Re: candidate questionaire: US House

[bill london <london@moscow.com>]

Greg, et al:
As the person who received the candidates' responses via email, I can attest
that yes, indeed, that clear statement about state-sanctioned killing of
"serious narcotic trafficking agents" was exactly what Otter proposed.  We did
no editing whatsoever of any responses.
Otter's website address is listed on the same response and anyone can email
Otter or check out his other proposals through that website.
Perhaps Butch is just anxious to carry on in the glorious tradition of
outrageous and memorable pontifications established by the present
Congresswomanperson: Helen C-H.
BL

Greg Burton wrote:

> I want to understand this statement from Butch Otter — "I support the death
> penalty for serious narcotic trafficking agents."
>
> Did he, really, in fact, say this?
>
> Does he mean he wants to execute people who traffick in certain narcotic
> agents (ie heroin, meth, cocain) or does he mean he wants to execute agents
> (ie people) who traffick in serious narcotics of any kind (for instance a
> couple bricks of pot).
>
> I ask because it seems most reflective societies have either abolished the
> death penalty or are reconsidering their death penalty standards because
> new evidence suggests innocent people end up on death row more than we'd
> like to admit. There is also this little gem from a recent and exhaustive
> scientific study by a Columbia scholar: the death penalty is applied in
> error in two of every three instances. That's a roundabout way of saying
> the Columbia study suggests 66.7 percent of the nation's death sentences
> are successfully appealed or altered on habeus corpus, which doesn't mean
> the people are innocent, just that lower courts, in two of three cases,
> bungled the trials.
>
> And I know of no state in the union that kills people for selling drugs.
> And I know of no state considering such legislation. And I know of no
> Congress folks who suggest the United States should kill people for selling
> drugs.
>
> This is all to say, at a time when there is great debate about whether the
> U.S. should even be executing murderers, is Otter really suggesting we
> ought to be expanding our condemned lists to include people selling drugs?
>
> Can Vision2020 ask Otter to elaborate?
>
> cheers, greg