General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter keeping him in prison for literally half his life, Georgia executed a 72 year old man.
A 72-year-old man convicted of murdering a convenience store manager in a 1979 robbery in Atlanta's suburbs was executed in Georgia early on Wednesday, corrections officials said.
Brandon Astor Jones, the oldest inmate on the state's death row, died by lethal injection at 12:46 a.m. at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-execution-georgia-idUSKCN0VB19D
Disgusting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm strictly against the death penalty or solitary confinement for that matter.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)I'm completely against innocent people getting killed by criminals.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Because it kinda sounds that way.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)But to me DP opponents have to satiate their bloodlust for those killed by convicted murderers who escape, are paroled or are released and go on to kill again, or kill in prison. Tell me when even potentially innocent people have been executed above that number and I'll start thinking about it.
Nothing - not rehabilitation, treatment, solitary, Supermax, LWOP - nothing has the 100% success rate of preventing further murders that execution offers. Nobody has ever killed again after being executed. There are no zombie Kenneth McDuffs. Not that the real ones ever seem to trouble the conscience of DP opponents, whose sympathies seemingly extend only to killers. But hey.
There is indeed something disgusting about this case; he was not executed 35 years ago.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Further, your claim of a "100% success rate" is patently false, because it falsely assumes a 100% success rate in convicting the correct person, which absolutely is not the case.
Suppose that Jack is convicted of a murder and is executed for it. According to fans of the death penalty, this will be 100% successful in preventing his recidivism.
But then it comes out that Jack was innocent, that John was in fact the murderer, and that John has committed other crimes while Jack's been rotting in jail.
In that example--which directly parallels many real world examples--your "100% success rate" didn't stop recidivism and didn't prevent murders. In short, what you call a "100% success rate" is a massive failure.
Capital punishment is simply inconsistent with a progressive mindset.
1939
(1,683 posts)Orrex
(63,215 posts)The issue, frankly, is not whether this particular person should have been subject to the law that's on the books. Rather, the issue is that the law that's on the books is morally repugnant with little or no real justification.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)for blood.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)No, you cannot. Therefore, the DP is abominable.
Do you think it is acceptable to execute people who are in fact not guilty just to satiate the need for revenge on those who are?
I don't. There is no way to 100% guarantee the guilt of anyone. So we need to do away with the death penalty for that reason alone. There are plenty of other reasons, though. For one thing, it is applied in a racially biased manner, which is entirely unacceptable.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Even ignoring all of the many other arguments against capital punishment, the possibility of wrongfully executing an innocent person is sufficient to invalidate the entire barbaric practice.
TimeToEvolve
(303 posts)here's to hoping that they eventually catch up..
you just cannot count on americans to do the right thing.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)have the technology that we have today. I know that Project Innocence has freed a great number of wrongfully convicted, and I think that's great. However, in cases where there is a confession, it has eye witnesses or video footage or irrefutable DNA evidence, it should be carried out swiftly, not stretched out for years on end.
Case in point: Remember the case last year where some 19-20 year old guy robbed, raped and murdered an elderly woman? It was caught on streetcams, the cops identified the suspect, went to talk to him, and he confessed. His reason for committing such a horrible act? "I was bored, didn't have anything better to do, and she was there".
I sure would hate for him to get bored in prison... take him straight from the courtroom to the injection table. Someone with THAT mindset doesn't belong in ANY society. Period. He would probably turn out like a guy they featured on "Lockdown" who was in for life for murder. They moved him into a cell with another inmate. He had repeatedly told the Corrections Officials that he wanted to remain in a cell alone, but they moved him anyways. He killed his cellmate. You know what he said?? "What are they going to do, lock me up? I'm already in here for life."
If there is ANY shadow of doubt in a case I have no problem with commuting to a life sentence, but in cases that 100% airtight... carry out the DP swiftly.
Ghost
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)The same with psychopathic predators who kill the innocent for pleasure, where there is an airtight case. There is no point in keeping them alive. The continuance of their existence is an insult to decent society.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)are about the victim/s and their families that are left devastated by the loss of their loved ones. It's sad, really....
Peace,
Ghost
TipTok
(2,474 posts)You'll get pushback on the confession part. Some assume that any confession was beaten out of every prisoner.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)'serial confessioners'.. blah, blah, blah! I get pushback a lot just for supporting the DP, but it goes with the territory and won't change my mind.
I *have* changed my mind on one thing, though. I used to think that they should bring back public, or televised, executions, then when it's over have someone look into the camera and say "This will be YOU if you murder someone". I have since changed my mind because it might just inspire some nutjobs that will still look at it as their 15 minutes of fame, or thinking "everyone will know my name now!". This is also why I think that they should start having "Media Blackouts" and not even releasing the perp's name when we have these mass shootings. It gives other nutjobs the same idea.. "Look at all the attention this guy is getting! I could do the same thing and wouldn't be a Nobody anymore... EVERYONE will know MY name!"
Of course, that's just MY opinion... people are free to agree, or disagree, all they want to.
Peace,
Ghost
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)So what does that leave us? Video that isn't grainy? Confessions that can be coerced or (see: cops lie).
I like how people are ok with someone else being dragged from the courtroom and summarily executed. The story would be different if it was them accused, maybe wrongly, of a crime.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)I have owned camcorders since they were VHS and have NEVER had a grainy recording. The video recordings on every PHONE I've had over the past 10 years have never been grainy. Hell, my trailcams, webcam and home surveillance cams have never had grainy footage!
Do you consider yourself among the group mentioned in post #152? It sounds like it to me, but I could be wrong. I don't trust cops in general, as a rule, but I *do* personally know several very good ones, so I know they aren't ALL bad. I've had dealings with some of the bad ones, too.
I also noticed that you completely skipped my comment about 100% airtight cases, with DNA, finger prints, etc. Forgive me for caring more about the victims and their families than I do about a murderer. Coddling criminals isn't my wheelhouse, so please feel free to carry on without me.
Peace,
Ghost
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)Have you actually SEEN a surveillance video lately? It's about then when I throw something at the tv and say are you kidding me with this awful video!? I can't explain it.
I used to trust cops. Then I got to know some. I've known several suburban Chicago cops and several Chicago cops.
I was running around with my best friend's little brother when he became a Chicago cop. I witnessed the entire transformation. It wasn't pretty.
Suburban or city, it didn't matter. I've had several brag to me how they can lie on citations or police reports and they know they will get away with it. One guy used to waive his pen and say "I have the power of the pen. What I write down is what happened"
There was a story/post on second city cop blog about cadets in the academy listening to the lecture from a state's attorney on "probable cause". When the lecture was over and the attorney was gone, the training officer comes in the room and tells the trainees to ignore what they just heard. He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a pen - "this is your probable cause".
One hundred percent airtight cases - far too many (for my liking) have been made that way by cops and prosecutors who just "knew" the suspect was guilty and the case needed a little help.
My budy and his partner scared a burglar(s) out of their bedroom. The cops brought them in to identify the suspects but my friends didn't see their faces. They knew the clothes but not the faces. Never mind said the detective, just say you saw their faces we know it's them. The cops got pissy with my friends when they wouldn't lie.
This 100% airtight case meme sounds like the republicans and their ticking time bomb torture fantasies. Sounds good on paper but reality is another story.
We have one standard and that is guilt beyond REASONABLE doubt. Not super duper we really know he is guilty we promise and pinky swear.
The system is too corrupted by dirty cops and head hunting politician prosecutors to rely on the system to kill people in the name of the state.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)is total BS. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't calling ME a republican, and you still have not addressed the issues of DNA, fingerprints, or the case I mentioned about the young guy who robbed, raped and killled any elderly woman, was caught on video, then confessed when questioned by the police. When asked WHY he had done it, he said "because I was bored and didn't have anything else to do".
I guess you DO believe that ALL confessions are coerced, right?
Peace,
Ghost
malaise
(269,050 posts)I find it amazing that so many Western societies have banned the death penalty and have way less murders than the US. Most of the pro-death penalty arguments have no empirical evidence to back them up. It is mostly old testament vengeance.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)after incarceration? can you guarantee they will not kill someone in prison?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)I don't think that term means what you think it means. How exactly do people who opposed the death penalty have "blood lust" towards murder victims? 
That sort of bizarre, tortious logical twisting is, well, Palinesque.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)appears to be limited.
saying I have bloodlust is insulting to me but also shows me the closed minded person you are.
jpak
(41,758 posts)discuss
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Even in the current discussion, every pro-death penalty argument that's been presented has been either a rehash of Deuteronomy or basic bloodlust.
Accusations of "closed mindedness" are the hallmark of a bankrupt rhetorical position. Further, it's a sad world when you see "closed mindedness" in the opposition to state-sanctioned killing.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Because I'm against the death penalty, you see, and being against the death penalty means you are all about innocent people getting murdered!
Seriously, how stupid is that line of zero-sum thinking.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
jpak
(41,758 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)the state should not be killing anyone nor using solitary confinement against anyone.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)That's not very healthy...
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)are charged with capital crimes, prosecuted for capital crimes, and given the death penalty than are white offenders who commit substantially similar crimes. Unless, of course, the non-white person killed another non-white person - because the race of the victim is one of the largest predictors that the death penalty will be imposed.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)But this criminal ended another human's life many years ago.
I'm not going to weep for him.
femmedem
(8,203 posts)Sounds to me as if he didn't intend for the man to die.
I'm against the death penalty. But in this case in particular, it seems unwarranted, as Jones made an effort to ensure that his victim received medical care.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)
There were apparently four gunshots fired in the course of the armed robbery, Jones and his accomplice (also executed) were arrested in the store, and the injured victim was locked in a storeroom.
Any reasonably person could easily conclude Jones cared little or not at all about the well-being of his victim, but rather was cooperating with police after his arrest in a self-interested manner to improve his own circumstances.
When guilt is not an issue, aggravating factors such as commission of a felony are present, and full and ample appeals provided, my sympathy for executed murderers remains nonexistent.
There are many miscarriages of justice and other failings in our criminal justice system that need to be addressed, but the story of Brandon Astor Jones is not one of them.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)No chance at all that Georgia in the 80s would have excluded black jurors. Nahh, no chance at all.
branford
(4,462 posts)Would you care to now provide actual evidence to support your contentions?
Besides the fact that his actual guilt never appeared to be an issue, Jones had decades of appeals well past the 1980's (the second jury was in 1997!) and two sentencing juries that came to the exact same result.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)last portion of the 20th century. If you are confident that the justice system in America, and in particular the death penalty portion, is not racist, well I got some of that cliched swamp land to sell you.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, if you allege legal problems with a particular trial and sentencing, prepare to back-up your assertions or for others to attach little value to your allegations. Personally insulting people who don't share your views is also not an effective persuasive technique.
The fact that Jones and his accomplice actually committed murder in the course of an armed robbery appears beyond dispute. Regardless of his race, the death penalty seem prima facie justified under the law.
Jones further engaged in decades of appeals up to including this year, including receiving an entirely new trial with a second jury sentencing him to death once again in 1997. He appears to have received more than adequate due process.
Again, why should I feel any remorse that Jones was executed or believe his death was justice denied?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)would you rather they execute him immediately after sentencing as they do in China?
The state was being rather generous.
They gave him decades to live and could have executed him a lot sooner.
I'm a Bernie supporter who thinks we need to keep the death penalty as leverage in cases of clear guilt to get them to admit guilt. Or they would not do so otherwise. The thing is the states don't actually carry out the death penalty often keeping the convicted on death row for decades until they are very old and near death, and even then may not carry out the execution. And while on death row at least have a chance to fight and appeal their conviction, ie: new evidence or witnesses showing up.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)No, I would prefer America stop murdering people in the name of justice.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)let convicted murderers go free so they can kill again?
how does that benefit society in anyway?
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Is this your first time at a death penalty discussion because you argue like an amateur?
Yes, gyroscope, there are gradations between murdering people and keeping them locked up.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)"They basically gave him a life sentence followed by death."
He served a life sentence like you said, so what are you arguing about?
Response to gyroscope (Reply #20)
Post removed
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)sorry I don't have much sympathy for their cold-blooded murderers like you do. get a life.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)which is more than I can say for his victim
Response to gyroscope (Reply #30)
Post removed
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)is more humane than a murderer? Oh, we should all be so very proud.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)But they do rehabilitate and only has a 20 percent "return" rate. We have like 80 percent return rate.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They give intense therapy and ensure they are not going to repeat even the most awful crimes. On the other hand, maybe the one group you mention is the 20 percent. I don't have specific data on that. I just think they have a better overall system. We don't have to take every detail they do but some of their methods may work here.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)There are some people who should never walk freely in normal society ever again. I do not believe that everyone can be rehabilitated.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)What about the ones already serving a life sentence and kill again while in there? Like the guy on "Lockdown" who bragged about killing a cellmate because he wanted to be in cell alone? His response was "What are they going to do to me, lock me up again??"
He has proven that he does not belong in ANY "society", and is a waste of space, as well as taxpayer's money.
*Most* people kill on the spur of the moment, such as the "heat of the moment" or a"crime of passion", then immediately regret it. I believe they can be rehabilitated if the "CORRECTIONS" facility actually takes the steps to CORRECT & rehabilitate. Keeping someone locked up for long periods, where they are treated like shit and subjected to beatings and rape only hardens the person. I honestly believe that *some people*, a very select few, could be released in a year or less, and would never kill again, and there are others who could serve 25 years, get released, and kill again within a week, or a month.
I have a friend who killed 3 men, and served 5 years for involuntary manslaughter. He was night fishing at a local river when another car pulled up and parked a little ways down from him. He never really gave it a 2nd thought, as many people night fish there. He went to his truck to get something, and all of a sudden had 3 men jump him while he was leaned over in his truck, demanding his wallet and keys. He managed to reach a pistol that he had in the truck, and shot 2 of them in the head at point blank range. The 3rd one started running to the car and was shot in the back. At the moment, my friend didn't know if he was going to get a gun from the car or what. The 2 he shot in the head?? Self defense, no charges. Involuntary manslaughter for shooting the other one in the back. Given the circumstances, and his state of mind at the time, I personally don't think he should have even been charged. Right now, he wouldn't be since the laws have changed and you have no duty to retreat.
It really messed with his mind afterwards, but he did what he had to do at the time out of fear for his life in a 3 on 1 situation. I don't think that he's a danger to anyone else, either.
Peace,
Ghost
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)If that's true the murderer wouldn't be paroled.
I don't believe in the death penalty or life without parole. IMO no one should be jailed longer than 20 years without consideration for parole... which could be denied.
The interest of society isn't vengeance but, as you imply, public safety.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)How does it benefit society to execute a person who has been rendered effectively harmless?
How is that not murder?
How is that not cruel and unusual?
How does that lengthy process not constitute collective punishment?
Capital punishment is morally repugnant.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)the death penalty needs to be retained as leverage and as a deterrent.
its not going to stop people from killing 100% but it will make many think twice before they do.
and you can't have the death penalty if you're not going to eventually carry it out because then it wouldn't be a deterrent would it.
kcr
(15,317 posts)Crime is often impulsive, without regard to the consequences. Even murder.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)unless you are a mindreader. the number of lives the death penalty has saved by being a deterrent cannot be proven or disproven. common sense however dictates that when one is threatened by death as a penalty then one is less likely to commit the criminal act.
kcr
(15,317 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)you can believe what you want to believe.
kcr
(15,317 posts)The fact is that not everyone behaves and thinks exactly like gyroscope. Because gyroscope thinks and acts a certain way doesn't mean that's how everyone does it. So, there are scientific disciplines that study such things. It's not incomprehensible magic. No mind reading involved.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Orrex
(63,215 posts)Never once in my adult life have I heard a pro-death penalty argument that didn't boil down either to Deuteronomy or to raw bloodthirst, often dressed up in bogus claims about its deterrent value and/or "justice" for the victims..
That is still true as of this discussion.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)in countless cases the accused have agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge and/or agreeing to life in prison (or long prison sentence) if the death penalty is taken off the table, saving the victims family from a long traumatic trial. the death penalty has proven value as leverage in the courtroom. without that leverage the accused may walk and be free to kill again.
if someone close to you is murdered you're okay with giving the murderer a prison sentence, of which they may eventually be paroled and walk free? you likely wouldn't be saying that if it was your wife, kid or other loved one who was brutally murdered.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)You claim that the threat of state sanctioned murder has value as leverage in the courtroom? That'sl lovely--you're arguing that we should be able to kill people because it helps to funnel people through the court system faster. I find that justification abhorrent. Further, it's actually an argument for abolishing the death penalty, because it leads to imprisonment based on bogus plea deals. This is an irrefutable fact.
If someone I loved were murdered, I would suspect that I'd want to track down the killer and torture him or her to death over a period of several weeks. But because I'm a grown-up, I recognize that my primal emotional response would be an idiotic basis for law. Being a victim does not make one an expert, and victimhood grants no special authority to dispense punishment--such a system of law would be regressive in the extreme.
As I've noted previously, there is no argument in favor of capital punishment that doesn't boil down to Deuteronomy and/or raw bloodlust.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)the punishment should fit the crime, simple as that.
you cannot be lenient to those who commit heinous and brutal acts. the death penalty is actually a humane punishment. someone who tortures their victim to death over days and weeks is not given the same punishment of being tortured to death by the state. someone who burns their victim alive is not put to death by fire by the state. the convicted is put to death by lethal injection, firing squad or whatever which is relatively quick and painless more or less akin to euthanasia.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Your boorish question was driven by emotionalism and intended to provoke an emotional response, exactly as when that same question was dropped on Dukakis in that presidential debate years ago.
Look, I understand that you're desperate to justify state-sanctioned murder under the guise of some simplistic and regressive tribal urges, but let's not pretend that you're motivated by anything more profound than that.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)when someone kidnaps, tortures and kills a young child? It's called being human. What are you a robot, because someone who is not much of a human would not be effected by such things.
There's nothing wrong with being emotional about something like that, but we can control our emotions so that we don't go out and attempt to take the law into our own hands, that is being (OVERLY) emotional.
We can be emotional but we let the justice system do its job, giving the accused an opportunity to defend themself in a court of law. And if found guilty in a court of law the convicted will receive the appropriate punishment that fits the crime, and carried out as humanely as possible.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)For further reading see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Orrex
(63,215 posts)My emotional response to a particular crime is no justification for law. If I feel very strongly that I should be able to drie through a school zone at 90 miles per hour, can I therefore expect to do so with impunity?
The fact that you fail to distinguish between emotional reaction and objective legislation reveals that you don't actually understand the subject we're discussing.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)which by definition death penalty cases usually involve.
You have to be some kind of idiot to think otherwise. It doesn't mean we can't be objective at the same time. Only a boorish emotionless robot would not understand that.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)The law should not be driven by emotion. Full stop.
Drafting legislature in the throes of unchecked emotionalism is how we got the Patriot Act, for example.
You'd have to be some kind of idiot to fail to recognize this.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)The death penalty is driven by justice, full stop.
The punishment should fit the crime. What part of that do you not understand?
The death sentence isn't even carried out anyway, not for decades after sentencing, and the prisoner is given decades to live his life which is more than can be said for his/her deceased victim(s) and the lives of the victims families he/she has destroyed. Imo which is far more than some of these criminals deserve.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Every one of your posts has been an appeal to emotionalism.
I'm done with your shenanigans
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)you can't present a coherent counter-argument, so every reply is "you're being emotional!"
good riddance
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Your eagerness to justify state-inflicted murder is horrifying, and you certainly have no place in progressive thinking.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That demonstrates the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Regardless,
1) the punishment should fit the crime.
2) death penalty is often successfully employed as a bargaining chip (which in turn does show a deterrent effect)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And what's the difference between death penalty and life without parole?
In both cases, you die in prison. One just takes a lot longer.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)and I just listed several of them
branford
(4,462 posts)one way to ensure it remains available and used is to also oppose LWOP.
Many support the abolition of the DP precisely because of the availability and widespread use of LWOP for serious crimes, and without it, such support would quickly vanish.
Response to branford (Reply #34)
gyroscope This message was self-deleted by its author.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)The fact that incarceration can be ended in case of error makes it better than an irreversible punishment.
I should also disclaim that I reject absolutism, so I don't believe that life without parole is a viable penalty. For one there is no universal standard under which it's applied, with individual states setting their own arbitrary guidelines. There's also massive inequity in its application along demographic lines: blacks are punished more often and more severely than whites; the poor are punished more often and more severely than the wealty, etc. As long as these inequities persist, the punishment is a farce.
Rather than life without parole, I would favor something like "life, with a minimum of X years." That way the circumstances of each case can be reviewed as appropriate.
branford
(4,462 posts)for the all the problems you mention. This is the normal appeals process, and it is not inconsistent with LWOP.
I also don't quite understand your comment about "individual states setting their own arbitrary guidelines." Most violent criminal matters are breaches of state laws. The legislatures of each state appropriately determine the range of appropriate punishment for each type of crime, such laws mush be signed by the governor, judges normally have some sentencing discretion except in the very worst circumstances, penalties must be constitutional generally and as applied to a particular defendant, and appeals and due process are available, including allegations of racial bias.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)There are no, nor do we need, nationwide standards for criminal sentences except that they must comply with the Constitution (although there is a body of criminal law for federal crimes and courts, as well as a Model Penal Code to assist states in crafting laws).
States determining certain crimes deserve harsher sentences, irrespective of capital punishment, is a feature, not a bug, in our system.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)This amounts to giving states the authority to deny civil rights as they see fit, and I can't endorse such a policy.
branford
(4,462 posts)and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of our Constitution, federalism, and our justice system, both criminal and civil.
All states' laws, criminal and otherwise, must still pass constitutional muster. That's effectively your "national standard." Within that framework, the democratically-elected representatives can set the penalties for crimes within their state, everything from jaywalking and disorderly conduct to rape and murder.
While you may believe the death penalty is a denial of civil rights, it most certainly is not the law of the land at this time.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)"Separate but equal" was enshrined as law for quite a while until it was recognized as a regressive and barbaric practice ill suited to a modern state. And while "separate but equal" was the law of the land, it was applied unequally throughout this find nation of ours.
I assert that capital punishment is at least as regressive and barbaric, equally unfit for the modern world, and we are long past due to recognize this and outlaw the practice at the national level.
If our only standard is "well, that's the law," then we forfeit all basis for contesting any law.
branford
(4,462 posts)You may of course strongly disagree, but it nonetheless is a viable punishment for certain heinous crimes in our criminal justice system.
Until such time that federal death penalty jurisprudence substantially changes, an unlikely prospect at this time, the only viable avenue to abolish the practice is to lobby Congress and the various state legislatures, some of whom have ended the practice in their states.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)It is indeed a punishment, but whether or not is viable is a matter of some discussion. I accept that it is currently the law, and I don't believe that I've disputed that fact.
As you note, it's unlikely that our honored legislators on the hill will act.
branford
(4,462 posts)
Angel Martin
(942 posts)Orrex
(63,215 posts)Had he been incarcerated for the 36 years prior to the shooting?
kcr
(15,317 posts)would have been fine.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)to what constitutes "murder". Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Rightly or wrongly determined by a jury, the death of Mr. Jones was legal and state-sanctioned. Therefore it was not "murder".
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)And of course it is a black guy that is executed. Modern day lynching.
branford
(4,462 posts)Are you suggesting Jones wasn't actually guilty of murder in the commission of an armed robbery? Decades of appeals and two different juries believe him guilty, and his defenders have not advanced actual innocence as a factor in penalty mitigation.
As I've stated before, opposing capital punishment on principle in one thing, but hyperbolic, unsupported and generalized allegations of legal deficiencies in a particular trial is quite another, and worse, diminish the credibility of groups and individuals seeking death penalty reforms or abolition.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)I suspect the facts won't bear that out.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)In effect, the penalty for taking a white life is death, while taking a black life merits only life in prison. 
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... but I would suggest that someone who committed the same crime against anyone of any race would deserve the DP.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Put em all on death row then...
Iggo
(47,558 posts)You guys feel better now, don't ya.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Wait, you're telling me that doesn't happen?
Then why the hell do we have the death penalty in this country?
Seriously, there's absolutely no logical reason for it. None.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)by your logic we should let them go, no punishment at all.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Does executing someone serve any further purpose than putting a person in prison for the rest of his life?
Putting a person in jail removes that person from public society. Once they are there, they are highly unlikely to be any sort of threat to public society, and putting them in jail for life will keep it that way for life.
I don't see what the added purpose of executing that person when they've already removed him from society.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Go on to kill other prisoners while in prison. Some murderers are paroled (or much more rarely) escape and kill again. Keeping someone in prison for 30+ years costs a lot of money (and yes, I know that the death penalty process also costs a lot of money). So yeah, executions serve a further purpose because they end the threat that the murderer will kill again. And I personally believe that justice is served in many executions - why should a murderer enjoy a lengthy life (and perhaps get paroled) when they've prematurely ended the life of another? End of the day, there are many heinous crimes committed by evil people and I don't feel any sympathy or regret that a murderer is put to death for ending the life of an innocent person (or persons), often in a horrific manner that resulted in the victim living his or her last few hours in terror and pain.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)It does happen, but it's not the norm. The answer to that is smarter security precautions, but I don't think that fact alone, nor the rare threat of an escape, justifies the death penalty over life in prison without parole.
And studies show that the death penalty process is hands down more expensive than keeping a person in prison for life.
Regarding the notion of a person "enjoying" a life in prison, that is ludicrous. I've never been in prison, but I know enough about them to know it's not an enjoyable place. Just about everything you enjoy in your ordinary day to day life is taken away from you--from your choice of clothing to your choice of food to everything else. It's a very rough but justifed life for the people who deserve to be in there (and an unspeakable hell for those who are unjustly convicted.)
It's not a matter of feeling sympathy for a person sentenced to death (although I do often feel sympathy for their family members), it's a matter of basic human decency and the idea no one should ever take another person's life unless it is absolutely an imminent matter of safety to one's self or others. And the state should obviously know better.
So no, I still fail to find any sort of justification for the death penalty.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And I certainly don't expect to convince someone over the internet on this issue. More just stating my point that I am not opposed to the death penalty and those are the reasons. I actually wish it was carried out quicker - 30+ years is too long.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts).....if the state moves to execute someone quickly, you create a shorter window for any possible exculpatory evidence to come forward. And in many cases, it has taken years for someone wrongfully convicted to be exonerated. Some people are exonerated post mortem.
On the other hand, even if you think the death penalty is justified, if the process takes three decades, it's barely worth it--even if you think executing someone constitutes "justice" in some form.
It's a fatally (pardon the expression) flawed institution that's worth far more hassles than it's worth. Better we just lock people up and throw away the key. It's not like we're obsessing over the every day prison lives of people sentenced to life for murder. They are forgotten and removed from society, and that works fine for me.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)If not, what exactly is your point?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)But the whole idea that killing a person who supposedly killed another person somehow constitutes "justice" is perverse and stupid.
Imprisoning them for life simply removes them from society.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)So what's to be gained from the death penalty?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)There's no evidence that #3 has ever been a factor (think about it: what person wouldn't be deterred by the possibility of a life sentence but would be deterred by the death penalty? It doesn't make any sense.)
As for #4, the instances of such escapes are quite low and hardly enough to justify the death penalty on its own.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)It's hardly an objective binary fact.... YMMV...
3 and 4 are likely not hugely significant but they play some role.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Exactly how so?
As for the matter of deterrence, there's not a single study that I know that indicates the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime. If you know of any, by all means, share away.
And again, escape from prisons are a fairly rare occurrence, and it's not as though anyone who has managed to escape a prison is there for a capital crime. So I don't see how it would an argument that would support the death penalty on its own.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... but not the only one.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)In both circumstances, absent exoneration, the person won't ever set foot free again.
The only difference is that with the death penalty, the state actively plays the role of God--deciding exactly what day a human being's life ends--which I don't think is compatible with modern society desires with a civilized government. Wouldn't you agree?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)I think that it is absolutely within the boundaries of a civilized society to determine that some crimes are so horrific that death is the appropriate penalty.
Since there is no God, it falls to man to determine the rules that we live by and the punishments that crimes merit.
Punishment is a part of the criminal justice system, in addition to rehabilitation (in some cases) and removal of the threat from society.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)The notion that you don't harm or kill someone unless they are an imminent threat to you or another.
How is someone locked up in a cell an imminent threat to you or another? It doesn't compute. The threat has already been removed from society.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... over whether or not punishment is an element of the criminal justice system.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)I think the criminal justice system can punish someone by removing them from society. By that same action, they can also act to protect society.
But I don't think the criminal justice system should be in the job of unnaturally imposing death of someone already removed from society. It doesn't serve any purpose beyond what's already been achieved, therefore it is unnecessary and unbecoming on the state.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I never really could understand it either, I guess we all need to feel 'safer' knowing a 76 year old murderer can never do it again. Nevermind the fact that he is probably a completely different person 36 years later after the crime.
I've always been told it is a deterrent, but it seems more like revenge and vengeance imo.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)The threat of getting caught or punishment in general could indeed be a deterrent to crime, although many criminals are not thinking of the consequences when they commit the crime.
But the death penalty in particular, as opposed to regular prison sentences? I don't buy that for a second.
So if someone is planning to kill someone in a death penalty state but is deterred by the threat of the death penalty...would that same person be deterred in a non-death penalty state since the threat of punishment is "only" life in prison? I don't think the death penalty is what's doing the deterring here.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't think prison is a general deterrent toward crime, if so then why do we have the largest prison population on the planet? No, the death penalty (no matter how horrible the crime) always strikes me as revenge or vengeance...and some view that as justice.
Me personally, I think the best deterrent to crime is a healthy society. I've had CJ majors tell me the entire justice system is 'broken' and beyond repair with our current crop of politicians.
No matter what one thinks of the DP, it is barbaric and sadistic in many ways.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,722 posts)28 killed last year. Already 5 killed this year.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Phentex
(16,334 posts)but I am completely against the death penalty.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)absolutely have to know that the wrong person will be executed, from time to time. Essentially, they are willing to kill some innocent people, in order to kill most of the guilty ones. The line of reasoning is crystal clear. I don't think I've ever heard a proponent own up, and just come right out and say it, though.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Then most of them go on to say it's all about the innocent victims, after proving they really don't care about innocent victims.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)There's no getting around it: death penalty proponents are willing to kill innocent people, in exchange for the gratification they gain from revenge.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)The system works!
Well, except when it doesn't:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/rick-perry-executed-an-innocent-man-after-prosecutor-hid-evidence-in-kids-arson-deaths-texas-bar/
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)They don't have even the skimpiest of fig leaves.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Gov Goodhair executed Willingham after being presented with solid evidence of the prosecution's fuck ups. Then he fired the state committee tasked with the investigation after the execution which was about to produce a report about the fuck ups and replaced them with his hand picked plants.
For that and all the people he killed by refusing federal medicaid funds, Perry is more evil than anyone he ever sent to the gallows.
hunter
(38,317 posts)Are you ready for Soylent Green?
The "death penalty" is fucking barbaric.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)he was sleeping, he was given another drug to stop his heart.
Barbaric? Hardly...
Google "barbaric deaths" to get an education on actual barbarism...
hunter
(38,317 posts)Not at all.
Civilized nations have no "death penalty." Even the language is abhorrent.
The U.S.A. is not a civilized nation.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)away innocent life forfeit their own life. Why? Because allowing a murderer of innocents to continue to enjoy living - even if incarcerated - cheapens the life of their victims. Even LWOP pooh-poohs the heinousness of murder.
And those who claim "oh, but we are just as bad as the murderer" are creating a false equivalence. No, exacting justice on a murderer is not morally equivalent to the murderer taking the life of an innocent person.
And please, if you are really concerned about being "civilized", please explain how it is civilized - how is it is not cruel and unusual punishment - to keep a person in a CAGE for the rest of their lives?
hunter
(38,317 posts)A "death penalty" cheapens life for all.
So do U.S. prisons.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)And not just certain handpicked instances?
Otherwise, wouldn't we somehow be "cheapening" the lives of the victims by allowing their killer to live in prison (where he or she would be forced every day to deal with the consequences of their actions)?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)The DP in uncivilized, but keeping murderers in cages for the rest of their life is "civilized".
Do I have that right?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)The notion of prison in general isn't uncivilized in my opinion.
Incarcerated persons should be treated humanely and not subjected to torture or abuse, but I have no problem with them being separated from society and denied many of the things we enjoy as free persons that go beyond basic living necessities.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)DP opponents look down their nose and claim moral superiority - they are "civilized" because the don't advocate "killing people".
And yet prison is, at it's root, keeping a human being in a cage. It may be a clean cage - with a television - but a cage it remains. And this is civilized treatment? Day after day, year after year, no hope, no freedom, just the rest of one's life in a cage. This is humane, this is "civilized".
But lethal injection? Barbaric!
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)The notion that the state could actively kill a human being--by any means--after that human being has already been removed from society and is no longer an active, imminent threat to the public is barbaric.
There is a logical justification for imprisoning a person. I see no such logical justification for killing that same person once he has already been imprisoned.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)that it is more barbaric to keep someone in a cage for the rest of their life.
And the logical justification for the DP? How about this: the person committed a capital murder, they snuffed out an innocent life, they destroyed a family, a dream, a child's security, etc. etc. etc. And in doing so they forfeited any claim to their own life.
A society that would simply put such a person in a cage actively diminishes the worth of the victim. Tragically, such a society 1) erroneously claims justice is served 2) pats itself on the back for being morally superior to those who would exact the FULL measure of what the murderer actually deserves.
btw - you keep using "barbaric" when describing lethal injection. Google "barbaric deaths", then come back and explain how causing someone to fall asleep is barbaric (cause I think the word you're looking for is 'merciful').
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)While there are some very troubling aspects of the correctional system in the US, the mere fact that someone is incarcerated in a prison is not in and of itself barbaric. Segregating a person away from society for having committed a violent offense, while still providing very basic human rights guarantees to that person, serves both a protective and punitive interest.
You talk about "forfeiting any claim to their own life" and "exacting the full measure of what the murderer actually deserves." I find it very troublesome for some human beings to claim such a life-and-death godlike role over others, even over people who are extremely flawed. And I think your argument falls apart on your claim of "the worth of the victim" because the system as it stands right now seems to value certain victims lives more than others. Apparently, some crimes are worthy of the death penalty, and others are not, because not all people convicted of criminal homicides are sentenced to death. You use flowery language life "snuffed out an innocent life", "destroying a family, a dream, a child's security". But unless you are willing to extend such a notion to all criminal homicides, are you not being hypocritical? A guy could have a few too many drinks, get behind the wheel of the car, and crash into the father or mother of a young family, killing that person. Under your claim, since he "snuffed out an innocent life" and "destroyed a family, a dream, a child's security", wouldn't he too be deserving of death and not simply imprisonment? Are you prepared to support the death penalty for DUI manslaughter? What if the homicide victim is elderly? Childless? A real scumbag himself? Do you see the problem with your thinking?
As for lethal injections being barbaric, yes, they are indeed barbaric. Any method of death in the death penalty is barbaric. A condemned person could be given a soft down bed and listen to calm, soothing music while he is injected with poison and it would still be barbaric. Because the act of unnaturally ending a person's life absent exigent circumstances (i.e. imminent threat to one's own life or the lives of others) is inherently barbaric, illogical and wrong. Just because the means themselves might not seem overly barbaric does not excuse the inanity of the act of killing the person.
One final note: people who support the death penalty usually throw out as justifications that they think it will give the victim's family some closure, or that the condemned person "deserves it", or that they are saving society from having to support the incarceration of a convicted person. In other words, the death penalty is okay because "it feels good." And last I checked, killing a person because it "feels good" is something that we're supposed to be repulsed at, not advocate.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)considered immoral.
But, we have become adept out pointing at other cultures who also haven't reached that level of civilization for justification of our crimes.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)because life is so precious, allowing a murderer to continue living cheapens the life of the victim.
IOW - a person forfeits their life when they murder another.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, weren't the lives of the people they killed "precious"?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)No, I don't claim to know much about the old testament, but most folks understand that agents of the govt - acting either as soldiers or cops - are under the authority of said govt. And it is ultimately those govt leaders who are morally responsible for engaging their "troops" in battle.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Does "the devil made me do it" also apply?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)be there. Are you saying that the old testament would define battlefield deaths as murder?
Or perhaps you are suggesting that a cop who kills someone in the line of duty - someone who is threatening to kill another person - is actually a murderer according to your reading of the old testament?
IOW - it seems to me that there is killing that is justified (e.g. justifiable homicide), and then there is murder. Are you suggesting there is no distinction between these two?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, then rationalizing killing as just doing their jobs.
"Killing that is justified". Such as murdering civilians by bomb or artillery or gunfire is "justified" because it's just a job? Or, because they're "just doing they're duty"?
Do you think that that's moral? And, if it isn't why aren't the perpetrators punished by similar means?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)And again, nobody here is condoning murdering civilians - why even argue the point?
You seem to want to pick a fight - sorry, I'm not interested...
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Your words:
And the logical justification for the DP? How about this: the person committed a capital murder, they snuffed out an innocent life, they destroyed a family, a dream, a child's security, etc. etc. etc. And in doing so they forfeited any claim to their own life.
"Snuff out" a life, "forfeit" their own life. Eye for an eye.
Waldorf
(654 posts)companion.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)But the size of the cabal of pro-death penalty zealots on a site that proclaims itself as a meeting place for liberals is beyond disgusting. I may get back to the BS about "deterrence" and "justice" and "the victims," but let's start with the amateur lawyers.
For those constitutional law experts who talk about how many times the death penalty has been held to be constitutional, here's a little history. In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia, the death penalty was held to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments based upon the fact that the states had enacted inadequate safeguards to prevent its arbitrary application AND that this arbitrariness had resulted in its disproportionate application against people of color, something a plurality held was no longer acceptable in a civilized world. AFTER RIGHT WING JUSTICES (just so you people know whose hand you are holding) took over the court, it revisited the issue based on (what would have seemed to anyone who had read Furman) an argument that had addressed ONLY the issue of the safeguards, but said NOTHING about the fact that the death penalty remained centered on the concept that only "white lives matter." For a pack of RIGHT WING JUSTICES, though, it was good enough. It was only 3-4 years later that the RIGHT WING COURT said that it no longer gave a FRA about whether the death penalty was nothing more than racist BS and would not even allow evidence of systemic racism to be introduced. Since then, the constitutionality of the death penalty has never been analyzed, although RIGHT WING JUSTICE AFTER RIGHT WING JUSTICE have taken every opportunity to declare it constitutional. For all you applauding their intellectually dishonest tripe, let me tell you what the current RIGHT WING JUSTICE THEORY is on why the death penalty is constitutional . . . THEY claim that the Eighth Amendment's express prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment means exactly NOTHING more than that a capital defendant get a "fair trial" Their "logic" in holding that the Eighth Amendment has no independent meaning is, "because capital punishment was mentioned in the 5th Amendment, it can NEVER be found unconstitutional (even if we were to become the only nation in the entire world still doing it). THAT is pure idiocy.
branford
(4,462 posts)it is a meeting place for Democrats, many of whom happen to be liberal.
Further, you are not the arbiter of who is or isn't an acceptable Democrat or liberal.
For instance, the Democrat Platform does not actually oppose capital punishment, only seeks to ensure there are adequate safeguards. That's the reason why President Obama and then Attorney General Holder successfully sought the death penalty in the Boston Marathon Bombing trial in MA, a state without its own capital punishment statute.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Whether you like it or not, Supreme Court jurisprudence evolves over time. This is almost always a good thing or we would still have such abominations as "separate but equal" or the ability to inter minorities in camps under the guise of security. The majority of time the Court trends to the left, but sometimes it does indeed move right. Presidential and senatorial elections have consequences, and conservative Supreme Court justices have no less authority than their more liberal brethren.
Although I don't consider myself a true constitutional scholar, I am an attorney, and am more than familiar with the Court's criminal justice jurisprudence concerning due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and the death penalty. It is far more consistent than you imply, including with state supreme courts, and Furman's very brief cessation of capital punishment was more the exception than the rule, your opinions on the practice notwithstanding.
If you want to see the abolition of capital punishment, I would suggest you stop insulting the character of your opponents, including a great many Democrats, stop playing armchair jurist, and instead try to diplomatically persuade people of the purported merits of your position. Some states have ended the death penalty by choice and the number of people executed yearly is on a steep decline. Don't screw-up a trend that you support by being self-righteous, obstinate, disrespectful, or just a jerk when people don't share your opinion, in whole or in part, on this issue.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)At some point, those who advocate so passionately for the death penalty will be left in the past along with this barbaric practice.
branford
(4,462 posts)are some of the most passionate opponents of the practice.
Many of the same people, or at least the most vocal, also oppose widely popular punishments like life without parole, policies such as trying certain minors as adults for serious or the use of solitary confinement, condemn the entirety of our justice system or even country along with their death penalty activism, are willing to argue innocence when it's not really in dispute or conspicuously fail to acknowledge victims when attempting any means to overturn capital verdicts, and similar acts and positions.
It quite often appears that abolition of the death penalty is not really a goal in itself, a goal that does not some significant support, but rather a "first step" to fundamentally and incrementally altering our justice system in a manner that has nowhere near similar level of support, among Democrats or anyone else. This incrementalist strategy alienates potential allies, empowers and energizes opponents, and akin to similar issues like abortion and gun control, usually results in bad faith, a total failure to compromise, and maintenance of the status quo.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)In essence, it's tantamount to saying that people support the death penalty because others oppose it.
branford
(4,462 posts)Your explicit responses immediately above prove precisely my point.
You may, of course, hold any positions you wish. However, that does not mean they are supported by many, no less are the positions of the Democratic Party. More importantly, its hardly unusual or surprising that many would similarly refuse to compromise with anyone adopting an incrementalist strategy to achieve goals they do not agree with and well surpass abolition of the death penalty. In this regard, the death penalty is politically little different from issues like abortion and gun control.
For instance, while capital punishment is a contentious issue, not only are sentences of life without parole entirely uncontroversial among the vast majority of Americans, the very existence of and wide use of LWOP actually forms a primary basis to support the abolition of the death penalty for many, as even a cursory review of virtually all death penalty threads readily demonstrate (and DU obviously has a Democratic, liberal bias).
In any event, you opinions notwithstanding, I will continue to support capital punishment for the most serious of crimes so long as the required constitutional safeguards such as adequate due process and equal protection are properly maintained consistent with the Democratic Party Platform.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)If someone supports capital punishment because they don't like the comments of someone who opposes it, then the supporter is a petty buffoon.
xocet
(3,871 posts)slavery are some of the most passionate opponents of the practice."
How does your argument sound in that context?
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)DU Mission statement (oh, and YES, I and others DO get to define "liberal" Hillary):
Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
• Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
• Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
• Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
• Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
• Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.
We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)You state that Supreme Court jurisprudence evolves over time, yet the ONLY Constitutional defense now being offered for the death penalty (and then only by the consistently intellectually dishonest Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) is premised ENTIRELY upon the proposition that the meaning of the words "cruel and unusual punishment" does not evolve over time. Read the concurring opinions in Glossip v. Gros, the astoundingly dishonest lethal injection case just decided out of Oklahoma.
In Glossip, Scalia states: “Mind you, not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates.” He cites the 5th Amendment. Here is the 5th Amendment's SOLE reference to capital punishment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . ."
Here's your chance to show that those who claim that the 8th Amendment does not violate the constitution have even an ounce of principles. (Mind you, I did not go into why I consider the lay reasons for approving of capital punishment, I addressed ONLY those who came on here acting like the constitutionality of the practice was beyond question) Tell us . . . how is Scalia's statement anything other than result oriented horse puckey?
WHAT'S MORE, Scalia and Thomas also go on to attack the very idea that the Eighth Amendment actually evolves, "What happened in the intervening years? Nothing other than the proliferation of labyrinthine restrictions on capital punishment, promulgated by this Court under an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that empowered it to divine “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion)—a task for which we are eminently ill suited. . . . If we were to travel down the path that Justice BREYER sets out for us and once again consider the constitutionality of the death penalty, I would ask that counsel also brief whether our cases that have abandoned the historical understanding of the Eighth Amendment, beginning with Trop, should be overruled. That case has caused more mischief to our jurisprudence, to our federal system, and to our society than any other that comes to mind."
Is Trop and "aberration" too?
I will be glad to debate the fallacies which underlie popular support for the death penalty, however, when you attack a criticism of UNPRINCIPLED RIGHT WING ZEALOTS like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as "self-righteous, obstinate, disrespectful, or just a [being] a jerk and call Furman an "aberration," you'd best bring something to back it up. Oh, btw, in this area, given the ad hominem flotsam that spews from Scalia's pen, you should take care before attacking the zeal of ANYONE who opposes this barbaric practice.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)The size? Have you done a count? Are there even EIGHT people in this supposed 'cabal'?
The majority that I am reading on this thread seem to be agreeing with the OP.
Personally I find the OP to be curious. What, after all, is so 'disgusting' about this particular execution?
As for SCOTUS. I kind of like to see them do their job, rather than write laws.
To me, if something was constitutional in the past (rather like the death penalty) then the only way for it to now be unconstitutional is if the constitution has changed. And by changed, I mean EXPLICITLY changed, and not somebody saying "the 14th amendment means THIS too".
You want to abolish the death penalty? Fine - change the laws. Win a majority to your side and elect representatives who will do what you want.
I still feel that, no matter how tempting it is, you do NOT win people to your side by calling them 'beyond disgusting' for not being on your side.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)More like "tragically pointless". Although everything about the death penalty is tragically pointless, so I don't know if I'd limit it just to this one circumstance.
branford
(4,462 posts)to condescension and dismissal is no more persuasive and equally insulting.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Tragically pointless, disgusting or otherwise.
I don't understand how calling the story the OP linked to either "disgusting" or "tragically pointless" is somehow insulting to you in particular.
branford
(4,462 posts)rather its the accusation or implication that those who don't support total abolition of capital punishment are "disgusting."
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Which reads as a comment on the story, not necessarily a comment on supporters of the death penalty.
branford
(4,462 posts)and these sentiments have been repeated by other posters throughout the thread.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Are you really denying that a not insignificant number of capital punishment opponents view their opponents on DU as "disgusting" or far worse, and have not been too shy expressing such sentiments?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)of the death penalty is not a political issue.
It is a constitutional issue. It is no more up to a popular vote than the freedom of speech.
Your idea that the Constitution must be changed before the death penalty may be banned is unsupported by both the text of the Eighth Amendment, the text of the remainder of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's obligation since Marbury v. Madison to, in the absence of plain language, interpret the words of the Constitution.
The Constitution neither allows, nor prohibits ANY specific method of punishment. There is no provision which states, "The death penalty is constitutional" and more than there is a provision which states, "10 years in prison is constitutional." Instead it provides a limit. What's more, it provides a limit which has no fixed definition. The words "cruel and unusual," by their nature, must draw their definition from some higher source. What is "cruel" for one society, may be perfectly acceptable in another.
Now the conservatives (the ones you look to for guidance) on the court USED to claim that these words should be defined to mean that whatever punishments were okay at the time of the framing were okay until the Constitution was amended (it's kinda like what you are trying to say). This idea had a couple of small (note sarcasm) problems . First, what language in the Eighth Amendment would need to be amended? Would the words "cruel and unusual" have to be changed to "crueler and even more unusual? It was just a silly idea (although one tightly embraced, until recent years by those legal geniuses -- note more sarcasm -- Scalia and Thomas). The second is that it would invalidate every single Commerce Clause case (because commerce would be limited in scope to what was commerce at the time of the founding AND their recent favorite Heller (because "arms would be limited to only those "arms" that existed at the time of the framing.)
Of course, as I explained in another reply, the conservatives, rather than admit that their prior reasoning was just result-oriented BS, came up with an new idea. I describe it at #177. That idea is almost as laughable. It goes like this . . . because the Framers imposed special rules for capital cases, capital punishment is automatically constitutional. With all due respect (i.e. NONE) for Scalia and Thomas . . . WTF, can you two be any more stupid and venal?
No, as much as you may wish the Constitution said something else . . . "cruel and unusual punishment" are defined by the evolving standards of civilized society. In other words, even with the will of the majority behind it, the death penalty is unconstitutional if it is contrary to the norms of a civilized society.
Now here's the last fun thing . . . At the time of the founding, there were no states and the colonies' standards of "cruel and unusual," the sources of the definition of those terms, were necessarily those of the nations which established the colonies.
Are you ready?
Question 1: Which nations founded the colonies?
Question 2: Do the standards in those countries permit capital punishment?
Do I hear the bell ringing?
Time to go.
* * *
Oh, oh, oh, your snide comment about the 14th Amendment exposes you as an opponent of those Supreme Court decisions protecting gay people's right to marry, contraception and choice (in part), one person one vote, and on and on and on . . .
"Democratic Underground" . . . you see that, right?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)it is always nice when a n00b with two years of membership and 300 posts wants to claim that I do not belong here.
Congrats on the prolixity though, but really TL
R.
Plus, anyway you lost me at "you look to conservatives for guidance".
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)when you spew right wing talking points and get busted, huh?
Talk about "activist courts and the 14th Amendment" that could have almost been lifted word for word from a Ted Cruz brief or a Scalia opinion . . .
a painful ignorance of the Eighth Amendment . . .
a tantrum instead of an intelligent reply . . .
is that all you've learned in 35K+ posts?
Welcome to . . . what's that thing . . . oh yea, DEBATE
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)name calling and snark
yeah, that's a real debate. If you say so.
Person A : X is true
Person B : That's a Republican talking point.
"You are a heretic" is not much of a refutation. Busted? As if I have not been a registered Democrat since 1988? Such accusations and insinuations don't deserve any reply but a contemptuous one. You get points for chutzpah for a 3 year member to tell an 11 year member that he doesn't belong, but you lose quite a bit for being presumptuous, arrogant and intolerant.
Any comment you had about the 8th amendment cannot seem to get around one basic fact - that is that the death penalty was NOT considered 'cruel and unusual' at the time that amendment was written.
Also, if a majority of the voting public does NOT want to eliminate it, then apparently they do not consider it to be cruel and unusual either. They have the ability to eliminate the death penalty in their state at every election . The only people who need the help of SCOTUS are an, apparently, self-righteous minority.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Let's start out with the "who's the better Democrat" silliness. I have been a registered Democrat since 1971. I worked locally on the campaign of George McGovern and have, at a minimum, worked phone banks in every federal election since. In addition, I practiced civil rights law, including capital habeas corpus, for over three decades. Can we please stop the "righteous indignation" over the perceived affront to your "experience?"
That being said, I really appreciate the substantive portion of your reply. There are obviously a wide range of views regarding the death penalty, particularly from a policy perspective. However, when I say that you are espousing "right wing" or "Republican" arguments, I do so not out of "snark" or in an effort to level an ad hominem attack, but rather because they are, in fact, "right wing" arguments.
The idea that general terms in the Constitution should be interpreted to include only those specific terms which would have fallen within that general language at the time of the Founding is radically right wing. It has been employed by far right justices to limit the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government (when it furthers their political objectives) time and time again. It would, if applied consistently, overturn every major civil rights decision in the last 100 years.
Moreover, as you argue regarding the death penalty, it would perpetuate the denial of what are recognized by most Democrats as basic human rights until the majority deems them appropriate.
The final comment in your post summarizes this, as it reflects your disapproval of the idea that the only people who need the Supreme Court are [the] [snide comment deleted] minority. I would submit that not only do Democrats believe this is true, they believe it is exactly what the Founders intended. The Founders provided for the rights of the majority (ideally, anyway) to be protected by the democratic process. It is through the Constitution that it prevented those majority views from overruling the rights of the minority from the ravages of majority rule.
I do not say any of this to demean you in any way, but that is a distinctly right wing position.
All this being said, I do not deny that my comments regarding whether the moral efficacy of the death penalty is subject to debate among Democrats reflect my opinion that no Democrat can, in light of what we know about the manner in which it, together with the rest of the criminal justice system, is administered, support that practice in any way, shape or form.
Once again, apart from the early silliness, I thank you for your post.
branford
(4,462 posts)Our official Democrat Platform does actually NOT oppose or seek abolition the death penalty. It only endeavors to ensure that it's not arbitrarily applied and due process is maintained. Be careful then discussing this or any other issue that you don't succumb to confirmation bias and assume your position is necessarily held by everyone else in our Party, no less most Americans, as is evident from any discussion about this issue here on DU.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)aware of our platform. The platform on capital punishment is inconsistent with our values as well as other parts of our platform.
branford
(4,462 posts)My values and apparently a majority of other Democrats include support for capital punishment consistent with the agreed and accepted Democrat Platform and people like President Obama and former Attorney General Holder when they sought the punishment in the Boston Marathon bombing case.
You are certainly free to hold any political position you wish concerning the death penalty or anything else, but do not presume to speak for our Party or all other liberals, no less question the political or moral bona fides of other Democrats.
You may believe all liberals and Democrats should oppose capital punishment, but you need to accept that is currently not even remotely a universal position.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)it is politically expedient to kill people.
xocet
(3,871 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)But after reading about a third of this thread I was sure I must have stumbled into FR or CU by accident.
branford
(4,462 posts)particularly before spouting inaccurate information and insulting fellow Democrats because they don't agree with you.
Our Platform does NOT oppose capital punishment. It only seeks to ensure that it's not arbitrarily applied and due process is maintained.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)and the bloodlust in this thread has no place in a progressive forum. Period.
It makes absolutely no difference to me which Democrats support it. State sanctioned violence is not a progressive means of addressing violence, any more than corporal punishment is a progressive way of addressing children who misbehave.
branford
(4,462 posts)but no matter how strong your belief, it's still just a mere opinion and does not represent the official position of the Democratic Party. You are not the arbiter of all things "liberal" or "Democratic."
As these discussions regularly demonstrate, a great many Democrats and liberals support the death penalty, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Justice. Got it, thanks.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)I'll tell you what pardner. When they take the officers and directors of Union Carbide and Goldman Sachs and light their heads on fire like they do some ID black kid who panics and shoots some white store clerk, you get back to me on "justice."
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That the officers and directors of Goldman (there are probably a number of them) should have their heads set on fire? Please identify the individuals by name and the crime they committed that requires them to be burned alive.
And what's with the "kid who panics" and murders someone defense? Does everyone who shoots and kills someone get to make the "I panicked" defense? Is that a legitimate defense?
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)You misrepresent my point.
My point is that the officers and directors of Goldman Sachs and the other big Wall Street speculators destroyed the lives of millions of people, spurring not only suicides but financial ruin. They did so ENTIRELY to satiate their greed. They did so with absolutely no regard for their potential victims.
The officers and directors at Union Carbide (like other major corporations) exhibited the same lack of concern for the everyday people who stood in the way of their fortunes and killed thousands in a single day.
Given that, are they less culpable (NOTE oh "Sir Look at the Squirrel, I DID NOT he is not culpable) say than the poor, often black, kid who goes into a convenience store with a gun and kills the clerk?
NEITHER should be lit on fire, BUT in the classist and racist American criminal justice system, the poor black kid IS while the officers and directors of its major corporations sip champagne, buy elections, and dictate political party platforms.
And you dare call that "justice?"
Logical
(22,457 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)So, the democratically endorsed Democratic Platform, innumerable actual registered and voting Democrats, and party leaders like
President Obama and Hillary Clinton aren't representative of "real dems?"
When exactly did the Democratic Party for you as the high judge of all things "Democratic?"
I'm sorry if the Democratic Party doesn't represent your personal views on the subject of capital punishment or you would prefer the legal regimes of other countries, but absolute support for abolition of the death penalty is definitely not the collective position of the Party. If anything, it is who isn't a "real dem."
Logical
(22,457 posts)Look at the top 10 countries that execute people!
Give me a couple names that you respect of those countries!
Look at the countries that don't execute people. Like any of those countries?
Something tells me you haven't put five minutes Of thought into this. Nt
branford
(4,462 posts)and simply will not accept that we have a Democratic Party Platform and it does not reflect your perspective.
It would not matter if every single other country on earth opposed capital punishment, it is legal here with a great deal of popular support, and more importantly, and with some minor due process and equal protection reservations, endorsed by the Democratic Party.
You can insult me all you wish, but it is I and other death penalty supporters who actually adhere to the position espoused by the Democratic Party, and thus presumably we are the "real dems" by any objective standard.
If you wish to find a political party to reflect your views, maybe you need to look somewhere besides the Democrats or leave the country...
noamnety
(20,234 posts)If we don't like something in it, we should quit the party or leave the US rather than work to fix it?
That's ... odd.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, the current Democratic Platform does not oppose capital punishment, and I've heard nothing significant about any potential changes to it for this upcoming election, particularly since President Obama and Hillary Clinton do not support abolition (and it would be political poison in some battleground states).
Logical accused me and others of not being "real dems" (among other insults) because we do not oppose the death penalty. Given my views actually represent our official Democratic Party Platform, if anyone, it is Logical who's not the "real dem." My suggestion that he seek political camaraderie elsewhere was just some well-deserved snark.
Logical or anyone else is certainly entitled to hold whatever views they choose about capital punishment or anything else. However, self-appointed and self-righteous arbiters of who are "real" Democrats or liberals will not go unchallenged.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)if anyone, it is Logical who's not the "real dem."
self-appointed and self-righteous arbiters of who are "real" Democrats or liberals will not go unchallenged.
Maybe real dems push for progressive change, rather than adopting the eerily familiar "love it or leave it stance" you are using, when our party embraces the positions of conservatives.
Side note: looking through lists of countries that execute for various reasons and seeing the company we keep is incredibly depressing. For example, Espionage: Algeria, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Iran, Peru, Qatar, United States, Vietnam.
branford
(4,462 posts)How can Logical, you or anyone else accuse someone of not being a "real dem" when your position concerning the death penalty is not the actual, official position of our Party, and there does not appear to be any demonstrable movement to change the Platform. Citing countries that use or oppose capital punishment or offering your personal opinion does not change this simple fact.
As I previously stated, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on capital punishment or anything else, but don't presume to speak for, no less judge, your fellow Democrats.
Consider this, maybe "real dems" are quite comfortable with our current Party Platform, and the change you want and the people you agree are not actually to be found among most Democrats.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)Your belief: "the change you want and the people you agree are not actually to be found among most Democrats."
Reality:
[img]
[/img]
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/16/less-support-for-death-penalty-especially-among-democrats/
branford
(4,462 posts)You might also need to have a word with President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Good luck with that.
Your chart, however, is indeed noteworthy because it demonstrate that a clear majority of Americans currently support capital punishment.
Also very interesting is that research indicates that diminishing support for capital punishment correlates to the precipitous drop in violent crime since the highs in mid-1990's, largely after passage and enforcement of mostly conservative "law and order" policies now opposed by many in our Party, including such things and mandatory minimum sentencing, stop-and-frisk, "broken windows" policing, and the ever increasing incarceration of minority youth. I'm curious if liberal criminal justice policies will result in an uptick in support for capital punishment in the coming years.
Again, if you wish to politely and maturely discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment, that's certainly a reasonable discussion. However, if you or others question the bona fides and character of Democrats who don't agree with your position on the death penalty and offer related insults, not only would this contradict the current official position of our Party, it's gratuitously rude and offensive, and most certainly not in any way persuasive.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)about capital punishment is that the party apparatus (read DWS and her minions/masters) is controlled by the "Don't say anything that will offend the white suburban Republicans who we have been snuggling up to ever since Bill" Third Way, AND that it has removed DEMOCRACY from the Democratic Party.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)as other Americans, including a great many Democrats, as is evident from any thread on DU concerning the issue.
Again, it was you who explicitly claimed "real dems" don't support capital punishment (post #211).
Yet, it is without question that our official Democratic Party Platform supports the death penalty.
Whether you like it or not, my position is consistent with our Party's position while yours is not.
Of course, you are free to oppose capital punishment under all circumstances and believe the Party Platform should change, but to suggest those who disagree with you are not "real dems" is simply ludicrous, to say nothing of the fact that such gratuitous insults are hardly persuasive concerning the purported merits of your position.
Logical
(22,457 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)However, I would acknowledge that my views no longer aligned with the official position of the Party.
I highly doubt the Democratic Platform represents the opinion of all Democrats concerning all major issues. Humans are complicated, and there's bound to be some disagreements. These occasional disagreements do not make anyone "bad" Democrats.
To repeat the point once again, I've never suggested you weren't entitled to your opinions about capital punishment or that people couldn't disagree in good faith. I was, however, offended that you accused me and others of not being "real dems" because we don't share your opinion. Such a suggestion is patently outrageous, and even more ridiculous since the official Democratic Party Platform clearly does not seek to abolish the death penalty, nor to my knowledge is there any significant movement to change the Platform.
If you and others wish to convince people that they should support abolition of the death penalty, I cannot comprehend how you could possibly believe that gratuitously insulting people who otherwise share many of your political and social perspectives would be considered persuasive or in any way productive.
Logical
(22,457 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Deterrence, if any, is just a positive ancillary benefit.
Consistent with the current Party Platform, I also strongly support protections to ensure all required constitutional requirements accompany the punishment's availability, including extensive due process, ample appeals, etc.
The cost of implementing a death sentence, usually the result of lengthy appeals, is similarly a secondary concern within the context of what I and many others consider a just sentence. Costs can certainly be reduced, although defendants might suffer. Moreover, I usually find arguments about cost to be somewhat disingenuous as opponents of capital punishment generally believe the penalty is wrong regardless of cost.
There are indeed moments when question whether the death penalty is still needed as practical matter while violent crime rates continue to drop. Sadly, when the reading about the crimes and defendant of the inevitable next execution, I again realize the true depths of human depravity, and any practical concerns I may have harbored quickly disappear.
