Louis on Wednesday, Mr. Blunt was asked about Skillicorn’s petition for clemency. His reply was non-commital, saying only that “I spend a great deal of time going over the information with my staff. It’s the most serious thing we do within our criminal justice system, and it’s a responsibility that I take very seriously.”
We hope Mr. Blunt will encourage Mr. Crawford and his staff to speak openly about Skillicorn’s record. A full and open review would be a courageous step for the governor and for Missouri. In Shakespeare’s words:
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. . . .
Editor’s Note: Click below to hear Gov. Matt Blunt answer Post-Dispatch Editorial Writer Eddie Roth’s questions about the clemency process:
It is true that capital punishment has no place in civilized society. Once we have one, capital punishment should be abolished.
Well put, Star20.
Capital punishment is unfair, that is to say that there is so much emphasis put on making it painless and, for the most part, private. We ALL have to die freaking painfully. That’s why people are “thankful” when someone they know has a quick death because they are in pain for less time. It’s highly unfair that a murderer gets to have the most humane, painless death available (besides maybe the closed-circuit TV).
They can just rot in prison. That’s infinitely worse. Then they’ll have to die like a real person- painfully from injury or sickness.
I believe that if capital punishment were carried out swiftly, i.e. within one year of sentencing, it would actually serve as a deterrent. Instead, the criminals know they have decades to continue living and at the expense of decent taxpaying citizens. ‘Three hots & a cot,’ television, commissary, library and printing privileges, and correspondence from pathetic lonely woman more than willing to contribute to their commissary accounts. Sickening.
What Star20 said. I truly look forward to that day. Until then, however, we don’t need mindlessly legalistic protocols, we don’t need to know who the prison staff is, and we sure as heck don’t need more hypocritical moralizing from the daily fishwrap. We need a swift and honest application of justice. Take this piece of human debris to the nearest swimming pool and hold his head under until the bubbles stop. May the soul of Richard Drummond rest in peace.
The Editorial Board’s admission that it opposes capital punishment in all circumstances renders the rest of your argument irrelevant. We realize that you place your opinions above that of prosecutors, juries, lawmakers, victims, and other citizens of the state of Missouri. You may even be right and all those other people wrong. If so, there are many lengthy appeals and clemency processes to make that determination.
Skillicorn has had a dozen years since his conviction to demonstrate what a fine, upstanding person he is and plea for his life to be spared. Mr. Drummond was not given one additional second to make his case to avoid the fate of Skillicorn’s actions.
This comment is to all the “Pro-Death Penalty” Christians. Just think if our government had murdered this man before he had committed his life to Christ. Many have been murdered by our government before their predestined time, JUST AS THE MURDER VICTIM’S LIFE WAS TAKEN BEFORE GOD”S TIMING, but by man’s determination. No man or government has the godly right to take another’s life. The practice is revenge, another evil being committed claiming to be doing good just as many other evils in histories past were justified as doing good such as the Charlemagne, the Spanish Inquisitions, etc.
The death penalty is evil and is being justified as something that is good for society when in fact; it brings a curse upon a society.
If a Christian truly believes that God is “Almighty” then they would not doubt God’s capability of handling these life and death matters and would realize that they have no authority from God to do so. When one commits murder, regardless of it being government sponsored they have no godly authority to do so. The death penalty will only bring those who support it under judgment and they forfeit being judged under GRACE until they repent and turn their hearts far away from this eviil.
Sorry, D. Walker, but the Bible does allow for the death penalty…If you look, even in the new Testament, it states that you are to follow your government’s laws (unless they run contrary to scripture and what God has said). And if the death penalty is deemed Constitutional, then those are a government’s laws. The death penalty is allowed by God’s standards, whether you like it or not.
In no way do I profess to be a Christian. But, as I understand the Bible, all I need to do to win a seat in heaven is to renounce my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my savior. So assuming I do this after I’ve murdered 4 people…or even 1 person…where is God’s retribution? Do I get a lesser place in heaven? Am I seated at a table further from the podium?
Was it really the will of an “Almighty” god that the 4 victims be murdered? Or am I to believe this is the work of the devil? If God is mightier than Satan, why doesn’t he stop all this evil?
Give me a break.
D-, I have a question about evil for you, and I really would like an answer.
Would you say that a man that said that having a second doctor respond to a baby that survived an abortion is really nothing more than a burden on the mother is evil?
So in a nutshell
Baby survives abortion
Baby should die because having a second doctor respond is too much trouble.
Your candidate said it D-, and its on tape. Is that not evil personified?
Hey editorial people…no mention of the fact he was also convicted of 3 other murders?? Why not? I believe in conversion, but he knows he should have to pay for what he did…Also, since he has converted and is ready to go to meet the Lord, why is he wanting to stay on Earth when Heaven awaits?
D. Walker. From your statements I gather that your God allows salvation for those who destroy righteous life like the good Samaritan, Mr. Drummond as long as they repent and find Christ later. Well how about if capital punishment supporters go ahead and take care of business and just make it a point to repent and profess later? Or not.
Just as many of us don’t aspire to your Christian heaven, you can not condemn us to your Christian hell. If I’m wrong, I’m really curious what Mr. Drummond would have to say to Skillicorn when they meet to share the raptured afterlife. Of course I would be spending eternity elsewhere since I won’t deserve the company of the likes of the repentant Skillicorn. Of course, according to Rev. Wright, anyone who voted for Dubya is already damned.
Si,
Who are you insinuating that this man is that said such a thing and, if you are insinuating that it was Obama, IT IS A OUTRIGHT LIE! Its twisting and distorting. And Yes! I would say that it is evil to kill a baby after making it through birth alive. Yes, Yes, Yes!
A#,
As far as the mind of God, I don’t know what God’s intentions are for anyone, no one does. I cannot speak about what God has not disclosed to us. I just am speaking about a supposedly Christian government and a supposedly civilized society people murderering others under the “Eye for an Eye” Old Testament Law.
A3,
It is ignorant to just make up what other people believe such as, your claim that Rev. Wright believes that anyone who voted for whoever Dubya is already damned. Even referring to a President as Duba is ignorant.
CrabbyAbby,
Gee, it would have to be a true change of heart, not just what someone say. God is no fool like we people can be.
Also, it is so obvious that YOU DO NOT understand or really truly know what is written in the Holy Scriptures (the Bible), but, it would never hurt you learning though, then, you could speak with knowledge about what’s really is said in its entire content and discuss why you agree or disagree with what’s within the books of the bible.
D-, you say it is an outright lie?
Lets go to the tape:
“I suspect that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments, is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2007-04/29383467.MP3
D-, dont believe your own ears? How about the official transcript from the Il senate?
“Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects that doctors feel that they would already be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding a — an additional doctor who the has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
Now who were you calling a liar, me or The Chosen One?
What a strange editorial … No mention of the family of the victim or the victim who lost his life? We all can sense the near-hysterical zeal of the PD Editorial Board to push its view of capital punishment and the value of this convict’s life, but wouldn’t a sensible treatment of the issues include a discussion of, reference to, or at least some indication of consideration for the victim and his family … he was someone’s son, brother, father, etc. This is a shame. For more, visit http://www.PostDispatchWatch.com.
- Lee Pulitzer
D- I have read the Bible cover-to-cover a couple of times. I’ve been involved in Bible study groups with people of the Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Methodist and Evangelical faith. All said the same thing: Accept Christ as your personal savior and truly renounce your sins. All will be forgiven and you will have a place in heaven. So, I ask again: I kill someone or several someones and then I honestly open my heart, seek salvation and accept Christ. Where is God’s retribution?
As for my not understanding or truly knowing the scriptures, isn’t that why there are so many religions–because everyone has a different understanding (interpretation) of them? Or, are you like the other Christians I’ve encountered who claim theirs is the only true/correct interpretation?
After years of study, and soul-searching and reading the Bible, my personal conclusion is 1) it is a book of fables written by men to assert control over others, and 2) each person/religion bends the teachings/understanding/interpretations to suit their own devices.
The other thing that Christians must realize and understand concerning the death penalty under Old Testament Law was that the death penalty was God’s judgment, not man’s judgment where, the only Jewish rabbis that had the authority under God to carry out God’s judgment of death and decide legal cases were those men who were righteous and godly.
Then things changed and the Jewish rabbis who decided legal cases began to follow after their own ways and not the ways God had instructed which caused them to become corrupt. They became so corrupted in their hearts that they began following after their own hearts concerning who deserved and did not deserve death, They even murdered most of God’s prophets and those who were disciples of Christ. Another example was the Pharisees who became this same way. And we know also that Jesus said that ones like these were the children of the devil that they followed after their father, the devil.
They, the rabbi judges became dishonest in deciding legal cases, they showed favoritism to certain people, they allowed ones to keep quiet concerning testimony that could help one who was on trial etc. These evils are what we are witnessing still today in our legal system.
So far as murderers being able to be changed? We cannot know what God sees in another human being or the plans that God has for another as we can see through the example of the conversion of Saul who became Paul who had many murders under his notch before repenting and coming to Christ.
CrabbyAbby,
I’m sorry for not answering your question. But, there is no condemnation from God if one truly repents and his heart is changed to agree with God’s word as a Chrsitian.
Or, are you asking me if murdererss are able to make it into Heaven and the Kingdom of God to come, are you asking me, where is God’s justice? Are you of the mind that there is no justice if God do not condemn murderers to Hell?
D-, why are you avoiding The Chosen One’s OWN WORDS about allowing children who survive abortion to die?
-D,
What I’m asking is in response to the statement that it is up to God to mete out the ultimate punishment. But if he forgives all who repent, then it would seem there is no retribution.
I personally do not believe in heaven or hell. But I do respect your right to your beliefs and thank you for a civil discussion.
Si,
I am not avoiding any such thing. I have not heard these words come from Obama’s mouth or a tape of him saying what you are claiming, have you?
What I have heard are Republican oundits and those who call themselves “Pro-Life” distort the truth and LIE that this is what Obama feel should happen to babies after they are born alive after an abortion attempt.
Si, why don’t you post your source for us?
CrabbyAbby,
You are welcomed and thank you for being civil.
Jack,
The death penalty does run contrary to Christianity, God’s new law under “New Testament” scripture, living under GRACE.
Assuming that you are a Gentile, a Gentile was not accepted by God as His people until after Jesus ministry on the earth and only because of the Jews rejection of Christ, so, it was only by grace that we are able to be part of God’s family. For us to be accepted by God we have no choice other than to live under GRACE. If we were judged under “Old Testament Law” most of the world’s population would be put to death. Also, all these things were concerning those who accepted and followed God and Christ, they followed these laws among themselves, but also had to live under the worlds law, but refused to when the world’s law was contrary to their God whose name is Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh depending on the language.
“I am not avoiding any such thing. I have not heard these words come from Obama’s mouth or a tape of him saying what you are claiming, have you?”
Hello, D-, did you even listen to the audio link I posted above? It is from that rabid right wing hate site, the Chicago Tribune. Maybe you had problems reading the transcript from the official site of the Il senate. You wouldnt believe it if The Chosen One himself came to your door and said it.
“What I have heard are Republican oundits and those who call themselves “Pro-Life” distort the truth and LIE that this is what Obama feel should happen to babies after they are born alive after an abortion attempt.”
Really? What do you call it when YOUR candidate says caring for a newborn baby is to much of a burden for the mother who just tried to abort the child? How would you describe it when YOUR candidate chairs a committee that changes the language of the BAIPA to match the federal version, THEN VOTES AGAINST THE BILL!!! You rant and rave and label everyone evil, but when YOUR candidate, YOUR savior, YOUR messiah advocates denying medical care for abortion survivors, YOU DEFEND IT!!!
“Si, why don’t you post your source for us?”
I did, THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE STATE SENATE OF ILLINOIS!!!
Si,
I read the transcript; it is on (pg.33) of the link that Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum posted way above. Like I said these people are liars. Obama’s words say nothing to the effect that Si, or these Republican pundits are claiming. Read it for yourselves on pg. 33, which Si did not bother to us where to find Obama’s statements.
He said that he suspected that doctors would be under that obligation, obligation for what Si, IT IS NOT A TAPE RECORDING SHOWING THE ENTIRETY OF OBAMA”S STATEMENTS, WHY? IT IS THEN CONSIDERED VOID AND SUSPECT. But what we do hear still does not support what you are your Republican pundits are claiming neither
D-, keep digging that hole, your hopeless. The facts are real simple, yet you continue to defend a candidate who voted in favor of infanticide. He chaired the health and human services committee, he voted to change the language to match the federal bill, then he voted against the bill.
Remember that speech The Chosen One gave about words (even if he borrowed most of it)? Just words? He told us that words matter, so why dont HIS OWN WORDS
Michelle Malkin sums it well, here. Soon, Democrats, with the exception of D. Walker, will say; “He’s not the Obama I thought I knew.”
“Obama’s campaign still lies. The bill very clearly stated, even without the neutrality clause, that it only applied to infants born alive, regardless of the circumstances of their births. Once born alive, the medical provider had a duty to provide normal, life-supporting care to the infant. It had nothing to do with abortion procedures (unfortunately), and as Obama himself claimed at first, the neutrality clause removed all ambiguity about this by explicitly stating that it had no impact on abortion procedures.
But more to the point, Obama flat-out lied about his record. He opposed a bill that would have stopped the ongoing practice of infanticide in Illinois facilities such as Christ Hospitals. When first asked about this bill, Obama tried to hide his record by intentionally mischaracterizing the legislation and his reasons for opposing it. He didn’t talk at the time about the nuances of legal language at the state level — he said that the bill didn’t contain the neutrality clause that would have protected abortion on demand.
Obama cannot hide his radical nature for very much longer. With the Washington Post reporting this story, the truth about Obama’s protection of infanticide and Obama’s dishonesty on the topic will soon reach wide distribution.”
Star20,
Obama does not deny supporting abortions.
The wording in the bill that you speak about was trickery just as “Missouri’s Mid-Wife Bill” was drafted with the purpose to intentionally deceive.
Furthermore the clause of the bill you are overlooking is the wording that can and would have been used to deny abortions at any stage. I have capped these for your attention.
“nothing in this section shall be construed to DENY any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point PRIOR TO BEING ‘BORN ALIVE’ as defined in this section.”
Above is showing the exact wording in the bill that would be used to ban ALL abortions. See item c.
EXACT WORDING OF BILL BELOW:
(The “neutrality” clause read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”)
Only a person lacking intellect would not be able to see that the very claus could cause all abortions to be illegal, kind of like the midwife situation that we had here in Missouri.
This claus never changed in any of the bills.
Note: go to link, item c.
http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html
D-, do you realize you have just said that all abortions ARE illegal? The federal bill which the language was lifted from passed 98-0 (The Chosen One was not in the Senate)?
I will post the whole section you linked to and let everyone see that the Federal and State bills are fundamentally the same. Do you have any idea how many local state or federal laws have a similar clause?
On March 12-13, 2003, the Illinois state senate committee chaired by Senator Barack Obama amended the proposed state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) to exactly track the language of the already-enacted federal BAIPA, by adopting Senate Amendment No. 1, 10-0. The committee then voted to kill the amended bill, 6-4, with Obama and the other Democrats on the committee voting against it. The bill that Obama and his colleges voted to kill, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law. The entirely non-substantive points at which the state bill language still differed from the federal law are shown in brackets below (except we have ignored differences in capitalizing).
———————————————————Public Law 107–207 [Illinois SB 1082]
107th Congress
An Act
To protect [Illinois: concerning] infants who are
born alive.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [Illinois: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act of 2002’’. [Illinois: no formal title]
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. [Illinois: Section 1.36. Born-alive infant.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as
including born-alive infant [Illinois: lacks this section heading]
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, [Illinois: statute] or
of any ruling [Illinois: rule], regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States [Illinois: this State], the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include
[Illinois: include] every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her [Illinois: its] mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such
[Illinois: that] expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut,, Illinois: no comma] and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ [Illinois: no quotes] as defined in this section.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’. [Illinois: Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.]
“But Nicklasson, last month swore in an affadavit that “I have maintained from the day of my arrest, October 5, 1994, that Dennis had absolutely no knowledge that I would murder Mr. Richard Drummond…the prosecutor in the case had painted Skillicorn as the ringleader among the three men convicted in Mr. Drummond’s death.”
An article in the Post the following day about wrongful murder and rape convictions:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/5CF5458617A9502C862574AC0013909D?OpenDocument
With no knowledge of the Skillicorn case, this appears to be the issue. If the trigger man has stated from the beginning that Skillicorn was not involved, then what was the government’s case?
When death row inmates are exonerated for their crimes, years after the fact, it should be a wakeup call for any society, civilized or otherwise.
What’s needed is a higher burden of proof for death penalty cases. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” barely works on paper, and is easily manipulated in practice.
The editorial should have focused on the lack of evidence justifying the sentence of death. While Skillicorn has apparently been a model prisoner, his one fault was lack of a political connection to add weight to his accomplishments. It will have no effect on Blunt.
If such a bill passed with that Claus federally, then yes, abortions would become illegal at any stage of pregnancy.
So we can now also see why the Bush administration is attempting to redefine “PREGNANCY” and contraception as a form of abortion due to the fact that such Claus, which will be the law of the land in the U.S. if it did indeed pass federally now by LAW defines a human life as beginning at conception.
So, now forms of conception can now also be made illegal when all the cards are laid out.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/editorial-writers-notebooks/2008/07/draft-regulation-would-classify-contraception-as-abortion/
I owe the Republicans and Bush an apology for accusing them of doing nothing about abortions; they are, even though under disguise and deceit.
McCain no doubt will carry the ball on because these same people are pulling the strings of McCain.
But, they won’t touch homosexuality and marriages, anything concerning children YES because when any of them Republican or Democrat tire of them, they do whatever is necessary to rid themselves of their children, especially the wealthy ones. But, homosexuals and child sexual abusers, NO WAY! Now what’s wrong with that picture, not quite whole, is it?
Personally, I don’t think that abortions should have ever been made legal in the first place but, I find the motives of these “Pro-Lifer’s” and the “Conservative Right” to be disingenuous and totally off base.
Si,
The above was a response to you.
Let me explain the reason why I feel that abortions never should have been made legal, it is because abortions encourage imorality and irresponsibilty in the young and older woman and men behaviors, been there and know this to be true.
“If such a bill passed with that Claus federally, then yes, abortions would become illegal at any stage of pregnancy.”
You fail.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed into law By President Bush August 5, 2002.
And your candidate STILL thinks it is a burden to administer care to babies that survive abortion.
Si,
Obama never said that he believed such a thing. You and your like are distorting.
And,
Are you 100% that the “Federal Bill” that was was passed in 20o2, “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act”, have the same exact wording (Claus). You forgot to prove it. Post the exact bill showing us where it is located in the Bill, please do this for me when attempting to prove something to me because so far above you did not.
Si,
You FAIL!
Here is the Bill and it does not have the same Claus in which the Pro-Lifer’s of Illinois where using as trickery.
Here is what the Federal version state:
for purposes of Federal law, ‘‘the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’
‘child,’ and ‘individual,’ shall include every infant member of the
species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’’
The term ‘‘born alive’’ is defined as
the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of
that member, at any stage of development, who after such
expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart,
pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
the voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical
cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion
or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor,
cesarean section, or induced abortion.
The correct name for the Federal Bill is, “H.R. 2175, the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001” that was passed in 2002.
See Actual Bill pasted below: Pg. 2, lines 8-16.
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/Baipatext.pdf
So I guess I must take back my apologies to the Bush administration. See how important it is to check everything out for yourselves because, the Republican pundits are truly LIARS of the worst kind.
D-, not even you can be so dense as not to see they are the same bill, well, obviously you are that dense.
One of your idiotic points was the word “deny” in the bill, you forgot to post that from the Federal bill, so here it is:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ”born alive” as defined in this section.
Same phrase in the Il bill that YOUR Chosen candidate voted to put in the IL bill before he voted against the bill. You are the one who simply wont believe what YOUR own candidate said, he is on tape and the official senate record, yet you continue to deny he said it.
AND IT CLAUSE YOU DOLT!
Si,
Show give me the actual place in the Bill that it is located, I did not find it there. In fact, post the Federal Bill that you are looking giving me the actual location for this wording.
The true copy of the Bill that I am looking at, IT ISN’T THERE or maybe I am overlooking it.
Show me and didn’t I ask you kindly enough aboove to do this anyhow when you are attempting to back things up with me concerning things that you are claiming to be facts?
Si,
Sorry, you are correct, it is there exactly.
Well, it is just a matter of time before abortions are enforced as being illegal. Apologies again. Wow, right under everyone noses. What a play, Uh!
I did post the Federal Bill above in its entiriety, but I stopped at page two and did not scrolled all the way down. I guess I am sometimes that densed. I should have printed it and read it. My bad.
Si,
I’m finding myself having to apologize to you way too much. (lol).