I admire you for actually listening through these arguments. I have little patience for the absurdity. And thank you for your clearly and well-written summation.
As for Oklahoma...an intelligence species should never embrace death as a punishment. Never.
My point would clearly by that under certain circumstances, forced death is not unintelligent. The act of destroying a human life to preserve the quality of human life is not an unintelligent position I do not think.
Yeah i like to re-characterize/re-frame because it leads to interesting outcomes. Sometimes thoughtful and sometimes stupid. It's all about the journey.
The southern republican states like to show the world how regressive they are.....but yet they themselves think it's a sign of strength to put people to death.
I used to support the death penalty until I learned about false confessions, racial injustices, corruption and the fact that 200 men on death row have been exonerated in the last 50 years. It only takes ONE time to accidentally put to death an innocent person to then say "ummmm... maybe we should stop doing this".
As to the update, the Hail Mary attempt this time looked weaker than some attempts, but they don't take strong cases either. They also refuse to explain themselves.
I think if SCOTUS is going to in effect give the final okay for taking a human life, they should provide at least a brief explanation. Or someone should. Likewise, as a basic rule, all justices should follow the policy of Kagan and Jackson to cite why they are not taking part. I am now aware of an opportunity for Sotomayor to do so recently & she has explained herself in the past (in the faithless electors' case).
The Oklahoma AG and Department of Corrections have been concerned about the pace of executions. The new policy was to separate each execution by sixty days. An attempt to make that to 90 days (corrections staff were overwhelmed) was rejected by the court required to grant the request. They were told to "suck it up." [ETA: Sorry. That was said during a recent hearing. Don't think there was a final decision.]
Right. The coverage was talking about a hearing and how the judge is likely to rule against it. Don't see a ruling. The AG's comments are a bit striking:
"“I do not want, as chief law officer, to oversee a failed execution. I am present with every execution. I look the defendant in the eye as he dies. I look the men and women that administer those lethal injections in the eye after they’ve administered it, and I have sympathy for the strain on them.”
Though they have an alternative in their protocol, all indications are that Oklahoma plans to use the same formula that produced the botched Clayton Lockett and John Grant executions—and the one at issue in Glossip v. Gross, which essentially declared the Eighth Amendment optional.
I admire you for actually listening through these arguments. I have little patience for the absurdity. And thank you for your clearly and well-written summation.
As for Oklahoma...an intelligence species should never embrace death as a punishment. Never.
Would an intelligent species embrace assisted suicide?
First of all, non sequitur.
But to respond.
Yes. When faced with a long, lingering and inevitable death, it is logical and sensible to maintain control over your end.
My point would clearly by that under certain circumstances, forced death is not unintelligent. The act of destroying a human life to preserve the quality of human life is not an unintelligent position I do not think.
The original comment had a limited argument regarding death as a punishment. This comment expands into a range of issues.
Yeah i like to re-characterize/re-frame because it leads to interesting outcomes. Sometimes thoughtful and sometimes stupid. It's all about the journey.
No, you like to troll and sea-lion.
The southern republican states like to show the world how regressive they are.....but yet they themselves think it's a sign of strength to put people to death.
I used to support the death penalty until I learned about false confessions, racial injustices, corruption and the fact that 200 men on death row have been exonerated in the last 50 years. It only takes ONE time to accidentally put to death an innocent person to then say "ummmm... maybe we should stop doing this".
As to the update, the Hail Mary attempt this time looked weaker than some attempts, but they don't take strong cases either. They also refuse to explain themselves.
I think if SCOTUS is going to in effect give the final okay for taking a human life, they should provide at least a brief explanation. Or someone should. Likewise, as a basic rule, all justices should follow the policy of Kagan and Jackson to cite why they are not taking part. I am now aware of an opportunity for Sotomayor to do so recently & she has explained herself in the past (in the faithless electors' case).
The Oklahoma AG and Department of Corrections have been concerned about the pace of executions. The new policy was to separate each execution by sixty days. An attempt to make that to 90 days (corrections staff were overwhelmed) was rejected by the court required to grant the request. They were told to "suck it up." [ETA: Sorry. That was said during a recent hearing. Don't think there was a final decision.]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/oklahoma-judge-tells-execution-staff-to-suck-it-up-after-trauma-break-request/ar-BB1kV4Xx
Have they gotten a ruling from the court on that request? (I had seen the "man up" comment from Lumpkin; I didn't see a ruling, though.)
Right. The coverage was talking about a hearing and how the judge is likely to rule against it. Don't see a ruling. The AG's comments are a bit striking:
"“I do not want, as chief law officer, to oversee a failed execution. I am present with every execution. I look the defendant in the eye as he dies. I look the men and women that administer those lethal injections in the eye after they’ve administered it, and I have sympathy for the strain on them.”
It's a multi-judge court, though, and none of the reporting says anything else. Sarat's piece is almost all based on this report, from what I can tell: https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/a-judge-says-suck-it-up-after-executions-put-strain-oklahoma-prison-staff/
Thanks. Yes. The article emphasized the one judge & that is what I was thinking when I wrote that, but you are correct.
Update:
https://www.okcfox.com/news/local/oklahoma-court-expands-execution-interval-to-90-days-denies-group-scheduling
Though they have an alternative in their protocol, all indications are that Oklahoma plans to use the same formula that produced the botched Clayton Lockett and John Grant executions—and the one at issue in Glossip v. Gross, which essentially declared the Eighth Amendment optional.