The Battle for Death Penalty Transparency
Journalists and prisoners stage a First Amendment challenge to state secrecy regarding executions.

Americans may shudder at the barbarity depicted in videos showing public executions by the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China, but the fact remains that alone among all Western countries, the United States is a death penalty country.
Though the death penalty is legal in the majority of American states, only a handful of them actually carry out executions, numbering in the few dozens annually. Part of the reason the American public maintains a steadfast support of its government killing convicted murderers is due to the cloak of secrecy covering executions and the fact that the most common form of execution, lethal injection, is sold to the public as a medical procedure, akin to putting a sick animal to sleep.
But a series of botched executions in 2014 have exposed a problem largely unknown to the American public: The drugs used for lethal injections are experimental, untested, and proving to be ineffective at killing prisoners without excruciating pain. Just last week, the execution of a woman in Georgia was halted hours before it was scheduled to take place because one of the drugs appeared "cloudy." The last thing the state of Georgia wanted was to join the list of states making a mess of killing people.
"Since the 70s, America has tried to sanitize the way it kills people in death chambers by saying that this is an act of medical intervention," says Ed Pilkington, chief reporter for The Guardian US. He adds:
By using pharmaceutical drugs to do the killing, they're implying that this process is painless, it's humane, it's very civilized. They've used that as a way of undermining resistance. But now we're seeing pharmaceutical companies, the European Union, interest groups, protest groups, all saying, "Hang on, this is wrong. Medical drugs are created to save lives, to make people's health better, they are not created to kill people."
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, says skepticism of lethal injection is "not driven by sympathy for the defendants, who committed terrible crimes," but rather, "(the public) doesn't want hear gruesome facts," such as prisoners writhing in agony while strapped to a gurney as their loved ones watch.
Faced with a European Union ban on selling drugs used in lethal injections, death penalty states now rely on compounding pharmacies. These are typically small businesses who produce execution cocktails to order. These compounds are unregulated by the FDA, and their manufacturers are cloaked in secrecy.
"The Most Visceral Form of Censorship"
Oklahoma is one of the states which relies on compounding pharmacies, and when Clayton Lockett was executed by the state in April 2014, the procedure was anything but quick and painless. It took 43 minutes from the time the first needle was inserted in Lockett's arm for him to die.
Pilkington describes the scene, as related to him by a Guardian colleague who witnessed Lockett's execution:
He was groaning, he was shouting out. They were finding it impossible to get the vein, so blood was spurting over all the people in the death chamber, I mean it was the most horrendous situation. And right at that moment they decided to shut the curtain, which would prevent any witnesses, including reporters, from seeing what happened.
Pilkington calls this the "most visceral form of censorship" and says "with something as serious as the wielding of state power to kill somebody, there should be maximum transparency," rather than the current system of complete secrecy surrounding every step of the execution process, from the sources of the drugs themselves to the grisly reality when those drugs fail to kill the condemned in a timely and painless fashion.
Missouri is one of 13 states to have expanded what are known as "black hood laws," which are meant to protect the identities of executioners, to now also make confidential everyone involved in the production and delivery of lethal injection drugs. These laws even supersede the Freedom of Information Act.
In response, The Guardian, Associated Press, and several prominent Missouri newspapers have filed suit against the state, in what is believed to be the First Amendment challenge to the death penalty. The lawsuit argues the public has a First Amendment right to access all information pertaining to government activities in capital cases, beginning in the courtroom, through the death chamber, and into the autopsy room. No court date has been set.
The increased difficulty for death penalty states to procure lethal injection drugs has led to some anti-death penalty politicians, like Virgina's Governor Terry McAuliffe, to support increased secrecy for lethal injections because the alternative would be to bring back grislier forms of executions, like the firing squad, which Utah is considering, or even the gas chamber, which Missouri is contemplating.
Death penalty states have argued that compounding pharmacies would cease to provide lethal injection drugs if their names were to be made public because it is a very small part of their business and, as Dieter says, "they're not in the business of perfecting executions." Dieter compares these pharmacies to construction companies contracted by the government to build bridges. If the bridge fell, the public would demand the right to know who was responsible. He argues that the same level of transparency should apply to executions, especially when they are "botched."
Using the First Amendment to Fight for Eighth Amendment Rights
Following the lead of the Missouri lawsuit, death row inmates in several states have filed suit on the grounds that the drugs they are to be killed with may violate their Eighth Amendment rights prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. One of these suits was thrown out by a federal judge in Ohio last month. While explaining his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory L. Frost conceded the "Kafkaesque absurdity" of denying inmates the right to "challenge the use of a drug that will be used to execute them," while noting that the information regarding the drug is denied to them (italics in original):
In execution protocol challenges, the law tells death-sentenced inmates to bring evidence into the courtroom while concurrently upholding a scheme that places the bulk of select evidence outside the reach of the inmates. The necessary is also the withheld: you must give us that which you cannot have to give. In order to challenge the use of a drug that will be used to execute them, inmates must explain why use of that drug presents a risk of substantial harm. But the inmates are not allowed to know from where the drug came, how specifically it was manufactured, or who was involved in the creation of the drug. This means the inmates can attempt to complain about the reliability of the drug without being afforded the information that would place the drug into a context in which the inmates and by extension the courts can evaluate the reliability based on more than impermissible speculation or perhaps unwarranted assumptions.
"There can't be anything as important as the state killing someone," says Ed Pilkington, "Going back to these methods that are very hard to describe as civilized or painless or humane: firing squad, electric chair, or the gas chamber, which has ramifications of what happened in Germany in the 1940s is pretty chilling. I think it becomes much more difficult to put up this facade that the death penalty is not causing anybody discomfort."
Despite the potential of a return to grislier methods of executions, the illusory civility of lethal injection is likely to remain the norm as long as the death penalty is practiced in the U.S. Regarding continued efforts to shield the public from the reality of state executions, Pilkington says, "if people aren't prepared to see what's being done in their name then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it."
About 5.45 minutes.
Produced by Anthony L. Fisher.
Camera by Josh Swain and Fisher. Graphics by Jason Keisling. Additional assistance by Robert Mariani.
Music: "FOUR YEARS EXACTLY" by Jared C. Balogh (http://www.alteredstateofmine.net)
Scroll down for downloadable links, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sunday we had to put our cat down. My 10 year old did not want to be in the room. So when the time, came, the vet walked in with 2 syringes, which was an overdose of anesthetic. She used two because the cat was having a hard time breathing and she wanted it to be quicker. I walked out with my daughter, and no sooner did we sit down in the waiting room, than they called us back in because it was over. In that time they gave the cat 2 injections and she died. It had to take just seconds. SECONDS. And yet, it takes 5+ drugs and 45 minutes to execute a human being. I am against the death penalty for a number of other reasons, but this just gave me one more.
It doesn't take 5+ drugs and 45 minutes to execute a human being---if the right drugs are used.
Activists keep them from being used.
Yeah, and transparency is why they know what drug companies to target...
Also,
proving to be ineffective at killing prisoners without excruciating pain.
Proving?
Based on what, that an unconscious person twitched and took longer to stop breathing than some would like? That is not proof of pain. That is proof that more effective drugs could be used.
I don't understand the 'pain' complaint.
Anesthesiologists have to be well trained and very careful to avoid accidentally killing patients in surgery. You can suffocate in helium before you even know it. Hydrogen Sulfide's worst effect is noticing a really bad smell before you keel over for good.
I'm against the death penalty because of huge problems with the court system, not over killing people who need to be killed but I don't trust the courts to be able to tell which is which - but if you're going to do it, why is the process made so complicated, allowing plenty of room for screwups?
I should add that if you're going to do it, it should be done quickly and humanely. I *do* care what the person executed feels as he/she dies.
But there are *tons* of ways to put someone down humanely and the current process seems to be the worst of them.
Let me say first that I'm against the death penalty for the same reasons as you.
With that out of the way... Why not go back to the firing squad? It has a very low chance of failure, and even if it did fail to kill the person right away, it could be repeated in seconds. In addition, it's very cheap. It's also more honest; there's none of this "innocent medical procedure" bullshit.
why is the process made so complicated, allowing plenty of room for screwups?
Because anti-CP ideologues have filed suits claiming that hanging, the chair, and the firing squad were 8th amendment violations. Lethal injection is the only method that's survived court challenges.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
No one has filed a court challenge against an anesthesia overdose.
Horseshit and you know it.
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
http://www.worktoday7.com
Bingo. The problems with the court system would be addressed in large part by removing a great deal of the immunity enjoyed by prosecutors and cops. If you lie to put somebody on death row, you should be tried for attempted murder.
That said, the reason that approval for the death penalty hangs on isn't that the publc is unaware of its possible cruelty. Hangings used to be popular public events. The reason is theat there is a,rceptin, however false, that the opponents of the death penalty include a lot of people who would release dangerous human animals back into society.
That doesn't actually bother me, so long as the trend in gun rights keeeps moving in the direction it is. In an armed society, if a predator is let loose often enough, somebody will shoot him.
Did you not read the article before you jumped on here to voice your support for cruel & unusual punishment? Isnt someone screaming and thrashing, per the description in the article, an indication of pain?
no one has ever screamed or thrashed from a morphine overdose, they go to sleep and never wake up.
Do you object to giving them what they gave their victim?
It doesn't take any fucking drugs to kill someone quick and humanly. Use a fucking garrot. Works every time. Minimal complication.
LAZY INTERN ALERT!
And it's stupid to have a story complaining about censorship and lack of transparency without once mentioning the activists' role in this.
Too bad IG Farben is out of business. They knew how solve problems like this.
Why don't the states just leave unlimited quantities of Jack Daniels and morphine pills in the death row cells.
That should be more efficient than current system, and much less embarrassing.
We're starting to look like Saudia Arabia who takes 8 swings of the sword to behead a female domestic.
Death is the easy way out for the guilty and a travesty for the innocent. Can we move on now?
I don't care what the person being executed feels as he/she dies.
All I care is that they are actually guilty of the crime.
That's it. Once that's covered, kill away.
Do they suffer? Did their victim? I know very few people who believe that executions must be performed in a manner similar to putting down a bel;oved pet. That particular idiocy is an intrusion of anti-death penalty folks trying to regulate capital punishment out of existence.
As the problems with getting simple drugs for the process follows a similar but not legislated path. Activists harass companies that make the drugs, they harass the employees--in much the same way that has spawned 'black hood' laws.
Every botched, hideously painful execution lies at the feet of the activists--because their actions--striking fear into anyone involved-- keep the drugs originally used for the purpose away from prisons.
And it is juries who sentence people to death. Juries--individual people, not 'The State'. That's an important distinction.
Finally I will return to the most important part--that the person being executed ACTUALLY be the person who committed the crime. That is paramount.
The crooked and unethical way the American legal system functions makes it virtually impossible to know if many who are convicted are actually guilty.
This^. If you get shot during the commission of a crime, fuck you, you got what you deserve. Trusting the cops to solve it? Don't make me laugh.
When it comes to the death penalty, we should go to a higher form of proof.
Certainty?
A separate judicial process and review, that would also allow for timely execution?
I don't believe we could ever be certain. And as such, as shitty as life in prison may be, it would be better to have freed a wrongfully convicted innocent person twenty years later than to make the movie about how the state killed them ten years ago.
uhhhh.... you do realize there are tons of security cameras out there nowadays, and they're proliferating rapidly?
what the hell are these fucking anti death penalty people going to say when we have it on video a guy raping and then killing some helpless girl?
...that it's better to condemn to serving a life sentence a man whose crime was incontrovertible than to execute a man who's later exonerated?
...and you completely missed the point of my comment.
If you'll notice, I set up the situation as having proof. I'm saying, in the situation we have proof, why shouldn't we execute the guy?
Because, in case you didn't realize, that is a choice. Not everything has to be a broad policy that ignores details. Below I propose that we only execute people when a certain threshoild of physical evidence is reached. Why can't we do that?
Again, what are the anti-deathers going to say when we know for a fact someone is a monster?
I don't come down decisively on the side of anti-execution qua execution moralizing. I'm opposed to it because there's not much point when the alternative, life imprisonment, satisfies the functions of retribution, public safety, and to the extent it's possible, deterrence, and makes correcting mistakes easier than raising the dead.
Very, very seldom would it happen without a shred of reasonable doubt that we know who killed someone. And, we know without question the prosecution is going for the win more than going for the truth. Even to the extent of hiding exculpatory evidence that proves the accused is not the killer.
Sure...in the rare, rare instance it is absolutely 100% certain someone killed a little girl...execute him. And, personally I don't care if he twitches and moans for 30 seconds or so. In the big scheme of things it is meaningless.
But, I really don't see there would be many trustworthy instances where we could say 100% this guy killed this little girl.
Let him or her rot in jail. As a society we pay less than half for someone in regular prison vs death row. And fewer lawyer get paid. Now how is that a bad thing?
While I could agree to a separate process, I don't think 'timely execution' should be a factor at all.
This is something that you can't undo - take all the time needed to be sure. If the guy dies of old age before you get around executing him, I'm fine with that. Caged up he's a limited threat - mainly to those caged with him.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is about as certain as anybody can be of anything. It's just that the prosecutors like to downplay it into something different. The lectures given to juries in Montana, for instance, water it down till "beyond a reasonable doubt" seems to be about the same as "something more likely than not".
Most states do. In PA for example, when the person was convicted of murder 1 DP applicable the sentencing phase is separate and the defense is able to argue that doubt must be beyond a scintilla of evidence. Any doubt, even unreasonable doubt is enough to disqualify the DP.
Also all DP cases are immediately reviewed by the PA Supreme Court following sentencing.
I don't know if this applies in Texas or Florida, but in the rest of the DP states it's pretty similar.
Yeah. I'm at the point I prefer to guard against ambitious and ruthless prosecutors at this point. Better to absorb the cost of paying for prisoners rather than kill an innocent one.
Look at how Massachusetts ruined the daycare family and EVERYONE knew they were innocent. It sends shivers down ones spine to realize morally bankrupted people like Coakley are more than willing to let innocent people languish in prison to further their careers.
so execute the the killers who confess or whose crimes are obvious . The current objections are not for the most part about th guilt of the accused but the morality of executions in general. Certainly we should improve our criminal justice system, a lot . But outlawing executions is a misguided effort that will detract from the requisite improvements to this countries criminal justice . The logical next step is not to improsn anyone either because punishment is cruel.
I disagree. Capitol punishment serves no purpose. It is expensive and fraught with peril as even confessions have been proven to be false. Let them rot rather than we empower government with decisions over life and death.
John, I couldn't agree more...and that's why I'm not in favor of the death penalty.
Too many times people on death row have been exonerated by reason of botched defense work, withheld evidence by the prosecution and false testimony, to name a few reasons. Since it doesn't appear that there's much of a way to be absolutely assured that someone's guilty of a capital crime, the death penalty should be abolished.
Bring back the public execution in which people come from far and wide bringing their children and whole families to watch. If everyone watched I expect the death penalty would disappear overnight.
Or, more likely, PPV would make a killing.
Execution by hanging, drawing and quartering, in which the condemned was hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces) was the penalty for high treason from the reign of Henry III (1216-1272) until it was finally abolished by the Forfeiture Act 1870. It was always carried out in public and was a great crowd pleaser right up till the end. By 1745 and the execution of several Jacobite officers the victims were hanged until dead, rendering the rest of the routine embarrassing rather than painful, but in 1803 Edward Despard and six associates were hanged and the whole messy process carried out in front of 20,000 people at Horsemonger Lane Gaol. Grotesquely, the decapitation was carried out by a clumsy surgeon who couldn't find a joint, and the executioner had to take Despard's head and twist it around until it fell off.
The last time the sentence was carried out -- still in public -- was on the Cato Street conspirators in 1820; the last time the sentence was imposed was on some Chartists in 1839 (they were transported instead). Public executions ended with the Capital Punishment Amendment Act 1868 and, as mentioned above, hanging, drawing and quartering ceased to be a punishment with the Forfeiture Act 1870. Incidentally, the only person hanged, drawn and quartered in what would become the United States was Joshua Tefft, an English colonist accused of having fought on the side of the Narragansett during the Great Swamp Fight. He was executed in January 1676. So much for the unique brutality of the United States.
I swear I read this in a Tolkien book somewhere. . .
If everyone watched I expect the death penalty would disappear overnight.
Because the American public hates to see people get killed on TV or in the movies.
@Anthony L. Fisher
Any shudders I have when a person is executed in China, Iran, or Saudi, are for the poor schmucks that are killed because they offend someone in government, or were caught making out with someone that is not a spouse, or just simply being female, or for because they were not in a government approved religion.
I have no sympathies for the bastards that were caught after committing murder and executed for it. That is justice, they have taken away a persons one chance to live and they should be repaid in the same manor.
correction, being an unescorted female*
What about the people here in America, executed in public by police in the commission of non-violent crimes? Or, for that matter, no crimes at all?
Do you shudder for them?
yeah, of course he does
but that's not the topic of discussion
Why do you think this forum has a section on cop abuse?
Killing the killer may correct a judicial imbalance, but the victim stays just as murdered. I have no sympathy for the convicted murderer, but neither do I understand the satisfaction with setting him executed. It's resolution, but only by the most primitive arithmetic. (I'm opposed to executions only because the State is far from infallible.)
The satisfaction is in knowing the bastard can never do it again to anyone else, which is why I also think child molesters and mutilators should be executed. Even if they don't kill their victims, they should pay for their despicable crimes with their lives.
perhaps when someone you love is brutally murdered you may understand why societies through out time have granted the survivors the lives of the killers . If the survivors are free men with weapons and guts the killers or their relatives will die one way or another.
To be fair, some of these women in Saudi Arabia definitely deserve it. They were raped, and whose fault is that?
No amount of transparency will get me to support the death penalty. So long as the state may execute a person for a crime that they did not commit, I am of the opinion that they shouldn't be empowered to execute anyone at all.
By simple extension, if the state can imprison someone for a crime they did not commit, are you of the opinion that they shouldn't be empowered to imprison anyone at all? If your answer is yes, how do you propose to prevent society from being at the mercy of sociopaths? If your answer is no, how do you rationalize your inconsistency?
You can partially walk back a wrongful imprisonment. Death is permanent.
How is the loss of the prime decades of your life not permanent?
The monetary gain that should be a mandatory part of that process. People wrongly convicted and inprisoned should be awarded enough money to live out the remaining years of their lives in luxury.
A few million dollars in a savings account pulling 5% should do nicely.
imprisoned. Ahem.
Of course it is permanent. So what? You can still let them out. Which is a whole lot more than you can do for someone wrongly executed. By the same reasoning we should just replace prison with death in all cases. Loss of 6 months or a year is permanent too. Maybe you would choose to die rather than be imprisoned for a large part of your life. A lot of people would rather live with some chance of eventual freedom. Most people in prison for long terms are not constantly suicidal.
Because the alternatives are imperfect, we should embrace the most flawed method available. Somehow I'm unconvinced.
I understand that there is a difference. But that has to be weighed against the severity of the crime.
Anti CP ideologues are trying to steal a base by claiming only the death penalty is irreversible.
And they can't kill you again and again, wheras you may be imprisonned over and over unjustly or, even worse, continuously, day after day, for decades. You may be killed unjustly, but they can only do it once.
how do you propose to prevent society from being at the mercy of sociopaths?
Is this a joke? We are already at the mercy of sociopaths. Look at the politicians and the cops. They imprison people every single fucking day for non-crimes that they've made crimes. And you want to let these fuckers kill people "legally" too?
You're delusional.
The real solution is tasking some of our brave soldiers on the front lines of the war on drugs, traffic violations, and selling loosies with the authority to try, convict, sentence, and execute on the spot. Judge Dredd, baby.
Guns. Lot's of guns.
This is question for Uncle Cecii, but why is one member of a firing squad issued a blank cartridge?
I'll take a stab at that: lack of certainty. A firing squad. with one empty bullet, is a civilized way to kill a criminal who is beyond redemption and bring the face of justice to his victims and his fellows without going overboard. The State acknowledges that it is not 100% sure of the sentence.
I don't much care one way or the other about the death penalty. But should it be done, I want a firing squad and one empty cartridge. No medicine.
The way I always heard it, the empty cartridge was for the benefit of the people in the firing squad. So they could always believe that maybe they didn't kill the person since their rifle could have been unloaded.
In a democracy the people in the firing squad and the people at large are one and the same. Foisting off the problem of what to do with criminals to government apparatchiks with needles and medicine is something else.
It was lame and intellectually dishonest to bring in the false comparison of our death penalty process to that of China, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. The process it takes just to get someone to the gurney is exhaustive. If there is any failure in the execution process... it is primarily due to the restrictions imposed on the process by legal challenges that actually weaken the ability to impose the sentence. To criticize the the ineffective process people are executed because your ilk created an ineffective process... is kinda hilarious and sad at the same time. If there is suffering... it is because you created it. If you want to insure absolute effective executions... get away from the drugs. Lets get back to 100% surety that the execution is fast, painless, and absolute. Bring back the guillotine.
The actual legal death penalty in America is a difficult, long term slog, there's no denial for that.
The extrajudicial death penalty that is becoming more and more commonplace here is more akin to China, S.A. or Iran. An officer of the law, at this point in time, can just about murder anybody they please for any reason at all.
I feel like that's a much better comparison.
So bullets aren't a thing? There are plenty of ways to kill people quickly besides lethal injections.
I think that interrupting the supply of drugs is a stupid and ineffective way to protest the death penalty. But the people who insist on using lethal injection when they have a hard time doing it properly are certainly at fault as well.
"It's all the activists' fault" gets tiresome. It is largely the fault of the legislators who decided to use the ridiculous means of execution. Various kinds of gas, bullets rope, etc. are all still available and can't really be cut off by activists.
it is primarily due to the restrictions imposed on the process by legal challenges that actually weaken the ability to impose the sentence. To criticize the the ineffective process people are executed because your ilk created an ineffective process...
Yeah, damn those activists, insisting that people be allowed things like "appeals" before the government kills them! Once the sentence comes down, the bailiff should just shoot the accused then and there, what's with all this pointless "process"?
It amazes me that so many people who constantly (and correctly) decry the government's incompetence at everything it does often have such a fetish for letting it kill people.
I don't trust the government to kill people. I trust 12 people to come to the right conclusion under most circumstances.
The problem is the government catches them, stacks the court with idiots/dupes, only gives them the info they determine they should get, throws people in prison for telling the jurors they have a choice in the matter, handle the appeals, and end up killing them.
The death penalty is just if and only if the person murdered someone, but that doesn't mean that the government should be entrusted with it.
The government restricts what evidence is allowable. Rules on the testimony. Sometimes has expert witnesses lie (see Annie Dookhan, the former Mass crime lab chemist) or has expert witness that are not experts such as in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham.
You're painting "government" with an awfully broad brush here. While technically part of the government, the judiciary is independent of the other branches. Even in the case of a biased judge, exclusion of evidence can be grounds for a new trial on appeal (which are lavished on death penalty recipients).
You say "independent", but I have this odd feeling you haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years.
12 people convict for marijuana possession all the time.
12 people convicted runaways slaves and sent them back to the plantation.
12 people have convicted a goodly number of men - many of whom ended up on death row.
If the law is a arse, those 12 people are perfectly willing to kiss it.
It amazes me that so many people who constantly (and correctly) decry the government's incompetence at everything it does often have such a fetish for letting it kill people.
Bingo. The government can't get a fucking insurance website to work properly, but deciding someone needs to die is something the government is good at? Fuck. That.
People's hardon for "punishing criminals" is just an excuse to get their bloodthirstiness on. Because by their own metric, the government isn't even really capable and competent at capturing actual criminals. So who are you necessarily punishing?
"The government can't get a fucking insurance website to work properly, but deciding someone needs to die is something the government is good at?"
The former is not something that is supposed to be in the government's sphere of competence, but the latter is.
It amazes me that so many people who constantly (and correctly) decry the government's incompetence at everything it does often have such a fetish for letting it kidnap and cage people.
I can do this all day.
Uh well they probably should be doing way less of that too.
"Less" is not the correct terminology. I don't want fewer actual murderers, rapists and crooks locked up. I want all of them locked up.
If, by less, you mean fewer overall "people" because you stop creating and prosecuting victimless crimes, then I wholeheartedly agree. I also agree that there needs to be more limits placed upon executive and prosecution authority to attempt to further limit their ability to convict innocent people.
So "less" is not the correct term except in the way that I actually used it?
So are you saying you want fewer "real" criminals locked up or are you saying fewer victimless crimes prosecuted? Because, at least to me, your position still isn't clear.
If the government took the idea of incarceration as seriously as they should, there would be far far fewer people in cages then there currently are. The only people who should be in cages are the ones who have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed violence against other people.
Got it.
thx...I'm a little slow.
And that's relevant how? Death penalty supporters don't necessarily want it to be frequent either.
can do this all day.
ND is beginning to smell quite Tulpical...
You forgot "rape". There's a lot of that in prison.
A lot of people have a problem with that too. At best, imprisonment is a necessary evil. I don't think that is a very good argument anyway. From a limited government perspective, I think you would want to use minimal force in punishing people. Killing people who have been neutralized as a threat to others is not necessary. Killing should only be done when necessary and as a response to a immediate threat. Isn't that sort of the whole point of libertarian political philosophy?
From a limited government perspective, I think you would want to use minimal force in punishing people.
I agree, but minimal under what constraints? What objectives have to be satisfied? I'm not at all convinced that the death penalty is never the minimal force to accomplish punishment objectives.
Keeping someone locked in a cage against his will for decades would, I think, involved considerable more force than killing someone, especially if one takes into account the force that must be applied against everyone else in the community in order to support the institution.
Why don't they try the same drugs used to put Fluffy and Fido to sleep?
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.work-mill.com
I suppose popping open an evidence locker and giving the guy a couple ounces of heroin is too simple to be worth considering?
Oh sure, and then the life-is-sacred people would go picket the dope dealers that furnished the heroin -- even though it wasn't strictly voluntary on their part.
my buddy's half-sister makes $84 /hour on the computer . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her check was $12581 just working on the computer for a few hours. check this site out.....
????? http://www.netjob70.com
Hey, everybody, I think we found someone we should try new execution protocols on.
my buddy's half-sister makes $84 /hour on the computer . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her check was $12581 just working on the computer for a few hours. check this site out.....
????? http://www.netjob70.com
to the fact that some Americans realize that true justice is an accounting equation, you took life, so you owe life ("an eye for an eye"). Once the equation is balanced, then there is justice.
Rehabilitation (heaven only knows what people mean by that) is not justice anymore than putting a child in a corner for stealing candy is justice. No, what justice would look like is to have the child return the candy (with interest). Then the injured party would be repaid.
How does killing a murderer "repay" the victim?
Until you have a device capable of bringing the dead back to life, it'll have to do.
More like balancing the equation, but it repays the loved ones of the victim. You actually just pointed out exactly why murder is so evil, because you can't repay the injured party directly, only those who are left.
Again, if the people left don't want true justice, and are willing to take something else in repayment, that's up to them.
A jury ought to return a verdict of "up to [a certain level]". In the case of theft, that would be the stolen item (or it's value) + interest. Of course, the injured party may show mercy on the evil person and take less back (it's their property so they have that right).
There something fucked up about the state of the culture when justice is something that's got to be minutely explained to anyone, and when even then he'll frequently appear incapable of grasping it. Or the educational procedures, since any six year old seems to have a pretty firm grasp on it; it's only after a few years of school that it suddenly becomes incomprehensible and alien to anyone.
How long did it take the girl that Clayton shot and buried alive to die?
How does an execution make that any less horrible?
Why are people so bloodthirsty?
Because punishing others makes a lot of people feel all righteous and superior. If they can get themselves to believe the person "deserves" it, they can justify some pretty heinous shit that if they otherwise tried to do it or have it done to people, they would be reviled as a sadist.
Why do you think people relegate such horrible shit to the government? Think of the shit the government does to people. Lots of stuff that if a non-government agent did those things, people would shun you.
uhhh.... they DO deserve it. Are you saying they don't? Somebody who shoots and buries alive some girl, for no fucking reason?
The death penalty provides a disincentive, and the death penalty and government punishments in general, take the poace of endless personal vendettas and feuds.
I'm sorry, but it does make it a little better. It really does. Most people think this way. I know I would feel better were my daughter the victim. You're just going to have to get used to it. It's this thing called "the human race", or "Homo sapiens"
People have given up lots of things that were apparently part of human nature. Modern industrialized societies are hugely less violent than humans have ever been in the past. Slavery is not seen as a proper or natural state by most people in the world. Rape is generally frowned upon as a reproductive strategy.
People have gotten rid of a lot of things that are probably part of our nature as animals. Yes, the association of revenge and justice is strong in many people, but I don't think it is something that is necessary. If people really want it, then it will keep happening. But I think it is something that can be changed.
People have given up lots of things that were apparently part of human nature.
Anyone who's raised a kid knows those shameful and inconvenient parts of our nature not actually gone, just buried beneath the surface by years of training. It works fine when we're talking about unprovoked hitting and stealing and lying, because kids are always doing those things and thus there are teachable moments.
I don't see how you can train a boy to forgive and forget when 30 years later, his daughter is raped and murdered by an attacker who gets off on a technicality. That's a reboot.
love it. You know a position is FUCKING BULLSHIT when the dude (you) can only talk about extremely broad, vague things, and not actually fucking give you a fucking reason for his position. You sound just like the fucking fascist progressives.
Even granting your premise, that revenge isn't justice, then isn't at least providing a disincentive justice? If not, THEN WHAT THE HELL IS JUSTICE?
The only thing I can guess you'd say is the typical libertarian bullshit about restitution, but, as people have told you over and over again, you can't pay back for certain things (like killing someone).
We have to have a recognition of crimes, and serious punishments for crimes
"Most people think this way."
Yeah. Most people who aren't psychopaths.
There is this long-standing fantasy that Americans support the death penalty because we don't understand what it entails and if only, if only, we knew, then of course we would demand its end.
Where this fantasy originates I don't know. Public executions were the norm for millennia without generating significant public opposition.
Americans support the death penalty for the same reason that Canadians, Britons, and Italians do: because it is seen as a just penalty for the horrible crimes. The fact that our governments (unlike the Canadian, British, and Italian governments) actually respects public opinion is no reason to change it.
We shudder at the barbarity depicted in videos showing public executions by the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China because the victims of those executions in most cases did little or nothing to deserve their fates, not because public execution is inherently wrong.
Less than half of British people and only 41% of Canadians support reintroducing the death penalty (as you can see from the latter poll in Canada, a lot of people are fine with the death penalty as a concept, but don't support reinstating it into law).
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or.....#13aug14uk
http://www.torontosun.com/news.....31401.html
That's where I am. Moron cops, a corrupt prosecutor's office, and a judiciary which amazingly manages to be both corrupt and idiotic is no way to handle a death sentence.
Whether or not it will sway public opinion (I suspect it will, culture does change and bloody entertainment is far less popular than it was in the past. But it may well be that it would still be popular), I think execution should be gruesome. If people are going to support it, they should see what it really is: cold blooded killing.
Human slavery was the norm for millennia as well. Now in most parts of the world people find the idea very distasteful. It is good to leave some things behind.
Funny how slavery disappeared first in places where the land was not suited to the agriculture types for which it was useful. And it's really useless now that we have automation. Regardless of moral considerations I'll take a robot over a slave any day.
// "I'll take a robot over a slave any day."
To be specific, we're talking about huge automatic threshers, but the concept is the same.
Using this logic, people should be kept awake and forced to watch during operations. After all, operations are not only done in their name, but at least partially with their money. Shouldn't they be awake to enjoy it?
I wonder if the Guardian reporter feels the same way about abortion and tax enforcement.
There's a difference between being forced to watch something and being allowed to see it.
Disengenuous assertion is disengenuous.
Yes there is, but Pilkington is suggesting we have to have the former. Choosing not to watch the execution means they aren't prepared to see it.
That's just dumb. The situations are not at all comparable and completely ignore agency.
Maybe they should consider this, instead of lethal injection:
Inert gas asphyxiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....phyxiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bag
Suicide bag
"...A 2010 study in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that helium in a bag or hood caused death in a quick and painless manner..."
Looks like it could become reality:
Nitrogen Gas Executions Approved by Oklahoma House
OKLAHOMA CITY ? Mar 3, 2015, 4:14 PM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS.....ePage=true
The bill was signed into law by Oklahoma Gov. in April: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-gov.....le/5411181
Kids would have nightmares about Donald Duck for the rest of their lives.
I support the death penalty for aggravated first-degree murder, but I also support full transparency. Someone who rapes and murders an infant should be executed, but there's no excuse for the government covering up shoddy practices or hiding the nature or origin of the drugs involved.
If that means that compounding pharmacies refuse to supply execution drugs, and we have to return the firing squad, so be it.
The reason I'm against the death penalty is that it has been shown over and over again that innocent people get convicted by our imperfect justice system and by corrupt or shoddy police work. Put yourself in the place of a person who has been wrongly convicted and is going to be executed no matter how much you proclaim your innocence. How many times in the past have innocent people been murdered by the State? If we know for an absolute fact that the convicted person committed the murder, that it was first degree murder, and especially if it was a brutal and horrible murder, then I really don't care how they die. But until we can know beyond any doubt whatsoever that the person convicted is such a murderer then there should be no death penalty.
Lethal injection is only used because it's the only method that has survived 8th amendment challenges from anti-CP ideologues disingenuously claiming that more traditional methods (hanging, firing squad) were cruel and unusual.
If executions were public they would be filing suits arguing that humiliating the convict is cruel and unusual and violates his right to privacy.
And anti-CP ideologues are also disingenuous in demanding to know the source of the drugs... they just want to blackmail the producers into refusing to provide the drugs, so they can indirectly win on an issue after losing the public debate on it.
And. . . ?
Is that true?
And people can file whatever suits they want. It's kind of an important aspect of the court system.
Even if you don't have a problem with the death penalty, I don't get why people think it is so important to have it.
Since no human judgement is ever 100% correct it would follow that no one should ever do anything . Not a very convincing argument.
I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I've been doing,
http://www.wixjob.com
Oh boo hoo. Frankly, I couldn't give a tinkers damn whether the prisoner feels pain or not. My sympathies lie with the victims and their families. Having said all that, this article is a load of hogwash. Death by lethal injection is a two-step process. The first injection renders the inmate unconscious; the second stops the heart. Anyone who has ever had a general anesthetic for an operation knows that unconsciousness occurs within about three seconds and is completely painless.
As for cruel and unusual punishment: Cruel? What's cruel about almost instantaneous unconsciousness? Unusual? The death penalty has been around for all of human history.
Do your sympathies lie with the families of those who were mistakenly convicted and executed?
Such as?
Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 17 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States,[4] but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. Others have been released on the basis of weak cases against them, sometimes involving prosecutorial misconduct; resulting in acquittal at retrial, charges dropped, or innocence-based pardons.
Do your sympathies lie with the families of those who were mistakenly convicted and executed?
Looks like the system worked in those cases.
FFS, what about the cases where the system didn't work and we don't know about it? You know, the seen and unseen, type 1 and type 2 errors. That sort of thing.
While it's certainly possible such has happened, to this day nobody has yet produced a case where they can demonstrate conclusively that it has happened.
Sorry, but I don't accept what if... what if... what if... as a valid argument.
Yep, its really convenient that just when the government got set to wrongly execute someone the technology to prevent that execution came around.
Its a good thing the government was far more careful in the past, eh?
Oh, for fuck's sake. You can't honestly believe that innocent people haven't been executed. You think that the small fraction of cases with DNA evidence available just happen to be the only ones where DNA could have exonerated someone?
It must be horrible to be in the family of someone who was correctly convicted and killed by the government, even though we have prisons capable of reducing the probability of escape to effectively zero, and thus rendering execution completely unnecessary as a means to protect the public.
I guess their grief must be well deserved.
God we are a cruel species.
And who gives a fuck if the murderer kills someone while in prison, right?
Cause the victim is most likely to be some non violent drug offender or the like that lacks an inherently violent personality to defend himself.
Got no problem offing someone for their heinous actions. Only issue is making sure you have the right guy.
Standard of proof for a crime...beyond reasonable doubt. You want to put him to death? The standard should be raised to "no doubt."
If you have the correct guy, I'm not all that concerned about how painless it is. I don't have much regard for "real" criminals.
Experimental drugs? WTF? Use the shit they put my dog down with. Gone in a second. This is political bullshit.
There is never "no doubt".
Bullshit.
You telling me you aren't sure that Nidal Hasan killed those people.
The government staged it? He was shot and disarmed in the process of shooting a victim. 90 witnesses. Acted as his own defense and admitted to the murders.
Please.
That counts as a doubt. Not a reasonable one, as you noted, but still a doubt.
I'm an engineer, not a mathematician, so no, it doesn't. He did it. There is not a doubt in my mind. The odds of a conspiracy would be astronomical, bordering on impossible.
A is A.
And if anyone on the jury has any doubt, by all means, vote no.
Quite honestly, when someone is caught red-handed, in the process of committing the crime, I am at a loss as to why we have a trial.
Nidal Hasan was caught in the act, as was Jared Loughner as were numerous persons cluttering up our appeals courts on their way to the executioner. Just kill them. We know they did it.
Fine, cool - then there is never an execution.
The legal definition of "reasonable doubt" seems a little weak to me. Unless there are multiple, unrelated witnesses, physical evidence and a confession, I could probably find what I would call reasonable doubt in most cases. It amazes me what passes for "beyond a reasonable doubt" sometimes.
A lot of people would get away with murder under that rule. Not merely avoid the death penalty.
The price of preventing the very rare execution of an innocent would be a lot more deaths at the hands of non-state actors.
In a death penalty case, a confession should raise immediate doubt. Why would a sane and rational person confess to a crime that they would be executed for? They wouldn't. It would have to be forced. Sure, maybe they did it, but it casts doubt nonetheless.
As can be seen in this thread, for a lot of people, revenge fantasy-driven justice boners overpower usual government skepticism (which you would think would be most elevated when it comes to the government literally legally killing people).
I don't disagree with the notion that some people deserve to die. That does not mean it is a good idea to give the government the power to kill them legally. Anyone who believes in limited government and is skeptical of government power should be able to figure out why.
I don't disagree with the notion that some people deserve to be kidnapped and locked in a cage. That does not mean it is a good idea to give the government the power to kidnap them and lock them in a cage legally. Anyone who believes in limited government and is skeptical of government power should be able to figure out why.
Do you think the alternatives are comparable in both cases? In order for an analogy to work, you can't just substitute words in. It has to actually make sense. There are literally over 100 countries that have justice systems that function perfectly well without the death penalty. Show me some that function without imprisonment and I'm all ears.
Your implied argument above did not address severity levels of punishment.
Instead you implied that advocates of limited government should be always be skeptical of government actions. Indeed, you insinuate, in the most uncharitable terms possible, that death penalty supporters on this thread are being hypocritical for supporting government actions.
So I think it is fair to ask how you justify your support for government kidnapping and caging.
I think people should be skeptical of government kidnapping and caging. If there is a better alternative, it should be used before granting the government more power. To me, I think life imprisonment is clearly a better alternative than giving the government the power to kill legally. I can't think of a better alternative than imprisonment for serious crimes (I do think we should look for other methods of punishment for minor crimes, as well as getting rid of victimless crimes) but if you have one I'm willing to listen.
To me, I think life imprisonment is clearly a better alternative than giving the government the power to kill legally.
I respect that opinion, and I'm sure you have reasons for holding it. Perhaps you could deign to show respect for the opposite opinion, whose holders also have their reasons, unrelated to "revenge fantasy-driven justice boners".
Respectfully, it's not the government making the decision to kill the guy. It's a group of 12 citizens. Peers of the defendant, authorizing the killing.
If the jurors also performed the execution I would agree with you.
Juries operate in a capacity granted by the state based on evidence provided by the state. They are not flawless anymore than the government is.
I would agree that legitimizing any coercion is a big deal. Even fines, community service, and probation. It's a utilitarian trade off. The benefits of the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment:
1. Inherently less expensive (excluding costs imposed by anti-CP-ers)
2. No risk of escape and further violent crimes
3. No risk of violence against other prisoners or guards
4. Strong deterrent against those on the "borderline" of similar crimes
5. Satisfies the community's desire for revenge, preventing vigilantism
The only downside to my atheist mind is that there is a small chance that it will later be discovered that the person was innocent. Therefore we should seek to minimize that possibility. Keeping in mind that the consequences of "getting it wrong" with life imprisonment are not exactly minor, either.
Life imprisonment is in no way a better alternative to death. Prison life is almost universally terrible, with inmate power structures that can cause literalrape, torture, and violent death for inmates.
Solitary confinement is, in my mind, one of the single worst things one human being can do to another. I would rather have my testicles cut off than spend my life alone in a cage.
The only reason one would want to keep someone in prison for life is to use them as slave labor or to gloat endlessly about how they are powerless to affect their own fate any longer.
Life imprisonment is in no way a better alternative to death.
For whom?
A lot of people in prison for long terms seem to disagree. As do people n death row who keep making appeals to have their sentences commuted. The will to live is strong for most people, even in horrible situations. I think it is ridiculous for people who aren't facing death to act like they have any idea what would be preferable in such a situation.
I would rather have my testicles cut off than spend my life alone in a cage.
That's not really on the table. Would you rather die? I don't think I would. There is always a chance.
The least amount of force required should be used. There is the distinction. Capital punishment is unnecessary violence. Unnecessary imprisonment is bad too.
The least amount of force required should be used.
As above, required to achieve what objectives?
Protect the public. If the Justice system exists just to make the population feel better, then you have mob rule. If the Justice system just exists to exact revenge, then you have petty tyranny.
We have a justice system so that there's a civilized mechanism for getting bad people off the streets, so they can't cause any more harm. Anything beyond that is petty, cruel, overkill.
Once we perfect the powers of necromancy, then execution and imprisonment might be comparable. Until then, one is reversible, one isn't.
Being locked in a cage from 20 years old to 50 years old is reversible?
You won't be getting those 30 years of your life back, but you will be getting the rest of your life back, which makes it quite a bit better than the death penalty.
You would have had the rest of your life anyway. It doesn't count as something the state is giving you in repayment.
You would have had the rest of your life in a cage.
Absent state intervention I would never have been in a cage.
And in the case of the death penalty, you would be dead. So, when your life sentence is commuted you walk away with quite a bit more than the guy whose death row conviction was overturned too late.
Nobody's arguing that you will be whole, but you will be a lot better off than the guy in the ground. Now, if you can think of a better system than imprisonment, I'm certainly willing to consider it.
I'm considering imprisonment by itself, not in comparison to death.
By itself, it is irreversible.
Who said anything about repayment? Stopping the injustice of an unjust sentence is also good. You still have the rest of your life. If you were executed, you wouldn't. In one case, the state takes your whole life.
It's really a terrible argument. Just because you can't be made whole again doesn't mean that it isn't preferable to just being dead.
If you get hit by a car and end up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, you have lost a big part of your life. Would you say that such people would be better off dead?
The rest of your life? Good thing it's so easy to just start fresh after 30 years in prison!
Man oh man, all of those skills they must have picked up while locked away, certain they would never again be free! All of the social skills they must have learned, they should be able to perfectly integrate right back into society as if they'd never left, eh?
Yep, prison is definitely THE happening place to spend the best years of your life! There's no possible way you'll be a broken shell of a man, with zero chance of having any meaningful life after your release!
Go prison!
So the fuck what? If it is an innocent person, they still get to have the rest of their life. You think they wouldn't want that? Do you really think that people who have shitty lives all want to die?
If it is an innocent person, they still get to have the rest of their life.
Which they would have had anyway if the state weren't authorized to put people in cages.
No, but you can live the rest of your life outside of prison. Can't do that if you're killed at 40.
So it's not in fact reversible and Jordan's entire argument is invalid. Thank you.
You're being deliberately obtuse. Time already imprisoned isn't reversible but the state of imprisonment is. The state of being dead is permanent.
Do you know what "reversible" means?
You can't return things to the state they were in without the imprisonment happening. Therefore it's not reversible.
So fucking what? You are either an idiot or you are being deliberately obtuse.
The state of imprisonment is reversible. The damage done to a person's life, as you say, is not.
You are just playing stupid word games. If "reversible" doesn't work for you, pick a different word.
I'm not playing word games. "Reversible" makes the difference between death and life imprisonment sound bigger than it is.
I suppose you could use "terminable" but that's a lot weaker for your argument.
No, but it is, at least, reimbursable.
OT: More Tales From the Derpside:
http://thinkprogress.org/justi.....on-report/
A much more to the point speech would have been "The gig is up guys! We'd better tone it down before the poors get violent again!"
But would the membership fee be wirth access to the womens locker room?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/.....index.html
Worth
I have a strong feeling Planet Fitness is about to lose a lot of its female membership.
They can also potentially be sued for fraud for claiming to have separate locker rooms for men and women, when in fact both genders are allowed in both locker rooms.
The stupid, it burns. A person who looks externally like a man is in grave danger of getting their ass kicked by the guy waiting for his wife/girlfriend outside the women's room.
I feel as if a lot of wry smiles, pointing and giggling is in order. Shame the tiny bastards out of the girls locker rooms!
Yes, because men are evil, raping, beating, patriarchal brutes, practically animals.
It is known.
Hilarious, innit? In the name of empowering purportedly disadvantaged classes, they give such people every reason to spend every waking moment suspicious of or terrified by fellow commuters, classmates, coworkers, and casual acquaintances.
Membership at Planet Fitness is worth anything?
planet fitness is for pussies who don't actually, you know, WORK OUT
Like you!
In this case, Planet Fitness should really just have one locker room, rather than violating people's privacy by forcing them to disclose their gender identity.
Excellent.
75 F degrees and sunny. Drinking vodka sodas, waiting for brunch service. Watching bikini girls paddle boarding in Newport Harbor.
Life is good.
Death penalty bad.
My opponent is conspiring with drug addicts, oil cartels and pot smokers.
http://phrasegenerator.com/politics
I will work for an America where Washington elitists and Hollywood liberals cannot destroy our founding fathers' dreams.
My opponent is conspiring with terrorists, pundits and overpaid CEOs.
^this one actually seems too plausible to be satirical.
I want an America where socialists and biased media insiders can't destroy our brave police force.
".. but MSNBC was unavailable for comment.. In other news, a deaf and blind homeless man was shot by police for brandishing a cup of home-made wood and graphite knives in a threatening manner at officers, and failing to respond to their conflicting and unintelligible commands..."
From the headline generator: 10 Angry Birds Tips From Mike Huckabee
1. The Red Bird is gay and hates America
2. We must have Patriotic resolve to tap the Yellow Bird, and the God-given timing to do it right.
Me to, random phrase generator.. me to..
simple proposition:
restrict the death penalty to cases that have high physical evidence, and then fast-track them to save money. Especially video evidence, which will become more and more common.
We get the moral clarity and avoid the stupid "it costs more money for all the appeal than for lifetime imprisonment" argument
"simple proposition:
restrict the death penalty to cases that have high physical evidence, and then fast-track them to save money. Especially video evidence, which will become more and more common where the prosecutor will take the defendants place on death row when proven that said prosecutor was wrong..."
ftfy
Eternal does not equal endless, thankfully governments and their actions are endless but not eternal.
This always baffles me. Libertarians should be pro-death penalty (and pro corporal punishment), because it reduces the need for the government to run prisons.
The only problem I have with the death penalty is the issue of guilt. IMHO, it should only be applied in cases where it's really, really obvious, and for multiple murder
Which means it would be used so infrequently that there would be no significant dip in the prison population.
that isn't a reason not to still do it
here's a crazy thought, you can regulate and deal wioth things that happen rarely. We've got FEMA, but they don't often need to be used
Not to mention there's plenty of middle ground. I proposed much the same as the OP here in this subthread, but I would put the bar a bit lower, with reaching said bar to come with a fast track to the highest court and finally execution to save money. There are plenty of cases without direct video evidence, but where it's blatantly fucking obvious the guy did it (who was that Mormon chick who killed her boyfriend? Jodi Arias?)
No, I think executions should be more frequent. We should also bring back mutilation for some crimes.
Decimations for corrupt police forces... Old skool..
One can choose...as long as the flight exists into a future afterlife.
Do you also support the first amendment challenge to keeping concealed carry permit holders addresses secret?
Maybe what we need is *more* executions!
Faced with a European Union ban on selling drugs used in lethal injections, death penalty states now rely on compounding pharmacies. These are typically small businesses who produce execution cocktails to order. These compounds are unregulated by the FDA, and their manufacturers are cloaked in secrecy.
Banning something creates a black market. Libertarianism 101 (except when we want to ignore it).
The pout about the lack of FDA regulation is also hilarious in a Reason article.
Imagine the black market potential when they ban state executions. Black market executioners will probably totally unregulated as well...
Death penalty states have argued that compounding pharmacies would cease to provide lethal injection drugs if their names were to be made public because it is a very small part of their business and, as Dieter says, "they're not in the business of perfecting executions." Dieter compares these pharmacies to contstruction companies contracted by the government to build bridges. If the bridge fell, the public would demand the right to know who was responsible. He argues that the same level of transparency should apply to executions, especially when they are "botched."
If there were an ideologically-motivated vocal minority opposed to all bridges everywhere, with a history of using disingenuous and underhanded techniques to prevent bridges from being built, that would be a valid comparison.
If i had to choose, I would much rather face a firing squad than a needle full of some horrifying mystery poison.
I'd much rather drink a daiquiri on the beach.
It's not up to you, buster..
If we must execute people (and I believe we shouldn't), reinstate public hanging, it's quick and as transparent as possible. On the downside there would be boycotts of rope manufacturers, but there are many more sources of cordage than pharmaceuticals. For the upside, the death penalty would go away after a couple of exhibitions of the process.
the death penalty would go away after a couple of exhibitions of the process.
Nah. It would be a popular festive occasion, like in the old days.
Some people would enjoy the spectacle, but plenty more would be horrified and their mass protests and pressure on politicians would shut down the death penalty after two public performances, three at the outside.
I'm not sure that people would be that concerned when there are much more important things to worry about, like manspreading and colonialist privilege
I'm going to spread out over the next couple of comments.
Pretty good, but needs moar colonialist privilege. "I'm going to spread out like my white ancestors did over the one proud Native-dotted landscape"
Ahhh.
Totally relaxed.
With respect, I believe you seriously underestimate the average person's thirst for blood and lurid fascination with death.
That would require nooses.
RACIST!
"On the downside there would be boycotts of rope manufacturers, but there are many more sources of cordage than pharmaceuticals."
I don't think we'll run out of hemp.
All executions are to be carried out in public using explosives. Just enough to blow the condemned into large chunks, not a fine mist.
At the execution it is mandatory that the judge, jury and prosecutor attend, their spouses and adult children also have to be there.
And 1000 citizens of the state will be selected by lottery to attend and there are no excuses allowed. If you're overseas you will be flown in. In a care home? Arrangements will be made.
All attendees are dressed identically, given a mirrored face shield and a number.
After the condemned is in place and the explosives set, a number is drawn. The person holding that number is given the detonator. They have five minutes to set off the explosives. If they cannot, they join the prisoner then another number is drawn and so on.
If everybody passes on pushing the button then the original condemned person is set free as is everyone else.
But it only takes one!
-------------------------------------
This would make it unpalatable for even the most hard-core pro death penalty person.
I'm always amused how the people accusing others of being bloodthirsty pigs are the ones who come up with all of these comically over the top horror movie scenarios to demonstrate to the bloodthirsty pigs how bloodthirsty and piggish they are. I think it arguably says a lot more about the person who can't differentiate an ideological position from gore porn than the imagined bloodthirsty pig.
That's not an execution protocol, that's a reality show.
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
http://www.worktoday7.com
All three officers shown in the video were white.
I'm reading and reading and reading, waiting for the important part of this story.
Thank god. Ok, so now we have the motive, can we please stop talking about the outsized power in government?
Ugh, wrong thread. It's the demon rum I swear.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.netcash5.com
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.worktoday7.com
Personally I do not really understand what is so bad about "grisly" death by firing squad. If I had to actually pick any single method of execution that would be the most humane, that would be it.
The video above points to ancient black and white video to show what it would be like, but to presume that a modern death by bullet would be so slapshot and imprecise is absurd. Assuming that you presighted a rifle (or indeed just used a test fire barrel like you'd find at any large firearm manufacturer) of a large enough caliber and sighting it at a preset target (where you would eventually place the criminal's brain), death would be instantaneous. It would certainly be gruesome looking, but so what? Gruesome crime, gruesome punishment. As long as the victim (or his kin) approves of it (since they should be the natural arbiters determining the severity of the punishment), that should be the end of it.
Utah would be on the right track with bringing it back and making it the standard. Hard to make a "cruel and unusual punishment" defense when the punishment is instantaneous.
"transparency" is not about getting "the most humane and effective" drug, we had those; until they started attacking the drug makers/pharmacists directly. That is when the states started protecting suppliers and using new drugs as the "most humane and effective drugs" we cut off by the supplier due to threats.
So to argue against the death penalty because of reasons you cause (excessive appeals causing additional cost or treating drug providers forcing alternatives to be used) is a bit insulting.
I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing,
------------- http://www.jobnet10.com
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.worktoday7.com
To be precise, the judge only gets to choose if the jury recommends death. If the jury recommends life the judge has to respect that decision.
The death penalty never happens without the judge and jury being in agreement that it is warranted.
As soon as you pulled the trigger you would know whether or not you had fired a blank. Maybe the blank round gives a shooter the hope that he might draw the blank and not be one of the killers.
Do they really have a rifle loaded with a blank or is this a legend?
I always heard that it was one real bullet and several blanks.
Sounds painful! 😀
Imagine being the criminal whose firing squad all accidently drew from the blanks bag. Having to listen while they reload.
And judges are never swayed by political considerations?
I mean, its a good check to have, but I still don't trust that the jury *and* the judge will get it right.
Juries are horribly constrained in this country - can't ask questions to start, have no control over what evidence is not entered, etc.
Not in Alabama, Delaware and Florida. Elected judges in Alabama rotinely override jury recommendations of life without parole
http://www.eji.org/deathpenalty/override
I'd like to see trial juries more empowered like Grand Juries (are supposed to be).
I agree with this, however the main problem is irresponsible citizens trying to get kicked out of voir dire... so that you wind up with a jury consisting entirely of govt workers (who usually get normal pay for jury duty), retirees, political activists, and idiots too stupid to figure out a way to get excluded.
The problem is not people tring to get kicked out of VD - its that prosecutors (and, to a lesser extent defense attornies) having way too much control over VD and the eventual composition of the jury.
Bull. People try to get out of jury duty all the time because it's inconvenient. It's a running joke.
As a defense attorney I can attest I have very little control over voir dire, it is generally the choice of the prosecutor and the Judge who remains on the jury. I recently had a trial with 2 co-defendants represented by other attorneys, all of whom were antagonistic to each other. We got 3 strikes apiece, the DA got 9. Complete bullshit.
I did not say they didn't. I said it wasn't *the problem*.
Take away the prosecution/defense's ability to shape the jury to their liking and you can *try* to get out of jury duty all you want - but who's got the power to excuse you?
Shoot straight you bastards! Don't make a mess of it!