News-Record.com

The League of Women Voters of the United States who met in Minnesota in June, adopted a resolution to oppose the death penalty.

As a delegate from the local league (LWVVPT) I voted to concur with this resolution.

Our government should not kill people.

Thanks, Diane. My private responses are running in the opposite direction. In general, most people still support the death penalty, although the numbers may be dropped.

If this makes sense, I really don't support the broad statement that our government should not kill somebody. For example, we effectively targeted Zarqawi for assassination in Iraq, and I fully supported that. The same should be done to bin Laden if we can, in my opinion.

My real argument against the death penalty is its inconsistent and arbitrary application. Or are there good explanations for why one person should serve just a few years in prison for the same crime that sends another person to the execution chamber?

Good explanations----who knows?

But you'd have to ask the DA's office as they are the ones who decide what charges to try them on.

Lethal injection cruel?

How about a 4 yr old family member, raped, run over by a pickup, drowned in the bathtub when he found out she was still alive, and stuffed in a plastic garbage bag and hid in a closet until the authorities found her.

You tell me which is cruel.

This happened in April 1992 and the SOB that did it should have a date with that needle before too long.

If injection is too cruel for him, just turn his a** over to the family, as I and a few others would like to have a chance to "party" with him.

BD, your feelings are understandable, and I don't fault you for having them.

At the same time, the concept of making the killer suffer as much as the victim doesn't work in our system. For one thing, a Timothy McVeigh can only be executed once, even though he killed 168 people.

Then there's the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, which the courts are constantly redefining.

Now most states have settled on a method of execution that is essentially a medical procedure. They're running into the problem that medical doctors won't participate in it, yet some courts say the participation of physicians is necessary to ensure the deadly chemicals are administered correctly.

It's really one problem after another with the death penalty, including the fact that some death row inmates have been proven to be innocent.

Someone executed for a crime he didn't commit at least should be put to death as painlessly as possible.

Doug, "political assassination" was outlawed in Executive Order 11905 signed by President Ford, and "assassination" was outlawed in Executive Order 12333 signed by President Reagan.
"Political assassination" refers to the killing of a political figure or other strategically important figure for political reasons.
Killing an enemy combatant during wartime operations, even though he's highly placed, would generally not be considered "assassination."

It is what it is, whatever it's called.

Come on, Doug, you equate the battlefield death of Zarqawi by a bomb during a war to Pres. Kennedy's assassination, or the shooting of the Pope?

Absolutely not, although all could be called assassinations (or an attempt in the case of the pope).

There is a difference between a criminal act and a military act. But I'm not sure I'd call the Zarqawi killing a battlefield death. He was in a house specifically targeted for destruction because he was there. No battle was under way.

Perfectly justified and, in my opinion, preferable to sending in ground forces to capture him alive. But still an assassination.

I am against Sammy Flippen being executed. If anyone remembers correctly, the DA's office offered him a charge of 2nd degree murder, and he turned it down. To me this action shows that Mr. Flippen belives he is innocent, as do many of his supporters, but if he is not, serving life is prison is enough punishment.

The death of that little girl is a horrible thing, but so would be killing another family's child. Let us not forget that Samuel Flippen is someone's son, brother, and friend! He is not a horrible monster. He has a heart, and he does feel pain, and sadness over Brittany's death. Even the little girl's Dad does not want Sammy executed!
Does that not say anyhting to you people?

I totally agree that this is cruel and unusual punishment to execute this man. Anyone who believes that this is the proper thing to do, with all of the unanswered questions, and the lingering flaws with lethal injection execution are just afraid to face the facts.

Just think, it shocked us to hear that our perfect Sammy was being accused of this, let alone found guilty and punished with death. Believe me, if Samuel Flippen, the nicest person I ever met could be accused of this, it could be you in our shoes one day. Nobody is exempt from this happening to you or someone you love.

We as citizins, have to stop letting the judicial system get away with everything. I personally know lawyers, and others involved in the judicial system who agree that there are serious flaws in our system. They literally can't function, knowing how inept it is. The system has been shown to be flawed in numerous ways, and we just keep standing by.
I am outraged that more people are not against this type of punishment. These sentences are entirely erratic, and don't make any sence. And I for one am sickend by the way that we the people of the great state of North Carolina just let it continue.

Even if Mr. Flippen were to get clememcy, his life will still be hell. Isn't that enough for all of you people seeking proper punishment?Living in prison is not where any of us would like to be for the rest of our lives.

I for one believe that healing is through Forgivness, NOT Vengence!

Thanks, SY, for adding another side of the story.

Well then, Doug, you call the death of every insurgent an "assassination." They're killed because we find out where they are and take the fight to them.

If an insurgent is targeted by name and specifically hunted down and killed, I would call that an assassination.

That does not mean it is necessarily unjustified.

I WANT TO COMMENT ON SAMMY FLIPPEN'S CASE. HE IS MY NEPHEW AND I LOVE HIM DEARLY AND HAVE VISITED HIM IN PRISON FOR 10 LONG YEARS. HE IS WORTHY OF YOUR ATTENTION. THE MEDIA HAS SAID MANY UNTRUE THINGS ABOUT THE SITUATION BECAUSE THEY TOOK THE PROSECUTORS ARGUMENT AND NEVER GAVE SAMMY'S SIDE OF THE STORY. THE CHILD COULD HAVE FALLEN AS SAMMY SAID OR THE INJURY COULD HAVE HAPPENED HOURS BEFORE WHEN THE MOTHER WAS HOME. BUT IN AN UNPRECENDENTED MANNER PERTINENT TO OTHER CASES, THE MOTHER WAS NEVER INVESTIGATED.
AS YOUR ARTICLE STATED THE DEATH PENALTY IS RESERVED FOR REAL KILLERS NOT FOR SOMEONE WHO IN MY OPINION IS INNOCENT BUT ALSO THE CRIME DOESN'T FIT THE PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THERE IS MUCH ROOM FOR DOUBT IN THIS CASE. DID YOU KNOW THAT THE MOTHER WAS EIGHT MONTHS PREGNANT WITH A SHERRIFF'S DEPUTY'S BABY AT SAMMY'S TRIAL? PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE THEY PROTECTED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT HER, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT. ALSO THE ARTICLE IN THE WINSTON SALEM JOURNAL SAID THAT THE CHILD HAD BRUISES ALL OVER HER BODY YET THE EMT'S WHO PICKED HER UP FROM HER HOME SIGNED STATEMENT THAT THARE WERE NO BRUISES ON HER WHEN THEY PICKED HER UP. THE EMT'S MAY HAVE TRIED TO REVIVE HER AND BRUISED HER. THEY NEVER GAVE SAMMY A LIE DETECTOR TEST NOT DID A MEASURE OF HIS HANDS TO PROVE ANYTHING THAT HE MIGHT HAVE DONE. HE LOVED THAT CHILD AND WAS A GOOD DADDY TO HER . HE ACTED PROUD OF HER WHEN HE BROUGHT HER TO FAMILY GATHERINGS. HE HAS BEEN MADE OUT TO BE SOMETHING HE IS NOT.
I TOOK MY GRANDCHILDREN TO THE PRISON TO SEE SAMMY FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS AND HE HAS BEEN AN ENCOURGER AND FRIEND TO THEM. HE HAS KEPT HIS FAITHE IN GOD AND HAS NOT ACTED BITTER OR HAD A BAD ATTITUDE ABOUT THE INJUSTICE GIVEN HIM.
I HOPE YOU WILL RUN THIS ARTICLE FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT SAMMY IS A CHRISTIAN AND WOULD NEVER DO AN EVIL DEED SUCH AS THIS.

SINCERLY CONCERNED,
BARBARA L JOHNSON
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530

Mrs. Johnson, I appreciate your comments and your devotion to your nephew. Your heart is in the right place.

I think you are very much in the wrong, however, to try to cast blame upon the child's mother. Did "Sammy" himself ever suggest she might have caused the fatal injuries? I thought his story was that she fell from a chair after his wife had left the house.

I agree with Mrs. Johnson completely - why not investigate the mother? She could have harmed Britnie before she left for work and Sammy is the type of person who would not say that his wife did it. There are so many questions in this case - and Sammy is going to be put to death???

Doug, all targets are interdicted by way of intelligence; that is, we go to a certain area at a certain time because we believe that's where the enemy will be. That's what happened with Zarqawi. Our military personnel on-scene were there to neutralize a combatant, not "assassinate" someone.
If we kill a squad of enemy and it's led by a sergeant, is the sergeant "assassinated" and the privates just "killed?" How about if it's a lieutenent that leads it? Is he "assassinated" and the sergeants and privates just "killed?"
Assassination refers to the killing of a country's leader or high ranking political personage for political purposes. Zarqawi, though high ranking (if you can assign 'rank' to someone in a non-governmental band of terrorists), was in a battle action during a war because he was an enemy combatant. He was killed, not assassinated.

This crime occurred more than 12 years ago. No one is going to "investigate the mother." If there ever was any evidence that she administered a fatal beating to the child before leaving for work, it would have surfaced long ago. Anyway, such an investigation would require Mr. Flippen's cooperation, yet you are saying he's sticking to the story that the child fell from her high chair. So much for an investigation.

I hope Gov. Easley commutes his sentence to life in prison, because that is the most just punishment for the crime.

Jaycee, we're just not agreeing about assassinations. In my view, they don't have to have political purposes. A mob hit can be considered assassination. In military situations, it has nothing to do with a soldier's rank. An assassination is personal, an operation designed to kill a specific person for a particular reason, usually because that person has extraordinary value to the enemy.

Doug, you equate any killing in which someone, even an enemy in combat against our country, is targeted and killed. Virtually every enemy combatant is "targeted" in some way or another. For example, civilians alert the military that enemy personnel are using a certain house for operations, and the soldiers go there and neutralize the enemy, through surrender or killing, depending on the circumstances. That is NOT an "assassination," it's an engagement with the enemy.
Sorry, things like this just get under my skin. Like calling a criminal who kills somebody with a rifle a "sniper." A sniper is a highly trained military or police member who has graduated from a recognized long-range precision rifle training course. They are justly proud of their acomplishment and military or police title of their job speciality. A criminal who kills somebody with a rifle is just....a criminal who kills somebody with a rifle. Military and police guys cringe when they hear on the news that a "sniper" killed somebody in a drive-by criminal shooting. It disrespects their training and profession.
And don't get me started news coverage of car wrecks in which EMS "cut the victim" out of a car. They cut the CAR, not the victim!
OK, OK, I've gotten way off subject. We'll agree to disagree on the use of the term. Shake on it??

Jaycee, I always value your comments. We'll shake on it, buddy.

I feel that the death penalty should be reserved for those who talk about their crimes later and still laugh or smile, as if to savor the moment. Can we really help those people? I have yet to see it happen. I also feel that there should be proof that they did it. No similarities, maybe's, or could have's. That won't cut it. Good solid proof is needed. Samuel Flippen was convicted on circumstancial evidence. There were similarities but nothing that was absolutely solid. He offered his prints, but the prosecution didn't want to disturb the body. The rest is maybe's. No smoking gun or anything here; not even a criminal record like we see in most cases. We need to face the fact that this is totally different from any other case. If not, then explain how and why the state let one woman go for the same crime. She served 60 days in jail for beating her 2 year-old daughter to death, and in the same state we have a man on death row, convicted for the same thing. Where's the justice in that? I can understand life in prison, and make her live with what she's done, but she received just 60 days and she's free now. I don't see where the state can justify Flippen's execution when they just gave someone else a slap on the wrist! Don't give me that PMS crap either! I'm a woman, and I know about all that. Using that excuse would be along the lines of sexual discrimination. If that's the case, men don't stand a chance. PMS & PPD are pretty bad, but come on people! We can't use that excuse for EVERYTHING! I thought we were one nation under God with liberty and justice FOR ALL!!! We have a long, long way to go!

As far as the death penalty for Samuel and the lady who got only a life sentence for two children the writer is wrong. What the writer neglected to inform people of was that a few years ago the laws changed. However, this change in law only applies to people after the law was made. The reason for this is if you stole a piece of bread then got a year in prison. Then while in they changed it to 10 years. You would have to stay another 9 years on top of your normal sentence if it changed while you were serving. However, if it changed while the trial was still going then you should be ok. Either way the writer misled you and that is inappropriate. As far as the mother getting investigated that would be asinine. The EMTs did not see any contusions. The mother had left before the "incident" occurred. The amount of time for a bruise to appear is relative to the makeup, build, and amount of force applied. Which is different every time. What I am saying is given that the mother had left prior to the alleged accident and the normal time that the EMTs arrive on the seen. Leaves you with one thought. Either the highchair or Samuel hurt the little girl. Bruises would just appear way too soon to try to pass it off. As far as the mother's indiscretions during the investigation or otherwise that is on her and she will go to her grave with that knowledge. But just because someone sticks to the IM INNOCENT plea doesnt necessarily mean they are. Besides now it is too late or it worked in the way that he hoped. Lets say he gets life in prison. After some appeals he can get let go or get it reduced. As long as he sticks to his guns he can and will probably get removed from the death penalty. Which I wont be voting for him to do. I think in this case if you think about it a fall from a high chair cannot cause that level of internal damage. You would be blind if you did not see that. Give him the death penalty who says you have to be an anesthesiologist to put someone to sleep. A little chloroform will do just fine. If he is protecting the mother then let him. Right up until they poke him with a needle.

Doug, I find you in error on several points.

The fact that some who deserve the death penalty don't get it does not support that we should encourage more unfairness by further sparing more of those who deserve it.

All human sanctions and awards are just as "unfair". There is no such thing as absolutely fair and balanced awards and sanctions in all categories or any categories, for that matter.

Regarding innocents. I think we all know and have known that innocents get sentenced to prison and to death. The system has always anticipated error. That is why a remedy has been provided - lengthly appeals and commutation.

Secondly, the evidence is that living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed ones don't.

Furthermore, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

8 recent studies also find for a deterrent effect.

More bluntly. Executing murderers spares more innocent lives. Sparing murderers sacrifices more innocent lives.

The death penalty may well be the least arbitrary and capriscous sanction, based upon this review:

About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial.  That would be about 60,000 murders since 1973.  We have sentenced 7,600 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible. 

I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available. 

Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the world. 

I don't know how I feel about the death penalty. What I do know is that the family seems to want to shift the blame. I think it's sad that with the loss of her daughter the Flippen family wants to hurt her more. I have read on another web site that she was sleeping with the DA. Now the family says she was sleeping with a sheriff’s deputy. Get your lies straight. I guess she was sleeping with all 24 jurors that convicted him. While she was at it she slept with the ambulance workers who testified. Oh and I guess while she was at it why not sleep with the pathologist who said those kinds of injuries could not be sustained from falling out of a chair. Of course you would not want to leave out the photographer who took the pictures of the autopsy showing over 23 bruises all over her body. Come on give me a break!!!!