Baze v. Rees is most likely, according to many Court watchers, to be resolved in the favor of the state of Kentucky.  More to the point, however, is the question of a blanket moratorium for all death row immates, esp. those who have not yet opted for their method of execution.

I used to be a staunch supporter of the death penalty, but have begun to have my doubts as the DNA reversals have accumulated.  However, Edward Nathaniel Bell is a poster child for capital punishment.  He murdered a police officer by shooting him in the head because he knew that the police officer was wearing body armor and because the police officer had arrested him two years earlier.

Murdering another citizen through premeditation is a capital offense.  Murdering a judge, a prosecutor, a witness, or a police officer is more eggregious than killing another person.  It is the ultimate assault on the rule of law and respect for law enforcement.

If Bell believes that lethal injection would be cruelly painful, then they can always dust off Old Sparky and let him ride the lightening.  Or, they could surprise him one night and shoot him in the forehead just like he did Sgt. Ricky Timbrook.  

First, in the interests of full disclosure, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances because in implementing the penalty, the state is taking a human life in my name, and I think taking human life is wrong. For me, it is not a question of the potential for error in its application, although if that helps to crystallize public opinion to prevent needless deaths, I'll advance that argument as well.

That said, I understand and appreciate the positions of people who see a difference between the unlawful taking of life and the execution of people for crimes after trials and due process protections.

On the details of this case, I guess McDonnell has a point that Kaine should not take it upon himself to stay the execution, but should first let the judicial remedies run their course. But Kaine made his reasons clear for doing so -- to save all concerned the emotional uncertainty of waiting for Court decisions. Kaine is saying he would act regardless what the courts say in this case.

For humane considerations for both perpetrator and victims, that makes sense to me.

As for McDonnell's argument that there are some condemned that may choose a method other than lethal injection as the means of their demise, and that their executions should not be stayed because they can choose a method (electrocution)  that, presumably, would not violate the 8th Amendment, it is an argument that falls under its own weight. If McDonnell had his way, it would amount to state-sanctioned suicide.  

McDonnell has only point, and it is flawed

One question, Aznew.  Do you also oppose fetus abortion in all circumstances, to include rape, incest, and severely deformed births?  

I see the abortion issue as a choice issue, not a life issue. But, again, I can understand and respect the perspective of people who see it as a life issue. I mean, I'll probably catch Hell for saying this, but I have always been an Alan Keyes fan, not because I agree with his draconian views, but because he has the courage (intellectually speaking) of his convictions.

Now, before we get into the issue of whether choice ought to apply at seven months, or eight months, or eight months and 29 days, the answer is that I don't know what the moral response is at the margins, any more than I think pro-life people can convincingly explain why a zygote is the moral equivalent of a person breathing and thinking on their own. All I can rely on there is the old lawyers' saying that lousy facts make lousy law.

I have never been in the position of having fathered an unwanted child, so I don't know what I would do. It has never come up in my marriage, either (I have three kids), and I don't think it will, but at the end of the day I would have no choice but to respect my wife's decision.

I will say that we have some friends several years our seniors who unexpectedly found themselves parents unexpectedly for the fourth time after their three other kids were all in their teens, and now have a simply terrific seven-year old who is best friends with my youngest son. I have immense respect for the decision they made.  

However, I can't accept that there is a arbitrary moment when a fetus becomes a life.  When you see pre-mature fetuses surviving to full life after only five or six months following conception, you have to question if life doesn't begin at conception.

Having said that, I have no problem with aborting a viable fetus if there are compelling reasons to do so, more compelling, that is, than simple convenience.  Equally, I have a serious problem with those who would deny an unborn child a right to live but who oppose the death penalty for the most horrific malefactors in our society.

and admittedly requires the drawing of arguably arbitrary lines.

...heading up one of the most right-wing tickets seen in the United States in years, it would appear.

Yet he is so supportive of the death penalty.
What a hypocrite!
Why do "pro lifers" only care about the fetus?

I guess he never paid attention to any of JPII's statement on the Death Penalty...

And why do the 'pro-choicers' only care about convicted murderers?

You can't have it both ways.  You either believe that we do not have the right to take life or you believe that the state can allow the taking of life in appropriate circumstances.

Now you can see why I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

"And why do the 'pro-choicers' only care about convicted murderers?"

Can you clarify?

There is too much cross-over between death penalty opponents and pro-choice advocates, just as there is a similar cross-over between death penalty advocates and pro-life advocates.

I just don't get it.  How can you oppose the abortion of a severely deformed fetus while supporting the death penalty?  On the other hand, how can you oppose the execution of a heinous criminal while favoring a woman's right to kill an innocent fetus as a matter of birth convenience?

Make up your mind!  Human life is not situationally dependent.

The reason some liberals such as myself find hypocrisy in the right's stance on these two issues has to do with how they define the beginning of "human life." The idea that life begins at conception is the premise of the pro-life movement, a premise that is based nearly entirely on religion (the existence of a soul).

Many of us are skeptical of that position, and believe in general that abortion is a choice that a woman makes with her body. Moreover, unlike executions, the government is not performing abortions, or mandating that they are performed, which in my opinion makes the two institutions fundamentally different from a legal/political perspective.

I sleep fine at night as an individual who is pro-choice and  staunchly anti-death penalty, what I find strange is that anyone who will stand outside a clinic and pray because it is "never right to take human life" will scream to high heaven when the government takes a break from using his tax dollars to do just that.  

"The idea that life begins at conception is the premise of the pro-life movement, a premise that is based nearly entirely on religion (the existence of a soul)."

No, the premise is based on the medical fact that premature fetal life can be viable at earlier and earlier periods of gestation, as witness pre-mature babies who are surviving as early as five months after conception.

"unlike executions, the government is not performing abortions, or mandating that they are performed"

Would it be okay with you if executions were left up to family members to decide, as in "honor killings" or family revenge killings?  In other words, pro-choice executions.

If you are staunchly anti-death penalty, then how can you sleep at night when children are killed during the partial birth abortion procedure?  Exactly what difference is there between their deaths and those of the toddlers drowned this past weekend by their father in Baltimore, except for a birth certificate?

And, why are those children killed in the partial birth procedure less worthy of continued life than Edward Nathaniel Bell?

Don't get me wrong:  I am not anti-abortion.  I am just appalled by the apparent ethical conflicts among those who favor unlimited abortion while opposing the death penalty.  

then why are their federal & state laws protecting shorebird nesting grounds.  Why are there laws protecting certain species and the destruction of their eggs?  Isn't the human species just as important?

Why is it that in 8 states in the U.S., a freshman high school girl can bypass her parents' wishes, have her teacher sponsor her at a clinic and have an abortion, but not be permitted to attend a class field trip with the same teacher without a signed parental consent form?  

How about after 6 months?  Does a baby's life start then when it can be kept alive with the aid of medicine and medical devices?  Did Scott Peterson's murder of his wife have any sort of special ramification to you because his wife was 8 month's pregnant?  

For the record I am pro-life across all issues, which include being against the death penalty and euthanasia, and being very supportive to aiding and assisting those who cannot help themselves:  sick, old and the young.

The Washington Post reports, "Kaine's move is largely symbolic because the Supreme Court hasn't allowed an execution to move forward since it took up the Baze v. Rees case in September."

Let's kill as many of them as we can, while we still can; no time like the present.

and this will only be a temporary hold. i would hate to see our justice system go the way of some other states lately in terms of capital punishment.