Blake on March 28, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Wow, Blake, I am impressed, great measured response. I don’t think you will hear back from Silver.
You kind of ripped him a new one.

I guess only those who are survived by Daniel Faulkner really know for sure.

His widow, Maureen Faulkner, has granted numerous interviews and written many op-ed pieces. In 2007, she published a book on the case. Her feelings on Wesley Cook are hardly a secret.

But you apparently have never been inside a state prison.

Well, you would be wrong. Apparently, you guess a lot instead of relying on verified facts for your arguments.

His “contact visits” are limited to attorney’s and the like. He gets no conjugal visits. He’s not even married.

Currently, Penn does not have conjugal visits. However, it doesn’t prevent them from starting them in the future. If he is moved to general pop, as you are advocating, he will have, or eventually have, contact visits with everyone on his approved visitor list. Currently, he has the right to get married.

Life in prison, with a job sweeping floors or making license plates or whatever on the inside, is no ‘job’.

Oh, yes it is a job. Scoff all you want but jobs give people’s lives meaning. You also ignore the fact that there are jobs were they teach, perform office work, aid the chaplain, do contract work for private businesses, etc. The point is that they have a job and mobility and do not stay in their cell 24/7 like people falsely claim.

He can write for rags outside the walls and make some money, but the family of his victim can always pursue a wrongful death suit and take any earnings he does make. But once again, only Daniel Faulkner’s surviving family can decide that too.

There are time limits on wrongful death suits that have long passed. Mrs. Faulkner has attempted to use the Son of Sam laws to block Cook from financially benefiting from book advances but the laws at the time had constitutional challenges and had to be rewritten. However, Mrs. Faulkner doesn’t want the money, she wants his lies to stop being published which will continue to be published if you have your way and he is not executed.

In your mind, his death at the hands of the justice system may bring some solice for you.

Now you’re projecting. He was sentenced to be executed. I want the law followed. You don’t. You are the one making wild claims to rationalize your false belief that his life will be so much worse in general pop. than if we followed the law. It won’t be. The fact that he has fought execution for so many years should be a clue to you.

I’m sure that if the family of Mr. Faulkner cared to fiercly vent their frustration on national tv news, they could, and would. But they haven’t.

In your mind his widow is not family? Mrs. Faulkner gives as many interviews, nationally and locally, as she can get. She has written a book. She has worked tirelessly on behalf of her late husband and all law enforcement officers. But, in your opinion that is not enough. It has nothing to do with what the family wants but what you want.

So be that as it may, snip blah blah blah

He was sentenced to death and should be put to death. So be that as it may, none of your arguments and antideath penalty spin carry any weight. Just admit you’re against the death penalty and like his supporters will say anything to prevent the state from carrying out the sentence.

But, that isn’t what happens. Once again, these made up fantasy scenarios people post that are suppose to be in lieu of the death penalty are b.s. Look at damn Richard Speck. Reduce his sentence to life and Mumia will eventually get the run of the prison, contact visits, a job, earn more money, etc. Don’t pretend or try to sell life in prison as worse than the death penalty. Life is exactly what he wants. And giving it to him is an insult to Daniel Faulkner and every law enforcement officer.

Blake on March 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM

I guess only those who are survived by Daniel Faulkner really know for sure. But you apparently have never been inside a state prison. I have, but not as an inmate, it’s been job related. No inmate in prison gets “the run of the prison”. Make no mistake, the prison guards run the damn prison. If an inmate ‘ran’ the prison, then he’d not be an inmate. Sure, he may get celebrity status INSIDE that cesspool. That and 50¢ will get him a cup of chickory and a snickers bar.

His “contact visits” are limited to attorney’s and the like. He gets no conjugal visits. He’s not even married. Life in prison, with a job sweeping floors or making license plates or whatever on the inside, is no ‘job’. He can write for rags outside the walls and make some money, but the family of his victim can always pursue a wrongful death suit and take any earnings he does make. But once again, only Daniel Faulkner’s surviving family can decide that too. They haven’t as yet. I’m sure his jolly band of reprobate supporters keeps money on his books anyway. Who cares. He can eat all the cup o’ noodles he can handle. I hope he chokes on it.

In your mind, his death at the hands of the justice system may bring some solice for you. I’m sure that if the family of Mr. Faulkner cared to fiercly vent their frustration on national tv news, they could, and would. But they haven’t. So be that as it may, while he will not be subjected to the ultimate penalty, he’s in a state prison and no matter how successfully he manges to eek out his existence in that prison, he’ll never legitimately exist to anyone but himself and his diseased fan club. He’s a caged animal, and shall remain so for as long as he shall live.

Since he is still exhalimg CO2 call Al Gore’s pollution control company, and permanently stop the pollution.

Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 8:14 PM

You want him Carbon Capped?

cool…

May he live a long long life confined within those prison walls as he watches the clock in his tiny cramped cell, stained with the permanent insufferable stench of unwashed sweaty male asscrack, croth rot, flatulence, decaying fungus covered feet, vomit, and feces, with no view of the world outside that cesspool, tick off the seconds of his evil life mercilessly, and very slowly.

But, that isn’t what happens. Once again, these made up fantasy scenarios people post that are suppose to be in lieu of the death penalty are b.s. Look at damn Richard Speck. Reduce his sentence to life and Mumia will eventually get the run of the prison, contact visits, a job, earn more money, etc. Don’t pretend or try to sell life in prison as worse than the death penalty. Life is exactly what he wants. And giving it to him is an insult to Daniel Faulkner and every law enforcement officer.

I’m not 100% married to either side of the argument, though I lean against the death penalty because of “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” How do you square this with the passage you quoted earlier? This is a sincere question; I’d like to learn more about what others think of the morality of the death penalty.

mikeyboss on March 27, 2008 at 3:49 PM

First of all, it is thou shall not murder, killing was prevalent in those times. God held in high esteem (if I can put mans words into a benevolents mouth) killers of evil.
So here is the path to enlightenment (little humor, “so you have that going for you” as Bill Murray says):
When you do wrong to someone, there are two way of forgiveness. One, through God’s grace, we can’t ask God what he is going to do, so we rely on #2…We ask forgiveness from the person(s) we have sinned against (as he commanded and I can give passages, but they are there). If he (she) does not forgive us, we are doomed.
There is only one commandant in the bible where we cannot ask the person for forgiveness (if we transgress against God, and ask, it shall be given), but if you kill someone, you must go to them to ask forgiveness. But where do you go? You cannot be forgiven for murder. That is why when these bombings or shootings take place, some local minister says “I forgive them”, hey, read the bible, you can’t forgive them. You may want to, but you can’t. This is not a riddle, this is a Commandant from God, purposely spelled out that way. Now, man is given the ability to rule over other men, Jesus never said, “Don’t rule over men, and don’t judge them by government standards” indeed it put Himself in that very predicament. Jesus respected the law of the Government of man…
The “turn your other cheek” or “eye for an eye” read those in context, or “give your man your cloak (or whatever)” Some of the most misused passages.
If you need biblical references I can dig them up, but I think you get the idea. You do wrong, you ask for forgiveness…save the state money, commit suicide, then go to the third cloud on the left, and ask forgiveness from the family you just murdered, and hope they give it to you, if not, go to hell.

To me, anyway, that’s a fate worse than death.

May he live a long long life confined within those prison walls as he watches the clock in his tiny cramped cell, stained with the permanent insufferable stench of unwashed sweaty male asscrack, croth rot, flatulence, decaying fungus covered feet, vomit, and feces, with no view of the world outside that cesspool, tick off the seconds of his evil life mercilessly, and very slowly.

Trafalgar on March 27, 2008 at 5:18 PM

If it was “kill” then the first thing Moses did when coming down from receiving the law violated it. He had those that sided with him at the worshiping of the golden calf go and kill the others – killing 3,000 people. Ex 32:26-28

Corsair on March 27, 2008 at 5:03 PM

You’re absolutely correct if the premise is “Thou shalt not commit murder”. I was responding to the “Thou shalt not kill” (not “not murder”) arguement posted by another commenter. If one believes that the commandment is “Thou shalt not kill” it’s an absolute, but it is contradicted by such edicts as “an eye for an eye” and “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

There are many biblical and religious arguements that can be brought into play on the death penalty. Most of them self-cancelling, as in “Thou shalt not kill” vs. “an eye for and eye”.

Why is this self canceling? “thou shalt not kill murder” is a starting event. An eye for an eye is justice(response to first event). There are minor differences among the three time periods(Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian) but all allow for government punishment for crimes. And limited vigilante justice was allowed in at least the Mosaic law.

God established the death penalty under Noah, before there were any Jews or Christians (Genesis 9). “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” This law is for all people.

Akzed on March 27, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Actually, at Noah’s time, God established government by man. The wages of sin were death before Noah. In Hebrews, (probably) Paul said, “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” That was the case from the beginning.

I bet this murderer would not be getting as much sympathy if the police officer he murdered was black.

I disagree. You see, the problem with liberals who decry the death penalty (especially for cop killers)and who set murderers on some philosophical pedestal is that they don’t see the police as black, white, asian, or anything but “The Man”, “government thugs”, or “the oppressors of society”. To them, killing a police officer, regardless of race or gender, is all part of he “struggle” against the oppressors.

There again, a liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been robbed or shot at yet.

A US federal appeals court on Thursday overturned the death sentence passed against human rights campaigner Mumia Abu-Jamal, while upholding his conviction for the murder of a police officer.

the fact is that the phrase, ‘Human Rights Campaigner’ and talking about his murder charge IN THE SAME SENTENCE is crazy..

mikeyboss on March 27, 2008 at 3:49 PM

There are many biblical and religious arguements that can be brought into play on the death penalty. Most of them self-cancelling, as in “Thou shalt not kill” vs. “an eye for and eye”.

On the basis of the “Thou shalt not kill” arguement, any killing for any reason would be unjustified, including all wars. Whatever your position is on the current global war, many wars throughout history were undeniablly justified even though they resulted in the killing of thousands. War IS justified under certain circumstances, most particularly when a society or nation’s way of life is threatened. War also serves as a dterrent to others with an eye to disrupting the way of life of another nation or society. Taking that arguement to the death penalty, it can be justified (perhaps even supported) by the fact that vicious killers within our society do indeed pose a threat to our way of life. Similarly, the death penalty can also serve as a deterrent to others who want to, or don’t care if they, destroy our society.

I abhor killing, I’ve seen too much of it. But there are circumstances when the greater good is served by judicious (and swift) application of the death penalty.

right2bright on March 27, 2008 at 1:44 PM

I’m not 100% married to either side of the argument, though I lean against the death penalty because of “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” How do you square this with the passage you quoted earlier? This is a sincere question; I’d like to learn more about what others think of the morality of the death penalty.

Thank you for your service.

Professor Blather on March 27, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Thank you, but not necessary. It was my honor and privilege to serve.