Michigan Votes Forum

Last week I replied replied to a post that alleged that I must favor pollution because I oppose the silly proposed ban on lead shot. In that reply, I wrote, "Yeah, nummy. I stand FOR dirty air, dirty water and pollution of all kinds. That's why I moved to Colorado...somewhere near Golden, actually. You may have seen the commercials. It's really filthy out here!" It continued, "I just stand against red herrings, hidden agendas and the stupidity that allows both to become public policy." The context and sarcasm, I think, are clear. But this is what the anonymous lefty selectively quoted from mine in order to make his childish attack: "I stand FOR dirty air, dirty water and pollution of all kinds." And then he added his opinion, "That is environmental wacko-ism at its apex." He pulled an extreme Carrot Top -- using a sentence out of context as the basis for an attack. He even characterized his misrepresentation of my post as an "admmission" on my part. Good job, libbie. Have you yet managed to figure out the definition of "is?" Jim Arvada, CO

methinks ye protesteth too much. face it, Jimbo, you just don't like getting whacked wikth your own stick. :-)

...disorder time, baby.

THIS LAW WOULD MAKE IT A LOT MORE DIIFICULT FOR HUNTERS TO MAKE THERE OWN AMMO.The guy who likes to make his own shells because it saves him a few bucks or he feels the quality is better will find it a little more difficult working with steel rather lead.This is just another attempt to chip away at our personal freedoms.I also would think this law would have adverse effects on our already staggering economy.I think officals missed the message at mid-terms people I believe are just looking for common sense which this as with so many proposed laws lacks.

get RID of hunting. poor little bambi needs to be left alone to frolic out in front of your car. if you hunt, you are being self sufficient. that will NEVER do. you MUST be reliant on the government and only the government.

has been used on the federal level for decades, nibbling away at our hunting rights and priveleges. the liberals hate hunting and hunters. they hate any use of weapons. they hate weapons. they could truely care less about the environment. environmentalism is only used as a tool to eradicate hunting. watch what happens when you try to put aside some "public" land for the express purpose of hunting.

the recent use of the catholic catechism in this thread is particularly disturbing to me. it is obviously a tactic to get some supposed "religious fundamentalists" on the right to give up supporting the death penalty by death penalty opponents on the left. i notice that the "liberal" poster never mentions whether or not HE is catholic. nor does he ever mention what religion (if any) he espouses to. i ALSO notice that this "liberal" poster is not against using mis-information and dis-information to his advantage. all these tactics, while not surprising from one on the left, do leave us wondering what they would have us do in the alternative. they offer NO solution to the problem of prison overcrowding which is already rampant, due to the MASSIVE NUMBERS of capital murderers ALREADY incarcerated. they offer NO solution to the problem of prison ESCAPES, which, while rare, do present an ever present threat. they offer NO solution to the problem of further crimes committed while IN PRISON. a much more prevalent problem, and while it could be considered "trash killing trash", occasionally a "good guy" gets killed as well. we also note with interest the prevaling thought on the left dealing with raising the status of the criminal, and lowering the status of the victim. all these "trends", and more, lead the rational, thinking individual AWAY from the position that the left is aspiring to promote, and towards the logical conclusion that they, among other things, are lying to save their "pet cause". weak livered arguements, based on fabrications are the norm from the left, especially one referred to as >carrot-top<. i'm sure that there are those who support their position, i'm also sure that they do so as a matter of "keeping up with the tenets of the liberal wing of the democratic party" as opposed to matters of independent thought.

what does this rant have to do with a proposed ban on lead shot?

thought i was "clicking" on the death penalty thread...

any group only want to ban a substance in only one of it's uses? lead is prevalent in the automobile industry, but not a word is said about banning lead in automobile batteries. nor is a word said about banning lead in automotive paints. it makes one stop and look at the motives involved.

Think the death penalty is not a high-cost option for the criminal justice system? Think again, as you consider the following: * The most comprehensive cost study conducted in the US revealed that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty system imposing a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life. While these findings are sensitive to the number of executions the state carries out, the authors noted that even if every death sentence resulted in an execution (which it does not, by at least an 8:1 ratio, nationally) the extra costs to the taxpayers would still be $216,000 per execution. (P. Cook, "The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina," Duke University, May 1993). * The Miami Herald several years ago estimated that the costs of the death penalty in Florida were $3.2 million per execution, based on the rate of executions at that time. (D. Von Drehle, "Bottom Line: Life in Prison One-sixth as Expensive," The Miami Herald, July 10, 1988, at 12A.) * A more recent estimate of the costs in Florida by the Palm Beach Post found a much higher cost per execution: Florida spends $51 million a year more than what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. (S. V. Date, "The High Price of Killing Killers," Palm Beach Post, Jan. 4, 2000, at 1A.) * The Dallas Morning News reported that death penalty cases costs an average of $2.3 million in Texas , about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (C. Hoppe, "Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992, at 1A.) * A 1988 investigation by the Sacramento Bee found that the death penalty costs California $90 million more per year over ordinary costs of the justice system. Of that, $78 million is at the trial level. (S. Maganini, "Closing Death Row Would Save State $90 Million a Year," Sacramento Bee, March 28, 1988, at 1.) * Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found that the total costs of the death penalty projected into the future for the state's current capital cases would be about $51 million, exceeding the future costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002). * The State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. Thia study projected death penalty case costs to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. Death penalty trial costs were about 16 times greater than in non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case). The costs of capital case appeals were 21 times greater. (Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections, State of Kansas, December 2003.) * A Judicial Conference of the United States report on the costs of the federal death penalty revealed that defense costs were about 4 times higher in cases where death was sought than in comparable cases where death was not sought. The prosecution costs in death cases were 67% higher than the defense costs, even before including the investigative costs of law enforcement agencies. ("Federal Death Penalty Cases: Recommendations Concerning the Cost and Quality of Defense Representation," Judicial Conference of the United States, May 1998.) * The Wall Street Journal has said that in states where counties are chiefly responsible for prosecuting capital cases, the expenses can put an extraordinary burden on local budgets comparable to that caused by a natural disaster. (R. Gold, "Counties Struggle with High Cost of Prosecuting Death-Penalty Cases," Wall St. Journal, Jan. 9, 2002) * Katherine Baicker, a Dartmouth researcher concluded that capital cases have a "large negative shock" on county budgets, often requiring an increase in taxes. She estimated the extra expenses on counties to be $1.6 billion over a 15-year period. (K. Baicker, "The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8382, July 2001.) Combine the extraordinary cost with the fact that few – only 10% - 12% -- death sentences end in execution, PLUS there is no reliable evidence that capital punishment is a crime deterrent or protects the public from crime better than other punishments, PLUS the fact that it is morally objectionable according to mainstream ethical and religious thought, and you have a prime example of bad public policy. Michigan quit using the death penalty 170 years ago, passed statutes against its use 160 years ago, and today has a State Constitutional ban on capital punishment. HJR Y seeks to change that long standing Michigan position in opposition to junk public policy and should (as it very likely will) die quietly in legislative committee where it has reposed since its introduction.

It is most amusing to watch the death penalty boosters here chase their tails around in denial of TRUTHS about capital punishment. Now they claim the American Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Church and others have not taken positions opposing the death penalty. What a hoot that is. What m akes it especially ridiculous is that it is so readily proven absolutely wrong by even a cursory internet search of primary sources. It is striking, for example, how clearly and effectively the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops makes the argument against capital punishment on moral and ethical grounds that transcend a strictly Catholic view of the world. The Bishops say “use of the death penalty is unnecessary and unjustified in our time and circumstances. Our nation should forgo the use of the death penalty because: “The sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity. “State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us. “Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed. “We have other ways to punish criminals and protect society.” The Bishops continue: “… it is time for our nation to abandon the illusion that we can protect life by taking life. Ending the use of the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death toward building a culture of life.” And: “… the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life. …” ------------------------------------- And then, we have Michigan history of not so long ago, when House Joint Resolution W was introduced in the legislature to start a Constitutional amendment process intended to discard Michigan’s long-standing ban on the death penalty. Here’s what the Michigan Bishops had to say in committee hearings on the resolution, representing the Catholic Church position on the HJR W, in 2004: --------------------------------- Testimony on HJR W — Constitutional Amendment to Reinstate Death Penalty in Michigan 9 March 2004 House Joint Resolution W House Regulatory Reform Committee Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee I am Paul Long, the Vice President of Public Policy at the Michigan Catholic Conference. The Michigan Catholic Conference is the public policy voice for the Catholic Church in our state. We thank you for the opportunity to offer our brief reflections on House Joint Resolution W. Traditionally, the Michigan Catholic Conference has opposed efforts to restore the death penalty in Michigan. From our advocacy during the 1961 constitutional convention, to our opposition to various ballot initiatives, to our testimony before several legislative committees our position has always been clear: On the issue of capital punishment, as with assisted suicide or abortion, the Church stands against the use of lethal means to solve social problems. We acknowledge the need to protect society from violent crime. We do not challenge society’s right to punish the serious and violent offender. But, to serve as an effective deterrent to crime, any punishment must be swift, sure and even handed. Capital punishment fails in all these categories. By its very nature, a harmonious social order recognizes the role of law and its relation to rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Law comforts and it controls. It protects and it punishes. It edifies and it enriches. It limits and it liberates. It should not kill. For a government with the power to kill, is a government with too much power. As the report of the 1844 Select Committee on the Abolishment of Capital Punishment of the House and Senate stated: “Imposition of the penalty is a ‘usurped power of government;’ since no man has the right to take his own life, he cannot delegate the power to take his life to the government.” The restoration of the death penalty, absent in our state since 1846, is a simplistic solution to complex problems. As was the case with assisted suicide, proponents of the death penalty outline the most gruesome and heinous acts and suggest that if we abandon our 158-year public policy and adopt legalized killing we will put an end to such acts. Public policy, however, should not be developed in response to a specific anecdote, no matter how gruesome and heinous. Public policy should be developed with the common good as the central theme under girded in the belief in the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person. It may be said that this resolution is limited in its scope and approach. But the fact of the matter is that Michigan’s prohibition, the longest in the English-speaking world, would come to an end. We urge this committee to oppose House Joint Resolution W, and all other proposals which would allow the death penalty in Michigan. ---------------------------------- About 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. By most accounts, the Catholic Church claims the largest membership of any organized religious institution in the United States – 60 million souls. The Catholic Church also is far from alone as an American mainstream Christian religious institution opposed to capital punishment. The United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the American Baptist Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Episcopal Church, Reformed Church in America, and United Church of Christ all stand against the death penalty. We know what the Catholic Church has said about the death penalty, in its Catechism. What about some of these other? ----------------------------------- * The United Methodist Church says this about capital punishment: “We believe the death penalty denies the power of Christ to redeem, restore and transform all human beings. The United Methodist Church is deeply concerned about crime throughout the world and the value of any life taken by a murder or homicide. We believe all human life is sacred and created by God and therefore, we must see all human life as significant and valuable. When governments implement the death penalty (capital punishment), then the life of the convicted person is devalued and all possibility of change in that person's life ends. We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that the possibility of reconciliation with Christ comes through repentance. This gift of reconciliation is offered to all individuals without exception and gives all life new dignity and sacredness. For this reason, we oppose the death penalty (capital punishment) and urge its elimination from all criminal codes. (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004. Copyright 2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.)” ------------------------------- * The Evangelical Lutheran Church provides a lengthy discussion of death penalty, but its position is capsulized in these statements: “It is because of this church's ministry with and to people affected by violent crime that we oppose the death penalty.” “It is because of this church's commitment to justice that we oppose the death penalty.” “It is because of this church's concern regarding the actual use of the death penalty that we oppose its imposition. ---------------------------------- * The American Baptist Church states bluntly: “We urge American Baptists in every state to act as advocates against the passage of new death penalty laws, and to act individually and in concert with others to prevent executions from being carried out.” ---------------------------------- * The Episcopal Church says: “RESOLVED, the House of Bishops concurring, that this 66th General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirms its opposition to capital punishment and calls on the dioceses and members of this church to work actively to abolish the death penalty in their states; ...” ------------------------------------------ * The Reformed Church states: “RESOLVED, that the Standing High Council affirms that it is a faithful reflection of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, whom we proclaim, to encourage society not to use capital punishment as a penal response to crime.” ---------------------------------- The United Church of Christ says: “… RESOLVED that all General Synod delegates and visitors from those states wherein the death penalty currently exists be encouraged to petition their governors and state legislators to reconsider and review those existing statutes which legalize the killing of human beings; …” -------------------------------------- A key point here -- aside from the FACT that objection to capital punishment is a very mainstream religious view -- is that it fruitless and foolish to deny or otherwise lie about religious organizations' postures in reference to the death penalty, simply because the facts of the matter are so easy to check out.

More truth challenged drivel from a death penalty booster: >not one 'liberal organization' has bothered to look into "wrongfully convicted 'lifers'" to see just how many of those there were lounging around the prisons, rotting.< No doubt the person who posted that would regard the Innocence Project at the Cardoza Law School -- and any other organization doing such work -- a “liberal” group. In fact, the Innocence Project says it currently is working on 160 cases, and posts five cases in which exoneration has been secured. Those five cases are: * Herman Atkins. Convicted by the state of California and sentenced to 45 years in prison for rape, forcible oral sex and robbery. Atkins was sentenced in 1988 and exonerated in 2000 by DNA evidence. Mistaken eyewitness identification of Atkins was a factor in his conviction. * Robert Clark. Convicted by the state of Georgia and sentenced to life-plus in prison for rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. Clark was sentenced in 1982 and exonerated in 2005 by DNA evidence. Mistaken eyewitness identification of Clark was a factor in his conviction. * Ronald Cotton. Convicted by the state of North Carolina and sentenced to life plus 54 years in prison for rape and burglary. Cotton was sentenced in 1985/87 and exonerated in 1995 by DNA evidence. Mistaken eyewitness identification of Atkins was a factor in his conviction. * Jimmy Ray Bromgard. Convicted by the state of Montana and sentenced to 45 years in prison for sexual intercourse without consent. Bromgard was sentenced in 1987 and exonerated in 2002 by DNA evidence. . Incompetent representation at trial, fraudulent scientific evidence produced by the prosecution and mistaken eyewitness identification of Bromgard were factors in his conviction. * Stephan Cowans. Convicted by the state of Massachusetts and sentenced to 30-45 years in prison for multiple assault charges. Cowans was sentenced in 1998 and exonerated in 2004 by DNA evidence. Incorrect fingerprint identification and mistaken eyewitness identification of Cowans were factors in his conviction. Note that all five of these people were sentenced to long prison terms and not to death penalties. The Innocence Project web site says that to date there have been 174 exonerations of wrongfully convicted person, based on DNA evidence. Among them have been, Kenneth Wyniemko, of Michigan. According to the (Michigan) Cooley Law School Innocence Project web page, “On June 17, 2003, Kenneth Wyniemko walked out of prison a free man after Macomb County prosecutors dismissed all charges against him. Wyniemko had been in prison since 1994, convicted of rape. Wyniemko's exoneration, after nine years of being imprisoned, was made possible by efforts of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School Innocence Project.” Since DNA science came to the fore in criminal cases, Innocence Project type efforts have sprung to cover at least 40 states. Anybody with a computer and internet connection could easily research this stuff. It is ridiculous to post a complete fabrication claiming that such efforts are non-existant when such an assertion can be so easily debunked.

once again, answered my question. why do you howl at the "innocent wrongly executed" which you CANNOT prove has happened, because it HASN'T, and not a peep about "innocent wrongly sentenced to life in prison without constitutional protections". i'm glad you think that superior constitutional protections and due process are bad policy.

the source quoted was NOT a catholic biship. he was a CATHOLIC CARDINAL.

to the almighty catholic catechism? oh, yeah, i forgot, you got proven WRONG on that one. now you are picking on the methodists. there is NOT ONE WORD in the new testament against capital punishment. so if these churches DO oppose the death penalty, they do it on purely SECULAR GROUNDS. so, >carrot-top< wanna try again?

you writing about? clarify, please.

the line of logic. the state doesn't want to ban ALL lead. only the lead that is shot out of a gun. if the general idea is to ban a nasty substance, why not ban ALL uses of that substance? why pick on only ONE use of lead?

Some people are such whiners.

!!! Love it.

the fact that lead will be phased out? the fact that hunting is being once again restricted?

Get over it already.

to protect people from themselves sometimes. No one would have introduced this bill without scientific evidence that there is a danger. That would be political suicide and a waste of time. This congressperson is a sharp cookie. I have no doubt that it is indeed justified. Don't get all redneck about your hunting rights. You know there is some hunter out there that is going to feed their kid meat expose to lead, they'll get brain damaged and then the state will have to pick up perhaps medical expenses and do their very best to educate them. Sometimes you just have to protect people from themselves. Sad but true. Let's protect children. You have a right to HUNT. PERIOD. The materials can be regulated within REASON. That's why we elect officials to determine what REASON is. Sometimes with the enhancements of medicine and scientific knowledge "within REASON" is revised. Oh, and in case you were in the woods when the idea came out, the world is not flat, buster.

mentality. if you can call NOT THINKING mentality. if you had ANY CLUE about what you were talking about, you would understand that you DO NOT EAT the lead you shoot the animal with. you don't put it into your mouth, and if you are very thorough, you don't even put it into the pot you cooked the animal in. there are more dangers from lead in old buildings, where the pipes are lead, like under the streets in most of the cities and towns in michigan, and the paint has lead in it. there is also the threat of lead from the industrial waste pollutants from the automobile industry dumped into the great lakes and the ground water. now, just WHY are you opposed to hunting? you don't seem to have any VALID reasons for supporting this legislation other than that. as for the SCIENCE, i'll believe it when i see it. just for your information, you get more lead exposure from jump starting your car than you can get in a lifetime of hunting. just so you know. get a clue. get a life.

"phase out" the use of lead in car batteries. THAT would mean your next car battery would cost you around half of what the car costs. then lets take all the lead containing implements out of your home. your television set contains lead AND mercury, an environmental double whammy. so does your computer. your florescent lights as well. the incandescent lights only contain lead. your radio has lead, mercury, and a couple of radio-active compounds like rhodinium. then there is the smoke alarm, more radio-activity there. you give up yours, and i'll give up mine. putz.

protect you from you. and why, exactly, are you trying to protect me? i'm grown, i can protect myself. leave me alone.

lead is already regulated for hunters at the federal level. even THEY can't find a reason to ban all lead use for hunting and recreational shooting. if you looked into this situation JUST A LITTLE, you would already know that. but you didn't. you let your jerking knee knock you upside your thick skull and started your mouth flapping and your fingers typing. i know, you were having all that fun feeling 'holier than thou' and calling people names (the michigan indoor sport). try not to be too heart-broken when the legislators realize just how many "redneck hunters" are out there with voter registration cards.

waste of time. sounds like some of the political careers in lansing. unfortunately, the dumbocrats keep the dumb sum-bitches coming back to write more political suicide notes and waste out time.

duh

of the democratic party said to ban hunting, and all other uses of firearms in this country, A.S.A.P. P.E.T.A. said to ban hunting, and pet ownership. the S.P.C.A. SUPPORTS hunting as humane and controlled. why do YOU want to ban hunting?

Wake up! if you spray lead pellets everywhere there are waterfowl then you will reduce the population of birds you can shoot because they will poisoned and dead. No rocket science there!

we for the most part just like to be outside without bullets flying everywhere. Also. we like wildlife and if you kill wildlife then they are dead and are sort of different...its hard to explain....

whats with hunting? were you all born with undersized manhood?

were you all born with under-used brains? the lead i use kills birds almost instantly, i have yet to see the FLOCKS OF LEAD POISONED BIRDS flocking around michigan, can you show me one? neither can the federal government. now, either come up with VERIFIABLE information, from reliable, verifiable sources, or stop saying that lead is a problem with birds. even birds know the difference between lead shot and rocks. they HAVE been around for a few million years longer than WE have.