2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I was disappointed, but not suprized by the level to which District Attorney Norman Frink lowered today's discussion on the death penalty. Instead of providing cogent proof of his assertion that the death penalty can "save" the state money -- a positition that is flatly disputed by all research on the topic -- he attempted to imply that Matthew Rubenstein's evidence that costs run up to 10 times more for capital cases - was irrelevant because Mr. Rubenstein opposes the death penalty. He did the same with the comments made by Stevens County Commissioner Malcom Freidman, who during a time of shrinking statewide and county budgets, thinks there might be better ways to spend tax dollars than bringing forth costly death penalty cases.  

In both situations, Mr. Frink wanted listeners to ignore fact based research because the presenters had policy opinions about capital punishment.

What?

Mr. Frink also has an opinion about the death penalty -- and that is that it as a valuable tool and that he does not want it, nor the process that capitol cases come before the courts -- to be changed. Yet, we are to take his words at face value?

The Multnomah County Prosecutor has made of living out of framing and then usurping the debate and that is what he attempted to do in today's show. 

He should have been called on this. 

The fact is, he came to today's program with nothing but anecdotal evidence of what he believes to be the effectiveness of capital punishment. Because he had little else to contribute, he resorted to petty and irrelevant attacks that added nothing to the discussion.

Naseem Rakha

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context