Oh what a beautiful morning…

[Guy Profumo]

Or rather. It wasn't.

News from Oklahoma concering the repugnant use of capital punishment.*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27215508

(Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere)

* and not necessarily the specific method. Just the existence of capital punishment in the state full stop.

[Geoffrey de Ste. Croix]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Just saw that you had posted on this before me. According to new reports, it took 43 minutes for Lockett to die. As repulsive as Lockett's crimes were, Albert Camus summed up state sanctioned execution as the greater crime in Reflections On The Guillotine:

“But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared? For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”

[ursus arctos]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

How it is possible for our Supreme Court to conclude that this kind of barbarism does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" is genuinely beyond my ability to comprehend.

And that's before you even get to the recent study that estimated that at least 5% of the people on Death Row in the US are innocent.

[Geoffrey de Ste. Croix]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Another success for grisly revenge as the execution of a prisoner in Arizona takes nearly two hours using an experimental concoction of drugs.

[Come along, Min]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Perhaps someone else can confirm, but hasn't it become a more drawn out process because the EU (in their objection to CP) withdrew a particular drug from being exported to America?

[ad hoc]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Yes that's right

[Come along, Min]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

I suppose as an act to pressure on the US to think twice as a nation about having CP. Noble enough I suppose, but it's not going to happen any time in the next generation or two is it?. The EU has made the executions of many people that much more unbearable.

I used to be quite anti, watching A Short Film About Killing done it for me then. Then a few years later I read The Executioner's Song, which for me, gave about as good an account of an opposing argument as I've see. So now I can see both sides a little easier and have respect for them.

Obviously, the US system is deeply flawed and I can't really support that, but I couldn't imagine I'll be 100% against CP again.

When discussed sensibly, the related arguments for and against CP, assisted dying and abortion are far more nuanced and interesting than can come across when argued by those who have chosen their stance and are less willing to see their opponents viewpoint.

[ad hoc]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Luke R wrote: I suppose as an act to pressure on the US to think twice as a nation about having CP.

Or simply not to contribute to the policy. I don't knwo if it's about pressure.

The EU has made the executions of many people that much more unbearable.

I think even Nigel Farage would probably baulk at trying to make this the EU's fault

[Bored Of Education]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Guy Potger wrote: Just the existence of capital punishment in the state full stop.

Let's not beat around the bush, in the country full stop. I appreciate that the federal system lets states get away with this but, if enough US citizens rose up against it or made it an electoral issue, it would be gone. The US is a human rights abuser here, pure and simple and yet it is glossed over.

Obviously, not counting our US cousins on here. I think that the US consensus against the death penalty on here may outweigh slightly the non-US element.

[Bored Of Education]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Luke R wrote: When discussed sensibly, the related arguments for and against CP, assisted dying and abortion are far more nuanced and interesting than can come across when argued by those who have chosen their stance and are less willing to see their opponents viewpoint.

IT doesn't need to be nuanced. Apart from it being a human rights abuse, CP is more expensive than jail and, almost as importantly as the human rights issue, it doesn't work. It doesn't work as a deterrent, it kills innocent people and, as in this case, it often doesn't work in individual executions. There is no "for" argument apart from plain state-sponsored revenge for public assuagement

[Come along, Min]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

I would say there's an argument where in a few cases someone is such a danger to everyone around them that humanity needs protecting from them in the most extreme way imaginable.

As for killing innocent people, yes it does. As does/would the other two methods I mentioned (and I'm aware I'm possibly opening myself up to a world of shit there) and I see, understand the issues and am neither 100% for or against those two methods either. They're incredibly complex and nuanced issues whether you like it or not.

Saying it doesn't as a deterrent is the same as me saying it does (which I haven't), there's strong, honest and earnest arguments for and against that too.

[Bored Of Education]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

There's no credible evidence for Capital Punishment working as a deterrent. If someevidence has come up that I have hitherto missed, please post it.

Abortion and assisted dying are nuanced argument for very good reasons due to your definition of a "life" in the former and the agency of the 'victim' in the latter. There is no such problems with prisoners.

I would say there's an argument where in a few cases someone is such a danger to everyone around them that humanity needs protecting from them in the most extreme way imaginable.

As far as I know, that is never a case for capital punishment. That is a case for life sentence with no parole.

[Come along, Min]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Sure, in your fair opinion that's the case, but doesn't always happen in for example the US. And in my (I consider fair) opinion it is a determining factor, yet might not be in the example of the US.

Regarding evidence or an expansion on my thoughts of it possibly being a detterent, i'll try later, I'm on a phone right now and busy and it's really nice weather and that but I'll try and sensibly explain later.

[Guy Profumo]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Luke R wrote: Sure, in your fair opinion that's the case, but doesn't always happen in for example the US. And in my (I consider fair) opinion it is a determining factor, yet might not be in the example of the US.

Regarding evidence or an expansion on my thoughts of it possibly being a detterent, i'll try later, I'm on a phone right now and busy and it's really nice weather and that but I'll try and sensibly explain later.

[ursus arctos]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

I appreciate that the federal system lets states get away with this but, if enough US citizens rose up against it or made it an electoral issue, it would be gone.

Bored, how do you see this working? In the last six years, six U.S. states have repealed their capital punishment statutes, and there are a number of other states where the idea of re-introducing capital punishment is simply untenable politically. But in many other states, there is very strong public support for capital punishment (in fact, the electorate in those states is often considerably more blood thirsty than their representatives).

The view of the country as a whole is irrelevant to the future of the practice.* The only thing that matters is the view in the particular state at issue, and I'm afraid that it is going to take a long time for that to change.

* One could conceive of a very long term plan grounded in Democratic control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress that could (over a couple of decades) produce a clear anti-death penalty majority on the Supreme Court, but I'm afraid that that seems like a chimera.

[Ginger Yellow]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Well, you could in principle get around a limited number (12) of recalcitrant states via constitutional amendment. I don't see it happening any time soon.

[ursus arctos]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Yes, you could, though I think you'd have a better chance with the Supreme Court gambit.

I don't mean to be annoying about any of this (and am completely aligned with Bored on the merits), but do think that there is an under-appreciation of the details as to how the legislative system works over here.

[Bored Of Education]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Well, I think an under-appreciation by us over here goes without saying which is why your input is always valuable.

Bored, how do you see this working? In the last six years, six U.S. states have repealed their capital punishment statutes, and there are a number of other states where the idea of re-introducing capital punishment is simply untenable politically. But in many other states, there is very strong public support for capital punishment (in fact, the electorate in those states is often considerably more blood thirsty than their representatives).

The view of the country as a whole is irrelevant to the future of the practice.* The only thing that matters is the view in the particular state at issue, and I'm afraid that it is going to take a long time for that to change.

Could this not have been said about ending segregation though?

* One could conceive of a very long term plan grounded in Democratic control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress that could (over a couple of decades) produce a clear anti-death penalty majority on the Supreme Court, but I'm afraid that that seems like a chimera.

Out of interest, would an anti-death penalty presidential be unelectable?

Obama's line is particularly egregious

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes—mass murder, the rape and murder of a child—so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

So it's state-sponsored revenge then, Barack?

[ursus arctos]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Segregation was ended by federal action supported by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court is still in the equivalent of "separate but equal" when it comes to capital punishment. When you have a Court that believes that the current system does not violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment", you are left with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Capital punishment just isn't an issue in presidential elections, though the sad truth is that were it to become one, there would be very little upside in an abolitionist candidate making his or her views known.

And yeah, I wasn't being facetious when I used "blood thirsty" above. There is a very visceral and primitive urge underlying a lot of the support for the death penalty over here.

[Ginger Yellow]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

So it's state-sponsored revenge then, Barack?

Basically, yeah. There's quite a strong sentiment in favour of retributive justice in America, even among people who are otherwise socially liberal. I know plenty of people who are anti-death penalty in practice, but only because of the other serious failings of the US justice system. In a perfectly fair system, they'd be in favour of execution for quite a wide range of crimes.

[Bored Of Education]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

The last two posts are two of the saddest I have ever read. The UK is very very far from being a perfect society but I feel for you over there.

[Incandenza]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

Ginger Yellow wrote:

So it's state-sponsored revenge then, Barack?

Basically, yeah. There's quite a strong sentiment in favour of retributive justice in America, even among people who are otherwise socially liberal. I know plenty of people who are anti-death penalty in practice, but only because of the other serious failings of the US justice system. In a perfectly fair system, they'd be in favour of execution for quite a wide range of crimes.

Yep one of the most persuasive arguments against the death penalty for people is that there is the risk of an innocent person being put to death. If they could ensure that everyone who is given the death penalty was 100% guilty, they'd be fine with it.

There is also a strong weight on the victim's relatives feelings...that if someone else doesn't die then they won't feel "closure," or "justice hasn't been served" without an eye-for-an-eye. I saw one of the victim's sister on the news this morning:

"What I saw today with him being executed, it is nothing compared to what happened on Aug. 7, 1989," Jeanne Brown, Debra Dietz's sister, told an Associated Press reporter after the execution. "What's excruciating is seeing your father lying there in a pool of blood, seeing your sister lying in a pool of blood."

In other words, tough shit if he suffered after being injected. And I think most would go along with that.

[Reed John]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

I would say there's an argument where in a few cases someone is such a danger to everyone around them that humanity needs protecting from them in the most extreme way imaginable.

As far as I know, that is never a case for capital punishment. That is a case for life sentence with no parole.

That's also an argument for, basically, assassinations and, despite my lefty Christian bent, I find myself sympathetic to that in some circumstances. With guys like Pablo Escobar or Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, it's best if they can be captured and face trial and then rot in prison, but just shooting them in the fucking head might not be such a terrible alternative in circumstances where:

A) trying to take them alive is going to be more dangerous to more people, like if it's a shoot-out situation.

B) the justice system involved is so corrupt and judges and cops are being murdered so it's basically a war/fight to the death. Same with the Mafia in Sicily some times. It just becomes a war and, as Michael Collins said (at least in the movie) war is bloody murder.

That's pretty much how it was in Colombia a while back, I'm lead to believe. Or with Whitey Bulger in his prime in Boston. He was protected by so much corruption in the FBI, nobody could get to him. A lot of lives would be better now if somebody had just straight-up murdered him in the 70s.

Perhaps I think this just because I read a lot of comic books in the late 80s.

[Reed John]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

My man Shane Claiborne is very active on this. He speaks to, and "in the language" of, that Old Testament revenge idea that's especially popular in the South.
http://www.redletterchristians.org/werent-jesus-might-pro-death/

[Gangster Octopus]

Oh what a beautiful morning…

The world is crying out for a series of Jesus figurines with a hangman's hood on carring a noose or a syringe or holding a rifle or standing behind an electric chair or beside a guillotine...