January 12, 2004 4:23 PM
Whenever someone accuses Bill O'Reilly of being a conservative, he becomes very defensive and immediately tells them he opposes the death penalty.
Which is true -- but only because it isn't cruel enough. In June 2001, he wrote this column opposing the death penalty for Timothy McVeigh, and proposed "a better way":
So here's the better way. Killers, rapists, drug kingpins and terrorists should all be subjected to life in prison without parole in a federal work camp. This special prison system would be run military style and be located on federal land in Alaska. It would be in effect a gulag.Here the worst criminals in the country would be banished and forced to labor eight hours a day, six days a week in the harsh climate. They would be denied television, computers, exercise equipment (as if they'd need it) and most other "comfort" items. Their mail would be screened, and they would only be allowed a few visitors per year. If the criminal did not cooperate with the work detail, his food rations would be cut, and he would be placed in solitary confinement.
Now let me ask you, is that not a worse punishment than Timothy McVeigh received? ... Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people but did not suffer a painful death. His lethal drip contained a sedative along with the poison. McVeigh would have suffered far more in a work camp.
Yeah, that sounds like a liberal position to me.
Bill O'Reilly opposes the death penalty (01.12.2004)
Next Entry: O'Neill's Iraqi oil field documents part of Cheney's Energy Task Force (01.13.2004)
Previous Entry: George Soros, Hitler and the Fox News Propagandists (01.12.2004)
Matthew Graf:
I thought the liberal position was that one would be punished for thier actions without death, or rehabilitated. Obviously, someone with a sentence of life imprisionment has no need for rehabilitation. Therefore, Bill's position is a liberal one. That is, unless liberals do believe in painless capital punishment or think that prisoners should not be punished for there actions. Maybe put them in some sort of caged resort?
Wed Feb 4 2004 1:05 PM
Death penalty is unethical:
Sure, criminals desereve what they get, but we're human, and our justice system has errors in them. When you excecute them, how do you know that the trial was fair? One criminologist believes that as many as 80 innocent people have been excecuted in the US. Also Bu$h has been ignoring international regulations regarding the death penalty. "Texas wasn't a signatory to the Vienna Convention, so why should we abide by it?"
Sun Feb 22 2004 4:13 PM
Some Guy:
What you are also forgetting is that with a hard labor system, people who are innocent also have the chance to regain his or her freedom. Today, people are handsomely compensated for each day they unjustly spend in prison, so why can't we continue that in this instance??
Wed Sep 8 2004 11:24 AM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
