Cite?
As far as I understand it, the ruling in Furman v Georgia led to most jurisdictions letting a jury decide, and Ring v Arizonacompletely mandated it in all cases.
I agree. It serves no purpose to keep cold blooded killers alive. And I would be fine with having them beaten to death with a 2x4. No, it won’t bring the victim back. I hate it when people say that one. That’s the dumbest argument anyone can come up with. No shit it won’t bring them back. If a person makes a choice to act like an animal, then society should treat them as such. Men go to prison. Dogs get put down.
And people who advocate beating to death with 2x4s should probably also be restrained as dangerously psychopathic. Most horrific murders are carried out under the influence of drugs, alcohol, mental disorder or massive social mis-learning such dangerous people must be restrained. But people who posts advocating violent deaths in the calm of the day whilst tying on a keyboard are probably more open to moral reproach.
I sympathize with Mike, he’s had a hard life.
That said, he is kind of the poster boy for poor choices and violent behavior.
If you’re talking about his rape case, supposedly even his driver backed up the girls story. He also apparently pissed off the jury with his behavior and responses during the trial.
Granted I wasn’t there, that’s just what I’ve read.
Any answers? Not intending snark, just seeking to have my ignorance fought.
IANAL. I’m especially not a criminal defense lawyer, and the arcana of death penalty litigation can be really confusing to parse, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other day…
I read Ring v. Arizona to mean that, if a state requires that the defendant be found to have additional aggravating factors, in order for the defendant to be eligible for the death penalty, then the jury must find that those factors exist, not the judge. It doesn’t mean that all sentencing decisions, or the decision to sentence the defendant to death or life imprisonment, must come from the jury exclusively.
Evidently, though it’s still the minority, Alabama allows the judge to overrule a jury’s sentence recommendation of life without parole, even if the jury unanimously asked for life. So too, do Delaware and Florida. In those two states, it’s not routine for the judge to do so, but in Alabama, I guess it happens a lot more often. This bothers a few Justices on the Supreme Court, like Sotomayor, but they haven’t been able to get enough Justices to agree that the Court needs to look at that sentencing regime.
Again, IANAL, and I get more confused the more I read about this.
And it happens again. How many such cases will occur before SCOTUS agrees that chemical killing by unknown materials leading to long and drawn out deaths is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
So, just so we’re clear, your only objection to “chemical killing” is the chemicals being used, right? As long as we’re using known chemicals that kill the condemned quickly and painlessly, you have no objection, right?
Because otherwise it would seem like you were just being disingenuous and opportunistic, and exploiting people’s knee jerk reactions to an unfortunate scenario in order to lobby against a legal and justified judicial implement that’s been practiced for thousands of years and which has been legally upheld in the courts time and again.
And I’d hate to accuse you of that.
(PS: The Daily Mail? Why not cite the Weekly World News?)
I will use any argument against Judicial Killing in the same way that I would use any argument against slavery, racism, gender discrimination and other anti-humanitarian abominations.
The continued torture of US prisoners as the people struggle to get their rocks off by killing them is a national embarrassment and need to be seen as such. Eventually SCOTUS will have to act.
I use the Daily Mail as it has the widest coverage of any British paper of all news. It may be a poor piece of the media, but it is comprehensive. But whoever points out the barbarism of judicial killing is unimportant. the morals are important.
So your concern about “unknown chemicals” is feigned and opportunist, then.
They did act - as per your own cite, they declined an appeal and let the execution go forward. The fact that you don’t like the decision they made is irrelevant.
So in other words, you know it’s an unreliable, sensationalist, biased, plagiarizing, propagandizing piece of tabloid trash, but you choose to rely it anyway because the lies they tell are useful to you, and then declare “the morals are important”.
Thanks for making it clear where you stand on the issue of truth, intllectual honesty, land objective news reporting, then.
Come on, there’s nothing wrong with someone saying the death penalty is bad, and the death penalty with chemicals that don’t work worth a damn is even more obviously bad.
As someone who opposes the death penalty, I could say “You might not have felt it was inherently excessively cruel (although I did), but surely given how it’s being implemented you would admit it’s excessively cruel.” There’s nothing disingenuous about that, and it’s only “opportunistic” in the sense that pointing out when evidence supports one’s position is always opportunistic.
It’s not hard to think of horrible things that were practiced for thousands of years and are now banned throughout much of the world.
Nice debating technique; you display ad hominem attacks, begging the question, to quoque and a reverse appeal to authority all in a few paragraphs.
Our dear OP’s entire screed has been based on the premise that the death penalty is bad because of these couple of instances - which, I would again point out, have only happened because of anti-CP advocates making it difficult for states to acquire the established and clean lethal injection cocktails.
I wouldn’t consider it excessively cruel. You want excessively cruel? Here’s excessively cruel;
Why does this piece of subhuman waste deserve any more mercy than he gave his victims? This man’s life is of no value to the state or to the people, and frankly, he deserved to suffer.
This, of course, is not horror. This is justice.
I’m sorry, did you or did you not say that you will advocate against the death penalty by any means necessary and that it doesn’t matter if your cites are of poor quality?
My post did not depend on the Daily Mail other than to confirm the FACT that Arizona had tortured someone to death.
I did not say that I would use any source or cite of poor quality. I said that I would use any argument to convince people that they are in error:
“I will use any argument against Judicial Killing in the same way that I would use any argument against slavery, racism, gender discrimination and other anti-humanitarian abominations.”
Stop putting words in my mouth and respect what I have actually written.
To certain people with a decent moral compass, human life is of value, no matter what the acts performed.
Your statement places you with other groups who devalue individuals by characteristics- racists, sexists, xenophobes, misanthropes and other people who exist to hate.
there is nobility in the worst criminal that is absent from those who inflict death and torture as part of a State response to behaviour.
Many of us have built societies that contain crime without judicial killing; it remains a possibility for the USA when it joins the modern world.
Torture implies intent. Where does your cite say that the state of Arizona intended to cause him to suffer?
Was Stalin’s life of value? Was Pol Pot’s life of value? Was Pinochet’s life of value?
Implying that “convicted multiple murderers” are a protected class on par with women and minorities is just plain ludicrous and says more about your values than it does about mine.
Oh, this is rich. Please, do tell us - what nobility is present in a man who beats and humiliates his girlfriend until she leaves him, and then punishes her for doing so by murdering her father right in front of her eyes and then making her beg for her life before killing her anyway?
I’m absolutely dying to know what grand spark of the divine exists in such a man that is so worthy of exultation.
And there you go again with your smug “Europe rules, USA drools” blather that underlies and undermines your entire argument. You’re not here to complain about the death penalty, you’re here to fling mud at America.
Including false arguments?
“Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the torturer’s control or custody and unable to defend against what is being done to them.” Wikipedia
No mention of intent, only of deliberately causing. The State of Arizona had every reason to believe that its untried method of judicial killing would go wrong considering the recent history of botched executions. Despite that knowledge it went ahead a carried out the experiment deliberately.
That is torture in my book.
I wonder how many such occurrences will cause SCOTUS to decide it is cruel and unusual.