299
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
299 points (97.5% liked)
News
23301 readers
1192 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dear Supreme Court Originalists:
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
I want them to explain exactly why this isn't cruel.
The supreme Court ruled that due to the wording, the punishment must be both cruel and unusual. This is for sure cruel, but it's not weird enough
Literally nothing is unusual if u do it enough times.
That was my argument but after three attempts she told me we had to turn off The Muppets Take Manhattan.
And the way they determine "unusual" is by doing this absolutely ahistoric, arbitrary polling of current policy. They cherry pick whatever statistics serve the politics of the person writing the decision.
e.g., when ruling whether it was "unusual" to execute people with cogitative disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia), they did a tally of how many states allowed execution in these cases vs did not but deliberately omitted how many states do not allow ANY executions. Then concluded that slightly more states allow executions of the mentally unfit than don't even though it was absolutely incontestable fact that the vast majority of states did not allow this kind of execution.
Ignore that the ruling technically banned those executions... because it factually didn't, since it left it up to states to define cognitive disability however they pleased and the behavior of the kill-happy states was not affected by the ruling.
When I was really sick and needed regular blood tests, I'd have some nurses take at least a half-dozen stabs at me before getting a usable vein. We're talking both arms and then moving to the top of the hand.
It happens. I wouldn't call it cruel or a form of punishment, as they weren't purposely trying to make my life miserable.
It's mildly annoying as the patient, and I'm sure a little embarrassing for the person with the needle.
Did you know it was going to kill you if it worked? Because that would be the cruel part. Imagine knowing, for days, maybe even months after your last appeal that you were going to die. You know the exact date and time. You know nothing you can do will stop it.
How is that not cruel?
Having known that capital punishment by lethal injection would be the consequence of his actions, he decided his own fate.
Even prison could be considered cruel, or compassionate, depending on your perspective.
Really, though, this man murdered six people. I think you're giving his feelings far too much consideration.
How did he know that would be the consequences of his actions when plenty of people have been sentenced to life in prison for similar actions? How did he know he wouldn't be dealing with a hung jury? Unless he was able to predict the future, which he could not, suggesting he knew that 'capital punishment by lethal injection' would be the consequences of his actions is ridiculous. On top of that, he may literally not know the difference between right and wrong, something that is entirely possible. In which case, again, he would not have known the consequences of his actions.
And it's not about his feelings. The law shouldn't be sidestepped just because a crime is very bad. Otherwise, why not just let police kill people like him and avoid trial completely?
I'm not saying that I agree with capital punishment, but you should really read up on this guy. He's confessed to over 40 murders.
But to answer your question, he asked to be executed by lethal injection.
I'm not sure why you think this specific case should be an exception when it comes to whether or not a law is ethical or even legal based on the U.S. Constitution. Even if this specific guy wanted to die, many very clearly did not. Including the innocent people that have been executed.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent
Should whether or not something is legal be decided on a case-by-case basis or should the law apply equally for everyone? Because I would certainly say the latter.
Friend, I'm not saying I support capital punishment. No doubt that there have been innocent people put to death (often people of colour), and that would be a failing of the justice system. Even the idea of capital punishment makes me sick.
But in the context we find ourselves in, the way Creech has been treated couldn't possibly have been more humane or compassionate. He's already tried to kill himself, saying he does not want to be stuck in prison for the rest of his life.
How would you go about making this situation better for this murderer? Or the family of his victims?
Well, sentencing is done on a case-by-case basis. Which is why some people who commit especially brutal types of violent murders are given a harsher penalty vs someone who may have killed in the heat of the moment. This is probably as fair as you can get, since some crimes obviously shouldn't get the same heavy had as others.
Sentencing is done within the limit of the law and, again this is not about him specifically.
You can't sentence someone to die by a thousand cuts because that is cruel. Which violates the Constitution. Why is this not cruel? Because it's faster?
Right. And the limit of the law, in this case, is lethal injection.
I don't make up the rules, man. But you still haven't said what would be the ideal in this situation.
Let him spend the rest of his life in jail (something he did not want, and already tried to kill himself over), set him free, or "other"?
You'd still have to consider the victims in this decision, so I'm curious to know how you'd do it.
Which is cruel. Even if he specifically wants it. For reasons I explain.
The ideal would be to do what every other civilized country on the planet does and not execute people. Even Anders Breivik wasn't executed and he killed 77 people, many of them children. And no one in Norway who had any real influence seriously discussed bringing back the death penalty just for him. Because it is cruel.
Even SCOTUS decided it was cruel and halted it until they reversed their decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia
Our justice system is not about retribution. It has never been about retribution. Retribution is also unconstitutional for the same reason.
Not to go off-topic, but that Nazi never asked to be put to death. It seems like the only complaint he's made about his sentence is that the Playstation he uses while in prison is outdated, and that he doesn't get more time to make phone calls.
Do you view medically assisted suicide as cruel?
If Creech asked for death by lethal injection as a form of assisted suicide, would granting that not be the embodiment of compassion towards him?
Cruelty implies that extreme unkindness is willingly being inflicted upon another person or animal with the desire to cause pain and suffering.
This definition does not match what we see here.
After a doctor's assessment? No. He did not undergo such an assessment.
There's a reason why medical professionals do not assist with executions.
I hate to break it to you, but the article quite literally says that "medical team members" were responsible for assisting in getting the IV line into Creech.
Harvard also says that physicians do assist (SOURCE)
And even this cardiologist says it's better that they do than not, even though he is against capital punishment.
It's certainly a debated topic in the realm of ethics, no doubt, but it still happens.
But getting back to my question:
If medically assisted suicide is not cruel, and Creech requested that he wanted to die via lethal injection (medically assisted suicide, since it was at his request), where do we have a problem?
Reasons aside, they were killing this man. Sounds pretty cruel when you add that little caveat.
They’re not torturing him. Just trying to curtail his existence. It’s incredibly reasonable.
"I can't define it, but I know it when i see it."
Follow up ruling:
"I cant see it."