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.

 jmurph wrote:

I understand opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds, but do not understand opposition to "giving the State such power". What do you think the "State" is? In the US it is elected officials bound by state and national law, including voter elections and recalls. And how does opposing giving the State authority to execute on a state by state or national basis not contradict with it having the power to make war.

I oppose state sanctioned death penalty.

I think we put too much faith in the process to ensure that the system is perfect.

I'm perfectly fine with life w/o parole.

If you oppose capital punishment, you have to oppose giving the state the power to inflict it, because it is the state that does so.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you oppose capital punishment, you have to oppose giving the state the power to inflict it, because it is the state that does so.

Isn't that what I wrote?

I'm a bit of a mixed bag on executions. I think it should both be limited and expedited.

I'm fine with life in prison without parole for the guy that is a first time offender where there MIGHT be a chance he's innocent.

When it comes to guys that are totally guilty, feth them. Anyone that kills someone brutally, without provocation, and does so either on video, in front of several witnesses, admits to it, or in some other way that absolutely proves it was them deservers execution. In these cases The number of appeals and time to execution should be limited. Put them in the express lane to death.
I also feel the same way about repeat offenders. If they have multiple violent felonies in their past it was only a matter of time until they killed, and will likely kill again.
When it comes to the method of execution, I believe we are better than the murderers. An ideal execution should be cheap, quick, safe for witnesses, effective in killing the accused quickly, and without pain.
It is with this in mind that I am a proponent of introducing Nitrogen affixation as a way of death. Many states have the old gas chamber units, and they can quickly and easily be converted. Nitrogen gas is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and will render the subject unconscious before death. Afterwards there is no poison to vent or clean-up. Just pump it into the atmosphere. The body is also left in tact. As an added benefit to witnesses there are no spasms in the body of the prisoner and is easier to watch. The Nitrogen is also readily available in most major cities and there will never be a shortage.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Wait how exactly is it Cruel and unusual for a firing squad?

I could see it being kinda cruel for the people administering it but thats why they are not all loaded.

Would rather they just bring back the guillotine. Quick and eco friendly

Firing squad is not a point-blank shotgun to the head.

Thats true

i though he was just being hyperbolic.

Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.

This is why I am no longer for the death penalty. I've found that proponents of it are not interested in reducing crime. They are interested in vengeance. The interest is purely in 'getting' the guy, not in reduction of crime, and certainly not in helping others. It's about that visceral rush that comes from getting revenge on a bastard, isn't it? It is a gross hypocrisy, and hopefully a part of our culture that will shrivel away in time.


Edit: In this instance, I feel like the state is within its current rights to do this. While I find the death penalty reprehensible, the legalities of this case are pretty cut and dry. I may not like it, but I can understand it.

Clearly there is only one path forward.

I'm pretty much against executions until (at least) the Public Defender's office has a higher budget than the DA's office...

 skyth wrote:
I'm pretty much against executions until (at least) the Public Defender's office has a higher budget than the DA's office...

Don't see how that would help matters. Costs with prosecution are always going to be higher then defense, as they are required to provide the burden of proof.

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I'm pretty much against executions until (at least) the Public Defender's office has a higher budget than the DA's office...

Don't see how that would help matters. Costs with prosecution are always going to be higher then defense, as they are required to provide the burden of proof.

Then you don't understand the Public Defender problem we are facing in the US. It's pretty appalling how bad our Public Defense situation is.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/public-defenders-gideon-supreme-court-charts

About 6,900 more public defenders would be needed to complete the current caseload. It's no wonder that many well-meaning defense lawyers are sucked into a "meet 'em and plead 'em" routine (PD parlance for meeting clients just a few minutes or hours before their hearings and then encouraging them to admit guilt just to get rid of the case). It's a large reason why 90 to 95 percent of their clients plead guilty, says Tanya Greene, an ACLU attorney and capital public defender.

 kronk wrote:

About 6,900 more public defenders would be needed to complete the current caseload. It's no wonder that many well-meaning defense lawyers are sucked into a "meet 'em and plead 'em" routine (PD parlance for meeting clients just a few minutes or hours before their hearings and then encouraging them to admit guilt just to get rid of the case). It's a large reason why 90 to 95 percent of their clients plead guilty, says Tanya Greene, an ACLU attorney and capital public defender.

Sounds like someone is SOFT ON CRIME

You know, now that I think about it, how much of our ludicrously huge prison population can be blamed on our pathetic public defense system? I'm pretty ready to blame a pointless drug war, for profit prisons, and a system that does nothing to rehabilitate offenders, but maybe I should throw having no money to offer defense on charges to the mix

Nah. I'm still pro-execution. I'm just willing to recognize its failings.

I don't crow about "That fether should be hanged/shot in the face/whatever."

If you have capital punishment as a law in your state, you should either use it or get rid of it. Pick one.

Don't be a puss-out and go for life in prison if your state is a "Kill 'em" state Mr. DA!

The defence should have every benefit including not have to pay out of pocket when you are accused of a crime and having a dedicated attorney that is well-versed in your case and access to forensic specialists that can help defend yourself. All based on the presumption of innocence.

 kronk wrote:
Nah. I'm still pro-execution. I'm just willing to recognize its failings.

I don't crow about "That fether should be hanged/shot in the face/whatever."

If you have capital punishment as a law in your state, you should either use it or get rid of it. Pick one.

Don't be a puss-out and go for life in prison if your state is a "Kill 'em" state Mr. DA!

If I can ask, and while I am not hiding that I am strongly anti-death penalty I also am one who is willing to learn, why is it do you support capital punishment?

The law says that if you do X, you may be punished up-to-and-including a death sentence.

You then CHOOSE to break that law.

You are responsible for your actions and you now face that punishment.

Again, I'm not an avid "Kill them all" type. However, if you commit the crime, you should face the punishment.

And to the anti- people of states that have death penalty laws on the books, if you aren't going to enforce your laws, get them off the books.

 curran12 wrote:
Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.

I've always loved this argument.

As if there was ZERO difference between a capital punishment trial and all the associated appeals and a group like DaIsh lining up innocent civilians who refused to submit or prisoners they captured on the battlefield and blowing them away with no trial or at least nothing coming close to what western nations consider a fair trial. Yeah, clearly a double standard.

I too am In the "I'm opposed to the death penalty but the courts made the "correct" decision given the context of the case" camp. While I'm sure there are some government practices we have that are as barbaric, backwards, and counter-productive as capital punishment I'd certainly struggle to name any of them off the top of my head. That said the sentence was handed down, set to be carried out and was not. You don't give up on keeping on somebody in jail because the lock to their cell broke, presumably don't give up on your god-awful execution just because it failed.

 CptJake wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.

I've always loved this argument.

As if there was ZERO difference between a capital punishment trial and all the associated appeals and a group like DaIsh lining up innocent civilians who refused to submit or prisoners they captured on the battlefield and blowing them away with no trial or at least nothing coming close to what western nations consider a fair trial. Yeah, clearly a double standard.

They were found guilty of a crime deserving of the death sentence as per the local government. Same thing

No, it really isn't the same thing, for the reasons I've stated. Calling an apple and orange does not make it an orange.

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.

I've always loved this argument.

As if there was ZERO difference between a capital punishment trial and all the associated appeals and a group like DaIsh lining up innocent civilians who refused to submit or prisoners they captured on the battlefield and blowing them away with no trial or at least nothing coming close to what western nations consider a fair trial. Yeah, clearly a double standard.

They were found guilty of a crime deserving of the death sentence as per the local government. Same thing

What the Dalsh does is genocidal.

Far from being the same thing.

EDIT: CptJake beat me...

I've seen multiple times the idea that as soon as the first guilty verdict we should immediately carry out the sentence.

And quite frankly, regardless of the crime and appeals, etc...lining up people on their knees and then gunning them down is barbaric. Executions should not be a show to spread glee, but something that unfortunately must be done if there is no other alternative.

except there is always an alternative to killing them. There is no need to kill anyone, and let's be honest, the crimes people have to commit to get the death penalty aren't the kind of crimes where people give a gak about the consequences. It's useless and expensive, and the sooner we no longer have the death penalty, the better.

Some interesting comments here. In no specific order:

- Death squad killings are, by their nature, outside of due process. Capital punishment, for good or ill, is legitimate.

-The state always has, and always will have, the right to take life from it's own people. That right is tied to due process, and many states (in both senses of the word) choose to waive that right, but arguing that capital punishment is "wrong" is not a good path of argument. In my very humble opinion, it is probably "unnecessary," and I feel that the state should only take life when necessary, but that doesn't make it wrong. It makes it a waste.

- Execution by shotgun blast, somewhat ironically, might actually be considered cruel and unusual, as even the originalists would concede that the founders wanted to ban practices that were humiliating, which included those practices which mutilated the corpse. Firing squads have never been found to be cruel or unusual, they just weren't a common law punishment. That's always been a military punishment, not a civil one. It's not that states banned the practice, they just never had it, save for a few oddballs like Utah. (I speculate wildly that the origin of Utah as a theocratic, semi-militant colony may be the cause of this quirk). A firing squad also requires a handful of sharpshooters that are willing to be executioners, which has historically been difficult. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0CEEDC1630E233A25751C1A96E9C946396D6CF

- Executions in the US are made more complicated by the fact that the AMA holds that physicians should not be party to executions, as it violates their ethical duty to "do no harm." Some states have actually drafted laws that preclude sanctions, but the point is that first rate (or even second rate) medical professionals are not going to be involved in the proceedings. Which may explain why after 18 attempts no vein was found.

-Regardless of how I feel, the Ohio Supreme Court got this one correct. A legal sentence was not carried out. Of course it still could be carried out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Paoa02 wrote:
except there is always an alternative to killing them. There is no need to kill anyone, and let's be honest, the crimes people have to commit to get the death penalty aren't the kind of crimes where people give a gak about the consequences. It's useless and expensive, and the sooner we no longer have the death penalty, the better.

You'd be surprised what crimes carry the death penalty. I'm not sure any state allows the death penalty for anything outside of First Degree Murder (and, of course, Treason), a lot of stuff sneaks into that definition. Most people understand the First Degree (or capital murder, or however else it is defined) involves premeditation. It can also involve lying in wait, or poison. In reality, most first degree murders are "felony murders," meaning a murder committed in the commission of another felony, most commonly including burglary, arson, robbery, rape, or kidnapping.

Let's boil this down to some concrete facts: if you rob a liquor store with a gun, that's armed robbery. If you end up shooting the clerk, that's now felony murder, and the death penalty is now on the table. Further, lets say you and a friend agree to rob the liquor store. He's going to rob it with his fun, you're going to drive the getaway car. He shoots and kills the clerk. You are now facing the death penalty, as you were in conspiracy to commit robbery, and are just as liable for all crimes committed as part of that conspiracy as anybody else.

I'm not pointing out that this right or wrong, fair or not fair. But the death penalty doesn't just affect serial killers and psychopaths. (In practice, of course, the driver would accept a plea bargain and roll on the gunman nearly every time. But... especially for conspirators, the death penalty is a huge bargaining chip in plea deals.)

Make the prisoner drink a case of 12oz extra strength Monsters and give them free access to Bangbros. He will be dead before the end of the day and nobody will take issue.

Failing that I say start up a Penal Legion, I.E.D.s don't find themselves you know.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you oppose capital punishment, you have to oppose giving the state the power to inflict it, because it is the state that does so.

Isn't that what I wrote?

Yes, it was jmurph I was replying to but your post slipped in between.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.

Sure, it's messier, but you get results.

We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.

Do you have court case cite from that state's supreme court or SCOTUS that says firing squad is cruel and unusual?

Alternatively CO1 is perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I agree with you in principle. In practice, however, there is no state that has shown itself to be capable of carrying out executions responsibly.

I agree but on different grounds. Too many cases of botched evidence or intentionally hidden/tampered evidence.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you oppose capital punishment, you have to oppose giving the state the power to inflict it, because it is the state that does so.

Isn't that what I wrote?

Yes, it was jmurph I was replying to but your post slipped in between.

My bad.

@thread: I would trade the Death penalty for life in prison (or even hard labor camps).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Alternatively CO1 is perfect.

You still suffer suffocation...

Helium is better, as the body thinks it's oxygen, and you'd simply fall asleep and your brain dies due to oxygen deprivation.

 Frazzled wrote:

I agree with you in principle. In practice, however, there is no state that has shown itself to be capable of carrying out executions responsibly.

I agree but on different grounds. Too many cases of botched evidence or intentionally hidden/tampered evidence.

I include that under the umbrella of responsible executions, ensuring the right person is executed.

What about the squeaky voice? Would that be impermissible humiliation?

 Polonius wrote:
Execution by shotgun blast, somewhat ironically, might actually be considered cruel and unusual, as even the originalists would concede that the founders wanted to ban practices that were humiliating, which included those practices which mutilated the corpse. Firing squads have never been found to be cruel or unusual, they just weren't a common law punishment. That's always been a military punishment, not a civil one. It's not that states banned the practice, they just never had it, save for a few oddballs like Utah. (I speculate wildly that the origin of Utah as a theocratic, semi-militant colony may be the cause of this quirk). A firing squad also requires a handful of sharpshooters that are willing to be executioners, which has historically been difficult. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0CEEDC1630E233A25751C1A96E9C946396D6CF

Well, that's unfortunate. If that's the case, that's the case. I just want to reiterate that when I endorsed that method, it wasn't out of that weird revenge execution fantasy that people sometimes have regarding capital punishment - I simply thought it would be the most sure, least painful way. I would prefer the state not execute people at all but recognize that it's currently the will of the people that we do so, and such a method of execution has the, in my mind, bonus of clearly not being a peaceful, semi-medical procedure. Someone posted that they endorse nitrogen because it's painless, but also because the person moves less so it's easier for the witnesses to watch. feth the witnesses comfort, you're killing a guy. Own it.

I feel like firing squad actually has all the same issues that lethal injection did - if you use prison guards, who are pseudo-police, this group has historically awful marksmanship. I don't believe that execution has to be totally painless to be legally OK, but bleeding out slowly because all major organs were missed seems cruel and unusual.

So, going back to nitrogen - if disfigurement of the corpse is an issue that I too would revert to nitrogen, but would greatly prefer none of the above.