Good point. No disagreement from me.
As I noted elsewhere recently, once it starts turning into people talking past one another, whether deliberately or from stupidity and spleen, my eyes quickly glaze over and I lose the details of what any of the participants are actually trying to assert.
I think this is well-put.
I would argue that slapping the broadcast on top of the execution is cruel and unusual punishment.
No law, it’s constitutional jurisprudence.
Note that the Eighth Amendment proscribes cruel and unusual punishment. Not “or”. Otherwise, any novel form of punishment of any kind would be unconstitutional, and it would completely stifle many needed reforms in our correctional and justice system.
You’d have to make the argument that it’s both cruel and unusual to perform the execution publicly, and while I don’t think that’s a ludicrous argument I also don’t think it’s an obvious one.
Well, he DID say he was a Libertarian.
Nothing in there about the right to a private execution, as far as I can see. Have any courts ruled directly on the subject?
Why would courts rule on something that has never been tried before? Do you understand how our adversarial legal system functions?
For sure.
Probably the only discernible effect would be increased popcorn sales.
I fully understand. I am pointing out that, at this point, there is nothing illegal about public executions…your link that never mentions the subject directly notwithstanding.
What’s interesting is that I was curious, what laws are there in regards to who is allowed to witness an execution? Because traditionally, there is a closed room and a small number of people permitted to view it. I found an article from Reuters that discusses the legality of this broadcast:
Explainer: Is it legal for the US to livestream the Fort Hood shooter’s execution?
The main takeaway I got from that is that there is a narrow legal loophole they are exploiting to do this. Basically, because this is an execution being carried about by the military, and is the result of a court-martial rather than a criminal court trial, most laws that restrict who can view the execution are not in force. That’s what allows them to do this.
It also notes that the UN is strongly condemning this, not that Trump gives a shit.
You clearly don’t, because you go on to say:
This is what allows them to ignore specific statues that say you can or cannot do things related to executions. But it doesn’t allow them to ignore the constitution. I expect that Hasan’s legal team will sue to stop the broadcast of the execution, and that they will win their case.
I don’t necessarily disagree… I’m mostly noting that the idea that we have a “right to privacy” in this instance needs some deeper explanation to be understood, and that the observation that we retain one specific legal protection even after being sentenced to death (it’s still illegal to kill someone sentenced to death if you are not carrying out the sanctioned killing) does not serve as a useful argument that a person’s right to privacy is being violated if their killing is broadcast.
Let me also be clear: just because I’m questioning the argument that a victim of state-enacted killing has right to privacy that prevents broadcasting or recording the killing does not in any way mean I am condoning or supporting either the execution or any viewing/broadcasting thereof.
I hope so. My gut says this is wrong even if I don’t have the legal knowledge to credibly argue it. But that’s what lawyers are for.
There is regulation in force that restricts witnesses. Since this is an Army execution, that’s Army Regulation 190-55 US Army Corrections System: Procedures for Military Executions.
This is Section 2-5 “Witnesses”:
Acronym soup:
Anyway, what that boils down to is that it’s similar to a stereotypical civilian death row and execution setup: the participants are representatives of the prison system and the government that controls it, the condemned and their lawyer, the condemned’s family, victim or victim family, media representatives as vetted by the public affairs organ. A spiritual advisor, but a chaplain (assigned by the bureaucracy) is involved before then.
Two hooks in there argue against any kind of broadcast, even if it’s not explicitly permitted or forbidden: “No person under the age of 18 shall witness the execution.” and “The Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks will approve the list of witness (less news media witnesses).”
There’s absolutely no way to prevent under-18 witnesses in an anonymous internet stream event, and likewise the witness list is literally impossible to make.
Of course, Kegbreath’s Uno Reverse card is the fact that he can order officers to disobey regulations because the sole authority to punish that disobedience eventually comes to him. This is the age of gratuitous illegal orders. So not much of that detailed analysis is worth much (other than an insight into how the bureaucracy is supposed to function).
Who is authorized to make changes in Army regulations, especially that one?
Given what just occurred with the trees on those golf courses around Washington, I bet the white house’s response to any such court ruling would be to move the execution up to “right now” and stream the video.
Thereby showing, not telling, the judge exactly what they think of his puny efforts to obstruct Dear Leader’s whims.
Okay, see, I’d been seeing that particular requirement showing up in state and federal laws regarding executions, and I thought that the military might not have such a law (as I wasn’t seeing reference to it anywhere). But now that you’ve pointed out that there is such a provision, this seems totally and unambiguously illegal.
Is porn streamed? Can <18yos (legally) watch it?
I don’t think that provision is remotely the (literal) showstopper you hope it is.