news-record.com

BLOGS

Off the Record

Harrison and Hardister meet in libertarian limbo

Democrat Pricey Harrison and Republican Jon Hardister are opponents for the N.C. House District 57 seat held by Harrison since 2005.

On many issues, they differ about 180 degrees along liberal-conservative lines.

On a few others, however, they seem to meet in some sort of libertarian limbo.

For examples, both oppose state incentives for businesses and both believe the state should privatize liquor sales.

On the subject of the death penalty, well, take a look at their answers to that question on our questionnaire -- and see if you can guess whose is whose.

"No, I do not support continuation of the death penalty. First of all, the execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. While this kind of mistake may be extremely rare within our judicial system, it is always possible that mistakes can be made. Secondly, based on the evidence, it is debatable as to whether or not the death penalty actually serves as a deterrent. Third, there is evidence that the race of the defendant and the race of the victim may influence whether or not an individual is sentenced to die. Fourth, serious criminal offenders should spend the rest of their life in prison so they can truly pay for their crime and think about what they did. While I understand why some people support the death penalty, I do not think that it is the best course of action."

"Based on many factors, such as the recent study showing race to be a significant factor in North Carolina's capital punishment system, as well as the recent revelation from the SBI that there have been mistakes- both intentional and unintentional- in the testing and presentation of evidence in capital trials, I do not believe I can continue to support the capital punishment system in NC. Four death row inmates have been exonerated in the past  five years, and the SBI has admitted that some inmates who have already been executed were among those where serious mistakes have already been acknowledged by the lab. We should not support a system where innocent men are imprisoned for years and where people are executed based on mistakes made by the State. The current system is inefficient, costly, and does not provide the victim's family with the timely disclosure they deserve. The millions of dollars spent every year on the system would be better spent on improving law enforcement and victims' services."

So, what's your guess?

 

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

jonfire

September 7, 2010 - 5:34 pm EDT

I'll take a shot and say Hardister 1st and Harrison 2nd.

Seymour Hardy Floyd

September 7, 2010 - 11:31 pm EDT

I'll second jonfire's shot.

Either way, both quotes include some powerful arguments against the death penalty.

If no other reason convinces a person to oppose the death penalty, this one by itself should: "First of all, the execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. While this kind of mistake may be extremely rare within our judicial system, it is always possible that mistakes can be made."

I'm not sure how anyone can defend as acceptable the risk of "accidentally" executing an innocent person. (I challenge anyone to try.) For all the mistrust of government and politicians and "other" human beings, it is amazing that we place our supreme faith in the death penalty being perfectly applied.

If we're OK with ending the lives of murderers who have taken innocent people's lives, then who should be held responsible and have his/her own life taken away after the discovery that an executed convicted murderer was actually innocent?

If we are obligated to execute murderers on behalf of their victims and their victims' families, it seems logical that someone should pay the same price for any convicted murderer who receives the death penalty but is later proven innocent.

Seymour Hardy Floyd

September 7, 2010 - 11:45 pm EDT

Doug,

When can we return to find out who said what?

Also, one candidate's website is still under construction, and among the issues that the other candidate cites, opposition to the death penalty is not a position that I saw listed. Am glad that your questionnaire asked about the death penalty and that they responded. Despite both candidates' clearly expressed opposition to the death penalty, it might be better to ask if either of them actually plans to push the legislature to end the death penalty in our state.

Thanks for sharing!

Hardy

Doug

September 8, 2010 - 8:35 am EDT

I pressed Hardister on that question and he said he would. It probably would take a Republican to press ahead on this, kind of like Nixon going to China.

But he and Harrison both said it would be an uphill fight.

Yes, exacting personal accountability for death penalty errors would change attitudes.

brian444

September 8, 2010 - 1:33 am EDT

Harrison 2nd. Easy.

Doug

September 8, 2010 - 8:34 am EDT

You're all correct: Haridister's statement is first, Harrison's second.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search