The Death Penalty

No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter. The companies that make the products that various states use for lethal injections don't want their products to be associated with lethal injections. This is causing problems with the supply chain for those drugs, and thus problems with the executions themselves. Whether or not you think this makes any sense, it's a verifiable fact — it's happening right now, as we speak.

I have no idea what the comparison with weapons manufactures is even about, honestly. It seems like an unrelated red herring to me.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

http://www.filipinewsph.net/2017/03/fearless-filipina-slams-european-parliament.html?m=1

Posting this here cause the woman who slammed EU delegates mentioned the DP.

The statement is not sanctioned by the DFA.

Given that we have discussed in this very thread the merits of using nitrogen asphyxiation for executions instead of lethal injections, I thought people would be interested to know that Oklahoma is planning to do so, rather than put a moratorium on executions. From text copy of NY Times.

So that's a thing. Still wondering why the state doesn't bring back firing squads.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Firing squads are less effective (bullets, even to the head, do not reliably kill) and put too much of a psychological strain on whoever has to pull the trigger.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Not only that, but it fits right into the category of "cruel and unusual punishment", besides feeling a lot more like a vigilante method instead of proper state justice.

Life is unfair...

@M84: Actually a fusion between the military-industrial complex and big pharma makes some sense in so much that the military needs medicine to function.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Looks like Trump's proposal to strictly implement the death penalty for drug traffickers has been met with protestors, calling him "Donald J. Duterte", a reference to Duterte himself.

Considering that the US federal government hardly ever sentences people to death, let alone executes them, he's blowing hot air (surprise!) unless the States jump in.

And IIRC, aren't there precedents in US law that basically limit capital punishment (in civilian cases) to (aggravated 1st degree) murder and treason? I seem to remember a death sentence for sexual assault being tossed out a few years back.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

On one hand, drug traffickers are some of the lowest criminals you can get and are hard to control since there is always going to be some guy or gal who wants to get high; on the other hand, knowing Trump it would be a way to legally lash out against the Latino community in the USA.

I would have to say no to that proposal.

Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.

Let us also not forget that Trump has little legal authority to enact such a proposal, to say nothing that the death penalty in the US is usually restricted to murder and similar crimes.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

So this case is a doozy

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html

Also here’s a judicial dissent that covers most of the flaws in the states case

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/05-99004o.pdf

I will have to agree that Oklahoma is going to get a lot of attention in the coming months now that it is committing itself to using nitrogen asphyxiation for execution. Method of execution to me is a separate topic from the application. From what I've read since I last posted, I think there is a general consensus that limiting the application of the death penalty (to the most severe of crimes) probably wouldn't get much push-back. It's crossing over to the total removal of the penalty that you get resistance because we do have documented cases of unrepentant or repeatedly-defiant criminals, not to mention criminals that are trouble magnets. Now you're hitting practical considerations, and that's when the arguments get more heated.

PS. Going to the argument about why pharmaceuticals don't want to sell for execution purposes, it's because it's really bad for business. For example, they could potentially lose the European market because Europe as a bloc is strongly anti-execution (not just legally but in terms of popular sentiment). Worse, many of these pharmaceutical companies are based in Europe, meaning bad press can really hit home for them.

Edited by WhosAsking on Aug 31st 2018 at 2:30:48 PM

I suppose using a wholly state-owned enterprise to manufacture the components for execution drugs and the like instead of contracting the job to public/private corporations isn't an option for some reason?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Personally, I'd suggest making poisons out of medicines that the government would have obvious reasons to want. For example, order some anasthesia and then just give a lethal dose. Alternatively just point out to the seller that non-poison means of execution do exist.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

In the US, state-owned is very much against the prevailing mentality.

That would just result in the anaesthetic drug no longer being sold to America. Then you've shot all of your medical care in the foot because they won't be able to get it for legitimate medical use anymore.

Be not afraid...

Kinda out of the blue, but... In response to a post on the US Politics thread that was removed by its author due to realizing it's off-topic

Here's the big problem with that: From my perspective (which is significantly influenced by my Islamic beliefs), life imprisonment is inhumane as a punishment, especially when touted as an alternative to a death sentence. We're not supposed to torture convicts as a punishment.

It might have to do with the fact that for Muslims, the purpose of execution is only partly as punishment. The other part is to send the murderer straight to God, who is the only one capable of punishing murderers with absolute fairness to both the victim and the murderer (i.e. no earthly punishment that we humans could perform could do either of them justice; it either falls short of avenging the victim's death, or is too cruel upon the murderer).

Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 27th 2018 at 12:46:07 PM

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I don't think it makes much sense to incorporate hypothetical afterlives into a justice system. Heck, for all we know murderers might just go straight to Heaven.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

Yeah, I agree, a government is supposed to be secular, therefore, any considerations about a criminal's suffering after death need to be discarded, especially since it would be doing an injustice to any irreligious people harmed by said perp. That said, I still find the death penalty to be the proper punishment for some types of crime.

Life is unfair...

Question: I've heard it argued in favor of the death penalty that it might be good to protect less-violent prisoners from more violent ones. Is there any evidence to back that sort of thing up?

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Just seperate them. No need to kill them.

They should have sent a poet.

That. The solution is not upping the punishment to clear out the prisons-the solution is separating the prison population, and keeping lifers with nothing left to lose away from people doing 60 days for some minor charge.

With religion I actually do think it's fair to bring it into this debate to some extent. Even in a secular society you can only separate church and state so far.

For example, to use the reverse, a person saying that they oppose the death penalty because they're a religious pacifist of some sort is totally valid and they do have a right for that to determine their voting habits and such.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Religious arguments in favor of the death penatly are also relevant in the sense that they're what you're going to run against sooner or later if you ever try to advocate abolishment of the death penalty internationally and come across one of the many countries where said death penalty ties into the local culture's religion-based laws (e.g. many Muslim countries). It's fair for you to hope that said countries would have secularized by the time you get to them, but you shouldn't just ignore the likelihood that they'll not have done so.

It does if the majority of a given country believes in an afterlife. To them, at least; I can understand if you don't believe in the same belief system that they do.

Yeah, see, that's a feasible argument only if you're dealing with the issue within a country that is already secular. In a country like Saudi Arabia, however, the argument wouldn't fly at all, because the majority of the population believes in the national religion and, AFAIK, is heavily opposed to the concept of secularizing the country (at least in the sense that religious law should be completely de-coupled from civil law; it's probably less controversial if you mean "secular" in the sense that the clergy should not hold any secular power in their own right).

Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 28th 2018 at 4:55:11 PM

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Reducing the prison population could be accomplished by not incarcerating non-violent minor offenders. But that'd require a major policy shift, so I'm not holding my breath.