.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Thursday, September 07, 2006


Al-UH Daily Cougar Columnist Denise Hewitt 'Shows No Concern for Victims of Violent Crime' (Only cares about rising cost of the Death Penalty)

I once asked a liberal who hated the second amendment (for you UH weak minded students, that the Constitutional amendment that allows us to keep and bear arms) what he would do if a person was about to stab his wife and he had a gun in his hand. Essentially, the liberal would have allowed his wife to die.

We have seen it over and over again with liberals. The have no concern for the victim and a growing and forgiving respect for the killer.

A good example would be the beheading of American civilian Nick Berg in Iraq. (I've shown his beheading picture on this blog many times). His father Michael Berg is so liberal that he calls Bush the terrorist and embraces the real killers of his beheaded Son, and now he's running for Congress while trampling on the memory of his son just as Mother Sheehan did her son.

So goes it with al-UH Daily Cougar Columnist Denise E. Hewitt who has only regurgitated the crap that her liberal professors and textbooks have told her, and has never formed any real opinions herself.

In her tripe today "Capital punishment raises questions," Hewitt mourns the long ago executions of gang leader and murderer Ruben Montoya Cantu and of auto mechanic and arsonist Cameron Willingham.

Cantu, as a gang leader, was involved in robbery and besides all the other people he probably killed, Cantu was convicted for the murder of Pedro Gomez and attempted murder of Juan Moreno back in the early 80's.

Cameron Willingham's death sentence was for the murder of his three kids when he set his house on fire in the early 1990's.

No matter the circumstances, liberalism, with its drive-by mentality shows absolutely no concern for the victims of violent crime. Liberals only show compassion for the person sentenced to die. And for liberal choice that Hewitt loving sides with those who kill rather than be killed.

Hewitt takes to her bleeding heart "the Houston Chronicle has presented a compelling case for Cantu's innocence, and the "expert testimony" that helped convict Willingham has been called into serious question," while not once in her tripe today did she mention the words "victim" or "family."

I don't doubt that a few men may have been executed on false testimony, but it is not a reason to put to punish the death penalty system as a whole.

Denise cites from her textbook that "capital punishment has evolved from public hangings in town squares to sterile and secluded execution chambers deep within prison complexes." She actually thinks that Cantu shouldn't have been executed, no matter how many victims and family members lives he's ruined.

Hewitt is so liberal that just because one person may have been wrongly executed that the whole process should be scrapped. She bites at the reasons for the death penalty, but even beneath that to Hewitt it comes down to cost.

Hewitt's concern is for the money that is tied up in appeals for years. Why, because it is not being spent on some stupid liberal social program that hands out condoms to pre-teens while showing them how to properly use them. To Hewitt, the families of murder victims are nothing. Families are not in the headlines; they're unseen.

Denise urges that if you are going to kill someone do it in Brazoria County. "Harris County accounts for 136 out of 396 people currently on death row, compared to neighboring Brazoria County's two," so your chances of being sentenced to death in Brazoria County are greatly reduced. The finances of cash strapped counties have DA's not pursuing the death penalty. Well maybe its time that we have a telethon that raises money for DA's across the state so that they can pursue more death penalty cases.

Thankfully Hewitt admits that "committing a heinous murder in Harris County almost guarantees a capital murder trial," and its unfortunate that "the same murder committed elsewhere in Texas may 'only' mean life in prison."

Unlike Hewitt, I am for "equal punishment" for the crime. That does not mean "life" in prison for a capital murder, it means that the murderer should be executed, and executed in a timely fashion. The death penalty does bring closure for the family of a murder victim.

About the only time I would agree with a "life" sentence in a murder case would be for the person who murders Denise E. Hewitt. That is equal punishment for the crime.

Screw the Godless libs!

Glorifying murder as a way to silence someone with whom you disagree in the same breath as you vocalize your disdain for murder?

Are you serious?
"About the only time I would agree with a "life" sentence in a murder case would be for the person who murders Denise E. Hewitt. That is equal punishment for the crime."

Seriously. You're talking about a college student who just writes for her campus paper. The manner you write in, the time you devote to all this and the ideas you imply suggests you have some latent mental disorder. This isn't an insult; I seriously suggest you visit a medical professional soon.
I'm not going to murder Denise E. Hewitt, nor advocate that anybody does murder Denise. And I'm not going crazy.

I'm just wondering what her family or any one of your families would think if one of you were murdered?

Would your family forgive the killer, and embrace him or her as a new member of the family, or detest them for taking a promising life away from them. Or would they hope for the day of execution to bring closer to the event.

I'm just bringing this up because liberals really have no concern or thoughts given to the families of victims of violent crime unless it really hits home.
There are two reasons why one might support the death penalty - first, because the families of the dead deserve revenge, and second, due to religious reasons.

If you're a supporter of the first type, note that the purpose of law is not to allow the wronged party to atone for the sins of another. If a man is killed and he has no family or friends, his killer is still guilty of murder, and punished accordingly - this is because he broke the law of the state, not because someone deserves a chance to repay the killer.

If you prefer the second reason, well, word to the wise: read your Bible more thoroughly (I assume you are a Christian).

Jesus himself offers several reasons to avoid killing another - in particular, Romans 12:17-21 and Matthew 5:38-42. In both, Jesus forbids us from killing, even when we judge that the person deserves it (like a murderer might, for example). Judgment of that type is, according to Him, reserved for God alone.

Your arguments have been based largely on the concept of eye-for-an-eye - that a murderer deserves to be killed, etc. This is characteristic of Mosaic law, which Jesus argues against in Matthew 5. When Jesus says "you have heard that it was said, 'eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth', but I tell you...", he means to say that he does not support that type of justice.

To be a Christian means to believe in mercy, even for those we detest. To answer your earlier question, if my parents or wife saw me killed, they would be hurt, and to no small degree - but they would not seek death as repayment for my death. There is no joy in that. To honor the dead, we must build anew, not continue the destruction.

I'm pretty sure you have reason to disagree. I want to hear it.
Just in case you don't have a paper copy, here's the verses referred to:

It all boils down to closure. Evidently, you and your family want to be miserable. So be it.

Although I am Catholic I don't support ending the death penalty.
Closure? For real? That's it?

"I need to close this chapter in my life, so I'll take someone else's instead of dealing directly with the sense of loss I feel."

Why did I even bother?
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?