Mass Produced Death Penalty is Over
May 13, 2016 3:33 PM Subscribe
“With Pfizer’s announcement, all F.D.A.-approved manufacturers of any potential execution drug have now blocked their sale for this purpose,” said Maya Foa, who tracks drug companies for Reprieve, a London-based human rights advocacy group.
States determined to push on with executions are resorting to older secondary methods with Utah bringing back the firing squad along with Tennessee and Oklahoma. Oklahoma is also the first state to adopt nitrogen asphyxiation as a potential execution method.
States determined to push on with executions are resorting to older secondary methods with Utah bringing back the firing squad along with Tennessee and Oklahoma. Oklahoma is also the first state to adopt nitrogen asphyxiation as a potential execution method.
Why not go even further back in time and force the governor to perform the execution himself? Do your own dirty work IMO.
posted by Behemoth at 3:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by Behemoth at 3:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
(First, for context, I consider capital punishment acceptable in extreme circumstances, which most other supporters think are too extreme, I can elaborate in another comment.)
Assuming that capital punishment isn't going anywhere any time soon, I think nitrogen asphyxiation or, at a distant second place, massive opiate/phenobarbital overdose should be the only methods allowed. Every other method I know of is too finicky and prone to mistakes that cause suffering.
posted by chimaera at 3:45 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Assuming that capital punishment isn't going anywhere any time soon, I think nitrogen asphyxiation or, at a distant second place, massive opiate/phenobarbital overdose should be the only methods allowed. Every other method I know of is too finicky and prone to mistakes that cause suffering.
posted by chimaera at 3:45 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
A serious question that I have wondered about: why not exit hoods?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:46 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 3:46 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
(It looks like Oklahoma is going for gas chambers, not hoods, which seems surprising.)
posted by Going To Maine at 3:48 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 3:48 PM on May 13, 2016
I was always a fan of the idea of a tall chamber above which a suitable heavy (2 ton?) block was suspended. Cut a rope, drop the block, squish the evil.
Death is instant and painless, the sight and clean-up is gruesome enough to remind everyone involved of the immensity of the act of taking a human life.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Death is instant and painless, the sight and clean-up is gruesome enough to remind everyone involved of the immensity of the act of taking a human life.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Filed under: apparently well-meaning* attempt to find a technical solution to a societal/political problem.
* Yes, I know these are corporations and it is likely a marketing/image move, but still....
When only outlaws have diatomic nitrogen, something something watching the world burn in hyperoxic atmospheres
posted by lalochezia at 3:50 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
* Yes, I know these are corporations and it is likely a marketing/image move, but still....
When only outlaws have diatomic nitrogen, something something watching the world burn in hyperoxic atmospheres
posted by lalochezia at 3:50 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Death is instant and painless, the sight and clean-up is gruesome enough to remind everyone involved of the immensity of the act of taking a human life.
Like that has stopped people killing other people before.
posted by Pendragon at 3:51 PM on May 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
Like that has stopped people killing other people before.
posted by Pendragon at 3:51 PM on May 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
The Politico story linked is written by someone who clearly doesn't know the difference between a cyanide asphyxiation and nitrogen -- or has an ideological reason to conflate the two.
The experience of the person asphyxiated with cyanide vs nitrogen (as evidenced by many, many people accidentally exposed who survived) is VASTLY different.
posted by chimaera at 3:52 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
The experience of the person asphyxiated with cyanide vs nitrogen (as evidenced by many, many people accidentally exposed who survived) is VASTLY different.
posted by chimaera at 3:52 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also I imagine nitrogen is a hell of a lot safer for everyone else involved.
posted by leotrotsky at 3:56 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by leotrotsky at 3:56 PM on May 13, 2016
Yeah, this won't stop them. They'll simply find another way to execute people -- as the articles noted.
posted by zarq at 4:01 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by zarq at 4:01 PM on May 13, 2016
Death is instant and painless, the sight and clean-up is gruesome enough to remind everyone involved of the immensity of the act of taking a human life.
Doesn't work. Watching executions doesn't make people any more leery of them.
Execution is barbaric, there's no way around that. Stop killing people.
(Aaaaaaaaand before it goes there: no it is not cheaper. Innocents get executed all the time. There is literally no rational argument in favour.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:02 PM on May 13, 2016 [63 favorites]
Doesn't work. Watching executions doesn't make people any more leery of them.
Execution is barbaric, there's no way around that. Stop killing people.
(Aaaaaaaaand before it goes there: no it is not cheaper. Innocents get executed all the time. There is literally no rational argument in favour.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:02 PM on May 13, 2016 [63 favorites]
Like that has stopped people killing other people before.
I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent. Clearly, it's not. However, in the case of mass/serial murder, war crimes including genocide, and treason (taking up arms, not just aiding and abetting), I think the ultimate sanction imposed by society -- the irrevocable, permanent removal of the offender from society -- should be an permitted punishment. What this basically means is that, offhand, only people like McVeigh, Wuornos, and Bundy would qualify.
posted by chimaera at 4:04 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent. Clearly, it's not. However, in the case of mass/serial murder, war crimes including genocide, and treason (taking up arms, not just aiding and abetting), I think the ultimate sanction imposed by society -- the irrevocable, permanent removal of the offender from society -- should be an permitted punishment. What this basically means is that, offhand, only people like McVeigh, Wuornos, and Bundy would qualify.
posted by chimaera at 4:04 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
And what do you do when, inevitably, someone innocent is executed? Can't let them out of the graveyard.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:05 PM on May 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:05 PM on May 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
Death is instant and painless, the sight and clean-up is gruesome enough to remind everyone involved of the immensity of the act of taking a human life.
Even if I accept your premise that it's not "cruel" per se (which I don't) the overall grisly, outlandish nature of the execution and the difficulty of retrieving/preserving the remains for disposition would seem to invalidate it as non-unusual punishment.
posted by Strange Interlude at 4:08 PM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Even if I accept your premise that it's not "cruel" per se (which I don't) the overall grisly, outlandish nature of the execution and the difficulty of retrieving/preserving the remains for disposition would seem to invalidate it as non-unusual punishment.
posted by Strange Interlude at 4:08 PM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Utah... Tennessee... Oklahoma...
Remember, it's liberal smugness to call the governors and other top officials of these states moral monsters.
posted by aaronetc at 4:10 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Remember, it's liberal smugness to call the governors and other top officials of these states moral monsters.
posted by aaronetc at 4:10 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
This looks a lot like that mythical creature called Corporate Responsibility. I'm not positive, though, because it's been a while since I've seen one.
posted by mudpuppie at 4:11 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by mudpuppie at 4:11 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
(Aaaaaaaaand before it goes there: no it is not cheaper. Innocents get executed all the time. There is literally no rational argument in favour.)
There's an argument to be made that imprisoning people for life will be more expensive than executing them, simply for the time and resources they will consume. Whether they are innocent or not is not part of that equation.
What might tip the scales in the other direction are legal expenses, throughout an extensive appeals process. But that's subjective.
posted by zarq at 4:12 PM on May 13, 2016
There's an argument to be made that imprisoning people for life will be more expensive than executing them, simply for the time and resources they will consume. Whether they are innocent or not is not part of that equation.
What might tip the scales in the other direction are legal expenses, throughout an extensive appeals process. But that's subjective.
posted by zarq at 4:12 PM on May 13, 2016
Doesn’t work. Watching executions doesn't make people any more leery of them.
This assumes that the point of the method should be to make people not want to conduct executions - which it isn’t. The state has no desire to subversively work against the notion that execution is inappropriate. If the state policy is “execution is okay”, it should be up-front about that, and respectful of the power that it has seized.
Yeah, this won't stop them. They'll simply find another way to execute people -- as the articles noted.
I have to admit that I felt some sympathy with Justice Alito during that last death penalty case at the Supreme Court case. Not because I thought that he was on the right side of the argument that, yes, it should be fine for prisoners to get executed with chemical cocktails that cause people to be on fire, but because there’s something very frustrating about being forced to continuously wrangle with a question through a number of backdoor proceedings. To keep nickel-and-diming at the ways in which someone can be executed is a tiresome way of going about things, especially since it seems like the states have had these other, “more humane” ways of killing open to them. That’s the way law is made in the country, and it is a long and tedious process. Hopefully we can finally get the big no-more-death-penalty case that we’d like and just be done with this. (Of course, were it to go the other way I’d be devastated, so who knows? But I’m also tired of all this dancing around.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This assumes that the point of the method should be to make people not want to conduct executions - which it isn’t. The state has no desire to subversively work against the notion that execution is inappropriate. If the state policy is “execution is okay”, it should be up-front about that, and respectful of the power that it has seized.
Yeah, this won't stop them. They'll simply find another way to execute people -- as the articles noted.
I have to admit that I felt some sympathy with Justice Alito during that last death penalty case at the Supreme Court case. Not because I thought that he was on the right side of the argument that, yes, it should be fine for prisoners to get executed with chemical cocktails that cause people to be on fire, but because there’s something very frustrating about being forced to continuously wrangle with a question through a number of backdoor proceedings. To keep nickel-and-diming at the ways in which someone can be executed is a tiresome way of going about things, especially since it seems like the states have had these other, “more humane” ways of killing open to them. That’s the way law is made in the country, and it is a long and tedious process. Hopefully we can finally get the big no-more-death-penalty case that we’d like and just be done with this. (Of course, were it to go the other way I’d be devastated, so who knows? But I’m also tired of all this dancing around.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
And what do you do when, inevitably, someone innocent is executed?
Presume malfeasance and permanently disbar the prosecutor and the judge, with strict liability, and investigate whether any exculpatory information was hidden from the jury. If that's the case, try the judge and prosecutor for murder. Remunerate the survivors of the innocent who was executed at 20x the value of all their expected future earnings. With this kind of deterrent, with prosecutors and judges in deep fear of their careers and their freedom, the penalty will only be sought in rare cases.
I know that both opponents and supporters both don't like my opinion on this matter, but it's my deeply considered opinion arrived after long thought about the purpose and failure modes of the justice system.
posted by chimaera at 4:14 PM on May 13, 2016 [24 favorites]
Presume malfeasance and permanently disbar the prosecutor and the judge, with strict liability, and investigate whether any exculpatory information was hidden from the jury. If that's the case, try the judge and prosecutor for murder. Remunerate the survivors of the innocent who was executed at 20x the value of all their expected future earnings. With this kind of deterrent, with prosecutors and judges in deep fear of their careers and their freedom, the penalty will only be sought in rare cases.
I know that both opponents and supporters both don't like my opinion on this matter, but it's my deeply considered opinion arrived after long thought about the purpose and failure modes of the justice system.
posted by chimaera at 4:14 PM on May 13, 2016 [24 favorites]
There's an argument to be made that imprisoning people for life will be more expensive than executing them, simply for the time and resources they will consume. Whether they are innocent or not is not part of that equation.
It absolutely is part of that equation. A person imprisoned for life who is found to be innocent can be released. A person murdered who is found to be innocent cannot be released. Even if you're going to pretend anyone anywhere is actually making an argument that is only about cost, we no longer have to pay the cost of imprisoning someone after they are released, so it does still factor in.
posted by IAmUnaware at 4:15 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
It absolutely is part of that equation. A person imprisoned for life who is found to be innocent can be released. A person murdered who is found to be innocent cannot be released. Even if you're going to pretend anyone anywhere is actually making an argument that is only about cost, we no longer have to pay the cost of imprisoning someone after they are released, so it does still factor in.
posted by IAmUnaware at 4:15 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Even if I accept your premise that it's not "cruel" per se (which I don't) the overall grisly, outlandish nature of the execution and the difficulty of retrieving/preserving the remains for disposition would seem to invalidate it as non-unusual punishment.
I'm sure a smart prosecutor-turned-supreme-court-advocate could talk his or her way around an 8th Amendment issues of evil squishing.
And I want to be clear that I don't support the death penalty at all (for some of the reasons already stated and for others). But I didn't think that this thread was going to become a pro v. anti capital punishment thread so I didn't mention my actual stance.
I promise that any spitballing about methods on my part is purely (morbid) hamburger. I want to live in a fantasy world where people can speculate about various ways of performing executions with the knowledge that those ways would never actually be implemented by a State.
posted by sparklemotion at 4:16 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sure a smart prosecutor-turned-supreme-court-advocate could talk his or her way around an 8th Amendment issues of evil squishing.
And I want to be clear that I don't support the death penalty at all (for some of the reasons already stated and for others). But I didn't think that this thread was going to become a pro v. anti capital punishment thread so I didn't mention my actual stance.
I promise that any spitballing about methods on my part is purely (morbid) hamburger. I want to live in a fantasy world where people can speculate about various ways of performing executions with the knowledge that those ways would never actually be implemented by a State.
posted by sparklemotion at 4:16 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to go on too far of a tangent, but I also think that when a law enforcement officer shoots someone who is unarmed, that there should be a presumption of malfeasance on the part of the officer, and they should have to prove to the level of preponderance of the evidence for them to not be barred from a position of legal authority permanently.
Those who wield the power of life and death need to be deeply afraid to use it to make someone dead who should not be.
posted by chimaera at 4:16 PM on May 13, 2016 [33 favorites]
Those who wield the power of life and death need to be deeply afraid to use it to make someone dead who should not be.
posted by chimaera at 4:16 PM on May 13, 2016 [33 favorites]
Actually, these moves do have an effect even though states can find other sources for their drugs or other methods of execution.
First, the analysis as to whether a punishment is cruel and unusual is, at least theoretically, keyed to whether it's shocking and abhorrent to the modern world. Every major institutional actor who says that it is shocking and abhorrent is another data point in that direction. There's evidence that Justice Breyer at least is partially where he is on the death penalty (aka openly abolitionist) because the death penalty is abhorred by other "civilized" nations, and the glorious nation-states that are major corporations like Pfizer.
And second, on an individual level, when the state can't find the drugs to execute the prisoners, defense attorneys have more time to try to get the sentence commuted or stayed. Every second counts.
posted by peppercorn at 4:17 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
First, the analysis as to whether a punishment is cruel and unusual is, at least theoretically, keyed to whether it's shocking and abhorrent to the modern world. Every major institutional actor who says that it is shocking and abhorrent is another data point in that direction. There's evidence that Justice Breyer at least is partially where he is on the death penalty (aka openly abolitionist) because the death penalty is abhorred by other "civilized" nations, and the glorious nation-states that are major corporations like Pfizer.
And second, on an individual level, when the state can't find the drugs to execute the prisoners, defense attorneys have more time to try to get the sentence commuted or stayed. Every second counts.
posted by peppercorn at 4:17 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
There's an argument to be made that imprisoning people for life will be more expensive than executing them, simply for the time and resources they will consume.
That argument has been debunked.
Presume malfeasance and permanently disbar the prosecutor and the judge, with strict liability, and investigate whether any exculpatory information was hidden from the jury. If that's the case, try the judge and prosecutor for murder. Remunerate the survivors of the innocent who was executed at 20x the value of all their expected future earnings.
That doesn't do anything for the innocent person who was executed. As many already have been.
I know that both opponents and supporters both don't like my opinion on this matter, but it's my deeply considered opinion arrived after long thought about the purpose and failure modes of the justice system.
An opinion can be deeply considered and still be horribly, horribly flawed. When the state has the power to imprison or execute, there is always the chance that an innocent person can be imprisoned or executed. If imprisoned, they can be released. If executed, that's the end of it. And that is morally abhorrent.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:19 PM on May 13, 2016 [39 favorites]
That argument has been debunked.
Presume malfeasance and permanently disbar the prosecutor and the judge, with strict liability, and investigate whether any exculpatory information was hidden from the jury. If that's the case, try the judge and prosecutor for murder. Remunerate the survivors of the innocent who was executed at 20x the value of all their expected future earnings.
That doesn't do anything for the innocent person who was executed. As many already have been.
I know that both opponents and supporters both don't like my opinion on this matter, but it's my deeply considered opinion arrived after long thought about the purpose and failure modes of the justice system.
An opinion can be deeply considered and still be horribly, horribly flawed. When the state has the power to imprison or execute, there is always the chance that an innocent person can be imprisoned or executed. If imprisoned, they can be released. If executed, that's the end of it. And that is morally abhorrent.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:19 PM on May 13, 2016 [39 favorites]
Firing squads. That's where we're at then. While I welcome Pfizer's heart-warming turn away from selling murder drugs, I wonder how the conversation would go down at the gun dealership?
Welcome to Gun Pun, how may I help you?
I need some guns and ammunition.
We have all kinds! Are you hunting or target shooting?
We're going to execute someone.
WHAT?
Yeah, I know how it sounds but it's all legit. Just give us something that will knock 'em into the next world fast.
Get out of my store.
While it would be nice if gun manufacturers followed Pfizer's lead, and refused to supply ... I can't even finish that. They'd just get one of the 300 million guns already out there.
Just stop it and join civilisation. It doesn't work. It's not a punishment, it's not a deterrent, the wrong people die sometimes, and it costs a fortune. Just let them live out their life apart from society. And leave a pathway to redemption, not everyone is so broken they can't ever be welcomed back.
posted by adept256 at 4:20 PM on May 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
Welcome to Gun Pun, how may I help you?
I need some guns and ammunition.
We have all kinds! Are you hunting or target shooting?
We're going to execute someone.
WHAT?
Yeah, I know how it sounds but it's all legit. Just give us something that will knock 'em into the next world fast.
Get out of my store.
While it would be nice if gun manufacturers followed Pfizer's lead, and refused to supply ... I can't even finish that. They'd just get one of the 300 million guns already out there.
Just stop it and join civilisation. It doesn't work. It's not a punishment, it's not a deterrent, the wrong people die sometimes, and it costs a fortune. Just let them live out their life apart from society. And leave a pathway to redemption, not everyone is so broken they can't ever be welcomed back.
posted by adept256 at 4:20 PM on May 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
An opinion can be deeply considered and still be horribly, horribly flawed.
We may have to agree to disagree.
posted by chimaera at 4:22 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
We may have to agree to disagree.
posted by chimaera at 4:22 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The death penalty is literally dystopian, like if it didn't already exist there would be a bestselling YA adventure series called The Execution Trilogy or something.
posted by threeants at 4:24 PM on May 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by threeants at 4:24 PM on May 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
This is one of those issues where 'agree to disagree' assumes a false equivalency between positions.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [45 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [45 favorites]
I'm against the death penalty, but Going To Maine's link above seems like the right idea? Not necessarily that specifically, but we are starting to allow assisted suicide (which is good IMO). So whatever the generally agreed-upon humane ways of committing suicide or assisted suicide are, would also seem to be the logical choice for the death penalty.
But again, I'd much much rather we (USA in my case, but also all the other countries who use it) simply abolish it.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
But again, I'd much much rather we (USA in my case, but also all the other countries who use it) simply abolish it.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every major institutional actor who says that it is shocking and abhorrent is another data point in that direction.
Peppercorn's point strikes me as a critical one (especially for those of us who fundamentally oppose the death penalty in all circumstances). Although death penalty proponents may well carry on trying to have executions, making it difficult isn't just a logistical barrier -- it's part of removing the social sanction from this barbaric institution. Having worked on death penalty cases, it's striking how the basic physical awfulness of it -- killing someone -- is wrapped in layers of institutional avoidance and antiseptic, abstract, rhetoric. Refusing to allow supposedly "humane" methods -- refusing even to be associated with them -- forces the focus back to what is really going on.
Put differently, I think there's not much moral distance from a feudal lord beheading someone to a state poisoning them -- and the morals (all else being equal) might favor the feudal folks, because at least they're being honest.
posted by SandCounty at 4:27 PM on May 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
Peppercorn's point strikes me as a critical one (especially for those of us who fundamentally oppose the death penalty in all circumstances). Although death penalty proponents may well carry on trying to have executions, making it difficult isn't just a logistical barrier -- it's part of removing the social sanction from this barbaric institution. Having worked on death penalty cases, it's striking how the basic physical awfulness of it -- killing someone -- is wrapped in layers of institutional avoidance and antiseptic, abstract, rhetoric. Refusing to allow supposedly "humane" methods -- refusing even to be associated with them -- forces the focus back to what is really going on.
Put differently, I think there's not much moral distance from a feudal lord beheading someone to a state poisoning them -- and the morals (all else being equal) might favor the feudal folks, because at least they're being honest.
posted by SandCounty at 4:27 PM on May 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
The death penalty is literally dystopian, like if it didn't already exist there would be a bestselling YA adventure series called The Execution Trilogy or something.
Given the amount of time that the death penalty has existed, that’s uh... a lot of history being labeled a dystopia. Which I suppose is your point, but man, hat is a hard label.
When the state has the power to imprison or execute, there is always the chance that an innocent person can be imprisoned or executed. If imprisoned, they can be released. If executed, that's the end of it. And that is morally abhorrent.
It seems pretty dang unlikely that we should be forced to assume that Anders Breivik could be innocent, and therefore shouldn’t be executed. I don’t believe that society should kill people, but hanging your hat on the idea that someone could always be innocent does seem like a difficult way of dealing with edge cases.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:30 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Given the amount of time that the death penalty has existed, that’s uh... a lot of history being labeled a dystopia. Which I suppose is your point, but man, hat is a hard label.
When the state has the power to imprison or execute, there is always the chance that an innocent person can be imprisoned or executed. If imprisoned, they can be released. If executed, that's the end of it. And that is morally abhorrent.
It seems pretty dang unlikely that we should be forced to assume that Anders Breivik could be innocent, and therefore shouldn’t be executed. I don’t believe that society should kill people, but hanging your hat on the idea that someone could always be innocent does seem like a difficult way of dealing with edge cases.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:30 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
My state is so addicted to killing people it's like somebody with severe alcoholism drinking hand sanitizer to get a fix. Nothing, short of federal intervention, is going to stop them. They'll crush people with a steamroller or feed them to a wood chipper if they have to.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 4:32 PM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by LastOfHisKind at 4:32 PM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
a difficult way of dealing with edge cases
Edge cases make bad law. It's not about considering that Anders Breivik could be innocent, it's about considering that anyone could be, and execution is irrevocable in a way that imprisonment isn't.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:34 PM on May 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
Edge cases make bad law. It's not about considering that Anders Breivik could be innocent, it's about considering that anyone could be, and execution is irrevocable in a way that imprisonment isn't.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:34 PM on May 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
Firing squads? Why not just have a guillotine, you can brand it as a Green alternative.
I am strongly anti death penalty, even for the worst of crimes. Good on Pfizer, and that's not something I'd expect myself to ever say.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 4:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I am strongly anti death penalty, even for the worst of crimes. Good on Pfizer, and that's not something I'd expect myself to ever say.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 4:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is one of those issues where 'agree to disagree' assumes a false equivalency between positions.
I guess we have to keep going. I do not consider it to be a false equivalency. I consider it a question of acceptable failure rate.
And there is one.
There's an acceptable failure rate for any number of things that society -- as a whole -- considers in its interest. Transportation, food safety, war, even justice. If all reasonable means to lower the failure rate are undertaken, there is a point at which some things simply go wrong. Irrevocably wrong. The US is very, very far away from where it needs to be with regard to justice, mainly because of prosecutorial and judicial immunity. If there is any indication over overreach, of malfeasance, of even negligence and incompetence, the punishment on those who miscarried their duties should be severe.
An innocent who dies in jail from illness, old age, or being killed by another inmate, represents a failure of the system as much as an innocent who is executed. Further, I advocate that the punishment for imprisoned innocents should be given to prosecutors and judges -- disbarment and removal from the bench at the least. I think there should be a moratorium on executions of all kinds, pending the type of reform I propose. Without those reforms, I oppose capital punishment entirely. When there are systemic biases against prosecutors and judges rather than biases in their favor, then we can have a more meaningful discussion of further reform, and precisely what the acceptable failure rate is, because in every human endeavor, the failure rate is *never* zero.
posted by chimaera at 4:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I guess we have to keep going. I do not consider it to be a false equivalency. I consider it a question of acceptable failure rate.
And there is one.
There's an acceptable failure rate for any number of things that society -- as a whole -- considers in its interest. Transportation, food safety, war, even justice. If all reasonable means to lower the failure rate are undertaken, there is a point at which some things simply go wrong. Irrevocably wrong. The US is very, very far away from where it needs to be with regard to justice, mainly because of prosecutorial and judicial immunity. If there is any indication over overreach, of malfeasance, of even negligence and incompetence, the punishment on those who miscarried their duties should be severe.
An innocent who dies in jail from illness, old age, or being killed by another inmate, represents a failure of the system as much as an innocent who is executed. Further, I advocate that the punishment for imprisoned innocents should be given to prosecutors and judges -- disbarment and removal from the bench at the least. I think there should be a moratorium on executions of all kinds, pending the type of reform I propose. Without those reforms, I oppose capital punishment entirely. When there are systemic biases against prosecutors and judges rather than biases in their favor, then we can have a more meaningful discussion of further reform, and precisely what the acceptable failure rate is, because in every human endeavor, the failure rate is *never* zero.
posted by chimaera at 4:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
It absolutely is part of that equation. A person imprisoned for life who is found to be innocent can be released. A person murdered who is found to be innocent cannot be released.
OK. It's been estimated that approximately 4% of people on death row are likely to be innocent. Let's assume that's a low figure and double the number, then assume that every single one of those innocent people are exonerated and released. That's still over 90% of those convicted who will be imprisoned for life. It may be part of the cost equation, but it's not going to make much of a dent, is it?
Even if you're going to pretend anyone anywhere is actually making an argument that is only about cost,
Of course! I think it's part of a larger discussion, yes. I certainly don't think it should be a sole consideration. Treating imprisonment and executions solely as a financial argument would be distasteful as hell.
But fffm mentioned that it is not "cheaper" to execute, so that's why I raised the point.
Anyway, the biggest argument cited for the death penalty in studies is usually that it's a deterrent. But studies show that's not true. States without it experience lower murder rates -- the crime for which capital punishment is most commonly sought. Conversations about whether a given state's death penalty should be abolished should obviously take such things into consideration.
I'm 100% against the death penalty. I wasn't always. But I've come to the conclusion over time that it's inhumane and wrong.
posted by zarq at 4:37 PM on May 13, 2016
OK. It's been estimated that approximately 4% of people on death row are likely to be innocent. Let's assume that's a low figure and double the number, then assume that every single one of those innocent people are exonerated and released. That's still over 90% of those convicted who will be imprisoned for life. It may be part of the cost equation, but it's not going to make much of a dent, is it?
Even if you're going to pretend anyone anywhere is actually making an argument that is only about cost,
Of course! I think it's part of a larger discussion, yes. I certainly don't think it should be a sole consideration. Treating imprisonment and executions solely as a financial argument would be distasteful as hell.
But fffm mentioned that it is not "cheaper" to execute, so that's why I raised the point.
Anyway, the biggest argument cited for the death penalty in studies is usually that it's a deterrent. But studies show that's not true. States without it experience lower murder rates -- the crime for which capital punishment is most commonly sought. Conversations about whether a given state's death penalty should be abolished should obviously take such things into consideration.
I'm 100% against the death penalty. I wasn't always. But I've come to the conclusion over time that it's inhumane and wrong.
posted by zarq at 4:37 PM on May 13, 2016
Edge cases make bad law.
Edge cases are what I consider capital punishment to be for. Anders Breivik. Timothy McVeigh, SS guards of Auschwitz, Ted Bundy. I think a mechanism needs to be in place specifically FOR these types of edge cases, and that mechanism is capital punishment.
posted by chimaera at 4:38 PM on May 13, 2016
Edge cases are what I consider capital punishment to be for. Anders Breivik. Timothy McVeigh, SS guards of Auschwitz, Ted Bundy. I think a mechanism needs to be in place specifically FOR these types of edge cases, and that mechanism is capital punishment.
posted by chimaera at 4:38 PM on May 13, 2016
But not everything to lower the failure rate of innocents dying in prison is being undertaken. For example, you could not execute people, which would lower the failure rate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:39 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:39 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
There's an acceptable failure rate for any number of things that society -- as a whole -- considers in its interest. Transportation, food safety, war, even justice. If all reasonable means to lower the failure rate are undertaken, there is a point at which some things simply go wrong. Irrevocably wrong. The US is very, very far away from where it needs to be with regard to justice, mainly because of prosecutorial and judicial immunity. If there is any indication over overreach, of malfeasance, of even negligence and incompetence, the punishment on those who miscarried their duties should be severe.
We accept failure rates in these things because we're all human and we do all of these things as part of living a normal life.
There is no legitimate reason for execution other than sheer vengeance. The condemned is locked up. They're not getting out. They're not a danger to society. To put a possibly innocent life on the line for nothing more than satisfying bloodlust (and let's be honest, that's what it's really about) is fucking psychotic.
posted by Talez at 4:39 PM on May 13, 2016 [45 favorites]
We accept failure rates in these things because we're all human and we do all of these things as part of living a normal life.
There is no legitimate reason for execution other than sheer vengeance. The condemned is locked up. They're not getting out. They're not a danger to society. To put a possibly innocent life on the line for nothing more than satisfying bloodlust (and let's be honest, that's what it's really about) is fucking psychotic.
posted by Talez at 4:39 PM on May 13, 2016 [45 favorites]
I think a mechanism needs to be in place specifically FOR these types of edge cases, and that mechanism is capital punishment.
Why?
Deterrent? Nope, doesn't work that way.
Cost? Nope, capital trials cost more than lifetime imprisonment.
Punishment? Nope, if you're dead you're not aware of being punished. You have ceased to exist, and may as well never have existed. The only punishment is knowing the day you'll die, and if punishment is what you want, a lifetime of never being allowed outside a box is far, far more intense.
So. Why? What rational purpose does execution serve?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:41 PM on May 13, 2016 [28 favorites]
Why?
Deterrent? Nope, doesn't work that way.
Cost? Nope, capital trials cost more than lifetime imprisonment.
Punishment? Nope, if you're dead you're not aware of being punished. You have ceased to exist, and may as well never have existed. The only punishment is knowing the day you'll die, and if punishment is what you want, a lifetime of never being allowed outside a box is far, far more intense.
So. Why? What rational purpose does execution serve?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:41 PM on May 13, 2016 [28 favorites]
Going to Maine, our justice system is, in theory, already set up in that direction-- by which I mean, we are in theory a nation that says "it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be punished" (we aren't in practice, of course, but stay with me). We do this in a bunch of ways, especially by insisting on the extremely high "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for conviction. And it seems to me that eliminating a punishment as final as the death penalty is a perfectly consistent method of upholding this principle.
That's not why I'm a death penalty abolitionist-- I'm an abolitionist because I believe it is effectively a lynching system, and because I'm also a believer in mass decriminalization and an end to mass incarceration and I don't want the death penalty to be present as an option instead. But in terms of whether or not it requires us to bend over backwards for the obvious serial killer... I don't think that's at all inconsistent with expressed American legal norms.
posted by peppercorn at 4:42 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
That's not why I'm a death penalty abolitionist-- I'm an abolitionist because I believe it is effectively a lynching system, and because I'm also a believer in mass decriminalization and an end to mass incarceration and I don't want the death penalty to be present as an option instead. But in terms of whether or not it requires us to bend over backwards for the obvious serial killer... I don't think that's at all inconsistent with expressed American legal norms.
posted by peppercorn at 4:42 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
Why not go even further back in time and force the governor to perform the execution himself? Do your own dirty work IMO.
"A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is."
posted by numaner at 4:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
"A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is."
posted by numaner at 4:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm checking out. I should have known better than to expect that I could say what I think without being insulted here -- after going to considerable trouble not to be unintentionally insulting (other than, of course, my apparent bloodlust and nakedly abhorrent morality being an insult in and of themselves, apparently).
So far I've been called morally abhorrent and psychotic.
Thanks, it's been fun.
posted by chimaera at 4:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
So far I've been called morally abhorrent and psychotic.
Thanks, it's been fun.
posted by chimaera at 4:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Firing squads? Why not just have a guillotine, you can brand it as a Green alternative.
In all seriousness, if we were to rank execution methods based on how "humane" they are relative to each other - putting humane in scare quotes for obvious reasons - I'd put firing squads ahead of lethal injection anyway. Death penalty advocates hold up lethal injection as the least painful method of execution, but quiet and clean are not synonymous with painless. I've always felt that the promotion of lethal injection has more to do with easing our (i.e. the spectators) discomfort than the prisoners'. A firing squad, unlike lethal injection, involves people trained to do what they're doing, but a firing squad is also gruesome and bloody and visceral; nobody wants to watch that.
It's another form of moral cowardice; we don't want to see the reality of what we're doing.
Disclaimer: I in NO WAY support the death penalty period, regardless of execution method. But if we have to have capital punishment, then we shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the fiction of making it look like people are just going to sleep and say it's because we want to be more humane towards the prisoners.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 4:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
In all seriousness, if we were to rank execution methods based on how "humane" they are relative to each other - putting humane in scare quotes for obvious reasons - I'd put firing squads ahead of lethal injection anyway. Death penalty advocates hold up lethal injection as the least painful method of execution, but quiet and clean are not synonymous with painless. I've always felt that the promotion of lethal injection has more to do with easing our (i.e. the spectators) discomfort than the prisoners'. A firing squad, unlike lethal injection, involves people trained to do what they're doing, but a firing squad is also gruesome and bloody and visceral; nobody wants to watch that.
It's another form of moral cowardice; we don't want to see the reality of what we're doing.
Disclaimer: I in NO WAY support the death penalty period, regardless of execution method. But if we have to have capital punishment, then we shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the fiction of making it look like people are just going to sleep and say it's because we want to be more humane towards the prisoners.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 4:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't believe in capital punishment because I don't buy the myth of blood payment. Shedding guilty blood does not bring back the innocent dead. It heals nothing. Nothing can make up for those lives lost, especially not more death. It's a childish act of vengeance that accomplishes nothing but traumatizing those that administer it and perverts justice by creating the possibility of killing an innocent person.
A life spent in a series of locked rooms is a better punishment than a quick death. And it keeps the killer from killing anyone else.
posted by emjaybee at 4:48 PM on May 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
A life spent in a series of locked rooms is a better punishment than a quick death. And it keeps the killer from killing anyone else.
posted by emjaybee at 4:48 PM on May 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
The error rate in death penalty cases, where one would think that the investigators, judges, and lawyers would be the most careful given the stakes, exceeds 25%! (See also results of The Innocence Project.) The penalty has been shown not to be a deterrent. Then how much collateral damage is acceptable for the sake of revenge and retribution? 25%? 5%? If one innocent person is executed, the justification for death as a penalty commensurate with the crime collapses.
The criminal justice system is broken in many ways, but when judges and prosecutors run on a platform of "tough on crime" and tout their conviction statistics, it is clear the system is biased against defendants, not to mention the profit incentives in the system require a steady stream ofconvicts victims.
posted by sudogeek at 4:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
The criminal justice system is broken in many ways, but when judges and prosecutors run on a platform of "tough on crime" and tout their conviction statistics, it is clear the system is biased against defendants, not to mention the profit incentives in the system require a steady stream of
posted by sudogeek at 4:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
Edge cases make bad law
I’m not a lawyer, but my impression is that edge cases are a large part of the system. We use edge cases to test different laws and decide what’s right about them.
There is no legitimate reason for execution other than sheer vengeance. The condemned is locked up. They're not getting out. They're not a danger to society. To put a possibly innocent life on the line for nothing more than satisfying bloodlust (and let's be honest, that's what it's really about) is fucking psychotic.
Locking someone up forever can also be considered psychotic and vindictive; Breivik, after all, was only up for a maximum sentence of twenty years because that’s all that the state allows. (This is a derail, since we’re talking about the death penalty, but it seems worth remembering that what is considered “vindictive” changes over time. Who knows - perhaps we’ll have max sentences of twenty years in the US some day.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I’m not a lawyer, but my impression is that edge cases are a large part of the system. We use edge cases to test different laws and decide what’s right about them.
There is no legitimate reason for execution other than sheer vengeance. The condemned is locked up. They're not getting out. They're not a danger to society. To put a possibly innocent life on the line for nothing more than satisfying bloodlust (and let's be honest, that's what it's really about) is fucking psychotic.
Locking someone up forever can also be considered psychotic and vindictive; Breivik, after all, was only up for a maximum sentence of twenty years because that’s all that the state allows. (This is a derail, since we’re talking about the death penalty, but it seems worth remembering that what is considered “vindictive” changes over time. Who knows - perhaps we’ll have max sentences of twenty years in the US some day.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I’m not a lawyer, but my impression is that, frankly, edge cases are a large part of the system. We use edge cases to test different laws and decide what’s right about them.
Writing law for edge cases makes bad law.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:51 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Writing law for edge cases makes bad law.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:51 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
How do they know lethal injection is the least painful method? The subjects have all been unresponsive with their feedback.
posted by adept256 at 4:52 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 4:52 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's kind of weird that we've decided as a country that the only possible way to execute someone is by lethal injection.
posted by dilaudid at 4:52 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dilaudid at 4:52 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is no legitimate reason for execution other than sheer vengeance. The condemned is locked up. They're not getting out. They're not a danger to society. To put a possibly innocent life on the line for nothing more than satisfying bloodlust (and let's be honest, that's what it's really about) is fucking psychotic.
A life spent in a series of locked rooms is a better punishment than a quick death. And it keeps the killer from killing anyone else.
To drive home the notion that execution isn’t necessarily a matter of extreme “vindictiveness”, these two views are at odds.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:53 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
A life spent in a series of locked rooms is a better punishment than a quick death. And it keeps the killer from killing anyone else.
To drive home the notion that execution isn’t necessarily a matter of extreme “vindictiveness”, these two views are at odds.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:53 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I’m not a lawyer, but my impression is that, frankly, edge cases are a large part of the system. We use edge cases to test different laws and decide what’s right about them.
Writing law for edge cases makes bad law.
But I’m unsure about this, too; many folks on MetaFilter (& elsewhere) are quite happy that we have marginal income taxes based on income. What is a high marginal tax rate other than a law that affects a very tiny portion of the population. People in the 1% can’t be described as anything but edge cases.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:00 PM on May 13, 2016
Writing law for edge cases makes bad law.
But I’m unsure about this, too; many folks on MetaFilter (& elsewhere) are quite happy that we have marginal income taxes based on income. What is a high marginal tax rate other than a law that affects a very tiny portion of the population. People in the 1% can’t be described as anything but edge cases.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:00 PM on May 13, 2016
adept256: "How do they know lethal injection is the least painful method?"
It's pretty well known not to be. Contrast with death by oxygen displacement asphyxiation which is essentially painless. So much so that I have to undergo training on a regular basis to avoid accidentally killing myself in that manner. Exposed to theright wrong air mix you go from alert to unconscious in a couple seconds quickly followed by death without even being aware your air is short of oxygen.
posted by Mitheral at 5:10 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's pretty well known not to be. Contrast with death by oxygen displacement asphyxiation which is essentially painless. So much so that I have to undergo training on a regular basis to avoid accidentally killing myself in that manner. Exposed to the
posted by Mitheral at 5:10 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
Locking someone up forever can also be considered psychotic and vindictive; Breivik, after all, was only up for a maximum sentence of twenty years because that’s all that the state allows. (This is a derail, since we’re talking about the death penalty, but it seems worth remembering that what is considered “vindictive” changes over time. Who knows - perhaps we’ll have max sentences of twenty years in the US some day.)
Here's the thing about this line of thinking (because I do believe that prison is torture and torture over execution is not a clear-cut question). We've decided that doing the death penalty fairly means making sure that people sentenced to death have the premium version of the legal process. When a capital sentence is on the table, the defendant is entitled to present more tangential evidence about the value of their life, to bring more and more varied appeals, and to really force the state to weigh the question "do we really think that this person, given the totality of their existence, no longer deserves life?" This is built in to due process. We also forbid states from executing someone who can't understand why they've been executed, so capital defendants who lose their mind inside, who can only be diagnosed now with conditions they didn't know they had upon entry, or who age into dementia have another ground to avoid execution.
This takes a lot of time. Like a lot of time. Like an average of more than a decade. And it can't really take less. In the meantime, the prisoner is waiting to die for ten years; the psychological torture of prison is even worse under those conditions. Currently, prisoners on death row also have far fewer rights than prisoners in the general population, so life on death row is uniquely horrifying.
So execution isn't just execution. It's execution and life in prison. And we could reform some aspects of the latter, but only by returning to an era where people can be executed without having their lives weighed at all.
posted by peppercorn at 5:17 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Here's the thing about this line of thinking (because I do believe that prison is torture and torture over execution is not a clear-cut question). We've decided that doing the death penalty fairly means making sure that people sentenced to death have the premium version of the legal process. When a capital sentence is on the table, the defendant is entitled to present more tangential evidence about the value of their life, to bring more and more varied appeals, and to really force the state to weigh the question "do we really think that this person, given the totality of their existence, no longer deserves life?" This is built in to due process. We also forbid states from executing someone who can't understand why they've been executed, so capital defendants who lose their mind inside, who can only be diagnosed now with conditions they didn't know they had upon entry, or who age into dementia have another ground to avoid execution.
This takes a lot of time. Like a lot of time. Like an average of more than a decade. And it can't really take less. In the meantime, the prisoner is waiting to die for ten years; the psychological torture of prison is even worse under those conditions. Currently, prisoners on death row also have far fewer rights than prisoners in the general population, so life on death row is uniquely horrifying.
So execution isn't just execution. It's execution and life in prison. And we could reform some aspects of the latter, but only by returning to an era where people can be executed without having their lives weighed at all.
posted by peppercorn at 5:17 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
But I’m unsure about this, too; many folks on MetaFilter (& elsewhere) are quite happy that we have marginal income taxes based on income. What is a high marginal tax rate other than a law that affects a very tiny portion of the population. People in the 1% can’t be described as anything but edge cases.
Yes they can. Convicted murderers, (all of them, even the more pedestrian kinds) are a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. The "edge cases" people are talking about (McVeigh etc) are an even tinier fraction of those. People in the top 1% are far more numerous. Also, despite being a low percentage of the population, the top 1% most wealthy control 40% of the total wealth, an amount that can't be ignored as pertaining to edge cases. By contrast, mass murderers cause an insignificant % of both total deaths, and also homicides.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 5:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes they can. Convicted murderers, (all of them, even the more pedestrian kinds) are a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. The "edge cases" people are talking about (McVeigh etc) are an even tinier fraction of those. People in the top 1% are far more numerous. Also, despite being a low percentage of the population, the top 1% most wealthy control 40% of the total wealth, an amount that can't be ignored as pertaining to edge cases. By contrast, mass murderers cause an insignificant % of both total deaths, and also homicides.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 5:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I promise that any spitballing about methods on my part is purely (morbid) hamburger. I want to live in a fantasy world where people can speculate about various ways of performing executions with the knowledge that those ways would never actually be implemented by a State.
Fair enough. I do find myself worrying more and more that this country has tipped so far into a state of pseudo-reality that even one person's idle daydreams might accidentally become a state's firm policy. The phrase "presumptive nominee Donald Trump" was just on this side of implausibility a year ago, after all.
posted by Strange Interlude at 5:58 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fair enough. I do find myself worrying more and more that this country has tipped so far into a state of pseudo-reality that even one person's idle daydreams might accidentally become a state's firm policy. The phrase "presumptive nominee Donald Trump" was just on this side of implausibility a year ago, after all.
posted by Strange Interlude at 5:58 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes they can. Convicted murderers, (all of them, even the more pedestrian kinds) are a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. The "edge cases" people are talking about (McVeigh etc) are an even tinier fraction of those. People in the top 1% are far more numerous.
But this is essentially saying that mass murderers are too edgy, while the 1% isn’t edgy enough. What about the richest .00001%? Or 0.00000000001%? Conceivably, the IRS could surely give us each a custom tax rate, rank-ordered by income, thus dividing us all into edge cases.
By contrast, mass murderers cause an insignificant % of both total deaths, and also homicides.
They do, but the state can surely find something; I’m pretty sure, for instance, that we could single out Breivik for having caused some kind of mass societal trauma in addition to the awful murders. (Can the Hague order you hung for war crimes?)
What I was trying to say, I guess -though maybe I picked a bad example?- is that it’s my impression is that the state -(barring constitutionally protections) can absolutely decide that some particular activity is so bad that it can get special rules applied to it.
The notion that a niche category of known-super-guilties goes free because we have to protect the larger category of folks about whom we might have got it wrong from being killed unjustly sits badly with me. I feel much more comfortably saying that I’m morally opposed to allowing the state to execute citizens at all - or to try and hunt down better framings for why Breivik shouldn’t be killed.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:22 PM on May 13, 2016
But this is essentially saying that mass murderers are too edgy, while the 1% isn’t edgy enough. What about the richest .00001%? Or 0.00000000001%? Conceivably, the IRS could surely give us each a custom tax rate, rank-ordered by income, thus dividing us all into edge cases.
By contrast, mass murderers cause an insignificant % of both total deaths, and also homicides.
They do, but the state can surely find something; I’m pretty sure, for instance, that we could single out Breivik for having caused some kind of mass societal trauma in addition to the awful murders. (Can the Hague order you hung for war crimes?)
What I was trying to say, I guess -though maybe I picked a bad example?- is that it’s my impression is that the state -(barring constitutionally protections) can absolutely decide that some particular activity is so bad that it can get special rules applied to it.
The notion that a niche category of known-super-guilties goes free because we have to protect the larger category of folks about whom we might have got it wrong from being killed unjustly sits badly with me. I feel much more comfortably saying that I’m morally opposed to allowing the state to execute citizens at all - or to try and hunt down better framings for why Breivik shouldn’t be killed.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:22 PM on May 13, 2016
So far I've been called morally abhorrent and psychotic.
I'm pretty sure those terms were aimed at the death penalty. I don't really understand, are you saying your being so is so entwined in the correctness of the death penalty that they can't be separated, insulting the death penalty is insulting you?
I'm not sure you're discussing this in the good faith you think you are.
posted by bongo_x at 6:34 PM on May 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'm pretty sure those terms were aimed at the death penalty. I don't really understand, are you saying your being so is so entwined in the correctness of the death penalty that they can't be separated, insulting the death penalty is insulting you?
I'm not sure you're discussing this in the good faith you think you are.
posted by bongo_x at 6:34 PM on May 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
The notion that a niche category of known-super-guilties goes free because we have to protect the larger category of folks about whom we might have got it wrong from being killed unjustly sits badly with me. I feel much more comfortably saying that I’m morally opposed to allowing the state to execute citizens at all - or to try and hunt down better framings for why Breivik shouldn’t be killed.
Well, Breivik & co don't "go free" - he just gets to spend the rest of his life in jail instead of getting the death penalty. But I understand your point. However, I think you are wrongly conflating cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to the murderer's guilt, with mass murders, and I think that it's still possible that innocent people find themselves in this "super-guilty" category when their guilt is questionable. For example, take the Birmingham Six, who were found guilty of mass murder and then later exonerated, and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the accused Lockerbie bomber, whose guilt is still the subject of debate. Both of these seem like they would have been shoo-ins for your "super-guilties" category at the time they were convicted. Really, how could the system ever acknowledge that someone was "guilty" but not "totally 100% guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Wouldn't that mean admitting reasonable doubt? In which case why convict them in the first place?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:45 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, Breivik & co don't "go free" - he just gets to spend the rest of his life in jail instead of getting the death penalty. But I understand your point. However, I think you are wrongly conflating cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to the murderer's guilt, with mass murders, and I think that it's still possible that innocent people find themselves in this "super-guilty" category when their guilt is questionable. For example, take the Birmingham Six, who were found guilty of mass murder and then later exonerated, and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the accused Lockerbie bomber, whose guilt is still the subject of debate. Both of these seem like they would have been shoo-ins for your "super-guilties" category at the time they were convicted. Really, how could the system ever acknowledge that someone was "guilty" but not "totally 100% guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Wouldn't that mean admitting reasonable doubt? In which case why convict them in the first place?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:45 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, Breivik & co don't "go free" - he just gets to spend the rest of his life in jail instead of getting the death penalty.
Technically he was sentenced to 21-years preventive detention. This could in theory be extended every 5 years "if the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence". Since apparently he is the first one to receive this sentence, it's not clear what the likelihood of his release is.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:55 PM on May 13, 2016
Technically he was sentenced to 21-years preventive detention. This could in theory be extended every 5 years "if the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence". Since apparently he is the first one to receive this sentence, it's not clear what the likelihood of his release is.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:55 PM on May 13, 2016
There’s also an interesting aspect of Breivik suing over being tortured by his sentence but discussion of that would probably be totally off-topic. Mentioned because it was news to me, that’s it.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:06 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 7:06 PM on May 13, 2016
There are undoubtedly people, convicted and otherwise, who deserve to die. It is a bad idea for the state to try to sort them all out because (a) a fair process is ridiculously expensive and time-consuming, but even so, (b) the process will occasionally fail and, despite the human costs, (c) it seems to have no empirical effect on reducing violent crime.
posted by anifinder at 7:09 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by anifinder at 7:09 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
(My comment is totally wrong about him being the first one, not sure where I got that. But the sentence was only created 14 years ago so no one has hit the 21 year mark yet).
posted by thefoxgod at 7:14 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 7:14 PM on May 13, 2016
Contrast with death by oxygen displacement asphyxiation which is essentially painless. So much so that I have to undergo training on a regular basis to avoid accidentally killing myself in that manner. Exposed to the right wrong air mix you go from alert to unconscious in a couple seconds quickly followed by death without even being aware your air is short of oxygen.
posted by Mitheral at 7:10 PM
Yeah, I've read (no idea if it's true) that the "OMFG I can't breathe" reaction that humans get is due to a build up of CO2 in their blood stream, not lack of O2 as everyone always assumes.
That seems to fit with what you're stating. Is that what you've been told in your training?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 7:10 PM
Yeah, I've read (no idea if it's true) that the "OMFG I can't breathe" reaction that humans get is due to a build up of CO2 in their blood stream, not lack of O2 as everyone always assumes.
That seems to fit with what you're stating. Is that what you've been told in your training?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Interesting unintended effect of Pfizer's and other Pharma's decision is that large amounts of barbiturates are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. This turns out to be a problem in states that allow death with dignity. When Washington state's law was first passed, the recommended cocktail for physician assisted suicide cost about $500 and could be obtained from most pharmacies. Now, we have to go to a "loosely regulated" compounding pharmacy and the meds are in the $2000 range and take about 3 days to obtain. Obviously, this isn't a deal breaker, but you're talking about terminally ill people who are suffering. I mostly take care of financially destitute patients and this presents a potential barrier. Mostly, they're advised to put the medication on their credit card (this isn't covered by insurance, duh) but the last case I was involved with was a guy suffocating from end stage COPD who had gone through all of the steps and consults and second opinions required by the Washington State death with dignity law, whose paperwork was all in order, when he suffered a pretty bad open hip fracture. He had to figure out how to come up with $2000 (I usually tell people to just put it on their credit card, but he didn't have one) and then wait for the pharmacy to order and obtain the medicine (4 days) while in pain, risking sepsis, before he could pass along peacefully as he'd planned all along. Things worked out ok, but the pharmacist I was dealing with told me it's become a big pain in the ass since all the concerns about botched executions have come to light.
me, I think all of the citizens in whose name these executions are carried out, should be forced to watch. At the very least the executions should be broadcast on live TV. This whole thing about making it look peaceful to a few selected spectators is some chicken shit bullshit if we are doing this as a societal thing. Chop their heads off and make people watch. It's painless and effective and if you're grossed out by that, maybe you should examine why.
We (Americans) are such hypocritical bullshit artists. It's clearly not a deterrent. It clearly doesn't save money. It's all about societal vengeance. If it's about vengeance, then we should be watching and "feeling good" about the vengeance taking place. Good for Pfizer not wanting to take part in this.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 8:01 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
me, I think all of the citizens in whose name these executions are carried out, should be forced to watch. At the very least the executions should be broadcast on live TV. This whole thing about making it look peaceful to a few selected spectators is some chicken shit bullshit if we are doing this as a societal thing. Chop their heads off and make people watch. It's painless and effective and if you're grossed out by that, maybe you should examine why.
We (Americans) are such hypocritical bullshit artists. It's clearly not a deterrent. It clearly doesn't save money. It's all about societal vengeance. If it's about vengeance, then we should be watching and "feeling good" about the vengeance taking place. Good for Pfizer not wanting to take part in this.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 8:01 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Regarding costs, it's cheaper to give life imprisonment than the death penalty.
People sentenced to death nearly always incur far more legal costs than people doing life-in-prison.
Example from Nevada:
Kansas:
Also, this journal article from 1989 demonstrates we've known the death penalty is more expensive for a long time.
The only reason to have the death penalty is if you feel it is so necessary to the basic function of a society that you're willing to pay two to ten times more in order to keep it running. And that's in its current incarnation, which has an awful lot of problems with racial bias and shit use of evidence.
posted by Anonymous at 8:03 PM on May 13, 2016
People sentenced to death nearly always incur far more legal costs than people doing life-in-prison.
Example from Nevada:
From a suspect’s arrest through his or her final days behind bars, officials spend at least $1.3 million on murder cases where convicts are sentenced to death but not executed — that’s $532,000 more compared with murder cases where capital punishment wasn't sought.From Maryland:
We find that an average capital-eligible case in which prosecutors did not seek the death penalty will cost approximately $1.1 million over the lifetime of the case. A capital-eligible case in which prosecutors unsuccessfully sought the death penalty will cost $1.8 million and a capital-eligible case resulting in a death sentence will cost approximately $3 million.From California (full-length report) (summary of report)
Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present(the reforms are what the commission said were needed if the state wanted to keep its current breadth of death penalty recommendations and be sure that prisoners were not innocent and their rights were not violated)
system after implementation of the reforms recommended in Part A ($232.7 million per year), a system in which significant narrowing of special
circumstances has been implemented ($130 million per year), and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the
death penalty ($11.5 million).
Kansas:
Cases in which the death penalty was sought and imposed could cost about 70% more than cases in which the death penalty wasn’t sought. The estimated median cost of a case in which the death sentence was given was $1.2 million, compared to the same estimated costs for a non-death penalty case of about $740,000. The State will bear about 85% of the total estimated and projected costs for the 14 cases in which the death penalty was sought.More Kansas: on page 161 of this report you can see a breakdown in costs for a few life vs. death penalty cases. It's pretty stark.
Also, this journal article from 1989 demonstrates we've known the death penalty is more expensive for a long time.
The only reason to have the death penalty is if you feel it is so necessary to the basic function of a society that you're willing to pay two to ten times more in order to keep it running. And that's in its current incarnation, which has an awful lot of problems with racial bias and shit use of evidence.
posted by Anonymous at 8:03 PM on May 13, 2016
The death penalty is disproportionately imposed on African-Americans.
It is used or requested for juveniles.
It is imposed on people with significant mental retardation and/or mental illness.
The death penalty makes us a culture that kills.
Somebody has to do the task of killing another human in a cold-blooded manner.
We can be better than this.
posted by theora55 at 8:41 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
It is used or requested for juveniles.
It is imposed on people with significant mental retardation and/or mental illness.
The death penalty makes us a culture that kills.
Somebody has to do the task of killing another human in a cold-blooded manner.
We can be better than this.
posted by theora55 at 8:41 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
Presume malfeasance and permanently disbar the prosecutor and the judge, with strict liability, and investigate whether any exculpatory information was hidden from the jury.
What happens when your system works perfectly, no malfeasance is found, and an innocent person is still executed?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:57 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
What happens when your system works perfectly, no malfeasance is found, and an innocent person is still executed?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:57 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Regarding costs, it's cheaper to give life imprisonment than the death penalty.
Huh. I totally stand corrected. Thank you, schroedinger.
posted by zarq at 9:05 PM on May 13, 2016
Huh. I totally stand corrected. Thank you, schroedinger.
posted by zarq at 9:05 PM on May 13, 2016
One reason we haven't made our death penalty methods more humane is because at some level we want them to suffer as they die.
It is used or requested for juveniles.
It is imposed on people with significant mental retardation and/or mental illness.
On the plus side the supreme court those both illegal, but not until 2005 and 2002 respectively. Which is horrifying. It was literally legal to execute a mentally disabled child until then.
Which suggests, to me, that the death penalty system in the US is rotten to the core and needs to be eliminated, root and branch. All of it, gone. If, in 20 years, we decide that some people really deserve it, then maybe we can revisit it. The system as it stands cannot possibly be reformed into a morally good death penalty system, even if such a system could exist.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:14 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
It is used or requested for juveniles.
It is imposed on people with significant mental retardation and/or mental illness.
On the plus side the supreme court those both illegal, but not until 2005 and 2002 respectively. Which is horrifying. It was literally legal to execute a mentally disabled child until then.
Which suggests, to me, that the death penalty system in the US is rotten to the core and needs to be eliminated, root and branch. All of it, gone. If, in 20 years, we decide that some people really deserve it, then maybe we can revisit it. The system as it stands cannot possibly be reformed into a morally good death penalty system, even if such a system could exist.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:14 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
If my last sentence wasn't clear--the costs are already significantly higher for a system that arguably does not do enough for the people it is sentencing. The California report I linked goes into a lot of it, basically the problems run from the crime scene all the way up through the judicial system. If we want to ensure we're not imprisoning and executing innocent people, these issues absolutely must be fixed. However, fixing these issues will make the costs even more astronomical.
The evidence about its effectiveness as a deterrent is decidedly inconclusive. If we are looking at the debate from a material standpoint--costs, impact on society, deterrence--there really isn't anything backing it up aside from our natural emotional reactions to the severity of a crime.
posted by Anonymous at 9:20 PM on May 13, 2016
The evidence about its effectiveness as a deterrent is decidedly inconclusive. If we are looking at the debate from a material standpoint--costs, impact on society, deterrence--there really isn't anything backing it up aside from our natural emotional reactions to the severity of a crime.
posted by Anonymous at 9:20 PM on May 13, 2016
On the plus side the supreme court those both illegal, but not until 2005 and 2002 respectively.
Actually the mentally ill most certainly can be and probably are still executed. The court says you can't execute them but leaves it up to the states to determine who is eligible to challenge a death sentence on the basis of intellectual disability. Even with Hall v. Florida later on to give the death penalty states a sharp rebuke, it only dealt with borderline cases in IQ tests. Florida is notorious in challenging a death sentence in the case of intellectual disability; Between 2002 and 2013 not a single death row inmate who challenged a death sentence had a sentence commuted due to intellectual disability. Even Daryl Atkins, the namesake of Atkins v. Virginia, was taken back before a jury, the jury said "his IQ is over 70" and they stuck him straight back on death row, a giant middle finger to the Supreme Court. If it wasn't for a circuit court judge basically putting the kibosh on the whole thing he'd probably be dead right now.
posted by Talez at 9:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Actually the mentally ill most certainly can be and probably are still executed. The court says you can't execute them but leaves it up to the states to determine who is eligible to challenge a death sentence on the basis of intellectual disability. Even with Hall v. Florida later on to give the death penalty states a sharp rebuke, it only dealt with borderline cases in IQ tests. Florida is notorious in challenging a death sentence in the case of intellectual disability; Between 2002 and 2013 not a single death row inmate who challenged a death sentence had a sentence commuted due to intellectual disability. Even Daryl Atkins, the namesake of Atkins v. Virginia, was taken back before a jury, the jury said "his IQ is over 70" and they stuck him straight back on death row, a giant middle finger to the Supreme Court. If it wasn't for a circuit court judge basically putting the kibosh on the whole thing he'd probably be dead right now.
posted by Talez at 9:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
InsertNiftyNameHere: "Yeah, I've read (no idea if it's true) that the "OMFG I can't breathe" reaction that humans get is due to a build up of CO2 in their blood stream, not lack of O2 as everyone always assumes. [...] Is that what you've been told in your training?"
Yes, though I wouldn't treat it as authoritative because the trainers aren't biologists or anything and the mechanism isn't really the objective of the training.
There are all sorts of case studies though where multiple guys[2] end up dying after entering an oxygen depleted environment one after the other[1]. Common causes: nitrogen flush for welding displaces all oxygen; iron oxide formation in enclosed spaces reduces oxygen to zero; and for a double whammy spaces that have hydrogen sulfide produced due to containment of sewage/effluent/manure. IIRC The aerobic bacteria use up all the oxygen and then the anaerobic bacteria produce H2S. H2S paralyses your lungs so not only do you not have any oxygen in the confined space but when you drag the guy out to fresh air he doesn't resume breathing on his own. Though at high enough concentrations (1-2000ppm) H2S just kills outright.
1One guy enters and faints. His partner sees this and attempts to rescue him by entering the space and faints thinking it is a heart attack or something and not a lack of oxygen. Third guy comes along some time latter; sees the two guys laying there and rushes to help; faints. Usually by the time the fourth guy stumbles on the scene it's obvious to him that something is wrong in general and it's not just an individual fainting.
[2]And it's always men in the studies. I'm sure part of that is men wildly outnumbering women in dangerous trade jobs but also I'd bet if women end up dying the incident doesn't circulate on the training network so as to avoid guys brushing the incident off because of misogyny. Ironically in hundreds of hours of safety training for various issues I only remember one incident where the injured party was a woman and she broke a leg falling from a ladder because she wasn't wearing footwear with a heel.
posted by Mitheral at 9:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, though I wouldn't treat it as authoritative because the trainers aren't biologists or anything and the mechanism isn't really the objective of the training.
There are all sorts of case studies though where multiple guys[2] end up dying after entering an oxygen depleted environment one after the other[1]. Common causes: nitrogen flush for welding displaces all oxygen; iron oxide formation in enclosed spaces reduces oxygen to zero; and for a double whammy spaces that have hydrogen sulfide produced due to containment of sewage/effluent/manure. IIRC The aerobic bacteria use up all the oxygen and then the anaerobic bacteria produce H2S. H2S paralyses your lungs so not only do you not have any oxygen in the confined space but when you drag the guy out to fresh air he doesn't resume breathing on his own. Though at high enough concentrations (1-2000ppm) H2S just kills outright.
1One guy enters and faints. His partner sees this and attempts to rescue him by entering the space and faints thinking it is a heart attack or something and not a lack of oxygen. Third guy comes along some time latter; sees the two guys laying there and rushes to help; faints. Usually by the time the fourth guy stumbles on the scene it's obvious to him that something is wrong in general and it's not just an individual fainting.
[2]And it's always men in the studies. I'm sure part of that is men wildly outnumbering women in dangerous trade jobs but also I'd bet if women end up dying the incident doesn't circulate on the training network so as to avoid guys brushing the incident off because of misogyny. Ironically in hundreds of hours of safety training for various issues I only remember one incident where the injured party was a woman and she broke a leg falling from a ladder because she wasn't wearing footwear with a heel.
posted by Mitheral at 9:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
One reason we haven't made our death penalty methods more humane is because at some level we want them to suffer as they die.
My understanding was that we’ve tended to swap out death penalties in order to make them more humane (at least, ostensibly). The whole reason we’ve gotten onto the absolutely awful cocktails of drugs was because different providers have continued to resist their use. (Which, you know, bully for them.)
Of course, I also can’t understand why we just didn’t go back to firing squads, either. (If anyone knows…)
posted by Going To Maine at 9:52 PM on May 13, 2016
My understanding was that we’ve tended to swap out death penalties in order to make them more humane (at least, ostensibly). The whole reason we’ve gotten onto the absolutely awful cocktails of drugs was because different providers have continued to resist their use. (Which, you know, bully for them.)
Of course, I also can’t understand why we just didn’t go back to firing squads, either. (If anyone knows…)
posted by Going To Maine at 9:52 PM on May 13, 2016
It's has to be at least partially wanting to distance the process from that used by dictators, China and Nazis.
posted by Mitheral at 10:08 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by Mitheral at 10:08 PM on May 13, 2016
Some states have used straw buyers or tried to import drugs from abroad that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, only to see them seized by federal agents.
The death penalty should be an option in very exceptional cases, but actions like this are effectively sedition and part of a larger pattern of sedition by right-wing officials in out-of-control states like Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, etc. Straw purchases would stop if a state governor or two was held legally accountable to the greatest extent possible for deliberately breaking federal law.
The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, and if state officials are breaking the law to carry out functionally illegal executions, those officials should face the most serious of consequences.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:16 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
The death penalty should be an option in very exceptional cases, but actions like this are effectively sedition and part of a larger pattern of sedition by right-wing officials in out-of-control states like Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, etc. Straw purchases would stop if a state governor or two was held legally accountable to the greatest extent possible for deliberately breaking federal law.
The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, and if state officials are breaking the law to carry out functionally illegal executions, those officials should face the most serious of consequences.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:16 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Edge cases are what I consider capital punishment to be for. Anders Breivik. Timothy McVeigh, SS guards of Auschwitz, Ted Bundy.
Hardly any of the guards at Auschwitz were ever prosecuted, and given that their actions were legal (and commendable) under German law at the time, it's hard to see how the threat of execution could have been a deterrent. In fact the same goes for McVeigh and Bundy: they knew they faced execution, but committed their crimes anyway. So if execution isn't meant as a deterrent, what is the point? Just super-revenge for a super-crime?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:33 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hardly any of the guards at Auschwitz were ever prosecuted, and given that their actions were legal (and commendable) under German law at the time, it's hard to see how the threat of execution could have been a deterrent. In fact the same goes for McVeigh and Bundy: they knew they faced execution, but committed their crimes anyway. So if execution isn't meant as a deterrent, what is the point? Just super-revenge for a super-crime?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:33 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What this basically means is that, offhand, only people like McVeigh, Wuornos, and Bundy would qualify.
Legally, this list would almost certainly also include Edward Snowden.
posted by acb at 3:37 AM on May 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Legally, this list would almost certainly also include Edward Snowden.
posted by acb at 3:37 AM on May 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, though I wouldn't treat it as authoritative because the trainers aren't biologists or anything and the mechanism isn't really the objective of the training.
There are all sorts of case studies though where multiple guys[2] end up dying after entering an oxygen depleted environment one after the other[1]. Common causes: nitrogen flush for welding displaces all oxygen
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 PM on May 13
That makes me recall a news article I read a few years ago about an amorous young couple who decided they'd like to make love in a huge helium filled (I don't think they knew that), display at a car dealership. IIRC, they were found dead the next day because the helium had displaced the O2 in the atmosphere inside the balloon and they were in there for a long enough time. (Not very long.)
A total tragedy, to be sure, but, if it was painless, then it couldn't have been TOO bad. Merely, MHO.
Rick
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 4:13 AM on May 14, 2016
There are all sorts of case studies though where multiple guys[2] end up dying after entering an oxygen depleted environment one after the other[1]. Common causes: nitrogen flush for welding displaces all oxygen
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 PM on May 13
That makes me recall a news article I read a few years ago about an amorous young couple who decided they'd like to make love in a huge helium filled (I don't think they knew that), display at a car dealership. IIRC, they were found dead the next day because the helium had displaced the O2 in the atmosphere inside the balloon and they were in there for a long enough time. (Not very long.)
A total tragedy, to be sure, but, if it was painless, then it couldn't have been TOO bad. Merely, MHO.
Rick
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 4:13 AM on May 14, 2016
Oh! and wasn't there a thing way back when space shuttle Columbia started flying where they had filled the cargo bay with N2, and two guys got mistakenly sent in there to look for some thing? IIRC, those two were the only confirmed deaths in the cargo bay of a space shuttle. Not saying it's a fact, it just seems to ring a bell for me.
Rick
PS - I'll leave the thread alone now. Sorry to all if I overstayed my welcome.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 4:21 AM on May 14, 2016
Rick
PS - I'll leave the thread alone now. Sorry to all if I overstayed my welcome.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 4:21 AM on May 14, 2016
A total tragedy, to be sure, but, if it was painless, then it couldn't have been TOO bad. Merely, MHO.
Indeed, it could be argued that they would never again know romantic disappointment; the love they had was truly forever, on a subjective level.
OTOH, chances are that was an urban legend, like the diver scooped up by the firefighting water-bombing plane or something.
posted by acb at 4:24 AM on May 14, 2016
Indeed, it could be argued that they would never again know romantic disappointment; the love they had was truly forever, on a subjective level.
OTOH, chances are that was an urban legend, like the diver scooped up by the firefighting water-bombing plane or something.
posted by acb at 4:24 AM on May 14, 2016
OTOH, chances are that was an urban legend, like the diver scooped up by the firefighting water-bombing plane or something.
posted by acb at 6:24 AM
Fair enough point. I wasn't claiming to be authoritative on the subject. I was merely recalling a (very possibly incorrect) memory I had.
Sorry if I sounded more authoritative than I meant to. I didn't mean to.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 4:31 AM on May 14, 2016
posted by acb at 6:24 AM
Fair enough point. I wasn't claiming to be authoritative on the subject. I was merely recalling a (very possibly incorrect) memory I had.
Sorry if I sounded more authoritative than I meant to. I didn't mean to.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 4:31 AM on May 14, 2016
The "Humanitarianism" of Living in Prison Until Death
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:34 AM on May 14, 2016
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:34 AM on May 14, 2016
Our criminal justice system is fucked on every level. Capital punishment is but one high profile example of that. Penalities (and the likelihood of prosecution in the first place) depends more on socioeconomic status and race more than the evidence of guilt or lack thereof in a particular case. We chronically underfund public defender's offices where they exist and generally pay private attorneys very poorly where they do not. Penalties for crimes are largely arbitrary and bear little to no relation to the severity of the crime.
The shady dealings many states are now using to get their execution drugs is a great example. If you or I attempted to fraudulently obtain prescription drugs, we would be prosecuted for that or an ancillary crime like money laundering. Somehow, despite very clearly obtaining the drugs illegally using public funds, charges are not filed. Go figure. Rather than break the law to get the drugs, the prison warden or whomever is in charge of finding thr drugs should tell their legislature that it is presently impossible to lrgally procure them and request the law be changed as necessary. Yet, that is not happening either. Apparently there is something making it vital that these people be executed as soon as possible. So vital that the legality of the whole enterprise is not important. I'd like to know wht waiting even a year or two for the legislatures in question to figure out a solution is not an option. What imminent threat do these people who are already locked away in solitary confinement pose?
posted by wierdo at 5:57 AM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The shady dealings many states are now using to get their execution drugs is a great example. If you or I attempted to fraudulently obtain prescription drugs, we would be prosecuted for that or an ancillary crime like money laundering. Somehow, despite very clearly obtaining the drugs illegally using public funds, charges are not filed. Go figure. Rather than break the law to get the drugs, the prison warden or whomever is in charge of finding thr drugs should tell their legislature that it is presently impossible to lrgally procure them and request the law be changed as necessary. Yet, that is not happening either. Apparently there is something making it vital that these people be executed as soon as possible. So vital that the legality of the whole enterprise is not important. I'd like to know wht waiting even a year or two for the legislatures in question to figure out a solution is not an option. What imminent threat do these people who are already locked away in solitary confinement pose?
posted by wierdo at 5:57 AM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chop their heads off and make people watch. It's painless and effective and if you're grossed out by that, maybe you should examine why.
I've always thought that was a sensible suggestion, because in general too many of the state's actions are shielded from public view, and allow the public to ignore its own choices. But there's also an argument that sanctioning capital punishment makes society more violent. If that's the states last resort, then individuals are more likely to choose violent methods to solve problems, making the world a more dangerous place for everyone.
posted by sneebler at 7:36 AM on May 14, 2016
I've always thought that was a sensible suggestion, because in general too many of the state's actions are shielded from public view, and allow the public to ignore its own choices. But there's also an argument that sanctioning capital punishment makes society more violent. If that's the states last resort, then individuals are more likely to choose violent methods to solve problems, making the world a more dangerous place for everyone.
posted by sneebler at 7:36 AM on May 14, 2016
InsertNiftyNameHere: "That makes me recall a news article I read a few years ago about an amorous young couple who decided they'd like to make love in a huge helium filled (I don't think they knew that), display at a car dealership"
A possible source of your memory.
InsertNiftyNameHere: "Oh! and wasn't there a thing way back when space shuttle Columbia started flying where they had filled the cargo bay with N2, and two guys got mistakenly sent in there to look for some thing?"
As an indication that this is a pretty easy mistake to make even in what one would think were safety conscious environments NASA had three workers die from anoxia in the the Shuttle's engine bay; France had workers die in a low oxygen enviroment while working on an Ariane 5 and the Russians have had two military officers (could have easily been six) die cleaning a tank which held nitrogen tetroxide at a rocket launch facility.
Five workers faint due to low oxygen environment; security guard attempts to help and also collapses:
posted by Mitheral at 7:50 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
A possible source of your memory.
InsertNiftyNameHere: "Oh! and wasn't there a thing way back when space shuttle Columbia started flying where they had filled the cargo bay with N2, and two guys got mistakenly sent in there to look for some thing?"
As an indication that this is a pretty easy mistake to make even in what one would think were safety conscious environments NASA had three workers die from anoxia in the the Shuttle's engine bay; France had workers die in a low oxygen enviroment while working on an Ariane 5 and the Russians have had two military officers (could have easily been six) die cleaning a tank which held nitrogen tetroxide at a rocket launch facility.
Five workers faint due to low oxygen environment; security guard attempts to help and also collapses:
Anoxia due to nitrogen atmosphere in the aft engine compartment of Columbia during preparations for STS-1. Five workers were involved in the incident. John Bjornstad died at the scene; Forrest Cole and Nick Mullon died later from injuries sustained.The French case:
Two technicians died from Anoxia due to major nitrogen leak in confined area of umbilical mast at Ariane 5 launch area during cryogenic M1 main stage testing.The Russian case is a typical example. Two men drop unconscious and eventually die when exposed to low oxygen/poisonous gas environment; four would be rescuers also fall unconscious because they were wearing filter masks which do nothing to increase the supply of oxygen:
Two workers cleaning out a propellant tank died when exposed to poisonous nitrogen gases within the tank
posted by Mitheral at 7:50 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know that both opponents and supporters both don't like my opinion on this matter, but it's my deeply considered opinion arrived after long thought about the purpose and failure modes of the justice system.
This sounds like engineer's disease. Failure mode indeed.
posted by aydeejones at 7:57 AM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
This sounds like engineer's disease. Failure mode indeed.
posted by aydeejones at 7:57 AM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I find it curious that several people feel vengeance is a damning condemnation of the death penalty, as if it's just too gauche for their sophisticated sensibilities. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable justification for executing persons who've committed the worst of crimes.
I theoretically support the ability of the state to use death as punishment. In practice, however, that support remains purely theoretical. Human justice systems are simply too fallible to make such a punishment fair or commendable in most cases.
Pfizer's actions are interesting, but make me suspicious. If anything, I'm generally a bit leery when someone decides to keep their wares or services from use citing moral reasons. Sure, it's great when those morals are mine. Not always so great when those morals belong to someone else. Practical reasons for doing so can make sense. There is pretty good precedent of morality used for justify all kinds of bullshit, though.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:06 AM on May 14, 2016
I theoretically support the ability of the state to use death as punishment. In practice, however, that support remains purely theoretical. Human justice systems are simply too fallible to make such a punishment fair or commendable in most cases.
Pfizer's actions are interesting, but make me suspicious. If anything, I'm generally a bit leery when someone decides to keep their wares or services from use citing moral reasons. Sure, it's great when those morals are mine. Not always so great when those morals belong to someone else. Practical reasons for doing so can make sense. There is pretty good precedent of morality used for justify all kinds of bullshit, though.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:06 AM on May 14, 2016
I find it curious that several people feel vengeance is a damning condemnation of the death penalty, as if it's just too gauche for their sophisticated sensibilities. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable justification for executing persons who've committed the worst of crimes.
It's because vengeance is for children. It gains nothing. "You made me suffer so now I make you suffer" doesn't get us anywhere, and is the cause of so many conflicts around the world, large and small. Vengeance is what was used to sell Iraq II and Afghanistan. Endless cycles of vengeance gave us the Troubles in Ireland, the I/P mess, Bosnia., Rwanda. It's not about being gauche, it's that vengeance is ineffective as a strategy, long-term, and only begets the cycle of violence.
The only argument I can buy for killing people at all is that of self defence, and by extension, defence of others. (So by that metric: WWII yes, Iraq II no, e.g.). When you have a killer locked up, you're not defending anyone by killing them.
And yeah, it's a really good point that Snowden would be marked for death under many schemes proposed by execution supporters.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:20 AM on May 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's because vengeance is for children. It gains nothing. "You made me suffer so now I make you suffer" doesn't get us anywhere, and is the cause of so many conflicts around the world, large and small. Vengeance is what was used to sell Iraq II and Afghanistan. Endless cycles of vengeance gave us the Troubles in Ireland, the I/P mess, Bosnia., Rwanda. It's not about being gauche, it's that vengeance is ineffective as a strategy, long-term, and only begets the cycle of violence.
The only argument I can buy for killing people at all is that of self defence, and by extension, defence of others. (So by that metric: WWII yes, Iraq II no, e.g.). When you have a killer locked up, you're not defending anyone by killing them.
And yeah, it's a really good point that Snowden would be marked for death under many schemes proposed by execution supporters.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:20 AM on May 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
But there's also an argument that sanctioning capital punishment makes society more violent. If that's the states last resort, then individuals are more likely to choose violent methods to solve problems, making the world a more dangerous place for everyone.
There's some weak evidence that violent crime did increase at least temporarily in states that reintroduced the death penalty after a moratorium.
My point in making the execution public is that we are already there as a society. We have no problem using violence to solve our problems. Nationally, in our homes, at our work places, in our entertainment and our sports. The problem is that it's cartoon violence. Drones dropping bombs on a video screen, inmates that appear to peacefully go to sleep, it's all the same. The way we are protected from the reality of the violence we commit means we are all too willing to use it as a solution. Teachers carrying guns to "protect" students. Police in possession of military grade weapons. If a few Afghan weddings get blown apart while we hunt the bad guys, all we have to see is some grainy black and white video and shake our head and say "what a shame" then we change the channel.
These horrors are already happening. If we have the option to watch the executioner hold up the severed head of a person who has a 4% chance of being innocent, or an Afghan mother holding a box of guts and limbs that used to be her child, the only thing we risk is that we continue to do these things. And good. At least we're being honest that we hate our fellow man and like the blood. These things are being done in my name with my tax money and I demand the right to see it up close.
But we don't allow that. Why?
Because we hope we can be better than this.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:22 AM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's some weak evidence that violent crime did increase at least temporarily in states that reintroduced the death penalty after a moratorium.
My point in making the execution public is that we are already there as a society. We have no problem using violence to solve our problems. Nationally, in our homes, at our work places, in our entertainment and our sports. The problem is that it's cartoon violence. Drones dropping bombs on a video screen, inmates that appear to peacefully go to sleep, it's all the same. The way we are protected from the reality of the violence we commit means we are all too willing to use it as a solution. Teachers carrying guns to "protect" students. Police in possession of military grade weapons. If a few Afghan weddings get blown apart while we hunt the bad guys, all we have to see is some grainy black and white video and shake our head and say "what a shame" then we change the channel.
These horrors are already happening. If we have the option to watch the executioner hold up the severed head of a person who has a 4% chance of being innocent, or an Afghan mother holding a box of guts and limbs that used to be her child, the only thing we risk is that we continue to do these things. And good. At least we're being honest that we hate our fellow man and like the blood. These things are being done in my name with my tax money and I demand the right to see it up close.
But we don't allow that. Why?
Because we hope we can be better than this.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:22 AM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Another argument against the death penalty is that its imposed for a tiny minority of homicides which are a minority of violent crimes. The standards for determining who gets the death penalty vs. life without parole are not and cannot be applied an unbiased manner.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:38 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:38 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What this basically means is that, offhand, only people like McVeigh, Wuornos, and Bundy would qualify.
Legally, this list would almost certainly also include Edward Snowden.
Snowden’s crime was nonviolent, albeit treasonous; certainly any deaths he may have caused by leaking were markedly more indirect than those caused by a McVeigh, and there’s nothing stopping us from limiting the death penalty to violent criminals who commit “acts of mass horror and gross violence” (whatever the court mights decide those to be) that exclude Snowden.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:05 PM on May 14, 2016
Legally, this list would almost certainly also include Edward Snowden.
Snowden’s crime was nonviolent, albeit treasonous; certainly any deaths he may have caused by leaking were markedly more indirect than those caused by a McVeigh, and there’s nothing stopping us from limiting the death penalty to violent criminals who commit “acts of mass horror and gross violence” (whatever the court mights decide those to be) that exclude Snowden.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:05 PM on May 14, 2016
Spinning on my earlier post. An abolitionist argument runs as follows. Under the current system, out of a hundred homicides a small minority, let's say 5% for the sake of argument, get the death penalty and 95% get incarceration. The factors that determine that 5% have almost nothing to do with the crime in question. Two people who commit the same crime with the same degree of criminal intent with the same aggravating factors in sentencing can get radically different sentences depending on jurisdiction, race, cognitive disability, or legal professionalism. The argument (based on an earlier Supreme Court case) is that arbitrary application of the death penalty is cruel and unusual even when there's no question of guilt.
Even guilty people deserve sentencing by a fair and unbiased legal system. Even guilty people have the right to appeal death penalty sentences applied on arbitrary grounds.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:44 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Even guilty people deserve sentencing by a fair and unbiased legal system. Even guilty people have the right to appeal death penalty sentences applied on arbitrary grounds.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:44 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is that arbitrary application of the death penalty is cruel and unusual even when there's no question of guilt.
So if we applied the death penalty more generally, would it be less arbitrary and cruel? As is, it sounds like we’re kind of falling down a slippery slope towards abolition. (People don’t like it, so don’t give it, so it becomes cruel and unusual, so it goes away.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:50 PM on May 14, 2016
So if we applied the death penalty more generally, would it be less arbitrary and cruel? As is, it sounds like we’re kind of falling down a slippery slope towards abolition. (People don’t like it, so don’t give it, so it becomes cruel and unusual, so it goes away.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:50 PM on May 14, 2016
Anyway, the biggest argument cited for the death penalty in studies is usually that it's a deterrent. But studies show that's not true.
Simply, most people know there is a severe penalty but don't think they will get caught.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:54 PM on May 14, 2016
Simply, most people know there is a severe penalty but don't think they will get caught.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:54 PM on May 14, 2016
There are other arguments that death penalty abolitionists use. The arbitrary application argument is one reason why those organizations assist with appeals and calls for clemency in cases where there's absolutely no question of guilt or innocence.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:29 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:29 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's been mentioned, but it bears repeating: The death penalty is racist. That fact alone disqualifies it as a valid sentencing option.
posted by agregoli at 9:19 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 9:19 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's been mentioned, but it bears repeating: The death penalty is racist. That fact alone disqualifies it as a valid sentencing option.
If only....
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:05 AM on May 16, 2016
If only....
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:05 AM on May 16, 2016
If only racism were a reason to invalidate a type of sentence, we'd have to stop using incarceration, too.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:12 AM on May 16, 2016
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:12 AM on May 16, 2016
Well, yes. But the death penalty has additional racist leanings to it beyond the fact that more people of color are incarcerated.
posted by agregoli at 11:39 AM on May 16, 2016
posted by agregoli at 11:39 AM on May 16, 2016
Why additional? Seems about the same: for every crime (including capital crimes) African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced.
Part of my concern here is that when whites think about the criminal justice system, we tend to focus on the very most egregious behavior, like the death penalty, and ignore the everyday injustices like the massive sub-capital sentencing disparities that make racialized mass incarceration possible. So we comfort ourselves if capital punishment is hampered by Pfizer, but accept life without parole as a viable and just alternative. Or we object to life without parole but accept 50 years in supermax solitary as reasonable.
We see this same conflict in the work of the ACLU. They call life without parole both “a living death” and “swift, severe, cheap, and fair,” depending on whether they’re criticizing its use for nonviolent offenders or offering it as an alternative to the death penalty. It’s torture unless it’s justified; or, it’s torture, but some people deserve torture. That can’t be right.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:52 AM on May 16, 2016
Part of my concern here is that when whites think about the criminal justice system, we tend to focus on the very most egregious behavior, like the death penalty, and ignore the everyday injustices like the massive sub-capital sentencing disparities that make racialized mass incarceration possible. So we comfort ourselves if capital punishment is hampered by Pfizer, but accept life without parole as a viable and just alternative. Or we object to life without parole but accept 50 years in supermax solitary as reasonable.
We see this same conflict in the work of the ACLU. They call life without parole both “a living death” and “swift, severe, cheap, and fair,” depending on whether they’re criticizing its use for nonviolent offenders or offering it as an alternative to the death penalty. It’s torture unless it’s justified; or, it’s torture, but some people deserve torture. That can’t be right.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:52 AM on May 16, 2016
I assure you that I, working in criminal appeals, do not ignore everyday injustices in the criminal justice system against people of color.
But there ARE additional racist leanings to the death penalty and it's application, such as the death penalty being applied more often in sentencing when WHITE people were killed. I believe these statistics and more, in the link I posted, are worth pointing out when people advocate for keeping the death penalty.
posted by agregoli at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
But there ARE additional racist leanings to the death penalty and it's application, such as the death penalty being applied more often in sentencing when WHITE people were killed. I believe these statistics and more, in the link I posted, are worth pointing out when people advocate for keeping the death penalty.
posted by agregoli at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
All I'm saying is that the relationship you're describing (enhanced punishment for perpetrators with white victims) is usually found to apply at all levels of the US criminal justice system. There's a whole cottage industry trying to explain or explain away these phenomena that starts with this famous piece by Ruth Peterson and John Hagan.
I agree that we should worry about capital sentencing disparity; I just think we should worry about the other disparities even more. So we're really on the same page, except for emphasis. If racial disparities disqualify capital sentences, why don't they disqualify incarceration?
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:38 PM on May 16, 2016
I agree that we should worry about capital sentencing disparity; I just think we should worry about the other disparities even more. So we're really on the same page, except for emphasis. If racial disparities disqualify capital sentences, why don't they disqualify incarceration?
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:38 PM on May 16, 2016
I just think we're in agreement so I don't know why you're hammering this. I don't see a problem with bringing up what I did, it's information I don't think many people know, even when they are aware of the general unfairness of the criminal justice system.
posted by agregoli at 12:51 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by agregoli at 12:51 PM on May 16, 2016
There's absolutely no problem with bringing up racial disparities in the death penalty. That's an important problem, and a good enough reason to oppose the death penalty.
But when I shared this story, a friend asked: why do we pay so much attention to the death penalty and so little attention to the general craziness of mass incarceration. He definitely didn't mean to include you in that "we." He was talking about a more generic "us," maybe white liberals. He's a recent law school grad, so maybe his classmates.
So that's why I'm hammering this. He deserves an answer, and I don't have one. It's a variation of the argument for prison abolition: if racial disparities disqualify capital sentences as a viable punishment [AND THEY DO!], then why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
Why is it that when we imagine a world without the death penalty, we so often do it by imagining a world with lots more people tortured by a "living death" in prison?
Why do we feed our society's worst vengeful instincts in our efforts to make this part of the criminal justice system less cruel?
To be clear, this isn't your job to answer. I responded to your comment because the incongruity struck me when I read it, not because you're wrong but because you're right and that implies a lot more just abolishing the death penalty; it entails abolishing prisons. That seems crazy, but maybe it's true? Since you work on this stuff, I'd welcome your insight.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016
But when I shared this story, a friend asked: why do we pay so much attention to the death penalty and so little attention to the general craziness of mass incarceration. He definitely didn't mean to include you in that "we." He was talking about a more generic "us," maybe white liberals. He's a recent law school grad, so maybe his classmates.
So that's why I'm hammering this. He deserves an answer, and I don't have one. It's a variation of the argument for prison abolition: if racial disparities disqualify capital sentences as a viable punishment [AND THEY DO!], then why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
Why is it that when we imagine a world without the death penalty, we so often do it by imagining a world with lots more people tortured by a "living death" in prison?
Why do we feed our society's worst vengeful instincts in our efforts to make this part of the criminal justice system less cruel?
To be clear, this isn't your job to answer. I responded to your comment because the incongruity struck me when I read it, not because you're wrong but because you're right and that implies a lot more just abolishing the death penalty; it entails abolishing prisons. That seems crazy, but maybe it's true? Since you work on this stuff, I'd welcome your insight.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016
why don’t racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
My memory is a bit frayed, but I believe the argument in The New Jim Crow is that there is a huge weight of legal precedent that says that systemic racial disparities are fine - the issue is when someone does something that can be specifically proven to be race motivated. This is, of course, almost impossible.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:04 PM on May 16, 2016
My memory is a bit frayed, but I believe the argument in The New Jim Crow is that there is a huge weight of legal precedent that says that systemic racial disparities are fine - the issue is when someone does something that can be specifically proven to be race motivated. This is, of course, almost impossible.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:04 PM on May 16, 2016
Right, and the same thing holds for the death penalty, if we're merely talking about the law. The point is that we mostly believe that we actually should care about "racially disproportionate impact," not simply be satisfied if we find no "racially discriminatory purpose." Those statistics matter, but they seem like they should matter equally in death penalty and lesser cases.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:12 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:12 PM on May 16, 2016
if racial disparities disqualify capital sentences as a viable punishment [AND THEY DO!], then why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
Two reasons:
1) We can let people out of jail. Not so easy out of a cemetery.
2) We can tackle more than one thing at once.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:27 PM on May 16, 2016
Two reasons:
1) We can let people out of jail. Not so easy out of a cemetery.
2) We can tackle more than one thing at once.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:27 PM on May 16, 2016
Neither of those seem like answers to the question.
Here, look:
Q: "Why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?"
A: "We can let people out of jail. Not so easy out of a cemetery."
Q: "Why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?"
A: "We can tackle more than one thing at once."
They're non-sequiturs. The idea of "letting people out of the cemetery" seems relevant if you're worried about innocence, because the goal is to discover innocence and "let people out." But it doesn't respond to the problem of racial disparities. In a lot of the racial disparity cases, the problem isn't guilt but severity of sentencing, and this is especially true in racial disparity cases where the same crime is punished differently based on the racial composition of the perpetrator-victim dyad.
Worse: one answer to the problem of racial disparities in both the death penalty and in incarceration is to kill and incarcerate more white perpetrators (and perpetrators of all races with Black victims). This was literally the response many states adopted after Furman v. Georgia.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:46 PM on May 16, 2016
Here, look:
Q: "Why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?"
A: "We can let people out of jail. Not so easy out of a cemetery."
Q: "Why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?"
A: "We can tackle more than one thing at once."
They're non-sequiturs. The idea of "letting people out of the cemetery" seems relevant if you're worried about innocence, because the goal is to discover innocence and "let people out." But it doesn't respond to the problem of racial disparities. In a lot of the racial disparity cases, the problem isn't guilt but severity of sentencing, and this is especially true in racial disparity cases where the same crime is punished differently based on the racial composition of the perpetrator-victim dyad.
Worse: one answer to the problem of racial disparities in both the death penalty and in incarceration is to kill and incarcerate more white perpetrators (and perpetrators of all races with Black victims). This was literally the response many states adopted after Furman v. Georgia.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:46 PM on May 16, 2016
They are absolutely answers to the questions. In the first case, legislating solutions to racial disparities in incarceration could very easily include "white people on average got 1 year for X crime, any people of colour who have served more than that for the same crime are now released."
In the second case, we can fight against executions at the same time that we fight against racial disparities across the board.
So, yes, they're both answers.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:10 PM on May 16, 2016
In the second case, we can fight against executions at the same time that we fight against racial disparities across the board.
So, yes, they're both answers.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:10 PM on May 16, 2016
"white people on average got 1 year for X crime, any people of colour who have served more than that for the same crime are now released."
But I still wonder: why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
Perhaps this is the problem: would you accept a death penalty that was racially fair? 43% of homicide victims are Black; would you accept a death penalty in which 43% of people executed were perpetrators with a Black victim? (The current rate is executions where the victim was Black is 15%, so we could get there by executing many more perpetrators with a Black victim or many fewer with a White victim.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:23 PM on May 16, 2016
But I still wonder: why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
Perhaps this is the problem: would you accept a death penalty that was racially fair? 43% of homicide victims are Black; would you accept a death penalty in which 43% of people executed were perpetrators with a Black victim? (The current rate is executions where the victim was Black is 15%, so we could get there by executing many more perpetrators with a Black victim or many fewer with a White victim.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:23 PM on May 16, 2016
Perhaps this is the problem: would you accept a death penalty that was racially fair?
Nope. Execution is wrong, period. The racial disparity is just another reason on top.
But I still wonder: why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
Because incarceration is more or less necessary (though far too heavily applied when other remedies would do), and execution is unnecessary.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nope. Execution is wrong, period. The racial disparity is just another reason on top.
But I still wonder: why don't racial disparities disqualify incarceration as a viable punishment?
Because incarceration is more or less necessary (though far too heavily applied when other remedies would do), and execution is unnecessary.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Do you see how that's an answer and the other ones weren't?
And the point is that we executed 28 people last year and incarcerated 2.3 million. Yet somehow fighting those executions ends up legitimating those incarcerations.
Removing racial disparities in prison sentences wouldn't end mass incarceration. We would just be imprisoning five or six times the global average instead of seven times.
And that's why people who care about prisons worry that we're *not* doing two things at once. We're doing one thing: legitimating life without parole.
A student of mine died last month after spending thirty some years in prison, because prisons deny old men access to proper medical care. It's still a death sentence.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:52 AM on May 17, 2016
And the point is that we executed 28 people last year and incarcerated 2.3 million. Yet somehow fighting those executions ends up legitimating those incarcerations.
Removing racial disparities in prison sentences wouldn't end mass incarceration. We would just be imprisoning five or six times the global average instead of seven times.
And that's why people who care about prisons worry that we're *not* doing two things at once. We're doing one thing: legitimating life without parole.
A student of mine died last month after spending thirty some years in prison, because prisons deny old men access to proper medical care. It's still a death sentence.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:52 AM on May 17, 2016
« Older Move Over, Sam | An opera for children and those who like children Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Green Winnebago at 3:44 PM on May 13, 2016