Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Tags: Sympathy for the Devil, Snipers at verdict a solution. Add Tags

Comments (63) Jump to Comments Form

oldlegodad said, about 1 month ago

No, that is their affair. You sir, are a murder.
edmondd said, about 1 month ago

The Right supports the death penalty, yet they are pro-life. The Left refers to abortion with the euphemistic term “Pro-Choice”, while considering the death penalty an atavistic and inhumane punishment.

The Left chooses to support the extermination of future generations through abortion, recoiling at the thought of losing the lives of soldiers and the killing of innocent civilians, while the Right calls the latter “collateral damage”, and are too quick to send young men and women into battle for less than clear and imminent reasons. And they kill animals for fun.

I was thinking that this country is way too strange. Maybe we are inside a bubble, our lives televised to some other countries, à la Truman Show; you know, with Jim Carrey?

I was reading that in Germany everything is so congruent that it is boring.

In Germany there is no death penalty anymore by the way.

And even abortion makes a bit more sense there:
“…as a result, in 1976, West Germany legalized abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy for reasons of medical necessity, sexual crimes or serious social or emotional distress, if approved by two doctors, and subject to counseling and a three-day waiting period.” -Wikipedia
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

The death penalty for murderers and other violent criminals is NOT the murder of innocents, as the crazy Leftists always portray.

It is nothing less than a sick mockery to victims’ families to use their money (and their neighbor’s money as well) to feed and clothe and house and pay for full medical and dental care etc for the person who murdered their loved one. Charles Manson being a perfect example–one of many such examples.

The only reason the so-called Left opposes the death penalty is because the Bible clearly states that governments have the authority, from God, to put to death those who murder others.

Everything the Bible condemns, the Left tends to celebrate. And everything the Bible celebrates, the Left tends to condemn.

This is why I correctly call the left Evil, even as they mock me and pretend to be the “good guys” while claiming that Christians and all “religunz” are the only true villians on Earth…
goulo said, about 1 month ago

It is fascinating that the same people who insist that everyone on death row is obviously guilty and deserves to die (based on court trials, which are a government procedure) also insist that the government can’t do anything right and should be reduced to doing no public services (in the context of health care reform, environmental protection, civil rights, and many other cases).

Are you really unaware of the many instances where DNA testing has proven that a convicted “killer” was in fact innocent?

Are you really unaware that many people have been executed and later found to be innocent?

Are you really unaware that this happens both due to corruption as well as incompetence as well as honest mistakes?

Are you really so callous that this doesn’t bother you (as long as it’s not anyone you are personally friends with who’s being executed)?
cdward said, about 1 month ago

I oppose the death penalty for many reasons. One is that it does nothing to reduce crime. That’s fact. Another is that innocent people have been executed - and you can’t say, “Sorry” after that. A more compelling reason for me is that killing out of revenge only turns us into killers, whether we slap a thin veneer of “justice” on it or not.

I support keeping abortion legal for several reasons as well. One of them is that in countries where it is legal (Germany for instance), the abortion rates are lowest, while countries that have some of the strictest anti-abortion laws also have some of the highest abortion rates, and highest rates of abortion-related deaths of the women.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Those who truly want to reduce abortions will find much more effective ways than making it illegal. That only punishes people but does nothing to stop the problem. But I’ve long believed that those who try to make abortion illegal only have an interest in throwing people in jail rather than stopping abortion.
Ted Rall said, about 1 month ago

This question is for those of you who are in favor of the death penalty:

How can you gloss over or justify a gross conflict of interest like the one described in my cartoon?

If you were on trial for, say, a parking violation–wouldn’t it matter to you if the cop were sleeping with the judge?

This cartoon is about corruption. Are you for it?
Vasmosn said, about 1 month ago

The “left” doesn’t oppose everything in the Bible. The “left” does oppose the “right” attempting to hijack Christianity for political purposes. In fact, the Bible does condone the death penalty–in the Old Testament. Jesus, however, did not. Christianity is supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus, not just the Old Testament.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

The dialogue has descended into left vs right again. OLDad, why in the world does it follow that a corrupt trial somehow must have proved the guy was guilty? I know YOU would expect a fair trial. As Rall’s post above says, would you be OK w/a guilty verdict if you knew that the prosecutor and the judge were winking at each other over your attorney’s head? Would that be OK for you?

Goulo, good post. A reply from OLDad would be nice. Why is the gov’t infallible in it’s death penalty/murder cases, but incompetent in all other areas? Hypocrite often?
JDG said, about 1 month ago

No other irregularities were cited. Apparently in spite of the relationship, no favortism was indicated. It still should have been retried and the parties here should be censured!
edmondd said, about 1 month ago

I’m not for corruption; corruption is vile and base, worthless and dishonorable…unless one is being bribed with at least one million dollars. I mean, even that amount of money becomes a dilemma for philosophers like us.

The funny thing is that, had the prosecutor and the judge been married for more than 25 years, the man would have been pardoned already as those guys would already be sick and tired of one another.

I speak as if the cartoon was based on actual events, it is not is it? Because I’ve heard of enough Troy Davises and Kirk Bloodswortheses enough already to fathom something like that going on for real.
Larry Bunch said, about 1 month ago

Vasmosn, have you never read Romans chapter thirteen?

The fact that errors are made in punishment does not negate the responsibility of government to punish evil doers. The Roman government punished Christians, not as good doers, but as evil doers. In this context, Paul writes that the government has the right to wield the sword (death penalty).

The death penalty is a deterrent to crime – the one put to death never kills anyone else!
parkersinthehouse said, about 1 month ago

boy you get us goin and we just don’t shut up

we can’t even answer your question we’re so het up

it’s one of the horrors of texas government/history (an also being from there) - crime or no crime and punishment anyway, especially if dark-skinned. one proven criminal unpunished is george bush, who may be hugely responsible for the last decades of corruption cited
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

parker: Death, sex, and religion! And awa-a-a-a-y we go!

(Freud was so right.)
hlp54 said, about 1 month ago

I want to know why all those against abortion, who do believe in death penalties, wars and killing animals, why don’t they take care of all the unwanted children already alive??? They seem to only care about fetuses - potential humans still in the womb. This country is too obsessed with women’s bodies. There are children starving and homeless all over the world. I’m 72 and have had a grandmother and great grandmother who were midwives and could tell some real horror stories women went through and terrible decisions they had to make. Men did not want to give up sex EVEN if another pregancy would kill their wives. No birth control then. Now so-called pro-lifers, many of whom are against birth control also, I think most are men who want to punish women for gettting pregnant. Why else are they so obsessed with what should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor? Most are also against welfare, all those women having children and living off welfare!!!! How can they be so hypocritical??? IF you’re pro-life then you should be for ALL life especially the ones already here. NO ONE is REQUIRED to have an abortion BUT if it becomes illegal - NO ONE could have one. AND as for those who say they don’t want to pay for it, in health insurance, I DON’T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR WARS - BUT GOVERNMENT IS OF AND FOR ALL THE PEOPLE NOT JUST A FEW.
motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

I am amazed by the way the right-wing people are rationalizing around this. The same people who no doubt questioned Clinton’s judgement because of his peccadillos.
It’s a blatant and obvious conflict of interest, and it is absolutely astonishing that it was not thrown out of court so hard it bounced. Only in Texas.
oldlegodad said, about 1 month ago

I love it when I get here first and get to stir the pot!!
Adam Sperry said, about 1 month ago

I support the Death Penalty (in theory) and abortion (so there!)

I do not support the way the Death Penalty has been carried out in this country, and Rall’s cartoon is just the tip of that corruption iceberg.

If I thought the DP was being handed down in a fair and rational manner, then execute away. But since the innocent and the black are most frequently subjected to the DP, it’s off the table for me for now.
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

Back to Ted’s comment, the question was do you see a conflict of interest when the prosecutor is having an affair with the judge, and this guy’s life is at stake? I certainly do. However, it is a tradition in Texas to never look back in hindsight once a ruling has come down. They love executing people there, because the majority of Texas voters love it! It’s a wild-west macho thang. It doesn’t matter how convoluted the circumstances, such as this particular situation. Cue W. and him singing… “please don’t kill me…”
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

I fail to see the point, Ted. Seriously.

The jury was not sleeping with the judge.

The fact the judge and prosecutor fornicated or whatever, had bearing on this violent criminal’s case HOW? Why would their presumed fornication affect either person’s views towards this dude?

Most importantly: why does the Left get so teary-eyed about the lowest of the low–the literal monsters among us who commit the worst violent crimes, murdering and raping and savaging other human beings? Why do you WANT to keep them alive? Do you simply enjoy tormenting the victims’ families, who never know any peace?

SO bizarre how you don’t mind putting to death children inside their mother’s wombs. But murdering psychopaths, you demand be kept ALIVE?

I’ll never understand you people…

Think of all the people who were permanently scarred by this dude’s free-will choices. Why would it be fair to THEM to keep this scum alive just because two courtroom employees decided to have sex?
Chikuku said, about 1 month ago

According to Antonin Scalia and other right-wing judges, a man may be executed if new evidence has turned up that proves he is innocent.

And in fact, a man who was totally innocent was recently executed. This happens all the time, and it makes the right-wingers happy.
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

Scott, you should understand that in court these days, the biased judge, INSTRUCTS the jury how to vote! The jury just wants to get out of there quickly as can be, and dutifully obeys the judge. Plus, the judge has pre-selected a jury that will rubber stamp the biased coaching. Courts are a farce. And more and more often, these people sentenced to death are not even guilty. I have no idea what this case is about. But if it’s going down in Texas, which is running neck and neck with China for execution tallies, then it is more than likely that the jury, the judge and the prosecutor have been corrupted.
edmondd said, about 1 month ago

Thanks rikoshayrabbit, I was about to answer him that but your answer puts it even better.

Let me add that there’s also:

1.- A trend in piling up charges so as to secure and reach a negotiated guilty plea for a lesser charge, resulting in having many individuals being falsely convicted.

2.-The adversarial system entrenches both the defense and, “the offense”, one should say without stretching things too far, in their respective camps, caring little for the true facts. The prosecutor will build a case with the express intent of securing a conviction, holding evidence out of context, even planting evidence on some occasions, instead of engaging in a true fact finding mission. The defense on the other hand, will be 110% behind the defendant, even if they knowingly know he/she is guilty.

3.- Antonin Scalia–self explanatory. See Chikuku’s post.

4.Lack of accountability for the states and the District Attorney’s offices. Most of these can get away with murder, literally, without even offering an apology. Even evidently innocent people on death row who have been freed, have been “pardoned”. What kind of justice is that?

Etc. There’s so much more but I’m tired.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

“…when God drafts them for 9 months of service. They can proudly serve and die in childbirth just as their brothers serve and die in war.”

Wow. Just wow. May god forgive you Charlie. God drafted my daughter for service after a home invasion wherein she was raped by four men. She should have proudly served and died for that, just as her fiancee served and died in the Iraq war. Proudly. You ass. You unbelievably pompous ass.

Larry sez; “The death penalty is a deterrent to crime – the one put to death never kills anyone else!”

You might also say that sometimes, the one put to death never killed anyone in the first place!

May you rabid rightwing haters never be wrongly accused by a prosecutor who colludes with a supposedly impartial judge. Impartiality and fairness is the point here, idiots. If you found out that the judge used to be an organizer for ACORN and had colluded with the prosecutor sexually, and the prosecutor was a pro-Obama petition signature collector, hoo boy! The republic would come crashing down.
mdeatherage said, about 1 month ago

“Was the judge sleeping with the jury?” misses the point, because as anyone who’s seen a TV crime drama knows (and it does happen this way), the judge decides what the jury can see and hear. The prosecution often wants to include general “this person is a bad person” evidence, which is irrelevant to the question of whether a particular defendant convicted a particular crime. “He’s been seen jaywalking in the past” is not evidence that you jaywalked at the time you were accused of jaywalking. Judges are supposed to exclude evidence that’s more prejudicial than probative—that’s more about condemning the defendant than finding the truth in this case. It doesn’t always happen that way.

Similarly, defendants want to throw in all kinds of evidence about how they’re “good” people who could never do something like this, and judges only allow that with the warning that it then lets the prosecution respond with evidence that the defendants are “bad” people. Defendants want to offer alternate theories of the crime, but judges tend to frown upon wholesale attempts to say “someone else did it” unless the evidence in this case makes a compelling argument that someone else is at fault.

If a judge has a personal relationship with either party, the bench’s judgement is presumed to be compromised. Judges must be disinterested third parties with no personal or financial outcome in the verdict either way. If the judge has an intimate relationship with the prosecutor of a criminal case, the bench’s judgement about what the prosecutor wants and what the defendant wants to enter in evidence is presumed to be faulty.

It’s not that the jury was trying to please the judge. It’s that the judge, perhaps trying to please the prosecutor, gave the state’s case more leeway than the defense’s case, allowing questionable evidence from the state and blocking it from the defendant. These are, by nature, judgement calls, but the law presumes that only a disinterested person can make such judgements. If the judge is sleeping with the prosecutor, the judge is no longer disinterested.

(That’s “disinterested,” not “uninterested.” Look it up if you don’t know the difference, because it’s important, especially if someone’s life is at stake.)
deadheadzan said, about 1 month ago

Ted, I agree, the cartoon is about coruption, and I am definitely not for it. Texas, that macho state, is all about winning the prize for most executions per capita.
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

Originally, back in the inception of this country, the judge was the IMPARTIAL referee. Look at this case!! The judge is boinking the prosecutor!! Do you think, late at night when they are in each others arms, they are going to maintain an impartial attitude, or be silent regarding all those folks they sentenced to death that day? That one’s for you Scottyboy.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

charlie, I could not disagree more. Women are not raped so that they can propagate humanity. They are raped for the power and convenience of the rapist. This conversation is over. You disgust me.
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

charlie: don’t let ezdeb manipulate you. this is the net. these leftists can and will say anything. they’ll make up any claim, fabricate any story, to try and browbeat people into silence.

i have never once made any reference in any of my posts to my own personal life, or laid out any anecdotal evidence to support my views. not in any way shape or form. i debate only ideas–belief systems.

because EVERYTHING is about faith. that’s what leftists are too foolish to understand. they adopt beliefs about humanity based solely on faith–a faith born of their own selfish appetites. they despise those who, like me, instead have faith in God and God’s word alone–not in the infinite amount of conflicting personal opinions voiced by mere men…
fennec said, about 1 month ago

^self-righteous ignorant scum. He isn’t worth replying to, ezdeb.

(edited: charlie seems to have removed his posts. A sense of decency caught up with him maybe.)
omQ R said, about 1 month ago

…..
thosgpetri said, about 1 month ago

wait a minute! abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent life, but capitol punishment is justified, even if it takes an innocent life. real logical. and no, it is not a deterent-it does nothing to prevent another person from killing. isn’t that the deterent we are really looking for.
omQ R said, about 1 month ago

I can say that, after reading most of the above (and rendered speechless in particular with 2 posters’ commentary), Ted now has more great material.

Vigilante murders will make up for the abolition of the death penalty (I can see a demand /supply curve here).
Rape can be a divine draftee tool for procreation.
A mother’s pain is manipulation for setting an agenda.
Childbirth is a community service.
More hypocrisy shown by a pair of self-righteous Christians who cannot see that thay are the evil.
Corruption in the justice system is fine and principles be dam-ned so long as you believe the bloke’s guilty.
Pro-lifers fine with the Death Penalty see no contradiction.
believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

ezdeb, I am so sorry for what happened to your daughter and her fiance; I share your righteous anger at some of the responses. Just ignore them.
oldlegodad said, about 1 month ago

Well calm down every body and take a look at TOBY. In my old avatar he was 2 months old and we had just that minute met. Now we are 2 years older and fatter, tho in my case not mellower toward IDIOTS of every political persuasion (except royalist, I will accept the crown)..
believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

Ted, I’m going to have to do some research because I missed this recent Texas court decision. The verdict should be thrown out, defendant retried and both judge and prosecutor reprimanded in an appropriate and legal way. Texas continues its tradition of ensuring some trials have no chance of ever being fair.
michaelwme said, about 1 month ago

Scott is absolutely right, we must provide closure to the victims’ families. But we must also consider what Hamlet said, ‘Thrift, Horatio, thrift.’

So pick some schlimazel, convict and execute him, and the families can have their closure without wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars finding the actual murderer.

Or even bothering to make sure a murder was committed (cf Texas arson case where there was no evidence of arson, but that’s OK, since, as the courts said, there was no conclusive evidence that it wasn’t arson, and schlimazels are guilty unless proven innocent, which they won’t be).
ijiwaru said, about 1 month ago

Christianity is a religion for retarded children. Who cares what the bible says… use your brain.
Ted Rall said, about 1 month ago

This is indeed a real case. What I don’t understand is, if they’re so sure the guy was guilty, why not give him a new, fair trial? To me, the refusal to offer him a retrial where the principles don’t have such a ridiculous conflict of interest indicates that they’re worried that he would be deemed not guilty, thus further exposing the system as a farce.

As I’ve always said, murderers deserve to die. The problem with capital punishment is, the system isn’t 100% efficient. If one innocent person has ever died from the death penalty, the entire system is by definition a big fat failure.

It’s not like the postal system. It’s OK if they deliver 99.6% of the letters.
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

Bingo! Ted. But this Texas place is a huge heartless wasteland. Your rationale is dead on, however. In Illinois, it’s been about 10 years now since they ended capital punishment, simply because the mechanism of “extreme prejudice” is so faulty and corrupted. I can just imagine these clowns late at night… “Oooh baby… I love it when you IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM…. it makes me hard….”
Corosive Frog said, about 1 month ago

Scott, if you had to convert someone to your religion, how would you explain him/her that your religion is better than extremist Islam?
audieholland said, about 1 month ago

Nobody deserves to die, not even murderers.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t exact revenge myself or (somewhat) approve of others slaying the murderers of their loved ones. But that’s very different from the principal law that murderers deserve to die.

It’s just that I sympathize with most soldiers in all armies since they’re just poor saps who signed up or were forced to sign up. Because they’re too poor or for whatever other reason they signed up. Following orders makes soldiers killers. A murderer will kill someone because of financial or other gain or satisfaction of his own desires. A soldiers kills someone else just because he is following orders.

If murderers deserve to die, I think you people would have to kill off a good number of your returning soldiers.
motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

What happened to Charlie? Did he withdraw his message? And if so, good, but too bad he didn’t apologize.

He hasn’t been pulled, because I have just replied to a message of his elsewhere.
M Henri Day said, about 1 month ago

Ted, does the principle that «murderers deserve to die» also apply to those who kill others abroad while wearing a uniform (including those wearing whatever Blackwater/Xe operatives and those serving other such organisations wear) ?…

Henri
anatheist2009 said, about 1 month ago

I’m with Ted - New trial.
Justice, as hard as it is to get, surely is not served by something as onerous as the implications of an affair between the Judge and Prosecutor.
Bias is present somewhat when we are completely detached from the people we are dealing with. It is a given with those we are intimate with.

But then this is Texas we are talking about. And I am serious, no joking.
deadheadzan said, about 1 month ago

Ideas, my big rosy butt, charlie, you love to be incendiary for kicks. I would respect you and scott more if you did give examples from your personal experiences- that to me, is much more genuine and then a person can really relate to you (or not). To say you have no fear of any ideas is a foolish statement. I could give you an example that would singe the hair on your head if I said it. You should apologize to ezdeb,period, exclamation point.
Vasmosn said, about 1 month ago

Larry, my post was not about the authority of government to punish. Indeed, someone must have that authority. What I said is that in Christianity, the ultimate authority, Jesus, eschewed capital punishment when faced with a capital crime. It’s not whether or not they CAN, it’s whether or not they SHOULD. And based on example of Christianity set by Jesus, they should not.
nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago

Personally, I think the death penalty is more humane than keeping a human being in a 4’ by 8’ cage for 30, 40, 50 years.
Larry Bunch said, about 1 month ago

Vasmosn, the New Testament is the word of Christ – Rom.13, authorizing the gov. to put to death the evildoer, comes from the Lord.

Another writer blasphemed God with his comments. It takes intellegence to understand the Bible. It takes no effort or thought to reject it.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

Oh, it takes no effort or thought to REJECT it; but it takes critical thinking, rational decision making, and the ability to deal with empirical evidence to lead one to the decision TO reject it. After that, it’s easy.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

Larry’s one of the cherry-picking christians. Nothing else matters except that he and his are authorized to kill. When Jesus personally appears in public and says “this person is an evildoer by MY standard; put him/her to death in my name”, I’ll say OK. Pardon me if I don’t accept your authorization. You happily cherry pick and twist gospel in order to kill, so I don’t trust you. Not with the lives of others!