Dolmance,

Exactly how does an execution satisfy the pain of the victims of heinous crimes or thir families IF IT'S THE WRONG PERSON???

You accuse those who question the death penalty of ignoring that pain. Well, aren't you dismissing the tragedy of someone being wrongfully executed? And what about such a person's family and their pain?

The unwillingness of death penalty advocates to face the implications of the virtual certainty of wrongful executions due to human fallibility causes me to shake my head in astonishment and sadness. I do sympathize with those who have been victims of terrible crimes, but I am not willing to endorse a policy that accepts the execution of the innocent in order to satisfy them.

Dolmance, better check back. I wasn't the one who said anything about "lowest common denominator".

My fundamental point was about the disturbing lack of concern over the prospect of wrongfully executing someone innocent that many death penalty advocates display. And your post simply provides another prime example. You blithely assert that if the man in Texas was wrongfully put to death he was the only one. How can you possibly know that??? Then you go on to claim that most of those freed because of new examination of evidence were guilty too. By what twisted logic do you come to that conclusion? When tests show that it isn't your DNA that was recovered from the victim who was raped before being murdered it seems to be a pretty clear indication of actual innocence.

You end up by saying that your lack of concern over this is because you're not "predisposed". I'm sure that would be very comforting to any person facing wrongful execution and their family. Victims of crime and and their families can receive at least some satisfaction from knowing that the perpetrator is behind bars with no hope of getting out. For anyone mistakenly executed there can be no recompense.

Glenn, I acknowledge the way that the right went after Clinton and attempted to delegitimize him in very nasty ways. But I still feel that the attacks against Obama have an even more virulent character. It's something that would be very difficult to define by specific examples, since it's not so much a matter of what is being said, which really isn't all that different, but of the tone in which it is being said. I remember the attacks on Clinton as having a very judgemental tone, but the pundits we hear attacking Obama today, and the people under their influence, such as those who disrupted many of the recent town hall meetings, have an edge of hysteria in what they say that I don't think I've heard before. It's that hysterical tone that gives me such concern that the result will be some terrible act of violence.

Actually you can get about 10% of respondents to agree with almost any proposition, however patently ridiculous. Actual ignorance and stupidity plus a dose of wanting to mess with the questioners' minds goes a long way.

I can't wait to see how they deal with this passage from Acts 4:32-35 (NIV):

"And the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostle's feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

So Ronald Reagan didn't magically cause the Berlin wall to fall by his incantaion of "Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? That's going to be a blow to a lot of his fawning admirers. Or rather it would be if they could comprehend it.

This woman passes herself off as some exemplar of Christian virtue and whines that she's being persecuted because of it. And then something like this sex tape comes out. What hypocrisy! Ever since I first saw her in the Miss USA pageant I have been negatively impressed by her, and not because of her opinion on gay marriage. Though I disagree with her, she has a right to her opinion on that and other controversial subjects. No, what I object to is the smug, self-righteous and arrogant way in which she presents those opinions.

It's dismaying to think of how much resistance there is among law enforcement officials, prosecutors and judges to the very idea that someone who had been convicted might possibly be innocent. One would hope that they might actually be interested in the truth, but it seems that too often their only concern is defending their own actions without regard to justice.

A lot of people seem to be making a lot of assumptions in this case about things that we really don't know yet. It may be fun to speculate, but let's wait and see what comes out before making any broad assertions.