The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I have to wonder about a man who wouldn't vote on a bill to give repeat child molesters the death penalty or life in prison. The Oh I think it is unconstitutional is a cop out because what is and isn't constitutional is subjective considering the fact they were executing for crimes other than murder right after our founding forefathers wrote the 8th amendment . Considering this man chose not to vote for state sovereignty I have to wonder I doubt his claims that he felt that it was unconstitutional. Surely if this man is tough on child molesters and other scum he would be running a ad of all the bills he voted for to counter the soft on crime claims made by his opponent.


http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11349828
"A disgrace to the city." That's what Democratic candidate Tom Adelson is calling the latest ad attacking his record on crime.

Republican candidate Dewey Bartlett is firing back, saying the campaign ad is true and he's standing by it.

    * Ad: "Nothing the Tulsa mayor does is more important than keeping families safe. That's why Tom Adelson's record on crime is troubling."

Tom Adelson says it's not his record on crime, but this negative ad that should be troubling to voters.

"This ad is defamatory, slanderous and outright wrong and we will be taking action," said Tom Adelson, (D) Mayoral Candidate.

    * Ad: "Adelson voted against the death penalty for twice convicted child molesters."

That's true.

Adelson did vote against two bills in 2006 that would have allowed the death penalty for repeat child molesters. But he says that law was unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, striking it down in 2008.

    * Ad: "He wouldn't even let the juries give child molesters life without parole."

No, that's not entirely accurate.

The law already allowed child molesters to be sentenced to life without parole and Adelson's 2006 votes didn't have any effect on that.


http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/oklahoma-state-sovereignty

I had been on the fence in this election till the latest slew of negative, cynical slime that Bartlett's people have spewed. I say Bartlett's people because I have met DB and found him to be not your regular right wing nutcase. This is party operative stuff we're being subjected to from both sides and its downright hideous. It should be noted though, that Barlett's people commenced the poop throwing and brought it to its peak.

But this one took the cake. Anyone who thinks Adelson is soft on child molesters is rank and file moron.

Gotta go with Adelson. Thanks James.

What a bogus bucking attack.

The law says life without parole. One politician in another district wants to up the ante and proposes a bill that says kill them, all the while knowing that it was unconstitutional. That lawmaker doesn't care, he wants to be on the record as wanting to kill them repeat offenders.

Almost all of the legislators see through the nonsense and don't want to be wasting time or waste spending state's money defending a law that is clearly going to be instantly thrown out. Tom Adelson is in that group.

That is the most stupid attack I have heard in this campaign (but it is still weeks till election day).

Yes, there's much more time to do worse.

James you are a few days late on this.  Try reading the Tulsa World or better yet, search out other threads on such a topic when it's been simmering for a few days.  This attack was total bravo sierra by the Bartlett campaign.

Considering the fact they were still executing people for crimes other than murder after the 8th amendment was written, what is and isn't constitutional is subjective. The bill also had a life without parole option, he would have nothing to lose if he voted for the bill and the death sentence was struck down by by some activist judges. And considering the fact he doesn't care about 10th amendment rights by not voting for state soverignty it is clear that he doesn't give a rats donkey about the constitution.

 

I believe one person in that group of pedosympathizers claimed it was a bill to get all the rednecks out.


Surely if he is not soft of scum he should have some bills he voted for to counter the attacks.

I do not read liberal rags.



This is a local and state politics issue, is there better forum section for local and state politics issues other than the local and state politics forum section?



This attack is nothing more than the usual political campaign tactic of using what someone voted for or against against an opponent. If Adelson is tough on crime then he should have some legislation that he voted for to back it up.  The fact he chose to side with pedophile sympathizers and a guy who claimed it was a bill to lure the rednecks out to vote does not look good on him. The wants to be the next mayor of Tulsa then he should prove that he does not want to turn this city into Vermont by trying to be another Judge Edward Cashman.

There went whatever credibility you had left.

The death penalty is not the answer for this crime. In almost every case, the death penalty is reserved for murder. Yes, long ago, we used the death penalty for horse thiefs and lesser crimes, but not now. In America currently, there is only one person on death row facing capital punishment that has not been convicted of murder.

Demarcus Ali Sears remains under a death sentence in Georgia for the crime of "Kidnapping With Bodily Injury." Sears was convicted in 1993 for the Kidnapping and Bodily Injury of victim Gloria Ann Wilbur. Wilbur was kidnapped and beaten in Georgia, raped in Tennessee, and murdered in Kentucky. Sears was never charged with the murder of Wilbur in Kentucky, but was sentenced to death by a jury in Georgia for Kidnapping with Bodily Injury. 

There is also mounting concern that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. 57% of police chiefs say is is not effective...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09293/1006865-84.stm

Call me soft on crime all you want...

It is no deterrent.  If it were, then homicide rates would drop off and they have not significantly since the death penalty was reinstated.  People who commit murder have little or no regard for life, so what is the significance of a sentence which takes away life?

True fiscal conservatives would also appreciate it costs tax payers vastly more to sentence someone to death.  Some states estimate it costs about $90,000 more per year to warehouse prisoners on death row and another $85,000 per year for the manditory appeals a death row inmate gets.

Okay mister, you are soft on crime.  Feel better?  :)  I too am soft on crime because I oppose the death penalty, albeit on moral grounds and not on the issue of deterrence.

You have used this same argument four times so far in this thread. That is one of reasons why people don't take you seriously. When the most liberal and most conservative posters on this forum disagree with you and all you do is post the same words again and again, you lose.

I am not part of the Adelson campaign, but spent five minutes searching for such a vote.
Here is the first one that showed...

SB702 voted on this year..."adding to the minimum sentence for kidnapping"

Adelson voted Aye.

Ditto for me.  It is my understanding that Adelson voted against the measure because of constitutional issues, not because he is soft on child molesters.  And he was right, as the bill has since been ruled unconstitutional by the court.  Bartlet and his ad men that approved this ad should be ashamed of themselves. 

Are you saying he didn't. What legislation did he vote for to suggest that what I said is not true. I'll be waiting.

What is and isn't constitutional regarding the 8th amendment is subjective.

If he believed in the constitution like he says he does then why did he vote against state sovereignty?

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/oklahoma-state-sovereignty

And so far anyone has yet to come up with anything.


I could care less who the mayor is as long as he is not a downtownie.

702 just added kidnapping to a list of crimes were 85% of the sentence must be served.It does not state the minimum number of years for kidnapping, do we have mandatory sentencing for kidnapping?
http://www.oksenate.gov/news/week_in_review/week_in_review_2009/wir2009051822.html

He had none well before this.

Because the Supreme Court decides constitutional issues.  Within the last two years they have specifically looked at this issue and declare the death penalty for a child rapist to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the 8th amendment.  Essentially, for anything other than murder or treason the death penalty is cruel and unusual.

Don't bother arguing with me, argue with the Court:
Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/25/ST2008062501374.html

Decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html

Supreme Court PDF:
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

When the Supreme Court specifically rules on an issue, that's the law.  It can be challenged, but generally it is done gradually over time or when a significant change in ideology has occurred on the Court.  Neither has occurred.

I applaud Adelson for using his head in determining that it isn't worth spending tax payer funds and the AG's time defending a law that will surely be struck down.   No matter what political statement he may have wanted to make, or how much he would like to see child rapers suffer and die, it was a pointless endeavor at this time.  It certainly doesn't point out or in any way indicate that he sympathizes with child molesters. 

Which, on a related note, I do.  To the extent that it is entirely unfathomable to me to have sexual desire for or otherwise a yearning to harm a child.  I simply can't comprehend the issues someone must have that such a desire exists and have nothing but horror and sympathy for anyone who has such desires.  But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see people that act on those desires suffer in the most extreme fashion justice deems proper.  Sympathy isn't a bad thing, so long as it doesn't preclude justice.

Irrelevant. The supreme court had yet to rule on the issue when the vote came up. So Adelson did not know what violated the 8th amendment. Because obviously those who do not sympathize with repeat child molesters had the opinion it was constitutional.



Considering Adelson's stand on the state sovereignty he does he give a smile about the constitution.So it is a lie to say he cares what is and isn't constitutional. Its like with the ACLU saying they care about constitutional rights when most of the time they ignore 2nd amendment issues while trying to tear down a cross on war memorials or tear down ten commandment monuments.

You're blinded by your partisan rage and are advocating weak arguments.

It is NOT irrelevant.  Adleson said he didn't vote for the measure because it was unconstitutional.  Per rulings of circuit courts he was correct at the time, and that view was later affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.  You are arguing that it is irrelevant that he was right:  the law would have been and would currently be unconstitutional. 

Furthermore, a desire for State's rights is a position within the construct of the Constitution.  It is an argument for a different construction, interpretation, and application of Constitutional governance.  It is not a dismissal of the constitution. 

The fact of the matter is Adleson is and has been working within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.  Under those confines the best available information indicated that such a law would have been struck down and thus a meritless expense.  And he was correct. 

So be pissed that he was correct if you want, but it's turning Jamesrage into impotent rage.

I could care less who becomes mayor because I am sure that just like the previous two mayors he,the republican and the independent will be another downtownie dude bag.
 


Again at the time he did not know if it was or wasn't constitutional. So it is irrelevant argument to use.

Again if he care what the constitution he would have voted along with the other elected officials who chose to support state sovereignty. So it punches a hole in your argument that Adelson cares what is and isn't constitutional.

 

No he hasn't see above.

So far I see no one posting anything to counter that Adelson is a scumbag sympathizer. The closest thing is a bill that adds kidnapping to a list of crimes where a certain percentage of their sentence must be served out. As far as I am concerned Adelson is another Judge Edward Cashman, a scumbag sympathizer who is soft on those who rape children.

Apparently james is not overly blessed with cognitive abilities ... or common sense, for that matter.

And what the hell is a dude bag?  :D

A vote on a sham "state sovereignty" bill says nothing about one's view of the Constitution, although it does say a lot about common sense.

As far as the ACLU goes, they don't say boo about the Second Amendment. That they choose not to expend their resources defending an amendment that has its own high profile and very well funded organization also speaks to their common sense, not their support of the Constitution or any specific amendment thereof.

What evidence do you have that Adelson is a sympathizer?  What method did you rely upon to exclude all other explanations for his vote?  How did you rule out the possibility that Adelson voted against the bill because he believed that it was unconstitutional, as opposed to harboring sympathies for molesters?  Please explain your work.

Do you contend that every legislator is duty bound to vote for every law proposed by every other legislator unless there is a Supreme Court decision on point?  Are legislators obligated to wait on the Supreme Court before exercising their own judgment?  What if the Supreme Court is wrong?  Do you dream about japanese internment?  What about separate but equal?  The Supreme Court found both practices perfectly acceptable . . . at one point.  Should a legislator be punished for being ahead of the curve?  Would you prefer a legislator who advocates for laws that are more likely to violate our fundamental rights?  

Just wondering . . .      

    

If a lower court rules that something is unconstitutional, it IS unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise. This is very basic, but it's obvious you're not understanding this.