http://news.yahoo.com/europe-origin-chronic-us-execution-dilemma-092415415--finance.html
QuoteThere's one big reason the United States has a dearth of execution drugs so acute that some states are considering solutions such as firing squads and gas chambers: Europe won't allow the drugs to be exported because of its fierce hostility to capital punishment.
The phenomenon started nine years ago when the EU banned the export of products used for execution, citing its goal to be the "leading institutional actor and largest donor to the fight against the death penalty." But beefed up European rules mean the results are being most strongly felt in the United States now, with shortages becoming chronic and gruesome executions making headlines.
In Ohio last month, Dennis McGuire took 26 minutes to die after a previously untested mix of chemicals began flowing into his body, gasping repeatedly as he lay on a gurney. On Jan. 9, Oklahoma inmate Michael Lee Wilson's last words were: "I feel my whole body burning."
The dilemma again grabbed national attention this week when an Oklahoma pharmacy agreed Monday to refrain from supplying an execution drug to the Missouri Department of Corrections for an upcoming lethal injection. Death row inmate Michael Taylor's had argued in a lawsuit that recent executions involving the drug pentobarbital would likely cause "inhumane pain" — and, ahead of a hearing set for Tuesday, The Apothecary Shoppe said it would not provide the drug.
EU nations are notorious for disagreeing on just about everything when it comes to common policy, but they all strongly — and proudly — agree on one thing: abolishing capital punishment.
Europe saw totalitarian regimes abuse the death penalty as recently as the 20th century, and public opinion across the bloc is therefore staunchly opposed to it.
The EU's uncompromising stance has set off a cat-and-mouse game, with U.S. corrections departments devising new ways to carry out lethal injections only to hit updated export restrictions within months.
"Our political task is to push for an abolition of the death penalty, not facilitate its procedure," said Barba Lochbihler, chairwoman of the European Parliament's subcommittee on human rights.
Europe's tough stance has caused U.S. states to start experimenting with new drug mixtures, even though convicts' lawyers and activists argue they increase the risk of painful prolonged death and may violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
In an upcoming execution in Louisiana, the state is set to follow Ohio's example in using the untested drug cocktail used in McGuire's execution. It changed its execution protocol last week to use Ohio's two-drug combination because it could no longer procure pentobarbital, a powerful sedative.
The execution was scheduled for February, but was stayed pending a federal judge's examination in April regarding whether the state can proceed with the plan to execute Christopher Sepulvado, convicted in the 1992 killing of his 6-year-old stepson.
In 2010, Louisiana switched from the established three-drug protocol to a one-drug pentobarbital lethal injection, but eventually that drug also became unavailable because of European pressure.
"The lethal injection that they are using now in certain states has never been tested, verified, let alone been approved for executions," said Maya Foa of Reprieve, a London-based charity fighting the death penalty. "This amounts to using humans as guinea pigs. No doctor would ever do that."
Ohio prosecutors counter that condemned inmates are not entitled to a pain-free execution under the Constitution.
Even if the effect of the two drugs used by Ohio "presents some inherent risk of discomfort, that does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment," Christopher Conomy, an assistant Ohio attorney general, argued in court documents last month.
The U.S. execution dilemma goes back to 2005, when the EU restricted exports of goods "for the purpose of capital punishment or for the purpose of torture." That ban includes items such as electric chairs and lethal injection systems.
The drug shortage then started biting in 2010 when Hospira Inc., the sole U.S. manufacturer of sodium thiopental, a sedative that is part of the normal three-drug mixture, stopped production. A few months later, Hospira dropped plans to produce it in Italy because the government there asked for guarantees that it would never be used in executions.
States in 2011 switched to pentobarbital, but Denmark-based Lundbeck Inc., the drug's only U.S.-licensed maker, faced a public backlash and quickly said it would put the medication off-limits for capital punishment through a tightly controlled distribution system.
Fearing for their reputation, the companies never wanted to see their drugs used in executions.
As U.S. authorities started looking for other sources, Britain went ahead and restricted exports of sodium thiopental and other drugs at the end of 2010.
"This move underlines this government's ... moral opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances," Business Secretary Vince Cable said then.
Germany's government also urged pharmaceutical companies to stop exports, and the country's three firms selling sodium thiopental promised not to sell to U.S. prison authorities.
The EU then updated its export regulation in late 2011 to ban the sale of eight drugs — including pentobarbital and sodium thiopental — if the purpose is to use them in lethal injections.
That produced a flurry of action in the United States. In May 2012 Missouri announced it would switch to using the anesthetic propofol, infamous for its role in Michael Jackson's overdose death. But propofol, too, was manufactured in Europe, by Germany's Fresenius Kabi.
Missouri's plan prompted an outcry across Europe and the EU threatened to restrict propofol exports. That in turn provoked a medical outcry in the U.S. because propofol is used in about 95 percent of surgical procedures requiring an anesthetic, according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists.
Pharmaceutical companies around the globe have been loath to see their drugs used in executions because the market is tiny and promises close to no financial gain, while potentially exposing them to costly bad PR.
In the United States, there is a variety of reason no U.S. manufacturer will supply execution drugs, from the desire to avoid lawsuits to the makers' own opposition to the use of such drugs in capital punishment.
Fresenius Kabi, whose slogan is "caring for life," swiftly moved to introduce a stringent distribution control to prevent sales to U.S. prisons. Another manufacturer, Germany's B. Braun, immediately followed suit.
In October 2012 Missouri Governor Jay Nixon expressed indignation, saying state and federal court systems, not European politicians, should decide death penalty policy. Still, a month later he backtracked and halted what was to have been the first U.S. execution using propofol.
Missouri and other states have since also resorted to custom-made batches of drugs, while refusing to divulge which pharmacy produced them — as in the case being heard Tuesday.
The secrecy has led to new lawsuits, not least after safety concerns over such drugs arose in 2012 after contaminated injections from a Massachusetts facility caused a meningitis outbreak that killed 64 people and sickened hundreds.
An attorney for McGuire's family supported the European position.
"I think it's right for the (pharmaceutical) companies to draw a line when people are using the drugs for the wrong purposes," said Jon Paul Rion.
In principle, there are a number of painkillers, sedatives and paralyzing agents that can kill if administered in high doses. But switching drugs will invite new lawsuits and could involve drawn-out bureaucratic or legislative delays — in addition to doubts about how quickly and mercifully these drugs can kill.
"Such botched executions go some way to debunking the myth that lethal injection is a humane way to kill someone," said Reprieve's Foa.
When Europeans criticize the U.S., they frequently cite the inequality of health care and the continued use of capital punishment.
Europe has seen autocratic or totalitarian regimes corrupting justice throughout the 20th century with people being executed for political reasons or without fair trial, resulting in strong opposition to the death penalty after World War II.
Western Germany forbade capital punishment after the war, just as Italy did. France, which gave the world the word guillotine, decapitated only a few people after WW II amid increasing public opposition.
"There will be no lasting peace either in the heart of individuals or in social customs until death is outlawed," French Literature Nobel Prize winner Albert Camus wrote in 1957 in an influential essay.
France's last execution now dates back almost 40 years. In Eastern Europe, the death penalty was abolished after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
An international AP poll in 2007 found that about 70 percent of those surveyed in the U.S. favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder. In Germany, Italy and Spain only about 30 percent did so.
Overall, experts say Europe's judicial system is more oriented toward rehabilitation, not punishment. That is also reflected in drastically lower incarceration rates: Across the EU, about 130 people per 100,000 inhabitants are behind bars compared to 920 in the U.S, according to EU and U.S. Justice Department figures.
The death penalty has been abolished or suspended in all developed economies, except for the U.S. and Japan. Execution rankings have routinely shown the U.S. in the unusual company of China, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan.
Vietnam has faced a similar dilemma to the United States, finding it difficult to import execution drugs from Europe since it switched from firing squads to lethal injection in 2011 on humanitarian grounds.
The anti-capital punishment camp has also gained ground in the U.S.
The number of U.S. executions has declined in recent years — from a peak of 98 in 1999 to 39 last year. Some states have abolished the death penalty, and those that carry on find executions increasingly difficult to conduct because of the drug scarcity and doubts about how well they work.
Public support for capital punishment also appears to be retreating. Last year, 60 percent of Americans polled said they favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, the lowest level measured since 1972, according to Gallup.
To counter the drug shortages lawmakers in some death penalty states — Missouri, Virginia and Wyoming — are now considering bringing back execution methods such as firing squads, electrocutions and gas chambers.
There are still about 3,000 inmates on death row.
If painless and quick is the goal, the guillotine should be used.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2014, 11:54:03 AM
If painless and quick is the goal, the guillotine should be used.
Guillotine or start training up hangmen to get the neck break right.
Biggest irony here is it's probably easy to procure a lethal dose of heroin within the prison itself.
I suppose it's problematic, since there aren't really all that many executions in the US. Not as many as there should be anyways. So it would be pretty hard to set up a company just to supply the prisons with execution drugs.
Good policy by the EU.
But can't you just administer a lethal dose of lead to the brain? That's a fairly proven method of execution and is quick and painless.
Quote from: Zanza on February 18, 2014, 12:39:47 PM
Good policy by the EU.
But can't you just administer a lethal dose of lead to the brain? That's a fairly proven method of execution and is quick and painless.
Agreed. This fancy "death by lethal injection" thing was an okay compromise for the squeamish when it was simple and cheap, but costs and complications mean that alternatives are now better.
Those barbaric Euros! Standing in the way of the the US executing prisoners in a humane manner! ;)
What happens if you administer a ridiculously oversized overdose of morphine?
Quote from: The Brain on February 18, 2014, 01:34:48 PM
What happens if you administer a ridiculously oversized overdose of morphine?
Goring is happy.
Ah, executions should be by hanging anyway.
If we went back to that, wonder if the Euroweenies would refuse to sell us rope.
I wonder if there is a market research solution to this problem.
"Have you considered Propofol? Ask your executioner of Propofol is right for you".
Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2014, 06:29:35 PM
I wonder if there is a market research solution to this problem.
"Have you considered Propofol? Ask your executioner of Propofol is right for you".
:lol:
Why so much opposition to capital punishment?
Quotebecause of its fierce hostility to capital punishment.
Looking at European convictions for everything from murder to sex offenses, they've got a fierce hostility to jails, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2014, 06:37:01 AM
Looking at European convictions for everything from murder to sex offenses, they've got a fierce hostility to jails, too.
True that, I think we closed eight prisons last year. There was even a plan to import Belgian prisoners at one point. :D
Just hang them. Rope's cheap.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2014, 06:37:01 AM
Quotebecause of its fierce hostility to capital punishment.
Looking at European convictions for everything from murder to sex offenses, they've got a fierce hostility to jails, too.
Nah, we are fairly normal when you look at the whole world. You guys have a fierce jail fetish.
5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners, life sentences for non-violent crimes, long-term isolation in supermax prisons, a for-profit prison industry etc.
American exceptionalism at its finest.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2014, 06:29:35 PM
I wonder if there is a market research solution to this problem.
"Have you considered Propofol? Ask your executioner of Propofol is right for you".
That would be advertising. :secret:
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2014, 11:04:13 PM
Why so much opposition to capital punishment?
I can think of two reasons: one I agree with, and one I don't.
1) No one is beyond rehabilitation. Bullshit. There are sadistic assholes out there who can only improve things for the rest of us by being taken out.
2) The potential for mistakes. Considering how many death row inmates are being exonerated now, who knows how many innocent people get executed due to flawed trials or evidence? We make mistakes when we get emotional, and death penalty cases are all about emotion- we can't afford that when someone's life is on the line.
I think second reason is bullshit too. If mistakes are a concern, then even long prison sentences are not justifiable. You can't undo a time spent in prison away from society any more than you can undo an execution.
Quote from: DGuller on February 19, 2014, 11:14:28 AM
I think second reason is bullshit too. If mistakes are a concern, then even long prison sentences are not justifiable. You can't undo a time spent in prison away from society any more than you can undo an execution.
Not too mention the fact that if there was a mistake made, the odds of it being found are vastly greater in a death penalty case than a life imprisonment case.
I HATE the "oh, but the DP is so permanent!" argument. It is utterly devoid of any actual rational thought.
I am against the DP in the US simply because it is not worth the trouble.
Genetic testing is to the death penalty as fracking is to climate change.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2014, 11:27:51 AM
Genetic testing is to the death penalty as fracking is to climate change.
Admiral Yi is to Marty as Marty is to Admiral Yi.
:hmm:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2014, 08:38:16 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2014, 11:04:13 PM
Why so much opposition to capital punishment?
I can think of two reasons: one I agree with, and one I don't.
1) No one is beyond rehabilitation. Bullshit. There are sadistic assholes out there who can only improve things for the rest of us by being taken out.
2) The potential for mistakes. Considering how many death row inmates are being exonerated now, who knows how many innocent people get executed due to flawed trials or evidence? We make mistakes when we get emotional, and death penalty cases are all about emotion- we can't afford that when someone's life is on the line.
How about because it doesn't work as a deterrent?
I bet 20 years on death row followed by an execution is no cheaper for the state than a "life means life" jail term too.
Quote from: Brazen on February 19, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
How about because it doesn't work as a deterrent?
Yeah that is the main thing, lots of expense and money for not a lot of benefit.
But, it annoys Europeans. That is a plus.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 19, 2014, 12:15:25 PM
But, it annoys Europeans. That is a plus.
Easier just to keep our heartless worker-oppressing Capitalism gone mad and believe in God and stuff.
Quote from: Brazen on February 19, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
How about because it doesn't work as a deterrent?
I bet 20 years on death row followed by an execution is no cheaper for the state than a "life means life" jail term too.
It works no better or worse than prison as a deterrent, so the issue is moot. I don't think anyone argues any more that the DP is cheaper than life in prison. If saving money is your over-riding concern, of course, you just don't prosecute.
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2014, 12:17:35 PM
Easier just to keep our heartless worker-oppressing Capitalism gone mad and believe in God and stuff.
And tipping. Don't forget the tipping.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2014, 11:54:03 AM
If painless and quick is the goal, the guillotine should be used.
Guillotine is incredibly messy, plus the first assistant risks getting his fingertips cut.
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2014, 11:25:18 AM
Not too mention the fact that if there was a mistake made, the odds of it being found are vastly greater in a death penalty case than a life imprisonment case.
The odds are greater, not necessarily vastly so. A lot depends on the quality of counsel and the ethics of the prosecutors which can vary both by state and by chance.
The other consideration is that there are very significant costs to administrating the DP system, in part because of the various safeguards, which raises the question whether it is really worth it for the small number of cases that are prosecuted as capital crimes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 19, 2014, 02:06:24 PM
The other consideration is that there are very significant costs to administrating the DP system, in part because of the various safeguards, which raises the question whether it is really worth it for the small number of cases that are prosecuted as capital crimes.
And a final consideration is whether or not one really wants to give that power to one's government. I am in favor of giving governments only those powers that they manifestly need, and they don't need this power.
Quote from: Zanza on February 19, 2014, 07:57:24 AM
Nah, we are fairly normal when you look at the whole world. You guys have a fierce jail fetish.
5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners, life sentences for non-violent crimes, long-term isolation in supermax prisons, a for-profit prison industry etc.
American exceptionalism at its finest.
Also civic death punishments like losing the right to vote.
QuoteTrue that, I think we closed eight prisons last year. There was even a plan to import Belgian prisoners at one point. :D
I find the politics of this really interesting. All over the West crime is decline. Prison populations should be and, prisons should be closing. That's not happening in most places because no one wants to appear soft on crime. It's like a Potemkin penal policy.
One thing I'm not quite getting here...surely those chemicals have innocent purposes too? Ones progressive countries generally look favourably on, e.g. euthanasia. How is it so easy to stop them falling into the executioners hands?
I don't think there are that many US states that allow for euthanasia (which is not the same as just unplugging life support).
It's probably written in the export contracts anyway, going off the article the chem manufacturers seem to be the first interested in not endangering other business because of the DP. These kind of chems are highly controlled and regulated, so I don't think it's so easy as selling them to a hospital for whatever medical purposes and then have the Corrections guys drop by and pocket a few.
How do you know the DP is not a deterrence?
Who did the research, etc?
Quote from: celedhring on February 20, 2014, 05:35:24 AM
I don't think there are that many US states that allow for euthanasia (which is not the same as just unplugging life support).
None that I'm aware of.
Quote from: Siege on February 20, 2014, 02:29:04 PM
How do you know the DP is not a deterrence?
Who did the research, etc?
There is a large body of research that the consequences of a criminal act often has little deterent effect on people who would commit those offences whether those consequences are prision or death. As for looking at the death penalty itself there is no evidence it provides any more deterent than any other form of punishment.
I like DP.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 20, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
I like DP.
And he likes you :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsnetwork.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FDan-Patrick.jpeg&hash=d824056719bc363534264a97422dcc5035adcf47)
Quote from: derspiess on February 20, 2014, 02:41:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 20, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
I like DP.
And he likes you :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsnetwork.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FDan-Patrick.jpeg&hash=d824056719bc363534264a97422dcc5035adcf47)
Even creepier than my post.
Oregon allows doctor assisted suicide but my understanding is that it is an oral dose of pills or capsules.
Come again?
Which part?
Do Oregon doctors sell gift cards? :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2014, 03:15:35 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 20, 2014, 03:01:36 PM
Which part?
The part you edited.
I had a typo because of auto correct on my phone. I said oral fist instead of dose; that was the only thing I edited.
That's what I didn't get.
Ah ok, now I understand.
I believe what the research shows is that the likelihood or certainty of getting caught does have a deterrent impact. But the relatively severity of punishment is not as significant a factor.
The US tends to have longer or harsher penalties on the statute books than Europe but not really because those longer penalties are supposed to generate more deterrence. The more important purpose is to generate prosecutorial leverage for plea and cooperation agreements, which have become key tools for obtaining evidence and convictions. European systems tend to work differently in this regard - the penalties are lower in theory but there is much less of a chance that a suspect will be pled down and tried on a lower charge.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2014, 10:35:45 AM
I believe what the research shows is that the likelihood or certainty of getting caught does have a deterrent impact. But the relatively severity of punishment is not as significant a factor.
The US tends to have longer or harsher penalties on the statute books than Europe but not really because those longer penalties are supposed to generate more deterrence. The more important purpose is to generate prosecutorial leverage for plea and cooperation agreements, which have become key tools for obtaining evidence and convictions. European systems tend to work differently in this regard - the penalties are lower in theory but there is much less of a chance that a suspect will be pled down and tried on a lower charge.
I think some of it is also down to American mentality. We view prisons not as a measured punishment, but rather as a mechanism to segregate criminals from society. Therefore, the longer the prison sentence, the more effective the prisons are at fulfilling that role.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2014, 10:35:45 AM
The US tends to have longer or harsher penalties on the statute books than Europe but not really because those longer penalties are supposed to generate more deterrence. The more important purpose is to generate prosecutorial leverage for plea and cooperation agreements, which have become key tools for obtaining evidence and convictions. European systems tend to work differently in this regard - the penalties are lower in theory but there is much less of a chance that a suspect will be pled down and tried on a lower charge.
We have much longer and harsher penalties in reality as well as on the books. And Canada engages in a similar plea bargaining system, but doesn't have nearly the excessive prison sentences the US does.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
We have much longer and harsher penalties in reality as well as on the books. And Canada engages in a similar plea bargaining system, but doesn't have nearly the excessive prison sentences the US does.
I think that, in Canada, a politician has to talk about doing something to increase the odds of catching criminals in order to be considered "tough on crime." In the US, that title comes from proposing laws that will fuck over minorities more than the current laws do.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2014, 10:35:45 AM
The US tends to have longer or harsher penalties on the statute books than Europe but not really because those longer penalties are supposed to generate more deterrence. The more important purpose is to generate prosecutorial leverage for plea and cooperation agreements, which have become key tools for obtaining evidence and convictions. European systems tend to work differently in this regard - the penalties are lower in theory but there is much less of a chance that a suspect will be pled down and tried on a lower charge.
We have much longer and harsher penalties in reality as well as on the books. And Canada engages in a similar plea bargaining system, but doesn't have nearly the excessive prison sentences the US does.
I don't think we have a "similar" plea bargaining system.
Do we sometimes engage in plea bargaining? Yes. But the usual rule of thumb is that if you enter a plea you might get about 1/3 off your sentence as opposed to taking it to trial.
There's none of this 'if you don't accept our plea you're going to receive a 99 year sentence' kind of negotiating I hear about in the US.
Quote from: sbr on February 20, 2014, 03:17:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2014, 03:15:35 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 20, 2014, 03:01:36 PM
Which part?
The part you edited.
I had a typo because of auto correct on my phone. I said oral fist instead of dose; that was the only thing I edited.
Doctors punching people in the mouth to death does sound pretty hardcore.
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2014, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2014, 10:35:45 AM
The US tends to have longer or harsher penalties on the statute books than Europe but not really because those longer penalties are supposed to generate more deterrence. The more important purpose is to generate prosecutorial leverage for plea and cooperation agreements, which have become key tools for obtaining evidence and convictions. European systems tend to work differently in this regard - the penalties are lower in theory but there is much less of a chance that a suspect will be pled down and tried on a lower charge.
We have much longer and harsher penalties in reality as well as on the books. And Canada engages in a similar plea bargaining system, but doesn't have nearly the excessive prison sentences the US does.
I don't think we have a "similar" plea bargaining system.
Do we sometimes engage in plea bargaining? Yes. But the usual rule of thumb is that if you enter a plea you might get about 1/3 off your sentence as opposed to taking it to trial.
There's none of this 'if you don't accept our plea you're going to receive a 99 year sentence' kind of negotiating I hear about in the US.
When you think about it, threatening someone with grossly excessive prison terms for excercising their right to fair trial may be violating the spirit of the Constitution in a couple of ways. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2014, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
We have much longer and harsher penalties in reality as well as on the books. And Canada engages in a similar plea bargaining system, but doesn't have nearly the excessive prison sentences the US does.
I don't think we have a "similar" plea bargaining system.
Do we sometimes engage in plea bargaining? Yes. But the usual rule of thumb is that if you enter a plea you might get about 1/3 off your sentence as opposed to taking it to trial.
There's none of this 'if you don't accept our plea you're going to receive a 99 year sentence' kind of negotiating I hear about in the US.
That's basically what I meant -- the excessive sentences are where the similarity ends. But the fact that plea bargaining exists in Canada tends to show that you don't need insane maximum sentences and mandatory minimums to get guilty pleas from defendants, and thus avoid everyone taking every case to trial.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 12:12:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2014, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
We have much longer and harsher penalties in reality as well as on the books. And Canada engages in a similar plea bargaining system, but doesn't have nearly the excessive prison sentences the US does.
I don't think we have a "similar" plea bargaining system.
Do we sometimes engage in plea bargaining? Yes. But the usual rule of thumb is that if you enter a plea you might get about 1/3 off your sentence as opposed to taking it to trial.
There's none of this 'if you don't accept our plea you're going to receive a 99 year sentence' kind of negotiating I hear about in the US.
That's basically what I meant -- the excessive sentences are where the similarity ends. But the fact that plea bargaining exists in Canada tends to show that you don't need insane maximum sentences and mandatory minimums to get guilty pleas from defendants, and thus avoid everyone taking every case to trial.
There are lots of files where almost everyone takes them to trial, because 1/3 off isn't that much of an inducement is you think you have even a slight chance of beating the charge entirely.
There is political talk about mandatory minimums in Canada, and how they'd help us be tough on crime. Mandatory minimums are bad. Executions are good.
Mandatory executions are best. :w00t:
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2014, 12:52:29 PM
Mandatory executions are best. :w00t:
Talk about three strikes you're out.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2014, 11:49:54 AM
When you think about it, threatening someone with grossly excessive prison terms for excercising their right to fair trial may be violating the spirit of the Constitution in a couple of ways. :hmm:
Oh certainly.
One of the reasons US-style plea bargaining hasn't taken off on the Continent is because it is far more common in civil law systems that criminal cases are tried without juries. My guess it is cheaper and more efficient to try criminal cases in these systems . Even in Canada, which is a common law system, the proportion of criminal cases triable by jury is less.
The fact is that if the US tried criminal cases in the same proportion as say Germany the system would collapse - there aren't anywhere near enough procesutors, judges and public defenders to do that, not to mention the much higher burden on the ordinary citizenry in terms of jury service requirements.
One curious by-product of this development is the enormous discretionary power that is placed in the hands of the prosecutor's office, powers that that are not really consistent with the American consitutional ethos of suspicion of state coercive power and official discretion.
Quote from: Brazen on February 19, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2014, 08:38:16 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2014, 11:04:13 PM
Why so much opposition to capital punishment?
I can think of two reasons: one I agree with, and one I don't.
1) No one is beyond rehabilitation. Bullshit. There are sadistic assholes out there who can only improve things for the rest of us by being taken out.
2) The potential for mistakes. Considering how many death row inmates are being exonerated now, who knows how many innocent people get executed due to flawed trials or evidence? We make mistakes when we get emotional, and death penalty cases are all about emotion- we can't afford that when someone's life is on the line.
How about because it doesn't work as a deterrent?
Why would they fail to work as a deterrent? Few people want to die. So is it because serious criminals tend to lack any redemptive capacity, or is it because they recognize that death is preferable to long terms of imprisonment? Neither strikes me as a terribly good reason for opposing the death penalty, especially when for every person you imprison you could no doubt feed, clothe, and house two ordinary citizens.
That the state should put people in gaol without them having been proved guilty in a court of law is not self-evident.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 21, 2014, 01:33:48 PM
Why would they fail to work as a deterrent? Few people want to die. So is it because serious criminals tend to lack any redemptive capacity, or is it because they recognize that death is preferable to long terms of imprisonment? Neither strikes me as a terribly good reason for opposing the death penalty, especially when for every person you imprison you could no doubt feed, clothe, and house two ordinary citizens.
When you assaulted that guy were you thinking about the jail time you'd have to spend? Were you considering it a fair trade off?
Lot of nonsense both in the article and the DP situation in general. For one, about the same time the United States catches up to Germany in terms of number of people executed, or even just matches total number executed all time versus Germany's from 1935-1945 I'll listen to a German's opinion on the DP without laughing. For two, the blurb about rehabilitation is irrelevant to this discussion about DP. In the U.S. every State that has the death penalty only allows it for "murder with specific aggravating factors." These factors tend to be: victim under the age of 12, murder combined with other crimes ex. rape, kidnapping, victim being a police officer, multiple murders by the same defendant etc. These are not people I want rehabilitated, these are Breivik style monsters that no society should afford the chance to be redeemed or improved. Whether we should execute them or not, I don't have a strong position, but these are people whose crimes are so grave that they should never be allowed to be part of society so rehabilitation shouldn't really enter the discussion concerning them.
Outside of Federal drug laws, it's also not common at all for someone to get a life sentence for a non-violent crime. We do sentence people to effective life sentences for particularly gruesome violent crimes other than murder, but I'm fine with that. People gasped in shock a few months ago when a woman who beat her kid got a 99-year sentence from a Texas judge. But if you read more about it, she took her three year old kid and superglued her to a wall (not even sure how that is possible) and then beat the kid literally to the brink of death, kid barely survived and only did so because of very good work by doctors. That woman doesn't deserve to leave prison. Or guys like Ariel Castro, he didn't murder anyone but I think kidnapping three children and raping/beating them every day for 10 years isn't a crime I want to see someone get rehabilitated for, that's a crime where you don't get to be part of society after you're caught doing it.
As a practical matter though I don't really understand why we've chosen to use the three drug cocktail in any case. There are tons of drugs that not only are known to not cause pain when administered at a lethal dose, but are known to cause extreme euphoria. These are drugs that you pretty much could never stop from getting into the hands of State Departments of Correction. Not to mention thinks like nitrogen gas style asphyxiations which we also know factually would not cause pain--in fact the "exit bag" is the standard advised "painless fool-proof suicide method" with various suicide-rights forums and groups. The biggest issue with the gas chambers that States used in the past was an association with Nazism and the fact the toxic chemicals were dangerous to be around for prison staff. But if you pump a sealed room full of nitrogen the person dies and then you just vent it, and nitrogen would be harmless if it escaped from the chamber in some freak accident as it'd be escaping into a much larger area so no one would become oxygen starved.
Finally, several of the drugs we do actually use in executions are like 100+ year old compounds old school apothecaries could whip up in their backroom labs in a half hour. Not sure each State couldn't employ 2-3 pharmacists as compounding pharmacists and make the shit themselves.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 21, 2014, 04:39:37 PMFor one, about the same time the United States catches up to Germany in terms of number of people executed, or even just matches total number executed all time versus Germany's from 1935-1945 I'll listen to a German's opinion on the DP without laughing.
The article could just as well have been written by a French or American or Chinese author. It doesn't really contain any references to a specific German perspective, merely naming Germany in the larger context of multiple European countries with similar views. So I fail to see how Germany's history of executions has any relevance to the discussion.
Quote from: Zanza on February 21, 2014, 05:14:19 PM
The article could just as well have been written by a French or American or Chinese author. It doesn't really contain any references to a specific German perspective, merely naming Germany in the larger context of multiple European countries with similar views. So I fail to see how Germany's history of executions has any relevance to the discussion.
That was a pretty weak point anyway. Like that nobody in the US can have an issue with slavery in a country until they have more slaves than we had total between 1776 and 1865.
The drugs they used in the last Ohio case -- fentanyl and midazolam, IIRC -- are both very euphoric and widely abused for recreational purposes. The problem is that contrary to popular belief, a drug overdose does not appear to be a painless death.
During conscious sedation for dental surgery some years ago, I was given the exact same combo plus nitrous oxide (and a Valium to take that morning). The levels were too high and I essentially started to overdose. I was blacking out, I couldn't speak or make a deliberate movement, but I felt a wrenching panic as some involuntary bodily mechanism fought to keep me from lapsing into full unconsciousness, almost a sensation of drowning inside yourself. Luckily, of course, I was being monitored and the IV drip was reduced, and everything was fine -- indeed, profoundly euphoric. If they'd continued pumping it in, I'm sure full unconsciousness would have come on pretty rapidly and that would have been that. But I think that experience taught me that a drug overdose death is a more painful subjective experience than most people give it credit for.
I actually think the two-drug combo is probably more humane, however; the one they can't get is the ostensible "heart-stopping" drug, which can be extremely painful if total unconsciousness hasn't set in. With this combo, you get to die roughly the same death that thousands of Americans die every year from taking too much Oxycontin when you've already got a load of Xanax and booze in your system. The big difference, of course, being that it's taking place against your will strapped to a gurney in an extremely stressful atmosphere, in terrified contemplation of one's impending death, etc., etc.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 05:29:42 PM
The big difference, of course, being that it's taking place against your will strapped to a gurney in an extremely stressful atmosphere, in terrified contemplation of one's impending death, etc., etc.
Do you know my wife?
Quote from: Valmy on February 21, 2014, 05:19:55 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 21, 2014, 05:14:19 PM
The article could just as well have been written by a French or American or Chinese author. It doesn't really contain any references to a specific German perspective, merely naming Germany in the larger context of multiple European countries with similar views. So I fail to see how Germany's history of executions has any relevance to the discussion.
That was a pretty weak point anyway. Like that nobody in the US can have an issue with slavery in a country until they have more slaves than we had total between 1776 and 1865.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you bitches were hanging out at the Debate Society. Here in the real Languish no one needs anything but the thinnest veneer of reason to insult a a bunch of Jew-murdering Euros.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 21, 2014, 05:29:42 PM
The drugs they used in the last Ohio case -- fentanyl and midazolam, IIRC -- are both very euphoric and widely abused for recreational purposes.
I really tolerant to that shit. The last doc politely inquired if I was a junkie when she saw the doses they had used previously - and even then I only get slightly chatty.
Expensive date.