Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So you know the thread title is a lie, yet you still posted it.

A "lie" seems a little strong imo. I agree the title doesn't match the article but it doesn't seem to be intentionally misleading the way that sometimes happens around these parts, in this case I just think it was just condensed a little too much.

"Florida Death Penalty Process is Unconstitutional" would be accurate.

I've never denied being click-baity. The mods have even gotten on me about it more than once. Ignoring what I posted in my OP and calling me a liar is still pretty hypocritical on your part, d-usa.

 Breotan wrote:
I've never denied being click-baity. The mods have even gotten on me about it more than once. Ignoring what I posted in my OP and calling me a liar is still pretty hypocritical on your part, d-usa.

Wha...?!?

So, is there a reason you're still doing it?

And thread title updated to Ouze's suggestions - so maybe we can move on from that now and discuss...whatever?

 Alpharius wrote:
So, is there a reason you're still doing it?

I do try to mitigate it but I love sensational news and more often than not it affects how I write my titles without my realizing it. Still, it is clearly a peeve for you (and likely others) so I'll work on putting more effort into it going forward.

 Alpharius wrote:

And thread title updated to Ouze's suggestions - so maybe we can move on from that now and discuss...whatever?

Sure. I'll swing back onto topic.

Since we're (mostly) in agreement that this ruling was a good one, has anyone taken the time to read Justice Alito's dissent?

Justice Alito wrote:As the Court acknowledges, “this Court ‘repeatedly has reviewed and upheld Florida’s capital sentencing statute over the past quarter of a century.’” Ante, at 8. And as the Court also concedes, our precedents hold that “‘the Sixth Amendment does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by the jury.’” Ante, at 9 (quoting Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S. 638, 640–641 (1989) (per curiam); emphasisadded); see also Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 460 (1984). The Court now reverses course, striking downFlorida’s capital sentencing system, overruling our decisions in Hildwin and Spaziano, and holding that the Sixth Amendment does require that the specific findings authorizing a sentence of death be made by a jury. I disagree.

So, is Alito really off track here? I mean there apparently was presidence but is Alito citing it correctly? Is he concerned about overturning Florida law or is he instead concerned about a the Court coming up with a new and different interpretation of the Sixth Amendment?

What's the rest of his dissent? Surely it consists of more than "the court changed its mind" because arguing that the court can't change its mind seems a pretty weak ass argument

 Grey Templar wrote:

And don't tell me that a cash settlement can actually compensate for being locked up in prison in your eyes. That's just silly.

No, but it is an attempt and a heck of a lot more than you can do for someone if you execute them.

I believe that Justice Alito just thinks that every single challenge, regardless of what the basis may be for that challenge, is just another step towards the goal of declaring the death penalty itself unconstitutional. He is pretty clear about his stance that it is not unconstitutional so he just always seems to think that the end justifies whatever means.

I think he may be right that a Judge, and not just a Jury, may find that a specific finding authorizes the imposition of a death sentence; the imposition of the actual death sentence remains with the Jury though.

Maybe I'm just oversimplifying it in my head, but I think that a Judge should be able to decide "death" if the Jury already decided "no death" just as a Judge shouldn't be able to decide "guilty" if the Jury already decided "not guilty". I know there is a difference between trial and sentencing, so it probably isn't as equal as I think it it.

MrDwhitey wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That's just my opinion. Others will differ.

Well, something in your post had to be right.

It may be just my opinion, it's an educated opinion based on professional, first hand experience.

Hordini wrote:


An extended vacation? If it's so great, why aren't more people scrambling to get a spot in prison?

That's beside the point. The point is that career criminals don't give a damn about going to the joint. Most of them are repeat offenders, who have spent a large portion of their lives in and out of the system. All they have to do is pull their time, and then go back to doing whatever it is that got them locked up to begin with when they get back on the street. In the meantime, they enjoy their free cable, cheap canteen, free gym, free legal, free medical, three hots and a cot, etc. etc. And this is on top of the wheeling and dealing they do on the inside. It's all one big joke to them.

Breotan wrote:
Gotta agree with Hordini here. What kind of life do you need to be suffering through where prison is something to look forward to?

See above. It isn't about "suffering". These punks just don't care. They're criminals. Risk of imprisonment just comes with the territory. And to some modern subsets of criminals, such as street level drug dealers and gangbangers, going to the pen is a badge of honor.






@LordofHats

'm pretty sure I've seen every single one of those claims word for word off Faux News. Seriously XD

Anybody who plays the HURR DURR FAUX NOOZE card, to insinuate that somebody is brainwashed when they express views counter to their own, isn't worth debating, much less have an intelligent discussion with.


No offense, Champ. But here's a protip for you: NONE of the major media outlets are trustworthy. It doesn't matter if it's Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, NYT, etc, etc. They all promote an agenda. And if it's not for an agenda, it's for the sake of sensationalism to boost ratings and/or circulation. "Journalistic integrity", if it even existed to begin with, went the way of the dodo a long time ago.

Alito's dissent in full can be found Here.

The meat of his argument is that any error caused to Mr. Hurst was 'harmless error' on account that the Jury in his sentencing recommended death, which the Judge then sentenced him to. I.E. The sentencing scheme that allowed the judge to sentence him without being bound by the Jury's decision was not harmful as the Jury came to the same conclusion as the Judge.

I can agree to the harmless error part, but the procedures of the court shouldn't be immune to review on the sole grounds that "nothing bad happened.' The technicalities of procedure seem a rather significant proportion of what the law is, and well that's what this whole case was apparently about.

 LordofHats wrote:
What's the rest of his dissent? Surely it consists of more than "the court changed its mind" because arguing that the court can't change its mind seems a pretty weak ass argument

Sorry, but the formatting on that document is a beast to deal with. Seriously, I'm even using Fire Fox and it just dumps a pile of feth that I have to wade through to make it all look pretty and readable.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Anybody who plays the HURR DURR FAUX NOOZE card, to insinuate that somebody is brainwashed when they express views counter to their own, isn't worth debating, much less have an intelligent discussion with.

Brainwashed seems a tad strong. At most, I'm expressing surprise that someone can voice their opinion in a form that strikes so much of ctrl-c/ctrl-v.

Everyone has bias, and bias (read agenda) alone doesn't make someone wrong, stupid, or lacking in integrity. The 'media is untrustworthy' is not a protip. At best, it's the kind of empty sensationalism the people who constantly repeat such slogans accuse the media of. At worst, it's people who don't like dissent dismissing anyone and everyone who disagrees by crying 'bias' at the top of their lungs, as if any one living on this Earth isn't chalk ridden with bias.

 Breotan wrote:
Sorry, but the formatting on that document is a beast to deal with. Seriously, I'm even using Fire Fox and it just dumps a pile of feth that I have to wade through to make it all look pretty and readable.

Someday the government will figure out web design... Probably just in time for the rest of us to moved on to something else

I don't think it's as much a web design issue, and more of a "legal format is a pain in the rear" issue.

I imagine if i worked with criminals in the prison system all day I would start to resent them all too.

I feel almost the same way about customers now.

 curran12 wrote:
I've slowly grown against the death penalty over time, for a couple of reasons.

The first is that it isn't effective at deterring crime. It's effective in making us -feel- like we are righteous and tough on crime, but it isn't actually doing anything useful. The second is something inherent in the system, which has been pointed out is broken.

Depends on why you think we have a criminal justice system.

If the goal to provide justice to victims, the death penalty fails, as it won't bring back the dead. Life is not exchanged.

If the goal is to rehabilitate individuals, it fails, as there is no rehabilitation.

If the goal is to deter capital crimes, again, it fails.

If the goal is to promote a more stable society by eliminating an individual threat, the death penalty succeeds.

Personally, as a subscriber to #4, I think that after a jury (and only a jury) unanimously agrees on both guilt and to impose death, the sentence should be carried out at sunrise the following day. I don't think life without parole should even be an option.

I get it...there will be miscarriages of justice. but that's going to happen no matter what. It's a miscarriage to put someone in prison for life for a crime they didn't commit. No amount of money, appeals, trials, social spending, police reforms, etc will stop that. There's a point of diminishing returns. Provide a fair trial. After that, if the person is such a threat to society they can't be trusted to behave responsibly ever again, end the threat and move on.

How does death penalty do that any better than life w/o parole, may I ask?

Escapes happen, and unless you put them in solitary confinement with no contact allowed with the outside world then they can directly influence it. Thats how high end criminals can still run their criminal enterprises from inside prison.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Escapes happen, and unless you put them in solitary confinement with no contact allowed with the outside world then they can directly influence it. Thats how high end criminals can still run their criminal enterprises from inside prison.

But presumably in the latter example, you're talking about narcotics related criminals, yes? Those aren't sentenced to death now so that doesn't seem relevant.

How many murderers actually escape from prison and then go on to murder someone else - or even just escape and stay escaped, period? Has it even really happened in the last, like, 20 years?

Are you saying that we need the death penalty to deal with drug kingpins, who aren't eligible for it, and to prevent murderers who escape from murdering again, even though that doesn't actually really happen?

That's just an examale. Let's take the terrorist who killed all those kids in Norway. He has an ideology he wants to preach. Life in prison with outside communication let's him do that.

Isn't the best remedy for bad speech more speech?

We should execute people for having dangerous ideas?

 Ouze wrote:
Isn't the best remedy for bad speech more speech?

We should execute people for having dangerous ideas?

My sarcasm detector is on the fritz today so for the sake of argument, let's assume you are serious.

The answer to your first question would be "It depends." When dealing with the Westboro nuts, it's fine and dandy to use free speech to call them out as they exercise their First Amendment rights. On the other hand, ISIS is using "free speech" to recruit morons from all over the world. You've seen articles that have been posted in other threads about teenage girls heading over to Iraq/Syria dreaming of being part of a Caliphate. The only way to combat this is to shut it down and prevent it from being spread. Current policy is to drop a cruise missile on the guy posting for ISIS and forceably remove the recruitment materials from web sites used to spread those "ideas".

As to the second, obviously we don't execute criminals for their ideas. We do execute them for taking action based on their ideas. As I just mentioned, recruiting for ISIS in Iraq/Syria can get you a face-to-face meeting with a cruise missile. Doing it in the US would be handled differently, probably a lengthy jail sentence. As for non-Federal crimes, criminal speech such as "inciting" a murder could bring the death penalty if they convict you as an accomplice (depending on what State you are in).

So... case by case basis is the rule of thumb.

 Breotan wrote:
As to the second, obviously we don't execute criminals for their ideas. We do execute them for taking action based on their ideas. As I just mentioned, recruiting for ISIS in Iraq/Syria can get you a face-to-face meeting with a cruise missile. Doing it in the US would be handled differently, probably a lengthy jail sentence. As for non-Federal crimes, criminal speech such as "inciting" a murder could bring the death penalty if they convict you as an accomplice (depending on what State you are in).

That's a terrible example and you should feel bad for making it.

You kind of seem to understand that it's a terrible argument because you said, "Doing it in the US would be handled differently," which is true because you're talking about two separate things: "war" and the treatment of criminals tried and convicted in a fair court.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To turn the question around, what do you think makes the death penalty an essential tool in the arsenal of justice?

There are many modern countries (nearly all of them, actually, to be honest) that make their way forward without a massive crime wave thanks to dropping the death penalty.

Surely there must be some overwhelmingly positive reasons to maintain the death penalty, not just things like there aren't many mistakes made.

To quote some websites:

Retribution is wrong

Many people believe that retribution is morally flawed and problematic in concept and practice.



We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.

U.S. Catholic Conference




To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice.

Attributed to Archbishop Desmond Tutu



I could probably list why it has failed to deter people. Threat of prison is more than likely to make someone think twice about something. The threat of death is pretty big one. But so is being forced to be watched over by the government and dealt with immedately within the prison system if you fail to abide to it.

Laws and arrests are a slap on the wrist (no puns intended). Where they are meant to teach you not to do it again. It is not meant to be a form of retriubtiive justice or revenge. The law is meant to protect the land and ensure it is peaceful. If someone is sent to jail they are going to be 'reeducated' or they are at least suppose to be. People who are sent to jail are meant to come back better for it and are no longer the person they once were. Infact many who come out of prison are not the same person they once were.

Most will often have grown up and become less of a lawbreaker, and more in fear of them doing something wrong again. The death penalty has always been a pathetic excuse for trying to rehabilitate someone.I don't think it is anyone's right to kill someone. Let them serve out their life in prison and possibly come back to society to give back. Who knows what would of happened if some murders were left in prison and were rehabilitated. Mind you not all murders would. But thats giving them shock collars or tracking devices implanted into them would ensure that they wouldn't do anything stupid.


If a system that says it is not okay to kill and then kills anyway, is a flawed system and one that is hypocritical.



To quote:

Deterrence is a morally flawed concept

Even if capital punishment did act as a deterrent, is it acceptable for someone to pay for the predicted future crimes of others?

Some people argue that one may as well punish innocent people; it will have the same effect.

This isn't true - if people are randomly picked up off the street and punished as scapegoats the only consequence is likely to be that the public will be frightened to go out.

To make a scapegoat scheme effective it would be necessary to go through the appearance of a legitimate legal process and to present evidence which convinced the public that the person being punished deserved their punishment.

While some societies have operated their legal systems on the basis of fictional evidence and confessions extracted by torture, the ethical objections to such a system are sufficient to render the argument in the second paragraph pointless.

Much of the problem with the death penalty is that the drugs that it takes to put someone under is far more expensive than actually paying someone to take care of the poor sod.

I remember talking to a bunch of people in my philisophy classes over this. And often it boiled down to the value of human life. How much would you value you a human life?

Most would answer around 100,000$.

The costs of the drugs to kill someone were around 200k. Because the drugs are meant to be fired in a certain order, and the drugs are meant to basically. Put them to sleep first, and then they die.

Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml




If you wish to deter people, (Which it doesn't usually) then you should also deter the government or any organization from readily being able to execute anyone.

One of the first things they need to do to reform the death penalty is to make sure the public defenders' office has the same budget as the DA's office.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Much of the problem with the death penalty is that the drugs that it takes to put someone under is far more expensive than actually paying someone to take care of the poor sod.

I remember talking to a bunch of people in my philisophy classes over this. And often it boiled down to the value of human life. How much would you value you a human life?

Most would answer around 100,000$.

The costs of the drugs to kill someone were around 200k. Because the drugs are meant to be fired in a certain order, and the drugs are meant to basically. Put them to sleep first, and then they die.

Chemically executing people is pretty dumb in the first place. Its too complex, expensive, and potentially ineffective. We should go back to bullets, faster and way more effective.

Give them a general sedative, just like if they were getting put under for a tooth extraction. Then several .45 rounds into the cranium. Technically, the sedative wouldn't even be necessary for the death to be painless as instant brain obliteration would occur, but its more to keep them calm before hand.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Chemically executing people is pretty dumb in the first place. Its too complex, expensive, and potentially ineffective. We should go back to bullets, faster and way more effective.

(snip)

Then several .45 rounds into the cranium. Technically, the sedative wouldn't even be necessary for the death to be painless as instant brain obliteration would occur, but its more to keep them calm before hand.

And this is where we actually agree. If I personally was being executed, and I had my choice, I'd go with a large caliber right to the head. It would be instantaneous and humane. I'd certainly prefer that over some weird cocktail made with the chemicals the state bought on the black market in Bulgaria or wherever that well, maybe they'll work, and maybe they'll make the victim feel like their whole body is on fire while it takes an hour to kill them, who knows?

The other reason - less so, but I still feel it - is that it would leave a huge mess behind. It wouldn't be some sanitized piece of pseudo-medical theater where you try to pretend you're somehow being as merciful as possible while you're killing a guy.

If we must execute people as a society, do it for real. I think if you don't have the sack to see the blood and gore and visceral consequences, then you maybe you shouldn't be in the killing people business.

What about making the Governor, as chief executive of the State, pull the trigger?

Or whatever Judge handed out the sentence pull the trigger, Ned Stark style?

 d-usa wrote:
What about making the Governor, as chief executive of the State, pull the trigger?

Is this really fair given that a person can be sentenced one year and a new Governor elected the next?

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What about making the Governor, as chief executive of the State, pull the trigger?

Is this really fair given that a person can be sentenced one year and a new Governor elected the next?

Governors have the option to suspend executions, if I am not mistaken. If not, then maybe the willingness to shoot someone should be a factor in your decision to run for office?

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What about making the Governor, as chief executive of the State, pull the trigger?

Is this really fair given that a person can be sentenced one year and a new Governor elected the next?

Governors have the option to suspend executions, if I am not mistaken. If not, then maybe the willingness to shoot someone should be a factor in your decision to run for office?

Are you advocating that justice be dispensed based on the political winds of the day? I don't think such a capricious system would stand the test at the Supreme Court.