NEBRASKA: Supreme Court Rules "Electric Chair" Unconstitutional

[RoadRage]

LINCOLN, Neb. -- The Nebraska Supreme Court rules that electrocution, Nebraska's sole means of execution, is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional

http://www.ketv.com/news/15252239/detail.html

*****************************************************************************************************

Wow.. Obama shows up to Rally 10,000 yesterday (first time a dem has campaigned in NE in over 40 years), and now this today? HOLY CRAP, our state is getting bluer by the second!

[dmallind]

1. Well that's a duhhh

I mean I am not the all-out anti-DP zealot many on DU are but I'm pretty damn sure frying people by electircity until their blood boils is just a bit cruel and decidedly unusual.

BTW the wife who is till in NE for the next few months till our move is complete mentioned Chelsea did a fine job answering 45 minutes worth of questions last night too, and was well received. Perhaps there IS hope there.

[RoadRage]

2. I agree, it's cruel & unusual...

This is the first step.. NE was the only state left that had the "chair" as the only method for the DP. Welcome to 1952.. ughgh!

I am not totally against the death penalty though - in some circumstances, it's justified in my mind. But, in a lot of instances - it's not.

I hope they review more then just the "chair"... and look into the types of people who are constantly on death row vs. the types of people who aren't.

[TheUniverse]

4. My tax money going to kill people who are no longer a threat is never justified.

[dmallind]

5. Without sidetracking this thread, explain how to make killers no longer a threat

And do so in the context of the number of killers who have killed again after parole or escape or who have killed other prisoners and guards. Actually more people have been killed by those already convicted of previous capital crimes than who have been executed since reinstitution.

[tuckessee]

7. Incarceration.

No need to let murderers out if they didn't have to make room for pot smokers & other druggies.

[dmallind]

9. But we do let them out - and people inside can be killed as well.

Now if there were a really secure way to ensure no future risk I'd be all against the DP in all circumstances too, but right now it is the only guaranteed zero recidivism option.

[tuckessee]

10. Simple.

Stop jailing people for victimless crimes. Plenty of room in jails & lots of money once the dopers are freed.

there is no way to ensure "no future risk".

Heck, even with the DP there is a risk because one has a chance of being wrongly convicted & executed.

[dmallind]

11. Two problems

1) Freeing the dopers is a good idea 99% of the time but it's not going to happen in foreseeable future - what do we do NOW?

2) People in jails can be killed - and guaranteed solitary confinement for murderers for life 24/7 is, and quite probably should be, also unconstitutional on C & U grounds.

And there is a way to ensure no future risk. Nobody has ever reoffended after being executed. The risk of wrongful execution certainly exists (and should definitely get more attention and resources devoted to prevention), but not the risk of further deaths after execution.

[wuushew]

12. What is the culmative risk to society from a numbers standpoint?

Since the DP is flawed some percent of those executed are innocent.

Deathcount (A) = Leathality of DP(100%)*(chance of non-guilt) = total innocent deathcount

vs.

Deathcount (B) = Probability of killing while in prision + chance of escaping while incarcerated * probabilty of murdering while a fugitivie = total innocent deathcount.

[dmallind]

13. Difficult to predict, but different from most's perception

The problem is that because we execute so few people, even relative to murderers, and do so after a long period of incarceration, it's not a valid sample, plus we are trying to answer a hypothetical what if concerning the potential future actions of those who WERE executed, had they not been.

BUT more people have been killed by those already convicted of capital murder than have been executed in the modern era. So to find this out we'd have to start executing all thus convicted, for 30 odd years and see if a greater number of them (greater that is than the current number of victims of recidivists) were retroactively proven innocent. Clearly an unacceptable study to design or implement. It is a question that can only ever be hypothetical, since we know and can know neither how many of those executed would have otherwise killed again, nor how many of those who were executed were innocent. All we do know of course is that neither number is ever likely to be zero, and that it is impossible to be exexuted then kill again. Essentially, to anyone rational, that's the crux of the inductive argument about the DP. There are some complicating factors about deterrence (another area where no valid study would ever be permissible since we'd have to allocate a group subject to the DP and a group not subject to it in the same geographical area and time period. Sort of like surnames A-M can be executed, N-Z can't be. Nothing else is a solid comparison, and obviouly that's not possible in any sane society) etc but essentially it's a question of how many innocent people die with the DP vs. how many die without it being applied.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Have we executed anyone lately here? I can't remember.

[RoadRage]

6. I don't think so.. it's been a few years

We usually throw the switch about every 3 - 4 years.. just long enough to remind everyone we still do it.. so go to Iowa if you want to kill someone. :eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

8. LOL! Ernie Chambers is still trying to get rid of the death penalty. I wonder

if this will help his cause.

[rasputin1952]

14. TX seems to have the "bragging" rights to executions...

they might actually beat some ME countries and China in the use of the DP.