Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on February 10, 2015, 05:46:48 PM
-
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/02/10/nitrogen-gas-death-penalty-bills-clear-oklahoma-panels
We have discussed nitrogen hypoxia many times. It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.
-
I'm sorry. I know this has all been said before, but what the heck is wrong with hanging, the firing squad, or just a bullet in the head? :facepalm:
It's an execution for a capital crime, for crying out loud. They're not putting Fluffy to sleep. Should we really put ourselves out to make sure they feel no pain, even when we are killing them?
-
I'm sorry. I know this has all been said before, but what the heck is wrong with hanging, the firing squad, or just a bullet in the head? :facepalm:
It's an execution for a capital crime, for crying out loud. They're not putting Fluffy to sleep. Should we really put ourselves out to make sure they feel no pain, even when we are killing them?
Because the limpwristed spineless liberals in this nation care more about the criminals than their victims.
-
I'm sorry. I know this has all been said before, but what the heck is wrong with hanging, the firing squad, or just a bullet in the head? :facepalm:
It's an execution for a capital crime, for crying out loud. They're not putting Fluffy to sleep. Should we really put ourselves out to make sure they feel no pain, even when we are killing them?
I think we should. To the extent that the death penalty is appropriate, I think it should be done in a humane manner.
-
I think we should. To the extent that the death penalty is appropriate, I think it should be done in a humane manner.
Humane in the same context of the 8th amendment suits me. Don't believe they had lethal injections when that was penned.
-
I think we should. To the extent that the death penalty is appropriate, I think it should be done in a humane manner.
Not much more humane than a bullet to the head. Cheaper too.
-
Not much more humane than a bullet to the head. Cheaper too.
This.
-
Not much more humane than a bullet to the head. Cheaper too.
I would tend to agree, but we have all seen the examples of law enforcement marksmanship. The chance for errors is high. Might have to move up to a firing company. :laugh:
-
On the nitrogen, I have considered this myself. It would be fairly cheap, painless, quick, and no rare or expensive chemicals would be needed. The oxygen monitors that would be needed around it are cheap and easy to find. They execute people so seldom that cylinder nitrogen could be used. If they have to graduate to liquid nitrogen storage, they might be getting carried away with the numbers or procedures. (I guess it might be needed if they go with a booth instead of a mask.)
I think someone here also mentioned using nitrous oxide as a prep.
The funny thing is federal regulations would probably require them to use FDA regulated Nitrogen NF gas (food/hospital grade) that is manufactured using Good Manufacturing Practices instead of plain old industrial nitrogen.
-
They should add helium to the bill as an acceptable gas to use, not only do they die just as quick as they do nitrogen you can get it at the nearby balloon store and the condemmed sounds like Donald Duck as he makes his exit. ;) >:D
bob
-
But Ryan Kiesel, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, described the legislators' effort as a "fool's errand."
"It's absurd to try to chase down a more humane way to intentionally take the life of another human being against their will," Kiesel said.
Ironic...given that the death penalty is effectively only applied when the convicted DID THIS TO SOMEONE ELSE
-
Firing squad and hangings can get messy if not done right.
This seems to be less of a hassle for those charged with hauling away the remains.
-
I am a supporter of the technique. I can't think of a more humane method.
-
I've recently become enamored of the "dig a hole and bury them" method. No intermediate steps, just dig a deep hole, throw them in and fill up the hole.
-
Humane, economical and hard to screw up. I'd say it's the best option.
-
I've recently become enamored of the "dig a hole and bury them" method. No intermediate steps, just dig a deep hole, throw them in and fill up the hole.
I like this a lot.
-
A bill promoting executions with nitroglycerine?
Hey, I'm all for it.
-
I would tend to agree, but we have all seen the examples of law enforcement marksmanship. The change for errors is high. Might have to move up to a firing company. :laugh:
No need to do all that. One ad placed in the right place would yield plenty of qualified volunteers. I'm sure they'd even supply their own "tools" and ammo. [ar15]
-
When Gary Gilmore was executed 1500 folks volunteered
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The lethal injection show is more about making the execution look like something medical or scientific than it is about pain. I think policymakers have judged that they minimise fallout with that sort of look.
-
They're not putting Fluffy to sleep. Should we really put ourselves out to make sure they feel no pain, even when we are killing them?
Actually, at the point we're executing somebody, I view it a lot like putting down ol'Yeller because he's rabid. We're putting him/her down for the good of society. We don't need to make it any more painful than necessary.
Plus, not leaving a mess(gunshot) or risking a head popping off(hanging) is a bonus. However, the current system of tying the convicted down and sticking needles in them has to end. If we continue with it it should be with a massive dose of straight painkillers - no need for the cocktail we use now.
The benefit of nitrogen asphyxiation as an execution method is that any good welding shop can provide everything needed - from what welding is necessary to form an airtight room and the associated connections for the gases to the gas itself.
Oh, and I'm partial to the booth method myself. Give them a nice comfy chair in it and a book. Let them listen to a stereo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOV8mBjHHYg
Remember - I view it as little different than putting down a rabid dog. They're dying, no need to add anything to it.
-
On the nitrogen, I have considered this myself.
Don't do it!
Life is worth living!
(probably)
-
I think we should. To the extent that the death penalty is appropriate, I think it should be done in a humane manner.
Hanging, done professionally, is humane.
A well-placed bullet is humane, obviously.
This lethal injection/inhalation/asphyxiation nonsense is a farce. Someone is being killed, and they're being killed as punishment for an awful crime. Torture is not called for, of course, but pain is to expected, when convicted of murder and sentenced to death. There is no justification for going to such lengths as we go to avoid it. If we're going to kill murderers, let's put on our big boy pants, and accept that the condemned will experience some unpleasantness as we kill them.
-
Lethal injection is, I believe, more painful than hanging. As are most of the other methods we transitioned to away from hanging.
Firing squad, guillotine and such are acceptably painless, done right, but are too messy for people to accept it today.
I propose nitrogen asphyxiation as a fix for the over-complicated mess that is lethal injection. If it was decided that firing squad, heck, captive bolt pistol, was enough, I'd go for that.
It meets the 'no unnecessary suffering' standard. It's simple. It doesn't require specialized medical training and experience. It doesn't depend upon chemicals that are easily cut off.
You can go on about old methods of execution all you like, but they've already been ruled out.
-
But Ryan Kiesel, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, described the legislators' effort as a "fool's errand."
"It's absurd to try to chase down a more humane way to intentionally take the life of another human being against their will," Kiesel said.
No it isn't against their will. As soon as they took another life their will was to be executed.
-
I have to agree with fistful. A brief bit of 'discomfort' for the miscreant being executed, should not be a worry.
-
As for RKL's dig a hole idea, here in Oklahoma there are several deep mines that one could be dropped in, if you can get out you can live.
-
Ever seen a gas chamber in use? Not pretty . Not as imagined. The guy I saw tried to hold his breath.
Shoot em up with a big shot of dope. It's over should take less than 60 seconds to tie em off and hit em. Bye
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I find it interesting that the two currently most used methods are, to me, actually the most painful to the criminal. Not necessarily from a physical aspect, but psychologically. They not only have to go through the whole "pomp and circumstance" of the slow walk, being strapped in, etc., but then when the word is given, they're still conscious and aware for a good while as the gas is pumped in, or the cocktail injected.
If the people who complain about the perceived suffering that the death penalty causes really cared, they'd be more in favor of the older, "messier" methods than they would of current methods, because while "the walk" is still there, once the word is given, it's lights out. With the possible exception of a firing squad.
I think if I were on death row, I would take the nail gun they use on cattle over a firing squad. However, anesthesia plus nitrogen would be my preferred choice if I was looking for an easy death. Because with nitrogen alone, while physically painless, I'd still be anxious over the time it took for the gas to do its thing. Not that I'm necessarily against someone who has committed a heinous crime thinking about that during their last minutes.
-
Why don't we just let the family of the victim decide how they should be executed.
-
Working in the medical field, if I had my choice, I would have a face mask strapped to my face and given inhalational general anesthesia. I would be unconscious in just a few seconds. Then after being in deep anesthesia, you turn down the oxygen and turn up the concentration of the anesthetic agent. You would be dead in just a few minutes from hypoxia and you would never feel a thing.
I have handled malpractice cases where pretty much this scenario occurred by accident.
-
Why don't we just let the family of the victim decide how they should be executed.
I wouldn't want to put that on the family. That's a heavy burden.
Besides, the matter is between the state and the condemned.
-
I find it interesting that the two currently most used methods are, to me, actually the most painful to the criminal. Not necessarily from a physical aspect, but psychologically. They not only have to go through the whole "pomp and circumstance" of the slow walk, being strapped in, etc., but then when the word is given, they're still conscious and aware for a good while as the gas is pumped in, or the cocktail injected
I read the autobiography of Albert Pierrepoint, who was one of the final Chief Executioners in Great Britain. He took real pride in minimizing the anxiety of the prisoner and strived to complete the execution as fast as possible. His personal best was restraining, noosing, hooding and springing the trap in 13 seconds after the prisoner entered the gallows chamber. He did some executions for the US Army during WWII, and he thought it was barbaric the way the Army insisted that the prisoner be restrained, noosed and hooded on the gallows and then everyone stands there while the execution orders were read out for several minutes.
His book also convinced me that if you have someone who knows what they are doing, hanging is a humane method of execution.
-
Working in the medical field, if I had my choice, I would have a face mask strapped to my face and given inhalational general anesthesia. I would be unconscious in just a few seconds. Then after being in deep anesthesia, you turn down the oxygen and turn up the concentration of the anesthetic agent. You would be dead in just a few minutes from hypoxia and you would never feel a thing.
I have handled malpractice cases where pretty much this scenario occurred by accident.
This is why I mentioned nitrous. Give them some nitrous before hand so they are out of it. I guess some other drug would work also. Hell, give them a joint. I just think nitrogen would be cheaper and more readily available.
We train on oxygen deficient atmospheres at work since we use industrial nitrogen on site. You have no symptoms when you suddenly breath nitrogen. You just pass out. Pure nitrogen actually draws O2 out of the lungs and your brain shuts down as soon as the oxygen deficient blood goes up to your head which is very fast.
-
I read the autobiography of Albert Pierrepoint, who was one of the final Chief Executioners in Great Britain. He took real pride in minimizing the anxiety of the prisoner and strived to complete the execution as fast as possible. His personal best was restraining, noosing, hooding and springing the trap in 13 seconds after the prisoner entered the gallows chamber. He did some executions for the US Army during WWII, and he thought it was barbaric the way the Army insisted that the prisoner be restrained, noosed and hooded on the gallows and then everyone stands there while the execution orders were read out for several minutes.
His book also convinced me that if you have someone who knows what they are doing, hanging is a humane method of execution.
I've seen some of the ropes they used in GB for this purpose...its a rather interesting story...but only to be told in person :)
-
I'm against the death penalty in practice because the government is not competent on multiple levels and with multiple variations. The government has a proven history of executing innocent parties that were wrongly convicted. On the flip side, they regularly let folks not be executed if the person has wealth or exceptional lawyers.
If we cannot ban government usage of lethal force against its citizenry, we should regulate it as much as we are allowed. I gather some folks are in the "Who cares, make it as barbaric as possible!" camp. I'd remind those folks that is statistically certain said methods will be used against the innocent as well the the guilty. Because that's what governments do. Virtually any form of execution will be blotched. Because that's what governments do.
Ergo, it is reasonable to try to mandate that executions be humane and hard to screw up. Nitrogen, nitrous or anesthesia are all superior to current forms of execution in terms of humaneness, "hard to screw up" and cost effectiveness. We're stuck with our current situation due to bureaucratic inertia, blatant sadism of a large enough section of the citizenry and our politicians generally not being very good leaders.
If a person was absolutely guilty as determined by an impartial and just legal system, I'd be fine with them being fed into a wood chipper feet first while being dosed in sulfuric acid while forced to listen to Justin Bieber on repeat. But we don't live in such a system. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that our legal system is not impartial nor just.
-
I approve of and echo the above statements ^
Our government(s) are not worthy to judge life and death.
I'm also in favor of a more isolationist stance on foreign policy regarding making war. I realize the realities and accept that rolling back our military adventurous policies would be a long term project so as not to cause to many disruptions worldwide.
-
Eh. There are people out there who need to be put down, and it's a proper responsibility of government to do it. Blanket refusal to execute is itself a form of government incompetence.
-
I'm somewhat in agreement with Rev and Ron, though I look at "should there be a death penalty?" as a different topic from how to kill someone if there is one.
I used to be more pro death penalty before I started seeing all the cases of DNA evidence proving people's innocence years after their conviction. Because of that I've changed my views. I'm still pro death penalty for heinous crimes where there are multiple reliable witnesses, DNA evidence, and/or the perpetrator is so proud of what he/she did that they happily confess. In those cases, kill them quickly and don't pussyfoot around the court system. Otherwise, if there is doubt, because there have been so many reversals, I prefer the life in prison option, regardless of the costs. A life term still sucks for someone innocent, but at least there's a chance that they can prove their innocence and get some of their life back.
-
Ever seen a gas chamber in use? Not pretty . Not as imagined. The guy I saw tried to hold his breath.
Was it a nitrogen chamber?
This is what happens when you use nitrogen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w
If you're using it as a death sentence you simply don't stop, have the person in the room alone, and preferably don't tell them exactly when you switch the gas supply from 'outside' to 'nitrogen'.
Yes, I even recommend having an air freshener(incense wouldn't work well, nothing would burn during the operation).
Shoot em up with a big shot of dope. It's over should take less than 60 seconds to tie em off and hit em. Bye
The problem is that they're having trouble finding professional needle-jabbers willing to do it combined with nobody's willing to sell them the drugs. I suppose you could use confiscated stuff, but even then you run into that now you're really complicating the issue. Supply and quality isn't assured, for one.
-
Plenty of smack in property rooms. And hitting someone up is child's play. It's harder to take blood than give a shot and they train cops to do sticks road side
-
The cyanide killed him plenty quick it was the watching him try to hold his breath that was ugly
-
IMO, the death penalty is supposed to be a matter of seeing justice done, without revenge or malice. There is no good or helpful reason to inflict unnessary pain/suffering. Just get the job done.
-
I'm somewhat in agreement with Rev and Ron, though I look at "should there be a death penalty?" as a different topic from how to kill someone if there is one.
I used to be more pro death penalty before I started seeing all the cases of DNA evidence proving people's innocence years after their conviction. Because of that I've changed my views. I'm still pro death penalty for heinous crimes where there are multiple reliable witnesses, DNA evidence, and/or the perpetrator is so proud of what he/she did that they happily confess. In those cases, kill them quickly and don't pussyfoot around the court system. Otherwise, if there is doubt, because there have been so many reversals, I prefer the life in prison option, regardless of the costs. A life term still sucks for someone innocent, but at least there's a chance that they can prove their innocence and get some of their life back.
Usually when you look at the cases where those people were exonerated, you have to wonder what the jury was thinking when they voted to convict. There was usually lots of blame to go around. This a good reason why I think good people should NOT avoid jury duty. Do your part to make sure justice is done correctly.
For the death penalty in Texas, many of the requirements people say they want are required. The jury decides whether the death penalty applies by answering a set of questions.
-
We have discussed nitrogen hypoxia many times. It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.
Screw it; just use normal air. Get it up to, say, 50 atmospheres, hold for an hour then pop the latch. What happens to him after you set him free is his own problem.
-
Screw it; just use normal air. Get it up to, say, 50 atmospheres, hold for an hour then pop the latch. What happens to him after you set him free is his own problem.
Why don't you just use pure oxygen and add a spark?
Lots of ways to die. Just brainstorming on less expensive, painless methods.
-
I'm fine with the death penalty. In fact I'd actually argue it is not used enough, for enough crimes, and quickly enough once the sentence is handed down.
On the flip side beyond a reasonable doubt is not a high enough standard. There needs to be guilt with no doubt. For a variety of crimes, when convicted and with no doubt of guilt, then the sentence is fine and should be carried out as quickly as possible.
I say this because death is, well, pretty final. At least with another sentence you can be released with a big fat sorry about that check.
-
You can go on about old methods of execution all you like, but they've already been ruled out.
A lot of things have been ruled out, only to be ruled in.
I don't give a flip which method of execution is used, ancient or modern, so long as it's reasonably fast, inexpensive, not gratuitously painful or cruel, and not overly messy.
We know beyond a reasonable doubt that our legal system is not impartial nor just.
Obviously. A just legal system would execute duly-convicted murderers within a reasonable time frame.
-
I say this because death is, well, pretty final. At least with another sentence you can be released with a big fat sorry about that check.
It would have to be one hell of a check; after 10-20 years in prison, pretty much everything you had before is going to be gone, including plenty of the people you knew. Unless you have a close relative who's willing to store everything, make sure property taxes get paid, etc. you're pretty much going to be out on the street with nothing but that check. Honestly, I'd rather be executed, even if the verdict was wrong. At least then I can face a Judge who has all the facts.
-
I don't give a flip which method of execution is used, ancient or modern, so long as it's reasonably fast, inexpensive, not gratuitously painful or cruel, and not overly messy.
Surprisingly close to my stance on the topic. Oh yeah, and it can't squick out the observers too much.
Hanging - tricky to do without being cruel or messy. Long drop was known to pop heads off, for example. Especially as the average weight increases...
Beheading - messy.
Shooting - tricky, potentially cruel, and messy, as to NOT be cruel with it you need to shoot them in the head, and for some reason we want them to be able to have an open casket funeral.
Bolt gun(captive bolt pistol) - too personal for legislatures, I think. As I understand it bleeding tends to be minimal because it's NOT going completely through the head.
Electric chair - Cruel, not reliable
Lethal injection - proving to be cruel and not reliable, hard to source supplies and skills.
Normal gas chambers - cruel, can be expensive and hazardous.
etc...
It would have to be one hell of a check
I've seen figures of $20-30k/year of imprisonment. So 20 years would be $400k on the low end.
-
It would have to be one hell of a check; after 10-20 years in prison, pretty much everything you had before is going to be gone, including plenty of the people you knew. Unless you have a close relative who's willing to store everything, make sure property taxes get paid, etc. you're pretty much going to be out on the street with nothing but that check. Honestly, I'd rather be executed, even if the verdict was wrong. At least then I can face a Judge who has all the facts.
The point is you can be released and you can be released if you're later found to have not done the crime. Death penalties need a higher standard of proof to be handed down.
-
The point is you can be released and you can be released if you're later found to have not done the crime. Death penalties need a higher standard of proof to be handed down.
In Texas, they do have a higher standard at least in the form of jury instructions though it isn't "no doubt" which is an impossible standard. I would have thought all states would have some sort of test on applying the death penalty.
Of course, that wouldn't make me feel much better if I was wrongly convicted and given life in prison instead of the death penalty.
-
In Texas, they do have a higher standard at least in the form of jury instructions though it isn't "no doubt" which is an impossible standard. I would have thought all states would have some sort of test on applying the death penalty.
Of course, that wouldn't make me feel much better if I was wrongly convicted and given life in prison instead of the death penalty.
Texas has a minimum of 12 people out of 500 ish that were sentenced to death that were acquitted, dismissed or pardoned. So, they have a known minimum error rate of 2.5%, or roughly 1 in 40. I'd suspect the actual number of wrongful convictions is higher, but it cannot be specifically proven. But we have a nice statistical floor that every one in forty persons sentenced to death under allegedly higher standards is wrongly convicted. Texas leads the nation in DNA exonerations, apparently.
Again, I'm for the death penalty. I just think the government is too irresponsible to handle it as they have proven with their false positive conviction rate, and the fact that the death penalty is largely a punishment on lacking the assets to hire a real lawyer.
-
I also favor capital punishment
But there is this
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/connick-v-thompson
25% of capital convictions overturned. And much malfeasance
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
You want to know what scares me about the 'bad conviction' standards for capital crimes?
That I figure the rate's the same, if not worse, for all the other convictions about lesser charges. Part of the problem I see is that because they don't receive the attention, they're even more rarely exonerated.
Quite a few people in prison for rapes they didn't do, especially when back in the day 'black' was enough to convict in many jury's eyes.
-
Texas has a minimum of 12 people out of 500 ish that were sentenced to death that were acquitted, dismissed or pardoned. So, they have a known minimum error rate of 2.5%, or roughly 1 in 40. I'd suspect the actual number of wrongful convictions is higher, but it cannot be specifically proven. But we have a nice statistical floor that every one in forty persons sentenced to death under allegedly higher standards is wrongly convicted. Texas leads the nation in DNA exonerations, apparently.
Again, I'm for the death penalty. I just think the government is too irresponsible to handle it as they have proven with their false positive conviction rate, and the fact that the death penalty is largely a punishment on lacking the assets to hire a real lawyer.
I think we share the same mistrust of government, but in my case, I believe the government is responsible for executing murderers. That is among its duties. A failure to execute the guilty party is a miscarriage of justice. So it's not that I disagree with the sentiment of "better that a thousand guilty men go free..." It's just that I would set the bar at 100, or 50.
-
I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty but it has to have very strong proof of guilt.
A couple of examples of "proof enough" would be Nidal Hassan and the Aurora theater shooter, not much doubt in either of those cases.
As to wrongful convictions. In my perfect world any member of the prosecution ( or defense) from the judge down to the clerk that was involved in any prosecutorial misconduct such as withholding exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence, perjury etc... intended to wrongly convict someone of any crime, would upon conviction suffer the same penalty they did or would have imposed on their intended victim up to and including the death penalty. This would also apply to cops either withholding, loosing or fabricating evidence or committing perjury.
Nifong is one example that comes quickly to mind.
-
I like the suffer the same penalty idea
Can we extend it to jailhouse snitches and angry ex spouses who lie too?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
How about a choice for the condemned?
The inmate can choose option A which is something incredibly painful or choose option B which is a bowl of applesauce loaded with enough barbiturates to stop an elephant's heart from beating. The prisoner eats the applesauce and just fades out.
-
How about a choice for the condemned?
The inmate can choose option A which is something incredibly painful or choose option B which is a bowl of applesauce loaded with enough barbiturates to stop an elephant's heart from beating. The prisoner eats the applesauce and just fades out.
???
-
Wyoming House passed a bill allowing firing squads as a method of execution.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-house-passes-firing-squads-execution-bill/article_1c77faca-32f5-5f00-8369-34ba66b0572d.html
Utah seems to consider returning to using firing squads:
http://trib.com/news/national/in-close-vote-utah-house-oks-firing-squad-proposal/article_580ea088-63b7-537f-b799-a02ce90c7969.html
-
Wyoming House passed a bill allowing firing squads as a method of execution.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-house-passes-firing-squads-execution-bill/article_1c77faca-32f5-5f00-8369-34ba66b0572d.html
Utah seems to consider returning to using firing squads:
http://trib.com/news/national/in-close-vote-utah-house-oks-firing-squad-proposal/article_580ea088-63b7-537f-b799-a02ce90c7969.html
But those were ruled out. ;)
-
But those were ruled out. ;)
Will they pass court muster? That might be the tougher hurdle.
-
Texas has a minimum of 12 people out of 500 ish that were sentenced to death that were acquitted, dismissed or pardoned. So, they have a known minimum error rate of 2.5%, or roughly 1 in 40. I'd suspect the actual number of wrongful convictions is higher, but it cannot be specifically proven. But we have a nice statistical floor that every one in forty persons sentenced to death under allegedly higher standards is wrongly convicted. Texas leads the nation in DNA exonerations, apparently.
Again, I'm for the death penalty. I just think the government is too irresponsible to handle it as they have proven with their false positive conviction rate, and the fact that the death penalty is largely a punishment on lacking the assets to hire a real lawyer.
I agree with this.
I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty but it has to have very strong proof of guilt.
A couple of examples of "proof enough" would be Nidal Hassan and the Aurora theater shooter, not much doubt in either of those cases.
As to wrongful convictions. In my perfect world any member of the prosecution ( or defense) from the judge down to the clerk that was involved in any prosecutorial misconduct such as withholding exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence, perjury etc... intended to wrongly convict someone of any crime, would upon conviction suffer the same penalty they did or would have imposed on their intended victim up to and including the death penalty. This would also apply to cops either withholding, loosing or fabricating evidence or committing perjury.
Nifong is one example that comes quickly to mind.
And not just for death penalty cases. But all cases. And on cases where the punishment is less then death, then 2x or 3x the maximum sentence. With no chance of parole or reduction for "good time". And it's automatic, no appeal, once proven that you lied or falsified, game over. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.
Again, Pour Encourager les Autres....
-
Sounds like everyone is in agreement for the most part.
What I was getting at with Texas was there are questions the jury has to answer to determine whether the convicted is put to death or not (after the guilty/not guilty part). It isn't a Judge making that call. There are also automatic appeals and many of the judges involved in the state are well versed on the issues so the process goes faster than most states.
On the "error rate", IMO that includes some trials overturned for what I would call technicalities as well. Those convictions were not all overturned due to innocence. 99% of the appeals I hear about via news seems like the silliest things and the sole purpose is to delay the execution and make more money for the lawyer. That said, I would agree that unethical prosecutors and lying witnesses should be prosecuted agressively and punished harshly. Punishment for screwing with the Justice System should almost be more harsh than Captial Crimes. Punishing a prosecutor who knowingly convicted innocent people is very serious business.
-
Very good point about the difference between a technicality and true innocence. How about we give the jury some skin in the game. If they vote to do capital punishment one of them is selected to throw the switch. My litmus test on capital trials is I ask myself if I am so sure that I would do it myself
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Sounds like everyone is in agreement for the most part.
What I was getting at with Texas was there are questions the jury has to answer to determine whether the convicted is put to death or not (after the guilty/not guilty part). It isn't a Judge making that call. There are also automatic appeals and many of the judges involved in the state are well versed on the issues so the process goes faster than most states.
On the "error rate", IMO that includes some trials overturned for what I would call technicalities as well. Those convictions were not all overturned due to innocence. 99% of the appeals I hear about via news seems like the silliest things and the sole purpose is to delay the execution and make more money for the lawyer. That said, I would agree that unethical prosecutors and lying witnesses should be prosecuted agressively and punished harshly. Punishment for screwing with the Justice System should almost be more harsh than Captial Crimes. Punishing a prosecutor who knowingly convicted innocent people is very serious business.
I'm generally against the death penalty, because I don't trust the govt to get it right 100% of the time. A prosecutor who knowingly convicts an innocent person is an exception I would make. He should be serve the maximum sentence possible for whatever crime he prosecuted, including the death penalty if that was an option.
Back to the original topic: A face mask and N2 or an industrial N2/Ar mixture is a fine way to kill people as humanely as is reasonable. Give them a Valium or something beforehand if they want it. Start out with air, then have a silent valve for the executioner to change it to nitrogen. The condemned doesn't know when it changes, and he'll be out in a few seconds and dead in a minute or so.
-
Very good point about the difference between a technicality and true innocence. How about we give the jury some skin in the game. If they vote to do capital punishment one of them is selected to throw the switch. My litmus test on capital trials is I ask myself if I am so sure that I would do it myself
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'ts more than just comparing reversals on technicality vs innocence. An innocent man overturning his conviction on appeal is an example of the system working, not of it failing. That's why capital cases require so many appeals. Overturning a conviction on appeal is a good thing.
The correct metric is not how many capital convicts are acquitted on appeal, it's the number who should have been acquitted but weren't. Obviously this is a much more difficult statistic to tabulate. It's rare for a man's innocence to be bothered over after he's dead, and those who do bother rarely do so objectively and authoritatively.
-
How about our former governor ? He got DNA evidence back that proved a man was not guilty of a capital rape murder. All he did was commute the sentence to life. We found out when a later gov had DNA run and commuted his sentence . They used the same lab and the lab noted the results were the same as the last test. The test the governor concealed
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'ts more than just comparing reversals on technicality vs innocence. An innocent man overturning his conviction on appeal is an example of the system working, not of it failing. That's why capital cases require so many appeals. Overturning a conviction on appeal is a good thing.
The correct metric is not how many capital convicts are acquitted on appeal, it's the number who should have been acquitted but weren't. Obviously this is a much more difficult statistic to tabulate. It's rare for a man's innocence to be bothered over after he's dead, and those who do bother rarely do so objectively and authoritatively.
From my experience, jurors take things a lot more seriously in capital cases where they are to determine life/death than they do otherwise. Also, there is a LOT more attention from media and outside groups. There are also just plain fewer cases due to restrictions on when it is used.
I think you would be more likely to find problems/issues on non-capital cases and lower level felonies.
-
Eh. There are people out there who need to be put down, and it's a proper responsibility of government to do it. Blanket refusal to execute is itself a form of government incompetence.
I used to believe that, too -- until the arrival of the Innocence Project. When you look at the number of people who have been on death row for DECADES who have now been proven conclusively to be innocent (not just "not guilty"), it has to make you question the death penalty.
-
I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty but it has to have very strong proof of guilt.
A couple of examples of "proof enough" would be Nidal Hassan and the Aurora theater shooter, not much doubt in either of those cases.
As to wrongful convictions. In my perfect world any member of the prosecution ( or defense) from the judge down to the clerk that was involved in any prosecutorial misconduct such as withholding exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence, perjury etc... intended to wrongly convict someone of any crime, would upon conviction suffer the same penalty they did or would have imposed on their intended victim up to and including the death penalty. This would also apply to cops either withholding, loosing or fabricating evidence or committing perjury.
Nifong is one example that comes quickly to mind.
I approve of your message and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
-
Punishing a prosecutor who knowingly convicted innocent people is very serious business.
Here in the Yoo Ess of Aay we don't punish them, we give them their own television shows.
(Yes, I'm looking at you, Nancy Grace.)
-
Nancy Grace
Can we hand her over to ISIS? Please please please?
-
Can we hand her over to ISIS? Please please please?
I don't believe she could compete with the goats.