Nebraska Abolishes Death Penalty! 5/27/15

[djAdvocate]

yes.

Nebraska.

bright red Nebraska.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/27/410024375/nebraska-governors-veto-of-death-penalty-repeal-sets-up-override-vote

Lawmakers in Nebraska's unicameral Legislature need 30 votes to override Ricketts' veto. Under state law, all bills go through three votes. The vote last week was 32-15. In the previous rounds, it was 30-16 and 30-13.

But as Fred Knapp of member station NET reports, at least one senator says he will now vote with the governor. He cited Ricketts' announcement earlier this month that new lethal injections had been bought to resume capital punishment. The vote is expected to be close.

If lawmakers succeed in overriding the veto, Nebraska will become the first Republican-controlled state in the U.S. to repeal the death penalty since North Dakota in 1973. The previous attempt in 1979 to repeal capital punishment failed when the measure was vetoed by then-Gov. Charles Thone.

The death penalty is legal in 32 states; the 18 states that have banned recently it include Maryland (2013), Connecticut (2012), Illinois (2011) and New Mexico (2009).

[EVT1]

So a red state decided to make a true conservative decision on the death penalty  

[djAdvocate]

the arguments on the right are all wet.  it has been (18) years since Nebraska executed anyone, there really are no SCOTUS approved methods for execution at this time, and there is no evidence that the DP is a useful law enforcement tool.  that is why conservatives, liberals, and moderates are all voting in favor of eliminating the death penalty.....IN NEBRASKA.  i am still laughing about that.  Nebraska.  Nebraska......

[EVT1]

I guess the murderers are going to start moving into Nebraska now that it is a murderer friendly state 

[djAdvocate]

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nebraskas-death-penalty-repealed-veto-override-n365456

done.  Nebraska just became the 19th state to abolish the death penalty.  kudos to the great state of Nebraska.

Nebraska's Death Penalty Repealed With Veto Override
By Tracy Connor and Elizabeth Chuck

Nebraska became the first conservative state in more than 40 years to abolish the death penalty on Wednesday when lawmakers boldly voted 30-19 to override the governor's veto.

There are 10 inmates on Nebraska's death row — the 11th died this week — but the state has not executed anyone since 1997 and only recently ordered the drugs necessary to carry out a lethal injection. It's the 19th state to abolish capital punishment.

Lawmakers across the political spectrum came together to pass a repeal bill three times. Gov. Pete Ricketts, a first-term Republican, then vetoed the legislation on Tuesday. Thirty senators were needed to override him.

Their vote was preceded by hours of debate — with opponents and proponents quoting Bible passages and reading emails from constituents to support their position.

"The death penalty in Nebraska is broken. It's time to repeal it," said Sen. Jeremy Nordquist, a Democrat, who voted to end capital punishment.


major defeat for the Governor.

[djAdvocate]

May 27, 2015 13:24:51 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So a red state decided to make a true conservative decision on the death penalty  

"I'm not surprised that conservatives led the death penalty repeal effort in Nebraska. I think this will become more common," Marc Hyden of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty said in a statement, adding that the death penalty violates what he called "the core conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and valuing life."

from the article posted above....

[Deleted]

Nebraska just joined the list of states that f'd up.

While I will agree that the death penalty should be used sparingly, and only for the most grievous acts of evil (example: the child rapist/killer found with the bodies of a dozen or so victims... or the person that goes on a machine gun killing spree at a Huskers game)... it should ALWAYS remain an option for the State.

[djAdvocate]

May 27, 2015 18:41:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nebraska just joined the list of states that f'd up.

While I will agree that the death penalty should be used sparingly, and only for the most grievous acts of evil (example: the child rapist/killer found with the bodies of a dozen or so victims... or the person that goes on a machine gun killing spree at a Huskers game)... it should ALWAYS remain an option for the State.

thank you for your contribution.

[EVT1]

May 27, 2015 18:41:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nebraska just joined the list of states that f'd up.

While I will agree that the death penalty should be used sparingly, and only for the most grievous acts of evil (example: the child rapist/killer found with the bodies of a dozen or so victims... or the person that goes on a machine gun killing spree at a Huskers game)... it should ALWAYS remain an option for the State.

Why?

Are more people going to rape children or go on machine gun sprees now?

Even though I have no problem with executing people- assuming as I have said before that we change the burden of proof to beyond all doubt- it is still a waste of money, is not a deterrent, and there is not one good argument to keep it other than some people want their pound of flesh- and if they really thought about it life in prison is a lot harder payment to society than a few minutes on a gurney with a needle in the arm.

[Deleted]

May 27, 2015 20:27:43 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 27, 2015 18:41:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nebraska just joined the list of states that f'd up.

While I will agree that the death penalty should be used sparingly, and only for the most grievous acts of evil (example: the child rapist/killer found with the bodies of a dozen or so victims... or the person that goes on a machine gun killing spree at a Huskers game)... it should ALWAYS remain an option for the State.

Why?

Are more people going to rape children or go on machine gun sprees now?

Even though I have no problem with executing people- assuming as I have said before that we change the burden of proof to beyond all doubt- it is still a waste of money, is not a deterrent, and there is not one good argument to keep it other than some people want their pound of flesh- and if they really thought about it life in prison is a lot harder payment to society than a few minutes on a gurney with a needle in the arm.

Bolded 1:
It's a waste of money because it's been rigged to BE that way. It doesn't have to be a waste of money (compared to the absolute waste of money of keeping an inmate in a SuperMax prison for the rest of his natural life... which could be up to 70 years if the crime is committed by a teen / early-20's "kid").

Most (if not all) of the waste could easily be trimmed down. I've already (in previous DP threads) suggested many ways to do this.


Bolded 2:
Wastefulness of spending millions of dollars keeping someone alive that willingly gave away his/her right to life by taking the lives of others isn't a "good argument"?

[EVT1]

May 27, 2015 20:37:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 27, 2015 20:27:43 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Why?

Are more people going to rape children or go on machine gun sprees now?

Even though I have no problem with executing people- assuming as I have said before that we change the burden of proof to beyond all doubt- it is still a waste of money, is not a deterrent, and there is not one good argument to keep it other than some people want their pound of flesh- and if they really thought about it life in prison is a lot harder payment to society than a few minutes on a gurney with a needle in the arm.

Bolded 1:
It's a waste of money because it's been rigged to BE that way. It doesn't have to be a waste of money (compared to the absolute waste of money of keeping an inmate in a SuperMax prison for the rest of his natural life... which could be up to 70 years if the crime is committed by a teen / early-20's "kid").

Most (if not all) of the waste could easily be trimmed down. I've already (in previous DP threads) suggested many ways to do this.


Bolded 2:
Wastefulness of spending millions of dollars keeping someone alive that willingly gave away his/her right to life by taking the lives of others isn't a "good argument"?

1) It isn't 'rigged'- it is due process.  There are no shortcuts.

2) See #1

3) Do you have a pro-death penalty argument that survives the current legal framework?

[Deleted]

May 27, 2015 21:29:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 27, 2015 20:37:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Bolded 1:
It's a waste of money because it's been rigged to BE that way. It doesn't have to be a waste of money (compared to the absolute waste of money of keeping an inmate in a SuperMax prison for the rest of his natural life... which could be up to 70 years if the crime is committed by a teen / early-20's "kid").

Most (if not all) of the waste could easily be trimmed down. I've already (in previous DP threads) suggested many ways to do this.


Bolded 2:
Wastefulness of spending millions of dollars keeping someone alive that willingly gave away his/her right to life by taking the lives of others isn't a "good argument"?

1) It isn't 'rigged'- it is due process.  There are no shortcuts.

2) See #1

3) Do you have a pro-death penalty argument that survives the current legal framework?

LOL... I love your "#2"... basically a take off of "when the boss is wrong, see #1 that says The boss is always right!"

It is rigged. "Due process" doesn't need to take as long as it takes nor does it need to cost what it costs. This has already been discussed.

I don't want to shortcut "due process". I suggest getting rid of the extra unnecessary crap. Appeals (for 1) there shouldn't be multiple appeals with each one having it's own separate hearing, and each one having it's own separate delay. One hearing... all appeals, one delay.

Due process requires appeals be available when the possibility of reversible error exists (which possibility exists in ALL trials). Due process does NOT require that appeals take 20 years.

[EVT1]

But it does. So in that light I ask again do you have an argument for the death penalty as it works today?

[Deleted]

May 28, 2015 12:28:31 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

But it does. So in that light I ask again do you have an argument for the death penalty as it works today?

Yes. Some people, by their very acts of evil, voluntarily give up their right to continue to live.

If their victims don't have the right to continue living... why should they have it? The death penalty isn't so much a deterrent (most criminals either don't believe that they will be caught... or don't care if they are) as it's a justifiable and reasonable consequence to a freely made choice.

[EVT1]

Fair enough- that is the eye for an eye argument- aka state sanctioned murder. So to add to that- since cost doesn't matter, deterrence doesn't matter, does that fact that there are some innocent people on death row- and pretty much solid evidence that we have executed innocent people- are you going to support the idea that it is better to execute the worst of the worst at the cost of a few innocent people?  That's the corner you are backed into

[Deleted]

May 28, 2015 23:13:36 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Fair enough- that is the eye for an eye argument- aka state sanctioned murder. So to add to that- since cost doesn't matter, deterrence doesn't matter, does that fact that there are some innocent people on death row- and pretty much solid evidence that we have executed innocent people- are you going to support the idea that it is better to execute the worst of the worst at the cost of a few innocent people?  That's the corner you are backed into

I disagree. It's the state acting on the guilty person's REQUEST (via their actions) to cause the forfeiture of his/her life.

And remember... I don't suggest it "willy-nilly". I'd just save it for just for the 100% "no doubt" cases. Not "beyond reasonable doubt"... but ZERO doubt what-so-ever.

And even then, not just for the lone incident that was an accident (oops... gun went off! I didn't aim it! I swear!) wile committing a robbery... but the vile multiple life-taking ones.

[djAdvocate]

fine, call it state sanctioned KILLING then.  that is undeniable, so don't bother denying it.

i don't want my state to have that power.  if you do, bully for you.

[Deleted]

If people want to end their own lives, they should have that option. This is nothing more than another option of that.

[djAdvocate]

May 29, 2015 18:38:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If people want to end their own lives, they should have that option. This is nothing more than another option of that.

really?  you think the state should have the same rights as the individual?

shocking admission, but good to know.

i don't.

[billisonboard]

May 29, 2015 18:38:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If people want to end their own lives, they should have that option. This is nothing more than another option of that.

I am not a fan of murder/suicide by society. If you want to kill yourself fine but I don't think you should decide for others.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2015 18:44:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 29, 2015 18:38:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If people want to end their own lives, they should have that option. This is nothing more than another option of that.

really?  you think the state should have the same rights as the individual?

shocking admission, but good to know.

i don't.

I never said that.

Interesting way to twist what I said though.

If you'd like it re-phrased, I'm happy to oblige... The state has the duty to be the instrument of death, at the individual citizen's request, that it be that instrument. The same as if the citizen took a handful of pills or cut their wrists or shot themselves in the head.

[djAdvocate]

May 29, 2015 18:50:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 29, 2015 18:44:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

really?  you think the state should have the same rights as the individual?

shocking admission, but good to know.

i don't.

I never said that.

Interesting way to twist what I said though.

If you'd like it re-phrased, I'm happy to oblige... The state has the duty to be the instrument of death, at the individual citizen's request, that it be that instrument. The same as if the citizen took a handful of pills or cut their wrists or shot themselves in the head.

what happens when the state acts of it's own accord?  that has happened, and it will, Richard.

it is not the same thing at all.  individuals have the right to their person and property.  the state does not.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2015 0:46:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 29, 2015 18:50:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I never said that.

Interesting way to twist what I said though.

If you'd like it re-phrased, I'm happy to oblige... The state has the duty to be the instrument of death, at the individual citizen's request, that it be that instrument. The same as if the citizen took a handful of pills or cut their wrists or shot themselves in the head.

what happens when the state acts of it's own accord?  that has happened, and it will, Richard.

it is not the same thing at all.  individuals have the right to their person and property.  the state does not.

I am not advocating that the state act of it's own accord. That's the part you seem to be missing.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2015 18:49:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 29, 2015 18:38:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If people want to end their own lives, they should have that option. This is nothing more than another option of that.

I am not a fan of murder/suicide by society. If you want to kill yourself fine but I don't think you should decide for others.

I agree with everything except what I "struck thru".

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2015 18:00:40 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 30, 2015 0:46:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what happens when the state acts of it's own accord?  that has happened, and it will, Richard.

it is not the same thing at all.  individuals have the right to their person and property.  the state does not.

I am not advocating that the state act of it's own accord. That's the part you seem to be missing.

no, but you are advocating for them to have the power to do so on our behalf, which inexorably leads there.  that is the part YOU are missing.

[Robert not Bobby]

May 27, 2015 13:19:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.

Nebraska.

bright red Nebraska.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/27/410024375/nebraska-governors-veto-of-death-penalty-repeal-sets-up-override-vote

Lawmakers in Nebraska's unicameral Legislature need 30 votes to override Ricketts' veto. Under state law, all bills go through three votes. The vote last week was 32-15. In the previous rounds, it was 30-16 and 30-13.

But as Fred Knapp of member station NET reports, at least one senator says he will now vote with the governor. He cited Ricketts' announcement earlier this month that new lethal injections had been bought to resume capital punishment. The vote is expected to be close.

If lawmakers succeed in overriding the veto, Nebraska will become the first Republican-controlled state in the U.S. to repeal the death penalty since North Dakota in 1973. The previous attempt in 1979 to repeal capital punishment failed when the measure was vetoed by then-Gov. Charles Thone.

The death penalty is legal in 32 states; the 18 states that have banned recently it include Maryland (2013), Connecticut (2012), Illinois (2011) and New Mexico (2009).

This is a double edged sword for me: on the one hand, I will never support state executions, on the other hand, there are some crimes that are so heinous I might volunteer to be the executioner. Life is complicated.

r mr

[billisonboard]

May 30, 2015 18:02:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 29, 2015 18:49:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I am not a fan of murder/suicide by society. If you want to kill yourself fine but I don't think you should decide for others.

I agree with everything except what I "struck thru".

So we don't agree. No problem.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2015 18:22:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 30, 2015 18:00:40 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I am not advocating that the state act of it's own accord. That's the part you seem to be missing.

no, but you are advocating for them to have the power to do so on our behalf, which inexorably leads there.  that is the part YOU are missing.

No. I am advocating that they be able to do so on behalf of the individual requesting it by his/her own individual actions/choices.


To simplify it:. If I tell The 12 Year Old that he gets no allowance if he doesn't clean his room... and he chooses to not clean his room, thereby asking me to withhold his allowance... is the whole family ("society") not giving him his allowance? Or am I acting on his lone request to not have it?

[Deleted]

May 30, 2015 18:41:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 30, 2015 18:02:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I agree with everything except what I "struck thru".

So we don't agree. No problem.

We do agree... the one I struck thru didn't apply.



ETA: things "slash separated" (like and/or) to me denote similarities or ability to be used interchangeably in the location they reside in. "Murder/suicide" don't fit that criteria in that sentence... because one is "the unwanted loss of life by the one that was alive" whereas the other one is the exact opposite (the wanted taking of life by the one that was alive).

[tallguy]

May 29, 2015 8:50:25 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 28, 2015 23:13:36 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Fair enough- that is the eye for an eye argument- aka state sanctioned murder. So to add to that- since cost doesn't matter, deterrence doesn't matter, does that fact that there are some innocent people on death row- and pretty much solid evidence that we have executed innocent people- are you going to support the idea that it is better to execute the worst of the worst at the cost of a few innocent people?  That's the corner you are backed into

I disagree. It's the state acting on the guilty person's REQUEST (via their actions) to cause the forfeiture of his/her life.

And remember... I don't suggest it "willy-nilly". I'd just save it for just for the 100% "no doubt" cases. Not "beyond reasonable doubt"... but ZERO doubt what-so-ever.

And even then, not just for the lone incident that was an accident (oops... gun went off! I didn't aim it! I swear!) wile committing a robbery... but the vile multiple life-taking ones.

I am for the most part with Richard on this.  If a person through his actions demonstrates no regard for human life, then society as a whole is relieved of its duty to care for his.  Call it state-sanctioned killing if you like.  I won't argue.  And no, it doesn't have to be so expensive.  Cut down the timeline, raise all appeal issues at one time, and go forward.

Or, I suppose we could just put them all in gen pop instead, with maybe a well-placed whisper about a bounty.  Quicker and cheaper.