U.S. Supreme Court

[jdobbin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21551616/

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court halted an execution in Mississippi on Tuesday less than an hour before a convicted killer was scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection.

The last-minute reprieve for Earl Wesley Berry is the third granted by the justices since they agreed late last month to decide a challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection procedures.

Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia would have allowed the execution to go forward.

Berry was convicted of kidnapping a woman in 1987 and beating her to death before dumping her body in the woods. His execution was planned for 6 p.m. CT.

The Supreme Court has allowed only one execution to go forward since agreeing to hear the Kentucky case. Michael Richard was executed in Texas on Sept. 25, the same day the court said it would hear a lethal injection challenge from two death row inmates in Kentucky. State and lower federal courts have halted all other scheduled executions since then.

An interesting development. I wonder how they will come to a decision on this.

Edited October 30, 2007 by jdobbin

[Sulaco]

This is why I am calling for the return of the guillotine. Despite its grisliness the guillotine is the most "humane" method of execution ever invented.

If lethal injection is rule cruel and inhumane I will start a blog on this wonderful French invention.

[Higgly]

The number of falsely convicted people is constantly growing. We have in Canada over a dozen such cases, the latest being in Newfoundland. This case involved a man who was convicted of raping and murdering his 11 year old niece. Modern evidentiary technology has proven the girl died of natural causes. He served over 10 years for that before the Innocence Project proved him innocent. Can you imagine what that 10 years was like given the attitudes of society and prison society in particular towards pedophiles and child killers? The Truscott case is another.

The state of Illinois has stopped using the death penalty. Few states still use it, among them, Texas (George Bush, it figures).

I have come to believe that the death penalty is favoured by those who look to the justice system to provide expediency rather than truth.

[jdobbin]

This is why I am calling for the return of the guillotine. Despite its grisliness the guillotine is the most "humane" method of execution ever invented.

If lethal injection is rule cruel and inhumane I will start a blog on this wonderful French invention.

I'm sure your idea will be looked at for those who are in support of the death penalty.

[Sulaco]

The state of Illinois has stopped using the death penalty. Few states still use it, among them, Texas (George Bush, it figures).

Another is New York. Spitzer - it figures. Another is Connecticut. It figures. So on so forth.

[Sulaco]

I'm sure your idea will be looked at for those who are in support of the death penalty.

Well I support the death penalty. And I am looking at it.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Sulaco

[Sulaco]

I have come to believe that the death penalty is favoured by those who look to the justice system to provide expediency rather than truth.

9-15 years before excution (In Texas the average time a convict gets to put off the executionw hile going through the many appeals is 10 years - http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...30247320070813).

Countless appeals - far more than any provided to a non-death penalty convict. You call that expediency?

In fact, the American State justice systems afford far more post-conviction protections and error-checking opportunities to those who are sentenced to death than to those who are not. Your statement flies in the face of facts.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Sulaco

[Higgly]

In Texas the average time a convict gets to put off the executionw hile going through the many appeals is 10 years.... Your statement flies in the face of facts.

The guy in Newfoundland seved 12 years before he was proven innocent. How long did Truscott serve? How many more are there like them?

What is it with this obsession to kill people? Given the number of appeals, is it really cheaper than just locking them up? You can keep someone locked up for a long time for what it costs to run an appeal by all those lawyers, judges, what have you.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Higgly

[Sulaco]

The guy in Newfoundland seved 12 years before he was proven innocent. How long did Truscott serve? How many more are there like them?

What is it with this obsession to kill people? Given the number of appeals, is it really cheaper than just locking them up? You can keep someone locked up for a long time for what it costs to run an appeal by all those lawyers, judges, what have you.

Again - no one believes its cheaper or more expedient. Stop nailing up strawmen. The reason is simple - some crimes deserve the retribution that the death penalty provides. Why your resistance to putting highly violent criminals to death?

Edited October 31, 2007 by Sulaco

[Higgly]

Again - no one believes its cheaper or more expedient. Stop nailing up strawmen. The reason is simple - some crimes deserve the retribution that the death penalty provides. Why your resistance to putting highly violent criminals to death?

Strawmen? You said 10 years, I put up a guy who served 12. You are using jingoism, while I am stating fact. Why my resistance? Because the justice system is not perfect. Lock them up forever with no chance of parole, but I don't believe any system is good enough to always be right.

[jdobbin]

The reason is simple - some crimes deserve the retribution that the death penalty provides.

I prefer long sentences to the death penalty. I think the process of trying to achieve a death penalty is a long one and the state has often been wrong even after the trial and several appeals. When they do appear to have to right person, they often bungle the execution.

It seems cleaner, simpler and more humane to just have the person serve a long sentence. Like Canada, the U.S. is starting to reconsider the death penalty for some of the reasons I listed.

[Sulaco]

Strawmen? You said 10 years, I put up a guy who served 12. You are using jingoism, while I am stating fact. Why my resistance? Because the justice system is not perfect. Lock them up forever with no chance of parole, but I don't believe any system is good enough to always be right.

The strawmen you put up are that a: the death penalty is a matter of expedience, and b: it is a matter of cost consideration.

10 years is the average length of time. On the short end - let's say 7 years, you hove those who run out of appeals quickly because there are few to no doubts about the procedures in investigation and trial. At the high end you have those who wait 15 yhears because the appealable issues in the prosecution of their cases are myriad. If you will - the less like the sentence is to be accurate the more likely the defendant will be on the high side of the spread.

So you don't mind locking the inocent away forever with no possiblity of parole? A matter of degree but I am not sure you can claim any real moral high ground here.

By the way - I am not sure jingoism means what you seem to think it means.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Sulaco

[Sulaco]

I prefer long sentences to the death penalty. I think the process of trying to achieve a death penalty is a long one and the state has often been wrong even after the trial and several appeals. When they do appear to have to right person, they often bungle the execution.

It seems cleaner, simpler and more humane to just have the person serve a long sentence. Like Canada, the U.S. is starting to reconsider the death penalty for some of the reasons I listed.

Frankly the federales should keep their nose out of this issue as much as possible. It's a state issue and should be left up to individual states. What does "the US" mean in your statement anyway.

How often wrong? How often "bungle"? What's the definition of "bungle"? Nothing cleaner than a very sharp, very heavy, quickly descenging, highly controlled blade - and a drainage basin.

It seems even cleaner, simpler and more humane to release the person with a pat on the back.

[jdobbin]

Frankly the federales should keep their nose out of this issue as much as possible. It's a state issue and should be left up to individual states. What does "the US" mean in your statement anyway.

How often wrong? How often "bungle"? What's the definition of "bungle"? Nothing cleaner than a very sharp, very heavy, quickly descenging, highly controlled blade - and a drainage basin.

It seems even cleaner, simpler and more humane to release the person with a pat on the back.

The Supreme Court remains the top court for a reason. Issues that affect the constitution or where justice has not been done in the state court are a matter for the federal court.

There has been several academic reports in recent years about some of the various death penalty processes and how they have not worked properly. Even the guillotine has had its problems. The last public use of it in 1939 didn't work properly because the executioner was drunk. The penalty continued until 1977 but ended after research was published about how the heads of the executed showed recognition, indicating that death was not as instantaneous as people expected.

[Sulaco]

The Supreme Court remains the top court for a reason. Issues that affect the constitution

Yes.

or where justice has not been done in the state court are a matter for the federal court.

No.

The Supreme Court of the United States is not supreme in all cases or on all issues. It wasn't meant to be and remains not.

[jdobbin]

Yes.

No.

The Supreme Court of the United States is not supreme in all cases or on all issues. It wasn't meant to be and remains not.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has and is reviewing the death penalty as it pertains to the constitution.

[Sulaco]

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has and is reviewing the death penalty as it pertains to the constitution.

That's not correct. The question is limited to the applicability of the "cruel and unusual" clause to a specific method of killing.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Sulaco

[M.Dancer]

This is why I am calling for the return of the guillotine. Despite its grisliness the guillotine is the most "humane" method of execution ever invented.

Heroin overdose has to be right up there....

[jdobbin]

That's not correct. The question is limited to the applicability of the "cruel and unusual" clause to a specific method of killing.

That is what I said: as it pertains to the constitution. Cruel and unusual punishment is within the constitution.

[M.Dancer]

What Sully means is, the SCOTUS isn't reviewing the death penalty, they are reviewing the method.

If it can be proved that the Saudi Arabian sword man is swift and merciful, then it ain't cruel. If it can be proved that a bullet to the back of the noggin ain't rare, then it ain't unusual......

[jdobbin]

What Sully means is, the SCOTUS isn't reviewing the death penalty, they are reviewing the method.

If it can be proved that the Saudi Arabian sword man is swift and merciful, then it ain't cruel. If it can be proved that a bullet to the back of the noggin ain't rare, then it ain't unusual......

They have reviewed both the method and the process over its history. It has always been in relationship to the constitution.

[Higgly]

The strawmen you put up are that a: the death penalty is a matter of expedience, and b: it is a matter of cost consideration.

10 years is the average length of time. On the short end - let's say 7 years, you hove those who run out of appeals quickly because there are few to no doubts about the procedures in investigation and trial. At the high end you have those who wait 15 yhears because the appealable issues in the prosecution of their cases are myriad. If you will - the less like the sentence is to be accurate the more likely the defendant will be on the high side of the spread.

So you don't mind locking the inocent away forever with no possiblity of parole? A matter of degree but I am not sure you can claim any real moral high ground here.

By the way - I am not sure jingoism means what you seem to think it means.

You are right. I was expanding the word beyond its defined usage.

Moral high ground? Now who's putting up straw men? I am arguing logic. The system makes mistakes. Death is final. How much more simple can it be?

If you do not favour the death penalty out of expediency, then what is your reasoning? What possible reason can you cite that would justify the execution by mistake of those who are actually innocent? That is what you are arguing for.

I am encouraged by the fact that a basis is now being built in case law for the review and retrial of people who have been wrongfully convicted of capital crimes. Hopefully this will one day extend to other serious crimes. I would not be at all surprised to find that there is a very large number of people who have been railroaded into convictions they did not deserve.

[Sulaco]

You are right. I was expanding the word beyond its defined usage.

Moral high ground? Now who's putting up straw men? I am arguing logic. The system makes mistakes. Death is final. How much more simple can it be?

If you do not favour the death penalty out of expediency, then what is your reasoning? What possible reason can you cite that would justify the execution by mistake of those who are actually innocent? That is what you are arguing for.

I stated one part of it before. First, retribution against those who commit heinous crimes, for the victims and society as a whole, is a valid reason for continuing the death penalty.

Second, society should always ahve an ultimate penalty simply to demostrate the most vigorous disapproval for the worst crimes. You take away the death penalty you might as well start scaling down all sentencing to fit the scales. Call it punishment deflation. This has occured in Europe - the death penalty went out the window and sentences begun falling after that.

Third, multiple recent studies show that the death penalty acts as a substantial deterrent.

Thems are the reasons.

I am encouraged by the fact that a basis is now being built in case law for the review and retrial of people who have been wrongfully convicted of capital crimes. Hopefully this will one day extend to other serious crimes. I would not be at all surprised to find that there is a very large number of people who have been railroaded into convictions they did not deserve.

You have no evidence for this "massive railroading". This is merely an accusation based on your biases. Furthermore, what the heck are you talking about. The various States have always had vigorous appeals processes. Constitutional review has been and continues to be robust. Some defense attonreys would actually argue that constitutional protections have been eroded by the supreme court in the last 25 years. This is not "new case law". Defendant's have always ahd and continue to have opportunities to challange convictions. Those opportunities multiply as the seriousnes of the sentence rises because the system puts more resources into examining more serious cases.

You're talking outta your ass.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Sulaco

[Higgly]

I stated one part of it before. First, retribution against those who commit heinous crimes, for the victims and society as a whole, is a valid reason for continuing the death penalty.

Second, society should always ahve an ultimate penalty simply to demostrate the most vigorous disapproval for the worst crimes. You take away the death penalty you might as well start scaling down all sentencing to fit the scales. Call it punishment deflation. This has occured in Europe - the death penalty went out the window and sentences begun falling after that.

Third, multiple recent studies show that the death penalty acts as a substantial deterrent.

Thems are the reasons.

You have no evidence for this "massive railroading". This is merely an accusation based on your biases. Furthermore, what the heck are you talking about. The various States have always had vigorous appeals processes. Constitutional review has been and continues to be robust. Some defense attonreys would actually argue that constitutional protections have been eroded by the supreme court in the last 25 years. This is not "new case law". Defendant's have always ahd and continue to have opportunities to challange convictions. Those opportunities multiply as the seriousnes of the sentence rises because the system puts more resources into examining more serious cases.

You're talking outta your ass.

I can make more sense with a fart than you can with a keyboard apparently.

There have been a good dozen or so people found to have been falsely convicted of murder in Canada over the past ten years, and they are just getting started on the mess this guy Smith made of scores of people's lives in Ontario. These are just the murders, because they are the only crimes serious enough to merit the limited resources of efforts like the Innocence Project.

I am talking cold hard facts. You're the guy saying things like "Society should have..." Looks to me like the bias is on the other ass

As for your "multiple recent studies", I don't believe you. Let's see some citations.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Higgly

[Moxie]

Heroin overdose has to be right up there....

Not a bad idea, but I've always like the idea of the "Firing Squad". Ten bullets in succession are sure to do the job and the condemned has to face their death with terror like their victims did. Putting someone peacefully asleep doesn't seem punitive enough for me. I want to see them suffer.