Republican Senator blames Democrats for deaths of children

Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Republican Senator blames Democrats for deaths of children
by O.Kay Henderson

A Republican Senator is accusing Democrats in the Senate who oppose the death penalty of causing the deaths of children who're the victims of a kidnapping or sexual abuse. Republican Senator Larry McKibben of Marshalltown made his comments this (Wednesday) morning during a statehouse news conference.

McKibben says there's a "de facto death sentence for children" today in Iowa. "If you kidnap someone or rape someone, either one of those is life in prison without the possibility of parole. What is the next logical step move for the kidnapper and rapist to do? Simply murder the victim," McKibben says. McKibben repeatedly tried, without success, to get a Senate debate on the death penalty last spring. The Democrat Leader in the Senate blocked that debate. "I think by the Senate Democrats not allowing us to have that debate and have that discussion, they've de facto given us a death penalty and it's a death penalty for minor children in this state," McKibben says. "I think it's time that that ends."

McKibben argues that the death penalty for child killers would be a deterrent and save lives. McKibben says it's time to stop finding children "in rivers or in shallow graves or stuffed in cabinets." The body of Evelyn Miller, the girl murdered this summer in Floyd County, was found in a river and the body of Jetseta Gage, the Cedar Rapids girl raped and murdered allegedly at the hands of a convicted sex offender, was found stuffed in a cabinet in a mobile home.
(snip)

Senator Keith Kreiman, a Democrat from Bloomfield, takes a shot back at McKibben. Kreiman says Republicans have refused to provide enough money to the state's child protective services system, and those budget constraints have ended up being a death penalty for some kids, too. Kreiman and McKibben are both members of a legislative panel that's meeting today (Wednesday) at the statehouse, reviewing Iowa's sex offender laws.
(snip/...)

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=1D998D7B-0968-425E-9074C4B53144F9CB



Senator Larry McKibben

but, all things notwithstanding, is it OK if I just outright HATE that rotten, misbegotten, motherless, soulless, sorry-son-of-a-syphillitic-seacook BASTARD?

Is that OK?

Cuz I do. I just do.

You look at the picture, and you just wonder how many lives he's already screwed up with his fundamentalism.

In fact, he kinda looks like a Duke Cunningham wannabe.

:puke:

of children, that would possibly decrease the number of killed children.

You would wipe out the GOP, for Gawd's sake!

We would have no elected leaders...

Freeper Fundamentalists CANNOT be "saved."

We West Virginians feel a certain kinship with Iowa, since our state university is a land grant college. Somewhere out there, among the square acres, is the farmland that let the children of coal miners go to college.

We owe you guys.

The birthplace of the world's first electronic digital computer. Not to mention a great deal of modern statistics which made possible the agricultural revolution.

Iowa is full of firsts and bests and I am proud to live here!

for freaks who rape and murder kids.

One of the cases overturned in Illinois (Nekariko?) convicted two innocent men.

If we could prove with 100% certainty that someone is guilty, I could live with the DP for the most heinous crimes.

Problem is, there are very few cases where there is 100% certainty.
Also, do you want the Facists being placed in power today to be deciding if the police or prosecutors performed within the law?

Life without parole allows for mistakes to be partially undone.

I mean, OK let's discuss the death penalty and whether or not it is permissable and in what circumstances, it's a good debate. But don't call death penalty opponents de facto murderers, that's inflammatory.

a deterrent. Killers just don't stand there contemplating murder and then change their mind because of the death penalty. Criminals at every level think they are not going to get caught. Period.

well, maybe two questions. If we say it's permissible to take the life of someone who took a life, why is the life of a child more valuable than an adult?
My other question is, if we analyze statistics for murder victims, how many are children? Of those murdered children, how many are raped?
Aren't all murdered persons of equal value? If not, why not?
:shrug:

edit- Ok about 4 questions! :)

Who made the state God to say they can take a life?

It is not a deterrent.

It doesn't bring the victim back to life.

It has been proven that the death penalty is egregiously biased against those who kill whites, especially if they are minorities who kill whites.

You can't bring somebody back to life if evidence later comes to light that they were innocent, but you can release them from jail. (This has happened hundreds of times.)

:eyes:

plenty in Iraq..in fact I'm sure more than at the hands of sex offendors.

I think if someone has so little regard for life that he/she would murder a child the sentence they receive probably means little.

These sort of statements don't help the victims.

due to lack of basic health care and proper nutrition. How would you rate "death of the spirit"? Kids today are at greater risk because freep-tards like this douche outsource their parent's jobs, gut public education and sell their inheritance to China!

A rapist faces life imprisonment, so he murders the victims to better evade capture.

But if there were a death penalty, instead, then... what? Wouldn't the rapist make double extra sure the victim was dead?

Could someone please hand me a clue, here? I must be misunderstanding something.

I mean just because you are against the death penalty doesn't mean you are for letting sicko child murderers go free. The fear of the death penalty has never, ever been shown to decrease crime or murder rates. So repukes are functioning on faulty logic in a make believe world...again.

Honestly, I wasn't playing dumb in that post above. I had forgotten that the death penalty is still claimed by some to serve as a deterrent.

In my own mind, the death penalty is nothing more than institutionalized revenge. It's debatable whether or not revenge is an acceptable course of action, but rationalizing the death penalty as a deterrent ranks right up there with denying global warming or evolution as false-flag arguments which conceal other motivations.

I think the argument is that a child rapist who doesn't face the death penalty will conclude that there is no downside in killing the child ir he thinks it will help him avoid capture. If he's right, he goes free and if he's wrong he's no worse off. But if you impose the death penalty on child rapists who kill their victims, then the rapist faces a downside if killing the child doesn't prevent him from getting caught.

Of course, this argument assumes that child rapists weigh these kinds of variables and reach some sort of deductive conclusion before they act. Which is absurd.

onenote

Killers and rapists do not think rationally. Therefore it really does not matter what the "punishment" is. The death penalty should be reserved for the 100% hard core, 100% positive they are guilty. Too many innocents are on death Row just to get the books cleared.

Study after study has shown that the death penality is not a deterent, simply a punishment.

You can argue that that child killers deserve to die, but be honest about your motives. It's not about preventing another murder; it's about punishing the one you've got.

A predator is a predator and will not change their ways any more than a lion would switch to a vegetarian diet. Society has a right to protect themselves from predators. Once these predators have been identified and convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt-you have 2 options: life imprisonment or death. Since many states do not have true life imprisonment (you a jailed until your death), the other option is death. And frankly, I will not lose sleep if these characters are put to death. They have free will and made their choices and they must face the consequences. I don't care whether it deters them or not, but I do have the right as a parent and member of society to expect protection.
I will add the caveat that those that do face such an extreme penalty should have the best legal council and the rights of appeal. But eventually, one has to answer for one's actions, either here on earth or on another level. Since I reside in the here and now, justice should be dispenced in the here and now whenever possible.

And the Dem candidate seemed to give an apples to oranges argument. This is why we come off looking wimpy, like making excuses for the predators, etc. This is where we lose the conservatives and middle of the road voters. We can be tough on crime but stay true to our principals.

First you say: "A predator is a predator and will not change their ways any more than a lion would switch to a vegetarian diet."

Then you say: "They have free will and made their choices and they must face the consequences."

You should reframe your argument, at a minimum, because right now it implies that human murderers both don't and do have free will. If you removed the clause comparing human predators to lions it would work better.

however those that chose that path of sexual gratification seem to get a taste for it (for lack of a better word)and do not give it up. The sex drive is very powerful. They develop into predators and do not stop, much like a mountain lion that discovers what easy prey humans are and takes to targeting humans instead of rabbits (a better analogy perhaps).
Humans have free will, but once they make that initial choice-it is hard to go back. Frequently the attacks escalate in number and violence. Thus my strong feelings. These guys will not change and therefore should be dealt with appropriatly.

I guess I just feel that the argument loses some effect by mixing the animal metaphor with the idea of free will.

Personally, I am not in favor of capital punishment, but I am inclined to agree that some people are so strongly inclined to destructive behavior that society needs protection. In some cases brain damage may mean they don't really have free will in the sense we understand it, but in many cases I think there is an active choice to prey on others. Either way, I prefer the long term imprisonment option over capital punishment, although it has its problems too.

But it is obviously an area where reasonable, well intentioned individuals can disagree.

I think it is too easy a way out. Spend 50 years behind bars, with no hope of parole, thinking about your crime, until you die. Seems more fitting to me.

and you could argue that 50 years in a long time for a child rapist and killer to spend in prison. I have heard that they are not real popular there.

My point was more practical though. The death penalty does not prevent potential killers from committing a crime.

Maybe the death penalty is justice (or maybe not). Maybe it's punishment (or not). Maybe it's revenge (or not).

But it does not reduce crime. If you are in favor of the death penalty, you need to argue from facts not on false arguments like more children will die if we don't employ the death penalty. That is base demagoguery. edit to add, not you specifically - I mean guys like this lawmaker, not you. Sorry if unclear!

But that's me, living in a reality based world again. :)

At least as long as they remain alive.

making an argument with no basis in fact. What else is new.

Can't Repukes come up with something better than blaming democrats for all the problems of the world? Yawn.

one has to wonder what the hell is he talking about.

using religion for politics.

These repukelicans are so friggin ignorant. "Just kill em all! That'll solve the problem." Yeah, riiiight.

:eyes:

I'll wager you that the fucked up social and environmental policies implemented by the Republicans in your state will ultimately kill more children than a few whack-jobs running around out there.

And welcome to DU DKStreet.

I would suggest keeping your children away from this senator.

We have the death penalty in Florida, but that didn't stop two sickos from kidnapping, raping and mudering these young girls.

So, his argument is completely fallacious as well as inflammatory.

We have these jokers running scared for '06. The Dems are set to pick up plenty of State House and State Senate seats (breaking our current split in the legislature), and the US House races are looking good too. Our upcoming Gubernatorial race seem competitive at this point.

So what do they do? Old "Fibbin McKibben" (A name created by Congressman Boswell!) pulls out the tried-and-true blame and wedge. To be honest, it isn't the issue, but the timing that is so sickening. As our state leaders have pointed out, the R's had 12 years in control of our state and they didn't pass it then. Only when it's a convenient tool does it come up.

I love my state, but these jokers embarass me!

Read more here in the Iowa Forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=152x4688

They always pick on the marginalized - sex offenders and child killers - easy target. People will hate them and so want to strike back at them. So he used them to get his agenda across.

But the death penality will be for all violent criminals, most aren't child killers.

He tried to make anyone not agreeing with him look like a child murder -(nazis making jews look like rats) in his low flung public minipulation tactic to make the public HATE people he opposes. Its falacius as people who don't commit murder are not as bad as the killers they refuse to kill.

It's nazi tactics.

And he's doing it so the state can commit murder.

If I have heard correctly they Death Penalty that they are proposing would only be for those that kidnap, sexually assault, and murder minor aged victims.

It's not an across-the-board death penalty.

Either way, your point is a sound one, just wanted to clarify.

no doubt. Put these stupid cornhuskers out shoveling shit and get 'em out of the gov't.

Washington state does. There are yahoos in Iowa but apparently you have had a few too.

If the perp is afraid to get the death penalty, wouldn't he be more likely to eliminate the chief witness to his crime?

If people want the death penalty, then let's at least be honest about it. Justice is life w/out parole for a murder of anyone, child or adult. Revenge is the death penalty. People who want the death penalty want revenge, pure and simple. It's understandable, but don't cloak your argument in a lot of bull about "deterrents", because the data proves that capital punishment is not a deterrent.

I remember a govt study (which admitted its statistics were conservative) on the 'innocent' on death row. They announced that '1 in 10' people put to death were innocent. They found their statistics from recent DNA studies in cases where the evidence was still available.

I can't accept those odds.

What stupid, illogical bullshit!