Hodgepodge
There are a lot of thoughts whirling through my head. I want to forward this order by Judge Fogel regarding California's death penalty. (hat tip: John Steele). Orin Kerr of the VC thinks that this case has the best chance of reaching the SCOTUS because of the well developed record. On the other hand, I think because Judge Fogel's ruling is measured and deliberative, the State will likely alter its DP procedures rather than litigate the matter.
I was thinking about the progress of the war, when I had a flash of brilliance. In undergrad I took a c lass on American Diplomacy, where we read "The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked" by Les Gelb and Richard Betts. In the conclusions chapter, I had the following passage marked with the marginal note, "W on War on Terr." Anyway, here it is:
----
* "I refer with effusion to our railway system, which consents to let us live, though it might do the opposite, being our owners. It only destroyed three thousand and seventy lives last year by collisions, and twenty-seven thousand two hundred and sixty by running over heedless and unnecessary people at crossings. The companies seriously regretted the killing of these thirty thousand people, and went so far as to pay for some of them--voluntarily, of course, for the meanest of us would not claim that we possess a court treacherous enough to enforce a law against a railway company." -- Mark Twain Speech of July 4, 1872.
I was thinking about the progress of the war, when I had a flash of brilliance. In undergrad I took a c lass on American Diplomacy, where we read "The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked" by Les Gelb and Richard Betts. In the conclusions chapter, I had the following passage marked with the marginal note, "W on War on Terr." Anyway, here it is:
Above all, Presidents should eschew ambitious new conceptual and overall policy doctrines supported by a new consensus. Doctrine and consensus are the midwives to necessity and the enemy of dissent and choice. They breed political paranoia and intellectual rigidity. Opposition to a policy is toleragle; disagreement with revealed truth is close to treaston. FActs are transformed into serviceable commoditites; they are either ignored or forced to fit the theory. To define policy in terms of necessity, as doctrines do, is to preclude choice by definition.I refer with effusion* to the "Bush Doctrine" and his recent tantrums comparing himself to Harry Truman.
While an overall doctrine embodied in political consensus does not end dispute, it makes the outcomes a certainty. There was little chance that President Roosevlet could have the United States weigh in the scalres against Hitler before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, given the doctrine of isolationism. There was no way President Truman could avoid commitment to Vietnam, given the doctrine of containment. The street demonstrators, the academic critics, and congressmen had no power to reverse that commitment; they could only affect how the war was conducted.
----
* "I refer with effusion to our railway system, which consents to let us live, though it might do the opposite, being our owners. It only destroyed three thousand and seventy lives last year by collisions, and twenty-seven thousand two hundred and sixty by running over heedless and unnecessary people at crossings. The companies seriously regretted the killing of these thirty thousand people, and went so far as to pay for some of them--voluntarily, of course, for the meanest of us would not claim that we possess a court treacherous enough to enforce a law against a railway company." -- Mark Twain Speech of July 4, 1872.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives, Rabid Liberals
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 8:13 PM
11 Comments:
In regards to the memorandum I would agree, it is unlikely the State would not change its dp procedures when the judge has so clearly pointed out that all they have to do is make the system functional as it always should have been.
Or at least try...
If the Gov's office doesn't fix 770 quickly, they are in for a world of frustration.
Jeb Bush just issued a moratorium in Florida after they botched a lethal injection. I don't see how in the year 2006 they can argue any of these execution methods are not cruel and unusual. It seems that everything you can do to kill someone wantonly inflicts pain and suffering.
There's one point that I'd have to disagree with in that the state executive is quite willing to change the procedures, however some of the required changes could not be made because they were spelled out in the statutes. There is a good chance that a democratic legislature might just sit on the situation, leaving the death penalty unusable in Califorina, even though the overwhelmingly majority of the states approves of it. Given that risk, the executive is likely to appeal.
It seems that everything you can do to kill someone wantonly inflicts pain and suffering.
LD100 of morphine should do the trick.
Four justices does not a majority make. Besides, the vote count is not the point. The Constitution also lives outside of the courts! Everyone knows there are bloodthirsty judges out there.
Regardless of what five justices say, the question remains: how the hell does all of this stuff not violate the Eighth Amendment?! If they accidentally put the needle all the way through the vein, as in the Florida case, the chemicals leave 12-13 inch burns on your arm! Moreover, how can they ever know if any of these methods are "painless"? They can't ask anyone because even if they screw up they just continue to administer chemicals/gas/electricity until the person is dead!
I'm going to say right now that cruel and unusual, in my opinion, does not mean that the pinprick the guy feels before he goes under is unconstitutional. Add that to my personal opinion of "fry the dude" when they murder someone etc. etc., and you have a at least quasi-rational pro-dp law student. Go figure.
Ever had your wisdom teeth out? That probably hurts more than executions now, IF they are done correctly. The problem here is that they were not.
Only problems I have with death is that it takes so long deterrence is a non-issue and it costs way more than LWOP.
McWho,
Empirical data shows having a death penalty has no deterent effect. Even if death were immediate, what is the marginal increase in deterence for death vs. life in prison? I can't imagine it is much more than zero and perhaps less than zero for some.
Beyond that, you offer no arguments for any of the "quasi-rational" views you put forward.
Moreover, you do not address arguments and evidence that cast into doubt your views. The post above notes what happens if the "pinprick" is off by a fraction of a mm (12-13-inch burn, need to redo the procedure because the person had only been severely burned and not killed). Also, the toxicology results from executed inmates in California show that the sodium penathol levels in their blood were so low they were likely conscious as the deadly chemicals burned through their veins and destroyed their lungs and hearts. I assume even you don't have the gall to argue that asphyxiation after breathing cyanide gas or electrocution are painless. If so, check out the dissent from a Florida Supreme Court justice after Allen Lee Davis died during a botched execution in Florida's electric chair (known as "sparky"). It even has pictures!
Also, even assuming the execution is done "properly," doesn't the dread of being tortured during a botched execution simply add on top of the dread of the execution to produce serious mental anguish? Even if the death penalty statutes are constitutional, torturing someone in the process of executing them is not, except perhaps for Scalia types.
I guess I was a bit vague in my “time lag” argument. I argue that as a general deterrent (to the public at large) death is more of a deterrent than life in prison. This is not true when we wait 10 years to see a person executed. They often have outlived the family of the victim at this point. In my opinion, the only way that this deterrent functions is when it is proximate to the conviction. However, this really is a pointless debate, I do not advocate killing people as soon as they are convicted, and I did not even argue that we should “speed up” the execution process.
As to other "quasi-rational" thoughts:
I thought that my argument was pretty straightforward. There is little utilitarian benefit of having executions as they exist today, especially in California. Because of this, I really only made a retributivist stance. I feel that people that commit certain crimes deserve to die. After the appeals process and we are sure that they are guilty in as much as we humanly can be, I have no problem with making them painlessly leave this earth. In fact, I have no problem with them feeling pain as part of that punishment.
Does anyone else feel ridiculous in being so careful making the inmate feel no pain, when they could very well have been painfully ass-raped in the shower that morning? Do we hear Constitutional challenges to soap doctrines in prison?
Because I feel that we are satisfying a moral debt to society with death, which many feel is a rational argument, I feel at least qualifed as being quasi-rational.
If we don’t succeed in making it painless, I really will still have no problem sleeping at night. However, I do feel that the pain should not be accidental. Because of this, I do not support executions unless we know what will happen.
You don’t seem to notice I was in favor of solving California’s execution snafus before executing more convicts.
As to the Scalia reference: Why is the smallest increment of pain “torture” by your definition? It is fairly difficult to have an argument with someone that feels that a pinprick is torture. Hence, I won’t address this one.
I doubt there is much "ass-rape" going on while a condemned inmate is on death watch 24-7. Beyond that, the idea that you are ok with condemned inmates being tortured as part of their execution puts you significantly to the right of virtually every politician in this country. The statutes say "death," not "torture + death," which is something even Scalia could appreciate. It is also pretty likely that if they did change the statute there would even be five justices on today's Supreme Court to strike it down on Eighth Amendment grounds.
Am I being fair? Would you support or at least not oppose a bill saying convicted killers should be tortured as a part of their execution? And, if you were a Supreme Court justice, would you say such a law would not violate the Eighth Amendment? My impression is you would answer "yes" to both questions.
Ok, you didn't read my post correctly.
I said I am ok with an inmate feeling pain if neccessary in killing them, I specifically said NOT torture.
The ass-rape is a bit of a joke, I'm sure you can gather my meaning. Prison is not a pleasant place, and punishment in itself is designed to be unpleasant. Following that logic, why do we have to make sure the execution is 100% without pain? Makes no sense. What does make sense is executing them how we intend to, not screwing up like CA apparently does on a regular basis. Hence, I support stopping executions until we know what the hell we are doing.
To be clear, no, I would not support that bill. I also would not feel that torture is something that we as a country condone, in executions or otherwise.
All I was trying to do was point out that absolutely no pain during an execution is (1) difficult and/or impossible to achieve and (2) some reasonable amount of pain should probably be expected and tolerated IF you are Ok with the death penalty. There are plenty of people that are against the DP altogether, and honestly, I don't fault them for that.
*note, I can see why you took the torture thing as you did, since when I was editing I apparently removed the parenthetical (I do not support significant pain, only that some pain is fairly reasonable IF measurable in advance).
My bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home