Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!" (Read 641 times)
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 95
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:07pm
Print Post  
As any real libertarian should know, we oppose the death penalty if for no other reason than that we know government cannot be trusted to be truthful with its citizens, much less determine which of its citizens should be turned into corpses.  But, at least when they have done that, they have thus far followed the constitution by looking for ways to make the executions as pain-free as possible. 

But no more need for that:

The highest criminal justice priority of the current Supreme Court majority is apparently to make the state’s machinery of death work as efficiently as possible — and if this means some major rights violations along the way, they seemed to say on Monday, so be it. That was made evident when a bare majority of the court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” does not forbid the state of Missouri from executing a prisoner in a way that would effectively torture him to death.

If that outcome seems perverse to you, you’re right. But the Roberts Court is committed to allowing states to execute people in any barbaric manner, no matter how difficult such executions are to square with the text of the Constitution.

The current issue is thus: The state of Missouri has had to adjust its lethal injection protocols because drug suppliers are increasingly unwilling — as is their prerogative — to participate in a practice that is considered contrary to basic principles of human rights by most democratic nations.

Missouri’s proposed solution to the lack of availability of its preferred execution drugs is a method of lethal injection would be particularly cruel to Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder and other crimes 22 years ago. As Justice Breyer described it in his dissent, Bucklew presented evidence that “executing him by lethal injection will cause the tumors that grow in his throat to rupture during his execution, causing him to sputter, choke and suffocate on his own blood for up to several minutes before he dies.”

Bucklew, then, was not arguing that the death penalty is categorically unconstitutional, or even that the method of lethal injection used by Missouri was always unconstitutional, but that the method applied in his particular case would be “cruel and unusual” because of his particular medical condition.

The majority opinion, written by Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch and joined by the other four Republican nominees, nonetheless dismissed Bucklew’s argument. According to Gorsuch, “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death — something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.” Inflicting even excruciating pain on a prisoner in the course of executing him, therefore, does not necessarily violate the Eighth Amendment in the view of the Roberts Court.


Notice that no one is disagreeing that the execution will consist of being tortured to death for Bucklew.  Nor is Bucklew arguing that he doesn't deserve to die for his crime.  He literally asked for the firing squad or the gas chamber.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7408
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #1 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:07pm:
As any real libertarian should know, we ...


Shocked Shocked Shocked

"we"?

Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

You're the libertarian (sic) who blames government for school shootings because government hasn't confiscated guns and you love government schools.  And that's your present incarnation, not the original which was Don the Socialist.

Actually, this is an issue that libertarians are split on.

I personally am against the death penalty.  The libertarians I know who support it think the trial should be jury of the criminals peers.  The death penalty if they are convicted should be determined by the family of the victim.

I agree that's way more fair than what we have.  But I just think it's prohibitively costly and ineffective and should not be used unless it is regularly used and therefore an actual consideration for criminals
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9430
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #2 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:34pm
Print Post  
I believe the condemned should have the liberty to choose the method of their own execution.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7408
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #3 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:36pm
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:07pm:
Notice that no one is disagreeing that the execution will consist of being tortured to death for Bucklew.  Nor is Bucklew arguing that he doesn't deserve to die for his crime.  He literally asked for the firing squad or the gas chamber. 


Huh?  So  you're going left on this one.  What are the odds after your going left on every other issue that this one would be left too?

As long as we have the death penalty, we should kill people the way they killed their victims
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7408
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #4 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:41pm
Print Post  

SkyChief wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:34pm:
I believe the condemned should have the liberty to choose the method of their own execution.


Three missionaries were captured by a native tribe.

The chief asked the first, do you want death or matumbo?  He didn't know what matumbo was, but he figured it was better than death whatever it was.  So he picked matumbo.  The natives took off his pants and had their way with him ...

The chief asked the second, do you want death or matumbo?  Well, matumbo looked terrible, but he didn't want to die.  So he picked matumbo.  The natives took off his pants and had their way with him ...

The chief asked the third, do you want death or matumbo?  He said I'm no queer, I'd rather die.  I pick death.  The chief said hmm, no one ever picked death before.  Then his eyes lit up and he said, I have it!  Death ... by matumbo!!!
« Last Edit: Apr 5th, 2019 at 8:04am by kaz »  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 95
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #5 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 6:39pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm:
I personally am against the death penalty.  The libertarians I know who support it think the trial should be jury of the criminals peers.


But, I'll bet they write, "jury of the criminal's peers," since most libertarians are pretty literate.

By "peers" do they mean like other criminals?  Most criminals are illiterate and a shocking number of them have intellectual and behavioral disabilities so I'm not sure what kind of jurors they'd be.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40998
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #6 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 7:04pm
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:07pm:
As any real libertarian should know, we oppose the death penalty if for no other reason than that we know government cannot be trusted to be truthful with its citizens, much less determine which of its citizens should be turned into corpses.  But, at least when they have done that, they have thus far followed the constitution by looking for ways to make the executions as pain-free as possible. 

But no more need for that:

The highest criminal justice priority of the current Supreme Court majority is apparently to make the state’s machinery of death work as efficiently as possible — and if this means some major rights violations along the way, they seemed to say on Monday, so be it. That was made evident when a bare majority of the court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” does not forbid the state of Missouri from executing a prisoner in a way that would effectively torture him to death.

If that outcome seems perverse to you, you’re right. But the Roberts Court is committed to allowing states to execute people in any barbaric manner, no matter how difficult such executions are to square with the text of the Constitution.

The current issue is thus: The state of Missouri has had to adjust its lethal injection protocols because drug suppliers are increasingly unwilling — as is their prerogative — to participate in a practice that is considered contrary to basic principles of human rights by most democratic nations.

Missouri’s proposed solution to the lack of availability of its preferred execution drugs is a method of lethal injection would be particularly cruel to Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder and other crimes 22 years ago. As Justice Breyer described it in his dissent, Bucklew presented evidence that “executing him by lethal injection will cause the tumors that grow in his throat to rupture during his execution, causing him to sputter, choke and suffocate on his own blood for up to several minutes before he dies.”

Bucklew, then, was not arguing that the death penalty is categorically unconstitutional, or even that the method of lethal injection used by Missouri was always unconstitutional, but that the method applied in his particular case would be “cruel and unusual” because of his particular medical condition.

The majority opinion, written by Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch and joined by the other four Republican nominees, nonetheless dismissed Bucklew’s argument. According to Gorsuch, “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death — something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.” Inflicting even excruciating pain on a prisoner in the course of executing him, therefore, does not necessarily violate the Eighth Amendment in the view of the Roberts Court.


Notice that no one is disagreeing that the execution will consist of being tortured to death for Bucklew.  Nor is Bucklew arguing that he doesn't deserve to die for his crime.  He literally asked for the firing squad or the gas chamber. 
Who cares? Has anybody with his particular condition ever been injected with the chemicals they are going to use?

Where does the odd notion that anything but a completely painless death is cruel and unusual? What nonsense.

Did he make sure the person he murdered had a completely pain free death?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7408
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #7 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 7:20pm
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 6:39pm:
But, I'll bet they write, "jury of the criminal's peers," since most libertarians are pretty literate.

By "peers" do they mean like other criminals?  Most criminals are illiterate and a shocking number of them have intellectual and behavioral disabilities so I'm not sure what kind of jurors they'd be.




  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9282
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #8 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 9:08pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
Did he make sure the person he murdered had a completely pain free death?


Explain why this matters.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9430
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #9 - Apr 4th, 2019 at 10:31pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 4th, 2019 at 5:41pm:
Death ... by matumbo!!!

Ermmm.  matumbo sounds painful.  And of course, there's the stigma of being violated.

I'll pick the guillotine when y'all decide it's time for me to go.

Smiley

I'm told it painless...



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy