Killer on death row is denied painless death by Supreme Court

[Shaul]

Because I find the thought of executing an innocent person insufficient justification for any perceived arguable benefits capital punishment may have. Sorry.

But that isn’t the choice. The goal is never to accept innocent people being executed. That is why all reasonable measures are taken to prevent them. But if by focusing solely on those innocently die by execution we ignore the larger number that die due to the lack of the deterrent we make a greater error.

 

[Shaul]

Aren’t you Jewish? Shouldn’t you be opposed to capital punishment?

Why would you think that? It is certainly possible for a Jew to be in favor of a well regulated death penalty.

 

[BSM1]

I don't understand the opposition to a firing squad.
That would be my chosen way to go....instant & reliable.
If they didn't allow skydiving without a parachute.

All kidding aside, if I had committed a crime that warranted the death penalty, then I, too, would want to face my executioners in a firing squad.

I imagine the person being put to death sees a great deal of point to it.

Really? Who cares what that person thinks. They relinquished their rights to an opinion when they took the life of another.

I suppose a confession could have been coerced in this case, however there will usually be time to recant and claim prosecutorial or police misconduct. We definitely need more citizen oversight of the police, attorneys, and judges in this country. Just as with other workers who are under surveillance in this day and age, the same level of supervision is needed in every courthouse and police station in the country - reviewed and controlled by independently elected citizen committees.

No one is ever executed the same day that they are sentenced, it's usually years before that happens. This is more than enough time to recant. And if I'm not mistaken, a death sentence requires an automatic appeal.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is wonderful...so many frubals regarding my execution.
I feel so appreciated!

 

[Revoltingest]

All kidding aside, if I had committed a crime that warranted the death penalty, then I, too, would want to face my executioners in a firing squad.

If we could find another condemned prisoner, maybe we could get a 3-for-the-price-of-2 discount?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I suppose a confession could have been coerced in this case, however there will usually be time to recant and claim prosecutorial or police misconduct. We definitely need more citizen oversight of the police, attorneys, and judges in this country. Just as with other workers who are under surveillance in this day and age, the same level of supervision is needed in every courthouse and police station in the country - reviewed and controlled by independently elected citizen committees.

I'm not suggesting any specific confession was coerced, I'm mentioning the general possibility. And yes, we can argue about time to recant and all, but for every chance to recant, there's a chance to bury evidence, have bad legal representation, face corrupt or incompetent judges or jury. There's just too much room for error that we should use capital punishment. IMHO.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But that is a false dichotomy. Whether there is a state death penalty or not innocent people die.

No false dichotomy at all. A. if the state isn't killing people, any deaths aren't being carried out in my name, and B. Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone gets murdered, that's one innocent life lost. If another innocent person gets executed, for the crime, we're up to two innocent lives lost. Better not to have executed anyone and cut loses at one.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But that isn’t the choice. The goal is never to accept innocent people being executed. That is why all reasonable measures are taken to prevent them. But if by focusing solely on those innocently die by execution we ignore the larger number that die due to the lack of the deterrent we make a greater error.

You have ironclad evidence that the death penalty deters more murderers than the number of people who die from wrongful execution? Frankly, I doubt you do.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you DID have such evidence, I'd still find such number based justification a bit questionable. I'm not sure that executing any number of innocent people is acceptable, even if you absolutely can show that it saves lives. It would be an interesting point to discuss, sure, but I'm not sure such fundamentalist Utilitarianism is a valid philosophy. But let's see your evidence first.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Really? Who cares what that person thinks. They relinquished their rights to an opinion when they took the life of another.

Maybe in your opinion.

 

[BSM1]

You have ironclad evidence that the death penalty deters more murderers than the number of people who die from wrongful execution? Frankly, I doubt you do.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you DID have such evidence, I'd still find such number based justification a bit questionable. I'm not sure that executing any number of innocent people is acceptable, even if you absolutely can show that it saves lives. It would be an interesting point to discuss, sure, but I'm not sure such fundamentalist Utilitarianism is a valid philosophy. But let's see your evidence first.

The death penalty, like any other form of punishment, was never meant to be a deterrent; it was meant to be justice. There is not one law out there that will stop anyone from committing that particular crime. This is why we have well defined guidelines such as if you steal you are going to jail,or if you kill you run the risk of being killed yourself. If laws could deter crime, then we wouldn't need them.

 

[BSM1]

If we could find another condemned prisoner, maybe we could get a 3-for-the-price-of-2 discount?

Maybe in your opinion.

Not having broken any state or federal laws entitles me to an opinion concerning those who have stepped over the line. I can never understand how otherwise liberal thinkers can be so sensitive to the feelings and rights of some lowlife miscreant and never stop to consider the feelings and rights of that animal's victims.

 

[dianaiad]

Why is 100% accuracy required? We don’t require that in other things. Driving certainly isn’t 100% safe and innocent people die. Yet we recognize that there is a trade off of accepting rare innocent deaths to gain the benefits of driving, including saving other lives. If rare innocents are executed in order to reduce murders through deterrence, is that an acceptable trade off? Then there are the innocent military members who were drafted. Some died even though they are innocent. Yet society recognizes that their deaths are a tragic loss that allows society as a whole to survive. Why are you more concerned with the innocent people killed on death row than the innocent soldiers or victims of driving deaths? 100% is the goal, not the required standard.

Ok, we don't require that in other things. However, we SHOULD require that in the death penalty. Consider 'Blackstone's ratio.." that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent should suffer..."

But hey. Blackstone was British. What did the US founding fathers say? Benjamin Franklin stepped it up a notch; better that a hundred guilty persons should go free than that one innocent should suffer.

Well, we can't be 100% sure that every person we convict of murder is actually guilty of it, but we can be sure that we don't ever execute an innocent person.

Which is why I support the death penalty ONLY when the accused as confessed AND there is plenty of forensic/physical evidence to prove guilt AND the accused actually requests death.

Well, that's one reason. The other one is that I think that life without the possibility of parole in a high security prison is nastier than the death penalty.

I mean, really....when one dies, whether one is a theist or not, that's the end of the 'worldly' punishment. It's over. There are some fates over which death is preferable, and I think....that a permanent banishment from human culture (warehoused in prison) would be one of those.

 

[BSM1]

If we could find another condemned prisoner, maybe we could get a 3-for-the-price-of-2 discount?

Maybe there some Scottish in your family tree...

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe there some Scottish in your family tree...

We came down from the trees in the 1800s.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The death penalty, like any other form of punishment, was never meant to be a deterrent; it was meant to be justice. There is not one law out there that will stop anyone from committing that particular crime. This is why we have well defined guidelines such as if you steal you are going to jail,or if you kill you run the risk of being killed yourself. If laws could deter crime, then we wouldn't need them.

Very helpful.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Not having broken any state or federal laws entitles me to an opinion concerning those who have stepped over the line. I can never understand how otherwise liberal thinkers can be so sensitive to the feelings and rights of some lowlife miscreant and never stop to consider the feelings and rights of that animal's victims.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a liberal thinker. I do consider myself a decent human being, however.

 

[pearl]

Frankly, I don't trust our extant justice systems to get it right handing out lesser sentences, either, but at least no one dies in those cases.

Justice Ginsburg would agree.

“People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty,” said Justice Ginsburg. “I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial.”

 

[pearl]

The effects of carrying out a death sentence go far beyond the person whose life has been extinguished. Consider the 'executioner'.
"You sentenced a guy to be executed. You give him a trial, then you send him to me to be put to death. Then later on you [say] that this guy was innocent. You didn’t put him to death. I did. I performed the execution. So you might suffer a little. I’m going to suffer a lot, because I performed the job,"

--Jerry Givens, retired Executioner, Virginia Department of Corrections

http://www.ncadp.org/pages/harm-to-prison-workers

"These officers, they get to know these inmates," he explained.

"Twenty-four hours a day they work with these inmates. They feed them. They take them to get their showers, they take them for exercise. They stand in front of their cells and they talk to them when they feel lonely," McAndrew said.

"The only persons that the inmates know are the officers. Suddenly it's the same officer who's taking them to another room to kill them."

"The experience is something that will stay with you for a long time; I don't think it ever goes away."

Serial executions take toll on executioners too, critics say

 

[oldbadger]

But that is a false dichotomy. Whether there is a state death penalty or not innocent people die. And, yes, the death penalty does work as a deterrent. Your statement that the rest of the world has fewer murders is not factually correct.

No, it isn’t about enjoying the killing of innocents, just the opposite. It is recognizing that ultimately fewer innocent people die with a state death penalty, if done well, than without one.

The death penalty is not a good deterrent.
Once a person has murdered, then they might choose to murder to avoid capture, again and again. You can only get zapped once.

 

[BSM1]

I wouldn't know, I'm not a liberal thinker. I do consider myself a decent human being, however.

As do I.