U.S. Supreme Court blocks execution in Mississippi

[Kitty]

Breaking news on MSNBC...

[Kitty]

HA Update (http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071030/NEWS01/71030025)

[wilebill]

Berry asked for a delay at least until the court issues its decision in the Kentucky case. He claims the mixture of deadly chemicals Mississippi uses will cause unnecessary pain, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.Here's the thing that I don't understand about the Supremes ruling on "cruel and unusual punishment":

The Supremes are supposed to interpret the constitution, and rule as to whether things are constitutional or not. But 230 years ago or so when the constitution was written, as far as I know (and I haven't researched this), there was capital punishment. And again, as far as I know, it didn't disappear right after the constitution was written. I'm pretty sure the capital punishment of choice was hanging, and it was that way for quite awhile.

So, if the above assumptions are true (and I'm willing to start a poll to see), then apparently the very guys who wrote the constitution didn't think hanging somebody was cruel and unusual punishment. Seems like a slam dunk to me. What else do the Supremes need to know? Injecting somebody with drugs can't possibly be more painful than hanging, at least I haven't heard anybody complain about it.

[kevin]

This is absolute BULLCHIP!!!!!

[CircusRide]

Bunch of pu$$ie$! Our supreme court is the single greatest problem with our country today.

[CircusRide]

Wonder was it cruel and ususual punishment for the innocent person he killed? He took the life of an innocent person. He should be killed in the same manner with which he killed that person. An eye for an eye.

[Guru]

I'm sure the Supreme Court never calls up families of victims and says "Gosh, it's just so rough on the murderer / rapist / *your pick, that we don't want to continue with this kind of punishment. Heck, somebody could get hurt."

[Maggie-Doodle]

Wonder was it cruel and ususual punishment for the innocent person he killed? He took the life of an innocent person. He sound be killed in the same manner with which he killed that person. An eye for an eye.

That is a crock of shit! CircusRide I am with you...he apparently didn't think it was cruel and unusual the way he killed the poor old lady...he even admitted he did it...I would like to give him my interpertation of cruel and unusual...he would think the needle was a charm! :smt023

[bpitt]

It's all crap, kinda like reducing bail on child predators.........that's all I'm saying.......

[mi_nombre_es]

Curel and unusually punishment is pulling each of his toe/finger nails off, cutting off each limb joint by joint while rubbing salt into the wounds and occassionally pouring alcohol into the wound. Do this while make him read the HA forum. That's too curel for me, I can't wish that on my worst emeny!!


Either kill the man or put him to good use; I.E.: Chain gang duty for life, or give him a sachtel of ammo and a BB gun and drop him into the middle of taliban terrority and tell him, if he can find his way back to the Dunkin Donuts in Altanta, GA. He can have his freedom. And when he gets there, give him the injection anyways. Damn, there I go being curel and usually again....sigh sry

[fuzzis]

I was of the opinion that our justice system was about justice. Not revenge.

Given systemic problems with the way that the death penalty is applied (that American Bar Association (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2949283620071029) just issued a report calling for a nationwide moratorium on executions given their 3 year study finding wide-ranging problems in the 8 states that they studied), I increasingly believe the state has no business being in the business of killing people. Whether the people need to be killed or not.

[threekidspa]

Here's the thing that I don't understand about the Supremes ruling on "cruel and unusual punishment":

The Supremes are supposed to interpret the constitution, and rule as to whether things are constitutional or not. But 230 years ago or so when the constitution was written, as far as I know (and I haven't researched this), there was capital punishment. And again, as far as I know, it didn't disappear right after the constitution was written. I'm pretty sure the capital punishment of choice was hanging, and it was that way for quite awhile.

So, if the above assumptions are true (and I'm willing to start a poll to see), then apparently the very guys who wrote the constitution didn't think hanging somebody was cruel and unusual punishment. Seems like a slam dunk to me. What else do the Supremes need to know? Injecting somebody with drugs can't possibly be more painful than hanging, at least I haven't heard anybody complain about it.

WB,

I am totally with you on this, but it seems that at some point, the supreme court decided it could reinterpret the constitution as it saw fit, back when it was politically correct to do such things, thinking the founding fathers could not possibly have forseen the mess we'd make of things, so that while they debated long, agreed, penned and finally signed one document, they clearly never meant for us to take the thing literally, I guess. But no longer! Any attempt to re-reinterpret a past court's reinterpretation is called legislating from the bench, and shame on you judges for thinking you should do such a thing! (said with all the sarcasm I can muster)

OK, I pushed the edge of the topic just a bit....

[CircusRide]

Yeah Fuz, lets just pay for them a place to live and support them with our tax money. Nevermind the guy came out and stated he had no regrets for killing the lady. He admitted to the crime. There's no doubt in this case at all.
There's no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment for a murderer.

[mi_nombre_es]

I was of the opinion that our justice system was about justice. Not revenge.

Given systemic problems with the way that the death penalty is applied (that American Bar Association (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2949283620071029) just issued a report calling for a nationwide moratorium on executions given their 3 year study finding wide-ranging problems in the 8 states that they studied), I increasingly believe the state has no business being in the business of killing people. Whether the people need to be killed or not.


So we can form mass mobs of people who are not related to any state office or any government offical of the state, and rush the convicted murder and tear him limb from limb?!?! Probably not, but hey, what else we gonna do with him. If the state has no business killing people, they can't sentence him to life in prison without parole because that would be delaying his death but at the same time killing him because he wouldn't ever leave that place.

[virgo]

Wonder was it cruel and ususual punishment for the innocent person he killed? He took the life of an innocent person. He should be killed in the same manner with which he killed that person. An eye for an eye.

I couldn't agree more. I understand blocking an execution if there is evidence that the person did not commit the crime, but because lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment?!? Give me a freaking break. Lethal injection is no where near as cruel and unusual than what he did to his victim. It's really too bad Mississippi doesn't have the electric chair anymore.

If the death penalty is not going to be allowed/administered, than it should not be an option. Period.

[fuzzis]

Yeah Fuz, lets just pay for them a place to live and support them with our tax money. Nevermind the guy came out and stated he had no regrets for killing the lady. He admitted to the crime. There's no doubt in this case at all.
There's no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment for a murderer.

Like I said...there are systemic problems with the way the death penalty is applied. Unless and until we can resolve those problems, then the state has no business killing people...regardless of whether the person needs to be killed or not.

Our justice system should remain dispassionate...that's what separates it from vigilantism. It allows us the opportunity to step back, else why have it?

[CircusRide]

Give me one...ONE problem with the system that should prevent a murderer, who has ADMITTED killing an old lady, from being executed.
There's not one single issue with the system in such a case.
If they're going to keep these people in prison for life, then I should be entitled to a tax refund so I don't have to pay for the bullshit.
By the way, our way of execution is considerably less painful than the methods used by most other countries.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

Let us reserve final judgment for the good Lord above.

[mi_nombre_es]

Let us reserve final judgment for the good Lord above.


We are! we just don't want him to wait for the good lord to take him. We are just trying to "help" him find out what the judgement is!

[threekidspa]

Give me one...ONE problem with the system that should prevent a murderer, who has ADMITTED killing an old lady, from being executed.
There's not one single issue with the system in such a case.
If they're going to keep these people in prison for life, then I should be entitled to a tax refund so I don't have to pay for the bullshit.
By the way, our way of execution is considerably less painful than the methods used by most other countries.

I agree. This isn't a case where someone's been wrongly convicted, and there might be some DNA evidence out there that could exonerate (sp?) him. This is a guy who says he did it, isn't sad that he did it, and who's only complaint is our method of execution MIGHT hurt too much! This is so much crap. Hopefully they'll come to their senses soon, so, as they said on the news last night, "the stay of execution will expire, and so will he."

[BlueDogDemocrat]

We are! we just don't want him to wait for the good lord to take him. We are just trying to "help" him find out what the judgement is!

I'm comfortable with the Good Lords judgement on when that time should come.

[mi_nombre_es]

I'm comfortable with the Good Lords judgement on when that time should come.

i'm comfortable to but the good lord wants us to obey the laws of the land to. Killing is a violation of common law and commandment. Don't think the good lord will neg rep us to bad for giving him a helping hand in his busy schedule.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

i'm comfortable to but the good lord wants us to obey the laws of the land to. Killing is a violation of common law and commandment. Don't think the good lord will neg rep us to bad for giving him a helping hand in his busy schedule.

So we kill to show killing is wrong?

Killing is wrong. That is why he is incarcerated, so he cannot do it again. Let the Lord take it from there.

[fuzzis]

Give me one...ONE problem with the system that should prevent a murderer, who has ADMITTED killing an old lady, from being executed.
There's not one single issue with the system in such a case.
If they're going to keep these people in prison for life, then I should be entitled to a tax refund so I don't have to pay for the bullshit.
By the way, our way of execution is considerably less painful than the methods used by most other countries.

Our courts address bigger issues. We have set ourselves up to follow certain principles. One of them is that when we execute people, we do so as humanely as possible. If lethal injection isn't that method (and there are questions about it), then we need to figure out another way.

Statistically speaking, it is cheaper to keep a criminal in prison for life than it is to execute him/her...so perhaps you should ask for a tax refund for *that* bullshit.

Justice/vengeance. What are we for, what are we about? We say that we're about JUSTICE. If it's revenge you want, then the courts aren't the place for it...put a bullet through his head before he gets that far.

As for other countries...a great many of them do not execute criminals. If we want to hold ourselves up to the likes of China, Yemen, Iran, and Pakistan...we set the bar rather low.

[threekidspa]

We're not allowed to use the Bible (or any other Religion) to show why its wrong for the gov't to use the death penalty....sparation of church and state, remember?

[mi_nombre_es]

Our courts address bigger issues. We have set ourselves up to follow certain principles. One of them is that when we execute people, we do so as humanely as possible. If lethal injection isn't that method (and there are questions about it), then we need to figure out another way.

Statistically speaking, it is cheaper to keep a criminal in prison for life than it is to execute him/her...so perhaps you should ask for a tax refund for *that* bullshit.

Justice/vengeance. What are we for, what are we about? We say that we're about JUSTICE. If it's revenge you want, then the courts aren't the place for it...put a bullet through his head before he gets that far.

As for other countries...a great many of them do not execute criminals. If we want to hold ourselves up to the likes of China, Yemen, Iran, and Pakistan...we set the bar rather low.


Please provide proof that it costs more to execute than to put them in Prison! Truth is, it probably doesn't. If it is that bad, just re-insitute firing squads. It's quick, somewhat painless and cheap to (espically if you buy the bullets in bulk).

Also, please define your term of justice. Vengance is when someone is personally affected by the crime or injustice and they take actions into their own hands. Killing a murder is pure justice. Much like locking away a robber, rapist or anyone else who breaks the law. Next your gonna tell me that it is Vengance to want someone who rapes an invidiual locked away for so many years. Please explain the difference between Justice and Vengance (sry can't spell)

[mi_nombre_es]

So we kill to show killing is wrong?

Killing is wrong. That is why he is incarcerated, so he cannot do it again. Let the Lord take it from there.


Letting Taxpayers foot the bill for a convicted, self-confessing murder is wrong to. Don't most of us earn an honest living but we are required to foot the 3 squares a meal, and entertainment bill for someone like him. Sorry but some people/families can't even afford to get their 3 squares a day, and have more to worry about than entertainment. We need more harsh punishment, bring back hard labor or chain gangs to improve our communities.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

I think the studies vary on what is the most economic option.

Besides, the right thing to do isn't always the cheapest option.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

Letting Taxpayers foot the bill for a convicted, self-confessing murder is wrong to. Don't most of us earn an honest living but we are required to foot the 3 squares a meal, and entertainment bill for someone like him. Sorry but some people/families can't even afford to get their 3 squares a day, and have more to worry about than entertainment. We need more harsh punishment, bring back hard labor or chain gangs to improve our communities.

I'm not defending the current penal system. Prison should be punishment, including hard labour and the bare basics-- I'm all for that. That my friend, would deter crime, unlike capital punishment.

[fuzzis]

Please provide proof that it costs more to execute than to put them in Prison! Truth is, it probably doesn't. If it is that bad, just re-insitute firing squads. It's quick, somewhat painless and cheap to (espically if you buy the bullets in bulk).

Also, please define your term of justice. Vengance is when someone is personally affected by the crime or injustice and they take actions into their own hands. Killing a murder is pure justice. Much like locking away a robber, rapist or anyone else who breaks the law. Next your gonna tell me that it is Vengance to want someone who rapes an invidiual locked away for so many years. Please explain the difference between Justice and Vengance (sry can't spell)

Statistics on the cost of the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108)...most of which is incurred at the trial level. Death penalty cases cost more to prosecute and defend.

Justice is about about the administration of our laws. A payment for a wrong done. Vengeance is about retribution, an injury for an injury and it doesn't have to be done by a person directly affected (that is revenge). What is being written here, that murderers should be executed as painfully as possible, the idea of an eye-for-an-eye...all of that bloodlust...is about vengeance. It's not about just seeking to right a wrong. It's about being as vicious and depraved as those who committed the crime...which falls so far outside the realm of justice as to be ludicrous.

Please don't make assumptions about what I believe, which is what you do with the "next you're going to tell me" bit. I don't have a problem with locking people up for their rest of their lives. I think child molesters should spend the rest of their lives in prison for a first offense.

[Honey]

I think the death penalty use to deter crime but now since all this politcal correctness comes in to play it is not viewed as it once was. I remember when young that the death penalty was the ultimate 'punishment' to make people stop and think before they did something bad, but now it is viewed as well I can do this wrong thing and 'chances' are not get punished for it. The odds are now in the criminals' favor.

[Remington]

Like I said...there are systemic problems with the way the death penalty is applied.

I think the main problem with the death penalty is that it isn't painful enough.

[fuzzis]

I think the death penalty use to deter crime but now since all this politcal correctness comes in to play it is not viewed as it once was. I remember when young that the death penalty was the ultimate 'punishment' to make people stop and think before they did something bad, but now it is viewed as well I can do this wrong thing and 'chances' are not get punished for it. The odds are now in the criminals' favor.

Has the death penalty ever really been a deterrent, though? That gets tossed around like a justification for it, but there's always been some form of death penalty, hasn't there? Even if it's just the community is going to handle the problem.

If people are sick enough to plan a murder, are they going to stop and think...hey...if I get caught, I'm going to be dead?

Or if people are in the heat of the moment, are they going to stop and think...hey...if I get caught, I'm going to be dead?

Rational people might stop and think about things like that, but are the people who most need to, going to? There are a couple of illegal activities that I enjoy, but don't engage in because I don't want to pay the price of getting caught. I'm not in the majority there, though.

How do you measure the deterrent effect of something like that?

[Remington]

I think there is a 100% deterrent when you consider that those who have been executed never seem to commit any more crimes. When you really think about it, the death penalty is only applied and actually followed through on rare occasions. How many executions have there been in the last few years, but how many rapes, murders, etc. have there been? The majority of criminals probably don't think of the possibility of receiving the death penalty.

But what if the death penalty was applied quickly, routinely and much more common? It would probably be on the conscience of criminals a whole lot more. Also, the benefit to us would be that we would be steadily reducing the number of living hardened criminals and saving tax dollars in keeping them in prison for life. It would also free up prison space. Too many are let out due to overcrowding.

[Honey]

It was enough to scare me into not doing wrong. Surely I can't be the only one.

[threekidspa]

Has the death penalty ever really been a deterrent, though? That gets tossed around like a justification for it, but there's always been some form of death penalty, hasn't there? Even if it's just the community is going to handle the problem.

If people are sick enough to plan a murder, are they going to stop and think...hey...if I get caught, I'm going to be dead?

Or if people are in the heat of the moment, are they going to stop and think...hey...if I get caught, I'm going to be dead?

Rational people might stop and think about things like that, but are the people who most need to, going to? There are a couple of illegal activities that I enjoy, but don't engage in because I don't want to pay the price of getting caught. I'm not in the majority there, though.

How do you measure the deterrent effect of something like that?
Its a little more than that I think. They're still alive. They get to wake up every day, and think, walk, talk, breathe, etc., however meager that existence might be, and they have hope that there is the chance that some day some sympathetic court will find a way for them to be free. None of those things are available to the victim of their crime.

[fuzzis]

Its a little more than that I think. They're still alive. They get to wake up every day, and think, walk, talk, breathe, etc., however meager that existence might be, and they have hope that there is the chance that some day some sympathetic court will find a way for them to be free. None of those things are available to the victim of their crime.

I'm OK with a meager existence for them for the rest of their lives. I want them to know for the rest of their lives, they dance to someone else's tune. Someone else calls the shots for them. They don't get to make a decision on their own ever again.

I think we need some serious prison reform (including more rehabilitative efforts for those who are going to be coming back to "polite" society...so they don't wind up back in prison), but that's another topic.

[Hob684]

i think we need to plant guys in the prisons to shank those that do crap like this and then cry and moan that the needle prick is "cruel and unusual".

Cruel and unusual is Bubba comin at you with a glint in his eye and callin you Susie.

[CircusRide]

Let us reserve final judgment for the good Lord above.

They get that whether they're executed or not.

[CircusRide]

Our courts address bigger issues. We have set ourselves up to follow certain principles. One of them is that when we execute people, we do so as humanely as possible. If lethal injection isn't that method (and there are questions about it), then we need to figure out another way.

Statistically speaking, it is cheaper to keep a criminal in prison for life than it is to execute him/her...so perhaps you should ask for a tax refund for *that* bullshit.

Justice/vengeance. What are we for, what are we about? We say that we're about JUSTICE. If it's revenge you want, then the courts aren't the place for it...put a bullet through his head before he gets that far.

As for other countries...a great many of them do not execute criminals. If we want to hold ourselves up to the likes of China, Yemen, Iran, and Pakistan...we set the bar rather low.

Prove to me that someone who is in prison for 50+ years is cheaper than someone who is executed. Other than the appeals process, which is probably double (There should also be a limit on appeals to say 1).
You people fail to understand the victims side of it. Justice would be death regardless of pain. He didn't ask her how she wanted to die. That's not revenge. Revenge would be the lady's kids cutting off his nuts and hanging him from a tree. Justice is when he is convicted and he's sentenced to death by a court of law and they actually follow through with it instead of letting a pitiful human being claim it'll hurt.

[CircusRide]

I'm OK with a meager existence for them for the rest of their lives. I want them to know for the rest of their lives, they dance to someone else's tune. Someone else calls the shots for them. They don't get to make a decision on their own ever again.

I think we need some serious prison reform (including more rehabilitative efforts for those who are going to be coming back to "polite" society...so they don't wind up back in prison), but that's another topic.

Prison isn't going to deter anyone. For a good portion of these criminals, prison is better than where they're living.

[fuzzis]

Prison isn't going to deter anyone. For a good portion of these criminals, prison is better than where they're living.

Perhaps you missed the part about "serious prison reform".

[wilebill]

The Supremes are only supposed to be looking at whether the method of execution is cruel and unusual. That's supposed to be the only issue here.

If they look at it using the same logic I did in my earlier post, there shouldn't be any doubt of the outcome.

[CircusRide]

Perhaps you missed the part about "serious prison reform".

Then they would again sue claiming cruel and unusual punishment because the living conditions are too harsh. What would we do with them then? Set them free?
We have a Mickey Mouse supreme court. They're more like the ACLU than a supreme court.

[SueScribe]

So, we have "The United States Supreme Court Is Filled With Pu**ies!" thread?

Well. There you have it, then.

Dubya's one and only surviving presidential legacy is extinguished:

The two nominees he sent (one in the person of Mr. Chief Justice) to The High Court, the conservative judicial knights from the Righteous Right who would jerk a knot in the liberal Court's a**, have . . :ohnoes: . . turned liberal.

Bill-O ?? Rush Baby?? :ohnoes: What's next?? No more water-boarding ??

[Remington]

We just need to replace Bryer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy with some young hard core conservatives that will be on that court for at least 40 years.

[SueScribe]

I'm certain that President Clinton will take that suggestion under advisement.

[RGDoherty]

Maybe this is too simplistic in the way my motivational poster displayed but.......

Guillotines are painless.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

They should have to work so hard in prison it would make them wish they were dead.

[jkspatty]

[quote=BlueDogDemocrat;372832]They should have to work so hard in prison it would make them wish they were dead.[/qu

Yes Sir! Chain gangs need to make a comeback! Criminals sitting around "chillin' is a pil of BS!

[CircusRide]

They should have to work so hard in prison it would make them wish they were dead.

Again, cruel and unusual punishment would be claimed by the inmates and our sad excuse for a court system would make life easier on them.
By decreasing the severity of punishment, you're inturn opening up an avenue for which there's no "u-turn". At what point will the punishment not be too harsh?

[Baloo]

Cruel and unusual???? How can letting someone fall asleep to pass away be cruel and unusual???? I would think that it would be the easiest and most peaceful way to die... Although, IMHO, I think that all people on death row should be put to death the same way that they mercilessly and violently killed their innocent victims!!!! Tell me how cruel and unusual it was to the poor lady that he beat to death, leaving his shoe print in her mangled face!!!! The sorry piece of garbage deserved to die years ago!!!!! Last meal...??? Last rites???? Last words??? I don't think so!!!! Their vicitims certainly didn't enjoy those privelages!!! I cannot believe that he was granted a stay of execution and that he gets more court time!!! There is one judge that he cannot sway, however!!!! The Lord will see to it that justice is served and that his eternal punishment will be a sentence that his carried out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Remington]

Guillotines are painless.

I think you are right about that! I have never heard of a documented case of anyone complaining about the guillotine hurting too bad.

I think they should bring back "Ol' Sparky", but without a wet sponge.

[mi_nombre_es]

So you say that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. Please allow me to demolish this.




At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 inadditional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.
On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.
Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defense costs.
So we're looking at around, 750-820K per person who is tried and convicted of a capital crime where Death Pentaly is factored in. Can't get in the cost of the actual execution it's self but That can be pretty cheap, depending on method. Let's look at some fun stats if they were held in prison for life without parole!


*Operating costs averaged $22,650
per inmate in fiscal year 2001 (Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf)

*The average life Expectancy of a US citizen is 77.8 years in 2004 (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm)

* The average age someone committs a murder: 39 years old ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spmurex.pdf)

So theorically, that could leave someone in Jail for 38.8 years before they die.

* Assuming we use 2001 dollars and do not take into account other factors (such as the average 2.7% inflation per year), The cost to just HOUSE the prison and provide for him in a 38.8 year period is: $878,820!

Now if we go for the inflation: If someone was put away for 39 years (38.8 rounded), in 2001 and died in 2040, the cost of their imprisonment with inflation factored in is: $2,602,200!!!


These figures are WITHOUT factoring in the cost of transportation to prison, court cost. These figures are simply just cost to imprison!

The only positive out of putting people in prison for life is a cheaper source of labor. Let's assume that we put them to work 40 hours a week. at $7/hour with a 30% tax reduction and they keep 10 cents of every dollar for cigs. In a year's time that would be only $9173 (rounded) per year put back to help cover the cost of imprisonment.

But another problem is if prisons become overcrowded and other offenders are released early due to over population, If they are tried for another crime, the cost to the whole system goes up because if it weren't for the person who is put in prison for life instead of executed, there is a possibility, that person would not have committed another crime.

Can't find stats on repeat offenders but I know it is a higher % than what we as a society want

It is far cheaper to get rid of them and most positive for our society.


It should not be the burden of the American people to fund the lives of the people in Prison. The Median Income in Mississippi is $26,000. We are doing good enough to provide for our families! To hell with prisoners, they live better than a good portion of us hard working, honest people who only want to do good for us and our families.