It helps- SCOTUS is more likely to find that electrocuting people is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The first state that actually tries it will find itself tied up in lawsuits about its constitutionality in a changing world. Also as fewer states actually kill their felons, it becomes less usual and hence more likely that SCOTUS will find against it.
I’d hope so, but it was done as recently as last year, and the state that did it wasn’t tied up in lawsuits.
ETA: But now that I think of it, the most recent inmates all chose the electric chair. I don’t know how long it’s been since someone was electrocuted without choosing that over lethal injection.
Exactly. It is the same with using guns- no-one has been forced to be shot yet- people have chosen it.
At some point SCOTUS will put in a moratorium as it did in the seventies. Those conservative Justices have been just too damned healthy the last six years!
SCOTUS’ previous moratorium on the death penalty was tied to the disparate nature of sentencing, not concerns about whether the death penalty was cruel and unusual.
But it has been asked over the years to pronounce on that clause.
Is this a Thomas Edison moment in the death penalty debate?
It is of interest that the introduction of the Electric Chair (a strangely American Torture) was part of a Public Relations scam by Thomas Edison to increase his stature and to call into question the advances of his rivals using AC rather than DC current.
The irony here is that the only racist comments so far in this thread have been yours.
It is an extremely self-absorbed position that the death penalty has anything to do with race. Admittedly it may have much to do with poverty and tie in that way, but you make it sound like there is some kind of white conspiracy here.
We live in a country where people of African descent exist in all major roles of our society. If one black person can become a head of state then so can others, so stop looking for external excuses of why there is a disparity in percentages.
Don’t forget that it was “predominately” white people who ended the evil that was slavery in this country, something that still exists in other parts of the world, btw.
They still justify murder of homosexuals in Africa, I wouldn’t recommend moving there if that’s what you meant by “repatriation”.
The topic of judicial killing is an interesting one for me, and I for one would appreciate it if you opinion was based on more than just the color of someone’s skin.
Like Bob Marley said, the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes…
You keep thinking that. You also keep thinking Mr. Marley is somehow the paragon of the civil rights movement. Such thinking probably allows you to sleep better at night. Alot cheaper than Xanax or Klonopin, that’s for sure. Don’t forget to keep frantically clicking the heels of those ruby slippers together until sparks begin to fly. Remember: only you can prevent forest fires.
- Honesty
Keep thinking what exactly?
It is disturbing to me that this discussion is about a monster of a human being, someone who has no chance of “rehabilitation”, someone who has no concern for human life and ENJOYED what he did, and would do it again given the chance.
What do you focus on? The color of his skin and the color of the skin of those involved in the process of bringing him to justice. What is the point of that? That he didn’t get a fair trial or some other implication?
My feelings on the issue are independant of his skin color.
Since Mr. Marley is insufficent, shall we look at something in a very famous speech made by someone very involved in civil rights?
…
"But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.
…
If you want to be concerned about slavery and injustice, become involved in modern day sex and child trafficking, and modern day slavery. All of which are very prevalent in modern day Africa.
You see, ironically, evil has no racial bias.
Most of Honesty’s posts are crazy, but the death penalty in the United States is absolutely a race issue. You may be colorblind, but the sad fact is that juries are not.
Doesn’t the judge set the sentence? I am asking, not asserting.
There is such a thing as institutional racism where no single person in an organisation may be racially prejudiced, but the net effect of the rules ensures thatbthe organisation is. An example is the different criminal approaches to Powder Cocaine and Crack Cocaine. No one has to plan to send an underclass of black ghetto inhabitants to jail and allow white business men to go free, but the net effect is still racism.
Judges, mostly, though it depends by state. In some states judges can only impose death sentences if the jury allows it. In all jurisdictions, juries have to find the ultimate facts that allow imposition of the death penalty, and they’re not stupid. In many jurisdictions juries are instructed not to consider the potential sentence that may be imposed, and I often suspect this instruction has the opposite effect.
Yes you can look at that as racism, but honestly I think it has far more to do with money.
Rich people can buy their way out of jail, that’s no so much racist as it is classist, which I did mention earlier.
I mean, OJ was guilty as hell, but the glove didn’t fit so they had to acquit.
Tiger woods could have run over his wife, backed over her, took a picture of him doing it, and still been let go.
Most death penalty studies control for the defendant’s choice of counsel (private or public defender.)
I should add that the decision to seek the death penalty always lies with the prosecutors, who may have their own conscious or subconscious prejudices.
No.
First of all, the prosecutor must actively seek the death penalty. There is a substantial difference between procedures in capital cases vs non-capital.
In a capital case, there are two phases. Starti8ng with the guilt phase, the prosecutor must prove the accused guilty of the crime. If a guilty verdict is returned, they then move on to the penalty phase, where the prosecutor argues for the death penalty. It is the jury who decide whether to sentence to death or not. The judge cannot impose a death sentence without the jury telling him to do so.
This is true in all States.
Mike Tyson would beg to differ.
Then it seems to me that the problem is we aren’t executing enough people.
It’s not true in the majority of states. Delaware or Florida, to name but two.