The ‘Botched’ Oklahoma Execution Of Clayton Lockett And The (Un)Principled Liberal Objections To The Death Penalty

Clayton Lockett is a perfect victim for liberals.  After all, he was a black man put to death in a conservative state by a white Republican governor.

The fact that he is a vile cockroach who is getting his chance to burn in hell now after having brutally raped a woman, shot her in the head with a shotgun and then had her buried alive truly doesn’t mean one damn thing to liberals.

You read the outraged liberal accounts of the “botched” execution (from what I hear, the state was actually quite successful in accomplishing the murderer’s death) and again and again you see all the outrage directed at the manner the murderer died and nothing about the demonic horror that the murderer imposed on his victim.

A man who inflicted a horrifying death on his victim died having suffered slightly more pain than the painless death that liberals demand.  That’s what happened in Oklahoma.  And you’d think the Republican governor had personally put a poor, innocent man on a rack and flayed him alive herself.

And, of course, he same liberals who erupt in horror that anyone would so much as suggest that Obama’s use of the IRS to persecute his political opponents or his cover-up of the cover-up in Benghazi where he falsely claimed a Youtube video (rather than “a broader failure in policy”) was to blame, are essentially demanding that the Oklahoma governor resign in shame over this execution.

It’s amazing: investigations are fascist when they are directed at a liberal and heroic when they are directed against an opponent of liberalism 100% of the time.  And it doesn’t seem how blatantly evil liberals have to be to maintain their “victim.”  Even going to making a “victim” out of Clayton Lockett.

I like the way Goldberg responds:

“As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.”

You’re damn right he got off easy.  It would have been a nice object lesson had 19-year-old victim Stephanie Nieman’s family members been able to administer Lockett’s execution.  I suspect it would have taken a lot longer and been an awful lot more painful.  And he STILL would have got off easy were it not for the fact that there is a fiery and eternal hell of torment awaiting Lockett and those like him as they leave this world.

Jonah Goldberg did a brilliant job dismantling several of the key arguments of the left regarding the death penalty.  I shall give a brief summary and post his article below.

The first objective liberals love to use is that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime.  They can claim that because, when it takes DECADES and a dozen lengthy court dramas to finally execute somebody, there are so many years between the act and the punishment of the act that it very likely doesn’t have much of a deterrence effect.  I know that if a powerful man walked into a bar and beat the biggest guy in there to a pulp and then asked, “Does anybody else want to be next?” the bloody unconscious body of the broken man on the floor would very much have a giant deterrence effect to the man who would want some of what that guy just got.  Nobody would want any of what that guy just got.

Contrast that with the following scenario: somebody gets to get up and punch the powerful man repeatedly in the face and the powerful man can’t do anything about it for, oh, say 25 years or so.  And then maybe, MAYBE, he will be allowed to give the guy who hit him the beat-down he deserved DECADES ago.  Does that sound like it’s going to deter anybody?  Because that’s the way liberals have “fundamentally transformed” our capital punishment system.  Only to claim it “doesn’t deter.”

That’s simply the way that human psychology works.  And unless you aren’t human, it works that way for you, too.  Deterrence is real, baby.  But only when criminals actually pay the price for their crimes.

Liberals have made it impossible for the wheels of justice to provide such genuine deterrence.

Goldberg deals with this “deterrence” objection masterfully, pointing out that it would literally be wrong to kill somebody just to provide an object lesson for other people.  As Goldberg puts it, “It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.”  And when you stop and think about it, that’s entirely true.  In other words, as he demonstrates, “deterrence” doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rationale for the death penalty; it is nothing more than a red herring that the left keeps throwing up and the right too-frequently foolishly attempts to respond to.

“If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.”  That is JUSTICE.  If it deters as well, so much the better.

Then he moves on to another red herring: racial injustice over the statistical fact that black people are proportionately more likely to be executed than white people.  He says, “Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.”

How is that not true?

If you in any way, shape or form agree with the statement that one ought to be sentenced and punished according to the crimes that one committed, rather than the statement that justice should have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual criminal but ought to somehow reflect the broader society, how is any argument that guilty black murderers shouldn’t be executed simply because somewhere a guilty white murderer wasn’t executed?  How does that not amount to children squabbling over one of the children getting more of whatever and therefore they should get more, too?

We shouldn’t allow childish arguments to interfere with JUSTICE.

If we need to do a better job to make justice blind to race, then let’s pursue that: but to say that we’re going to abandon JUSTICE because of some statistical shenanigans is outrageous.

That is also how Goldberg responds to the final charge: that innocent people may have been executed in the past and therefore could be in the present or future.  Goldberg’s point is brilliant:

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Do you understand that, liberal?  Given that we have had NUMEROUS events in which the police have killed an innocent person, do you therefore want to abolish the police the way you demand we abolish the death penalty?  Or are you an inconsistent hypocrite instead?  (That’s rhetorical because the answer is obvious: rich liberals need armed people to protect them from poor liberals who would rob them and do worse if they could).  In the same way, it actually gets hard to name a branch of the federal government that hasn’t committed some gross injustice against an innocent victim: and yet the crickets chirp in lieu of liberals demanding that these federal monstrosities be abolished as a result.

In other words, abolishing the death penalty is refuted by the very same liberals who won’t abolish all the OTHER government systems that have been FREQUENTLY documented to have trampled the rights of the innocent.  We need to do a far better job of administering the death penalty, but if you’re going to abolish the death penalty, let’s abolish the federal government along with it if we’re going to be consistent rather than being liberal hypocrites.

Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless
By Jonah Goldberg

Last week the state of Oklahoma “botched” an execution..

Botched is the accepted term in the media coverage, despite the fact Clayton Lockett was executed. He just died badly, suffering for 43 minutes until he eventually had a heart attack.

Oklahoma’s governor has called for an investigation. President Obama asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (who is seeking the death penalty in the Boston Marathon bombing case), to review the death penalty.

Obama’s position was a perfectly defensible straddle: “The individual … had committed heinous crimes, terrible crimes, and I’ve said in the past that there are certain circumstances where a crime is … so terrible that the application of the death penalty may be appropriate.”

On the other hand, Obama added: “I’ve also said that in the application of the death penalty … we have seen significant problems, racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to be innocent.

“We do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions.”

As a death penalty supporter, I agree. Although, I’m not sure we’d agree on what those questions — and answers — should be.

As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.

He and his accomplices abducted two teenage girls (as well as a man and his baby). One of them, Stephanie Neiman, refused to say she wouldn’t tell the police, so Lockett shot her with a shotgun. But she didn’t die. He ordered his accomplices to bury her alive. Here’s an AP summary of his crimes, in addition to first-degree murder: “conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear.” Maybe you can weep for the man. I can’t.

Let’s get back to those difficult and profound questions. Capital punishment opponents offer many arguments why people like Lockett shouldn’t be executed. They point out that there are racial disparities in how the death penalty is administered, for example. This strikes me as an insufficient argument, much like the deterrence argument from death penalty supporters. Deterrence may have some validity, but it alone cannot justify the death penalty. It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.

Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.

The most cynical argument against the death penalty is to point out how slow and expensive the process is. But it is slow and expensive, at least in part, because opponents have made it slow and expensive, so they can complain about how slow and expensive it is.

As for humaneness, Lockett’s execution was botched — “inhumane” — in part because Oklahoma had to use a new drug regimen because anti-death penalty advocates had successfully lobbied the maker of a component of an earlier formula to stop making that drug available for executions.

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Radley Balko, a death penalty opponent, in a piece in the Washington Post, says that ultimately both sides of the death penalty debate have irreconcilable moral convictions. I think he’s right. As far as I’m concerned, Lockett deserved to die for what he did. Everything else amounts to changing the subject, and it won’t convince me otherwise.

Clayton Locket is screaming in hell right now and he’ll be viscerally screaming one hundred trillion millennia of years from now.  And thank God for that justice.

 

Ft. Hood Massacre: Obama Confronted By SECOND Successful Domestic Terrorist Attack

Update, November 9: First of all, the body count should be updated to fourteen, as a pregnant woman was killed, and her baby died with her.

Second, we now have confirmation that Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to contact the terrorist organization al-Qaeda.  Just in case anyone was still wondering whether this guy was a terrorist.

Ft. Hood, Texas: a Muslim terrorist murdered 13 and wounded 31 unarmed soldiers today.

The moment I heard about this attack, I said to the group I was with, “You watch: the killers are going to be Muslims, and we’re going to be assured they aren’t terrorists.”  And other than the fact that I thought there was more than one shooter, I was pretty much right as rain.

We find out that the guy had his “Islam” issues”:

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan’s computer.

Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.

Hasan attended prayers regularly when he lived outside Washington, often in his Army uniform, said Faizul Khan, a former imam at a mosque Hasan attended in Silver Spring, Md. He said Hasan was a lifelong Muslim.

There is video of Hasan earlier in the day wearing Muslim dress.

Hasan was “hoping” for Obama’s “change,” and apparently couldn’t wait for Obama to deliver on all the appeasement and surrender-to-terrorists promises that he’d made.

Let me that, since Hasan did not see the difference between a suicide bomber and a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, I wish he’d just decided to throw himself on a grenade, instead.

I’m guessing he COULD tell the difference, after all.

We also find out from Hasan’s co-workers that Hasan loudly said that the “Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.”  They initially assumed he meant that Muslims should stand up and fight the terrorists like al-Qaeda.  But he made it clear to them that he meant Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan should turn against their American allies and join the terrorists.

Hasan was objectively against the United States.  Both vocally and in writing, he expressed Jihadist statements.  He obtained weapons and murdered as many unarmed soldiers as he could.  He is a terrorist.

If that isn’t enough, there’s this from the Los Angeles Times:

A witness has told investigators that the Army major who allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Ft.  Hood Army Base Thursday shouted  “Allahu Akbar” — Arabic for “God is Great” and the rallying cry of suicide bombers around the world — before unleashing his bloody assault that left 13 dead and 30 others wounded.

In a briefing with reporters this morning at the base, Col. John Rossi said, “We do have a witness who reported that.”

And this morning on NBC’s “Today” show, Lester Holt aired tape of the father of a soldier who said that his daughter told him the same thing.

For what it’s worth, experts in Arabic say that “Allah Akbar” doesn’t actually mean, “God is great.”  It really means, “Allah is GREATER.”

The Qur’an says: “Fight and slay the pagans [Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush” (Surah 9:5).

That’s worthy of mention, given the fact that Hasan was seen handing out Korans just prior to his lethal terrorist attack.

But don’t worry, people.  Nothing to see here.  Obama officials have scurried to assure everyone that this wasn’t a terrorist attack.

Right.

Let me tell you that one of the key ingredients of psychosis is maintaining false and fixed beliefs.  And by that standard, the Obama White House and the mainstream media are nearly as psycho as Major Hasan.

This in actual fact amounts to the second successful terrorist attack against the United States by a Muslim extremist.  Here’s a link to the first, which occurred in June.  We’re told:

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, also known as Carlos Bledsoe, is charged with capital murder and 16 counts of terroristic acts.

According to the police reports, Muhammad admitted to shooting the victims, and then revealed how and why.

He told police that he put three weapons, including an assault rifle, into his SUV and then drove around until he saw the Recruiting Station and the two soldiers smoking outside the building.

He then pulled into the parking lot in front of the station, stopped his vehicle, and began shooting at the soldiers standing outside, firing several rounds from an SKS assault rifle with the intent of killing them. Muhammad also told officers that he would have killed more soldiers if they had been on the parking lot. Muhammad also told police he was a practicing Muslim, and that he was mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past.

That’s one more attack than President Bush suffered throughout his entire eight year presidency, you should know.

Of course, Bush learned his lesson, and then he taught the terrorists their lesson.  Bush was surprised, and had to build a system to protect the nation from scratch.  He created plenty of safeguards to defend the country from the next terrorist attack and got them up and running.  But those days are long gone, as Obama knocked down most of those safeguards like lined-up dominoes.

We’ve had a whole mess of attempted terrorist attacks that were broken up between the two successful ones (see here and then here for others).

It seems that the doctrine that Obama’s sheer wonderfulness will stop Muslims from wanting to kill us has a few problems.

Weakness is provacative to jihadists.  And Obama is so, so very weak.

In fact he’s a lot WORSE than weak, given his “response” to the murder of a dozen soldiers.  Can you believe giving a “shout out” to supporters at an event AFTER he knew about the steadily increasing body count? What’s sad is, I can.

Now we are desperately trying to release our Gitmo detainees knowing full well that many of them will return to their terrorist activities to fight and kill American soldiers again.  After all, Obama said he’d free these people.  And it’s about time he kept at least one promise in his life, I suppose.

And as we ponder the horrendous murder of our unarmed soldiers at the hands of a psychiatrist-turned terrorist (remember the medical doctors in the U.K. who unleashed a terror attack?), we have to realize: our president actually tried to release terrorists suspects detained at Gitmo to the United States.  The more the merrier, I suppose.

Obama ended “the war on terror” by redefining it as an “overseas contingency operation.”  No matter, the terrorists are very much on a very different page than Obama.