Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

South Carolina House adds firing squad to execution methods

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • From a practical standpoint, the death penalty is all but dead in the United States. Unless you're in one of three or four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Georgia) you probably have a better chance of escaping the prison with an Acts-style earthquake than being involuntarily executed. I remember a high profile case from my home county a few years ago where the prosecutor sought the death penalty (with the added additional costs that come with it, which are not insignificant) despite the fact that 1) The guy was in his 70s 2) The guy was terminally ill and 3) The state did not even have a death chamber. He was grandstanding with taxpayer money, in my opinion.

    If the death penalty was actually used with any sort of regularity (and executions were public or televised), it might actually be a deterrent, but until we get to that point, I'm not surprised to see it's not.

    The firing squad will make it easier to perform executions, though. Many states have been unable to perform lethal injections because drug manufacturers refuse to sell them to American prisons, and prisons have resorted to trying to obtain drugs through questionable means. There's also the issue that states are unable to find doctors to get involved because they are unwilling to violate the Hippocratic oath. Shooting somebody is much easier, logistically. (It's also more humane if the shooters are good. Based on what we know how, it is likely that lethal injection is a bad way to go.)
    Last edited by KingsGambit; 05-08-2021, 10:24 PM.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

      Of course it is, it is institutionalised. Capital punishment is also a barbaric practise which risks innocent people being killed.
      That's one reason why we ended execution. So many innocents ......
      So many that were beyond reason at the time....
      We even executed persons who were under arrest and not able to carry out the murder (Bentley).

      Albert Pierrepoint decided that his lifetime job of executioner had achieved nothing.

      ​​​​​​
      It also serves no useful purpose in deterring crime.
      That's what Mr Pierrepoint thought.
      It can actually increase the murders, because a murderer could kill to stay free, avoid capture, get rid of witnesses.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

        The state should not be given the power to execute its citizens. And anyone that favors the death penalty, IMO has the blood of innocents on their hands as much as any actual murderer that they want to put to death.
        I'm delighted to bear your scorn. Certainly reforms are needed, but I am an unabashed proponent of the principle of reciprocal justice demonstrated in the laws God gave in Scripture.
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          From a practical standpoint, the death penalty is all but dead in the United States. Unless you're in one of three or four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Georgia) you probably have a better chance of escaping the prison with an Acts-style earthquake than being involuntarily executed. I remember a high profile case from my home county a few years ago where the prosecutor sought the death penalty (with the added additional costs that come with it, which are not insignificant) despite the fact that 1) The guy was in his 70s 2) The guy was terminally ill and 3) The state did not even have a death chamber. He was grandstanding with taxpayer money, in my opinion.

          If the death penalty was actually used with any sort of regularity (and executions were public or televised), it might actually be a deterrent, but until we get to that point, I'm not surprised to see it's not.

          The firing squad will make it easier to perform executions, though. Many states have been unable to perform lethal injections because drug manufacturers refuse to sell them to American prisons, and prisons have resorted to trying to obtain drugs through questionable means. There's also the issue that states are unable to find doctors to get involved because they are unwilling to violate the Hippocratic oath. Shooting somebody is much easier, logistically. (It's also more humane if the shooters are good. Based on what we know how, it is likely that lethal injection is a bad way to go.)
          That bolded part, especially.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
            You say that, yet again, I point to the article I posted, about the man who was executed 4 years ago,convicted with essentially zero evidence, which destroys your claim.

            EXECUTING REMOVES DUE PROCESS. Sorry you don't like that fact.


            You claim you're against it but you sure seem to look like you're arguing in favor of it in every post other than the ones where you claim you're against it....
            Didn't that DNA test also find the victim's blood on the accused shoes or something like that? If so that is a great deal more than "essentially zero evidence."

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Didn't that DNA test also find the victim's blood on the accused shoes or something like that? If so that is a great deal more than "essentially zero evidence."
              It did find the other man's (unknown who he is) DNA on the murder weapon's handle and IIRC on bloody clothes on the scene.

              IIRC there was moderate support for blood on his shoe possibly being hers (which only would indicate he entered the house - he was arrested for supposedly spending money of hers after someone saw him break in, so it's entirely plausible he broke in, and inadvertently stepped into blood of the murder scene). The fact that another person's DNA (and not his) was on the murder weapon handle AND bloody clothes on the scene is more than enough to at the very least introduce reasonable doubt - sadly he was killed by the state and will never get a retrial based on that new evidence.

              But that testing didn't happen until he was already dead (i.e. shoe blood DNA came after his execution with this other stuff), so I'm unsure how you can claim that my statement about his conviction and execution being done on essentially zero evidence is wrong. Unless you think time travel exists.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eider View Post
                That's one reason why we ended execution. So many innocents .....
                Indeed, Evans and Bentley both had learning difficulties, Hanratty, Ellis a crime of passion in her case. Not forgetting the Thompson-Bywaters case that I first learned about when I read F Tennyson Jesse's A Pin to See the Peepshow.

                I always admired the broadcaster and journalist Ludovic Kennedy.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                  It did find the other man's (unknown who he is) DNA on the murder weapon's handle and IIRC on bloody clothes on the scene.

                  IIRC there was moderate support for blood on his shoe possibly being hers (which only would indicate he entered the house - he was arrested for supposedly spending money of hers after someone saw him break in, so it's entirely plausible he broke in, and inadvertently stepped into blood of the murder scene). The fact that another person's DNA (and not his) was on the murder weapon handle AND bloody clothes on the scene is more than enough to at the very least introduce reasonable doubt - sadly he was killed by the state and will never get a retrial based on that new evidence.

                  But that testing didn't happen until he was already dead (i.e. shoe blood DNA came after his execution with this other stuff), so I'm unsure how you can claim that my statement about his conviction and execution being done on essentially zero evidence is wrong. Unless you think time travel exists.
                  It could mean that he entered the house (something he denies IIRC), and the DNA on the handle and her clothes could mean that nothing more than that someone at some point in time touched them and nothing else[1]

                  The point is that you can always find some sort of way to explain any type of evidence (hence the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt").

                  Several years back during a discussion about circumstantial witness someone quoted a noted jurist who said (and I paraphrase here) that one bloody fingerprint trumps the testimony of a dozen eyewitnesses.

                  But here's the rub. It really isn't hard to plant someone else's fingerprints IF YOU KNOW HOW. And while in the past such knowledge was only known by a few (), I would not bet against being able to find instructions for how to do it being somewhere on the interwebz if you look hard enough.

                  The point being that there's always going to be some possibility that someone has been framed for a crime. That all the witnesses are lying, that the evidence was either all fake or planted. That the prosecutor and judge are in cahoots and concealing exculpatory evidence proving the accused person's innocence. I mean it is "conceivable."

                  But if that's enough to warrant abolishing the death penalty should not it also be enough to abolish taking away someone's freedom and confining them in a small room for the rest of their lives? Shouldn't it be enough to warrant the elimination of all criminal penalties?

                  And this is why the standard of "reasonable doubt" was established.



                  And to be clear, as you can see by some of my previous posts, like Cow Poke, I'm anything but a fan of how the death penalty is carried out. It is an absolute mess where consistency is a four-letter word. Still, I'm not sure that it ought to be completely eliminated, but reserved for only the most horrendous of offenders who's guilt can be established even beyond a shadow of a doubt.



                  1. it might also mean that the accused didn't act alone, but he can't turn his accomplice in without admitting he did it.
                  Last edited by rogue06; 05-09-2021, 10:10 AM.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    It could mean that he entered the house (something he denies IIRC), and the DNA on the handle and her clothes could mean that nothing more than that someone at some point in time touched them and nothing else[1]

                    The point is that you can always find some sort of way to explain any type of evidence (hence the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt").

                    Several years back during a discussion about circumstantial witness someone quoted a noted jurist noted for saying (and I paraphrase here) that one bloody fingerprint trumps the testimony of a dozen eyewitnesses.

                    But here's the rub. It really isn't hard to plant someone else's fingerprints IF YOU KNOW HOW. And while in the past such knowledge was only known by a few (), I would not bet against being able to find instructions for how to do it being somewhere on the interwebz if you look hard enough.

                    The point being that there's always going to be some possibility that someone has been framed for a crime. That all the witnesses are lying, that the evidence was either all fake or planted. That the prosecutor and judge are in cahoots and concealing exculpatory evidence proving the accused person's innocence. I mean it is "conceivable."

                    But if that's enough to warrant abolishing the death penalty should not it also be enough to abolish taking away someone's freedom and confining them in a small room for the rest of their lives? Shouldn't it be enough to warrant the elimination of all criminal penalties?

                    And this is why the standard of "reasonable doubt" was established.



                    And to be clear, as you can see by some of my previous posts, like Cow Poke, I'm anything but a fan of how the death penalty is carried out. It is an absolute mess where consistency is a four-letter word. Still, I'm not sure that it ought to be completely eliminated, but reserved for only the most horrendous of offenders who's guilt can be established even beyond a shadow of a doubt.



                    1. it might also mean that the accused didn't act alone, but he can't turn his accomplice in without admitting he did it.
                    But again, if someone else's DNA is on the murder weapon and clothes there, and not your own, that's more than enough reasonable doubt. Sadly he will never get due process now.

                    And again, there was no DNA testing on the shoe blood until AFTER his state-sanctioned murder. SO my statement still stands - he was convicted on essentially zero evidence.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Indeed, Evans and Bentley both had learning difficulties, Hanratty, Ellis a crime of passion in her case. Not forgetting the Thompson-Bywaters case that I first learned about when I read F Tennyson Jesse's A Pin to See the Peepshow.

                      I always admired the broadcaster and journalist Ludovic Kennedy.
                      Do you think that having a learning disability excuses homicide?

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Do you think that having a learning disability excuses homicide?
                        I don't know which "Evans" she is referring to, but Timothy Evans reportedly had a learning disability and was wrongfully convicted. His disability prevented him from properly defending himself and confessing early on to murdering his daughter. By the time he recanted, he wasn't believed. The actual murderer was testifying against him in court. Evans was executed.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                          I don't know which "Evans" she is referring to, but Timothy Evans reportedly had a learning disability and was wrongfully convicted. His disability prevented him from properly defending himself and confessing early on to murdering his wife. By the time he recanted, he wasn't believed. The actual murderer was testifying against him in court. Evans was executed.

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans
                          That does not answer my question. She listed two people who had learning disabilities and implied that they shouldn't have been executed because of that. Hence my question.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Do you think that having a learning disability excuses homicide?
                            He didn't commit homicide.

                            He was innocent. John Christie was the 10 Rillington Place murderer.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Do you think that having a learning disability excuses homicide?
                              Timothy Evans is reported to have had a mental of of a ten year old and Derek Bentley that of an eleven year old. Children may indeed kill but no civilised society executes them for it.

                              Or do you think the brutal and sadistic child murderers of James Bulger should have hanged?
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                Timothy Evans is reported to have had a mental of of a ten year old and Derek Bentley that of an eleven year old. Children may indeed kill but no civilised society executes them for it.

                                Or do you think the brutal and sadistic child murderers of James Bulger should have hanged?
                                My post, though, was that Evans did not commit murder. I understood your comment to be that (translated) "Had Evans had normal mental capacity, he would not have incriminated himself."

                                So Evans is being included in the wrong category. He was not a murderer of limited cognition.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                313 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X