McCrory and Moore would have let this innocent man die

A bittersweet story today in the
News and Observer is guaranteed to ratchet up debate in the gubernatorial race. Here's my take on where things stand.

McCrory: No moratorium.
In his continuing lurch toward the extremist right wing base of Jack Hawke's shrinking Republican Party in North Carolina, Myers Park Pat McCrory insists that there be no moratorium on the death penalty. Despite mountains of evidence that capital punishment is pretty much a stacked deck against poor people and blacks, McCrory stands with a straight face in front of his white Republican donors and says he will oppose ANY moratorium on the death penalty. It's all part of his plan for "safety and security," unless you happen to be a poor, black man like Glen Chapman.

Richard Moore: No moratorium.
His reasons may be different, but Richard Moore comes down in the same place as McCrory. Moore cites his time as a federal prosecutor, saying that he believes it is necessary for some crimes.

"I do believe in capital punishment," he said. "I do believe that there is biblical evil that lives among us and for some crimes you give up the right to be here on the Earth with the rest of us."

However, Moore added, he does not think the system is currently being implemented fairly and he wants to make sure it is reformed.



Beverly Perdue: Keep the moratorium in place.
Beverly Perdue said she supports capital punishment and the de facto moratorium currently in place.

*******************

I can understand someone feeling strongly that the death penalty is right for certain crimes, though I'm not sure I'd invoke the Bible to make my case. But I can't understand how any thoughtful policy-maker could support a fatally flawed system that kills innocent poor people.

From the N&O story:

Chapman is the seventh innocent death row prisoner in North Carolina to be released, according to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

He was sentenced to death in 1994 in the slayings of Betty Jean Ramseur and Tenene Yvette Conley in Hickory. Their bodies were found in abandoned houses in August 1992. Chapman has always denied killing them.

Why was he released? Because the detective who led the murder investigation, Dennis Rhoney, withheld information that a key witness in the Ramseur case identified someone other than Chapman in a photo lineup.

Rhoney, who worked for the Hickory Police Department, also lied during his trial testimony against Chapman, Ervin wrote.

There are plenty of good cops in North Carolina, but there are also more than enough lying scumbags like Dennis Rhoney to cast serious doubt about the ability of our government to avoid killing innocent people in its program of state-sponsored blood lust.

McCrory and Moore will argue that the system worked. Glen Chapman is now a free man after spending 14 god-damned years in prison because of a crooked cop. But Glen Chapman was just plain lucky. We have no way of knowing how many innocent people have gone to their deaths. Or how many more will die if we allow the death penalty to resume.

Sadly, all three of these candidates support the death penalty, but only Perdue has recognized that her position is untenable in the face of mounting evidence that capital punishment cannot be fairly administered. That's why she has come around to supporting the de facto moratorium currently place. In this case, I'll take what I can get.

Update: In the interest of accuracy, headline updated from " . . . would have killed this man."

Comments

Thanks James

I feel myself on the cusp of actually making a decision in this race.

No ... I think I'm there.

I can't for the life of me understand why any state official would not want to -- at the very least -- KNOW that no innocent was being put to death in NC, even if they believe in capital punishment. It baffles my brain.

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry Truman

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

haven't we realized it's not good policy

This is only my second blog comment ever - I'm a big blog stalker but not so much a commenter. I just found this story to be so upsetting. Isn't rotting in jail enough punishment? Take away the television and exercise and just make them stare at bare walls all day! What is Moore thinking? I can understand the pandering from the GOP candidates, but in this day and age, where DNA and other technologies are proving so many innocent - as a prosecutor he should know that nothing is absolute and that the truth should be more important than the punishment.

sorry to wax poetic on this, but I feel like capital punishment is the issue that should just die.

headline is inaccurate

It's no more accurate than saying Bev Perdue thinks those who've been put to death in North Carolina should have been tortured first. (I don't care that the comment I'm referring to from Bev Perdue is from her days as a legislator. The comment was made in an official capacity and she's never backed away from it publicly.)

The fact is, this man should have never been on death row. This man should have never been jailed. This man should have never been tried for a crime he didn't commit. I want to know which one of our candidates will see to it that our current system changes. Which one of our candidates will work to have a system that is fair to everyone charged with a crime? Is it the person/people comfortable working in the current good old boy system? The good old boy system is why our state has many of the problems we currently face.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Accuracy

Headline accuracy doesn't much matter to me when we have to candidates who want to be governor that don't support a moratorium on the death penalty.

Maybe you're willing to wait for the "system" to get fixed so that a guy like this doesn't end up in jail in the first place, but I'm not. Until it IS fixed, a moratorium is in order.

The biblical wrong Richard Moore should be worried about is the one that runs a risk of the government killing innocent people.

So, you're ok with a headline that reads.....

"Once We're Back to Killin' People, Perdue Wants to Torture them First" ?

I'm all for the moratorium until we can figure out a way to end state sponsored killing all together.

Moore and McCrory would not have killed this man anymore than Bev Perdue would have tortured him.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Changed

I changed the damn headline to avoid getting distracted by a side debate about my choice of words.

But it doesn't change the bottom line. Moore, McCrory, Smith, and Graham don't support the moratorium. Perdue (and maybe Orr) do.

All of these people have said a lot of stupid stuff in the past, and Perdue has said more than her fair share. And I like to think most of them have learned from their mistakes. I don't want a governor who will lift the moratorium ... and make no mistake, it will be up to the governor.

Words and accuracy are important

Thank you.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

old quote

Betsy,

I made that quote more than a decade ago, and I'm sorry. I know that we must make sure that innocent people are not on death row and that's why I favor the current moratorium.

Thank you.

I don't know if Betsy's around this afternoon, but I am ... and I thank you for making this statement.

Meaning?

I appreciate and respect that Senator Perdue came back to this blog to answer further, and I don't expect that she can continue to do so given her schedule, but I still have to comment here -- In all seriousness, what does the moratorium really mean?

Does it mean that a set of standards are going to emerge that are going to eliminate lying witnesses, over-zealous prosecutors and inept defense counsel?
No. It doesn't. It can't. And frankly, that's not the purpose of the moratorium. The purpose of the moratorium is to gain momentum for the campaign to overthrow the death penalty.

The fact that a moratorium is proposed allows Senator Perdue to straddle the fence so that those of us who want to vote for SOME democratic candidate can rationale the choice to go with Beverly "wait a while, THEN resume executing them" Perdue rather than Richard "Smite 'Em" Moore.

People talk about the moratorium as though it were going to be a cleansing filter. It isn't. We are not going to "cure" the factors that contribute to wrongful convictions. Stupidity, ignorance, venality and prejudice aren't going to be eliminated by new rules of criminal procedure.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

let's crawl before we walk Brunette

particularly if there are bullets flying over head.

This isn't an easy subject for a lot of people. People got a right to be pissed about criminal violence, and you got to be careful how you talk to people that are pissed.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Moi?

I know. But I'm not really aiming my point at those who *like* the fact that we have a death penalty.

I certainly understand about being pissed, and have entertained many ghastly thoughts about what I'd do to someone who hurt a loved one of mine, but the death penalty isn't supposed to be about making pissed off people feel better.

And I'd like to know what anyone who claims to be FOR the Death Penalty *and* for the moratorium thinks the moratorium is about.

I think Perdue knows better.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bev Perdue!

I realize it is an old quote, but it was made in an official capacity and I'm not going to assume you've moved away from it unless you say so. (I was being extreme in my interpretation of that quote to prove a point to James, though.....)

I am so happy to hear this and I hope beyond hope that if you are our next governor you will find the people, the time, the research - whatever it takes - to move you from moratorium to abolishing the death penalty. If you lead, maybe the legislature will follow.

I logged in just to let you know that this comment is a big bright spot in my day. Thank you!



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I guess Moore wants to "smite" them...

...just like the Bible says. I am not very happy about the choices for governor this year but I'm leaning to Perdue, mainly because she does suppor the moratorium.

Perhaps Moore should be running for head pastor rather than governor. I want someone who believes the constitution of our state is the highest authority we humans can appeal to for earthly matters, not someone who uses the holy book of one religion as his guide.

yeah, yeah, BUT

Fer starters, there are folks on this blog who apparently support the death penalty -- smiting 'em and such, yet we aren't accusing them of wanting to mix religion in with government.

Fer seconds, a lot of people use the word "biblical" in secular observation. I'm not saying that's what Moore was doing, but use of that word in expressions meant to convey something of major impact is something that a lot of us English major geek types might do -- without having a belief system that relies upon faith in the Bible as the word of God. I use LOTS of biblical expressions because it's old and classical and all western civilizationesque and I'm an old cranky fan of dusty tomes.

For thirds, and not actually appropo of Paul's comment, does anyone know what Bob Orr's position on the death penalty is?

It strikes me as interesting that we have folks here all flirty with the concept of jumping on board with Bob (and I'm not saying I don't see the attraction, 'cause I do) when he isn't necessarily all that dang progressive. He wasn't forced to join the GOP, which is still, last time I looked, anti-Gay, anti-choice and pro-death penalty.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Let me add...

...that my vote for governor this year is definatly going to be a lesser of two evils vote; neither Moore nor Perude deserves to win, they are spending literally millions of dollars on ads, just about all negative. Perhaps we grassroots Dems need to organize an "nobody for Governor" campaign to catch their attention.

This is the one area that I really, really can't see

where Moore is coming from. What he says doesn't even make sense to me. I wish I could put my fingertips on the quote. It made me feel very uncomfortable. This is my biggest negative for him and if I were a one issue voter this would be the one that would send me to the other camp.

Honestly, for me it came across as Moore was trying to out-good old boy Bev Perdue....almost like he was pandering.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I've thought a lot about it

Moore was a prosecutor, and I'm sure he's seen stuff that would make us cringe and run for cover. I know a handful of prosecutors and they are all pro-death penalty. I assume his comments are from the heart.

But he's also a smart guy and he knows in that same heart that the moratorium is necessary until the system can be brought under control. He may also know in his heart that things really can't be brought under control.

I confess that I would support the death penalty if I knew beyond any doubt that it could be carried out fairly. I just don't see any way that "fair" can be achieved in the here and now. Judging from what I see in the wake of the Wright controversy, deep and intense racism is truly alive and well in our country and in our state.

Prosecutor or not....

I don't see how anyone could read the report that was out last year (and if I could find it I would link to it) and believe that the system is fair. I appreciate that you are trying to see where Moore is coming from and you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, but he's a white man, he's been given the benefit of the doubt all his life.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

OK...that's a little harsh

I just wish Richard Moore would make a little more effort to walk in the other man's shoes. There's nothing he can do to correct the past, but he might ensure the citizens of NC a better shot at justice no matter their skin color, country of origin, gender, wallet or the area of the state in which they live.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

deleted dupe

Somehow, I got a duplicate post.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Shoot.

Looks like I deleted your "other" dupe ... which means you're now non-existent.

Sorry.

I think Moore thinks he's in a safe position to say this,

because the NC Medical Board gave the Council of State an out by telling doctors that they could be investigated and even lose their licenses by participating in an execution. The "de facto" moratorium we have will not go away until the legislature finds a humane way of killing someone.

So Moore can sound tough on crime, with the knowledge that if he wins as Governor, he may never have to send anyone to their death.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Uncomfortable quote

Betsy --

I don't think you need to search for the quote that makes you uncomfortable. The quote that's at the top of the post gives me pause.

"I do believe in capital punishment," he said. "I do believe that there is biblical evil that lives among us and for some crimes you give up the right to be here on the Earth with the rest of us."

Fair enough.

However, Moore added, he does not think the system is currently being implemented fairly and he wants to make sure it is reformed.

Here's where he loses me. Once you've conceded that the system is not fair and that it needs to be reformed, I believe you've accepted that there are people unfairly on death row--and you don't even have to believe they are innocent people to agree that there is something wrong here. It seems unreasonable... in fact, it just seems mean.

Moore would have just lost me, if I could vote

There is that damnable factor of still being an Indiana resident.

As an aside, my wife and I have to be registered by the 7th of April to vote in the May 6th primary. Do you guys have same-day registration? How is this primary working for you guys?

I gathered from other threads that you seem to have some super-early and easy-to-use absentee balloting.

/from the Hoosier State, land not of the right to vote, but of the license to vote

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

We DO have same day registration!

It just passed last year. :D



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

When are you moving?

You have to have lived in NC for at least 30 days on the day of the election to register.

For information about One-Stop and Same Day registration, go here.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

June-ish

The exact date depends on the availability of what apartment we go with, but ca. June 1st.

I'm stickin' around long enough to vote in Indiana's primary. Are you kidding? My vote will count for once!

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Innocent?

I'm going to preface what I'm about to say with another statement: I'm for a moratorium on the death penalty because the system is obviously inadequate and potentially needs to be scrapped.

However, reading through the coverage of the story -- which is actually bad coverage -- it appears that prosecutors, investigators and Chapman's original defense so miserably bungled Chapman's case that prosecutors didn't have one when all was said and done.

All that does not equate to innocent. It does, however, equate to an unfair trial.

I hope, with all my heart, that he is an innocent man. But no one here can say for sure either way, and we won't know because his case was so poorly handled that he'll not get a real trial. Without a fair trial, no one can legitimately claim that he is either innocent or guilty -- we simply don't know. A newspaper -- especially -- cannot say either is correct.

As it is, Chapman is simply a man who was released after charges were dropped. This is not the same as another killer being found or exoneration by DNA evidence.

--Arcangelo

Good point.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Then again

if one holds to the notion that a man is innocent until proven guilty then Chapman is innocent.

... but I see your point.

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry Truman

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

This notion of innocence,

or about holding that a man is innocent until proven guilty is a philosophical stance of limited utility and even more limited application.

The statement is only meant to stand for what jurors are supposed to hold in their heads from the starting point of any trial to their final deliberations. The state theoretically bears the full burden of disputing the assumption of "innocence." To do so, the state has to meet whatever standard of evidence applies to that trial to the jury's satisfaction. Of course, juries are made of people, and people are unpredictable, emotional and often unreasonable critters.

No jury in the United States ever pronounces a man "innocent." He (or she) is either "guilty" or "not guilty" (or "guilty but bonkers" or some other variation). If the jury thinks the standard of proof was met, the subject is pronounced "not guilty," but never "innocent."

A person may be found "not guilty" by a jury but remain a pariah in his community because the court of public opinion disagrees with the jury. No one is obliged to regard a person as exonerated -- whatever happens in a court of law -- because the only thing the court of law can determine is whether the state met its burden of proof. No one can say a person is innocent.

A person may be ruined by the fact of indictment, even if later it is determined that the indictment was based on flawed or even fabricated evidence. A person may be ruined because his name is published in the paper as the accused in a rape or child molestation case -- no matter what the outcome of those charges may be.

And a person may commit a murder, perhaps brag about it, and yet get away with it if the trial is flawed, if evidence is tainted, if someone whose testimony was considered key is found to have perjured him or herself, if a key witness disappears, if the state can't afford the cost of retrying, etc . . . etc . . .

No one ever gets to be innocent, though.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Well, I suppose if you follow certain Judeo-Christian creeds

no man is innocent, because they are born in sin. Guilty from the word go. Which I think is ridiculous, by the way, and an awful burden to hang around the necks of kids. I think it has colored child-rearing over the last umpteen hundred years, resulted in thousands of cases of child abuse, and millions of cases of low self esteem. Seriously - it's a shame. Children as a special gift of life from the Universe - I defy anyone to hold a newborn in their arms and honestly believe that child is full of sin.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Completely different concept

Just to be clear on my point -- I wasn't talking about or in any way intending to allude to the Judeo-Christian concept of "innocence." A spiritual or religious concept of innocence, purity, what-have-you is a far cry from whether or not a jury or a judge has evaluated all available evidence and decided whether a legal standard of probability (from "clear and convincing" to "beyond a reasonable doubt.")

I was talking ONLY about the concept as it applies (or rather, doesn't) to our legal system.

Two very different conversations.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

But is it really that far away?

Religious concepts are all through the court system. Witnesses are asked to swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, with their right hand raised and their left hand on the bible." No matter their faith. If they ask for a different way of affirming that they are telling the truth, the court can make a big hairy deal over it, and imply to the jury that this person is "other", not like US. Judeo-christian concepts are so interwoven in our society that they often go unnoticed by most people.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

yes it really is that far away

Back when determination of "innocence" was the object of a trial, people were dunked in water (God would save the innocent from drowning) or asked to grasp white-hot irons (God would prevent the innocent from being scarred).

The King was considered the law. This was considered "just" because the King was supposedly King because God wanted him to be. He had a divine right.

Fast forward now past the Magna Carta and other developments in English and American jurisprudence.

The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not the state has met the burden of proof that it assumes upon accusing someone of a crime. That is why American jurisprudence does not have a verdict of "innocent." The state either does meet its burden or it doesn't. "Guilty" means the burden was met; "not guilty" means it wasn't met.

Our system acknowledges that we cannot know (as a state) what is in a person's heart or soul. The State cannot know whether a person is innocent. You and I might know, if we personally witnessed the accused sleeping soundly at the time of crime, but the State can't know that. Thus it relies upon a jury of disinterested peers to evaluate evidence.

The system hasn't broken down even when a murderer walks free as long as the trial was fair. Murderers on the loose isn't an ideal result, but the philosophy underlying the system is that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than it is to convict one who is falsely accused (this is the only sense in which the concept of "innocence" is woven into our judicial system). The system fails, however, when a fair trial was denied because of malfeasance on the part of the prosecutor or perjured testimony or by when members of a jury use something (such as prejudice) other than the evidence presented in court to make a decision.

The fact that this happens more often than any of us can be comfortable with is why I oppose the death penalty. Another reason is that I think vengeance is a poor cause for state action.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

I agree with this,

Another reason is that I think vengeance is a poor cause for state action.

and I also feel that making random citizens complicit in this vengeance is more about the state absolving itself from guilt than it is about making sure the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold is achieved.

And as far as "innocent until proven guilty" is concerned, that's a mythical construct of the system. The average juror takes their seat with the preconceived notion that the defendent is guilty of the charge against him/her, and it takes a monumental cock-up by the prosecution or an extremely compelling argument by the defense (or both) to dislodge that notion.

Until we can achieve a state of total objectivity, we have no business deciding if someone lives or dies, no matter how clinical and refined we make the process appear.

Agreed, Steve

Until we can achieve a state of total objectivity, we have no business deciding if someone lives or dies, no matter how clinical and refined we make the process appear.

This is why I can say I support the death penalty in concept ... because it can actually never be fairly carried out in practice. I share your conditions and am quite confident that "total objectivity" is literally impossible for either the human mind or culture are achieve.

Huh?

This doesn't quite make sense:

I also feel that making random citizens complicit in this vengeance is more about the state absolving itself from guilt than it is about making sure the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold is achieved.

I'm not sure I understand this, so I'm going to rephrase it and let you tell me if I've interpreted you correctly. You seem to be saying that "the State" is an actual thinking being, and that it pulls a jury together in order to put distance between itself (the state doesn't have a self, for starters)and "guilt" over the question of whether justice were served in a given case.

The State is not a monolithic entity but a theoretical construct. It has no capacity to erect strawmen. Human beings erect strawmen. Human beings enact, implement and enforce laws.

Assuming that I read you correctly, it sounds as though you've misconstrued the jury's origin, purpose and function. What do you suppose is the theory behind the right to a fair trial (which includes the right to a jury in criminal cases)?

It almost sounds as though you were saying that the jury is just an artifice set up by "the man" to run roughshod over citizens.

But that's nuts, so surely that's not what you're saying.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

No, that's not what I mean.

Assuming that I read you correctly, it sounds as though you've misconstrued the jury's origin, purpose and function. What do you suppose is the theory behind the right to a fair trial (which includes the right to a jury in criminal cases)?

It almost sounds as though you were saying that the jury is just an artifice set up by "the man" to run roughshod over citizens.

Trial by jury is the cornerstone of our justice system, and requiring a unanimous verdict is a critical aspect of that.

What I'm talking about is the belief that taking a life is acceptable because 12 jurors agreed with the prosecution that the person should die. Whenever the ethics of the death penalty comes up, people often point to the jury as an answer to that question. What seldom gets mentioned, however, is the fact that the prosecution (through voir dire) can summarily excuse potential jurors if they don't believe in the death penalty. So where's the ethics in that?

I'm not saying there should be no jury in a capital case, I'm saying there should be no capital cases, period.

<whew>

Ok, I got ya. I've never heard that argument before but I see what you're saying. In other words, people say, "hey it was a fair trial," and leave it at that.

I'm guessing that most of the people who make that point are white, have not followed the reports on the studies of the disproportionate number of African Americans sentenced to death in this country (compared to whites accused of the same crimes), and aren't particularly worried that they or any of their loved ones will ever be in a position to receive a death sentence.

I started to say in an earlier comment that the only reasonable moratorium legislation would be that which has an end conditioned upon our eliminating prejudice, perjury, delusion, bad faith and spite from our make-up.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Unfortunately, that would require

I started to say in an earlier comment that the only reasonable moratorium legislation would be that which has an end conditioned upon our eliminating prejudice, perjury, delusion, bad faith and spite from our make-up.

people having the guts to admit these faults exist or are more than just an occasional deviation from righteous justice.

To be honest, my problems with the death penalty are all over the place, ranging from the technical to the philosophical. At least one place where those two merge is the fact that the wealthy can afford much better legal representation than their more humble counterparts.

Just that fact alone should be enough to cause most people to doubt the fairness of the system.

can we get both Moore and Perdue to stop these negative ads?

As a member of the Dem state exec comm, I am drafting a letter to both candidates asking them to quit running these negative ads. I don't know about anyone else, but they are both turning my stomach. If the GOP wasn't such a train wreck, I would seriously consider voting for their canidate in November, that is how fed up I am. Any other SEC members who want to join me in this please email me at pfalduto@nc.rr.com. You will, of course, be shown a copy of the letter before you put your name on it.

So...vote for Perdue

and no innocent people will face the death penalty or be incarcerated?

WHY NOT SAY..."VOTE FOR PERDUE AND WE WILL END THE DEATH PENALTY?"

Is this her position? Or will innocent people face the death penalty after the moratorium is over?

Hell no.

She's going to be really, really sure they're not innocent before she has them executed. How will she be sure? Torture~!

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Barkeep!

I'll have two of whatever you brought Brunette.

Gods help us if one of those two (Perdue or Moore) had to take an actual stand on something.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Tried to find N&O link...

...but it was broken on this post.

I'd be curious to see what kind of coverage they are giving my guy (Orr) on this. It's easier to find McCrory's stand because (as of last week) there are only 300 words on his Issues section while on Orr's there were more than 20,000.

I'll go and look for it; but I'd thought you might want to fix it.

Cabarruscheapseats.com: Reasoned Discussion of Cabarrus County, NC News & Politics

Pages