Sandy Jerstad tries to kill the death penalty.

Sandy Jerstad just gave whomever her 2008 opponent will be a massive issue. She just prime sponsored a measure to repeal the death penalty:
Senate Bill 161: An Act to repeal the death penalty and commute certain death sentences to life imprisonment.

Sponsors:
Jerstad, Bartling, Katus, Kloucek, Koetzle, and Nesselhuf and Representatives Thompson, Burg, Elliott, Glenski, and Lucas.
I seem to recall writing a while back that something in the neighborhood of 70% of South Dakotans are solidly in support of the death penalty. I would assume that these same people would compromise a significant constituency. So why would they bring such a measure?

It will probably get killed in committee, but I'd love to see an up or down vote on the floor on the issue.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Good for Sandy.

She's actiong on her conscience.

I'm sure all pro-lifers will agree that it doesn't matter what the voters think when it comes to the State deciding to kill someone.
Anonymous said…
This is same position that Rep. Hal Wick has who has been elected may times in her District.

Wick believes anti death penalty is the Pro Life position.
Anonymous said…
I thought Republicans were pro-life?

I hate to break this to you, guys, but when someone is executed, THEY DIE.
Anonymous said…
Good. This would be a real pro-life stance right?

Not just the pro life when it suits me and kill those I don't like.

The bloodthirsty desire for revenge from some people who say they are pro life just boggles the mind.
feasant said…
This is political BS. The pro abortionists, who think it is okay to kill an "innocent" child, some how try to link the death penalty of a "guilty" person with the killing of "innocent" victims.

Elliot signs on to this but says it is okay to kill children, what a jerk!

By the way to let the air out of you Liberals, I am pro life and I now am against the death penalty. Before you blast me name one wealthy person put to death in the last decade.
Anonymous said…
how can you compare the innocent life of a fetus, even one conceived in rape or incest, with the life of a criminal?

i don't care if he's poor or not. he's still a criminal.
Anonymous said…
As a registered republican I am pro life but I do disagree with most in my party as I am anti death penalty. But, I always go back to what would Jesus do/think. I believe he thinks it is wrong to kill another person regardless of the crime and that's why I would support this. Can't say I would agree with Sandy on much else though.
Anonymous said…
Plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of this issue among the pro-life and pro-choice folks. It is difficult to understand how a truly pro-life person can favor the death penalty, and how a pro-choicer can be against the death penalty. But such is life (pun sort of intended).
Anonymous said…
2:57 It's not rocket science. I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty because I don't believe the State has the right to force women to give birth who don't want to do it. In short, I don't believe government should have the power to either force a life into existance or to take one out.

It's all about limiting Goverrnment control and ownership of property (our own bodies).
Anonymous said…
District 32 gave up Elli for Katus. What a bunch of idiots.

3:54 pm - The state doesn't force woman to get pregnant. It is about saving innocent pre-born children. I don't give a rats @ss that you feel you have a right to KILL innocent pre-born children. You don't care about life and I don't care about your murderous intent.
Anonymous said…
How much more extreme can you get than being supportive of abortion rights and opposing the death penality? Sandy Jerstad is extreme! I am truly pro-life. I oppose both abortion and the death penalty.
Anonymous said…
Are you sure about Jerstad's stance on abortion? I don't think she ever addressed the issue as far as a political stance in the issue, but did hear that her personal views were anti-abortion. Or at least that she felt people should seek other options.
Anonymous said…
the liberal fruitcakes are back in Pierre
Anonymous said…
4:42 The state would be forcing women to bear children against their will, and in effect, appropriating their bodies under such laws as HB1215.

I oppose that. And so should you.

But then, since it's obvious that you don't give a rat's ass about personal liberty, why don't you just come over here and be my bitch, Holmes.

(...just kidding.)
Anonymous said…
There will be no shortage of issues for Wick to use to pound Jerstad with in 08. She's not acquitting herself well at all up here.
Anonymous said…
Keloland tried to save her the other night by giving her a softball interview and she came across OK.

Hal Wick will run against her and if she is smart she will drop down to the house or quit.

It's a shame that she represents part of Lincoln County. The same county that rose up and bravely found Donald Moeller guilty and thankfully sentenced the monster to death.

One other thing: this should be a lesson to all those GOPers in Pierre who saw fit to underfund Bill Earley and now look at what they got.
Bob Newland said…
Good for Sandy. It's way past time that we do away with this barbaric, immoral, whimsical and arbitrary practice. Aside from the fact that it's irrelevant to any deterrence factor.
Anonymous said…
We need more liberal fruitcakes in this state. It would balance out the conservative nutjobs currently in power here.

For pro-lifers, do you realize that all those who are on death were once 'unborn babies'?

What did the the state or society do to help prevent children from becoming people who get on death row? It's sort of like the state created this situation and now they are committing a second wrong by killing them.

How does death penalty help people or society?

It fails to address the symptoms that lead to tragic situations like needing to have a death row. What does it say about our society that says it's okay to hang someone, electrocute them, gas them, shoot them, inject them to with a death cocktail?

To pro-lifers, life is sacred. What should it matter who's life it is? There is no difference between a death row inmate and the so-called 'unborn'. Life is life, isn't it?
GOP Come Home said…
Lets defeat the liberals on both points in one fell swoop tonight. First about Jesus and the Death penalty and then abortion and the death penalty.

Jesus did support the death penalty and He left a hearty biblical record proving the point. Jesus has been so remade by the modern world into a mix of Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Tiny Tim that some of you cannot see the Jesus clearly portrayed in the Bible. Let us look at the record.

Consider this: the Mosaic Law very strongly supported the death penalty and Jesus never once disobeyed the law or taught against it. He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt.5:17). The law made numerous provisions for the death penalty. Jesus did not come to destroy these provisions but to fulfill them. As such, He would have supported the death penalty.

Further, Jesus believed in the death penalty. It was established by God, codified by the law, supported by Jesus Himself and sustained by the Apostle Paul. Theologians have no biblical evidence against it.

Second, if capital punishment teaches that it's permissible to kill, do prison sentences teach that it's permissible to hold someone against his will, and do fines teach that it's permissible to steal?

In actuality, this fallacy confuses killing the innocent with punishing the guilty. To punish the guilty via the death penalty is not to condone the shedding of innocent blood. Just the opposite, in fact, since capital punishment sends a strong message that murder and other capital crimes will not be tolerated and it prevents the killer from killing again.

A related fallacy is that the pro-lifer who defends the right to life of an unborn baby in the mother's womb, but who does not defend the right to life of a convicted murderer on death row, is being morally inconsistent.

There is no inconsistency here: The unborn baby is innocent; the convicted murderer is not. It is the pro-abortion/anti-death penalty liberal who is morally inconsistent, since he supports putting to death only the innocent.

Abolishing the death penalty will never lead to abolishing abortion or a greater respect for life. To the contrary, nations with the death penalty generally restrict abortion more than nations who have abolished the death penalty.

Islamic nations and African nations have the death penalty and also have the most prohibitive abortion laws. By contrast, European nations have abolished the death penalty and have liberal abortion laws.

And before you liberals start in wit the whole theocracy establishment/ right wing conservative nutjob crap, don't. My views are informed as much by science and reason as they are faith and belief.
Anonymous said…
Great line GOP:

"It is the pro-abortion/anti-death penalty liberal who is morally inconsistent, since he supports putting to death only the innocent."
Anonymous said…
12:12. Oh so it was Mother Theresa who said
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." ?

Interesting, I could have sworn that was JC.

And you're right, why even bother with the science?

You can't even get your bible straight.
Anonymous said…
gop come home wrote:
"[N]ations with the death penalty generally restrict abortion more than nations who have abolished the death penalty."

They also make their women wear burkas. And cut off people's heads in the middle of the street for stealing. And prohibit free speech, and the free exercise of religion. And fly planes into American buildings.

We're in great company there, eh?
Douglas said…
"GOP come home" wrote:
"And before you liberals start in wit the whole theocracy establishment/ right wing conservative nutjob crap, don't. My views are informed as much by science and reason as they are faith and belief."

Who wrote the theocratic nonsense, unscientific, unrealistic stuff that preceded your comment above?
Elephant's Memory said…
Thanks to Sandy, Marion Michael Rounds will no longer have to lie to the people about why he won't execute Elijah Page. Loyal Republican legislators should be voting for the ban to help keep Marion off of the hook and to remain consistent on their pro-life position.

At least Sandy's honest about her opposition to the death penalty. Maybe Marion can come out of the closet and profess his Catholic faith's opposition to it ... even though he also lied about the Pope's position on it last fall.
Anonymous said…
Jesus actually didn't take much of a stance on the death penalty. Instead, He frequently noted that His rule was that of his Father in Heaven, and not Caesar's. His support for Caesar's policies was not because he was politically alligned with Caesar, but because he advocated respecting the existing order.

Claiming Jesus was pro-death penalty is rather amusing when you consider the 'turn the other cheek' pronouncement.

As for science, there is absolutely no correlation between use of the death penalty and decreasing crime.

Instead, it is a tribute to our human tendency to desire revenge. We permit state-sanctioned murder for those that are really heinous murderers. But if revenge is really that important and useful, why don't we rape rapists, assault assaulters, steal from stealers, and kidnap the children of kidnappers?

Revenge is a natural response, but it is one that we as a society can move beyond toward something better.

That doesn't make someone a liberal whack job.

It simply means that those people would rather not have the same kind of government policies as Iran, Cuba, Libya, Syria, and China. We can do better.
Anonymous said…
There is a scientific link between the death penalty and decreasing crime:

kill the murderer and he/she will no longer be able to kill or commit another crime again.

Pretty solid scientific link to me!
Douglas said…
"There is a scientific link between the death penalty and decreasing crime:

kill the murderer and he/she will no longer be able to kill or commit another crime again.

Pretty solid scientific link to me!"

Well, no. Not scientific at all. It is irrelevant. Somebody stuck in prison for life is not going to be murdering anybody outside prison.

The idea of deterence has nothing to do with after the crime and punishment.

Start looking at recidivism.
Patti Martinson said…
I am an athiest, so religious arguements and 'What would Jesus Say' have no merit with me.

There is no such thing as 'guilt or innocence' with the so-called 'unborn'. The 'unborn' cannot commit crimes, so how can they be judged guilty or innocences? The 'unborn' are beyond such things as 'guilt' or 'innocence'.
Anonymous said…
What may happen is that those who quietly oppose the death penalty (Gov. Rounds and many legislators) will end up getting a moratorium instead of a repeal.

After all, there are many issues that can use some study:

the issue of whether to use 2 drugs or 3 or 4 or 5, and what combination of drugs and what quantity of drugs, and how to avoid fiascos like Florida's, and the question of innocent people on death row (though not any in SD - it could happen), and whether people suffer pain - constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

And besides, a moratorium coupled with a study might push off any executions so that they wouldn't happen on Rounds' watch - so he can keep up his false claim of being for the death penalty without actually having to back up his words. Having it both ways - Sounds like Rounds, doesn't it?
Anonymous said…
listening to someone purport to speak for god/jesus on anything, but especially who deserves to die, reveals that the difference between them and the muslim nut-balls who have rationalized their actions, is really just one of degree. both sides cloke themselves with righteous rhetoric and pious denouncements of anyone who could possibly have a different point of view.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long