2 hours to die after lethal injection drugs given.

[EVT1]

I agree with Richard- at least to the point I have been making for years. If we are going to use the death penalty, then the burden of proof has to change from beyond reasonable doubt to beyond all doubt. What's wrong with that? No one should be executed on eyewitness or circumstantial evidence. You want death- then the evidence must be rock solid- and then I will support it. And on that note, convictions with that heavy evidence should be fast-tracked for death.  Until then- this country is incapable of using the death penalty.  So I am against it- and it has nothing to do with giving a shit about the guilty as those on the right accuse me of.

[chiver78]

Jul 25, 2014 21:20:43 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I agree with Richard- at least to the point I have been making for years. If we are going to use the death penalty, then the burden of proof has to change from beyond reasonable doubt to beyond all doubt. What's wrong with that? No one should be executed on eyewitness or circumstantial evidence. You want death- then the evidence must be rock solid- and then I will support it. And on that note, convictions with that heavy evidence should be fast-tracked for death.  Until then- this country is incapable of using the death penalty.  So I am against it- and it has nothing to do with giving a shit about the guilty as those on the right accuse me of.

accents in the quote are mine. that we aren't already at this point is why I am still anti-death penalty. I grew up in the greater Boston area, in a household with a 1st generation Italian Nana at the helm. any discussion regarding the death penalty immediately calls to mind the names of Sacco and Vanzetti, and I doubt that will ever change.....for the reasons listed in the rest of the quoted post.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 18:01:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 9:02:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

and in your magical system of justice, who would carry out these sentences?

That would depend on the sentence... wouldn't it?

not really, no.  but if you want to get specific, how about the rape one (you know, the lurid one that was described a while back)?

[djAdvocate]

jeezis.  this tops any anecdote i have ever seen on this board.  or maybe i should say "bottoms".  my sympathies, tenn.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 18:00:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 9:00:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no, but i feel right at home in THIS country.  do you?

To be honest... I used to. But with our freedom eroding (mostly in the name of religion)... I don't feel AS "at home" as I used to.

Unfortunately even if moving WAS a possibility, this is still the best place to live (from a freedom AND weather standpoint... any other place that I would even consider gets too cold in the winter)

Australia is pretty awesome.  other than that, i generally agree with you: the better places to live have inferior climates.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 22:10:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 25, 2014 18:00:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be honest... I used to. But with our freedom eroding (mostly in the name of religion)... I don't feel AS "at home" as I used to.

Unfortunately even if moving WAS a possibility, this is still the best place to live (from a freedom AND weather standpoint... any other place that I would even consider gets too cold in the winter)

Australia is pretty awesome.  other than that, i generally agree with you: the better places to live have inferior climates.

Australia wouldn't work... firearms are kind of a no-no there.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 18:05:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 9:06:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

first of all, perpetrators are not imagining they will be caught.  so your "especially" part is absurd.

secondly, if the crime is cruel, then the punishment will be, under your system.  you can paint as much lipstick on it as you like, but it will never happen, here.

I didn't say it wouldn't be cruel. I said it wouldn't be "cruel AND UNUSUAL". It's a two part judgement criteria, where BOTH have to me met for it to qualify (that's what "and" means... or didn't they teach that in grammar class where you went to school... so many important things are no longer taught nowadays, it's hard to keep up)

By definition ANY punishment is cruel... that's the nature of punishment.

ETA: And, whether they "expect to be caught" or not is irrelevant. The knowledge would be out there for them to know IF they got caught (same way it is with the "use a gun in a crime and get {extra time}" advertising)

interesting observation. 

i took the liberty of reviewing the SCOTUS positions on this term over time.  it appears that "cruel and unusual" focuses on TYPE of punishment and DURATION.  many punishments were barred at the time of adoption: burning at the stake, tar and feathering, etc.  that is a bar by TYPE.  but it is also determined that a punishment should be, essentially, inversely proportional to it's severity.  in other words, it is "cruel and unusual" to torture someone to death over a period of 2 hours.

i can't find any support for your treatment of "unusual" as a separate qualifier from "cruel".  but you are welcome to provide me with some legal references, if you have them.  i looked HERE:

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 21:55:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 25, 2014 18:01:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That would depend on the sentence... wouldn't it?

not really, no.  but if you want to get specific, how about the rape one (you know, the lurid one that was described a while back)?

If you mean the one where I said "If you kidnap someone and rape them and starve them over several days... you get raped (by a machine... we don't want PEOPLE to have to do that) and starved for several days." Then I believe the bolded part should cover the "who" of your question

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 22:17:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:10:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Australia is pretty awesome.  other than that, i generally agree with you: the better places to live have inferior climates.

Australia wouldn't work... firearms are kind of a no-no there.

yeah, if you care a lot about that, then it is not your place.  and i can see better why you like it here, where firearms outnumber citizens. 

edit: it should be noted, however, that Australia rates equal or better than the US in the standard measures of freedom:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 22:22:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 21:55:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not really, no.  but if you want to get specific, how about the rape one (you know, the lurid one that was described a while back)?

If you mean the one where I said "If you kidnap someone and rape them and starve them over several days... you get raped (by a machine... we don't want PEOPLE to have to do that) and starved for several days." Then I believe the bolded part should cover the "who" of your question

the perp would have to be put into the machine by someone.  who do you suggest for that duty?

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 22:22:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 21:55:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not really, no.  but if you want to get specific, how about the rape one (you know, the lurid one that was described a while back)?

If you mean the one where I said "If you kidnap someone and rape them and starve them over several days... you get raped (by a machine... we don't want PEOPLE to have to do that) and starved for several days." Then I believe the bolded part should cover the "who" of your question

Someone has to turn on the machine.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 22:20:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 25, 2014 18:05:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I didn't say it wouldn't be cruel. I said it wouldn't be "cruel AND UNUSUAL". It's a two part judgement criteria, where BOTH have to me met for it to qualify (that's what "and" means... or didn't they teach that in grammar class where you went to school... so many important things are no longer taught nowadays, it's hard to keep up)

By definition ANY punishment is cruel... that's the nature of punishment.

ETA: And, whether they "expect to be caught" or not is irrelevant. The knowledge would be out there for them to know IF they got caught (same way it is with the "use a gun in a crime and get {extra time}" advertising)

interesting observation. 

i took the liberty of reviewing the SCOTUS positions on this term over time.  it appears that "cruel and unusual" focuses on TYPE of punishment and DURATION.  many punishments were barred at the time of adoption: burning at the stake, tar and feathering, etc.  that is a bar by TYPE.  but it is also determined that a punishment should be, essentially, inversely proportional to it's severity.  in other words, it is "cruel and unusual" to torture someone to death over a period of 2 hours.

i can't find any support for your treatment of "unusual" as a separate qualifier from "cruel".  but you are welcome to provide me with some legal references, if you have them.  i looked HERE:

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

You must have missed the "and" again. It's not a "separate qualifier" it's part of the only qualifier. One qualifier:

"cruel AND unusual"

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 22:24:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:22:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If you mean the one where I said "If you kidnap someone and rape them and starve them over several days... you get raped (by a machine... we don't want PEOPLE to have to do that) and starved for several days." Then I believe the bolded part should cover the "who" of your question

the perp would have to be put into the machine by someone.  who do you suggest for that duty?

Someone qualified to do so.

Someone has to strap the person into the (whatever contraption the State uses to execute it's prisoners). Same criteria, whatever that may be.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 22:25:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:20:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

interesting observation. 

i took the liberty of reviewing the SCOTUS positions on this term over time.  it appears that "cruel and unusual" focuses on TYPE of punishment and DURATION.  many punishments were barred at the time of adoption: burning at the stake, tar and feathering, etc.  that is a bar by TYPE.  but it is also determined that a punishment should be, essentially, inversely proportional to it's severity.  in other words, it is "cruel and unusual" to torture someone to death over a period of 2 hours.

i can't find any support for your treatment of "unusual" as a separate qualifier from "cruel".  but you are welcome to provide me with some legal references, if you have them.  i looked HERE:

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

You must have missed the "and" again. It's not a "separate qualifier" it's part of the only qualifier. One qualifier:

"cruel AND unusual"

"separate qualifier" means that it is an ADDITIONAL qualifier, Richard.  that means it is not an "OR" statement.  that means that BOTH conditions must be satisfied (according to you).

so, i didn't miss anything.

again, i can find no evidence that "cruel and unusual" is any different than "cruel" from a legal perspective.  if you can, please present it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 22:27:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:24:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the perp would have to be put into the machine by someone.  who do you suggest for that duty?

Someone qualified to do so.

Someone has to strap the person into the (whatever contraption the State uses to execute it's prisoners). Same criteria, whatever that may be.

sorry, i am just having a hard time envisioning someone who would be qualified to restrain someone in a torture device.

[djAdvocate]

let's see if i understand you correctly, Richard.

let's say that the standard punishment for every felony is to have needles jabbed into your eyeballs.  so, rape, larceny, theft of more than $1,000, child abuse, etc would all get the same penalty: needles in the eyeball.  in that situation, the punishment would not be "unusual".  it would by the way we punished felonies, so it would be perfectly OK from a constitutional standpoint, which only forbids it if it is "unusual"?

edit: to put it another way, i can't find a single case where a punishment was argued constitutional because it was "cruel" but not "unusual", or vice versa.  or, to put it another way, "cruel and unusual" means one thing, legally speaking, not two, as far as i can tell.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 22:24:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:22:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If you mean the one where I said "If you kidnap someone and rape them and starve them over several days... you get raped (by a machine... we don't want PEOPLE to have to do that) and starved for several days." Then I believe the bolded part should cover the "who" of your question

Someone has to turn on the machine.

someone has to strap the perp into the machine.
someone has to remove the expired individual from the machine.
the layers of ugliness here are difficult to fathom.

[Tennesseer]

@richardintn - you previously mentioned punishment should be fair "fair and reasonable".  In your world of justice, if an adult woman is convicted of having sex with a minor, she is considered to have committed statuary rape. 

Would a "fair and reasonable" punishment for this woman be to sit in this machine that rapes her?  

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 22:46:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:24:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Someone has to turn on the machine.

someone has to strap the perp into the machine.
someone has to remove the expired individual from the machine.
the layers of ugliness here are difficult to fathom.

I may be wrong, but after the scenario was the person is raped by the machine then they are starved to death. So they are only raped almost to death.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 22:38:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let's see if i understand you correctly, Richard.

let's say that the standard punishment for every felony is to have needles jabbed into your eyeballs.  so, rape, larceny, theft of more than $1,000, child abuse, etc would all get the same penalty: needles in the eyeball.  in that situation, the punishment would not be "unusual".  it would by the way we punished felonies, so it would be perfectly OK from a constitutional standpoint, which only forbids it if it is "unusual"?

edit: to put it another way, i can't find a single case where a punishment was argued constitutional because it was "cruel" but not "unusual", or vice versa.  or, to put it another way, "cruel and unusual" means one thing, legally speaking, not two, as far as i can tell.

That would be "cruel AND unusual"... because what does needles to the eyeball have to do with stealing $1,000?

And the bolded is what I was saying. Since we seem to agree... why are you arguing your point as if you don't?

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 22:48:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

@richardintn - you previously mentioned punishment should be fair "fair and reasonable".  In your world of justice, if an adult woman is convicted of having sex with a minor, she is considered to have committed statuary rape. 

Would a "fair and reasonable" punishment for this woman be to sit in this machine that rapes her?  

Since it wasn't  forcible rape, but only due to the unavailability of legal consent (due to age)... punishment by forcible rape to the woman is not warranted. The punishment MUST fit the crime.

Not sure what punishment really fits statutory anything.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 23:02:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:48:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

@richardintn - you previously mentioned punishment should be fair "fair and reasonable".  In your world of justice, if an adult woman is convicted of having sex with a minor, she is considered to have committed statuary rape. 

Would a "fair and reasonable" punishment for this woman be to sit in this machine that rapes her?  

Since it wasn't  forcible rape, but only due to the unavailability of legal consent (due to age)... punishment by forcible rape to the woman is not warranted. The punishment MUST fit the crime.

Not sure what punishment really fits statutory anything.

Sex with a minor. 

Let's expand the story.  The middle aged woman holds a gun to the underage teen boy's head and forces him to have sex with her.

Does she get the sex machine?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 22:57:37 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:38:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let's see if i understand you correctly, Richard.

let's say that the standard punishment for every felony is to have needles jabbed into your eyeballs.  so, rape, larceny, theft of more than $1,000, child abuse, etc would all get the same penalty: needles in the eyeball.  in that situation, the punishment would not be "unusual".  it would by the way we punished felonies, so it would be perfectly OK from a constitutional standpoint, which only forbids it if it is "unusual"?

edit: to put it another way, i can't find a single case where a punishment was argued constitutional because it was "cruel" but not "unusual", or vice versa.  or, to put it another way, "cruel and unusual" means one thing, legally speaking, not two, as far as i can tell.

That would be "cruel AND unusual"... because what does needles to the eyeball have to do with stealing $1,000?

how would it be unusual, if it was the standard punishment for all felonies?

And the bolded is what I was saying. Since we seem to agree... why are you arguing your point as if you don't?

are we arguing?  i was just trying to understand you, Richard.

so, we both agree that "cruel and unusual" is a singular thing. 

do you think TORTURE meets that standard?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 22:52:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2014 22:46:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

someone has to strap the perp into the machine.
someone has to remove the expired individual from the machine.
the layers of ugliness here are difficult to fathom.

I may be wrong, but after the scenario was the person is raped by the machine then they are starved to death. So they are only raped almost to death.

this whole idea presents serious issues for "administration of justice", imo.

now, that is not the only standard that we measure things by.  after tall, the DP presents serious problems, as well.  which is why it is in serious trouble, as a punishment.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 23:06:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2014 23:02:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Since it wasn't  forcible rape, but only due to the unavailability of legal consent (due to age)... punishment by forcible rape to the woman is not warranted. The punishment MUST fit the crime.

Not sure what punishment really fits statutory anything.

Sex with a minor. 

Let's expand the story.  The middle aged woman holds a gun to the underage teen boy's head and forces him to have sex with her.

Does she get the sex machine?

how about "contributing to the delinquency of a minor"?  what is the punishment for that?
soliciting from a prostitute?
possession of a controlled substance?
speeding?
vagrancy?
petty theft?
Sharia Law is such a hopeless thicket of conflicted legal issues that i have to say that our
system, as horribly flawed and unfair as it MAY be is infinitely preferable.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Jul 25, 2014 17:57:59 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Jul 25, 2014 17:01:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

When ratification attempts begin to amend Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution from "cruel and unusual" punishments to "fair and reasonable" punishments, I will then be completely against it. 

For what it is worth, I loath the death penalty as I believe it is used far too frequently.  But there are rare exceptions when it should be used.  Nothing that immediately comes to mind though. 

Charles Manson?  Oh, yes.  The death penalty was abolished in that state, so his sentence was commuted to life.

That one came to mind very quickly for me.

Jeffrey Dahmer is another animal in the same class as Manson - fortunately another inmate (or inmates) took care of ridding him from the planet - meanwhile Manson is still alive (and spent the last 44 yrs living, being fed & housed and showing now remorse for his murders - he's a nutjob - and another new nutjob actually wants to marry this psycho killer.

www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trending/Charles-Manson-might-marry-a-25-year-old-who-carved-an-X-in-her-forehead.html

[zibazinski]

Manson should have been gone decades ago. The fact that he is still alive is proof our judicial system is terribly broken.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 26, 2014 8:18:37 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Manson should have been gone decades ago. The fact that he is still alive is proof our judicial system is terribly broken.

the fact that he has hurt nobody since his criminal rampage is proof that it is not.

[zibazinski]

He hasn't had a chance and why should taxpayers be supporting this piece of offal?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 26, 2014 9:45:11 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

He hasn't had a chance and why should taxpayers be supporting this piece of offal?

i don't view LWOPP as "support".  i view it as "the death penalty".