|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Execution is not cheaper than life in prison, and it's not because of the cost of drugs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/ The unspoken implication is that execution is cheaper if we simply remove access to further appeals for death penalty inmates and account for an increase in lawsuits in your state budget. Handily, that removal of guaranteed appeals and thus guaranteed discovery and guaranteed process will mean that most innocent people executed won't even generate a lawsuit in the first place, thus ensuring your policy is revenue positive.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
captainblastum posted:There's a bit of a difference between 'go free' and 'not be killed.' It's perfectly reasonable to say "I'd rather not execute anybody in order to avoid executing an innocent person" and still be aware of and accept the risk of imprisoning innocent people. That's a nuance rarely brought forth - it isn't the conviction of one innocent person per thousand (or infinity, whatever) but the permanence of killing them, preventing any future resolution if it did turn out they were innocent. I don't know how you square that possibility - can families file suit absent a breach of due process if the decedent is later exonerated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's a nuance rarely brought forth - it isn't the conviction of one innocent person per thousand (or infinity, whatever) but the permanence of killing them, preventing any future resolution if it did turn out they were innocent. I don't know how you square that possibility - can families file suit absent a breach of due process if the decedent is later exonerated? There would have to be a waiver of sovereign immunity for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Law can't be restricted to the sorcery of a select few trained in its arcana. This isn't Warhammer. Is that not the purpose of the bar exam?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The unspoken implication is that execution is cheaper if we simply remove access to further appeals for death penalty inmates and account for an increase in lawsuits in your state budget. Handily, that removal of guaranteed appeals and thus guaranteed discovery and guaranteed process will mean that most innocent people executed won't even generate a lawsuit in the first place, thus ensuring your policy is revenue positive. How come people sentenced to life in prison don't get all these guaranteed things?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What I'm wondering here is how you determined that a lifetime in maximum security is worse than execution that we should value as a better source of information than that of people actually in that situation. When we start valuing the input of our prisoners, let me know. I'd be much happier with a system where prisoners were offered a quick execution (preferably same day) OR life imprisonment (their choice) upon pronouncement of a life sentence - a policy I feel would be less cruel to the innocent and guilty alike. Unfortunately, I think that would get more opposition than a "kill 'em all" approach would get - I suspect it would get a lot of opposition from those who feel it's not cruel enough, ironically. I also suspect a lot of anti-cruelty people would oppose it because they don't value self-determination nearly as much as you think they might.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:When we start valuing the input of our prisoners, let me know. I'd be much happier with a system where prisoners were offered a quick execution (preferably same day) OR life imprisonment (their choice) upon pronouncement of a life sentence. Unfortunately, I think that would get more opposition than a "kill 'em all" approach would get - I suspect it would get a lot of opposition from those who feel it's not cruel enough, ironically. Of course, but what about an answer to my question?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:When we start valuing the input of our prisoners, let me know. I'd be much happier with a system where prisoners were offered a quick execution (preferably same day) OR life imprisonment (their choice) upon pronouncement of a life sentence. Unfortunately, I think that would get more opposition than a "kill 'em all" approach would get - I suspect it would get a lot of opposition from those who feel it's not cruel enough, ironically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ Kennedy's dissent
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:If the law and its underpinnings can't be made clear to people to whom it applies, that's a problem for the legitimacy of the law or, more likely, a flaw in the offered explanation. I agree on the idea of public legal literacy in principle- but we both know it's very different in practice. Besides, this sampling of opinions isn't the people, and they're already fully vested in Warhammer. vvv Philosopher Scientist Bioethicist Communication Theorist King, thank you. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How come people sentenced to life in prison don't get all these guaranteed things? Death Penalty appeals are automatic because we'd really like to kill that person as soon as possible, while people merely in prison for life can file their appeals on their own time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:06
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I agree on the idea of public legal literacy in principle- but we both know it's very different in practice. Besides, this sampling of opinions isn't the people, and they're already fully vested in Warhammer. DV appoints himself philosopher king ITT.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I agree on the idea of public legal literacy in principle- but we both know it's very different in practice. Besides, this sampling of opinions isn't the people, and they're already fully vested in Warhammer. Considering you flunked the bar and all
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Of course, but what about an answer to my question? This one? Sir Kodiak posted:What I'm wondering here is how you determined that a lifetime in maximum security is worse than execution that we should value as a better source of information than that of people actually in that situation. Morality, ethics, reasoning, actually studying of the effect imprisonment has on people, how it ties into the broader beliefs of those individuals. There obviously exists those on both side of the issue, who risk their lives or even commit suicide rather than spend time in prison, or commit suicide once they are in it. I don't think it's as simple as "well obviously THESE people would rather live!", because that question isn't even relevant to cruelty - many people will choose life, no matter how cruel, over death, but it does not mean that life is not crueler than death, merely that people choose torment over oblivion. Are you going to argue that we should always hold the opinions of people on whether there life is worth living sacrosanct? Should we stop trying to convince the suicidal that there is a reason for them to live? There's lots of reasons why that isn't the only source of information we should use (though it is a factor). Would you kill someone intent on keeping you in bondage for all your life, despite your belief that a lifetime of bondage is less cruel than death? Would you say a slave who slays their master is crueler than their master was? Maybe things aren't nearly so black and white as they seem, from your point of view. So here's your answer: By working at it, instead of accepting the easy and the obvious simply because you think you already know the answer. You seem to want to make a question of cruelty a question about self-determination. Jagchosis posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:There would have to be a waiver of sovereign immunity for that. Ah well. That's what I was suspecting, or something like that along the lines of good samaritan laws (The government is carrying out a sentence in honest pursuit of the greater good in accordance with law) - then again, you'd almost invariably run into some form of misconduct beforehand given the appeals process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Would you kill someone intent on keeping you in bondage for all your life, despite your belief that a lifetime of bondage is less cruel than death? Are you really suggesting that it would have been a moral act to go around the Antebellum South killing slaves?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Are you really suggesting that it would have been a moral act to go around the Antebellum South killing slaves? Are you suggesting it wouldn't have been moral to go around the Antebellum South killing the slavers (assuming that actually resulted in the slaves being freed)? But no, to answer your question, I'm not suggesting that at all. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
You should probably give them the opportunity to free the slaves before killing them yeah
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you suggesting it wouldn't have been moral to go around the Antebellum South killing the slavers (assuming that actually resulted in the slaves being freed)? I'm actually unsure whether killing is ever justified, though I don't usually use that in arguments because I appreciate it's outside what's generally acceptable. That said, I think your question is a less analogous situation to the question of life in prison being worse than execution. I'd certainly oppose killing slavers without giving them a choice in precisely the same way I'd oppose killing slaves or prisoners without giving them a choice. So, to ask again, do you actually support doing all three? edit: To be a little less snarky, I'm very nervous about the idea of "mercy killing" a prisoner the way one might a dying pet to save it suffering. It seems profoundly disrespectful and dehumanizing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
rscott posted:You should probably give them the opportunity to free the slaves before killing them yeah Which took how many centuries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
teejayh posted:Which took how many centuries? Four years, 1861 to 1865, once someone actually put them to the question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph: We agree that US prisons are so bad that some people would rather die than take a life sentence. Why is your proposed solution giving them an easier way to kill themselves rather than making the prison system less poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is that not the purpose of the bar exam? No, the bar exam merely answers a threshold question: for a given jurisdiction, are you sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently ethical (with the MPRE) to plaster your face on the sides of buses next to the word ¿ACCIDENTES?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:GlyphGryph: We agree that US prisons are so bad that some people would rather die than take a life sentence. Why is your proposed solution giving them an easier way to kill themselves rather than making the prison system less poo poo? Because personally, I'd rather the opportunity to die on my feet facing the cause of my end than spend the remainder of my life in prison. (Firing squad, for sure). I learned a long time ago that society doesn't give a poo poo about my opinions.  (Also, because I don't see any meaningful reforms ever changing that)**Actually, this isn't strictly true anymore, since I've now got obligations I could at least potentially and partially meet while in prison, which is way more important than my personal preferences. rscott posted:You should probably give them the opportunity to free the slaves before killing them yeah Well, obviously. The context was clearly "or else they would face indefinite servitude or something close to it". Otherwise the accusation wouldn't have made any sense, since I never advocated killing people we were about to let free. Sir Kodiak posted:I'm actually unsure whether killing is ever justified, though I don't usually use that in arguments because I appreciate it's outside what's generally acceptable. That said, I think your question is a less analogous situation to the question of life in prison being worse than execution. But anyway, I've sidetracked this thread more than enough, if someone wants to make a thread about the death penalty or the morals of killing or whatever, we can continue this there, but I think I'm gonna shut up here. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:RBG has the Arizona opinion, 5-4
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:like hello john roberts, this is history speaking, direct election of senators was done before the 17th: One of Robert's clerks must be really dropping the ball on research this session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:One of Robert's clerks must be really dropping the ball on research this session. I don't know if you missed my post but Roberts is actually correct in that "direct election of senators" wasn't actually allowed before the 17th. The states that claim to have "direct election of senators" had referendums that forced the legislature to select the same person as the winner of the popular "election". Robert's point in the whole 17th thing is that the states did this to get around the fact that they interpreted "the legislature" in the constitution as completely separate from "the people." Which was a big part of the issue in this current case
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Nate RFB posted:King vs. Burwell should have never been granted cert when it did (no lower court split); that it got 4 votes for that is why a lot of people were worried. I'm not a lawyer but I thought this was an interesting read: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/29/3674897/roberts-obergefell-dissent-conservatives/ If there's anything to that analysis, maybe Roberts voted to take the case specifically so he could send that message to the conservative legal community.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I don't know if you missed my post but Roberts is actually correct in that "direct election of senators" wasn't actually allowed before the 17th. The states that claim to have "direct election of senators" had referendums that forced the legislature to select the same person as the winner of the popular "election". Yeah, thank you for this - I still think his argument is bad given the history there but it's not as weak as I thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I'm not a lawyer but I thought this was an interesting read: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/29/3674897/roberts-obergefell-dissent-conservatives/ That article is annoying because the same argument applies to liberal causes: stop trying to do through the courts what you can't do through legislatures. But that's not a hidden message, that's Roberts' philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:If there's demand, why isn't it produced here? The EU didn't exactly ban those drugs yesterday. The amount of drugs the US imports is immense because like someone else said, companies don't want to waste manufacturing resources and money with drugs they don't hold a patent on to extort the public. My problem is why are lawyers deciding what kind of drugs are ok to use for murder and not actual medical doctors?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:The amount of drugs the US imports is immense because like someone else said, companies don't want to waste manufacturing resources and money with drugs they don't hold a patent on to extort the public. Actual medical doctors don't want to give an official recommendation for murder drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:The amount of drugs the US imports is immense because like someone else said, companies don't want to waste manufacturing resources and money with drugs they don't hold a patent on to extort the public. Psssst they do it because manufacturing overseas is cheaper (just like every other company.) Also because Indian labs in particular have a lot of experience at improving manufacturing processes (because they could patent that) but minimal experience in new drug research (because they couldn't) so Indian PhDs have historically been focused on manufacturing improvements, leading them to have particularly cost effective manufacturing techniques.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Psssst they do it because manufacturing overseas is cheaper (just like every other company.) I just know it really makes my job miserable in nuclear medicine. There is only one manufacturer in the US for MAA. Last year their was a shortage due to 'manufacturing upgrades' and the drug came back on market $300 more expensive per vial. Another drug with only one US supplier, sincalide, has for the past year been going through multiple shortages resulting in decreased quality of testing for HIDA scans having to go back to what was done 30 years ago by just making patients eat food. And now my supplier's supplier of adenosine just dropped the drug and I gotta wring my hands over any stress tests that get scheduled. I wish I could use it as an opportunity to just switch to regadenoson, but as an exciting sexy new proprietary drug I have no chance of getting corporate to approve it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The unspoken implication is that execution is cheaper if we simply remove access to further appeals for death penalty inmates and account for an increase in lawsuits in your state budget. Handily, that removal of guaranteed appeals and thus guaranteed discovery and guaranteed process will mean that most innocent people executed won't even generate a lawsuit in the first place, thus ensuring your policy is revenue positive. Heck, why stop there? Imagine the legal fees that could be saved by the American taxpayers if we just skipped the whole 'trial by jury' nonsense and skipped straight to the execution!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You don't understand causality then. Where is the causality between the petitioners in Glossip and the other lethal injection drugs not being available? The fact that midazolam is the only drug available is not the fault of the petitioners. Your claims about causality don't follow basic logic. The petitioners should not be held responsible for circumstances they have no control over. The majority opinion in Glossip is incredibly silly. You can tell they wanted to put the kaibosh on these lethal injection drug cases, but the method they used to do it is morally repugnant. The people being executed, if they are concerned their execution will violate the Eighth Amendment, now shoulder the burden of making sure their executioner doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment. In death penalty cases it is the states, via their laws, who have decided they will use death penalty as a form of punishment. The death penalty as a punishment is provided for in the constitution, but nothing in these cases is constitutionally requiring the application of it. The states themselves are choosing to use that form of punishment, and as such, should be held responsible for enacting it in a constitutional way just like it is the states who are responsible for making sure their prisons are operated in a constitutional manner. Putting that kind of burden on the person being executed is incredibly hosed up. People with their head on the chopping block are now being held responsible for the sharpness of the executioner's blade. The majority block in Glossip are all cowards. They are scared shitless that a modern interpretation of the Eighth Amendment makes the application of the death penalty de facto unconstitutional due to ethical issues in the development of new methods of execution. Instead of grappling with that and adjudicating that as an important constitutional issue in their court they have side-stepped it in a way that is incredibly barbaric and imposes an undue burden on death row inmates. Personally, I think something like nitrogen would survive a real constitutional challenge and preserve the option of the death penalty. The majority block in Glossip fears that it wouldn't, though, and so are prematurely attempting to cut off that line of inquiry so they don't have to deal with it. ErIog fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Just use a goddamn pneumatic guillotine and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
I wonder if support for the death penalty would decrease if we did publicly guillotine people. Or maybe it would increase, I don't know, people are weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
The whole supposed point of the death penalty, deterrence, is completely negated by making prisoners wait for over ten years for their executions. The method of execution does not really matter when the (justice) system is clearly not interested in the swift application of the penalty. At that point you might as well get rid of the punishment entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
Florida Betty posted:I wonder if support for the death penalty would decrease if we did publicly guillotine people. Or maybe it would increase, I don't know, people are weird. I think the question is, do you even try to compete in that time slot, or just schedule reruns of Three and a Half Men?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Just use a goddamn pneumatic guillotine and be done with it. We use quasi-medical ways to do it in order to give the death penalty to cover of medical science and pretend it is in some way humane. Physical means would all be quicker and more certainly painless but the spectacle of it would be revolting to people and so we make the prisoner suffer more so we can feel marginally better about ourselves as we kill people for killing people. Civilization! Riso posted:The whole supposed point of the death penalty, deterrence, is completely negated by making prisoners wait for over ten years for their executions. If the danger of death were actually a deterrent there wouldn't really be any crack dealers, so the logic of it died on its feet the moment it was uttered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 11:48
|
|
