Skip to main content

A Florida Republican Senator says executions aren't about guilt or innocence, but about "timely justice"

The Florida Senate recently passed the "Timely Justice Act," which attempts to speed up the execution process on Death Row inmates, even at the risk of bypassing DNA results that could showcase the inmate's innocence. Republican Governor Rick Scott is expected to sign the bill into law.

Arthenia Joyner, a Democratic Tampa attorney who voted against this bill, said, "Is swift justice fair justice? We have seen cases where, years later, convicted people were exonerated."

Senator Maria Sachs, another Democratic attorney, echoed Ms. Joyner's sentiments, saying, "I don't see the reason for swiftness, especially with DNA evidence that can exonerate."

What was Republican Senator Rob Bradley's response to such statements? I'll allow him to tell you himself. Bradley countered these before-mentioned arguments by saying, "This is not about guilt or innocence, it's about timely justice."

That has to be one of the dumbest statements I've read for a while. It's not about guilt or innocence? It's about timely justice? Really? How in the world can it be justice, timely or otherwise, if an innocent person is killed?

I can imagine Senator Bradley engaging in the following discussion with a Critical Thinking professor:

Professor Gene Witty: "So, you executed Forrest Woods last week, eh?"

Senator Rob Bradley: "We sure did!"

Witty: "You do realize his DNA results just came back and he was found innocent, right?"

Bradley: "Oh well. At least the process was quicker and cheaper than usual!"

Witty: "But he didn't do anything..."

Bradley: "Yeah, well, you win some and you lose some."

Witty: "He had a wife and three kids..."

Bradley: "Yeah, I kind of feel bad for them, but hey, that's life - you've gotta move on!"

Witty: "...and the killer is still out there..."

Bradley: "Yeah, I know. Professor Witty, this isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about timely justice, and that's what we got when we executed Mr. Woods - timely justice; justice that was timely."

Witty: "So, your view of justice is killing an innocent man with a wife and three kids, while allowing the killer to continue walking the streets? That's justice to you?"

Bradley: "Not just justice, timely justice!"

Witty: "I think it'd be timely justice if you were voted out of office tomorrow."

Bradley: "Say what? I didn't kill anyone."

Witty: "You voted to speed up this process which resulted in the killing of an innocent person, so yes, you indirectly did kill someone."

Bradley: "Yep - timely justice!"

Witty: "Whatever..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/29/us-usa-florida-deathpenalty-idUSBRE93S0UT20130429?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more