|
Post by josephdphillips on Aug 23, 2017 14:47:38 GMT -6
worst punishment is being bored to death by CNN, and your idea of cremation was more than 10 years ago Joe I hadn't thought of the former, and you are correct about the latter. I haven't changed in ten years relative to the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Aug 23, 2017 14:49:56 GMT -6
I believe live cremation might indeed deter murder Maybe. Who knows. An ad hoc punishment can't deter anyone from any behavior, and that's what the death penalty has become.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Aug 27, 2017 13:32:24 GMT -6
worst punishment is being bored to death by CNN, What?? CNN is comedy gold right now.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Aug 27, 2017 13:38:19 GMT -6
How would flooding the nine members of the SCOTUS with all the appeals from 15,000 cases or so per year "clear the system"? The backlog would be enormous. For a while. They would put off all other decisions until the backlog were cleared up, or create an execution court with final authority. Or Congress could streamline the process to begin with, and restrict habeas corpus.I'm fairly certain the number of executions would shrink anyway. The Chinese, with 6 times our population, only execute 10,000 a year or so. I find tinkering with habeas corpus disturbing. And probably unconstitutional. On reflection, though, my complaint is probably spurious. Very few cases should reach the Supreme Court, since there are only so many genuine constitutional worries that even the most inventive lawyers can dream up.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Aug 28, 2017 8:50:45 GMT -6
The federal constitution defines habeas corpus as a privilege, not a right, and says it may not be suspended. Restricting habeas corpus to time limits isn't suspending it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Aug 30, 2017 11:08:15 GMT -6
The federal constitution defines habeas corpus as a privilege, not a right, and says it may not be suspended. Restricting habeas corpus to time limits isn't suspending it. You think a rule that says "after so many months/years, habeas corpus is thereafter suspended" is not suspending it? Intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Aug 30, 2017 13:16:20 GMT -6
You think a rule that says "after so many months/years, habeas corpus is thereafter suspended" is not suspending it? It isn't. The U.S. Supremes and federal jurists routinely deny habeas corpus petitions. There is nothing unconstitutional with putting a time limit on them.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 1, 2017 0:50:21 GMT -6
You think a rule that says "after so many months/years, habeas corpus is thereafter suspended" is not suspending it? It isn't. So if you wait long enough before suspending something, you can suspend it without suspending it? Are you sure that's right?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 1, 2017 12:45:13 GMT -6
The supremes would have to define what the original intent of the founders was when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.
It is inconceivable their original intent was to prevent executions by extending habeas corpus to every convict.
Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution allows for the "suspension" of habeas under certain circumstances.
Habeas corpus is by no means an absolute constitutional right. Extremely few convicts get it.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 4, 2017 11:50:47 GMT -6
I have a friend who is also pro-DP, but believes that as long as executions exist, it shall deter crime. This includes lethal injection and nitrogen gas asphyxiation. Of course all execution methods kill, but are some more effective at deterrence than others? I have included ''hung by the neck until dead'' since before we abolished the death penalty in the UK, this was carried out for things like serial murderers and child killers. I think you're missing the point. The population refraining from acts of murder in most societies is about 99.995 percent. Of the 0.005 percent that remain, we execute, in the United States, maybe one is 250. i doubt that guy cares about how he dies. To punish murder, the ancient Romans would give you a choice between decapitation in your cell or allowing you to fall on your sword. I don't think anyone can improve on that. There is no grand, social purpose in any punishment, for any crime. It's just retribution, the moral justification for which is self-evident. Joe, sometimes you have a hard time going along with the flow of the thread. Instead of simply stating what dp punishment might deter you the most you feel the need to give a lecture. We all know what the dp is and if we don't we know, "you'll" tell us. I have no desire to murder anyone but I can say that being hung, killed with some kind of gas, or shot would scare me the most and mostly because I might be the one person would have a "botched" execution and have to feel some kind of pain. Now you I really don't care if a convicted killer feels pain in a botched execution but I can say it would scare "me" a little anyway. Well setting that aside I hope all is well with you anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 4, 2017 12:00:40 GMT -6
For a while. They would put off all other decisions until the backlog were cleared up, or create an execution court with final authority. Or Congress could streamline the process to begin with, and restrict habeas corpus.I'm fairly certain the number of executions would shrink anyway. The Chinese, with 6 times our population, only execute 10,000 a year or so. I find tinkering with habeas corpus disturbing. And probably unconstitutional. On reflection, though, my complaint is probably spurious. Very few cases should reach the Supreme Court, since there are only so many genuine constitutional worries that even the most inventive lawyers can dream up. There were times in the 1800s when execution was usually carried out within a month, more or less, of the crime, usually murder. It probably deterred people a lot more then our current system.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 7, 2017 13:47:37 GMT -6
I find tinkering with habeas corpus disturbing. And probably unconstitutional. On reflection, though, my complaint is probably spurious. Very few cases should reach the Supreme Court, since there are only so many genuine constitutional worries that even the most inventive lawyers can dream up. There were times in the 1800s when execution was usually carried out within a month, more or less, of the crime, usually murder. It probably deterred people a lot more then our current system. Health ninnies used to try to discourage smoking by telling kids that, if they smoke, they might die, maybe, decades from now. It didn't have much effect. They ended up changing tactics to describe smoking as making you stinky and uncool and unattractive to the opposite sex, which worked much better. As things stand, the deterrent effect of the DP amounts to "if you murder, you might die, decades from now". But they'd probably be better off telling people that if they murder, they'll get put in a place where their romantic life will take a sudden turn for the worse.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 7, 2017 16:25:34 GMT -6
Instead of simply stating what dp punishment might deter you the most you feel the need to give a lecture. I know a stupid question when I see one. Now you I really don't care if a convicted killer feels pain in a botched execution but I can say it would scare "me" a little anyway. I suppose. A better question is why we don't allowed the condemned to take their own lives. Well setting that aside I hope all is well with you anyway. Not bad, five years after my heart surgeries. I'm still kickin'. How about you?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 7, 2017 20:21:59 GMT -6
Hey Stormy,, hope all is well,
and to answer the question of this post this would be ideal
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 8, 2017 11:09:52 GMT -6
Very rare a murderer would take their own life which is the only life they protect. . josephdp.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 14, 2017 12:39:26 GMT -6
Instead of simply stating what dp punishment might deter you the most you feel the need to give a lecture. I know a stupid question when I see one. Well then don't answer it. Seems simple enough to me. I didn't even vote on the poll because they all would scare me especially if what they were using was ineffective. And calling it a stupid question is "your" opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 14, 2017 13:15:35 GMT -6
There were times in the 1800s when execution was usually carried out within a month, more or less, of the crime, usually murder. It probably deterred people a lot more then our current system. Health ninnies used to try to discourage smoking by telling kids that, if they smoke, they might die, maybe, decades from now. It didn't have much effect. They ended up changing tactics to describe smoking as making you stinky and uncool and unattractive to the opposite sex, which worked much better. As things stand, the deterrent effect of the DP amounts to "if you murder, you might die, decades from now". But they'd probably be better off telling people that if they murder, they'll get put in a place where their romantic life will take a sudden turn for the worse. There are many who take up smoking regardless so should we stop telling them when it doesn't deter everyone? And you don't "really" know why many young people don't take up smoking. Maybe the cost of cigarettes discourages them.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 14, 2017 13:24:37 GMT -6
A better question is why we don't allowed the condemned to take their own lives. If you are as smart as you try to make us believe here then you should "know" why. I'm sure it would start us down a slippery slope that would be hard to climb back up.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 14, 2017 13:34:37 GMT -6
Hey Stormy,, hope all is well, and to answer the question of this post this would be ideal It would be, but somehow with me I know it would still have the chance of being botched.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 14, 2017 20:29:29 GMT -6
Health ninnies used to try to discourage smoking by telling kids that, if they smoke, they might die, maybe, decades from now. It didn't have much effect. They ended up changing tactics to describe smoking as making you stinky and uncool and unattractive to the opposite sex, which worked much better. As things stand, the deterrent effect of the DP amounts to "if you murder, you might die, decades from now". But they'd probably be better off telling people that if they murder, they'll get put in a place where their romantic life will take a sudden turn for the worse. There are many who take up smoking regardless so should we stop telling them when it doesn't deter everyone? And you don't "really" know why many young people don't take up smoking. Maybe the cost of cigarettes discourages them. There is some statistical reason to think that the health threat wasn't much of a deterrent to young people, but it's true that I don't know for a fact. Still, I am surprised to see you come back at me so strongly when I was essentially backing up your point.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 14, 2017 21:30:16 GMT -6
There are many who take up smoking regardless so should we stop telling them when it doesn't deter everyone? And you don't "really" know why many young people don't take up smoking. Maybe the cost of cigarettes discourages them. There is some statistical reason to think that the health threat wasn't much of a deterrent to young people, but it's true that I don't know for a fact. Still, I am surprised to see you come back at me so strongly when I was essentially backing up your point. When people want live for the moment they tend not think about the consequences. Sorry if I seemed strong didn't realize you were backing my point.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 18, 2017 15:02:10 GMT -6
I'm sure it would start us down a slippery slope that would be hard to climb back up. To where would his purported "slippery slope" lead, exactly? The Romans would allow the condemned to fall on their swords to avoid beheading. I see nothing wrong with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2017 16:03:30 GMT -6
A better question is why we don't allowed the condemned to take their own lives. If you are as smart as you try to make us believe here then you should "know" why. I'm sure it would start us down a slippery slope that would be hard to climb back up. Hey, Stormy! I don't understand the slippery slope you're talking about. They want to die, we let them choose. Of course, I also don't understand why we revive Death Row inmates to kill them. Ugh. We are dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 21, 2017 9:55:11 GMT -6
I'm sure it would start us down a slippery slope that would be hard to climb back up. To where would his purported "slippery slope" lead, exactly? The Romans would allow the condemned to fall on their swords to avoid beheading. I see nothing wrong with that. Because then we would have to know whether or not they took their own lives or if someone took it for them. You know how I feel about people taking the law into their own hands. I expect those who work in a prison to abide by the law.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 21, 2017 9:57:25 GMT -6
If you are as smart as you try to make us believe here then you should "know" why. I'm sure it would start us down a slippery slope that would be hard to climb back up. Hey, Stormy! I don't understand the slippery slope you're talking about. They want to die, we let them choose. Of course, I also don't understand why we revive Death Row inmates to kill them. Ugh. We are dumb. Because then we would have to know whether they took their own lives or someone else decided to take their life. You know that I don't believe in people taking the into their own hands. It's very import that people who work in prison obey the law especially.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 21, 2017 12:07:38 GMT -6
Because then we would have to know whether or not they took their own lives or if someone took it for them. You know how I feel about people taking the law into their own hands. I expect those who work in a prison to abide by the law. It's the law that wants them dead. What difference does it make how they die, as long as it's done as soon as possible?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 21, 2017 12:39:17 GMT -6
Because then we would have to know whether or not they took their own lives or if someone took it for them. You know how I feel about people taking the law into their own hands. I expect those who work in a prison to abide by the law. It's the law that wants them dead. What difference does it make how they die, as long as it's done as soon as possible? Not so sure at times if the law really wants them dead considering all the appeals and how long it takes to run the appeals process. However, for whatever reason the prison believes it's best that they don't commit suicide and since they have to deal with the dead bodies (and I don't) I'll take their word for it. But if someone wants to commit suicide I think it's actually hard to stop them.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 20, 2018 13:01:17 GMT -6
this question isn't a whole lot different than stating "since red octagon stop signs don't always stop you, (slow, maybe) what color and shape would stop you?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 21, 2018 22:59:13 GMT -6
How would flooding the nine members of the SCOTUS with all the appeals from 15,000 cases or so per year "clear the system"? The backlog would be enormous. For a while. They would put off all other decisions until the backlog were cleared up, 15,000 homicides a year. But only 365 days in a year. So if they forego weekends and holidays and spend Christmas day in the courtroom, the supreme court would still have to process about 40 appeals a day just to keep pace with the new murders, let alone clear the backlog. That's about five every hour just to tread water, if they are to have an eight hour working day. This makes me suspect, not for the first time, that you don't think your big claims through. The only question you ask yourself is "does this make me sound tough on murder?" If the answer is 'yes' you start typing.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 22, 2018 13:41:11 GMT -6
15,000 homicides a year. But only 365 days in a year. So if they forego weekends and holidays and spend Christmas day in the courtroom, the supreme court would still have to process about 40 appeals a day just to keep pace with the new murders, let alone clear the backlog. Assuming they wouldn't outsource it to a separate court that only deals in death cases, which would have ultimate authority over their decisions. Better still to get rid of the Eighth Amendment altogether.
|
|