What Next for PBC? A Golf Course?

I was appalled when I read The Dispatch-Argus’ lead editorial on Sunday, “Rock Island Board, say yes to PBC courthouse plan.”

The editors wrote, “Kudos to the Public Building Commission for voting to set a hard and fast deadline for Rock Island County to either demolish or renovate the old courthouse.

“We urge members of the county board ... to endorse the PBC-approved intergovernmental agreement that says if a buyer has not come forward to purchase the courthouse, or if no funds are available to renovate the building by July 18, 2018, board members will hand the deed over to the PBC for demolition.”

Since my editor has asked us to “share our views,” here’s my opinion ...

On Oct. 1, 1981, the PBC was established by the county board and taxpayers were solemnly assured in the resolution creating that commission, that “the sole purpose of such Public Building Commission” was “to provide a good and sufficient jail.”

That “good and sufficient jail” was built and completed 25 years ago. Now, 27 years later, a runaway PBC, an unprincipled county board and an overreaching chief judge want to use that PBC to demolish the antiquated century-old courthouse.

The PBC was created to build a jail. Where was it granted any other power or authority? Where does it get authority to issue ultimatums? To engage in urban renewal? To create landfills, or golf courses? How does any honest public official—judge or county board member—stretch a grant of authority to build “a good and sufficient jail” and claim with a straight face that it authorizes courthouse demolition 26 years later?

This is not a situation where the courthouse had to be demolished so that the land could be used to build the new jail in 1981. The new jail was built on land formerly occupied by the old St. Joseph’s Catholic School, not on the land presently occupied by the courthouse. The old obsolete courthouse remains in use next to the new jail even today.

Make no mistake, I think the old courthouse probably should be taken down for reasons I have expressed in earlier op-eds. But I think the county board should have the guts and integrity to do the job itself.

If a tax has to be levied to pay for the demolition, it is the job of the county board to levy that tax, rather than sloughing off the decision to an un-elected commission.

America fought a revolution over the principle that our taxes were to be levied by our elected representatives—not by a British Parliament—and not by commissioners or dogcatchers.

In 1981, in setting up the PBC, the county board operated under statutory authority granted to the counties by the Illinois Legislature, which gave counties a choice. They were authorized either (a) to set up a commission to be used whenever necessary, or (b) to set up a commission for the “limited purpose” of doing one or a limited number of projects.

The Legislature did not require county boards to hold a referendum before initially setting up the building commissions.

Rock Island County chose Option B. Its commission was set up for a limited, sole purpose, providing “a good and sufficient jail. The Legislature also required a referendum “be submitted to the electors ... and approved,” before that purpose can be expanded.


This is the third effort by the county board and the judges to ignore or stretch the plain language of the statute.

In 2001, three criminal courtrooms, with jury rooms and offices, were built in the Justice Center. Fair and reasonable argument could be made for that use of the commission there.

Criminal courtrooms at least have an arguable connection with a jail. (I retired before those courtrooms were finished, and never used them). Then in 2015, a whole new courthouse was begun.

I have expressed my opinion that the use of the commission without a referendum was illegal. Now, in December of 2017, the commission is about to be—in my opinion—used again in a way no rational citizen would ever have imagined back in 1981 when the taxpayers of the county were assured that the commission was created for the “sole purpose” of building a “good and sufficient” jail.

I don’t believe a good end—getting rid of an obsolete courthouse—justifies using means not authorized by law—without the voters first granting approval by referendum.

In my opinion, this all stinks!

Posted: QCOline.com December 21, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats Seek to Abuse Impeachment Powers

Now that John Conyers (D), Roy Moore (R) and Al Franken (D) have been accused of sexual misconduct, Democrats are salivating to revisit the allegations of sexual misconduct made prior to the election against then-candidate Donald Trump.

Walking talking-points, the likes of Eugene Robinson, bray, "If Congress is going to probe the conduct of Conyers and Franken, it must also investigate the multiple, believable allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump."

But why?


Six Democratic congressmen, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, want to impeach President Trump. But are they willing to add to their so-called articles of impeachment charges of sexual misconduct?

If so, are they willing to bring similar charges against Conyers and Franken? Members of the House and Senate are not subject to impeachment. Rather, under Article I, Section 5, "Each house ... with the concurrence of two thirds, can expel a member."

Or is the rule, only Republicans should be impeached.

Indeed if candidate Roy Moore has to go based on 40 year-old allegations, why shouldn't Conyers and Franken be cashiered for their more recent "misdemeanors?"

Are there photos of Moore's alleged misconduct? Of Franken's?

Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Article 1 provides that the House has sole power to bring charges of impeachment. If charges brought pursuant to a majority House vote, the Senate must try all impeachments, "and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- thirds of the members present."

The question really is, "what is a high crime or misdemeanor?" During the attempted impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (one of the court's great justices) U.S. Rep. Gerald Ford gave a very practical definition: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be."

It was on that basis, that President Bill Clinton (quite wrongfully, in my opinion) was impeached, but not convicted. But Ford's understanding is not what the framers understood or intended.

The framers borrowed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English experience and history. Parliament had impeached for the misuse of public funds, abuse of political (not sexual) power, neglect of duty, corruption, and encroachment upon the prerogatives of the legislature.

For example, English Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, was impeached for corruption and taking gratuities - "bribes" - from litigants. Charles I was charged with treason for waging war against Parliament, and the people therein represented, and for abuse of power- for encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament, according to "The Enduring Constitution," by Jethro Koller Lieberman.


American President Andrew Johnson (1867), Justices Samuel Chase (1804) and William O. Douglas were charged with acts done while they held office. Richard Nixon also would have been, had he not resigned.

To revisit charges of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before the election, or to examine additional charges that could have been leveled at that time, which weren't, would be a gross abuse of the power of impeachment.

In an impeachment, the Senate acts as the jury. But the charges against Mr. Trump - made before the election - have already been passed upon by another jury - the ultimate jury - the people of the United States, voting in the 2016 presidential election.

The voters were fully aware of the allegations. They had been relentlessly broadcast by the press, Democratic politicians, and anti-Trumpists across TV, cable, radio, newspapers and the internet. And the voters elected Mr. Trump.

There is something utterly undemocratic about 67 Senators nullifying a presidential election - the considered will of the American people.

(I am not saying that the Senate could not convict a president of a pre-election "high crime or misdemeanor" that was unknown to the voters on the day of elections that only comes to light later).

Mr. Lieberman writes, "Disapproval of presidential policies was not made a ground for impeachment, and it is generally agreed that the House abused its power in impeaching President Andrew Johnson in 1867 because it disliked his policies."

Posted: QCOline.com December 7, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea


Authors Note: Below is the op ed as originially submitted to my publisher, before their editorial changes.






                     A LITTLE IMPEACHMENT LAW AND OPINION



Now that John Conyers (D), Roy Moore (R) and Al Frankin (D) have been accused of
sexual misconduct, Democrats are salivating to revisit the allegations of sexual
misconduct made prior to the election against then-candidate Donald Trump.


Walking talking-points, the likes of Eugene Robinson, bray "If Congress is going to
probe the conduct of Conyers and Franken, it must also investigate the multiple,
believable allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump." But why?

Six Democratic Congressmen, the likes of Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, want to impeach
President Trump. But are they willing to add to their so-called articles of impeachment
charges of sexual misconduct? If so, are they willing to bring similar charges against
Conyers and Franken in their respective houses? [Members of the House and Senate
are not subject to impeachment. Rather, under Article I, Section 5, "Each house ... with
the concurrence of two thirds, can expel a member."]


Or is the rule, "only Republicans should be impeached. Indeed if candidate Moore "has
to go" based on 40 year-old allegations of sexual misconduct, why shouldn't Conyers
and Franken be cashiered for their more recent "misdemeanors?" Are there photos of
Moore's alleged misconduct? Of Franken's?



Article II, Sec. 4 of the U. S. Constitution provides "The President, Vice President,
and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."


Art. I, Sec. 2 [5} provides "The House of Representatives shall ...have the sole  power of impeachment." That means the House of Representatives has the sole power
to bring charges (to "impeach"). That charge is brought pursuant to a majority vote.

Art. 1, Sec. 3 [6] provides, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all
impeachments. ... and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
thirds of the members present."

So the question really is, "what is a high crime or misdemeanor?" During the attempted
impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (one of the court's
great justices) Congressman Gerald Ford gave a very practical definition: "An
impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers
it to be." It was on that basis, that President Bill Clinton (quite wrongfully, in my opinion)
was impeached, but not convicted. But Ford's understanding is not what the framers
understood or intended. The framers borrowed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English experience and history. There, the phrase took its meaning from English Parliamentary experience. Parliament had impeached for the misuse of public funds, abuse of political (not sexual) power, neglect of duty, corruption, and encroachment upon the prerogatives of the legislature. For example, the English


The Lord Chancellor, Francis Bacon, was impeached for corruption and taking gratuities -
"bribes" - from litigants. Charles I was charged with treason for waging war against the
Parliament, and the people therein represented, and for abuse of power- for encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament. "Our Enduring Constitution," Lieberman, (1997) p. 92.


In America, President Andrew Johnson (1867), and Justices Samuel Chase (1804) and
William O.Douglas were charged with acts done while they held office. Richard Nixon
also would have been, had he not resigned.

To re-visit the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against Mr. Trump before the
election, or to examine additional charges that could have been leveled at that
time, which weren't, would be a gross abuse of the power of impeachment. In an
impeachment, the Senate acts as the jury. But the charges against Mr. Trump - made before the election - have already been passed upon by "another jury" - the
ultimate jury - the people of the United States, voting in the 2016 Presidential election.


The voters were fully aware of the allegations. They had been relentlessly broadcast by
the press, Democratic politicians, and anti-Trump-ists across TV, cable, radio, newspapers and the internet. And the voters discounted the allegations and elected Mr. Trump President. 

There is something utterly undemocratic about 67 Senators nullifying a Presidential election - the considered will of the American people. (I am not saying that the Senate could not convict a President of a pre-election "high crime or misdemeanor" that was unknown to the voters on the day of elections that only comes to light later).


Finally, Mr. Lieberman writes, "Disapproval of presidential policies was not made
a ground for impeachment, and it is generally agreed that the House abused its power in impeaching President Andrew Johnson in 1867 because it disliked his
policies."

A modern-day Christmas Carol

Do you make charitable donations? Christmas donations? If so, how do you decide to whom you will give? Do you ever wonder whether the money that you give really goes for your intended purpose?

As I have grown older, I have come to believe that my donations should go to those who have the greatest need - those incapable of caring for themselves. I also have come to believe my donations should be local. As an old curmudgeon, I want to be in position to see that the organization that solicits my donation is faithfully using the money efficiently and consistently for their stated charitable purpose.

There is an organization in the Quad-Cities simply known as "The Arc." Its main office is on 9th Street in Rock Island. The Arc was founded in 1952 by parents of children with either physical or mental disabilities.


I write to ask you to consider helping The Arc this Christmas and beyond.

I write to say a personal thank you to The Arc. On June 1, 1973, my wife was pregnant. A few days later, our son was born. Hours after his birth, we were told by my friend and pediatrician, Dr. Martin Greenberg, that Tom was seizuring, and that his EEG showed chaotic electrical patterns in all regions of his brain.

Like most parents, we ran from Chicago's Children's Memorial, to Iowa City, to Mayo, in hopes something could be done to change Tom's future. Nothing could. His mom and I raised him into his 20s. He spent time at The ARC's (it was then known as the "ARC" it is now called "The Arc") Opportunity Center in Moline, and then at Blackhawk Special Education.

And then something happened. His mom, who had been on the old ARC Board, learned there was a vacancy at an ARC group home in Moline. She felt this eight-person facility was the best of all the ARC facilities. She felt that the time had come to place Tom.

At first, I balked, but her arguments were persuasive.

We were getting older? A time would come when we'd be incapable of caring for Tom. He'd be well cared for and with peers. He'd have his own home. She convinced me, and we placed Tom (and his Rockola Jukebox).


It was probably the best decision we could ever have made for him. It takes caring people to provide 24-hour care for eight physically and/or mentally disabled adults.

Today, Tom is healthy, and happy. He views the group home as his "home." He enjoys visiting with us every week, but he is always ready to go back to "his house." He has friends, Marla and Joe, there.

Today The Arc runs 14 small six-to-eight-person group homes. In addition, it provides Arc Industries. There, its clients, among other things, make cardboard boxes of every size and shape. (If you need boxes - one or a thousand - call and give them your business).


Other Arc clients clean the Butterworth Center and the Lodge at Blackhawk State Park. The Arc is a 5-1(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Today, it employs a staff of 219 persons; 171 of those are directly involved with care of the disabled clients; 142 provide direct support (primary care), and 29 are either on-site group home supervisors, or case workers. The remaining 48 provide staff support - including the executive director, and the director of development, etc.

Nearly 80 percent of The Arc budget goes to staffing, 4.5 percent to supplies,. 4.7 percent to maintenance. 1.6 percent for transportation (the 18 vans used to transport clients and staff), 3.62 percent covers miscellaneous expenses. and 8.7 percent goes for interest expense.

In 1891, Pope Leo XIII wrote of the duty of the state to provide for those "in exceeding distress ... without any prospect of extricating themselves from their extreme necessity."

When children of God are disabled, unable to care for themselves, and living in our community, should anyone - other than perhaps family - occupy a higher place in our plans for charitable and Christmas-giving?

Do we wait for the state to provide them welfare, or should we, at Christmastime, include these - as well as your favorite needy - in our charity?

Posted: QCOline.com December 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Thanksgiving Day through the Centuries

     A Day to be Thankful for the Sacrifices of all our Ancestors

Thanksgiving day is this Thursday. When you wake up, you'll roll out of bed, into a room heated by your gas furnace. There will be a solid roof over your head.

You'll turn on the electric lights and television. You'll turn on the water to brush your teeth and take a warm shower. You'll go to your refrigerator and get milk, bacon and eggs.

You'll check to see if the turkey you purchased is thawed for cooking in your electric or gas oven. For last minute items, stores will be open. As the day progresses, your odds of being attacked by natives are infinitesimally small.


Life in colonial America wasn't this safe and convenient. The early European colonists came to America for a myriad of reasons.

Jacques Cartier first sailed to America in 1534, on behalf of the French King, in search of gold, spices and a northern passage to the Orient.

A year later, Cartier returned in three small ships. This time, he establish a base or settlement at what is now Quebec, explored the St. Lawrence, as far as what is now Montreal.

On Oct. 11, he returned to winter at Quebec. It was too late in the year to recross the Atlantic to France. Scurvy set in. Nearly every Frenchman was stricken. In his journal, Cartier wrote, "out of 110 that we were, not ten were well enough to help the others; a pitiful thing to see."

There were no supermarkets where they could buy food, and fruits with Vitamin C. They were saved only when Domagaya, an Indian, told them of a concoction, apparently made from arbor vitae bark, which cured the scurvy, but not before 25 Frenchmen succumbed.

From mid-November 1535 until mid-April 1536, the small French fleet sat frozen in the ice, and fishing was impossible. They survived on salted game and fish, prepared before winter came.


Jamestown was an investment of the Virginia Company of London. Like the French in Canada, the English investors wanted a route to the orient, gold and gems. In December of 1606, 143 colonists sailed from England to Chesapeake Bay. On May 14, 1607 they selected a location on the James River to build their settlement, Jamestown.

The location, chosen for reasons of defense, with the coming of summer proved to be a malarial swamp. Worse, they arrived too late to plant crops. As each wild turkey was taken, their food supply moved further from the safety of the settlement.

By spring, before expected supply ships could arrive, more than 100 colonists had died of illness, starvation or small-scale Indian attacks.

Beginning in the spring of 1608, more settlers arrived. But then came the winter of 1609, the "starving time." When spring 1610 came, only 60 of 400 were still alive.


On Dec. 21, 1620, the Pilgrims - 102 of them - sent their first landing party ashore at what has come to be known as the Plymouth settlement. They were fleeing religious persecution, and immigrated to practice their faith as they saw fit.

During that first winter scurvy set in. Many of the men became too sick to work. Gov. William Bradford wrote, "of these one hundred persons who came over in this first ship together, the greatest half died in the general mortality, and most of them in two or three months' time."

Eighteen women had made the voyage: 13 died that winter; one more in May. Only four of the 18 lived to see the 1621 "autumn harvest celebration."

So, as Thanksgiving dawns this year, consider what you have and compare it to what the early colonists had.

They chose to come, anticipating the hardships of making their lives in the wilderness. In America of 1534-1620, their were no stores, or supermarkets. No houses, heat, air-conditioning, electricity, running water, sanitation systems or police to protect them. They brought with them no skilled doctors; no antibiotics.

They and their descendants began America so we would be free of the demands of kings and over-zealous churchmen, and free to earn our livings as we saw fit. So turn off FOX and CNN for one day, and be thankful for all we have in America.

Posted: QCOline.com Nov. 21, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Socialism - Rerum Novarum Revisited

My opposition to "socialism"is grounded on papal teachings.

To remedy economic inequalities, socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, strive to do away with private property.

They hold that by transferring property from private individuals to the state, the present inequitable state of things will be set right.

Each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy.

But where socialist theories they are carried into effect, the working man is always among the first to suffer.

Socialist remedies are unjust. In addition to robbing the lawful possessor, they distort the functions of the state, and create utter confusion in the community.

When a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work are to obtain property. And to hold it as his own.

If a man hires out his strength or skill to another, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return that which is necessary to satisfy his needs.

He therefore intends to acquire a full, real right, not only to the remuneration, but also the right to dispose of that remuneration as he pleases.

If he saves money, and invests his savings in land, that land is only his wages under another form.

His little estate so purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor.

It is precisely in the power of disposal that ownership obtains - whether the property consist of land or chattels.

Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the state, strike at the interests of every wage-earner.

They would deprive him of the liberty to dispose of his wages, and the possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

What is of far greater moment, however, is that the proposed socialist remedy is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.

Man is endowed with reason.

Therefore, it must be within his right to possess things not merely for momentary use, but to hold them in permanent possession. He must have not only things that perish in the use, but also those which continue to be useful for future use.

Man precedes the state. He possesses, prior to the formation of any state, the right of providing for the substance of his body and family.

The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property.

For though God has granted the earth to mankind in general; no part of it was assigned to any one in particular. The limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races.

Socialists assert that it is right for private persons to have the use of the soil and its various fruits, but that it is unjust for anyone to possess (own) outright the land on which he has built or brought under cultivation.

They do not perceive that they are defrauding man of what his own labor has produced.

Soil which is cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition. It was wild before; now it is fruitful. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else?

The principle of private ownership is in conformity with human nature, and conductive to the peace and tranquility of human existence.

The contention that the civil government should exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a pernicious error.

True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth.

Should the socialist philosophy prevail, no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry. The equality about which socialists dream would result in the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.

The main tenet of socialism - "community of goods" - must be utterly rejected. It injures those whom it is meant to benefit. It is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind. It would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.

The first and most fundamental principle is, therefore, that if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, private property must be inviolate.

Whose teachings?

Leo, XIII's: Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.

My words are his.


Posted: QCOline.com Nov. 7, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Religious Freedom - Martin Luther's Legacy

Oct. 31 marked the 500th anniversary of the day Martin Luther wrote to his bishop, protesting the sale of indulgences.

Luther also sent along a copy of a document that has come to be known as his "Ninety-five Theses." Oct. 31, 1517 may very well be the most important day in the last 1,000 years of Western history.

It marks the beginning of the right of western European men to hold and practice their religious beliefs of choice -- even if deemed "heretical" by the Roman Catholic Church.

Luther did so at the very real risk of being burned at the stake. Before Luther, Catholics whose beliefs were deemed heretical, including those who had left the church to adhere to any reforming sect, such as the Cathars, risked being hauled before the Inquisition, and upon conviction being burned at the stake.

Where heresy was widespread, Rome initiated crusades to suppress the heresies. In 1209, the Albigensian Crusade was initiated by the Catholic Church against the Cathers in Languedoc - now southern France. That crusade, instigated by Pope Innocent III lasted for 20 years.

During that time, lands and cities of the Counts of Toulouse were ravaged by the Pope's crusaders. Between 200,000 and a million heretics - and others - were killed. The pope raised his crusading army by repeatedly offering orthodox Catholic warriors indulgences and titles to all lands they conquered.

In 1215, Innocent III and the Fourth Council of the Lateran, promulgated "Canon 3 - On Heresy."

"We condemn all heretics. ... The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated ... Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation ... Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities ... be advised ... and if necessary compelled ... to expel from the lands ... all heretics designated by the church in good faith. ... If a temporal lord, required ... by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be [excommunicated] by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff [who] may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by [crusading] Catholics ... Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. If any refuse to avoid such heretics after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a Christian burial."

Luther was fully aware of the case of John Huss, a priest, who sought to reform the Bohemian church. He espoused the teachings of John Wycliffe. In 1415, he sought to defend his teachings at the Council of Constance.

The church found him guilty of heresy, and directed him burned at the stake. It was against the threat of John Huss' fate that Luther began his reformation efforts. Rome responded with the papal bull, Exsurge Domine, listing 41 errors advanced by Luther.

Error No. 33 states: "It is contrary to the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned." Luther responded by burning the bull.

When Luther failed to recant, the pope issued the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem declaring that Luther had been formally excommunicated. Luther escaped the fate of Huss only because Frederick III, the elector of Saxony confined him at Wartburg Castle.

Europe divided into two camps. Thirty years of religious war followed in central Europe until the opposing sides exhausted themselves. Some eight million died. The war ended Rome's power to enforce orthodoxy, at least in the Protestant states recognized by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). There, the power of the Inquisition was smashed.

The religious toleration and freedom we have come to know in the U.S. would not have blossomed when and as it did without Martin Luther and the shameful religious wars that followed.

Today western man worships as he pleases. Christians no longer burn each other for heresy. Even if you disagree with Luther's teachings, he deserves credit for risking his life to profess the faith he believed. Our religious freedom did not come cheaply.


Posted: QCOline.com Nov. 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Can a Civilized Society Impose Death Penalty?

Do you oppose the death penalty? In all situations> What if accused Las Vegas murderer, Stephen Paddock, had lived? As a juror, what penalty would you impose?

The Washington Post story headlined, "At least 59 killed in Las Vegas shooting rampage, more than 500 others injured," notes:

"Perched in his suite at a high-rise hotel overlooking the Vegas Strip, a 64-year-old retiree with no real criminal history and no known affiliations with terror groups rained bullets down into a crowd at a country music festival Sunday, killing at least 59 people and injuring [five hundred] more in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.


"Law enforcement officials said they could not immediately tell what drove Stephen Paddock to fire at thousands of unsuspecting concertgoers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay ... before killing himself."

Had Paddock not committed suicide, would the death penalty be an appropriate disposition pursuant to his conviction for murdering 59 human beings? The only appropriate disposition?

When our founding fathers wrote our Constitution and added the Bill of Rights, they decided our liberties would be better secured if 12 citizens, not government functionaries, not judges, decided the guilt of defendants charged with murder. And in murder cases, it was juries who decided whether or not to impose the death penalty.

Unless, the defendant waives jury trial, the jury still decides these issues today.

Among issues considered by a jury in whether or not to impose the death penalty are:
Were these murders, premeditated?

Paddock rented an hotel room overlooking the concert venue - an open field with no places to hide. He arrived there several days prior to the murders. He carefully set up. He brought some 23 guns [calibers ranging from .223 to .308]. Some had scopes. One weapon, apparently used in the massacre, was an AK-47-type rifle, with a tripod. Paddock set up cameras to observe the hallway outside his room.

To increase his rate of fire - to mimic a fully automatic illegal weapon - he apparently used "bump stocks." Twelve were found in his room. Have you any doubt whatsoever that these murders were premeditated?
Would the death penalty be "proportionate" to the offense(s)?

When somebody, with premeditation, murders 59 innocent people, is any term in the penitentiary "proportionate?" What penalty other than death even approaches being "proportionate" to 59 premeditated murders?

Would you impose a sentence to encourage Paddock to "rehabilitate" himself?

Paddock was 64. Assuming he's a model prisoner, would you parole him, if your rehabilitation goal is met? When? After 5 years? 10 years ? 15?

You can find the names and ages of Paddock's victims at msn.com/en-us/news/us/here-are-all-the-victims-of-the-las-vegas-shootingar-AAsY6V9

Paddock's victims ranged in age from 20 to 67. They were mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandparents and grandchildren. Are 59 concurrent 20-year sentences adequate punishment? 59 concurrent life sentences? Were Paddock to die in prison at age 80, would his 16-year sentence be proportionate punishment for killing people in their 20s and 30s? And are 59 concurrent life sentences any more punitive than a single life sentence?
Then, there is the matter of deterrence.

Would you argue that imposition of the death penalty on one defendant will not deter others from committing similar crimes?

But it is not certain that Paddock would have been absolutely and permanently deterred from ever murdering 60 innocent? Does any executed murderer ever engage in recidivism?

Would you argue, "only God can take a life?" If so, would you have objected to a policeman killing Paddock to terminate his murder spree? If a policeman can kill without trial, why can't society impose a death sentence after considering all issues as fully and fairly as possible? You argue, a policeman acts out of necessity. Why can't a jury find that death is necessary if the sentence is to be proportionate, and the only punishment that can guarantee deterrence?

Due to word limitations, the question of "randomness" must be the subject of a future op-ed.


Posted: QCOline.com October 17, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea