Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Kehveli posted:

I wouldn't be that surprised if the actual amount of innocent people executed was much higher than estimated.

It definitely is. The fact that we still have it on the books is one of the things that makes me very viscerally ashamed to be an American.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2017 00:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:50

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

DoggPickle posted:

I think 80% of them would choose death over lifetime imprisonment. Can we ask them? Has there ever been a poll?

It's almost like we should simultaneously eliminate the death penalty and enact sweeping prison reform of a system built on slavery.

🤔

# ¿ Feb 27, 2017 22:09

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

DoggPickle posted:

Yes. Absolutely . They forfeited their human rights when they hurt someone else.

That's not how human rights work.

Like, are you aware of the existence of war crimes tribunals?

Also, if anybody who hurts anybody ever should be put to death, are we gonna start putting executioners outside of small claims court? Are we gonna start executing people for misdemeanor assault? Are we gonna execute children?

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 00:30

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

DoggPickle posted:

This is basically the dumbest argument that I've ever read. When people are mean or evil to other people, when they're scary or violent. it's quite obvious, even though it may be difficult to put down in words.

I don't believe that any "Drug" crimes are real crimes. I think that violent people are OBVIOUSLY violent lovely people and they should be the only ones in jail.

But absolutely any person who hits another person is a crazy rear end in a top hat and they need some jail.

Emphasizing the punitive nature of the criminal justice system over the rehabilitative nature merely backs some long hundreds of years of an institution built on slavery.

Is all evil necessarily violence and is all violence necessarily evil? Were the architects of the CDO recession necessarily violent in the manner in which they conducted their crimes, and was the way they caused harm amplified over an entire populace more or less impactful than one murder?

Also, what's your stance on punching nazis and do you think that all mentally ill people are predisposed to violence? Certainly if violence is only done by "crazy assholes," then are people who commit violence not therefore criminally responsible for their actions and should be remanded into a psychiatric hospital rather than into jail? Do you believe in the execution of the mentally ill, and would you support overturning precedent for diminished capacity arguments?

Is somebody who has made their money on the back of selling cocaine, like a drug lord, similar to some poor kid who's arrested for possession, and is there room for nuance in the term "drug crimes?"

Is violence never a cold and calculated move?

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 01:00

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases.

In those cases surely the guilty should be executed.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty, is there?

So, in no cases should anybody be executed, sounds good to me.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 05:04

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

twodot posted:

This is really not persuasive to me. I don't think we should have a death penalty, but it can't be because capital-t Truth doesn't exist. Innocent people die in prison (for reasons unrelated to capital punishment), we can't ever be sure any sort of penalty won't effectively be a death sentence, and we can't be sure anyone receiving a penalty is guilty of the crime they've been convicted of. If the standard you're pushing requires absolute certainty then I don't see how society can function.

I have asked many questions unanswered ITT and outlined many reasons why I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I highly recommend you read the post I responded to which stated:

hakimashou posted:

You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases.

In those cases surely the guilty should be executed.

That is a statement of absolute certainty which renders itself both useless and specious. Hence, my response.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 05:34

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

twodot posted:

If absolute certainty did exist would that change your opinion?

No, but that's because I think the death penalty fails in two key ways: one, I think the state should not have the right to execute-and that's a personal moral thing-and, two, capital punishment served absolutely no efficacious purpose in the criminal justice system. It has been repeatedly proven that it serves, if anything, as the opposite of a deterrence to murder.

Moreover, achieving absolute certainty would require such a huge change to the fundamental ways in which we investigate and prosecute crimes in this country, such that I feel like commenting on such a hypothetical, nonexistent criminal justice system serves no purpose when discussing the reality of how the death penalty is carried out today.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 05:41

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

twodot posted:

Then why the tuck are you bothering to argue about absolute certainty in the death penalty thread if you can win the argument even in the presence of absolute certainty?

If you would again read the original post to which I was responding:

hakimashou posted:

You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases.

In those cases surely the guilty should be executed.

This is how it came up. I'm not sure you saw it in the previous post? But that's what I had responded to. This is the context in which absolute certainty had come up? Did you miss that?

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 05:45

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

twodot posted:

Is this post literally just acknowledging you're attempting to score points on technical details rather than present a unified framework that could convince people who disagree with you?

This is a post acknowledging that on forums we typically respond to other posts and do not post in a vacuum? I don't get what your problem is, but all I did was respond to hakimashou pointing out how stupid the idea of absolute certainty of guilt is, and I feel like you're misreading the exchange entirely. I don't quite think you understand what happened but hakimashou posted:

hakimashou posted:

You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases.

In those cases surely the guilty should be executed.

To which I responded:

stone cold posted:

There is no such thing as absolute certainty, is there?

So, in no cases should anybody be executed, sounds good to me.

I hope this matter is clarified, as I think your missing of the point must be rather tedious for others to read! On the other hand, I certainly hope that any ambiguities were cleared up.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 05:57

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

twodot posted:

I suppose my problem is that you didn't point out how the stupid the idea of absolute certainty of guilt is. They asserted it existed, you asserted it doesn't, neither of you bothered to define their terms or make an effort to show they were right or the other person was wrong. If you're attempting to convince people that think absolute certainty does, sometimes, exist, you are doing a complete poo poo job at it. In this particular case, it turns out you're right, but I have no clue why you would think someone who disagreed with you could read your post and be convinced you're right.

In my derision, I'm fairly certain my dismissal of absolute guilt as a notion was dismissing it as stupid. Hope this helps, and hope you had the matter clarified via the context clues!

e: Also, I should certainly hope based on the op of this thread that terms like guilt and death penalty were clearly defined in the context of this thread, or is reading ops not a thing now? :kiddo:

:kiddo:

stone cold fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Feb 28, 2017

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 06:07

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

WillyTheNewGuy posted:

You have to use ridiculous hyperbole and sick burns, otherwise how will we know what your position is?

Oh no! Absolute certainty is as rank as Hitler and the posting was bad?

_{did i do it right?!}

:kiddo:

:kiddo:

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 06:12

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Gazpacho posted:

Many years ago I came across an article in a leftist publication about a death row prisoner whose case had failed appeal. After reading the article, I looked up his appeals ruling. The summary of the prior case history was as follows: This guy escaped from prison and holed up in a house next to a family. The next day the whole family had been killed (with an axe, I think) and there were biological traces of the fugitive all over the crime scene. There was more evidence besides that, but that's what I remember.

This, of course, is not how the article started out. It started out, "so-and-so, an innocent man on death row."

This sort of thing is drat tiresome to see again and again from the leftist anti-DP set. A guy goes rampaging, gets convicted on evidence six ways from Sunday, and the National Lawyers Guild will still say the bastard's pure as the driven snow.

And all of you all who are anti-DP because "killing is always wrong," just wait'll you hear what libertarians have to say about taxes.

I'd actually be more interested in reading the article than your take on the case, to be quite honest, because I think you come in with a rather huge bias.

Ah yes, the opposition to state sanctioned murder is exactly the same as the libertarian lust to destroy the government and dodge tax. You're quite clever, aren't you?

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 10:09

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

bitterandtwisted posted:

Having no death penalty is just as unfeasible as having no taxes. I mean can you name a country with no death penalty? Didn't think so.

:catstare:

What's wrong with you, you dumbass?

quote:

140 countries worldwide, more than two-thirds, are abolitionist in law or practice.

In 2015, four countries � Fiji, Madagascar, the Republic of Congo and Suriname � abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In total, 102 countries have done so � a majority of the world�s states. In 2015, Mongolia also passed a new criminal code abolishing the death penalty which will come into effect later in 2016.

If you don't know loving any facts, you should get the gently caress out.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 19:02

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

e: I made a real bad oopsie, gazpacho bad, bitterandtwisted ok

stone cold fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 28, 2017

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 19:33

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

bitterandtwisted posted:

Are you drunk or just daft?
My own country has no death penalty. I was mocking that post you just quoted.

Oh dang bitterandtwisted, I am just "daft," it would seem, because I genuinely mixed you up with this gazpacho idiot. Haha, that's my bad, and sorry.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 19:54

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

Consider:

Closed circuit television recordings show John enter George's office building. They show him get into an elevator and go up to the floor where George's office is. Recordings which show his face show him walk into George's office and confront him, then shoot him to death. George is seen to say "John! No! Please don't kill me! I have a family!"

Recordings show John leave and get into his car, traffic cameras show his car drive to an alley, and surveillance footage shows him put a bundle into a dumpster. The bundle is later found to contain clothing with George's blood on it, and the gun used to shoot George, which records indicate John purchased a couple days before. His fingerprints are on the gun and on the rounds and shell casings inside.

There is no evidence that the surveillance footage from any of the unconnected sources has been tampered with.

John's wife tells investigators that she had an affair with George and that John swore he would hunt George down and kill him in retribution.

When confronted with the evidence, John admits shooting George.

Are we sure enough that John is guilty of murder that we can punish him for his crime?

First off, who's verified that the footage is untampered with, besides law enforcement?

Secondly, since this was a crime of passion, has John showed any remorse?

Thirdly, do closet circuit surveillance cameras have sound now, that's kind of neat if so.

Punish him for the crime if he's shown remorse and this was a crime of passion with 40 to life with possibility of parole, imo.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 02:25

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Gazpacho posted:

Actually I'm kinda good. The US penal system, OTOH, is so screwed up that I'm not sure capital punishment is even the worst thing about it. If it's wrong, it is a final wrong and not a grinding one.

I didn't find that article. Best I remember, I found it by way of one of the more prominent Leninst groups.

Absolutely, I mean this is a system built entirely on the back of slavery, just as modern law enforcement is. But this is the capital punishment thread so :shrug:

:shrug:

S'ok, I'm sure it'll turn up one way or another :3:

:3:

# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 02:27

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

I'm not entirely convinced it is better for an innocent person to be condemned to life imprisonment in some hell than to be put out of his misery.

Perhaps we can eliminate the death penalty and also reform the criminal justice system, food for thought. We can solve more than one problem at once. And putting an innocent person "out of their misery," is absolutely repugnant as a concept, and you should feel some real shame for using that as a warped justification to take your twisted moral high ground.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 02:28

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Ytlaya posted:

It is not a serious compromise, I was just trying to find some sort of excuse to effectively ban the death penalty within the confines of hakimashou's argument.

Hakimashou believes in a world where cops aren't pigs and where absolute guilt is a certainty, there's no point in arguing with them beyond a problem pithy dismissal because they see the world in black and white terms.

Gazpacho posted:

And so it does (or at least an article about the same case, that starts out like the one I read before):
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/new_abolitionist/march-2013-issue-58/kevin-cooper-innocent-californias-death-row

It would serve no purpose to have people pick the case apart here -- that's for the courts -- but if you already knew about it I might be interested in your take.

Ooh, I did hear about this and I think he absolutely should have gotten a hearing by the ninth circuit because I simply think there are too many doubts about police tampering and destruction of evidence, not to mention the (white) suspect that was tossed aside to arrest a black man and the poor quality of defense counsel he had received.

It's a stellar example of how, even when you might think he's guilty and deserve the death penalty, due process was not really carried out, and it's kind of hosed up that he's sitting on death row.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 18:56

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

It isn't murder to execute someone who is guilty of murder.

Why?

How does this distinction work?

Moreover, if you're doing it with revenge in mind, does that not count as malice?

How is murder not murder? You're gonna need to substantiate that assumption some more before you lay down what you think are absolutes.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 05:12

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

got any sevens posted:

Can a prisoner ask for the death penalty? And if so can they ask for a firing squad or guillotine? I'd rather do that than rot in jail for 50 years or w/e.

How about don't kill anybody, do you think you could restrain yourself from killing another living human being?

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 05:17

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

Did you hallucinate about me typing something suggesting it was universal, or that the US justice system was good?

This entire thread you've been talking in absolutes, so this is some major :irony:

:irony:

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 05:20

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

falcon2424 posted:

In standard English, 'homicide' is any killing of a person. 'Murder' is an unlawful killing.

Executions, being lawful, are homicides. But they're not murder.

The only way you get 'executions are murder' is if you're being a bit poetic and denying the legitimacy of the US legal system. But, an illegitimate court's fines are theft. And its warrants amount to kidnapping. So, that argument doesn't lead to "end the death penalty" so much as, "end this court's ability to impose any and all sentences".

I see that you too are having a bit of trouble reading and understanding context but the post of hakimashou to which I was responding explicitly refers to murder here:

hakimashou posted:

It isn't murder to execute someone who is guilty of murder.

We are better than a murderer, much better in fact, since we are giving someone their just desserts, instead of wrongfully depriving them of their life.

Doing a good thing instead of a bad thing.

I recommend you meditate a bit more on the importance of context clues and of lurking more before you breathlessly trip over yourself to claim that state sponsored murder via execution is legitimate.

Moreover, your definition of murder does not encompass the necessary malice of forethought, unless you're going to begin asserting that manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter are now murder. Or were you planning on tossing shades of culpability and the idea of diminished capacity out of the window, and overturning a rather rich precedent?

And simply because you assert state sanctioned homicide is currently lawful in some US states by the way, not even the majority of world jurisprudence, does not mean it should be legal or indeed is legal for all of the US.

Ytlaya posted:

Impossible, the criminals must be executed in order to control my insatiable bloodlust.

I mean the way some people are posting, it seems as those they don't view criminals as people, which is hosed up enough on its face, and then you consider the heavy race bias in a system built on slavery, and it just makes you :yikes:

:yikes:

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 06:47

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

got any sevens posted:

Dude it was a hypothetical. I'm against the death penalty in general but it'd be nice if it was possible as a voluntary thing. What if you went crazy or w/e and got a 50+ year sentence for it? Would you really want to be caged up for the rest of your life? Sounds like torture to me.

First off, please do not call me a dude. Secondly, as has been explicated upon now multiple times in this thread, there are both the concepts legally of diminished capacity and of one being not responsible for criminal conduct taking place when that person, due to mental disease or defect, does not have the capacity to either conform said criminal conduct to the standards of the law or to understand the criminality of their conduct.

In other words, if you "went crazy," you oughta get psychiatric treatment, not a fifty year prison sentence.

Also, a thought occurs: perhaps we should also reform the penal system, literally built to keep slavery alive, into a more rehabilitative system that doesn't completely suck, rather than tossing our hands up and going "lol prison fukken sux ey prisonboiis u should kill yourselves kekekekekeke"

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 20:57

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

And in cases where a perpetrator is indeed guilty of murder, it is not morally wrong to execute him for it.

You keep asserting this and using cute analogies to back it up, but you're taking a huge leap by making this assumption and you never explicate on this.

Can you outline your morality and philosophy on why you think it is moral for the state to execute, particularly when the majority do not?

Can you give us the road that led you to that absolute thought?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2017 06:45

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

My only response is that the US should probably get rid of the death penalty, but not because it is morally wrong to execute murderers.

Why do you think it isn't?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2017 10:46

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

rudatron posted:

No, but not every country that has abolished it actually has the majority of the population favoring that abolition. A majority of the UK still favor it, but they're hasn't been a death sentence there for 50 years. Now doesn't that say something?

That's one out of a hundred plus, can you cite your claim and cite public opinion for all the other states that have abolished it, tia?

Also, are we really getting to the point where you're going to argue that because something is popular means it should happen?

In 1964, 73% of Americans thought "blacks should stop their demonstrations now that they have made their point even though some of their demands have not been met." In 1942, a 46% plurality of Americans thought it would be a good idea to merge the U.S. and Canada to form one country. In 1992, 55% of Americans said they would support sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In February of '01 prior to the September 11 52% of Americans favored an invasion of Iraq and 64% said that the U.S. should have removed Saddam at the end of the Gulf War. Post-9/11, 60% supported, if necessary, the use of military action to remove Saddam from power.

Just because things are the most popular doesn't make them good, friend.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 08:54

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

rudatron posted:

That's the basis of a democratic society. If that's troubling, don't worry - undemocratic societies have a much worse record on oppression. At some point you have to trust in the ability of ordinary people to make the right decision, eventually.

I notice you have no data on the other one hundred plus countries for public opinion on the death penalty, but I'm glad you assume that the UK speaks for most of the world, that's fantastic and not a stellar example of intellectual disingenuousness and cowardice.

Make America Canada again??

Also, dumbass this is why you build in protections to prevent domination of the minority through the tyranny of the majority. You're pretending like all legislation in this country is passed through referendum by the people, you total loving dumbass, so I recommend you pick up a civics textbook.

Speaking of tyranny by the majority, are you gonna pretend there's no such thing as the bill of rights in the US now? Are you gonna pretend the eighth amendment doesn't exist because you don't think it's "popular?" Are you gonna ignore the extremely ginormous race bias in the justice system and in the penal system (literally built to keep slavery alive in the US) and keep on executing?

Idiot.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 18:52

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

wateroverfire posted:

The courts haven't held the 8th ammendment to prohibit capital punishment.

lol guess we're pretending that even though furman v georgia was overturned it didn't happen it's not like gregg v georgia put strict limits or anything you moron

Color me shocked that an idiot doesn't understand the nuance in which the 8th amendment is applied in determining when precisely juries can use it and how it's carried out and gee I wonder if this rich history will eventually lead to its abolishment 🤔It certainly isn't like capital punishment was eliminated for ten years or anything in the US, nope that didn't happen 🤔

wateroverfire posted:

Don't sign your posts.

Keep on trucking whiningoverfire.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 19:14

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

wateroverfire posted:

Right...executions in the US are being carried out following guidelines consistent with the 8th. You moron.

.....did I stutter, or did you just repeat what I said?

but also you're the moron because you asserted that the eighth amendment was never used to overturn capital punishment so lol at you, moron

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 19:23

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

wateroverfire posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

Hmm.

edit:

I guess to be clear... the death penalty is being applied consistent with the 8th ammendment. Therefore, what the gently caress is your point in bringing up the 8th ammendment?

Thanks for the Wikipedia link my dog, now do yourself a favor and look up Furman v. Georgia, which I've brought up three times now.

What's it like being totally intellectually incurious?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 19:38

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

wateroverfire posted:

I've looked up Furman v. George but again, what is your point other than being outraged and tedious?

Oh gee I dunno maybe because it was a SCOTUS case that deemed the death penalty unconstitutional on both eighth and fourteenth amendment grounds.

Nope, that's clearly irrelevant. You're not the one, with your lack of basic reading comprehension, who is being tedious.

Also, jfc, given that the penal system was built to keep slavery alive and is incredibly loving gross and broken you should be outraged.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 20:13

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Patrick Spens posted:

No it didn't. The court found that the current practice of the death penalty violated the 8th because it was too arbitrary. Which is why, when Georgia and several other states came up with policies for the death penalty that didn't violate the 8th, SCOTUS approved them 4 years later.

quote:

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.

In these three cases the death penalty was imposed, one of them for murder, and two for rape. In each, the determination of whether the penalty should be death or a lighter punishment was left by the State to the discretion of the judge or of the jury. In each of the three cases, the trial was to a jury. They are here on petitions for certiorari which we granted limited to the question whether the imposition and execution of the death penalty constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth. I vote to vacate each judgment, believing that the exaction of the death penalty does violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

the arbitrary nature comes up here in Brennan's opinion:

quote:

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring.

The question presented in these cases is whether death is today a punishment for crime that is "cruel and unusual" and consequently, by virtue of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, beyond the power of the State to inflict....
There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is "cruel and unusual." The primary principle, which I believe supplies the essential predicate for the application of the others, is that a punishment must not, by its severity, be degrading to human dignity. The paradigm violation of this principle would be the infliction of a torturous punishment of the type that the Clause has always prohibited. Yet "[i]t is unlikely that any State at this moment in history," Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. at 370 U. S. 666, would pass a law providing for the infliction of such a punishment. Indeed, no such punishment has ever been before this Court. The same may be said of the other principles. It is unlikely that this Court will confront a severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion; no State would engage in a reign of blind terror. Nor is it likely that this Court will be called upon to review a severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society; no legislature would be able even to authorize the infliction of such a punishment. Nor, finally, is it likely that this Court will have to consider a severe punishment that is patently unnecessary; no State today would inflict a severe punishment knowing that there was no reason whatever for doing so. In short, we are unlikely to have occasion to determine that a punishment is fatally offensive under any one principle....

The question, then, is whether the deliberate infliction of death is today consistent with the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict punishments that do not comport with human dignity. I will analyze the punishment of death in terms of the principles set out above and the cumulative test to which they lead: it is a denial of human dignity for the State arbitrarily to subject a person to an unusually severe punishment that society has indicated it does not regard as acceptable, and that cannot be shown to serve any penal purpose more effectively than a significantly less drastic punishment. Under these principles and this test, death is today a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Death is a unique punishment in the United States. In a society that so strongly affirms the sanctity of life, not surprisingly, the common view is that death is the ultimate sanction. This natural human feeling appears all about us. There has been no national debate about punishment, in general or by imprisonment comparable to the debate about the punishment of death. No other punishment has been so continuously restricted, see infra at 408 U. S. 296-298, nor has any State yet abolished prisons, as some have abolished this punishment. And those States that still inflict death reserve it for the most heinous crimes. Juries, of course, have always treated death cases differently, as have governors exercising their commutation powers. Criminal defendants are of the same view...

When a country of over 200 million people inflicts an unusually severe punishment no more than 50 times a year, the inference is strong that the punishment is not being regularly and fairly applied. To dispel it would indeed require a clear showing of nonarbitrary infliction.

Although there are no exact figures available, we know that thousands of murders and rapes are committed annually in States where death is an authorized punishment for those crimes. However the rate of infliction is characterized -- as "freakishly" or "spectacularly" rare, or simply as rare -- it would take the purest sophistry to deny that death is inflicted in only a minute fraction of these cases. How much rarer, after all, could the infliction of death be?

When the punishment of death is inflicted in a trivial number of the cases in which it is legally available, the conclusion is virtually inescapable that it is being inflicted arbitrarily. Indeed, it smacks of little more than a lottery system. The States claim, however, that this rarity is evidence not of arbitrariness, but of informed selectivity: death is inflicted, they say, only in "extreme" cases.

also, to a lesser extent, here:

quote:

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree, but in kind. It is unique in its total irrevocability. It is unique in its rejection of rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity.

For these and other reasons, at least two of my Brothers have concluded that the infliction of the death penalty is constitutionally impermissible in all circumstances under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their case is a strong one. But I find it unnecessary to reach the ultimate question they would decide. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 297 U. S. 347 (Brandeis, J., concurring).

The opinions of other Justices today have set out in admirable and thorough detail the origins and judicial history of the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments, [Footnote 3/1] and the origin and judicial history of capital punishment...

Instead, the death sentences now before us are the product of a legal system that brings them, I believe, within the very core of the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments, a guarantee applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660. In the first place, it is clear that these sentences are "cruel" in the sense that they excessively go beyond, not in degree but in kind, the punishments that the state legislatures have determined to be necessary. Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349. In the second place, it is equally clear that these sentences are "unusual" in the sense that the penalty of death is infrequently imposed for murder, and that its imposition for rape is extraordinarily rare. [Footnote 3/10] But I do not rest my conclusion upon these two propositions alone.

These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, [Footnote 3/11] many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed. [Footnote 3/12] My concurring Brothers have demonstrated that, if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to die, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race. [Footnote 3/13] See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184. But racial discrimination has not been proved, [Footnote 3/14] and I put it to one side. I simply conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed.

For these reasons I concur in the judgments of the Court.

justice white was very interested in keeping the scope narrow and did not want to comment on the death penalty as a whole, here:

quote:

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring.

The facial constitutionality of statutes requiring the imposition of the death penalty for first-degree murder, for more narrowly defined categories of murder, or for rape would present quite different issues under the Eighth Amendment than are posed by the cases before us. In joining the Court's judgments, therefore, I do not at all intimate that the death penalty is unconstitutional per se or that there is no system of capital punishment that would comport with the Eighth Amendment. That question, ably argued by several of my Brethren, is not presented by these cases and need not be decided.

The narrower question to which I address myself concerns the constitutionality of capital punishment statutes under which (1) the legislature authorizes the imposition of the death penalty for murder or rape; (2) the legislature does not itself mandate the penalty in any particular class or kind of case (that is, legislative will is not frustrated if the penalty is never imposed), but delegates to judges or juries the decisions as to those cases, if any, in which the penalty will be utilized; and (3) judges and juries have ordered the death penalty with such infrequency that the odds are now very much against imposition and execution of the penalty with respect to any convicted murderer or rapist. It is in this context that we must consider whether the execution of these petitioners would violate the Eighth Amendment...

The imposition and execution of the death penalty are obviously cruel in the dictionary sense. But the penalty has not been considered cruel and unusual punishment in the constitutional sense because it was thought justified by the social ends it was deemed to serve. At the moment that it ceases realistically to further these purposes, however, the emerging question is whether its imposition in such circumstances would violate the Eighth Amendment. It is my view that it would, for its imposition would then be the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State would be patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment...

In this respect, I add only that past and present legislative judgment with respect to the death penalty loses much of its force when viewed in light of the recurring practice of delegating sentencing authority to the jury and the fact that a jury, in its own discretion and without violating its trust or any statutory policy, may refuse to impose the death penalty no matter what the circumstances of the crime. Legislative "policy" is thus necessarily defined not by what is legislatively authorized, but by what juries and judges do in exercising the discretion so regularly conferred upon them. In my judgment, what was done in these cases violated the Eighth Amendment.

the sixth amendment also comes up briefly here in justice marshall's opinion:

quote:

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring.

These three cases present the question whether the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [Footnote 4/1]...

The criminal acts with which we are confronted are ugly, vicious, reprehensible acts. Their sheer brutality cannot and should not be minimized. But we are not called upon to condone the penalized conduct; we are asked only to examine the penalty imposed on each of the petitioners and to determine whether or not it violates the Eighth Amendment. The question then is not whether we condone rape or murder, for surely we do not; it is whether capital punishment is "a punishment no longer consistent with our own self-respect" [Footnote 4/2] and, therefore, violative of the Eighth Amendment.

The elasticity of the constitutional provision under consideration presents dangers of too little or too much self-restraint. [Footnote 4/3] Hence, we must proceed with caution to answer the question presented. [Footnote 4/4] By first examining the historical derivation of the Eighth Amendment and
the construction given it in the past by this Court, and then exploring the history and attributes of capital punishment in this country, we can answer the question presented with objectivity and a proper measure of self-restraint...

D. The three final purposes which may underlie utilization of a capital sanction -- encouraging guilty pleas and confessions, eugenics, and reducing state expenditures -- may be dealt with quickly. If the death penalty is used to encourage guilty pleas, and thus to deter suspects from exercising their rights under the Sixth Amendment to jury trials, it is unconstitutional. United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968). [Footnote 4/128] Its elimination would do little to impair the State's bargaining position in criminal cases, since life imprisonment remains a severe sanction which can be used as leverage for bargaining for pleas or confessions in exchange either for charges of lesser offenses or recommendations of leniency.

Moreover, to the extent that capital punishment is used to encourage confessions and guilty pleas, it is not being used for punishment purposes. A State that justifies capital punishment on its utility as part of the conviction process could not profess to rely on capital punishment as a deterrent. Such a State's system would be structured with twin goals only: obtaining guilty pleas and confessions and imposing imprisonment as the maximum sanction. Since life imprisonment is sufficient for bargaining purposes, the death penalty is excessive if used for the same purposes....

E. There is but one conclusion that can be drawn from all of this -- i.e., the death penalty is an excessive and unnecessary punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment. The statistical evidence is not convincing beyond all doubt, but it is persuasive. It is not improper at this point to take judicial notice of the fact that, for more than 200 years, men have labored to demonstrate that capital punishment serves no purpose that life imprisonment could not serve equally well. And they have done so with great success. Little, if any, evidence has been adduced to prove the contrary. The point has now been reached at which deference to the legislatures is tantamount to abdication of our judicial roles as factfinders, judges, and ultimate arbiters of the Constitution. We know that, at some point, the presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative acts gives way to a realistic assessment of those acts. This point comes when there is sufficient evidence available so that judges can determine not whether the legislature acted wisely, but whether it had any rational basis whatsoever for acting. We have this evidence before us now. There is no rational basis for concluding that capital punishment is not excessive. It therefore violates the Eighth Amendment. [Footnote 4/141]

VI

In addition, even if capital punishment is not excessive, it nonetheless violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to the people of the United States at this time in their history.

In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless "it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people." [Footnote 4/142]...

VII

To arrive at the conclusion that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment, we have had to engage in a long and tedious journey. The amount of information that we have assembled and sorted is enormous. Yet I firmly believe that we have not deviated in the slightest from the principles with which we began.

At a time in our history when the streets of the Nation's cities inspire fear and despair, rather than pride and hope, it is difficult to maintain objectivity and concern for our fellow citizens. But the measure of a country's greatness is its ability to retain compassion in time of crisis. No nation in the recorded history of man has a greater tradition of revering justice and fair treatment for all its citizens in times of turmoil, confusion, and tension than ours. This is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a country that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its constitutional heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values that lie at the roots of our democratic system.

In striking down capital punishment, this Court does not malign our system of government. On the contrary, it pays homage to it. Only in a free society could right triumph in difficult times, and could civilization record its magnificent advancement. In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute. We achieve "a major milestone in the long road up from barbarism" [Footnote 4/164] and join the approximately 70 other jurisdictions in the world which celebrate their regard for civilization and humanity by shunning capital punishment. [Footnote 4/165]

I concur in the judgments of the Court.

so it's considerably more nuanced than what you're laying down, given that it was five concurring opinions and the eighth, fourteenth and sixth came up

e: also, in gregg v georgia, north carolina and louisiana were found (that's woodson and roberts respectively) to have capital sentencing schemes that did not meet the proper legal criteria the court had established, so again, nuance

stone cold fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Mar 6, 2017

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 22:37

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Patrick Spens posted:

Well now that we are paying attention to nuance, can we agree that this:

Isn't correct, and there is a difference between SCOTUS declaring the death penalty unconstitutional, and declaring how the death penalty is currently imposed unconstitutional?

Except if you read the opinions that's what it broadly did. It was struck down on eighth and fourteenth amendment and to a lesser extent sixth amendment grounds.

Patrick Spens posted:

No it didn't. The court found that the current practice of the death penalty violated the 8th because it was too arbitrary. Which is why, when Georgia and several other states came up with policies for the death penalty that didn't violate the 8th, SCOTUS approved them 4 years later.

What it didn't do was a. only this and b. North Carolina and Louisiana were still not in compliance. Did you read the opinions?

As for whether or not the death penalty in its current form is constitutional or not, I'd refer you to the most recent cases, Glossip v. Gloss which determined that midalozam does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (by the way if Scalia had been dead for that ruling, the lower courts ruling denying the injunction would have still been upheld but this precedent wouldn't have been set) and Hurst v. Florida which determined that Florida's capital sentencing scheme violated sixth amendment rights given that Florida attempted to overturn the precedent that juries had to find the aggravating factors necessary to apply the death penalty by having juries make "recommendations" to the judge.

It will be interesting to see given the current composition of the court whether or not the death penalty is still upheld as constitutional, particularly when you look at the Glossip v Gross dissents

Sotomayor (joined by Breyer, Kagan and Ginsburg):

quote:

I begin with the second of the Court�s two holdings: that the District Court properly found that petitioners did not demonstrate a likelihood of showing that Oklahoma�s execution protocol poses an unconstitutional risk of pain. In reaching this conclusion, the Court sweeps aside sub� stantial evidence showing that, while midazolam may be able to induce unconsciousness, it cannot be utilized to maintain unconsciousness in the face of agonizing stimuli. Instead, like the District Court, the Court finds comfort in Dr. Evans� wholly unsupported claims that 500 milligrams of midazolam will �paralyz[e] the brain.� In so holding, the Court disregards an objectively intolerable risk of severe pain.
A
Like the Court, I would review for clear error the Dis� trict Court�s finding that 500 milligrams of midazolam will render someone sufficiently unconscious ��to resist the noxious stimuli which could occur from the application of the second and third drugs.� � Ante, at 18�19 (quoting App. 77). Unlike the Court, however, I would do so without abdicating our duty to examine critically the factual predi� cates for the District Court�s finding�namely, Dr. Evans� testimony that midazolam has a �ceiling effect� only �at the spinal cord level,� and that a �500 milligram dose of midazolam� can therefore �effectively paralyze the brain.� Id., at 78. To be sure, as the Court observes, such scien� tific testimony may at times lie at the boundaries of fed� eral courts� expertise. See ante, at 17�18. But just because a purported expert says something does not make it so. Especially when important constitutional rights are at stake, federal district courts must carefully evaluate the premises and evidence on which scientific conclusions are based, and appellate courts must ensure that the courts below have in fact carefully considered all the evidence presented. Clear error exists �when although there is evidence to support� a finding, �the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.� United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948). Here, given the numerous flaws in Dr. Evans� testimony, there can be little doubt that the District Court clearly erred in relying on it...

Setting aside the District Court�s erroneous factual finding that 500 milligrams of midazolam will necessarily �paralyze the brain,� the question is whether the Court is nevertheless correct to hold that petitioners failed to demonstrate that the use of midazolam poses an �objec� tively intolerable risk� of severe pain. See Baze, 553 U. S., at 50 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omit� ted). I would hold that they made this showing. That is because, in stark contrast to Dr. Evans, petitioners� ex� perts were able to point to objective evidence indicating that midazolam cannot serve as an effective anesthetic that �render[s] a person insensate to pain caused by the second and third [lethal injection] drugs.� Ante, at 23...

In reengineering Baze to support its newfound rule, the Court appears to rely on a flawed syllogism. If the death penalty is constitutional, the Court reasons, then there must be a means of accomplishing it, and thus some avail� able method of execution must be constitutional. See ante, at 4, 15�16. But even accepting that the death penalty is, in the abstract, consistent with evolving standards of decency, but see ante, p. ___ (BREYER, J., dissenting), the Court�s conclusion does not follow. The constitutionality of the death penalty may inform our conception of the degree of pain that would render a particular method of imposing it unconstitutional. See Baze, 553 U. S., at 47 (plurality opinion) (because �[s]ome risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution,� �[i]t is clear . . . the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain�). But a method of execution that is �barbarous,� Rhodes, 452 U. S., at 345, or �involve[s] torture or a lingering death,� Kemmler, 136 U. S., at 447, does not become less so just because it is the only method currently available to a State. If all available means of conducting an execution constitute cruel and unusual punishment, then conducting the execution will constitute cruel and usual punishment. Nothing compels a State to perform an execution. It does not get a constitutional free pass simply because it desires to deliver the ultimate penalty; its ends do not justify any and all means. If a State wishes to carry out an execution, it must do so subject to the constraints that our Constitu� tion imposes on it, including the obligation to ensure that its chosen method is not cruel and unusual. Certainly the condemned has no duty to devise or pick a constitutional instrument of his or her own death.
For these reasons, the Court�s available-alternative requirement leads to patently absurd consequences. Petitioners contend that Oklahoma�s current protocol is a barbarous method of punishment�the chemical equiva� lent of being burned alive. But under the Court�s new rule, it would not matter whether the State intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake: because petitioners failed to prove the availabil� ity of sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, the State could execute them using whatever means it designated. But see Baze, 553 U. S., at 101�102 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (�It strains credulity to suggest that the defin� ing characteristic of burning at the stake, disemboweling, drawing and quartering, beheading, and the like was that they involved risks of pain that could be eliminated by using alternative methods of execution�).8 The Eighth Amendment cannot possibly countenance such a result....

�By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the govern� ment to respect the dignity of all persons.� Roper v. Sim- mons, 543 U. S. 551, 560 (2005). Today, however, the Court absolves the State of Oklahoma of this duty. It does so by misconstruing and ignoring the record evidence regarding the constitutional insufficiency of midazolam as a sedative in a three-drug lethal injection cocktail, and by imposing a wholly unprecedented obligation on the con� demned inmate to identify an available means for his or her own execution. The contortions necessary to save this particular lethal injection protocol are not worth the price. I dissent.

And Breyer's opinion (Joined by Ginsburg):

quote:

In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional in� firmities in the death penalty could be healed; the Court in effect delegated significant responsibility to the States to develop procedures that would protect against those con� stitutional problems. Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed. Today�s administration of the death penalty involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty�s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.
I shall describe each of these considerations, emphasiz� ing changes that have occurred during the past four dec� ades. For it is those changes, taken together with my own 20 years of experience on this Court, that lead me to be� lieve that the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited �cruel and unusual pun� ishmen[t].� U. S. Const., Amdt. 8....

Nearly half of the 3,000 inmates now on death row have been there for more than 15 years. And, at present execution rates, it would take more than 75 years to carry out those 3,000 death sentences; thus, the average person on death row would spend an additional 37.5 years there before being executed. BJS 2013 Stats, at 14, 18 (Tables 11 and 15).
I cannot find any reasons to believe the trend will soon be reversed.
B
These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. See Johnson v. Bredesen, 558 U. S. 1067, 1069 (2009) (Stevens, J., statement respecting denial of certio� rari). First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it �subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confine� ment.� Ibid.; Gomez v. Fierro, 519 U. S. 918 (1996) (Ste� vens, J., dissenting) (excessive delays from sentencing to execution can themselves �constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment�); see also Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (memorandum of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990, 993 (1999) (BREYER, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Second, lengthy delay under� mines the death penalty�s penological rationale. Johnson, supra, at 1069; Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U. S. 1114, 1115 (2009) (statement of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari).
1
Turning to the first constitutional difficulty, nearly all death penalty states keep death row inmates in isolation for 22 or more hours per day. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), A Death Before Dying: Solitary Confine� ment on Death Row 5 (July 2013) (ACLU Report). This occurs even though the ABA has suggested that death row inmates be housed in conditions similar to the general population, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has called for a global ban on solitary confinement longer than 15 days. See id., at 2, 4; ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Treatment of Prisoners 6 (3d ed. 2011). And it is well documented that such prolonged solitary confinement produces numerous deleterious harms. See, e.g., Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and �Supermax� Confinement, 49 Crime & Delinquency 124, 130 (2003) (cataloguing studies finding that solitary confinement can cause prisoners to experience �anxiety, panic, rage, loss of control, paranoia, hallucinations, and self-mutilations,� among many other symptoms); Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash U. J. L. & Policy 325, 331 (2006) (�[E]ven a few days of solitary confinement will predictably shift the [brain�s] electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern toward an abnormal pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium�); accord, In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160, 167�168 (1890); see also Davis v. Ayala, ante, at 1�4 (KENNEDY, J., concurring).
The dehumanizing effect of solitary confinement is aggravated by uncertainty as to whether a death sentence will in fact be carried out. In 1890, this Court recognized that, �when a prisoner sentenced by a court to death is confined in the penitentiary awaiting the execution of the sentence, one of the most horrible feelings to which he can be subjected during that time is the uncertainty during the whole of it.� Medley, supra, at 172. The Court was there describing a delay of a mere four weeks. In the past century and a quarter, little has changed in this respect� except for duration. Today we must describe delays meas� ured, not in weeks, but in decades...

The second constitutional difficulty resulting from lengthy delays is that those delays undermine the death penalty�s penological rationale, perhaps irreparably so. The rationale for capital punishment, as for any punish� ment, classically rests upon society�s need to secure deter� rence, incapacitation, retribution, or rehabilitation. Capi�tal punishment by definition does not rehabilitate. It does, of course, incapacitate the offender. But the major alternative to capital punishment�namely, life in prison without possibility of parole�also incapacitates. See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 615 (2002) (BREYER, J., concur� ring in judgment)...

But what about retribution? Retribution is a valid penological goal. I recognize that surviving relatives of victims of a horrendous crime, or perhaps the community itself, may find vindication in an execution. And a com� munity that favors the death penalty has an understand- able interest in representing their voices. But see A. Sarat, Mercy on Trial: What It Means To Stop an Execution 130 (2005) (Illinois Governor George Ryan explained his deci� sion to commute all death sentences on the ground that it was �cruel and unusual� for �family members to go through this . . . legal limbo for [20] years�).
The relevant question here, however, is whether a �community�s sense of retribution� can often find vindica� tion in �a death that comes,� if at all, �only several decades after the crime was committed.� Valle v. Florida, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (BREYER, J., dissenting from denial of stay) (slip op., at 3). By then the community is a different group of people. The offenders and the victims� families have grown far older. Feelings of outrage may have sub� sided. The offender may have found himself a changed human being. And sometimes repentance and even for� giveness can restore meaning to lives once ruined. At the same time, the community and victims� families will know that, even without a further death, the offender will serve decades in prison under a sentence of life without parole.
I recognize, of course, that this may not always be the case, and that sometimes the community believes that an execution could provide closure. Nevertheless, the delays and low probability of execution must play some role in any calculation that leads a community to insist on death as retribution. As I have already suggested, they may well attenuate the community�s interest in retribution to the point where it cannot by itself amount to a significant justification for the death penalty. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 3). In any event, I believe that whatever interest in retri� bution might be served by the death penalty as currently administered, that interest can be served almost as well by a sentence of life in prison without parole (a sentence that every State now permits, see ACLU, A Living Death: Life Without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses 11, and n. 10 (2013)).
Finally, the fact of lengthy delays undermines any effort to justify the death penalty in terms of its prevalence when the Founders wrote the Eighth Amendment. When the Founders wrote the Constitution, there were no 20- or 30-year delays. Execution took place soon after sentenc�ing...

A death penalty sys� tem that seeks procedural fairness and reliability brings with it delays that severely aggravate the cruelty of capi� tal punishment and significantly undermine the rationale for imposing a sentence of death in the first place. See Knight, 528 U. S., at 998 (BREYER, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (one of the primary causes of the delay is the States� �failure to apply constitutionally sufficient procedures at the time of initial [conviction or] sentenc� ing�). But a death penalty system that minimizes delays would undermine the legal system�s efforts to secure relia� bility and procedural fairness.
In this world, or at least in this Nation, we can have a death penalty that at least arguably serves legitimate penological purposes or we can have a procedural system that at least arguably seeks reliability and fairness in the death penalty�s application. We cannot have both. And that simple fact, demonstrated convincingly over the past 40 years, strongly supports the claim that the death pen� alty violates the Eighth Amendment. A death penalty system that is unreliable or procedurally unfair would violate the Eighth Amendment. Woodson, 428 U. S., at 305 (plurality opinion); Hall, 572 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 22); Roper, 543 U. S., at 568. And so would a system that, if reliable and fair in its application of the death penalty, would serve no legitimate penological purpose. Furman, 408 U. S., at 312 (White, J., concurring); Gregg, supra, at 183 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Atkins, supra, at 319....

In sum, if we look to States, in more than 60% there is effectively no death penalty, in an additional 18% an execution is rare and unusual, and 6%, i.e., three States, account for 80% of all executions. If we look to population, about 66% of the Nation lives in a State that has not carried out an execution in the last three years. And if we look to counties, in 86% there is effectively no death pen- alty. It seems fair to say that it is now unusual to find capital punishment in the United States, at least when we consider the Nation as a whole. See Furman, 408 U. S., at 311 (1972) (White, J., concurring) (executions could be so infrequently carried out that they �would cease to be a credible deterrent or measurably to contribute to any other end of punishment in the criminal justice system . . . when imposition of the penalty reaches a certain degree of infrequency, it would be very doubtful that any exist- ing general need for retribution would be measurably satisfied�)....

...the matters I have discussed, such as lack of reliability, the arbitrary application of a serious and irreversible punishment, individual suffering caused by long delays, and lack of penological purpose are quin�tessentially judicial matters. They concern the infliction� indeed the unfair, cruel, and unusual infliction�of a serious punishment upon an individual. I recognize that in 1972 this Court, in a sense, turned to Congress and the state legislatures in its search for standards that would increase the fairness and reliability of imposing a death penalty. The legislatures responded. But, in the last four decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that those responses have not worked.
Thus we are left with a judicial responsibility. The Eighth Amendment sets forth the relevant law, and we must interpret that law.

For the reasons I have set forth in this opinion, I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. At the very least, the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 01:12

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

rudatron posted:

I'm not your errand boy, find it yourself if you're so inclined.

If you're gonna make a claim like:

rudatron posted:

No, but not every country that has abolished it actually has the majority of the population favoring that abolition.

You should be able to back it up with evidentiary support, beyond citation of one UK opinion poll. Gimme the data, that's all.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 01:48

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

Those drug cocktails are pretty barbaric.

Massive opiate/barbiturate overdose is probably the most humane. Maybe combine it with nitrogen asphyxiation.

I mean, the most humane is not killing people at all.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 04:15

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

DC Murderverse posted:

well the most humane is full communism now but baby steps means that maybe the person we kill have one brief moment of solace before their death

......or we could not have the state kill people?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 07:14

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

DC Murderverse posted:

No poo poo dummy, but since short of Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts coming to the light and going against their entire judicial history and deciding that the death penalty is, in fact, unconstitutional or every single AG in the country waking up and deciding they're gonna stop being shitheads, that's not gonna happen any time soon.

So ,if you're gonna be all nihilist about it, what's the point of this thread?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 07:47

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

traffic tickets kill people in the sense that how punitively high the fines are set is a direct impairment for the working poor to live their lives

it's one of the things the ACLU is working on as a matter of fact

quote:

Unconstitutional driver�s license suspension policies have important implications for California�s communities of color. A 2016 report from LCCR reveals dramatic racial and socioeconomic disparities in driver�s license suspensions and arrests related to unpaid traffic fines and fees. Public records from the California Department of Motor Vehicles and U.S. Census data demonstrate that in primarily Black and Latino communities, driver�s license suspension rates range as high as five times the state average. Moreover, data collected from fifteen police and sheriff�s departments across California show that Black motorists are far more likely to be arrested for driving with a suspended license for failure to pay an infraction citation than White motorists. Rates of driver�s license suspensions due to a failure to appear or pay a ticket are directly correlated with poverty indicators and with race.

U.S. Department of Justice recently urged local courts nationwide to put an end to policies that penalize people simply for being poor � including the practice of suspending driver�s licenses when individuals miss payments on fines. This practice is all too common in California traffic courts, and is not prevented by amnesty policies that went into place last year.

ACLU of Northern California

"We�re filing this suit in order to protect a fundamental principle of our justice system�that a person should not be punished simply for being poor. By not taking people�s ability to pay into account, the courts are hurting families, communities, and the state as a whole. "

� Christine P. Sun, Legal Director

so actually, i wouldn't joke about that

the entirety of the justice system is incredibly busted

# ¿ Apr 25, 2017 01:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:50

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Dead Reckoning posted:

Yeah, not being allowed to drive because you're too poor to pay your fines is definitely bullshit in places where reliable transportation is required to have a job, and your own vehicle is basically the only option for securing that, but on the other hand, it's not LITERALLY PHYSICALLY DYING and also probably the best, most humane option we have in terms of enforcement tools. The fact that you typed that out and thought "yep, this is a reasonable comparison for the death penalty thread" is absolutely hysterical.

Counterpoint: police departments shouldn't get to pad their budgets with fines and the also incredibly broken practice of civil asset forfeiture. Also, you stack up enough debt, you get sent to modern day debtors prison, and guess what? They add even more debt.

Also, people have been tossed in jail and left to die over literal 200 dollar parking tickets, like David Stojcevski.

You're the one who made the comparison without thinking about the nitty gritty, maybe you should own that the justice system is incredibly broken, and that's the system you want in charge of executing people.

Like, ok

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

It would kill less minorities which I think you'd be against DR

but given this, I doubt that you'll own that DR

# ¿ Apr 25, 2017 03:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.04)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS