« A Man, His Cigar, and Common Sense | Main | Is There More To The Story? »

February 09, 2009

Comments

200 Grande

Brownlee's got nothing and he's desperate.

Is this guy going to use the death penalty as an issue to garner support in the general election, too?

Is Brownlee now consulting with the Kilgore people? Yeah, Brownlee's gonna really deliver in Northern Virginia.

Earth to John Brownlee: Do the Republican Party a favor and DROP OUT NOW!

Kilo

Ken voted against the repeal of the triggerman rule in 2007. That bill was sponsored by Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) and endorsed by the Virginia Crime Commission and Ken voted against it. A lot of people find that troubling. Combine that with quotes like "We're killing enough people in Virginia" makes you wonder. I posted about this a while back and linked to a couple law blogs that covered the story well.
http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2009/01/brownlee-cuccinelli-capital-punishment.html

200 Grande

You would think Kilo could elaborate more on his objection to repealing the triggerman rule than talking about "a lot of people" finding it troubling....and ambiguously saying, "Cuccinelli's view that a judge[']s life is more important than say my Mom[']s," does not cut it.

This shows that this is not a serious debate over a serious issue but rather a smear disguised as a serious issue.

Cuccinelli reasons are elaborated above. You would think detractors (Brownlee included) would have the decency to take that into account with their responses.

Loudoun Insider

Cuccinelli will be an anchor around Bob McDonnell's neck. He is not a viable statewide candidate. Get over it.

Kilo

200 grande, I think the law enforcement and commonwealth attorneys that are endorsing Brownlee shows clearly who they trust as AG.
"Cuccinelli's view that a judge[']s life is more important than say my Mom[']s,"
Yes it is that simple. Cooch assigns value to life? A judges life is worth repealing the triggerman rule, but if you are just a common man it's not?

Ben P. Judah

Here is what kills me--"Cuccinelli sets Brownlee straight" is the headline, but Cuccinelli's statement does nothing to refute Brownlee's point, which is a valid one. It reminds me of Churchill's saying "People have told lies about me, but the worst thing is that some of them are true."
Bottom line is that Cuccinelli is soft on crime--just like Kaine. Cuccinelli, of course, has never prosecuted a crime, so he has no clue.

Ashton Gilmore

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, or even start "that" argument... but isn't Cuccinelli Catholic? I only ask because I have a lot of Catholic friends who are very conservative who staunchly oppose the death penalty. They believe in protecting human life in all instances, which is a perfectly fine thing to believe in. I'm just curious. Not really going to throw in much more of an opinion on this as the death penalty in Virginia is a pretty moot issue. It's not going away.

200 Grande

Ken has responded by elaborating his position on the "triggerman" rule. That's relayed in the excerpt Chris provided.

Brownlee never goes into the same degree of detail regarding the "triggerman" rule. It's just another hit-and-run hoping that something will stick.

KEN CUCCINELLI SUPPORTS the DEATH PENALTY and has always defended the VIRGINIA death penalty statute; so imputing that he is anti-death penalty, like Governor Kaine, is a deliberate falsehood on Brownlee's part.

You would think if Brownlee was such a great lawyer, he would do better at speaking to the relevance of the issue. Oh, wait,...he can't because he's got nothing but smoke and mirrors to make distinctions with.

This is just as dumb as the time Brownlee said Ken is not really pro-life. Keep trying guys.

Loudoun Insider

Carl Kilo responds:

http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2009/02/cuccinelli-stands-with-tim-kaine-and.html

Cooch is a GOP disaster in the waiting.

Rtwng Extrmst

Not only that, but Kilo links on his site to a Brownlee ad that criticizes Ken's vote and tries to explain through a vignette of what the removal of the triggerman rule would allow. There's only one problem with his logic. The vignette he uses is one which Ken has already supported and voted in favor of in EXPANDING cases where the triggerman rule does not apply.

Fully removing the triggerman rule to me would open alot of issues that we don't necessarily want to go into, potentially risking the conviction and execution of some who actually did not intend to murder. Just who outside of the murderer expanded to 1) terrorism (including the Beltway sniper case), 2) murder for hire and 3) gangs and other criminal enterprises (the example Brownlee tried to use to smear Ken in his ad) do we want to expand the death penalty to? Ken supports the current law and has voted to uphold it and expanding it to the 3 exemptions listed above. How is that "soft on crime"?

Police officers, judges, and witnesses in capital crimes face much more risk of being murdered by organized crime than your average mother down the street. That's why the current expansion is necessary. It's not about the value of the mother's life. The law today covers just about every possible situation that could happen that those that support the repeal could think of. It just requires the prosecutor to DO HIS JOB WELL. When taking someone's life for a capital crime, it's important we make sure we do that job well. In my opinion the law as it is today is very reasonable to suport convictions of anyone who has murdered or been a key and deliberate accomplice in that murder to be punished justly through capital punishment. To completely remove the triggerman rule in my opinion would only risk executing someone who while being involved may not have actually intended to murder.

The comments to this entry are closed.