Tennessee Fucks Up

[RVonse]

I think there should be a Constitutional amendment that after an execution attempt by authorities, the victim goes free.

Umm... I'm not really sold on turning the serial killer loose if the executioner fucks up. Seems kind of reckless and negligent to me.

I agree with you here Laughing Dog goes too far. Although for the most part I also agree with those who want to abolish the death penalty. And just being against the death penalty does not or should not mean you are for murder or other bad capital type of crimes.

Abolishing the death penalty makes sense strictly by reviewing the probabilities. Because escape from prison is a much lower probability than our legal system making a bad verdict. It is also better to protect the innocent even if that means some guilty people go free. Then there is the paradox that Tennessee finds itself in today. Attempting to save the life of a botched executing so that they will try to execute her again. It is almost as though the government wants to waste tax payer money.

The libertarian view of punishment that makes the most sense to me. Forget about payment to society, punish the guilty by making them restore the victim and or their families. And if they don't want to pay or can't pay, then they have to sell off a kidney or part of their liver. Turns out that a good organ is worth a lot of money. That is still better than killing them (like we do today) and it gives the victim more justice IMO.

I was kind of with you until you asserted that forcing someone to sell a vital organ was the libertarian way.

I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that the government, we the people, cannot be trusted with that power, trusted to never execute an innocent person either by error, negligence, or malice. So I’m good with the logic that the only way to avoid killing g innocents is to not have the government be in the business of killing.

But forcing the selling of body parts as reparation? Libertarian? Come on.

The conservatives are generally for law and order which is mostly what we have today. Prisoners are forced to serve society in jail to pay their debt to society. Kill them if the crime was bad enough. The liberals are generally for compassion and rehabilitation of the criminal. Some liberals even want to get rid of the police. But the libertarians are for the freedom and pursuit of liberty for the individual. Their focus is that the individual should be compensated for a crime against them by someone else. Today the criminal code does not do that and the only means to collect compensation is through the civil courts. But that requires additional effort and expense by the victim.

Organ donation sounds warped at first until you look at it in more detail. In the first place, most real criminals would probably have the means and ability to compensate their victims with savings. But in the second place, you can donate a kidney and still remain very much alive and well. And that same kidney can be used to keep someone else in society alive who would be themselves suffering. Right now, with capital punishment the state is wasting thousands of dollars and not helping others who are suffering by wasting perfectly functioning organs by killing criminals. And from a medical standpoint it is a total waste of parts that could have helped many people and society in general.

 

[ideologyhunter]

As a note, killing a white woman (regardless of who does it) leads to a much much higher chance of getting the death penalty. That isn't equal protection under the law. People should be punished, in general, the same as any other for the same type of crime. That is what the Constitution requires, and it is what our judicial system fails in providing.

This is really the number one reason to limit the death penalty to the most extreme of cases.

Not arguing for the death penalty here -- I'm against it -- but there's an obvious likely confounder in your argument: women are vastly less likely to be criminals than men are. Does your statistic remain when cases where the victim was another criminal are excluded from the data set? It's entirely to be expected for a legal system to treat killing other criminals as a less heinous offense than killing innocent people. It's the same reason the main argument against the death penalty is the possibility of executing the innocent.

Agreed. It also strikes me as absolutely bonkers that the minimum sentence for first degree murder is as low as 20 years in some states, and the second degree murder minimum is as low as 10 years, depending on the jurisdiction. As an inveterate watcher of id network murder shows, I've seen repeatedly how where you murder determines your sentence.
Capital punishment also removes us from the developed western culture and puts us in the company of the most repressive societies on earth.
It's one more indication of what a schizoid country the USA has become.

 

[WAB]

As a note, killing a white woman (regardless of who does it) leads to a much much higher chance of getting the death penalty. That isn't equal protection under the law. People should be punished, in general, the same as any other for the same type of crime. That is what the Constitution requires, and it is what our judicial system fails in providing.

This is really the number one reason to limit the death penalty to the most extreme of cases.

Not arguing for the death penalty here -- I'm against it -- but there's an obvious likely confounder in your argument: women are vastly less likely to be criminals than men are. Does your statistic remain when cases where the victim was another criminal are excluded from the data set? It's entirely to be expected for a legal system to treat killing other criminals as a less heinous offense than killing innocent people. It's the same reason the main argument against the death penalty is the possibility of executing the innocent.

Agreed. It also strikes me as absolutely bonkers that the minimum sentence for first degree murder is as low as 20 years in some states, and the second degree murder minimum is as low as 10 years, depending on the jurisdiction. As an inveterate watcher of id network murder shows, I've seen repeatedly how where you murder determines your sentence.
Capital punishment also removes us from the developed western culture and puts us in the company of the most repressive societies on earth.
It's one more indication of what a schizoid country the USA has become.

This man shot his wife in the face right in his and her driveway. It is caught on video which she took, while standing up to him. My sister and I saw the footage, included in a television show a while back. He had an all woman jury and was given only ten years in prison. I was appalled after I saw this story. I bet he won't even do ten years.

Woman’s Family Speaks Out After Man Gets 10 Years for Shooting Wife

An all-female jury allegedly sympathized with Carey Birmingham, sentencing him to 10 years instead of the 20 years prosecutors wanted.

www.insideedition.com

 

[thebeave]

As a note, killing a white woman (regardless of who does it) leads to a much much higher chance of getting the death penalty. That isn't equal protection under the law. People should be punished, in general, the same as any other for the same type of crime. That is what the Constitution requires, and it is what our judicial system fails in providing.

This is really the number one reason to limit the death penalty to the most extreme of cases.

Not arguing for the death penalty here -- I'm against it -- but there's an obvious likely confounder in your argument: women are vastly less likely to be criminals than men are. Does your statistic remain when cases where the victim was another criminal are excluded from the data set? It's entirely to be expected for a legal system to treat killing other criminals as a less heinous offense than killing innocent people. It's the same reason the main argument against the death penalty is the possibility of executing the innocent.

Agreed. It also strikes me as absolutely bonkers that the minimum sentence for first degree murder is as low as 20 years in some states, and the second degree murder minimum is as low as 10 years, depending on the jurisdiction. As an inveterate watcher of id network murder shows, I've seen repeatedly how where you murder determines your sentence.
Capital punishment also removes us from the developed western culture and puts us in the company of the most repressive societies on earth.
It's one more indication of what a schizoid country the USA has become.

This man shot his wife in the face right in his and her driveway. It is caught on video which she took, while standing up to him. My sister and I saw the footage, included in a television show a while back. He had an all woman jury and was given only ten years in prison. I was appalled after I saw this story. I bet he won't even do ten years.

Woman’s Family Speaks Out After Man Gets 10 Years for Shooting Wife

An all-female jury allegedly sympathized with Carey Birmingham, sentencing him to 10 years instead of the 20 years prosecutors wanted.

www.insideedition.com

Probably the shooting victim was a lot hotter looking than any of the women in the jury pool. You know how women can be.

*ducks rotten tomatoes*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Always got Texas to raise the bar. Passion defense was used in the Texas case.

Alright, goodbye. You're (going to) meet Jesus,

That is first degree murder.

Carey's defense attorney, Anthony Osso, said they pleaded guilty directly to an all-female jury. He said their strategy was to accept responsibility but convince jurors that Carey shot Patricia in the heat of the moment.

I have a hard time swallowing that load of tripe (well yeah, it was spousal abuse, but I was really angry!). Yeah, it worked though... in Texas. Road rage is also temporary insanity, but we don't accept that, or do we?

This man shot his wife in the face right in his and her driveway. It is caught on video which she took, while standing up to him. My sister and I saw the footage, included in a television show a while back. He had an all woman jury and was given only ten years in prison. I was appalled after I saw this story. I bet he won't even do ten years.

Woman’s Family Speaks Out After Man Gets 10 Years for Shooting Wife

An all-female jury allegedly sympathized with Carey Birmingham, sentencing him to 10 years instead of the 20 years prosecutors wanted.

www.insideedition.com

Probably the shooting victim was a lot hotter looking than any of the women in the jury pool. You know how women can be.

*ducks rotten tomatoes*

That isn't even unfunny for being unfunny.

 

[SLD]

Always got Texas to raise the bar. Passion defense was used in the Texas case.

Alright, goodbye. You're (going to) meet Jesus,

That is first degree murder.

Carey's defense attorney, Anthony Osso, said they pleaded guilty directly to an all-female jury. He said their strategy was to accept responsibility but convince jurors that Carey shot Patricia in the heat of the moment.

I have a hard time swallowing that load of tripe (well yeah, it was spousal abuse, but I was really angry!). Yeah, it worked though... in Texas. Road rage is also temporary insanity, but we don't accept that, or do we?

This man shot his wife in the face right in his and her driveway. It is caught on video which she took, while standing up to him. My sister and I saw the footage, included in a television show a while back. He had an all woman jury and was given only ten years in prison. I was appalled after I saw this story. I bet he won't even do ten years.

Woman’s Family Speaks Out After Man Gets 10 Years for Shooting Wife

An all-female jury allegedly sympathized with Carey Birmingham, sentencing him to 10 years instead of the 20 years prosecutors wanted.

www.insideedition.com

Probably the shooting victim was a lot hotter looking than any of the women in the jury pool. You know how women can be.

*ducks rotten tomatoes*

That isn't even unfunny for being unfunny.

Well, the looks of a defendant and victim often play a significant role in jury decisions. And often very differently based on the sex of the juror.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think there should be a Constitutional amendment that after an execution attempt by authorities, the victim goes free.

Umm... I'm not really sold on turning the serial killer loose if the executioner fucks up. Seems kind of reckless and negligent to me.

Sorta like botching an execution. If the state cannot get executions right on one try, then maybe the state shouldn’t be executing people.

If you'd said they revert to LWOP, I'd be okay with that. But setting them free seems like a horribly bad idea.

 

[SLD]

Well, she’s now awake and talking.

Christa Pike is awake and speaking after failed execution, lawyer says

Pike was rushed to the hospital in Tennessee last week after surviving two lethal injections of pentobarbital. Her prognosis is unclear, her lawyers said.

www.nbcnews.com

Can you imagine what her first words would be?

I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut they’ll do it to her again.

 

[Politesse]

Can you imagine what her first words would be?

"Amateurs! I got the job done on the first go."

 

[Tigers!]

Here is a chance for the US not to stuff up an execution. With guns no less

 

[Tigers!]

I think there should be a Constitutional amendment that after an execution attempt by authorities, the victim goes free.

Umm... I'm not really sold on turning the serial killer loose if the executioner fucks up. Seems kind of reckless and negligent to me.

I agree with you here Laughing Dog goes too far. Although for the most part I also agree with those who want to abolish the death penalty. And just being against the death penalty does not or should not mean you are for murder or other bad capital type of crimes.

Abolishing the death penalty makes sense strictly by reviewing the probabilities. Because escape from prison is a much lower probability than our legal system making a bad verdict. It is also better to protect the innocent even if that means some guilty people go free. Then there is the paradox that Tennessee finds itself in today. Attempting to save the life of a botched executing so that they will try to execute her again. It is almost as though the government wants to waste tax payer money.

The libertarian view of punishment that makes the most sense to me. Forget about payment to society, punish the guilty by making them restore the victim and or their families. And if they don't want to pay or can't pay, then they have to sell off a kidney or part of their liver. Turns out that a good organ is worth a lot of money. That is still better than killing them (like we do today) and it gives the victim more justice IMO.

I was kind of with you until you asserted that forcing someone to sell a vital organ was the libertarian way.

I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that the government, we the people, cannot be trusted with that power, trusted to never execute an innocent person either by error, negligence, or malice. So I’m good with the logic that the only way to avoid killing g innocents is to not have the government be in the business of killing.

But forcing the selling of body parts as reparation? Libertarian? Come on.

The conservatives are generally for law and order which is mostly what we have today. Prisoners are forced to serve society in jail to pay their debt to society. Kill them if the crime was bad enough. The liberals are generally for compassion and rehabilitation of the criminal. Some liberals even want to get rid of the police. But the libertarians are for the freedom and pursuit of liberty for the individual. Their focus is that the individual should be compensated for a crime against them by someone else. Today the criminal code does not do that and the only means to collect compensation is through the civil courts. But that requires additional effort and expense by the victim.

Organ donation sounds warped at first until you look at it in more detail. In the first place, most real criminals would probably have the means and ability to compensate their victims with savings. But in the second place, you can donate a kidney and still remain very much alive and well. And that same kidney can be used to keep someone else in society alive who would be themselves suffering. Right now, with capital punishment the state is wasting thousands of dollars and not helping others who are suffering by wasting perfectly functioning organs by killing criminals. And from a medical standpoint it is a total waste of parts that could have helped many people and society in general.

Why not go the whole hog and think of Solyent Green?

 

[Tigers!]

I think there should be a Constitutional amendment that after an execution attempt by authorities, the victim goes free.

Umm... I'm not really sold on turning the serial killer loose if the executioner fucks up. Seems kind of reckless and negligent to me.

I agree with you here Laughing Dog goes too far. Although for the most part I also agree with those who want to abolish the death penalty. And just being against the death penalty does not or should not mean you are for murder or other bad capital type of crimes.

Abolishing the death penalty makes sense strictly by reviewing the probabilities. Because escape from prison is a much lower probability than our legal system making a bad verdict. It is also better to protect the innocent even if that means some guilty people go free. Then there is the paradox that Tennessee finds itself in today. Attempting to save the life of a botched executing so that they will try to execute her again. It is almost as though the government wants to waste tax payer money.

The libertarian view of punishment that makes the most sense to me. Forget about payment to society, punish the guilty by making them restore the victim and or their families. And if they don't want to pay or can't pay, then they have to sell off a kidney or part of their liver. Turns out that a good organ is worth a lot of money. That is still better than killing them (like we do today) and it gives the victim more justice IMO.

I was kind of with you until you asserted that forcing someone to sell a vital organ was the libertarian way.

I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that the government, we the people, cannot be trusted with that power, trusted to never execute an innocent person either by error, negligence, or malice. So I’m good with the logic that the only way to avoid killing g innocents is to not have the government be in the business of killing.

But forcing the selling of body parts as reparation? Libertarian? Come on.

The conservatives are generally for law and order which is mostly what we have today. Prisoners are forced to serve society in jail to pay their debt to society. Kill them if the crime was bad enough. The liberals are generally for compassion and rehabilitation of the criminal. Some liberals even want to get rid of the police. But the libertarians are for the freedom and pursuit of liberty for the individual. Their focus is that the individual should be compensated for a crime against them by someone else. Today the criminal code does not do that and the only means to collect compensation is through the civil courts. But that requires additional effort and expense by the victim.

Organ donation sounds warped at first until you look at it in more detail. In the first place, most real criminals would probably have the means and ability to compensate their victims with savings. But in the second place, you can donate a kidney and still remain very much alive and well. And that same kidney can be used to keep someone else in society alive who would be themselves suffering. Right now, with capital punishment the state is wasting thousands of dollars and not helping others who are suffering by wasting perfectly functioning organs by killing criminals. And from a medical standpoint it is a total waste of parts that could have helped many people and society in general.

Why not go the whole hog and think of Solyent Green?