Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Death Penalty (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Wrigley
- Start date
badmojo1006
Footballguy
So some of ya don't like the death penalty.
Well this disgusting thing absolutely deserves it.
https://fox59.com/2018/08/03/court-docs-seymour-boy-suffered-for-hours-after-eating-meth-dad-never-called-911/
Well this disgusting thing absolutely deserves it.
https://fox59.com/2018/08/03/court-docs-seymour-boy-suffered-for-hours-after-eating-meth-dad-never-called-911/
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Nope. I agree that this guy deserves bad things to come to him, but as a Christian, I hope that none of us actually get what we deserve. That includes this person.
Rirruto
Footballguy
This is weird to me. As a nihilist who believes in nothing, and I mean come on even the National Socialists had an ethos, I believe that the death penalty is too soft for a lot of #### that I've seen as a prosecutor. Being locked in a cage as a human is way worse than the relief of death from my stand point. That includes this person.
But if people from all sides are reaching the same conclusion for different reasons, that's probably a sign that their underlying conclusion is correct even if the reasoning is widely different.
whoknew
Footballguy
Tennessee executed a man tonight with drugs that may inflict torturous pain.
I think Sonya Sotomayor said it best -
“In refusing to grant Irick a stay, the Court today turns a blind eye to a proven likelihood that the State of Tennessee is on the verge of inflicting several minutes of torturous pain on an inmate in its custody,” Sotomayor wrote. “… If the law permits this execution to go forward in spite of the horrific final minutes that Irick may well experience, then we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism.”
I think Sonya Sotomayor said it best -
“In refusing to grant Irick a stay, the Court today turns a blind eye to a proven likelihood that the State of Tennessee is on the verge of inflicting several minutes of torturous pain on an inmate in its custody,” Sotomayor wrote. “… If the law permits this execution to go forward in spite of the horrific final minutes that Irick may well experience, then we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism.”
Gawain
Footballguy
Billy Irick:
Barbarism wasn't introduced to Billy Irick's life by the state or by a three-drug cocktail. He made that choice for himself.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
So as long as he “deserves it” the 8th Amendment allows the state to inflict a cruel and unusual punishment. That’s a novel legal theory.
sho nuff
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
In addition to what @Ramsay Hunt Experience wrote, Sotomayor's quote wasn't about Billy Irick being barbaric or him having barbarism in his life. It was that we, as a nation, were being barbaric. "...we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism.
Gawain
Footballguy
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual and had not been questioned as cruel or unusual for almost 200 years. It's only been recently that challenges to the execution method have been viable. Ten years. All the initial challenges revolved around application, not execution (pardon the pun).
I am stating that barbarism already exists. The is still a retributive element to the American penal system. As far as I know, the test put forth in Baze that a superior method must be available to the state at the time of execution still controls. Based on that, if there's no better method available to the state than one that may inflict "several minutes of torturous pain," nothing cruel or unusual exists about the process.
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew
Footballguy
I don't fully understand your point. (I know you were responding to two different posts, but they have similar topics).
Just because something is not considered cruel or unusual for 200 years doesn't mean it isn't cruel or unusual. As a society we evolve. We (hopefully) become more civilized. And in addition, with scientific advances, we understand what these drugs will do to the human body when injected.
So if we know that the inmate will likely undergo torturous pain, that's barbaric. And if this barbaric torture doesn't qualify as cruel and unusual under the current standard, then maybe the standard is wrong.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
The case isn’t about whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. It’s about whether subjecting a man to extreme pain for a few minutes while he dies is cruel and unusual punishment. Presumably, the 8th Amendment would ban drawing and quartering him, right?
Gawain
Footballguy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you think that the process of becoming more civilized leads to abolishment of capital punishment. That's not a view I, or many others share.
It is settled (at the moment) that there is no legal right to a painless death. The state needs to move forward with a method of capital punishment that is not more painful than other readily available means. The state did so in this case.
I'd also like to point out that that we can move beyond the process-based argument and see the results-based argument.
It appears that midazolam worked as intended in this case.
It's not a case about "subjecting a man to extreme pain for a few minutes while he dies is cruel and unusual punishment" either. The stay was requested on the basis that two other lethal injection substitutes existed for the State of Tennessee that would demonstrably cause less pain for Irick. Kagan found that the trial court ruled correctly on the no-available-alternative issue. Sotomayor dissented in Arthur, she dissented in Guardado, she dissented in Cozzie, she dissented in Glossip. I'm not sure there's been a denied stay case she's affirmed on. I can appreciate the convictions of someone who is against capital punishment in all forms, but I firmly believe that she acts from her beliefs and not on precedent in capital punishment cases.
As to drawing and quartering, such a process should not be allowed if less painful alternatives exist. I struggle to come up with a scenario where an alternative couldn't be found.
whoknew
Footballguy
I think you are underestimating how common my view is. So there are two points:Gawain said:
1) Whether, under the current standard, its ok to cause torturous pain to a condemned if its the least painful method of execution? I agree this is the current standard.
2) But, more importantly in my view, that standard is terrible. Even with all the other problems with the death penalty, if we are torturing inmates when executing them, that should be cruel and unusual - regardless of how it compares to other forms of execution.
And then, of course, there are the many, many problems with the death penalty. As Breyer wrote in the 2015 Oklahoma case - "I would ask for full briefing on a more basic question: whether the death penalty violates the Constitution....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 don't know how to do the double quote thing, so I apologize but as to your point about midazolam worked as intended - unless I am reading it wrong, the midazolam paralyzes the inmate but that doesn't necessarily mean it takes away the pain. From Sotomayor's dissent -
“In theory, the first drug in the three-drug protocol, midazolam, is supposed to render a person unable to feel pain during an execution. But the medical experts who testified here explained that midazolam would not work, and the trial court credited that testimony.” ... “In refusing to grant Irick a stay, the court today turns a blind eye to a proven likelihood that the state of Tennessee is on the verge of inflicting several minutes of torturous pain on an inmate in its custody, while shrouding his suffering behind a veneer of paralysis."
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
To start, I'm a pinko lefty commie. So that'll inform you about my political philosophy.
So that said, here I go:
There are two justice systems: one for the poor and one for the rich. OJ Simpson didn't get away with murder because he was famous. He got away with murder because he could hire the best attorneys in the country. Until we have a justice system that does not favor the wealthy, we need to table the death penalty. But even if this inequity was eliminated, how can the state murder a murderer? Is killing wrong or not? We have to set aside our rage when we discuss this. Yes, if someone harmed my son or my wife, I'd want to kill them. But that's survival mode - that's instinctual revenge.
No one with a brain wants violent criminals on the street. You rape and murder a woman? I'm cool with an automatic life sentence. But many prisoners are going to be released some day. So this brings into question the issue of punishment. Yes, prison should be punishment. But we're training petty criminals to be gladiators. This does direct, provable harm to society.
Our prison system is institutionalized slavery. We enslave the poor, minorities, the mentally ill, and the addicts for petty crimes so we can staff prison industries. Prison industries are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. This is cruel and unusual punishment for crimes that really do not harm society.
So that said, here I go:
There are two justice systems: one for the poor and one for the rich. OJ Simpson didn't get away with murder because he was famous. He got away with murder because he could hire the best attorneys in the country. Until we have a justice system that does not favor the wealthy, we need to table the death penalty. But even if this inequity was eliminated, how can the state murder a murderer? Is killing wrong or not? We have to set aside our rage when we discuss this. Yes, if someone harmed my son or my wife, I'd want to kill them. But that's survival mode - that's instinctual revenge.
No one with a brain wants violent criminals on the street. You rape and murder a woman? I'm cool with an automatic life sentence. But many prisoners are going to be released some day. So this brings into question the issue of punishment. Yes, prison should be punishment. But we're training petty criminals to be gladiators. This does direct, provable harm to society.
Our prison system is institutionalized slavery. We enslave the poor, minorities, the mentally ill, and the addicts for petty crimes so we can staff prison industries. Prison industries are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. This is cruel and unusual punishment for crimes that really do not harm society.
Gawain
Footballguy
I don't disagree with the fact that OJ got off due to his legal team (though @Woz might disagree with your assertion that public defenders are responsible for folks receiving a sentence of death), but there's a lot of thought and research into how the Rodney King verdicts played into the OJ trial and result.
You're just using the fallacy of relative privation here. You're not stating that folks who received a sentence of death shouldn't have received their sentence. You're stating that even if the justice system favoring the wealthy has no impact on a specific trial, we need to arbitrarily change the sentence given out.
Murder is unlawful killing. It's why soldiers and folks who rely on self-defense aren't charged with murder. Killing is wrong sometimes and is not wrong other times.
The USA justice system is based on retribution. Mandatory minimum sentences are retributive (also incapacitative and arguably a deterrent). I think the US prison system is too retributive based and we need more rehabilitation based sentencing. However, for certain crimes where the only options are LWOP or death, the rehabilitative factor is lost. The person will never become a member of society again. The application of the death penalty is neither survival mode nor instinctual revenge. The application of the death penalty is the retributive and incapacitative punishment meted out for certain crimes.
I don't think this touches on the death penalty or on capital punishment, so I'll just agree that the focus of incarceration for minor offenders should be rehabilitative and restitutive. I will disagree that there are crimes that don't hurt society. Perhaps there are actions that have been criminalized incorrectly, but I then wouldn't refer to those actions as crimes.
I'd also point out that the 13th Amendment explicitly allows prison labor.
Last edited by a moderator:
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Well said all around.
To address your points:
I have a good friend. He's a criminal attorney that used to prosecute cases for the district attorney's office. He quit because of consistent abuses of power and prosecutions that were unjust and illegal. Now, he's not claiming this is the norm. But we're executing people based on unreliable witness testimony and fabricated evidence. This is simply not acceptable.
To the point of state-sanctioned killing and what is or isn't acceptable forms of ending a life, this is a moral conundrum I'm not crazy about. When our soldiers fought in WW2, there is no debate this was a just war where we saved potentially millions of lives. But so many wars after this are unacceptable and unjust. Ask an Iraqi how he likes Iraq post-Saddam. It's way worse. And while our government uses drones to bomb women and children, we ignored the massacres in Rwanda. So any theoretical defense of state-sanctioned killing is mitigated by an arbitrary, capricious process that is more political than concerned with justice.
Regarding the inequity in the death penalty: simply put, the poor are far more likely to be put to death than the rich. This is not contested by any facts or research.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Killing another human being might sometimes be the less wrong than the alternative, but it is still wrong.
Gov. Newsom to order halt to California’s death penalty
Gov. Gavin Newsom is suspending the death penalty in California, calling it discriminatory and immoral, and is granting reprieves to the 737 condemned inmates on the nation’s largest Death Row.
“I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and discriminatory execution of its people,” Newsom said in a statement accompanying an executive order, to be issued Wednesday, declaring a moratorium on capital punishment in the state. “The death penalty is inconsistent with our bedrock values and strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Californian.”
He plans to order an immediate shutdown of the death chamber at San Quentin State Prison, where the last execution was carried out in 2006. Newsom is also withdrawing California’s recently revised procedures for executions by lethal injection, ending — at least for now — the struggle by prison officials for more than a decade to devise procedures that would pass muster in federal court by minimizing the risk of a botched and painful execution.
This is just a temporary measure - the Governor does not have the authority to eliminate the death penalty - must be done by referendum. But Newsom will grant reprieves to all inmates during his tenure - as opposed to clemency or commutation of sentences. In other words - the next governor could put everything back in motion.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is suspending the death penalty in California, calling it discriminatory and immoral, and is granting reprieves to the 737 condemned inmates on the nation’s largest Death Row.
“I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and discriminatory execution of its people,” Newsom said in a statement accompanying an executive order, to be issued Wednesday, declaring a moratorium on capital punishment in the state. “The death penalty is inconsistent with our bedrock values and strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Californian.”
He plans to order an immediate shutdown of the death chamber at San Quentin State Prison, where the last execution was carried out in 2006. Newsom is also withdrawing California’s recently revised procedures for executions by lethal injection, ending — at least for now — the struggle by prison officials for more than a decade to devise procedures that would pass muster in federal court by minimizing the risk of a botched and painful execution.
This is just a temporary measure - the Governor does not have the authority to eliminate the death penalty - must be done by referendum. But Newsom will grant reprieves to all inmates during his tenure - as opposed to clemency or commutation of sentences. In other words - the next governor could put everything back in motion.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I believe I speak for the vast majority of Americans when I say "wait, California has the death penalty? WTF?"
understandable - I think it might have the largest population of Death Row inmates - precisely because they never execute anyone.
Quick google - and its not even close:
California - 740
Florida - 353
Texas - 232
Last execution in California was in 2006 - 76 yo Clarance Ray Allen
badmojo1006
Footballguy
New Hampshire became the 21st state to repeal its death penalty Thursday, after a vote in the Senate to pass legislation over the objections of Gov. Chris Sununu.
In a 16-8 vote after unusually brisk debate, senators passed an override measure with the necessary two-thirds of support to override Sununu’s veto, issued earlier this month. In a series of emotional pleas, some senators sided with governor, arguing that the prohibition served as a deterrent for the murder of law enforcement and provided justice that life imprisonment cannot.
But others argued repealing the punishment was a matter of humanity.
“This question will be answered but not by political philosophy or alliances but by lifetimes of individual experiences that we all carry with us,” said Sen. Harold French, a Franklin Republican who voted to override Sununu's veto. “Today I will vote to override the veto of our governor. Because this vote is about our state and about what kind of state we are all going to be a part of.”
In a 16-8 vote after unusually brisk debate, senators passed an override measure with the necessary two-thirds of support to override Sununu’s veto, issued earlier this month. In a series of emotional pleas, some senators sided with governor, arguing that the prohibition served as a deterrent for the murder of law enforcement and provided justice that life imprisonment cannot.
But others argued repealing the punishment was a matter of humanity.
“This question will be answered but not by political philosophy or alliances but by lifetimes of individual experiences that we all carry with us,” said Sen. Harold French, a Franklin Republican who voted to override Sununu's veto. “Today I will vote to override the veto of our governor. Because this vote is about our state and about what kind of state we are all going to be a part of.”
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
After becoming familiar with several death penalty cases recently I am now firmly in the camp of wanting the death penalty gone.
Not because i believed them to be innocent or undeserving of being put to death. Nope, it was because of how disgusting their lawyers and anti death penalty people were. There are tons of people out there willing to say anything.
Sister Helen Prejean publicly accused a man (that had been cleared by DNA testing) all based on a quote from a random internet stranger and an affidavit that was filed to get the warrant to take dna samples, that showed he was not a match. So she disregarded the testing that resulted from the warrant secured by the affidavit in order to use the accusation that was in the affidavit as fact.
Lawyers dig up everything they can on the victims and use any connection they can in the past to try and create alternate realities. The families have to read countless victim shaming theories.
Reporters write stories that paint rapists and murderers as victims and it is gobbled up by death penalty abolitionists that dont care if it is true.
If the death penalty was abolished most people wouldnt care anymore and there wouldnt be millions of dollars in donations pouring in lining pockets for spewing nonsense.
Money would only be available for cases that actually had issues of facts rather than were basically just death penalty cases. People will lie, cheat, and steal to get a monster off of death row. Not as many people willing to do that if it was life in prison. Not as many media members willing to write about it and twist the story either. Less media coverage means fewer people willing to say anything to get their 15 minutes. Countless affidavits with "new eyewitness testimony" often containing statements that contradict the convicted's own statements. Affidavits clearly crafted by attorneys with the goal of delaying execution at the last minute to get the case remanded to the trial court. These statements then fall apart if an actual hearing is granted. "Oh yeah, i didnt actually hear that, it was relayed to me."
Not because i believed them to be innocent or undeserving of being put to death. Nope, it was because of how disgusting their lawyers and anti death penalty people were. There are tons of people out there willing to say anything.
Sister Helen Prejean publicly accused a man (that had been cleared by DNA testing) all based on a quote from a random internet stranger and an affidavit that was filed to get the warrant to take dna samples, that showed he was not a match. So she disregarded the testing that resulted from the warrant secured by the affidavit in order to use the accusation that was in the affidavit as fact.
Lawyers dig up everything they can on the victims and use any connection they can in the past to try and create alternate realities. The families have to read countless victim shaming theories.
Reporters write stories that paint rapists and murderers as victims and it is gobbled up by death penalty abolitionists that dont care if it is true.
If the death penalty was abolished most people wouldnt care anymore and there wouldnt be millions of dollars in donations pouring in lining pockets for spewing nonsense.
Money would only be available for cases that actually had issues of facts rather than were basically just death penalty cases. People will lie, cheat, and steal to get a monster off of death row. Not as many people willing to do that if it was life in prison. Not as many media members willing to write about it and twist the story either. Less media coverage means fewer people willing to say anything to get their 15 minutes. Countless affidavits with "new eyewitness testimony" often containing statements that contradict the convicted's own statements. Affidavits clearly crafted by attorneys with the goal of delaying execution at the last minute to get the case remanded to the trial court. These statements then fall apart if an actual hearing is granted. "Oh yeah, i didnt actually hear that, it was relayed to me."
Zow
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I am VERY sympathetic to this point of view.
But I also think that any of these mass shooters that get captured alive, in which there is no doubt of their guilt...they really need to be put to death. Or a guy like Timothy McVeigh.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I wasn’t sure you agreed with me about what might constitute “deserving of the death penalty.” But it seems that we’re on the same page.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Depends on what they are guilty of. Sure let 100 shoplifters or car thieves go, but I would rather execute one innocent person than let 100 guilty murderers go free. You would need a 2% murder rate to be correct.JohnnyU said:
What do you consider irrefutable proof btw?
Apple Jack
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Fair enough. Even I wouldn't go for 100 murderers let loose to save one wrongly-accused. It's hard to imagine anybody going for that.
shadrap
Footballguy
of the guys 3 victims one was an 8 year old. I get a little vengeful when a little kid is killed. I don't know whether the death penalty is right or wrong. I really don't, except if someone killed my child I would gladly kill him/her.
then there is this: vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.
whoknew
Footballguy
Statement from Daniel Lee's (the prisoner who was executed) lawyer Ruth Friedman -
"It is important for everyone o understand what happened last night to our client, Daniel Lewis Lee...Over the four hours it took for this reckless and relentless government to pursue these ends, Daniel Lewis Lee remained strapped to a gurney: a mere 31 minutes after a court of appeals lifted the last impediment to his execution at the federal government's urging, while multiple motions remained pending, and without notice to counsel, he was executed."
"It is important for everyone o understand what happened last night to our client, Daniel Lewis Lee...Over the four hours it took for this reckless and relentless government to pursue these ends, Daniel Lewis Lee remained strapped to a gurney: a mere 31 minutes after a court of appeals lifted the last impediment to his execution at the federal government's urging, while multiple motions remained pending, and without notice to counsel, he was executed."
sho nuff
Footballguy
Its one of my oppositions to the death penalty...it amounts to government sponsored vengeance and I am not on board with that.
whoknew
Footballguy
I don't think that's true. I think that was one of the reasons, but not the only. Link
Family members of three people slain in Arkansas more than 20 years ago have been among the most vocal opponents to the federal government's plan to execute one of the men convicted of killing their loved ones.
That man, Daniel Lewis Lee, is first on the list of prisoners set to be killed as the Trump administration tries to bring back federal executions this week after an almost two-decade hiatus.
But relatives of William Mueller, his wife, Nancy, and her 8-year-old daughter, Sarah Powell, who were killed in 1996, say that's not what they want. They have pleaded for years that Lee, of Yukon, Oklahoma, should receive the same life sentence as the ringleader in a deadly scheme that aimed to establish a whites-only nation in the Pacific Northwest.
Hours before Lee's scheduled execution, it was unclear whether any of the executions would go forward. The family members say their grief is compounded by the push to execute the 47-year-old Lee in the middle of a pandemic.
"As a supporter of President Trump, I pray that he will hear my message: the scheduled execution of Danny Lee for the murder of my daughter and granddaughter is not what I want and would bring my family more pain," Earlene Peterson, Nancy's mother and Sarah's grandmother, said in a statement last month.
Family members say the government is forcing them to put their lives at risk if they travel during the coronavirus pandemic to witness Lee's execution. Peterson; her granddaughter Monica Veillette; and Kimma Gurel, Nancy Mueller's sister and Sarah's aunt, asked a judge for a delay, which a judge initially granted.
That decision was overturned as lawyers for the federal government, Lee and others fought in court in the days leading up to the execution.
Peterson, 81, lives in Arkansas, while Veillette and Gurel live in Washington state.
An attorney for the relatives who object to the execution said they hadn't traveled to Indiana as of Monday morning. A Justice Department official said other members of the family were still planning to attend.
Some would have to travel thousands of miles to witness the execution in a small room in which the social distancing needed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus is virtually impossible.
"It feels disingenuous to me for someone to say they're doing this in our family's name and for us, and no one's taken into account our well-being and health," Veillette said.
She said other relatives want to witness the execution to counter the government's argument that it's being done on their behalf.
"For us it is a matter of being there and saying, `This is not being done in our name; we do not want this,'" she said.
Lee's execution would be only the third carried out in the U.S. since March due to concerns about COVID-19. Missouri executed an inmate in May, and Texas executed a man last week.
The federal executions will bring together lawyers, victims' families, media and others from other communities, which could pose a public health risk. By late June, more than 57,000 inmates at state and federal prisons had tested positive for the virus, according to data compiled by The Marshall Project and The Associated Press
"You are creating a petri dish, and then you're bringing that into the prison, and the prison is already a hot spot for the virus," said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.
The Bureau of Prisons says it's implementing safety measures that include conducting temperature checks and requiring witnesses to wear masks.
Lee's attorneys have pressed their case that his death sentence is unfair, and cited evidence from his trial that Chevie Kehoe, the alleged ringleader, actually killed Sarah.
Kehoe, of Colville, Washington, recruited Lee in 1995 for his white supremacist organization. Two years later, they were arrested for the killings of the Muellers and Sarah in Tilly, Arkansas, about 75 miles (120 kilometers) northwest of Little Rock. At their 1999 trial, prosecutors said Kehoe and Lee stole guns and $50,000 in cash from the Muellers as part of their plan to establish a whites-only nation.
Prosecutors said Lee and Kehoe incapacitated the Muellers and questioned Sarah about where they could find money and ammunition. Then, they used stun guns on them, sealed trash bags with duct tape on their heads, taped rocks to their bodies and dumped them in a bayou.
Kehoe and Lee were both convicted of murder. The lead prosecutor and judge from Lee's trial have in recent years called the disparity in their sentences unfair.
"Perhaps more than anything else, this case illustrates that the most carefully crafted capital punishment regime in the hands of the humans who must carry it out can never be completely free of arbitrariness in all of its implementations," Judge G. Thomas Eisele wrote in a 2008 ruling denying Lee's request to set aside his death sentence.
The U.S. Supreme Court last month cleared the way for Lee and three other federal inmates to be put to death. The other three are slated to die for killing people from Iowa, Kansas and Missouri.
Similar threads
