Multiple Shootings At Fort Hood

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I don’t see that I do. Like I said, I don’t care what the status quo happens to be; if you want to ban people from doing something —

I don’t, as I said in the very post you quoted:

@Babale

I agree. If there’s a broadcast, I don’t think the government should arbitrarily ban people from watching it.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

I agree. If there’s a broadcast, I don’t think the government should arbitrarily ban people from watching it.

I don’t see how that squares with what you just said in the previous post about how “you have a right to privacy. So does Hasan. Even if he’s convicted of a crime and sentenced to die.”

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Does this involve one of those explicit restrictions placed upon the government? Is this on the list of things the government cannot do?

I would think it very likely qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, yes.

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@Johanna

Eighth Amendment.

We used to have public executions.

Not in 90 years we haven’t.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Did people just not notice back then that they ran afoul of the Eighth?

What qualifies as “cruel and unusual” is dependent on social standards and mores
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-4-2/ALDE_00000964/[‘ord’,%20’amendment’]

In Wilkerson, however, the Court appeared to suggest that this standard necessarily reflected current norms, noting that while [d]ifficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, it was safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as drawing and quartering, disemboweling alive, beheading, public dissection, and burning alive, are forbidden by . . . [the] Constitution.2

In the twentieth century, the Court began to consider the cruel and unusual standard more flexibly, focusing on societal standards, especially as they implicated the wanton infliction of pain.3 In 1910, in Weems v. United States,4 the Court reasoned that the Framers had not merely intended to bar reinstituting procedures and techniques deemed unacceptable in 1789, but had intended to prevent a coercive cruelty being exercised through other forms of punishment.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Has this come up in court?

Yes, see above.

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I don’t see how that squares with what you just said in the previous post about how “you have a right to privacy. So does Hasan. Even if he’s convicted of a crime and sentenced to die.”

I don’t see what is at all confusing about it. Can you explain what your confusion is?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

What qualifies as “cruel and unusual” is dependent on social standards and mores

That raises a question. It doesn’t answer one. What’s the social standard today? What’s the more? Some people are, now, okay with this; how many do you need?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

I don’t see what is at all confusing about it. Can you explain what your confusion

You said he has a right to privacy even if he’s sentenced to die. You also said that, If there’s a broadcast of his execution, you don’t think the government should arbitrarily ban people from watching it. If you’re already granting that there can be a broadcast of this, I don’t see why you’re mentioning his right to privacy in that context.

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

You said he has a right to privacy even if he’s sentenced to die.

Correct - do you disagree?

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

You also said that, If there’s a broadcast of his execution, you don’t think the government should arbitrarily ban people from watching it.

Correct - I don’t think the government should create a broadcast and then arbitrarily ban people from watching it.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

If you’re already granting that there can be a broadcast of this,

Where did I do that?

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I don’t see why you’re mentioning his right to privacy in that context.

Because it impacts the question of whether the government should create a broadcast of his execution or whether that would violate a right other than the court ordered termination of his life.

[Elmer_J.Fudd]

@Smapti

Trump:
“There are two thoughts: don’t show it and show it. Cause you know, by showing it, maybe other people won’t be doing what he did.”

So the reason for a public execution is to make an example for future self proclaimed martyrs? You can argue forever if this decision is morally right or wrong but I defy anybody to argue that it is anything other than incredibly stupid and counterproductive.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

Where did I do that?

That’s where my confusion comes in: if you didn’t think the option of broadcasting it was on the table, precisely because no privacy right actually bars it, then why would you take the time to spell out that you don’t think the government should arbitrarily ban people from watching said broadcast?

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

if you didn’t think the option of broadcasting it was on the table, precisely because no privacy right actually bars it, then why would you take the time to spell out that you don’t think the government should arbitrarily ban people from watching said broadcast?

Because you kept making the libertarian argument that the government shouldn’t infringe on people’s rights to do whatever they want by banning them from watching the broadcast, and I agree with that completely. But that has nothing to do with whether or not creating such a broadcast would violate the executee’s rights, and I think it clearly would. You might think it’s silly to say that a person whose right to life we have stripped away has other rights, but he clearly does - that’s why I brought up the example of a murderer killing him on the way to the firing squad, which would violate his right to life in a way that is not in accordance with the court ordered execution, and so it would be murder.

I am pretty sure I spelled all that out already above, but here it is again. What part of this do you disagree with?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

you kept making the libertarian argument that the government shouldn’t infringe on people’s rights to do whatever they want by banning them from watching the broadcast, and I agree with that completely. But that has nothing to do with whether or not creating such a broadcast would violate the executee’s rights, and I think it clearly would.

Got it. I just think it’s a distractingly weird thing for you to have tossed out, is all. It’s like if you mentioned three different guys — all in their twenties, and none of them a natural-born citizen of the United States — and asked me which one I’d vote for in the next presidential election: the tall one, or the short one, or the one of average height? I wouldn’t take the time to spell out that we shouldn’t rule any of them out on account of their height; I’d stop you right at the start by saying, I don’t believe any of them are eligible to be president.

[Mijin]

In a way, I see both sides:

In the grand scheme of all of Trump and his administration’s malfeasance, I wouldn’t rank this that high. I think a lot of the press outrage is due to this being a more visceral story than just, say, Trump and his family grifting billions or bombing people in faraway lands.

But it definitely is a moral backslide. If we’re saying it’s ok to relish the killing of this guy because of what he did, then next, why not make the death more slow and painful? Let’s give him the full Damiens treatment! [I’ve removed the hyperlink to the account of how this 18th century Frenchman was slowly and painfully killed; it’s googleable if you really want the details, but I wouldn’t recommend it]

The event itself will also be quite short, so I wonder what happens around it? National anthem + God bless the USA track? Bible verse from Pulp Fiction?

[LSLGuy]

Lots and lots of advertising for RW candidates intermixed with trump hagiography pieces?

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Got it. I just think it’s a distractingly weird thing for you to have tossed out, is all.

I think the distractingly weird argument is the one you keep making, that we shouldn’t stop people from watching the broadcast if they want to. No one is suggesting that. We are talking about whether or not there should be a broadcast at all.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

I think the distractingly weird argument is the one you keep making, that we shouldn’t stop people from watching the broadcast if they want to. No one is suggesting that.

I feel like that just pushes it back a step: if no one is suggesting that we should stop people from watching such a broadcast of the execution, then why bother to stop people from watching the execution?

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

if no one is suggesting that we should stop people from watching such a broadcast of the execution, then why bother to stop people from watching the execution?

I have read this sentence three times and I can’t parse it at all.

Are you asking why we shouldn’t let people into the military base to physically watch the firing squad in person?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

Are you asking why we shouldn’t let people into the military base to physically watch the firing squad in person?

No, I’m saying we could broadcast it so people could watch it without having to be there in person.

[Babale]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

No, I’m saying we could broadcast it so people could watch it without having to be there in person

…why on Earth would we do that?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Babale

…why on Earth would we do that?

You said that “we shouldn’t stop people from watching the broadcast if they want to.” If you don’t think we should stop people from watching the broadcast if they want to, then I don’t see why we should stop people from watching the execution if they want to.