Never mind the likelihood that we’ll discover later that you were innocent all along…
Agreed as well, but barring an update to federal laws, the Supreme Court has to make decisions like this in the states that chooses to administer a death penalty.
Sounds like they probably made the most reasonable decision they could, based on that argument of the wording of the constitution. If a state decides to carry this out, even if you disagree, they can’t find a reason for the federal government to step in.
Not to say that I agree with the death penalty, but I can see at least some merit in their reasoning. All the more reason to update our laws to end the death penalty for good.
To me, the greatest problem with capital punishment is the way it is left to the discretion of particular prosecutors (the actual process varies from state to state). Similar crimes get or do not get capital punishment arbitrarily.
Sadly, that’s rarely the situation.
Yeah, i don’t have any problem limiting it’s use to such cases.
The standard to convict is already “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is indistinguishable from “100% certainty” to a reasonable person.
I think there’s a difference between that, and cases where we have like a ton of people who witnessed the crime, and film footage, etc.
Like that guy in NZ, as an example.
How do you limit capital punishment to those cases without acknowledging room for doubt in cases that lack a ton of witnesses?
I don’t know, I’m just saying that those are cases where i can’t see a downside.
Well, the downside is that if you allow capital punishment in convictions where there are a ton of witnesses, then you must allow it in convictions where there are few or no witnesses.
It doesn’t solve the 8th Amendment issues. This one, IMHO is actually more important (check the whole thread):
So they’re basically acknowledging to being more bloodthirsty than religious. Well, at least they’re owning it.
As an aside, I’m firmly against the death penalty. From my perspective, it just strikes me as morally repugnant for the state to kill anyone not posing an imminent threat to others. That said, I recognize this nation isn’t the Dictatorship of Dan, and there are perfectly cromulent arguments which support it—I just happen to disagree with them.
Looking at it from Texas’ point-of-view, it’s a pretty logical step to take. Having someone else in the execution chamber other than the prisoner and the executioners is just a recipe for trouble. The fact that an (apparently) increasing number of prisoners are using it as an avenue for legal challenges just increases the problems. Better to just get rid of it for everyone.
I’m betting they revert it in a month or two. They’ll cite “concerns” of the religious community or something.
The odds of getting another Buddhist soon is pretty low after all.
What about the chaos at the border though? So many Mexicans coming over, like a scene out of that Brad Pitt zombie movie. Since most of them are rapists or murderers it seems like they’ll be a huge surge in demand for Catholic priests in the execution chamber. How will their souls be sent on to the afterlife if the priest isn’t in the chamber to collect it?
Of course Thomas longs for a day when you could exclude black people from juries.
Because Clarence Thomas.
Isn’t his legal name Clarence Fucking Thomas now? It should be.
I think that in the long run, Gorsuch is going to be a decent justice. He seems to be more guided by limiting government power, rather than pure partisanship.
I don’t feel nearly as confident in Kavanaugh, but I think Gorsuch may turn out ok.
Goresuch is against government power and for corporate power, so it’s a mixed bag. The same philosophy he uses to strike down e.g. bad sentencing laws will push him to strike down e.g. government regulations or mandates that are generally good things. And he’s a safe vote to protect corporations from just about any constraint.