Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop [list]A Georgia man is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Tuesday for killing a police officer in 1989, even though the case against him has withered in recent years as most of the key witnesses at his trial have recanted and in some cases said they lied under pressure from police.

That said, I guess we could have a worse system:

The imminent execution of a teenage maid in Saudi Arabia drew fierce criticism yesterday and provoked condemnation of the kingdom’s prolific use of capital punishment [102 this year alone]

The case has brought fresh attention to the draconian Saudi criminal justice system which is expected this year to set a new record in its use of the death sentence.

Human rights campaigners yesterday urged the authorities not to behead a 19-year-old Sri Lankan maid found guilty of killing a baby in her care. According to the Saudi authorities, Rizana Nafeek admitted strangling the four-month-old boy while feeding him with a bottle.

But Nafeek, whose job was not meant to include child care, has denied making any such admission. She claims the child had begun to choke before losing consciousness in spite of her desperate efforts to clear his airway.

Tonight is the deadline for appeals in the case. Unless the Saudi authorities change the sentence or the parents of the victim offer clemency, Nafeek will have her head cut off by an executioner wielding a sword in front of a crowd of onlookers.

from the Telegraph

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• A Georgia man is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Tuesday for killing a police officer in 1989, even though the case against him has withered in recent years as most of the key witnesses at his trial have recanted and in some cases said they lied under pressure from police.

I have never understood why states that seek to impose the death penalty also seem to insist on its imposition with particular fervor where the convicted has plausible claims of innocence or of substantial procedural error.

Why do these states not instead focus their resources on the cases in which guilt is clear and the trial was fair? Surely there are a few of those as well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have never understood why states that seek to impose the death penalty also seem to insist on its imposition with particular fervor where the convicted has plausible claims of innocence or of substantial procedural error.

2

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have never understood why states that seek to impose the death penalty also seem to insist on its imposition with particular fervor where the convicted has plausible claims of innocence or of substantial procedural error.

Why do these states not instead focus their resources on the cases in which guilt is clear and the trial was fair? Surely there are a few of those as well.

I think it's because, like other polarizing issues (abortion, the environment, etc.), the issue become quasi religious in nature and must be pursued with like vigor.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it's because, like other polarizing issues (abortion, the environment, etc.), the issue become quasi religious in nature and must be pursued with like vigor.

If so, doesn't that make it even more troubling? I understand the pursuit of the availability of the death penalty on such terms--it is important to our system of justice to have the possibility of the ultimate penalty--but why in the individual case? It almost violates the oath of office to become so personally attached to a matter that one cannot pursue justice dispassionately.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• President Bush got a lesson from a group of recent high school graduates. They were Presidential Scholars, a program designed "to recognize and provide leadership development experiences for some of America's most outstanding graduating high-school seniors."
  
  The 141 Presidential Scholars were being honored at the White House. One of them, Mari Oye, from Wellesley, Mass., describes what happened: "The president walked in and gave us a short speech saying that as we went on into our careers, it was important to treat others as we would like to be treated. And he told us that we would have to make choices we would be able to live with for the rest of our lives. And so, I said to the president, 'Several of us made a choice, and we would like you to have this,' and handed him the letter." It was a letter Mari had handwritten. It read:
  
  "As members of the Presidential Scholars class of 2007, we have been told that we represent the best and brightest of our nation. Therefore, we believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions. We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants."
  
  The letter was signed by close to 50 of the students, more than a third of the Presidential Scholars.
  
  Mari described Bush's reaction to the letter: "He read down the letter. He got to the part about torture. He looked up, and he said, 'America doesn't torture people.' And I said, 'If you look specifically at what we said, we said, we ask you to cease illegal renditions. Please remove your signing statement to the McCain anti-torture bill.'
  
  "At that point, he just said, 'America doesn't torture people' again."

link

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If so, doesn't that make it even more troubling? I understand the pursuit of the availability of the death penalty on such terms--it is important to our system of justice to have the possibility of the ultimate penalty--but why in the individual case? It almost violates the oath of office to become so personally attached to a matter that one cannot pursue justice dispassionately.

I think it's a combo of local prosecutors not wanting to look like they're soft on crime and pressure from so called "Victim's Rights" organizations that put pressure them to not give an inch to anyone who has ever been convicted, even if that conviction is wrong and/or the victim's family isn't on board with the prosecution.

There was an interesting article on one of those organizations in the Houston Press a few years ago.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• President Bush got a lesson from a group of recent high school graduates. They were Presidential Scholars, a program designed "to recognize and provide leadership development experiences for some of America's most outstanding graduating high-school seniors."
  
  The 141 Presidential Scholars were being honored at the White House. One of them, Mari Oye, from Wellesley, Mass., describes what happened: "The president walked in and gave us a short speech saying that as we went on into our careers, it was important to treat others as we would like to be treated. And he told us that we would have to make choices we would be able to live with for the rest of our lives. And so, I said to the president, 'Several of us made a choice, and we would like you to have this,' and handed him the letter." It was a letter Mari had handwritten. It read:
  
  "As members of the Presidential Scholars class of 2007, we have been told that we represent the best and brightest of our nation. Therefore, we believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions. We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants."
  
  The letter was signed by close to 50 of the students, more than a third of the Presidential Scholars.
  
  Mari described Bush's reaction to the letter: "He read down the letter. He got to the part about torture. He looked up, and he said, 'America doesn't torture people.' And I said, 'If you look specifically at what we said, we said, we ask you to cease illegal renditions. Please remove your signing statement to the McCain anti-torture bill.'
  
  "At that point, he just said, 'America doesn't torture people' again."

link

Geo-political states don't torture people, people torture people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have never understood why states that seek to impose the death penalty also seem to insist on its imposition with particular fervor where the convicted has plausible claims of innocence or of substantial procedural error.

Why do these states not instead focus their resources on the cases in which guilt is clear and the trial was fair? Surely there are a few of those as well.

This is the same fucking state whose Atty General just appealed a conservative state judge's overthrowing a 10 year sentence against a kid for getting a blow job from his underage girlfriend. The appeal was based on the grounds that, although the judge said the sentence was despicable and the law had since been changed to avoid such a travesty again, the fact remains that the law was the law at the time, and the changes to it are not retroactive.

Stated otherwise, "Keep that nigger in a cell. I don't want no uppity fuckin' Northeners filing papers and writing in the New York Times about what we can and can't do here in Georgia."

Sorry to be coarse. I can't say it more plainly. I hope that prosecutor gets a slow case of stomach cancer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it's a combo of local prosecutors not wanting to look like they're soft on crime and pressure from so called "Victim's Rights" organizations that put pressure them to not give an inch to anyone who has ever been convicted, even if that conviction is wrong and/or the victim's family isn't on board with the prosecution.

There was an interesting article on one of those organizations in the Houston Press a few years ago.

I say let those assholes watch the execution. The best thing we can do with capital punishment is put it on television. Let all the assholes with the kill-em-all-let-god-sort-em-out swagger see a guy piss his pants and heave agonal breaths in front of them.

See how long it lasts then.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it's a combo of local prosecutors not wanting to look like they're soft on crime and pressure from so called "Victim's Rights" organizations that put pressure them to not give an inch to anyone who has ever been convicted, even if that conviction is wrong and/or the victim's family isn't on board with the prosecution.

It's so short cited. The legitimacy of the death penalty depends entirely on the proposition that innocent people are never executed. If they are, it becomes basically indefensible--the only way to allow it is to assure everyone that any person executed is certainly guilty of the crime.

I suppose it's a collective action problem. An individual prosecutor doesn't really care about the overall legitimacy of the system. On the other hand, by the time it's in the Supreme Court (state or fed.), it's the state AG handling it, and they should have a systematic view.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Geo-political states don't torture people, people torture people.

Maybe Bush held up his fingers and said, we don't "torture" people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it's because, like other polarizing issues (abortion, the environment, etc.), the issue become quasi religious in nature and must be pursued with like vigor.

Vigor's the wrong word. "Ignorance" is better. Of all the things that infuriate me most about this Neocon 70s Democrat we've elected, its his co-opting Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink." I hate academic overthinking like I hate eggplant and cheap tequila, but The Age of Certainty we've come to, characterized by the "Vigor" you cite, is an age of idiocy. In so many ways we're striding ahead, and then you read this shit and recall, "Oh, yeh. A lot of us are still devolving, and plumbing new depths toward the neanderthal."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's so short cited. The legitimacy of the death penalty depends entirely on the proposition that innocent people are never executed. If they are, it becomes basically indefensible--the only way to allow it is to assure everyone that any person executed is certainly guilty of the crime.

Nothing that is man made is perfect, by definition. That is known and understood and never argued. Philosophically, we pay lip service to your standard, but in practice, though no one ever says it, we know we've killed innocents. Some are proven. There's a margin of error. The zealots don't care. "They're all guilty a sumpin."

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop

• President Bush got a lesson from a group of recent high school graduates. They were Presidential Scholars, a program designed "to recognize and provide leadership development experiences for some of America's most outstanding graduating high-school seniors."
  
  The 141 Presidential Scholars were being honored at the White House. One of them, Mari Oye, from Wellesley, Mass., describes what happened: "The president walked in and gave us a short speech saying that as we went on into our careers, it was important to treat others as we would like to be treated. And he told us that we would have to make choices we would be able to live with for the rest of our lives. And so, I said to the president, 'Several of us made a choice, and we would like you to have this,' and handed him the letter." It was a letter Mari had handwritten. It read:
  
  "As members of the Presidential Scholars class of 2007, we have been told that we represent the best and brightest of our nation. Therefore, we believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions. We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants."
  
  The letter was signed by close to 50 of the students, more than a third of the Presidential Scholars.
  
  Mari described Bush's reaction to the letter: "He read down the letter. He got to the part about torture. He looked up, and he said, 'America doesn't torture people.' And I said, 'If you look specifically at what we said, we said, we ask you to cease illegal renditions. Please remove your signing statement to the McCain anti-torture bill.'
  
  "At that point, he just said, 'America doesn't torture people' again."

link

How utterly "clever" of them.

Meanwhile, had she tried that photo-op "gotcha" with the president of - well, say any country that actually does engage in torture - these kids probably would have been immediately shot in the head. Try that with Putin, for instance.