Execution by Nitrogen = Torture

[Perd Hapley]

Once again, you seem to be putting words in people's mouths.

For myself, I'm not for "100% certainty and nothing less."  I'm pretty sure that both Ben and AmbulanceDriver recognize that we can only try to approach certainty (P=1.0), just as I do.  For myself, I look at the goal to be "removal from society," though some people would include vengeful deadly punishment in some instances.

They're entitled to that opinion.

Terry, 230RN

Um, "once again"?  Please show an instance where I put words in someone's mouth. Sounds like you're making things up. Once again.

My concern with the death penalty is that I don't trust the government - either through incompetence or through malice - to get it right 100% of the time

He said they have to get it right 100% of the time. So how am I putting words in anyone's mouth?

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. But it's wrong. Am I entitled to say that?

[230RN]

"My concern with the death penalty is that I don't trust the government - either through incompetence or through malice - to get it right 100% of the time."

"He said they have to get it right 100% of the time. So how am I putting words in anyone's mouth?"

He did not say that.

You can't just take an implication, supposition, or exemplary term of art, and turn it into a quote.

Terry, 230RN

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'll amend my statement.  The death penalty, being as there is no appeal once it is carried out, must be treated as an extraordinary punishment.  As such, in my opinion the death penalty is an area that requires extraordinary certainty in the form of incontrovertible evidence.  There continues to be story after story of malfeasance in prosecutorial offices, gross incompetence to outright fraud in testing labs, and of course simple human fallibility in eyewitness "evidence".  As such I believe there must be not only "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof but true ironclad evidence in deciding to impose the death sentence.   Absent such evidence, my opinion is that life without the possibility of parole is an appropriate sentence. 

[MechAg94]

I'll amend my statement.  The death penalty, being as there is no appeal once it is carried out, must be treated as an extraordinary punishment.  As such, in my opinion the death penalty is an area that requires extraordinary certainty in the form of incontrovertible evidence.  There continues to be story after story of malfeasance in prosecutorial offices, gross incompetence to outright fraud in testing labs, and of course simple human fallibility in eyewitness "evidence".  As such I believe there must be not only "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof but true ironclad evidence in deciding to impose the death sentence.   Absent such evidence, my opinion is that life without the possibility of parole is an appropriate sentence.

And someone could stretch that to mean that you are okay with all that stuff as long as they "only" have to spend the rest of their life in prison.   

I don't think that is what you mean.  But all that stuff needs to be fixed no matter what the punishment.  Unjust punishment is unjust no matter what it is.  I also don't like it when people do find evidence exonerating them and judges still take months to consider things and actually release them. 

[Pb]

My opinion continues to be that:
1) most nonviolent crimes should be punished by judicial corporal punishment, that is, caning rather than prison.  Far more humane, and it is less likely to throw them in an environment that will corrupt them more.
2) serious violent crimes (armed robbery and up) should be punished by rapid execution after the first offense.
3) prison should be for minor violent crimes, and non-violent offenders who refuse to stop re-offending.

I've been reading Peter Grant's book "Walls, Wire, Bars and Souls."  He says 2/3 of inmates re-offend within several years after release.  I do not think approves of capital punishment for reasons that some of you mentioned.

I disagree.  The number of people victimized by released violent criminals would be substantially decreased by simply killing them after the first offense.  From reading his book, the number of re-habilitated criminals appear to be the minority.  Most of the people in prison will one day get out.  Most will victimize others.  Society should not allow this.  Death stops re-offending.

[cordex]

The number of people victimized by released violent criminals would be substantially decreased by simply killing them after the first offense.  From reading his book, the number of re-habilitated criminals appear to be the minority.  Most of the people in prison will one day get out.  Most will victimize others.  Society should not allow this.  Death stops re-offending.

Who gets executed if a person is wrongfully executed?

[Pb]

Who gets executed if a person is wrongfully executed?

That's a good point... someone who lied to get someone convicted would be my guess, if that happens in a case. 

That is actually in the Hebraic law:

Deuteronomy 19:15-21
“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. ...

[cordex]

That's a good point... someone who lied to get someone convicted would be my guess, if that happens in a case. 

Sure, but it isn't always because someone intentionally lied.  Sometimes the evidence seems to show that an innocent person is guilty, and it isn't until later that better evidence comes out that exonerates them.  Sometimes that better evidence never comes to light, even if it exists.

In a case where everyone appearing to act in good faith but someone is found to have been wrongly executed regardless, who dies?  Judge?  Jury?  Executioner?  Prosecutor?  Arresting officer?  Governor?

Do they get a free pass the first time, but the second time they get strung up?  Or do we let them keep victimizing innocent people?

[230RN]

Double post

[Pb]

In a case where everyone appearing to act in good faith but someone is found to have been wrongly executed regardless, who dies?  Judge?  Jury?  Executioner?  Prosecutor?  Arresting officer?  Governor?

Well, in that case nobody would be executed, since no crime would have been committed, just like now.

[230RN]

...
I disagree.  The number of people victimized by released violent criminals would be substantially decreased by simply killing them after the first offense.  From reading his book, the number of re-habilitated criminals appear to be the minority.  Most of the people in prison will one day get out.  Most will victimize others.  Society should not allow this.  Death stops re-offending.

That's why I have often recommended that the system be structurally changed to allow for cumulative prison sentences.  "Punishment" for subsequent offenses should be increased by some factor according to the sentences for previous offenses -- either added on or increased by some factor.  At some point repeat offenders will be "removed from society" for the rest of their lives.

"Punishment to fit the crime..." but one of your actual  crimes, besides the robbery you are here in Court for, fella, is that you are a repeat (or habitual) offender. That, all by itself, is a crime.

But every time I mention that I get laughed off the stage.

(Bearing in mind my underlying philosophy regarding "punishment" is to "remove from society" society's offenders --not "revenge."  But that does not affect the logic of my proposal for cumulative sentencing.)

Terry, 230RN

[cordex]

Well, in that case nobody would be executed, since no crime would have been committed, just like now.

So we execute people for sticking people up twice, but no limit on the number of "oopsie, I killed the wrong person," if the state does it?

Emotionally I tend toward your position pretty strongly.  I hate seeing situations where everyone involved knows that the minute someone gets out of prison they are going right back into victimizing people.  Lots and lots of innocent people could be protected by killing off those repeat perpetrators. 

Rationally, I also know that innocent (or even less guilty) people get killed or put away for most of their life by the government on a regular basis, and that seems like a preventable victimization too.

Ultimately, I don't know what to do with that.

[230RN]

^
"So we execute people for sticking people up twice, but no limit on the number of "oopsie, I killed the wrong person," if the state does it?"

Well, my proposal for incremental incarceration would result in life sentences sooner or later for repeat offenders, and I wiggled away from stating that the death penalty should be eliminated for all the previous reasoning in terms of abuse or error.  I iterate again that in my little world the goal should be removal from society, and not cruelty. 

However, this will not satisfy the desire for painful punishment by some.

The main mechanical problem, prison overpopulation, can be resolved by adopting my "modest proposal" for 640 acre escape-proof prison areas into which we airdrop food, water, toilet paper, and lots and lots of guns and ammo so they can kill each other off.

I'm not Rolling On the Floor Laughing over that one.

Terry, 230RN

[Pb]

So we execute people for sticking people up twice, but no limit on the number of "oopsie, I killed the wrong person," if the state does it?

Well, when an leo acts in good faith, but kills someone accidentally, I don't think it is a crime, though regrettable.

What you are bringing up is a good objection... the best one possible, I think... I just don't agree that it should be enough to stop us from ridding society of violent criminals through death. 

When considering the risk to innocent parties, a similar issue is that our cops are armed.  They kill people by mistake at times, sometimes understandably, sometimes negligently.  I don't think that should mean we should go to unarmed cops to prevent this because arms are helpful in stopping violent criminals.  Likewise, I don't think the fact that a court might mistake and kill an innocent person through capital punishment means automatically that we should not kill any criminals.  You may disagree, and that's okay.

I mean, it's not like the USA is actually going to start doing this, unfortunately.

It is a small percentage of the population that commits most of the violent crime.  I think members of this group should all die when they identify themselves.

[Ben]

When considering the risk to innocent parties, a similar issue is that our cops are armed.  They kill people by mistake at times, sometimes understandably, sometimes negligently. 

That's certainly something to address, and of course something we talk about here quite a bit, but I see it as sort of an apples and oranges thing. The court process is generally long and deliberate, and there is time to collect evidence, verify witnesses, etc. Police shootings are (IMO) more of a split second thing, whether justified, accidental, or negligent.

I suppose the one LE thing that would be close to "court procedure" would be no-knocks, which all too often go wrong, are sloppily put together, have the wrong address, etc. Those would be more "pre-meditated" in that there is procedure, just like a court, vs the few seconds that it takes for an LE shooting to be good or bad.

[230RN]

That business of erroneous no-knocks can be solved in at least four ways:

1. Compel police to exercise better investigating skills in obtaining evidence... preferably "on the street" instead of claiming that no-knocks are necessary in order to prevent people from destroying any evidence they may have in their residences.

2. Pay close attention to the Pitt Dictum which goes as follows: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham
Speech on the Excise Bill, House of Commons (March 1763)" 

In other words, eliminate no-knocks altogether.

3. Strict, I say strict, adherence to the specifics of the Fourth Amendment, but the "probable" has always troubled me.

4. Require that no-knock search warrants be signed (endorsed) by two separate judges who hate each other.

Terry, 230RN

[Perd Hapley]

"My concern with the death penalty is that I don't trust the government - either through incompetence or through malice - to get it right 100% of the time."

"He said they have to get it right 100% of the time. So how am I putting words in anyone's mouth?"

He did not say that.

You can't just take an implication, supposition, or exemplary term of art, and turn it into a quote.

Terry, 230RN

If your complaint is I'm taking his words too literally, then just say that. But that would be different from putting words in people's mouths, or turning things into quotes.

[MechAg94]

That business of erroneous no-knocks can be solved in at least four ways:

1. Compel police to exercise better investigating skills in obtaining evidence... preferably "on the street" instead of claiming that no-knocks are necessary in order to prevent people from destroying any evidence they may have in their residences.

2. Pay close attention to the Pitt Dictum which goes as follows: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham
Speech on the Excise Bill, House of Commons (March 1763)" 

In other words, eliminate no-knocks altogether.

3. Strict, I say strict, adherence to the specifics of the Fourth Amendment, but the "probable" has always troubled me.

4. Require that no-knock search warrants be signed (endorsed) by two separate judges who hate each other.

Terry, 230RN

5.  Ban no knock warrants.  Potential destruction of evidence is not a good reason to risk lives.  (for a house like mine, they could easily turn off the water out front and plug the sewer line before knocking and announcing themselves. 

On #3, the problem I see come up is "probable cause" becomes a hunch or "I thought I saw something" rather than real, documented evidence or observations.  Unfortunately, this is something that Judges should be pushing back on and it seems that many don't. 

[230RN]

5.  Ban no knock warrants.  Potential destruction of evidence is not a good reason to risk lives.  (for a house like mine, they could easily turn off the water out front and plug the sewer line before knocking and announcing themselves.  (Bolding mine)

I said exactly that in point 2: "In other words, eliminate no-knocks altogether." 

[On #3, the problem I see come up is "probable cause" becomes a hunch or "I thought I saw something" rather than real, documented evidence or observations.  Unfortunately, this is something that Judges should be pushing back on and it seems that many don't. 

Exactly.  "Probable" is a judgement call.  While we pay people ("judges") to make judgement calls, it is obvious (Cf recent SCOTUS antics) that even the "most qualified" "judges" in the country fail to agree even with their own past "judgements."

The argument could or should be made that if the information is strong enough to be called "probable," at that point it ought to be referred to Prosecutors for action.  In other words, to be redundant, eliminate no-knock warrants!

"... the force of the Crown cannot enter."  The one exception I can understand is in case of rescue emergencies.

Terry, 230RN

[Pb]

I think no-knocks should be banned, except for serious violent crimes.

[MechAg94]

I think no-knocks should be banned, except for serious violent crimes.

Is there something in mind that makes you mention that exception? 

[Ben]

Is there something in mind that makes you mention that exception?

I'm not sure that would matter, as I'm pretty sure there have been "wrong address" issues with violent crime no-knocks. If they aren't banned outright, then they need the extra checks and balances that have already been mentioned here.

[MechAg94]

I can see that.  I just couldn't think of a case where a no-knock warrant would be needed.  There might be an example where they know a kidnap victim is in a house, but I am not sure that is the same thing.  And that goes to the same argument.  How do they know that and what evidence do they really have for it?  Are they knocking down an innocent person's door?  A hostage situation isn't really the same thing to me. 

[Ben]

Yeah, I think part of it is the definition of a no knock in relation to violent crime.

If, as mech stated, it's a kidnapping, or there is shooting or other violence actively going on, you will likely know that and there won't be a wrong address or other issue. Kinda like an active school shooter.

If a "violent crime no knock" is the cops saying a murderer is in residence "X" (but no crime is being committed - he's just laying low) , then I think the "improved rules" we are discussing here still come into play.

[230RN]

That business of erroneous no-knocks can be solved in at least four ways:

1. Compel police to exercise better investigating skills in obtaining evidence... preferably "on the street" instead of claiming that no-knocks are necessary in order to prevent people from destroying any evidence they may have in their residences.

2. Pay close attention to the Pitt Dictum which goes as follows: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham
Speech on the Excise Bill, House of Commons (March 1763)" 

In other words, eliminate no-knocks altogether.

3. Strict, I say strict, adherence to the specifics of the Fourth Amendment, but the "probable" has always troubled me.

4. Require that no-knock search warrants be signed (endorsed) by two separate judges who hate each other.

Terry, 230RN

I meant that as a joke, but maybe it's not such a bad idea. I don't see that requiring two warrants would violate Fourth Amendment provisions.

" ...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

But I can see it being objected to by everybody (Judges, LEOs, etc) concerned except the ordinary citizen, his dog, and the suspected crooks.  I also saw a conceptual conflict in "..except for violent crimes," since if you have sufficient evidence to search, once again, I say refer it to the Prosecutors.  (There is an exception for "exigencies," by the way.)

Terry