The Supreme Court Is Crap

The Supreme Court rules on lethal injection case today and  determines it is not cruel and unsual- if it was the  Constitution wouldn't allow it... of course, it all makes sense.  Even the Pope is against the death penalty.  Happy  Birthday Pope!! Now go fuck yourself.

"By 7 to 2, the court rejected challenges to the Kentucky  execution procedure brought by two death-row inmates, holding  that they had failed to show that the risks of pain from  mistakes in an otherwise “humane lethal execution protocol”  amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, which is banned by  the Constitution."

It's amazing hearing people try to rationalize this issue.  You take a human being, strap them to a gurny, inject poison and  sit around behind a glass window and watch them die.  That's  not cruel??  That's not unusual??  I guess it's less cruel  than being set on fire or thrown off a bridge.  But is that a true standard- "it's less cruel than being tortured first so we'll just say it's Constitutional."

"the court said history leads to the conclusion that “an  execution method violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is  deliberately designed to inflict pain,” a standard that bars  disemboweling, burning alive and other excruciating ways of  bringing about death."

"History leads to the conclusion."  History leads wherever  you want it to lead.  It's the study most vulnerable to  interpretation. History is fat with evil and violence, if that's what they're basing their decisions on then why not just stick with public lynchings, and getting folks drawn and quartered.  Q. What makes injection so appealing?   A. It makes it easier for the law to kill more people- that's the real appeal.

Capital punishment is not punishment- at best it's revenge.  A lot of times it's a mistake or a set up, and the rest of the time it's the price you pay for being an indigent defendant. 

Justice Stevens stated, "decisions by state legislatures, Congress and the Supreme Court itself to preserve the death penalty “are the product of  habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative  process that weighs the costs and risks” of the ultimate  punishment."  But what does he do?  He sides with the  Henchmen.   Why?  Something stinks of politics. 

Comments

[Art Vandelay]

Capital punishment is not punishment- at best it's revenge.

Some would call it justice.

[Jack Klompus]

Damn, Kruger. Are you trying to turn us into Daily Kos or something?

"Capital punishment is not punishment- at best it's revenge."

There's a fine line between revenge, retribution, and punishment. Even still, it's not only about punishing the worst kinds of murderers. It's also about deterrence (and spare me the stats on deterrence because they are easily mainulated by both sides of the argument).

[Jack Klompus]

"mainulated"

Or "manipulated." Damn I'm all over the place today.

[Aaron]

Deterrence? c'mon. So stats can be manipulated. How bout reason? Can you suggest, with even a modicum of intellectual honesty, that the (mostly) crazy, borderline sane people that are raping children and murdering people in the most heinous ways are doing a cost/benefit analysis including their chances of receiving the death penalty before chopping off heads and cooking them or snatching up young girls? Please. That is, and has been, and will always be the argument of those trying to rationalize our bloodthirsty desire to execute people as something honorable. Tag it as "justice". Are we now experiencing less of these types of crimes than other countries who have abolished the death penalty? If the "stats" are at best unclear, then there is no measurable advantage we have by keeping it around. And we have almost certainly executed the innocent because of it. As someone who has tried many many criminal cases, I would say that out of my cases, 1 in 10 jury verdicts were CLEARLY wrong. This includes cases where a defendant got off, and cases where a defendant was convicted, where both the prosecutor and I sat down afterwards and admitted that the jury probably got it wrong. Ask someone who has been intimately involved in the crim justice system if I'm exaggerating. The once per week exonerations due to DNA testing is only a sliver of the iceberg of mistakes we make (real life is not CSI, less than 1 in 100 criminal cases have preserved DNA). Spending decades in prison wrongfully is bad enough, we don't need to be killing people on a flawed system, perceived justice or not.

[daveNYC]

It's also about deterrence (and spare me the stats on deterrence because they are easily mainulated by both sides of the argument).

So you're going to argue that it is about deterrence, but you don't want anybody to bring up any statistics that might show whether or not it works as a deterrent?

If the justice system never convicted an innocent person, I could support capital punishment. If a mistake is made, as long as the person is alive there is a chance to try and make things right. I don't think there's a way to look at the cases that have been overturned using new DNA testing on old evidence and not think that there's been some terminal mistakes in the past.

[Art Vandelay]

If the justice system never convicted an innocent person, I could support capital punishment.

That's always been my stance as well.

[Mr. Kruger]

Some would call it justice.

Would you? Or are you just posing.

There's a fine line between revenge, retribution, and punishment.

There's also a bottom line- it doesn't work, and this is far from some ill-concieved left wing rant. There is absolutely no social benefit derived from capital punishment. And most often it ends up being nothing more than charade for people's self-righteous indignation. I have little sympathy for the guilty people who end up on death row - but as it concerns broader issues relating to how it stigmatizes society as a whole should be a major concern for everyone. The whole way that form of justices is meted out is rooted in extreme hypocrisy.

[Art Vandelay]

Would you?

Sure. In a primitive "eye for an eye" type of way.

[Mr. Kruger]

Sure. In a primitive "eye for an eye" type of way.

And that would accomplish what?

[Art Vandelay]

And that would accomplish what?

Well, I suppose that some of the victims' loved ones may gain back some sense of sanity in knowing that the fucker who murdered their spouse, child, etc was to suffer the same fate.

[daveNYC]

Would you? Or are you just posing.

Justice? Maybe if you stand far away and squint it might look like justice, but really it's just bloody minded vengence. The belief that some people are better off dead, and that putting a round through the swastika in Manson's forehead will make the world a better place.

But the million dollar question is, and always has been, which people. Sadly, our justice system seems to think that poor black people, with shitty lawyers who can't stay awake in court fit the bill.

[Assman]

A long time ago on a blog far far away, I once argued that the death penalty was state sponsored revenge and, essentially, petty.

Some folks, including our Mr. Vandelya here, gave me much shit for it.

It's not a deterrent because nobody thinks they're going to get caught when they're doing shit. It's not punishment because the net result on society of life in prison versus death in prison is the same. It's all about letting the "good people" feel like the bad guys got their just desserts.

And I'm not arguing against that. I think child abusers and serial torturers, for example, should be killed. It makes me happy to see that they are. I wish death on them. Fuck 'em.

But I do question whether or not our government has the right to pass laws deciding which among us is going to die. We own the government - they don't own us.

So, the side of me that's petty and loves revenge wants to see some scum get killed, but the sane side of me doesn't like the slippery slope it gets us on.

[Art Vandelay]

So, the side of me that's petty and loves revenge wants to see some scum get killed, but the sane side of me doesn't like the slippery slope it gets us on.

Well I couldn't agree with you more honestly. It makes perfect sense to me. I gave you shit for that stance? Really?

[phil]

There is a fine line between justice and revenge. The execution may be justice. Having people sitting in a glass room to watch is revenge. That bugs.

It also bugs having a lot of extremely fucked up people locked in a cage together for the rest of their biological process, doing whatever they do. On our nickel. And while we're on the subject, are there not things worse than murder? What about that guy years ago that cut off the girl's arms to make it easier to rape her? And countless other examples. The trauma the victims live with after what's been done to them is often worse than having been killed. Do they not deserve some justice?

It's a tough issue. But I'm with Vandelay here. We're not necessarily talking about vengence.

[Jack Klompus]

"Can you suggest, with even a modicum of intellectual honesty, that the (mostly) crazy, borderline sane people that are raping children and murdering people in the most heinous ways are doing a cost/benefit analysis including their chances of receiving the death penalty before chopping off heads and cooking them or snatching up young girls?"

Of course not. My argument wasn't about whether or not it was an effective deterrent. It was about the purpose behind capital punishment being more than "at best revenge." It's impossible to calculate how many people chose not to wield their weapon of choice because of concerns over killing someone in a death penalty state. I'm sure life-without-parole would deter people as well. Or just the ass-rapings and salad-tossings on a daily basis probably serve as a deterrent also. Reason all you want, but I'm sure people think about going all Scott Peterson but then consider one or all of the 3 scenarios I just mentioned and decide to go get drunk instead. As long as (rightly) convicted murderers are alive, there's always the possibility (no matter how remote) that they are able to kill again. If they are dead, they can't. That's the ultimate deterrent. Is it effective or necessary? I don't know. But I do know my opinion would sway respectively if a loved one were a victim on either side of the argument.

"The once per week exonerations due to DNA testing is only a sliver of the iceberg of mistakes we make (real life is not CSI, less than 1 in 100 criminal cases have preserved DNA)."

Doesn't sound like the problem there is with capital punishment. Which is why we have safeguards on both sides. Appeals processes, maximum security, parole boards, etc. Not to mention that most capital convictions don't even result in execution.

[Jack Klompus]

"So you're going to argue that it is about deterrence, but you don't want anybody to bring up any statistics that might show whether or not it works as a deterrent?"

Fine, Dave. Go dig up some stats on deterrence. The point is, I've read plenty on both sides of the argument and both sides neatly tailor their statistics to fit their respective arguments. Both sides attempt to draw a correlation between two separate metrics. And in doing so, they both leave out a slew of variables, be it out of choice or because they are factors that could never be accurately measured.

"If the justice system never convicted an innocent person, I could support capital punishment.

And on the flip side, if the justice system never allowed a vicious murderer/rapist/scum back on the street due to a mistake, I wouldn't support capital punishment.

If a mistake is made, as long as the person is alive there is a chance to try and make things right.

And what chance do we have to make things right for the victim (and family) that gets slaughtered by a criminal that was wrongly acquitted or out on a reduced sentence?

[riggs]

It's interesting to note that as we speak, Louisiana is considering expanding the death penalty to include child rapists. Your thoughts?

[daveNYC]

Fine, Dave. Go dig up some stats on deterrence.

Um, no. My point was that if you're going to say that we do it for deterrence, then there should be some evidence that it actually does the job. If there isn't, then deterrence isn't a reason, it's just an excuse so we can pretend that we're not just out for bloody revenge.

And your second point is retarded. You're saying that since the justice system makes mistakes that let people go free, you're willing to risk killing innocent people by mistake?

Your third point is strawtastic. If a person was acquitted, then the nature of the punishment never enters into the situation. Nor is anyone suggesting that the alternative to capital punishment is reduced jail time. Usually life without possibility of parole is proposed as the alternative.

[Mr. Kruger]

"And what chance do we have to make things right for the victim (and family) that gets slaughtered by a criminal that was wrongly acquitted or out on a reduced sentence?" Klompus

"Well, I suppose that some of the victims' loved ones may gain back some sense of sanity in knowing that the fucker who murdered their spouse, child, etc was to suffer the same fate." Vandelay

These are superficial and pretentious arguments from people who have no experience or understanding what it is to be in that position. People fall on both sides of line on this one. Some feel that killing the perpetrator is just nothing more than blood lust. Others feel the exact opposite. I believe it's a matter of character as to which way you go.
A larger question is that when a victim's family watches an innocent man/woman die in front of them thinking that they were the ones who are guilty is it worth going through with all this just to make a few people "feel better". Murdering people is just wrong- it doesn't matter who is doing it, criminal or state. The fact that we have this system is appalling enough- the fact they try to sanitize by making palatable for the public with this notion of "humane executions" (serious oxymoron) is even more absurd. If you're going to give out justice in this way it why not just turn into a spectacle so the victim's family can have some fun while they are gorging themselves on the "healing".

[Jack Klompus]

"My point was that if you're going to say that we do it for deterrence, then there should be some evidence that it actually does the job."

Never said we "do it for deterrence." I said it was about more than just "at best revenge." Deterrence isn't only reason that people support it, but it is one of the reasons. I also said "don't show me stats" because I think they are too flawed to be accurate on either side of the equation. It's far too speculative.

"And your second point is retarded. You're saying that since the justice system makes mistakes that let people go free, you're willing to risk killing innocent people by mistake?"

Innocent people are at risk when you let a maniac go free. I'm saying there are two sides to that coin. I certainly don't want innocent people to be wrongly convicted and executed. Both scenarios are failures of the system. One is not more egregious than the other. However, one is much more likley to occur -- and I don't think it is the case of the wrongly-executed death row inmate.

"Your third point is strawtastic. If a person was acquitted, then the nature of the punishment never enters into the situation."

Bullshit. If a person stands trial for murder one, then parameters are in effect established for punishment. Doesn't mean they'll be handed down, but they've certainly entered the situation. If they get off on a technicality, then they've escaped the death penalty -- lmost the same as if they were found not guilty.

"Nor is anyone suggesting that the alternative to capital punishment is reduced jail time."

Do you think all people sentenced to death row are actually executed?

"Usually life without possibility of parole is proposed as the alternative."

So state sentencing laws never change? You're assuming that if someone is sentenced to life w.o. possibililty of parole, it'll stay that way.

[Jack Klompus]

"Murdering people is just wrong- it doesn't matter who is doing it, criminal or state."

Murder and capital punishment are not one in the same -- neither legally nor morally. Capital punshment is a consequence of murder -- it's not just "killing."

[Mr. Kruger]

Murder and capital punishment are not one in the same -- neither legally nor morally. Capital punshment is a consequence of murder -- it's not just "killing."

Legal shmeegal. Lynching and slavery were legal at one time. Are there acceptable forms of those activities?

Killing is morally acceptable to you if it's done in a controlled environment? That's far outside my realm of thinking.

[Jack Klompus]

"Lynching and slavery were legal at one time."

That's where the comparison ends. Lynching was practiced without due process of law. And slavery wasn't limited to convicted murderers.

"Killing is morally acceptable to you if it's done in a controlled environment? That's far outside my realm of thinking."

Yes. Capital punishment as a controlled measure is morally accpetable to me. Same goes for euthanasia and abortion. In capital punishment, the murderer has acted in a manner that shows no regard for human life. From that point on, I don't believe that person should be afforded the same regard.

[Jackie]

Child rapists...most of the people who do things you see on "Law and Order the SUV" (said in Christopher Moltisanti voice)...take 'em out back and bring out the firing squad...after having them share a triple for a few months with Adibisi and Schillinger.

[phil]

Amen, Jackie. My vengeful side says...

But, these are not people who should ever see the light of day again. It is arguable that they are so deranged as to be suffering. So, put them down.