Hope and Che.
There’s a judge in Ohio who thinks it’s mean for the state to hurt someone who is being put to death:
ELYRIA, Ohio (AP) — A judge in Ohio says the state’s method of putting prisoners to death is unconstitutional because two of three drugs used in the lethal injection process can cause pain.
My professional, well-thought-out opinion on that is tough shit.
Anyhow, that’s not the point. The point is, here’s a picture of the judge in his office:
That is all.
Via Ace of Spades.
That pretty much explains the judge, doesn’t it? Not much left to say after that.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:22 amI still think that prisoners should be put to death in the manner in which they caused the death of another. It is complete and utter bullshit to worry about causing a little pain to these dregs of humanity. How much pain have they caused???
June 13th, 2008 at 11:23 amScratch a leftist, find a fascist.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:25 amFigures.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:25 amWhat a turd muffin.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:26 amLooking at that pictures causes me pain.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:26 amoh, 2 out of the 3 drugs cause pain…..tell me, your ‘Honor’, how does the pain of those two drugs compare to the pain inflicted by the person receiving those drugs upon the victims of the crime that got him/her to the lethal injection chamber in the first place?
::::cough,cough:::activistjudges::::cough,cough::::
PS - the pain of those two drugs is nothing compared to the pain the guy whose on your left poster has inflicted.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:27 amHeh.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:27 amWhy do people still think Che is a hero? How do they not know anything about history?
And yeah, boo-freaking-hoo for the poor murderers who have to endure being peacefully put to sleep, unlike their victims.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:28 amSee, Che was a very humane killer. He used bullets, which as we all know is a very quick way to die, if correctly administered. Of course, when he was practicing he would often need to use several per vict… er, subject; but that’s just the price of expertise, the time one must put in to become a truly sensitive and conscientious purger of political enemies. I’m sure Barry would agree.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:28 amA girl in one of my classes this past semester said that her two heroes were Malcolm X and Che Guevara.
People who wanted equality for all, but got frustrated with talking about it and ended up resorting to violence in order to get it, and lost track of what it was they were fighting for in the first place.
I think that describes a lot of hard-core Lefties in this country pretty well.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:32 amWhat Deanna said!
When people self-parody, it’s best to just let them carry on!
When the SCOTUS ruled that Kentucky’s method was constitutional, I figured that was that. But it looks like there are some liberal judges out there who want to make names for themselves by challenging on a state-by-state basis? Sheesh!
(Do you think they’re some of the same judges who challenge partial birth abortion bans? I wonder.)
June 13th, 2008 at 11:34 amSqueaky Wheel says:
I weep for our future.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:35 amThe problem with “eye for an eye” is that you can never make these scumbags suffer because they already were scumbags at the time they committed their crimes against innocents. Thus, I’m more in favor of just summary execution by firing squad.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:35 amAmanda, that’s pretty much how I felt, too. I was horrified, especially when no one else spoke up to tell her that she should probably reconsider that. But she’s a liberal hippie, and thus waaaaaay more enlightened than any of us could ever hope to be, don’tcha know.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:42 amDown with state funded death anyway.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:42 amRabid dogs should be put down on the spot at the time of attack. Not taken to the kennel for some R&R and a few good meals first.
My two cents.
Ok, I think I got it.
This clown admires murderers.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:44 amNo offense, Freedom_Lover, but I fail to see how being a scumbag at the time would make death by, say, goucing out their eyes, pouring in clorox, repeated rape, and finally stabbing them to death not hurt as much. I don’t think it should be the same, I think it should be worse.
But I would settle for the firing squad.
Anyone else think that judge pictured has a passing resemblence to Lennin?
June 13th, 2008 at 11:48 amSo let me get this straight… a guy who admires a murderer thinks that execution is unconstitutional? I think this scum bag judge is just worried that when we have finally had enough of these Marxist assholes, HE might end up on death row.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:52 amClearly this man is down with the Hopechange and, therefore, knows better than my dumb redneck self. I shall forthwith go out and buy a Che shirt, a jaunty beret, and a machete. And while I’m at it, I’ll go buy a Palestinian scarf to wear around my neck while I’m shouting for all the Joooos (and pretty much everybody else) to die.
Hopechange!
June 13th, 2008 at 11:52 amThe purpose of punishment is not served unless it contains a certain (proportional) amount of cruelty and is unusual enough to serve as a deterrant to others.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:55 amAn easy death serves no purpose.
Waitaminnit… Burge!? Do we need to get Iowahawk to talk to renegade family members?
June 13th, 2008 at 11:57 amRemember the movie “Dead Man Walking” ?…and how it was supposed to generate sympathy for the executed ?…and showed the scene of him visiting with his family before he was to be whacked….I mean executed ?
Bullshit.
Did the killer let his victim visit with THEIR family before he killed them ?
I have No sympathy.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:59 amI think your are mistaken about Malcom X. He wasn’t much of a “lefty”. Just what violence do you think he resorted to? How and against who..??
Notice there is not a poster of Malcom in the picture. “Lefties” don’t like him much cuz’ he didn’t advocate dependance on a welfare state.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:02 pmBTW, does anybody here know where I can get a hi res version of the Obama hope poster? I’m working on an idea and I really need it.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pmDid anybody else see the movie The Motorcycle Diaries? Not only was it super boring, but it painted Che (although in the movie they were using his real name, Pablo or something) as this AWESOME humanitarian. The only guy that would go into a leper colony without gloves blah blah. I don’t know my point here. Just wondering if anyone else saw it.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pmgee,would drawing and quartering be constitutional?
June 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pmpatrick kelly - He was a self-described Communist, and changed his methodologies several times whenever something he had been doing didn’t jive perfectly with his ideas and ideals. While I can appreciate his obvious support of the Second Amendment, I am loathe to ignore the actions of the groups he was associated with, and so my comment was more aimed at his associations than by his personal actions.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pmI wonder what the judge would say about his buddy Che’s favorite method of executing people, most of whom didn’t come even close to deserving it.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pmSBSmith:
100% agree with this sentiment. I have often thought that it would be a fitting judgment to not tell the convicted murder of when exactly they would be executed. Three years from now, next week, tomorrow… Who knows? Maybe let them get a little comfortable in their new life, then, wham, take ‘em out with no warning.. Just like they did to their victim(s). And, kill them the same way they killed their victims.
For example, that woman who killed her kids a few years ago by driving her car into the lake (Susan Smith?)? Under my system, she would have been convicted and sent to prison for an period of time (say 20 years). Then, 8 months into her sentence, a guard would have shown up at her cell and explained that she was being transferred to a another prison (closer to family even, huzzah!). Then, halfway there, PLOP!, off a bridge in the prison van. Done and done.
It might sound cruel, but their victims didn’t have time to say goodbye to loved ones or prepare for death emotionally, mentally and spiritually so why should they have that privilege? And yes, I do think about this too much.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pmChe never caused pain to any of the people he killed. Nor to their families. You can look it up. The judge did. He smart. He like Obambi…
June 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pmYou show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a bloodsucker. - Malcom X
Nonviolence is fine as long as it works. - Malcom X
I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man’s problem just to avoid violence. - Malcom X
I’ll agree he wasn’t a lefty in his day. But if you seriously want to posit he didn’t advocate violence…
June 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pmA picture worth a thousand unpleasant words.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pmLethal injection is TOO humane. When you execute a murderer by lethal injection, it should involve a fire hose and their butt!
June 13th, 2008 at 12:41 pmPeregrine John Says:
See, Che was a very humane killer. He used bullets, which as we all know is a very quick way to die, if correctly administered.
I think he beat several people to death with a baseball bat as well.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pmSorry … how does this asshat KNOW that it’s painful? Did he use a ouija noard, or use morse code to reach the “afterlife” ???
June 13th, 2008 at 12:47 pmThat picture was just screaming out to me to photoshop it… I emailed my creation to you Rachel, feel free to put it up if its worthy.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pmYeah, he did bludgeon at times, but I’m sure it was in accordance with the precepts laid out by Judge Burge, the Geneva Conventions, the 9th Circuit’s majority opinion and PETA! He was a great humanitarian, after all - that movie said so! Maybe it was a boffer bat…
June 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pmI know some of you are kidding or just venting your anger, but I can’t go along with the sentiment that we, as a society, should deliberately inflict suffering on convicted murderers. I have several reasons for this.
1. Our justice system should strive to be humane, even if the people it executes are not. Especially if they are not. That’s kind of the point, really: to show that we are better than they are.
2. The eye-for-an-eye approach some people are advocating (kill the murderers the same way that they killed their victims) isn’t appropriate, because the only possible justification is vengeance, and our justice system isn’t about revenge. If murderers are too dangerous to be allowed to live, we should snuff them out as quickly and painlessly as possible. The quick-and-painless part is for our sake, not theirs. We would only debase ourselves by sinking to their level.
3. I’m sorry, but the sentence should not be chosen to make the victims’ families feel better. One of the goals of criminal justice in Western societies is to isolate the system from the victims’ families. Before this system was developed, we had an earlier system that was far better at making the victims’ families feel better. It worked like this: the family rounded up as many friends as possible, hunted down the person they thought was guilty, and lynched him, usually in the most brutal and painful manner possible. They didn’t worry about evidence or trials or anything like that; they just cornered the guy and slaughtered him. In many cases they killed the wrong person.
This system was barbaric and often unjust, but it was good at making the victims’ families feel better. We abandoned it in favor of a system that places disinterested professionals in charge of investigating the crime, weighing the evidence, and arriving at a conclusion. This system is far more just and fair than the old lynch-mob system. We should keep it. That means resisting all notions of trying to cater to the feelings of the victims’ families. That way lies barbarism and mob rule.
4. I was as horrified at the actions of Susan Smith as anyone, but it’s pretty obvious that she was mentally ill. We have a different system for dealing with mentally ill people, and I think that’s also a good thing. Let’s not tear that down either.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:12 pmIt was okay for Che to use a bat as long as it wasn’t loaded with cork and he wasn’t on steroids, otherwise we would have to put an asterisk next to his name in the “all-time greatest freedom-fighter” record book.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:12 pmWhat a perfect example of cognitive dissonance!
June 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pmOh, and regarding the actual point the judge is making: if the lethal injections actually are painful, I think it makes sense to change them. A lethal overdose of morphine ought to do the trick. There’s no way that can be painful.
I agree that the pictures on the judge’s wall are pretty creepy. Nobody who idolizes a bloodthirsty murderer like Guevara should be presiding over criminal trials. And displaying partisan political materials in his chambers is not appropriate.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pmPat:
To be honest, I’m only half venting when I espouse my plan for convicted killers. I honestly believe that if scumbags knew that they would be subjected to the same horrors that they put their victims through, they would think twice about performing the act, or do it in a much more humane way (think kidnap, rape and torture type of cases). Allow me to address your points in order:
1. If we really wanted to show that we were “better than they are” wouldn’t we just not execute them? I suppose it boils down to if you think people can be rehabilitated. When speaking of the people I have in mind, I don’t think they can.
2. I can see your point here, but again, I think that if some cruelty is involved, then that would act as a deterrent sere Bill’s post above).
3. Just out of curiosity, have you ever worked as/for a prosecutor? The one I worked at consulted with the victims family’s ALL THE TIME. And, you know, sometimes the victims family would ask that the death penalty not be persued.
4. I can agree that the truly mentally ill should be dealt with differently, but my definition of mentally ill and others might differ. To me, mentally ill = Lennie Small from Of Mice and Men, not Susan Smith.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:46 pmAre we looking for something completely painless? Because if we are, then the next complaint will be about the pain caused by starting the IV.
Here’s the thing - occasionally even Morphine can release histamine along the route of the vein and cause itching and pain with injection. Not often, but occasionally.
I have a hard time getting worked up about a combination of drugs that probably causes less pain with injection, prior to loss of consciousness, than one of the current induction agents used for anesthesia.
Pentothal - The drug used to ‘go to sleep’. When this was used more commonly, people didn’t complain about injection pain, but rather of a garlic/onion taste in their mouths. If the concern is that the current overdose isn’t considered large enough to render everyone insensate - give ‘em 10X the amount. There are simple types of EEG monitors that could be ‘read’ by prison officials (not requiring medical personnel) that could confirm brain wave activity was below some certain point before the other drugs were injected.
Pancuronium - if people are quibbling over this, then there are many other choices. Given a large enough dose of pentothal this should be a non-issue.
Potassium certainly is an irritant. If the dose of Pentothal is adequate, it seems an irrelevant point. Frankly it isn’t ‘needed’ but makes the process quicker. The first two drugs in sufficient doses, and time, will be effective.
I think ‘pain’ thing is all making a mountain out of a couple of grains of sand.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pmthe stupid
why
why the so many stupid
hurrrttss
June 13th, 2008 at 1:54 pmI say drop an anvil on them from a tower. It is hard to explain this, but I’ll try. Picture a tall building frame shaped something like the Washington Monument. The steel on the four corners is there to keep the giant anvil on track. Something super impact resistant on the bottom. Stand child torturing BTK scumbag on the bottom…
Witnesses to the gore would be like Gallagher fans, wearing the plastic splat protection and all that shit. It would be kind of like a guillotine but instead of a blade, an anvil (or somthing massive and heavy) and wayyyyy up high for maximum splattage.
We could have celebrity emcees. First one could be Emeril. BAM!
At any rate, I dare that fucker in Elyria to prove that that is painful. I say it would be instantaneous.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pmHey, he’s not a murderer, he’s a freedom fighter…
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, right?
Bring back hanging and beheading.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pmammunition is getting expensive. rope is reusable.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pmJust for fun, I looked up the drugs. Two of them do sting going in. One is the thiopental and the other is the potassium. In fact, they are so horrible that they are given to people everyday in hospitals all over the country. Really nasty stuff. So nasty that the doctor will say “This might sting going in.”
Sometimes docs do use a little lidocaine in the veins just before the thiopental, sometimes they don’t. To me that is just another step to screw up, and I bet that is why they administer it without the lidocaine.
The problem with morphine (or better, fentanyl which is much easier to OD on) is that it may take quite some time to cause respiratory and then cardiac arrest. This cocktail kills quickly- within just a few minutes. It is actually very hard to kill someone fast without making a mess.
There are better reasons to oppose the death penalty, if one is so inclined. This is not one of them, however. This is a silly side argument that detracts from the real issues, and shows how little the judge actually knows, but it is one that apparently used quite often.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pmAs others have asked how the judge knows lethal injection is painful I have a solution - have the judge undergo the process and then he can tell us how it felt.
I have an idea for a quick and painless method of executing criminals. Have a device that quickly perforates the skull on opposite sides with electrodes and shoots high-voltage electricity at high amperage through the brain. By the time a pain impulse could be generated the criminal would be dead. The electrodes don’t have to be that thick so external signs should be minimal.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pmThe judge’s questionable political ideology aside, I think Rachel might’ve jumped the gun on this one.
According to the article, the Ohio state law requires execution methods to be painless. If the Ohio constitution says that (is there an Ohio resident out there who can confirm this?), and if the drugs used for lethal injections do cause pain, then the judge is exactly right.
And keep in mind, the judge is not advocating that the death penalty be abolished, according to the article. He’s only pointing out that the currently used method goes against the state constitution.
Illogical though it may seem to complain that the death penalty is wrong because it’s “too painful”, if that’s what the law says then that’s what the government is supposed to do.
The judge may be a leftist turd, but unless this article is abysmally inaccurate he is on the right side of the law.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pmIt’s rather inane to be worrying about whether or not it hurts. You’re KILLING the guy, and you’re worried he’s gonna itch for a few minutes? If we were to bring back firing squads, would we have to use green bullets (they make’em) so as not to give him lead poisoning?
Pat Berry is right in at least one respect; it is our virtue that drives us to treat them better than they deserve. But the degree of concern not just for a monsters comfort, but to the point of dismissing the victims rights & suffering? That is no longer virtue, but self-righteous vice. (It brings to mind the recent story where a rape victim was forbidden by the judge to use the term rape during the trial so as not to prejudice the jury.)
June 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pmJess, you make some interesting points.
I doubt it. Depraved indifference is a real phenomenon. I don’t really believe that the sort of person who would commit rape or torture cares anything about being humane.
I think that’s certainly open to debate. If executing murderers saves more lives than locking them up for life, that’s sufficient justification for me. If it doesn’t, then maybe a life sentence is enough.
Yeah, that’s the real question, isn’t it? I’m unsure on how effective rehabilitation really is. If it’s possible, then pursuing it seems like a good idea.
If that’s the case, though, shouldn’t we embrace torture wholeheartedly? The more horrible the penal system is, the more effective a deterrent it will be. Is that really the road we want to go down, as a society? (That’s assuming deterrence even exists. One of the classic counter-arguments is the criminals think they will be able to avoid being caught, so they don’t expect to be punished. I have no idea whether this is true, but what if it is?)
I’m well aware that that sort of accommodation of victims’ families has been going on in recent years. I think it’s a very dangerous trend and a terrible mistake.
I’m not familiar with Of Mice and Men, but I have no problem with saying that we should be sure perpetrators really are genuinely mentally ill before we divert them from the justice system into the treatment system. And I’m certainly not qualified to judge what constitutes mental illness.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pmI would prefer they use a ball-peen hammer to the temple method myself. So what if it takes a few whacks.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pmmightysamurai, that’s very interesting. It would have been unbelievably stupid to write “painless” into the law, because it would be very, very difficult to comply.
Not impossible, though. Technically challenging.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pmHey, we could punch a hole in the back of their skull and suck their brains out…
Oh yeah, some folks want that one reserved for the unborn innocent. My bad!
June 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pmSince he’s a fan of Che, shouldn’t he be all for more pain in executions? Or at least be in favor of execution by firing squad, right? And for executions with little to no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the executed, and without even bothering with a trial? Right?
June 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pmSusan Smith won’t be executed, she didn’t get the death penalty. And a few years ago she came down with VD that she got from some prison guards. It was big news here for a while ( I’m in Columbia, SC)- also they caught some of the female prisoners around the same time having sex in the governor’s mansion with guards. They were being used as a clean-up crew or something. The governor and his wife were not living there at the time, but the governor’s wife had all the furnishings burned! Haha! I guess what I’m saying is, there’s worse things than execution. There’s sex with the guards.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pmActually, both of those methods were initially invented in order to make execution more humane. A hanging, when done properly, snaps the neck cleanly and results in instant death. Beheading (originally, with a sword or axe) was also meant to cause instantaneous death, a vast improvement over older methods like stoning, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, and so forth.
The guillotine was intended to make beheading even more humane. Executioners were not always able to cleave the neck with a single blow of the sword or axe, so the guillotine was designed to ensure instant decapitation. And it worked.
The electric chair and the gas chamber were also meant to cause instant death.
The problem is that no matter how effective and humane a method of execution is, it comes to be seen as cruel and inhumane after a period of time. Lethal injection was developed because people had grown squeamish about electric chairs and gas chambers, but now we are seeing the same thing happen again. Lethal injections are being transformed from humane to cruel in the public mind. Whatever replaces lethal injections, the same thing will happen to it. It seems to be a never-ending cycle.
Personally, I think the guillotine was as instant and painless as any method of execution can be, and no more recent method has actually improved on it. But it has become inseparably associated with the French Reign of Terror, and is now regarded as an instrument of barbaric cruelty.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pmPat Berry Says:
Beyond the ethical issues, given the often lengthy appeals process, is capital punishment cost effective?
Life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, would seem to be a way to not only avoid the ethical pitfalls (even leaving open the possibility of rehabilitation), but to save enormous legal costs as well.
(One last edit for edit-fest-2008 — sorry!)
June 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pmWere it the swift application of justice it was intended to be, were it not the subject of endless court wrangling, were it a demonstrable deterrent, I could accept capital punishment as necessary for the removal of the truly incorrigible from society. But . . .
Ohhhhhh you better watch out
June 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pmYou better realize
You better not doubt
I’m telling you why
Socialism’s coming to town
OK. Strictly NON-cruel&unusual execution: While the malefactor is on death row, the guard goes in and informs him that the appeals court has found so much wrong with his trial that they have ordered that he be freed immediately (as in right-now-today). This, of course elates the criminal. And, as they are walking out of the cell - the guard puts a .45 to the back of the happy criminal’s head and blows his brains all over the wall. No cruelty — the scumbag dies happy.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pmThey did something that’s earned them the death penalty (not an easy thing), but we’re supposed to be worried about a little owie? To steal a line from John Stossel: Give me a break!
June 13th, 2008 at 3:01 pmI don’t want to sound like too much like a liberal, but personally I think that convicted murders should be made to wear nothing but diapers, and then ride pink tricycles 100 yards ahead of army convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan, so saving soldiers’ lives by setting off any mines or IEDs in the area.
I’m still undecided as to whether they should be allowed to wear sunscreen, however. I’ll have to search my conscience on that one…
June 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pmI’m still wondering why they use the alcohol swab on the arm before sticking in the needle… worried about infection?
June 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pmThere’s a difference between passively watching someone else suffer and experiencing suffering yourself.
I greatly doubt anyone who has ever raped or tortured would ever want rape or tortured inflicted on themselves.
She did say “some cruelty” not “tons of cruelty”.
Our options aren’t limited to drawing and quartering and the Comfy Chair. There are degrees in between.
Some of them do, some of them don’t.
But even if all criminals believed they would never be caught, the solution isn’t to abolish the punishment but to build a better equipped and more capable police force.
Respectfully, I don’t see why.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pmBut on the other hand, you have to feed, shelter, and administer to the prisoner’s medical needs for the rest of his life. However long it lasts.
I find it difficult to imagine that legal costs would out-distance that.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pmI’m a former prosecutor in Ohio, and I’m unaware of any painless requirement, although I’ve only been involved in one capital case (it ended with Not Guilty by Crazy).
FWIW, I think we’d all be better off if the Federal Second Amendment read the same as Ohio’s right to bear arms:
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.”
June 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pmIsn’t the evaporating alcohol somewhat pain reducing? That’s purely speculative and, of course raises the question of whether a numbing agent(but what if the subject is allergic?) should be applied — better yet, if we’re going down that path, why not administer nitrous oxide prior to any of the other drugs?
Pat Berry had that right — it’s an infinite regress!
Edit: mightysamurai, glad you did the footwork (see below @ 3:28), but doesn’t that lend just a little support to the ‘costs . . . there are costs’ side of the question?
June 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pmI’m flying with Pat Berry on this one. The entire point of our justice system is that it’s as dispassionate as something like this can be. This makes it a lot fairer as far as conviction and sentencing goes. The trouble with respecting the victim’s wishes is that they’ll either want the (possible) perpetrator to suffer as violently as they did, or they’ll try to take the high road and “forgive” them. Once it gets into the court system, it’s not the victim’s place to determine what happens to the perpetrator - instead of relying on a few months of raw emotion, we instead rely on hundreds of years of experience and case law. It’s a heck of a lot more consistent.
Two points:
1. Suffering confers no rights. The poor suffer. Does that mean they have a right to my labor? No. The victims suffer. Does that mean they have a right to feel better by torturing another member of society? No.
2. There’s a very big difference between the wacky judge and what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about trying to engage in doublethink where we prosecute someone for a crime which you’re not allowed to name. We’re talking about making sure that everyone is treated fairly - whether they deserve it or not, and whether they feel it’s fair or not. Big difference.
While I’m at it…
Nice attempt at a threadjack. 2/10.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pmThey are, as a matter of fact.
They don’t inject the poison immediately after inserting the needle. So there’s a chance the prisoner could receive a last minute stay of execution (which has happened at least once before).
June 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pmI follow my Church’s teachings and do not agree with the death penalty. Life without parole gives a prisoner a chance to repent, which is what my religion believes in. (Roman Catholic.)
This is not easy for me, since my inclination is to end the scumbag’s life.
Honestly, I pray on this issue often and I haven’t come to a place of peace yet. Not a good catholic am I. Long must I think.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pmmightysamurai Says
Unless the prisoner is on dialysis or gets an organ transplant, the legal costs outweigh the costs of keeping him alive by a huge margin! Cases can run a million dollars just by the time the trial opens- especially a death penalty case. And these cases usually are appealed more than once. I’ve had to tangle with the civil system before and just opening and closing a case ran twenty grand. No hearings, no depositions, no settlement, nada. Throw in a few expert witnesses and the cost goes through the roof.
The huge costs and the fact that innocent people do get killed (DNA testing has shown that happens more than we thought when these laws were passed) are two reasons why I am shaky on supporting the death penalty. Plus, to be honest, these really nasty killers and pedophiles don’t get such great treatment in prison. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer. I’m not sure that the lifespan of a lifer is all that long. In fact, I bet there’s a study on it somewhere.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pmHmmm. I like your plan, but am not a big fan of the last four words, I think I’d want them to see it coming.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pmYeah, I know. I figure as long as I was outlining my proposal, I’d place a deserving person in the role of “Evil Murderer”, because that is what that woman is; crazy or not, she is evil incarnate (IMHO, of course).
June 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pmJess - I’m just tryin’ to make the warmfuzzybunnies happy. That should do it.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm(If I had my way, not only would they see it coming, but it would take a very long time and involve huge amounts of pain.)
Bonnie says -
To be strictly accurate, the Church does NOT teach that the death penalty is wrong; it teaches that the death penalty should not be employed when there are other effective methods at society’s disposal. So it becomes a prudential rather than a moral judgement as to whether capital punishment is admissible in any particular time and place.
I worry a lot about the DNA tests exonerating those who are already executed, as Dani points out - I’d favor mandatory examination of all the available DNA evidence before any capital sentence is carried out.
As for opportunity to repent, I do not see how this is the justice system’s concern. Besides, I imagine that knowing for certain that at such and so time and date, one is going to be dead, would focus the mind rather strictly on what may come after (if anything). Presuming one will be around tomorrow means the ability to put off that sort of thinking.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pmFair enough. I don’t think Malcom was near as much of an idealogue as commrade Che. More of a pragmatist, which isn’t necessarily better or worse, just different.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pmMightySam, the Ohio State Constitution explicitly upholds the ban on cruel and inhuman punishment, but is silent on the matter of pain. The “quick and painless” requirement is a law enacted by the legislature.
I know it’s an academic point, but still.
In another article, two anesthesiologists testified that the sedative alone is administered in high enough quantities to cause death.
Greg Trout, chief legal counsel for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, seems to have the clearest head on this:
June 13th, 2008 at 4:25 pmTwo things:
1. Aren’t there passages of the Bible that command capital punishment? For instance:
Mark 9:42 (NIV)
“And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”
2. I would argue that the prisoner has plenty of time to repent between his sentencing and his execution. If he doesn’t repent in that time, well, that’s his problem now isn’t it?
This is not an argument for abolishing the death penalty. This is an argument for streamlining the appeals process.
Besides, criminals sentenced to life imprisonment get to appeal their cases too. And I can’t imagine those cases are any cheaper. Unless you can show me the numbers proving that the net cost of execution is higher than the net cost of life imprisonment, I still find it hard to imagine that the death penalty is more expensive.
And this isn’t an argument for abolishing the death penalty either. This is an argument for increasing the standard of evidence.
This position seems to be in conflict with the one before it.
If you’re “shaky” on the death penalty because some innocent people have been wrongly executed, why aren’t you “shaky” on life imprisonment? If the death penalty is wrong because an innocent person might be wrongly executed, then life imprisonment is also wrong because an innocent person might be sent to jail and murdered by another inmate. Indeed, that very fact is why pedophiles, mass murderers, serial killers and the like are often kept out of the general prison population (or their crime is kept a secret from the other prisoners). So the argument that “he’ll get killed in prison anyway” doesn’t really hold water with me.
And of course, none of this addresses the question of which of the two punishments (the death penalty or life imprisonment) deters more crime. The studies I’ve read seem to show that the death penalty deters more crime than life sentences.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:26 pmNice quote mining.
I posit he did not advocate any particular act of violence upon any particular, identified person(s) which was then actually carried out by any particualr identifiable person(s).
The same cannot be said of Che, which is why I question lumping them together.
You may be able to find some minor act here and there I’m not aware of, but I doubt they come even close to the scope of what Che did, otherwise it would be widely known.
I am not a pacifist. Sometimes violence, even extreme violence, is necessary to prevent greater evil. It’s part of the human condition, so pointing out to me that someone advocated violence at some point does not automatically make me consider them evil or bad.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pmIf one is overly concerned about pain, it seems that a .45 through the brain would be as painless as one could get. Of course, there couldn’t be an open-casket funeral…
June 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pmForgot to add: that photo is quite a study in irony.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pmThere’s also the not insignificant fact that Malcolm X renounced his prior racist beliefs later in his life.
Malcolm X is perhaps not the best person for young people to idolize and look up to, but I have to agree that it’s not really fair to lump him in with Che Guevara.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pmWhat do Che and Barry have in common, you may ask? The reason Fidel and his brother had Che in charge of making sure the victims of the firing squads were dead by walking along the rows of bodies firing bullets into their heads is because he proved to be utterly incompetent at anything else. Have you ever seen or heard B.O. speak publicly without a telepromter? I doubt this guy could find his own ass with both hands, in broad daylight, without his wifes help. God help us if this guy becomes the POTUS! As far as the death row inmates are concerned, I bet a .45 calibre bullet is a lot less expensive than all those drugs! HOPE! CHANGE! Vote for the RINO!
June 13th, 2008 at 6:28 pmThat’s the crux of it. My first thought on seeing that pic was “This man is allowed to be a judge??”
June 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pmmightysamurai,
[nitpick alert!]
If you’re going to quote a scriptural basis for the death penalty, you don’t want the one you cited (”it would be better for him,” because, presumably, his reward on the judgment day will be worse than that!)
Romans 13:3-4 is probably a better choice:
That said, just because the state may hold the power, that doesn’t answer the practical question of whether it should exercise it.
This is not the hill I want to die on — if I had solid conviction in the matter, I would not have phrased all my comments as questions!
June 13th, 2008 at 6:46 pmIt’s tough to see what’s hanging on your wall when your ass is on top of your head.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:23 pmAnd your sack is covering your eyes. Srsly — picture teh bendover for the asshat …
June 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pmMighty and felicity, might I interject a recent passage questioned by the mini-mez, purely for anecdotal purposes …
“Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:17).
June 14th, 2008 at 12:03 amIf I was this guy’s friend on Facebook, I would use the super wall application to kick the living shi’ite out of him. Then I would write something clever on his wall…like “die commie pig.”
June 14th, 2008 at 12:19 amGreat verse, but it’s Old Testament — I always figure those get superseded by the parts that come in after the New Covenant?
And St. Paul was post-Resurrection — so fully informed, as it were :).
June 14th, 2008 at 12:34 amI agree with you in principle. Certainly the state shouldn’t overuse its powers (at least that’s what I interpreted your statement to mean). However, I’m always wary of this position (I’ve heard it several times before) because it can very easily lead to the state underusing it’s powers.
When you don’t regularly enforce a policy, people stop respecting it and it loses its deterrent effect. If the law permits capital punishment but the state only sentences one or two people to death per year, criminals aren’t going to be particularly deterred by it.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:34 amSorry, had to make a bible run:
Revelation 13:10
“He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.”
Sounds about right, and NewTest to boot. KJ version.
Catholic Parish Edition says:
“Anyone destined for captivity goes into captivity. Anyone destined to be slain by the sword shall be slain by the sword.”
Interesting verbiage difference. One puts the onus on the perpretator, and the other on the destiny and weapon. One compels the perpretator to own the action, the other perp is owned by it … hmmm.
EDIT: Mayhap the translation was specifically designed to justify the fundamental ideological stance of each faith? Deep thought, get to work on the answer, post-haste … (42).
Can’t lay my hands on the American Standard right now, sorry.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:44 amI guess I was thinking in terms of capital punishment’s being within the power of the legislature to put into law, i.e. not unconstitutional and not, according to some scripture at least, immoral, but not necessarily being practical or effective legislation to enforce, therefore perhaps unwise to enact — or to keep on the books, should it already exist.
So, if it’s on the books and useful, use it. On the books and not useful? Get rid of it — but not by judicial fiat (e.g. this latest fellow with his pain argument). Repeal it through the legislature!
(and now, of course, you’ve got me thinking of Measure for Measure!)
June 14th, 2008 at 12:58 am14,564+change Says:
Very different translations there — shall go fetch the New Jerusalem post haste!
June 14th, 2008 at 1:00 am14,564+change,
Okay, here’s what I love about the N.J. (apart from being the one Tolkien helped translate):
teh futnoets — I luvs dem!
June 14th, 2008 at 1:19 amfelicity,
Curiouser and curiouser — see my edit from earlier …
Teh futnoets. They are the weasels of literature, and ah luvz me sum mustelidz : )
June 14th, 2008 at 1:30 am14,564+change,
June 14th, 2008 at 1:43 am42 — indeed! I believe you’ve hit upon it at last!
Oh, there’s my bus stop — must toddle off. It’s waaaaayyy past my bedtime! G’night!
Felicity,
June 14th, 2008 at 1:46 amBackacha.
FYI — my handle. The number = spam, and the word = what had to be done.
If using someone’s own words to show their stance is somehow upsetting, Obama may have a job opening for you. But I will apologize for one thing; I misread your post and thought you said Malcolm X did not advocate violence. I’ll agree he did not commit any. And pointing out he did advocate violence is not an insult to you or anyone else or even Malcolm X, nor an accusation of ‘pacifist’. I eagerly endorse violence against Jihadis, in defense of myself, my family, or anyone being physically victimized. Also, and I didn’t mean to imply this if I did, I wouldn’t lump him in with Che, either. That would be like saying Harry Reid has the same master statesmanship of Ronald Reagan. Well, maybe not that bad.
I never suggested the victims had a right to torture anyone. My point was that we often treat the convicted criminal better than we treat his or her victim. And by dismissing the victim, do you ever stop to wonder what impact it has on the victim to see the monster treated with such uber concern? For some, it is like being victimized all over again. (Yes, my example was off topic. My bad.)
Not an attempt at a threadjack. The point being discussed was how we treat those we execute (Or at least, this branch of the thread, seeing how it went in two different directions). The comment was not made to change the topic of discussion, but to highlight the hypocrisy of societal attitudes towards institutionalized execution. We’re not executing jaywalkers or shoplifters, but the monsters of our society. Worrying over their discomfort to this degree borders on obscene in my opinion. If saying so through sarcasm offends you, well you have that right. Enjoy it while you can. HopeChange!
June 14th, 2008 at 7:22 amA quick google shows a general consensus that death penalty cases do run quite a bit more than life w/o parole cases- I’m guessing around a million on average. I think reason why this is so is that the anti-death penalty advocates are willing to bankroll and otherwise provide provide support for defendants on death penalty cases. This drives up the cost of the prosecution as well. It’s hard to find unbiased sources, though. For example, the total cost of death penalty is 38% greater than total cost of life without parole sentences. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)
“Elimination of the death penalty [in California] would result in a net savings to the state of at least tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis.” (Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, 09/9/99)
It might help to decrease costs by not allowing death-penalty cases to be appealed. That comes perilously close to treading on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Less ability to defend one’s self from the worse penalty of all? I don’t think so. The only way to bring the costs down is to ask the lawyers and expert witnesses to reduce their fees. Good luck with that!
Life w/o parole just doesn’t get the same attention since the debate isn’t actually whether the people are guilty or not (most of the time) but if they deserve to die.
In the rare case where the person really isn’t guilty, there’s not always DNA evidence to exonerate them. There are also flat-out miscarriages of justice which I really thought were relegated to history until the Duke rape case. If those men didn’t have the millions to fight former-DA Nifong, they’d be in jail right now. What DNA testing has done is twofold- it has freed innocent people AND it has made people question how many more there might be whom we can’t free because there’s no DNA or other evidence to do it.
Imprisonment of the innocent is never right but it is a false argument to say that just because we occasionally imprison the innocent means we should also accept the occasional execution of one as well. No system of justice is perfect but its logical to try to limit the amount of damage it can do. Death is a quantum leap from any kind of imprisonment. And, there’s always the chance new evidence can arise to free the innocent if they’re alive. Not so much if they’re dead.
Now, offsetting this loss of innocent life is the fact that the death penalty probably really is a deterrent. I think there’s a study out of Texas showing that. So we’re trading the certain loss of innocent life now for the potential loss of it in the future. Someone else can do the social calculus on that. This whole issue really is a wash for me. It’s just not a straightforward as it seems at first glance.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:08 amHeh! Very slick.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:57 amYou’re comments would stand out under any handle, though. They’re, ummm . . . unique? *ducks and runs!*
So in other words, anti-death penalty activists are creating the problem they are complaining about.
Of course, this moves the debate entirely in the wrong direction. The first concern of the justice system should be serving justice, not saving money. They could save tons of money if they just legalized everything and abolished the entire criminal court system. But obviously no one would consider that a good idea.
Studies of crime statistics show that for every inmate executed by the state, 3 to 18 murders are prevented. Surely the value of those 3 to 18 lives per every executed inmate is worth more than the few million dollars saved by the state, yes?
No one is saying we shouldn’t allow death sentences to be appealed. But that doesn’t mean we should allow unlimited appeals. At a certain point an endless appeals process just becomes an exercise in stupidity. If the guy hasn’t been exonerated by three separate appeals, what good will any more appeals do?
June 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pmAnd here’s the official campaign poster of team hopeychenge …
I can steal Rchl’s bandwith …
June 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pmBWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
mightysamurai Says:
Have to call ‘false dichotomy’ on that one, sorry! In order to claim that saving money is being made a ‘first concern’ at the expense of justice, you first have assume that a sentence of life without parole is not ’serving justice’ (I’ll bet it would be if Joe Arpaio could set the conditions!). I would argue that the state may be able to save and serve simultaneously.
Dani [already] Says:
I think you’re both citing the same study? The reference Mighty cites includes this observaton:
Which brings us back to the ’swift carriage’ argument I was trying to make earlier; which must in turn, as Dani rightly says, be balanced against the increased risk of miscarriages of justice.
All of which makes me grateful to live in a federation of states where these issues can be worked out over time using a variety of approaches in the quest for an ideal — unless or until that power is usurped!
June 14th, 2008 at 1:22 pmFiguring that it costs (on low average) about $30,000 per year to keep a murderer in a maximum security prison; and a 20 year old killer lives out his life sentence naturally (ie;doesn’t get killed by another prisoner) - that could run well over a million dollars. And that’s not counting any appeals or nuisance actions he decides to file; and all of which must be defended. Nor does it consider the cost of keeping the clown healthy in the face of disease or age-related disabilities. All in all, it seems that it’s cheaper to just kill’em and get it over with.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pmThat makes me literally physically ill. I (personally, but I am espoused) didn’t even make that much last year (just a few hundred less), and I worked 50+ per week. I use that to pay for five peoples’ food, clothing, shelter, GAS, medical/dental needs, and the occasional weekend trip.
I just heard this in the radio Thursday.
Sigh.
I am going to rob a convenience store. I need the vacation.
* Source:
June 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html -
CheBama rocks.
As I was thinking earlier today, just what is it that makes Obama supporters love Che? Che-che-changes, yep, but keep this in mind, you hopey bastards, the right wing is better armed…
June 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pmNot at all. That would only be true if I had claimed that saving money should not be the ONLY concern. But I said FIRST concern, which is similar but still distinct.
Yes, the state can save money and serve justice at the same time. But serving justice must always, always, ALWAYS come before saving money.
We might be. I didn’t comment on that part of Dani’s argument because I wasn’t sure what he (or is it she? I can never keep anybody’s gender straight on this blog) was saying.
Dani said:
Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but this statement seems to be saying that an innocent person is guaranteed to be wrongly put to death if we allow capital punishment, which seems a bit irrational to me.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pmYour, not you’re — what a maroon!
June 14th, 2008 at 11:25 pmBill (Mamba1-0) Says:
I must admit, it’s kind of satisfying when the justice system is spared the trouble and expense of dealing with a punk like this or this!
Yeah, I’m still going to Hell!
June 15th, 2008 at 12:33 amgo away for the weekend, and time doesn’t stop … darn it. LOL
First … on costs …. I call absolute bullshit on death snetences costing more than life. Crap … we had a friggin’ HEARTY TRANSPLANT for a prisoner on death row here a few years ago. If they’re going to waste THAT kind of money on someone scheduled for an OD … what do you think that keeping felons healthy in the can costs?
Second … as someone who played a medic in a former life … I’m a firm believer in preventative medicine. May I point out that our prison system is run by the government. May I further point out that the government is mostly as socialist as possible and still clings to a belief system that these were good people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? So they do things like letting a mass murderer go an a mall shopping expedition on his birthday … and then are shocked when he overpowers his two unarmed guards, gets away, and commits two MORE murders in less than 24 hours from that escape? Point two - preventative medicine. NO executed criminal has ever been shows to commit another murder.
I might be a little more willing to listen to the “better a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man go to prison” crwod, if they would guarantee the hundred guilty men would not immediately reoffend. Guarantee by accepting the burden of the perps punishment …. or, better yet, providing accomodation (in their home) to those they want off death row …
June 16th, 2008 at 8:00 am