Portland Dem wants to end Oregon’s death penalty

by NW Spotlight

The Oregonian reported that state Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) will be introducing a bill in the upcoming legislative session to propose a constitutional amendment to repeal Oregon’s death penalty. Under Greenlick’s plan, Oregonians would vote on the amendment in November 2014.

An earlier article in the Oregonian on Greenlick’s proposed bill noted that California voted against ending the dealth penalty just weeks ago, 53% to 47%.

 

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:50 | Posted in Death Penalty, Oregon House, Uncategorized | 13 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Ron Glynn

    I am retired Criminal Justice professional. I am also a Conservative Republican who believes in strick law and order. Despite that, I think we might as well end the Death Penalty. We has had the Death Penalty for decades since it was restored by the voters. In all that time, we have had two men executed and both of them volunteered by waiving all appeals. Meanwhile, we, the taxpayers, have been saddled with millions of dollars spent funding the seemingly endless appeals for these creeps.
    We would be better constructing a new Maximun Security prison to house just convicted murderers where they would remain until they are hauled out in a box. If they try to go over the wall, guards would be required to use lethal force to stop them. We would be miles ahead in savings to the Public and the Court would be freed up to prosecute other cases. It would put a fair amount of lawyers out of business who were doing the endless appeals. In that case, who cares!

    • killemall

      From your grammar, I thought you were a retired public school teacher.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Good! End it. The death penalty, especially in this state, is totally ridiculous. Are we using it? No. Do people get sentenced to it? Yes. And then what? We waste all this money with the legal wranglings. The point of this is what?

    Second – Why in the hell do we entrust government with this power? Not too long ago we had scores of people released from prison who had been sent there on phoney rape convictions. DNA testing had been developed and whoopsie, guess government just made a mistake again.

    And please, don’t give me the nonsense that it is juries who convict not the government. You get a corrupt Mike Nifong type DA and a defendant with a crap lawyer plenty can go wrong.

    The death penalty is way too much power in government hands. Get rid of it.

  • Ballistic45

    What a bunch of Liberal hypocrites.. You are against the Death Penalty because someone MIGHT be Innocent, but you support killing 3000+ babies a day who have done NOTHING and are innocent of any crime, they are denied representation, trial or cause of action.. And you support killing them in the most gruesome methods… If any convicted child killing rapist were torn limb from limb while awake as the method of death, YOU would be outside that prisons gate screaming to high heaven… You don’t want government to have power to kill convicted killers, but you scream your heads off for the right to kill 3000+ children a day and expect the same government to support it.. I can’t believe your reasoning… If any outside group came to America and killed 3000+ of our children daily, we would be at WAR…

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I can tell you are a maniac, but you do have a point. Abortion is an issue where it seems like any effort to find common ground is thwarted by those on both sides of the issue who see it in black and white.

      At one end of the spectrum you have a woman who is 1 second pregnant. Let’s face it, you are going to have a hard time convincing all of the people that aborting that is ripping a person limb from limb. Some might not like that lack of agreement, but I think many would understand the reasons for differing opinions all the same.

      At the other end of the spectrum, you have a woman actually giving birth and having the baby essentially ax murdered in the birth canal.

      This is a situation where there are disagreeing opinions as well.

      That is not understandable to the average person. The idea that termination of a baby at any point past that which labor could be induced and the baby delivered without some freakish risk element is abhorrent to most people. Killing of the baby while actually being born is horrible. Yet there were plenty who defended the practice until partial birth abortion was outlawed.

      It was murder, and those who condoned it were and are beyond the pale and should be considered in the same group as those who thought slavery was perfectly fine.

      I’m not for making abortion illegal. However I do think at some point the excuse “I’m just not ready to be a mommy” is insufficient. Boys give up that excuse the moment they start having sex, let alone get someone pregnant. Girls get an extra six months. That should be enough time to make up your mind.

      • crabman34

        Rupert being fair and reasonable! I must say.

        Though one quibble: The vast majority (88%) of abortions occur within 3 months of conception. What’s more, just 1.5% of abortions occur after 20 weeks. Your giving women six months has proven to be plenty of time. There really isn’t a controversy if that is your stance. The 1.5% that occur after 5 months are almost universally not because the woman couldn’t make a choice. Most often it is because of health factors or anomalies that are discovered late. Sometimes it is because a poor woman in a state with no abortion provider has to save money for months to travel to another state, get a hotel room for several days (because of mandatory waiting periods of 24-36 hours from the initial visit to the procedure), and take time off of work. For the working poor without health insurance, that is no simple task.

        Yes, reasonable folks disagree on this issue, but Rupert, you are as guilty as the maniac above of framing this issue wrong (in line with how the anti-abortion crowd wants it framed). I totally understand the revulsion that people feel about the idea of “partial birth abortion,” but that really isn’t the issue. When those who want to criminalize abortion talk about murdering babies and such, they conveniently ignore when most abortions occur. Because they want you to think that ignorant and lazy women sit around for six months before deciding they aren’t ready to be parents and then they kill a nearly fully formed baby. That’s just not true and it is a disservice to your plea for more reasoned discussion to support that myth (I know you aren’t explicitly pushing that notion, but my point is that your rhetoric is more in line with anti-abortionists than others).

        I don’t really want to quibble with you on partial birth abortion, but I have to say that I think you know very well that the concept is a misnomer. States and the federal government have promulgated wildly diverging definitions of what exactly that procedure is. Moreover, the federal ban doesn’t use careful or specific medical definition, and does not allow and exception for the health of the mother. This is problematic in that PBA generally is taken to mean intact dilation and extraction, which is the safest procedure for late second and third trimester abortions. In the very rarest of cases, such as where a slow fetal death could threaten the mother’s life (as recently seen in Ireland), this procedure is needed and should be available subject to a physician’s discretion. Banning partial birth abortion doesn’t do much other than make it harder for some women to get the health care they need.

        The way to continue having this converation is to move the conversation from the tiny number of late-term abortions to the fact that 30-50% of women will have an abortion at some point in their lives. These are our friends, colleagues, sisters, and mothers. They are not criminals, they are not negligent or lazy, they are not wanton killers. They are humans with real problems, financial stresses, health threats, and sometimes bad decisions. They deserve our respect and our support.

        This talk of partial birth abortions is just shifting the overton window to promulgate more restrictions.

        • valley person

          Very, very well said.

      • valley person

        Late term abortions are very rare and are normally done for medical or humane reasons Rupert. I was involved with one back in the day. A very excruciating experience. What would have been our child had a severe deformity that would have meant a lot of pain, agony, and near certain death within a year or 2 of birth. The problem was discovered late in the pregnancy.

        So your characterization of late term abortions needs some work.

      • Ballistic45

        Yeah, I’m a “Maniac” when it comes to this Hypocrisy of the Left.. Most Progressive ideas are born out of Europe, it is the Mecca of the Left.. Look there to see what is coming down the road for America…

        “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
        The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

        Yeah, I’m a “Maniac” and a “Fanatic” when it comes killing the most innocent humans among us.. And if we are going to have Abortion, let us be FAIR about it..

        Most Abortions are in the first trimester and 80% of the reasons given is because the baby is an inconvenience and financial burden.. By this reasoning, a Man (the father) should have the same rights to END the child’s life.. Why should HE be inconvenienced and be liable for 18 years of financial support? Hey, if we are giving out the right to kill a child to one parent let us give it to both…

        • crabman34

          News Flash: Self confessed maniac and fanatic also completely incomprehensible, illogical.

          To distill what you’ve said: Europe is evil, American liberals like Europe, oh noes. Also these ethicists wrote this paper and then the journal’s editor said it was controversial. Finally, abortion is murder and should be illegal but all men (the fathers as well as politicians and random unrelated citizens like this guy) should get to tell women when they can or cannot have abortions.

          Fun times.

          • Ballistic45

            What a Sh*t slinger you are, like most Liberals.. Didn’t address one thing I wrote and prove me wrong on… I never said Europe was Evil, you did.. The ethicist wrote a paper ( saying it was ethical to kill Children after birth because they are not ““actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.. ) seems you avoided that piece, why? And as far as restricting Murder, yeah, everyone in society has the right to make laws against Murder in any form including the Fuzzy Warm Abortion label.. To KILL someone because they are an inconvenience lends itself to being a questionable practice… The point you also missed is if we are going to give women the right to kill unborn children because they are an inconvenience and / or to costly as an excuse, then the Father could also claim this same right for the very same reason… Come on liberal, Why does a man not have the same right under the current Abortion Law? Why should his life be disrupted by an unwanted pregnancy any more than that of the mother? Fair is Fair, RIGHT! Liberals are all about Fairness.. Finally you gotta learn that to sling Sh*t guarantees you will be the one with the most Sh*t on them… I’m “completely incomprehensible, illogical” in your view, really, in your mind, killing 3000+ babies A DAY is COMPREHENSIBLE and LOGICAL… God help us…

    • 3H

      What is truly ironic is that Rupert is not a liberal.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)