AG Barr directs Federal Government to resume capital punishment.
- Thread starter JoeMorgue
- Start date
plague311
Great minds think...
0% shocked
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,296
I'm quite shocked.
I do hope more drug manufacturers will refuse to sell to the Government.
I do hope more drug manufacturers will refuse to sell to the Government.
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,741
I kind of agree with the pentobarbital provision; we've got this crazy Rube Goldberg protocol that IMO is unnecessary. One shot, lights out is fine with me. ETA: Probably more humane as well. The perp will be unconscious. If it takes a 2nd shot just do that.
But I wonder ... what is the race of these perps?
Have they in fact exhausted all legal remedies? Because if not, this is an illegal order.
Federal jurisdiction on murder is fairly limited ... it can happen on Indian reservations IIRC.
I am anti-capital-punishment on principal. I think it's barbaric, inefficient, expensive to prosecute, unfairly enforced, too irreversible and doesn't act as a deterrent, etc. But there are cases where I don't mind all that much.
Seems l like a troll move to me to trigger the bleeding hearts. Also a distraction.
Last edited:
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,741
It's a distraction IMO. Probably in response to Mueller testimony.
I don't think getting the drugs is going to be a huge deal. State governments manage it all the time.
I never really bought into the "we don't have the exact right drugs" things either. Disturbing to think as it is, on a purely mechanical level killing someone isn't that hard.
I can't find the exact "5 people" that Barr has ordered but on a pure demographic level of the 62 people currently on Federal Death row (which I think, not 100% sure, is distinct from Military Death row) is
43.6% White
41.9% African American
11.3% Latino
1.6% Asian
1.6% Native American
61 Male, 1 Female.
So playing the odds 5 men, two black, two white, one Latino.
Oh without a doubt. Surprised it took this long. They already poked the libs on abortion, gay/trans rights, and immigration this was the next logical one.
And it will work.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
I think federal death row is plurality white.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
If it's meant as a distraction I fear he didn't really think it through: treason is one of the few crimes punishable by the death penalty.
Personally, I'm against the death penalty only because of the uncertainty of having the correct verdict versus the impossibility of correcting a later-discovered mistake. But if it must be done why not bring back hanging? Done correctly it's very fast, and doesn't involve so much complex setup and expense. Also more picturesque. I'd rather go out that way than by having poison pumped into my veins.
Personally, I'm against the death penalty only because of the uncertainty of having the correct verdict versus the impossibility of correcting a later-discovered mistake. But if it must be done why not bring back hanging? Done correctly it's very fast, and doesn't involve so much complex setup and expense. Also more picturesque. I'd rather go out that way than by having poison pumped into my veins.
Because as a society we can only stomach capital punishment when the imagery is clean and neat to us.
Shooting leaves bullet holes. The electric chair is all kinds of nasty. People choke and gasp in the gas chamber. Hanging is creepy. The guillotine? Not even an option.
But just going to sleep? Like being put under for surgery? That (g)we can live with.
Hangwringing over it being "quick and painless" for the executed (executee? whatever the term is) is just what we tell ourselves it's about.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
*IF* we (and it is 'we') are going to use a drug to kill, I've heard opioids are deadly and plentiful. I bet the cartels would sell plenty of fentanyl to anyone, even the government, to do the job.
Probably wouldn't be acceptable, as we can't have the prisoners enjoy their execution.
Probably wouldn't be acceptable, as we can't have the prisoners enjoy their execution.
Belz...
Fiend God
My thoughts exactly. I'm only open to the death penalty in cases like serial or mass murderers and such, but hanging is simple and efficient.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I guess opinion differs on what is clean and neat. I'd prefer to die from an external cause like hanging versus an internal cause like poisoning. Having one's blood adulterated with inimical substance is much creepier to me than a broken neck. "Going to sleep" would be horrible, you'd be aware of your consciousness fading out, knowing it's not coming back! Better a swift crack and oblivion.
Ethan Thane Athen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,031
Re: killing people isn't that hard - John Oliver did a piece on this the other day. The problem seems to be that most of those doing the administering are not really qualified to do so...partially because those who really would be qualified to do it, refuse to do so. I can't remember much about the piece but it may be worth a quick look if you can find it.
Ethan Thane Athen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,031
I don't disagree, if given the choice I'd rather be awake when it happens and for it to happen quick instead of "drifting off" which, as you say, sounds horrible if you think about it.
But again I'm talking about how graphic and offputting the visuals are to people witnessing / thinking about the execution, not the person being executed.
It being "cleaner" makes it easier for (g)us to stomach.
Like if it was really just about "Kill them quick with no suffering" that's easy. Guillotine style device but instead of a blade that separates the head from the neck (leaving the possibility of a few moments of consciousness for the severed head which apparently might have actually been a legit source of controversy back in the day) a big heavy weight... like a 4 x 4 block of lead or whatever.... that completely crushes the head. Boom. Any and all chance of any neural activity completely gone in an instant. Cheap, easy to make and maintain, requires no hard to obtain supplies that could run out, hard to screw up the process and get it wrong. Any machine shop on the planet could make one out of stuff in a scrap metal yard in an afternoon and all you'd have to do afterwords was hose if down and spray with disinfectant.
But that would be... just horrible and disgusting and messy to watch. And that's what it is really about.
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Medicalized executions are an abomination. They exist primarily for the benefit of the audience and society as a whole. It serves as a whitewash for the inherent distastefulness of killing someone who is defenseless. Having someone drift off to sleep and then having their heart stop while they are unconscious is more palatable than lopping off their head with a quick lick of the guillotine, but it undoubtedly less reliable and prolongs the dying experiencing for the condemned.
If we are going to have executions in this country, they should be done in a way that makes it unambiguously clear to everyone involved that it is an act of killing. A mechanical device that removes or destroys the brain quickly seems like the best solution. There's no good reason to dance around the fact that execution is an act of the most severe violence.
Too much effort is taken to make the execution less gruesome at the expense of the condemned.
If we are going to have executions in this country, they should be done in a way that makes it unambiguously clear to everyone involved that it is an act of killing. A mechanical device that removes or destroys the brain quickly seems like the best solution. There's no good reason to dance around the fact that execution is an act of the most severe violence.
Too much effort is taken to make the execution less gruesome at the expense of the condemned.
Last edited:
Venom
Philosopher
Death penalty is unethical.
Ban it.
Ban it.
Belz...
Fiend God
Hear hear.
Belz...
Fiend God
Not sure I'd agree as far as Ted Bundy, for instance, is concerned.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Wow.
But again, I'm sure death penalty folks don't want the execution to be 'euphoric' for the prisoner.
Or as Ned Stark put it the man who passes the sentence needs to be the one who swings the sword because if you can't look a man in the eyes and take his life, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
Sure on societal levels the sword becomes more metaphorical, but the point is still there.
Sure on societal levels the sword becomes more metaphorical, but the point is still there.
Belz...
Fiend God
Meh. I don't see why that should be more true than for construction work or plumbing. We have professionals do these jobs because they're better at it. And were the death penalty a thing here, I certainly wouldn't want my representative to squirm out of applying the law because they don't want to pull the trigger.
Venom
Philosopher
The way I see it, the slippery slope for death penalty is the steepest imaginable. I'm not comfortable even peeking over the ledge.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
In our case, since we are allegedly a democratic system, there really isn't a "Lord" passing judgement. The general populace is the responsible party, not the judge or governor or prison warden.
I would support something similar to jury duty summons for executions. Randomly selected citizens could be required to witness executions that are done in the name of the general public.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
My current position on capital punishment is something like this:
Capital punishment is ethical and just in principle.
However, no justice system is perfect in implementation. If we set out to do the right thing and execute certain criminals, we are certain to sometimes do the wrong thing and execute an innocent man.
Therefore, perhaps we should refrain from doing something so drastic as executing people, because the risk of killing an innocent person is greater than the reward of seeing justice done.
However, we deal with this risk-reward conundrum at all scales in the justice system already. An innocent man can be released from prison after ten years, but he'll never get those ten years back. He'll never be without the experience of ten years of prison life. He'll probably never fully recover his lost reputation, his lost income, etc. Maybe, like Job, he'll bounce back and ascend to even greater heights, but even that will never make him whole from the curse of injustice that was placed upon him.
We don't say, "we should abolish life sentences because the risk of sentencing an innocent man is too great, and the loss of years of life is irrevocable and unremediable." Instead, we say that we should reform the justice system and reduce the risk of incarcerating an innocent man to some acceptable level.
I think we all agree - whether we admit it or not - that some sort of justice system is necessary to the function of a healthy society, and that we must accept that sometimes an innocent man will be caught in the net.
Therefore, perhaps the remedy for capital punishment is not to abolish it, but to reform the system that feeds death row, and get an acceptable balance between the risk of executing an innocent man, and the reward of seeing justice done as far as practical.
But I don't know for sure either way.
On the other hand, I think that if we do intend to execute criminals, the method should be relatively quick and painless, but also practical and cost-effective. No method is going to be perfect every time. Shooting, hanging, electrocution, injection... all of these are bound to be awkward and uncomfortable to some degree. All of these are bound to go horribly wrong from time to time. If we're going to do it at all, it's incumbent on us to mitigate these risks. But I think it's also incumbent on us to recognize that these risks are not entirely avoidable, and that some distress or discomfort in the convict's dying moments is a small price to pay for seeing justice done.
---
All of this assumes that you and I are more or less on the same page, about the concept of seeing justice done. If we're not, you're probably going to think I'm some sort of horrible monster for even daring to discuss the issue as I have.
Capital punishment is ethical and just in principle.
However, no justice system is perfect in implementation. If we set out to do the right thing and execute certain criminals, we are certain to sometimes do the wrong thing and execute an innocent man.
Therefore, perhaps we should refrain from doing something so drastic as executing people, because the risk of killing an innocent person is greater than the reward of seeing justice done.
However, we deal with this risk-reward conundrum at all scales in the justice system already. An innocent man can be released from prison after ten years, but he'll never get those ten years back. He'll never be without the experience of ten years of prison life. He'll probably never fully recover his lost reputation, his lost income, etc. Maybe, like Job, he'll bounce back and ascend to even greater heights, but even that will never make him whole from the curse of injustice that was placed upon him.
We don't say, "we should abolish life sentences because the risk of sentencing an innocent man is too great, and the loss of years of life is irrevocable and unremediable." Instead, we say that we should reform the justice system and reduce the risk of incarcerating an innocent man to some acceptable level.
I think we all agree - whether we admit it or not - that some sort of justice system is necessary to the function of a healthy society, and that we must accept that sometimes an innocent man will be caught in the net.
Therefore, perhaps the remedy for capital punishment is not to abolish it, but to reform the system that feeds death row, and get an acceptable balance between the risk of executing an innocent man, and the reward of seeing justice done as far as practical.
But I don't know for sure either way.
On the other hand, I think that if we do intend to execute criminals, the method should be relatively quick and painless, but also practical and cost-effective. No method is going to be perfect every time. Shooting, hanging, electrocution, injection... all of these are bound to be awkward and uncomfortable to some degree. All of these are bound to go horribly wrong from time to time. If we're going to do it at all, it's incumbent on us to mitigate these risks. But I think it's also incumbent on us to recognize that these risks are not entirely avoidable, and that some distress or discomfort in the convict's dying moments is a small price to pay for seeing justice done.
---
All of this assumes that you and I are more or less on the same page, about the concept of seeing justice done. If we're not, you're probably going to think I'm some sort of horrible monster for even daring to discuss the issue as I have.
Last edited:
I'm morally opposed to any punishment which is irreversible.
1. Because... well it's irreversible. You can give back a fine, you can clear a record, you can let someone out of prison. We can't "undead" people (and no I will not entertain stupid hypotheticals about a world in which would could.)
2. Because I think it actually hurts justice in the long run. I know I'm going to be a lot more hesitant to sentence a person who... probably (as in "reasonably certain" in the legal sense) committed a crime if I know he's going to be executed instead of just thrown in prison.
I don't want murders to walk free because people are afraid of sentencing them to die.
1. Because... well it's irreversible. You can give back a fine, you can clear a record, you can let someone out of prison. We can't "undead" people (and no I will not entertain stupid hypotheticals about a world in which would could.)
2. Because I think it actually hurts justice in the long run. I know I'm going to be a lot more hesitant to sentence a person who... probably (as in "reasonably certain" in the legal sense) committed a crime if I know he's going to be executed instead of just thrown in prison.
I don't want murders to walk free because people are afraid of sentencing them to die.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
One of the rare occasions in which we agree.
Although probably you don't consider its inherent eroticism as a point in favor of hanging as an execution method.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Sounds good to me. Like the idea someone had about operating the key to the nuclear football into the chest of some person who would follow POTUS wherever he went. The president would need to retrieve the key by stabbing the man to death if he wanted to launch the nuclear missiles.
Agreed. In every capital punishment thread there's someone who has to go "but but you don't realise there are horrible people in the world!". Yeah, sure, I don't care. When certain people do terrible enough things it is enough to make me lose sympathy for them, but as good people, we still have our humanity.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe we can talk about this without casting aspersions on the imagined motives of others.
We don't want punishment to be cruel and unusual. Why? Because it offends our sense of justice. For crimes that we believe merit death in retribution, we want death. Not torture. We want justice, not cruelty.
By the same token, we want justice, not kindness. Sending a convict to a spa to serve out his sentence, with every amenity provided to give him comfort and ease his stay, is not justice. It certainly isn't justice for all of the law-abiding citizens who must live in worse conditions, through no fault of their own. If we're handing out all-expenses-paid long-term spa vacations, justice demands that the enemies of our society be at the back of that line, not the front.
Executing a murderer may be justice. Ensuring that murderer a blissful exit from this life is probably not. Just as ensuring an agonizing exit would probably not be justice. It certainly isn't justice for his victims, to ensure that his death is more pleasant than theirs.
So.
In principle, I don't think it's just, to ensure a euphoric exit for a capital criminal. However, I do think that justice is best served by a method of execution that is relatively quick and painless, and that is relatively easy to apply in a consistent manner. One method, one protocol, one training.
And if it turns out that the best way to ensure a consistently quick and painless execution is to make it a blissful execution, then I'd be willing to accept that in the name of justice.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Ok but from now on politicians must build their own damned bridges.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Loss of time is irreversible. You can't magically make a thirty year-old twenty again, and give him back the decade he spent in prison, to spend over again as a free and innocent man.
The thing that actually distinguishes incarceration from execution is not reversibility, but interruptibility. You can release an innocent man before ten years lost becomes twenty years lost. You can't rescue an innocent man before ten seconds dead becomes forever dead.
Execution crosses a rubicon that incarceration does not. But the argument that incarceration is reversible is a bad one, I think. It is interruptible, but the harm it does before it is interrupted is not reversible.
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
This and your previous post have been quite thoughtful and well expressed. I generally agree with your reasoning.
I am fervently against the death penalty, for as you say innocent people will be executed and then WE are murderers. But, if it is going to happen, it should be quick and humane, regardless of how horrible the crimes.
My previous replies have been flippant, which I thought was obvious.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
My .02
I've gone back and forth over capital punishment over the years.
Issues noted by other posters are spot on for the most part.
I see -0- deterrence factor in sentencing someone to death. Very few actors inclined towards criminal violence even consider the possibility of arrest, conviction and incarceration, and a fair percentage (I don't have numbers close to hand) have been convicted for previous crimes and jail or prison doesn't hold much authority over their actions.
The only real benefit I see from keeping inmates on death row is in removing them from genpop. They don't have the opportunity to victimize their fellow inmates.
I've gone back and forth over capital punishment over the years.
Issues noted by other posters are spot on for the most part.
I see -0- deterrence factor in sentencing someone to death. Very few actors inclined towards criminal violence even consider the possibility of arrest, conviction and incarceration, and a fair percentage (I don't have numbers close to hand) have been convicted for previous crimes and jail or prison doesn't hold much authority over their actions.
The only real benefit I see from keeping inmates on death row is in removing them from genpop. They don't have the opportunity to victimize their fellow inmates.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
"I have no opinion about that."
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I don't think deterrence should be a part of the crime-and-punishment calculus. If a punishment is just, that is sufficient. If it also has a deterrent effect, that is an added social benefit. But the goal of the justice system should be justice, not other social benefits.
Some citizens are simply not going to be law-abiding. In any community of makers, there are always going to be some who prefer to be takers instead, regardless of incentives and deterrents.
But for the makers, it is important that they see that their society is fair. That those that make get fairly rewarded for their work. That those that take get justly punished for their theft. Take away the justice system, take away the idea of a fair society, and it discourages makers from making. Justice may not deter takers from taking, but injustice is likely to encourage many makers to become takers instead. Therefore, a society is more likely to thrive and grow if the rule of law is upheld, and justice is done to the takers, even if justice has no deterrent effect on the takers.
Update: The 5 inmates directed to be executed are:
Daniel Lewis Lee - White supremacist who killed a family of three.
Lezmond Mitchell - Murdered a 63 year old grandmother then forced the woman's 9 year old granddaughter to drive him 40 miles, after which he also killed her.
Wesley Ira Purkey - Rape and murder of a 16 year old girl and, in a separate sequence of events, killing an 80 year old woman.
Alfred Bourgeois - Torture, molestation, and murder of his 2 year old daughter.
Dustin Lee Honken - Murder of 5 people, including a 10 and 6 year old.
Daniel Lewis Lee - White supremacist who killed a family of three.
Lezmond Mitchell - Murdered a 63 year old grandmother then forced the woman's 9 year old granddaughter to drive him 40 miles, after which he also killed her.
Wesley Ira Purkey - Rape and murder of a 16 year old girl and, in a separate sequence of events, killing an 80 year old woman.
Alfred Bourgeois - Torture, molestation, and murder of his 2 year old daughter.
Dustin Lee Honken - Murder of 5 people, including a 10 and 6 year old.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
I suddenly want to make this in planet coaster...
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, I won't miss them.