In case it's not obvious to you, Justice Kagan is not even in that picture.
The executed man, Domineque Ray, asked to have his imam present. The Eleventh Circuit court granted a stay of execution. The Supreme Court majority took into account that Ray's application for a stay was "last minute." (I'm reading the opinion now.) Justice Kagan dissented:
This Court is ordinarily reluctant to interfere with the substantial discretion Courts of Appeals have to issue stays when needed.... Here, Ray has put forward a powerful claim that his religious rights will be violated at the moment the State puts him to death. The Eleventh Circuit wanted to hear that claim in full. Instead, this Court short-circuits that ordinary process—and itself rejects the claim with little briefing and no argument—just so the State can meet its preferred execution date.The crime — murder of a 15-year-old girl — took place 20 years ago. But, as Kagan put it...
[T]here is no reason Ray should have known, prior to January 23, that his imam would be granted less access than the Christian chaplain to the execution chamber.
पोस्ट्स
१५६ टिप्पण्या:
I'm missing something. Why was his imam not allowed to be present?
Unless there is some good reason why not, I find this appalling.
I am sure I am missing something as the alternative is unthinkable.
John Henry
I'm wondering why they chose to make this argument at the last minute. The execution date was known weeks in advance.
Was it a scheduling issue?
No 72 virgins for him!
He got 20 years after murdering her. She only got 15 total years before that and was absolutely denied her pastoral visit before being slaughtered for being a woman. Sorry, that set of facts doesn't entitle him to jackshit.
Ray had waited until January 28, the week before his execution, to file an appeal
Obvious delay tactics are obvious.
Apparently RBG did not get back from going to Plays in time to vote. And Chief Justice Roberts, he don't say nuthin.
Not taking the time to look carefully.
Speak for yourself. Justice Kagen is indeed in that picture, right where the caption claims. That is her shoulder.
Here is a larger picture from the same photo shoot. ( It is not the same picture from which the cropped image was taken, but I assume they didn't swap places between pictures. )
The remedy for this isn’t a stay of execution. It’s a civil suit against the prison officials. The estate can sue for deprivation of his constitutional right and award his estate damages. The victims of his crimes can then have the damages paid to them.
Its understandable if people don't always recognize you when you're in blackrobe.
Layers and layers of fact and photo checkers. With that sort of sloppiness, why should I believe anything they write?
But there is a generic problem with newspaper or magazine reporting on legal issues. In a long career in the law (and having been involved on occasion in some transaction or case that attracts newspaper attention), I've found that our press rarely gets things right.
John Henry above is appalled that the imam wasn't allowed to be present at the execution in question---which hasn't taken place yet, so there's been no execution to attend. Let's see how it plays out when, or if, this murderer finally gives up his three hots and a cot--and dies.
Ray had waited until January 28, the week before his execution, to file an appeal
Obvious delay tactics are obvious.
In Ray's favor, he claims he only learned that the Iman could not be present two days earlier. Against his favor, this was not the only attempted stay that was filed, and there clearly was an attempt to find any reason to delay/prevent the execution.
Apparently the presence of the Chaplin was simply standard operating procedure, and the state has already begun to change this.
The state's position is that no Iman has ever been trained on how to behave in the room during an execution, and the Chaplin has.
Still, I probably would have voted for the stay.
I don’t understand why the state couldn’t find an imam to be present, even if it wasn’t his imam. They had even more advance notice than he did.
John Henry above is appalled that the imam wasn't allowed to be present at the execution in question---which hasn't taken place yet, so there's been no execution to attend
Ray was executed last night after the stay was lifted.
"that ordinary process"
Which is to drag out executions for more than 20 years. Cuz justice. Ordinary in these US of A.
Had it been a gas chamber, perhaps the imam would have been allowed to be present.
Just keep the chaplain out next time.
The victims didn’t have their chaplains or imams with them when these monsters killed them.
Fuck these guys.
And what’s taking so long to kill Major Hasan? It’s been almost a decade. Flush that piece of shit.
Glad this child murderer was executed. It's good for justice.
I've found that our press rarely gets things right.
Murray Gell-Mann wrote about the tendency of the press to get things precisely backwards. He wrote that it was like the press writing “wet streets cause rain.”
In Ray's favor, he claims he only learned that the Iman could not be present two days earlier.
Yeah, but it's not like he had no time to plan. He's been on death row for decades. If nothing else he should have confirmed all that years ago, even before a specific date was set. Just my opinion.
The only people dumber than the people who write these articles are the people who believe what they say.
If he would have had his head cut off in Chop Chop Square, there would be plenty of imans present. And he would have been executed 20 years ago.
Due process is a Western thing and we get played all the time. See, e.g., Gitmo.
Here’s a thought experiment. If we executed Muslims by drowning them in a bucket of pig urine, how fast would murders committed by Muslims fall to zero?
Damn you, 8th Amendment!
"gahrie said...
Ray was executed last night after the stay was lifted."
Allahu akbar.
At every opportunity Muslims insert themselves and their murderous Islam into our culture.
“Three of those defects were of sufficient severity that the weapon had penetrated the skull and entered the brain area, inflicting fatal trauma.”
“Other marks on the bones of the hands and wrist were consistent with defensive-type wounds.”
Owden said he raped her as well, officials claimed.
He testified that Ray slit Tiffany’s throat before taking her clothing and the money she had in her purse, which was the $6 that Tiffany’s mother, Mary Coleman, gave her before leaving for the night to attend a Union Workshop.
Ray was already incarcerated, serving a life sentence for the murders of two brothers: Reinhard Mabins, 13, and 18-year-old Ernest Mabins.
Court documents indicated that Ray shot and killed the Mabins brothers in February 1994 when they were reluctant to join his gang.
This was nothing but a delay tactic. The imam was with Ray right up until the instant he was led from the holding cell to the execution chamber, into which the imam was not allowed to enter. The only people allowed in the chamber are those employees of the the prison system designated to be there, which includes, if the convicted want it, a state designated Christian pastor.
I think the suit should move forward post execution, but the result is likely to be that the state then just changes the law allowing no one in the chamber that is not there to guard the prisoner or to participate in his execution. If you start letting prisoners pick who is in the chamber, then you will just start getting literally last minute requests for people who require days or even weeks to arrive. There is no constitutional right to have even a Christian pastor in the chamber.
Give Celine Lieu 20 minutes and she can fix that for you.
I just looked up his victim and how he killed her. Sickening, but no surprise until I got to the part about how, before he was caught, he was really active in the search for the girl he'd raped and killed. Helped pass out flyers. Called the mom periodically to check on her.
My head says we have to follow procedures set in advance even for the worst criminals - no, especially for the worst criminals, because they're the ones who tempt us most to say the hell with it, just kill the bastard. If the man had the right to a chaplain of his faith then he had the right to a chaplain of his faith.
My heart's more with Dirty Harry: "Well, I'm all broken up about that man's rights."
Rest in peace, Tiffany Harville, and may God somehow comfort your poor mom.
Why was his imam not allowed to be present?
The Christian chaplain is a prison employee. They only allow employees to be present.
Seriously, there are thousands and thousands of distinct religious sects in the world- to get a stay, all you would have to do is claim to be a member of one of those sects at the last minute and that you need a leader of that sect to be present.
Imams teach nonsense about a Seventh Century desert bandit.
B.A.G. exclaims, Glad this child murderer was executed. It's good for justice.
Justice would have been execution within two years.
"Why was his imam not allowed to be present?"
Everything happens according to the will of Allah.
Were any of the justices who voted in a coma?
If so, how did that justice vote?
In the Arab World, they execute you in the parking lot after a sham of a trial. I say he got a pretty fair deal here.
The Imam can always face time if his schedule is too hectic.
Yancey Ward asserts: If you start letting prisoners pick who is in the chamber, then you will just start getting literally last minute requests for people who require days or even weeks to arrive.
Like the football locker room team prayer session in this Snickers commercial:
Locker Room Prayer
Kagan and Sotomayor are unmarried and without kids.
To me, this is a red flag. It almost guarantees a leftist world view. There's no personal legacy. There's very little depth of experience.
True, Ginsburg was married and had kids, yet still holds that similar leftist world view. But it was definitely earned. To RBG's credit, she got into the trenches and fought for her beliefs, so you gotta give her some props. That's probably why Scalia liked her so much. She fought and won -- unlike many of these faux feminists who do nothing, but just speak loudly and coast off their men. (cough, Hillary, cough)
Prediction (and don't give me too much credit for this easy prediction):
Althouse will find that the headline was misleading, the facts central to this decision were far more nuanced, and that the Alabama procedure of only allowing regular employees into the death chamber to be one that is standard across many death penalty states, and does not constitute a due process or equal protection problem.
This imam was allowed to be with the condemned man up to the point that he went into the death chamber. Unusually, Alabama procedures regularly REQUIRE the presence of the prison chaplain (a Christian) for an execution. Few if any states do that. But here, the state allowed the condemned man's wishes to have no Christian chaplain present to be observed. The state accommodated him in that regard.
Alabama got itself into a bind by making a point of having an employed chaplain present for all of their executions. A sort of an Establishment Clause problem, Althouse? But that was a moot point in this case. Alabama waived off the Christian chaplain. So there was no chaplain, and no other cleric.
Much ado about nothing on Kagan's part, I think.
The Aurora Theater shooter was spared his life by one progressive juror.
That cold-blooded a-hole killed 12 people, including a little girl.
That is a freaking unforgivable shame to social justice.
In case it's not obvious to you, Justice Kagan is not even in that picture.
Generic woman's tits.
@Big Mike::
Here’s a thought experiment. If we executed Muslims by drowning them in a bucket of pig urine, how fast would murders committed by Muslims fall to zero?
Probably would have little to no effect. I support the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but I don't think the death penalty offers much deterrent to crime.
btw: While the dissent was authored by Kagan (it could well have simple been a workload issue between the four liberals, the drafting of a death penalty opinion in very little time), it was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. It's all four liberals at work.
mockturtle said...
Had it been a gas chamber, perhaps the imam would have been allowed to be present
Jesus, Mohammed, and Yusef! I wonder if that can beat the Hate-Tweet banning algorithms. Remind me not to get on mock's bad side.
20 years for this mo-fo to die.
While we housed his sorry murdering ass. That 15 year old girl? Dead. She's dead. snuffed out.
Gone. Her life, ended.
ugh. and our courts have to deal with this crap. we need to update the system so that murdering a-holes on death row get 5 years for all that court appeal garbage. not 20.
The girl didn't get any choices, now did she?
Obviously, the Supremes have had enough of the last-minute stay-to-delay tactics.
Roll 'em. Time for Ray to meet his maker.
Generally, however, I oppose the death penalty as it has been practiced. It has been very unfairly administered in this country, where we at least aspire to equal justice before the law.
The executed man, Domineque Ray, asked to have his imam present.
Maybe the Supreme Court simply misread that as being an Apple device?
He has a right to an Imam if he wants one (his right to religious guidance in his final moments is already recognised through the attendance of the chaplain), he didn't find out until the last minute that his Imam would be barred.
If I were a judge, I'd want to have a hearing on why the Imam wasn't allowed in.
So it's a question of Alabama's statute concerning executions. The statute says that a cleric of the prisoner's choosing shall be allowed "at the execution." But it is silent about what that means. Witnessing all of it, in the area? Or in the actual death chamber?
Hard for me to imagine why this would not be settled by the Alabama Supreme Court without a federal question.
But, yes; they tried to make it an Establishment Clause issue. (I think I missed Althouse's Establishment Clause tag at the outset.)
but I don't think the death penalty offers much deterrent to crime.
Certainly not if it takes 20 years and so many murderers don't face it at all. We need noisier anti-CP protesters so the media will actually cover executions instead of ignoring them.
The murderer Ray may not have had much to do with any of this. It is SOP for the defense lawyers, and if the defendant objects, they will take that as evidence he is insane and incompetent to stand trial in the first place.
J. Farmer said...
"Probably would have little to no effect. I support the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but I don't think the death penalty offers much deterrent to crime."
I also support the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but you might want to consider another aspect of the situation. In Mexico, they have one government that uses brief imprisonment in motels with whores as punishment for even the most serious offenses, and several competing governments that use the death penalty for even trivial violations of their rules. When people have to decide which of these governments they will obey, what do you suppose goes through their minds?
@Ralph L:
Certainly not if it takes 20 years and so many murderers don't face it at all. We need noisier anti-CP protesters so the media will actually cover executions instead of ignoring them.
Plus murders are often crimes of passion, and people are not typically deterred by future consequences when committing them. Very few people want to spend the rest of their lives inside a maximum security state prison, and yet the prospect of a life sentence is not likely to deter someone from committing murder. People that are willing to commit murder already have, in general, very poor impulse control and very little future orientation. That is, they tend, on average, to "live in the moment" and not concern themselves with the long-term consequences of their behavior. The most effective anti-homicide intervention we know of is a 30th birthday.
It appears Kagan is in brown-face in the picture.
@Jupiter:
When people have to decide which of these governments they will obey, what do you suppose goes through their minds?
I think that presumes people are rational risk assessors. I am not sure how true that is for the segment of the population already predisposed to commit crime.
p.s. It should be a relatively easy question to answer empirically. Is the crime rate in a lenient state higher than in a retributive state, after controlling for other relevant variables?
Jesus, Mohammed, and Yusef! I wonder if that can beat the Hate-Tweet banning algorithms. Remind me not to get on mock's bad side.
Don't you recognize a joke when you see one? Or is nothing funny anymore?
Maybe the picture was cropped after the description was written.
I didn't know that Epstein from "Welcome Back Kotter" was on the Supreme Court.
I think they could have found a way, but not sure it was enough of a constitutional issue to delay the execution.if it's not required to have a minister of some sorts present, the fact that he can't get his preferred one shouldn't delay it. Meaning the execution part was all aboveboard, constitutionally. This would seem to be incidental to it.
What was the dollar cost of keeping this murderer alive for 20 years waiting for justice? What was the cost of the judicial proceedings required to permit the implementation of the sentence?
They had to crop the picture. One of the Justices was horizontal.
If I'm ever on death row, I'll ask for the (Hello) Dalai Lama.
Or is nothing funny anymore?
Oh, I laughed. Then I felt so transgressive.
Maybe this will be enough to prevent the next asshole from killing a young girl.
"...his religious rights will be violated at the moment the State puts him to death."
Well, yea, and lots of other rights go out the window with it when you rob a young girl of all her rights, forever.
johnhenry100 said...
I'm missing something. Why was his imam not allowed to be present?
The Imam didn't have admitting privileges?
"What was the dollar cost of keeping this murderer alive for 20 years waiting for justice?"
And what was gained by the community? Nothing I can see.
He can see his imam in the afterlife.
Since when is it a part of Islam to have a Imam present when you die, if possible? Catholics have the Last Rites, but most protestant faiths don't, as far as I know. Since Islam doesn't believe in redemption, nor do they believe in confession, atonement, etc.... what, exactly, was the Imam supposed to do?
--Vance
“I don't think the death penalty offers much deterrent to crime.” Ray killed two brothers, ages 13 and 18 in 1994. He then killed a 15 year-old girl in 1995. Had he been convicted, sentenced to death and executed in 1994 Ray never would have killed the girl in 1995 or anyone else for that matter. He’s now been executed, I’d say he’s been utterly deterred from killing again.
@bagoh20:
Maybe this will be enough to prevent the next asshole from killing a young girl.
It won't. There are very few people who are willing and capable of murder but are deterred from fear of punishment.
And what was gained by the community? Nothing I can see.
Keeping a dangerous individual segregated from society is not "nothing." It costs about $30,000 per year to keep an inmate incarcerated. It's a fairly negligible amount from a state budget perspective. States typically spend more on law enforcement than corrections, and both tend to be a relatively small percentage of state spending.
Enlighten-NewJersey:
He’s now been executed, I’d say he’s been utterly deterred from killing again.
That is not what deterrence means.
"what, exactly, was the Imam supposed to do?"
Give him a wink and a thumbs up.
Justice Kagan is a pro-hunting idiot. True liberals don't hunt, so God knows what she is. Sometimes people can change. But, she should never have been swayed by gun sicko Scalia to take up hunting in the first place. I'll change my tune if it turns out she knocked off Scalia during a hunting trip. Now that would take balls.
[He’s now been executed, I’d say he’s been utterly deterred from killing again.]
"That is not what deterrence means."
Right. He's been utterly interred from killing again.
"Reviewing 15 state studies of death penalty costs conducted between 2000 and 2016, the study found that, across the country, seeking the death penalty imposes an average of approximately $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death."(From Here)
"According to the Vera Institute of Justice, incarceration costs an average of more than $31,000 per inmate, per year, nationwide."(From Here)
Assuming this data is accurate, on average a Death Penalty trial costs about as much as keeping an inmate in jail for 23 years, and this is obviously not counting the time between conviction and execution (which is supposedly an average of 15 years. So from beginning to end the death penalty costs roughly the same as keeping a person in jail for 38 years.
However, since a majority of homicides are committed by younger men, it still probably saves money to kill em.
There's a scene in Terry Pratchett's book "Going Postal" where the main character is being executed for a crime. And as he's having the rope for the noose tied around his neck, he asks the hangman if the hangman thinks the death penalty really deters crime.
And the hangman says he doesn't know, but that he does know this: he's never seen the same person twice. So in the specifics, it very much deters future crime.
Which, when you read the book and find out just how expert of a hangman this guy was, makes the "no repeat visit" statistics very impressive indeed.
--Vance
David Pecker threatens dick pic.
he's never seen the same person twice.
Then how do explain this?
"I'll change my tune if it turns out she knocked off Scalia during a hunting trip. Now that would take balls."
That's funny.
Here's a short video of Kagan talking about her hunting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bhok6VLJU
de·ter·rence
noun
the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.
Reviewing 15 state studies of death penalty costs conducted between 2000 and 2016, the study found that, across the country, seeking the death penalty imposes an average of approximately $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death.
Those increased costs are caused by the actions of those opposed to the death penalty and are a deliberate tactic.
"Is the crime rate in a lenient state higher than in a retributive state, after controlling for other relevant variables?"
Not so easy at all. If there is no difference, it still does not prove that a shorter time to execution would not make a difference. More relevant would be a study of execution of capital punishment now vs previous generations when capital punishment was carried out on the courthouse lawn.
It doesn't matter if the death penalty is a deterrent or not.
What matters is that there is justice and retribution for the victim.
In 1951 the State of MO executed the killers of Bobby Greenlease less than 100 days after the crime. After the revolution, the SC will have a lot to answer for in their show trials.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
It doesn't matter if the death penalty is a deterrent or not.
What matters is that there is justice and retribution for the victim.
That’s my point.
@etbass:
Not so easy at all. If there is no difference, it still does not prove that a shorter time to execution would not make a difference.
That wasn’t the point Jupiter was making.
To deter also means to prevent. Capital punishment is the ultimate deterrence.
That’s like saying the death penalty deters jaywalking because dead people cannot walk. That is not how deterrence is ever understood within the criminal justice context.
Dead men don't jaywalk.
Dead man (jay)walking!
Military chaplains are trained to minister to all faiths, as it's pretty impossible to have one of each religion on hand before the unit goes over the top. I imagine the same applies to prison chaplains, so I got no sympathy for this delaying tactic.
Farmer,
Are you good with "Hate Crime" enhancements?
@walter:
Farmer,
Are you good with "Hate Crime" enhancements?
No, I oppose them totally.
Inshallah
Nonapod said...
"Reviewing 15 state studies of death penalty costs conducted between 2000 and 2016, the study found that, across the country, seeking the death penalty imposes an average of approximately $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death.
This is not a differential cost analysis however which means it is not usable for the purpose cited here.
Yes, execution does deter a person from doing anything ever again including, but not limited to, murder, rape, throating slitting, shooting, etc. Now, that we have hashed out the meaning of deter perhaps we can discuss the meaning of devout. Spencer Hahn, one of Ray’s attorneys, said “Domineque was a devout Muslim and a human being.”
@Enlighten-NewJersey:
Now, that we have hashed out the meaning of deter perhaps we can discuss the meaning of devout. Spencer Hahn, one of Ray’s attorneys, said “Domineque was a devout Muslim and a human being.”
Okay. Perhaps you can tell us what we're supposed to take away from this.
Yeah fat liberal women judges all look alike.
I suppose all the people that want to give the state the power to kill people have confidence in Kamala Harris.
She was a prosecutor.
And she is the ultimate argument against giving the state the power to kill people.
You people are all nuts.
J. Farmer, given Ray’s rap sheet, do you suppose he was a devout Muslim?
gahrie said...
Ray was executed last night after the stay was lifted.
Na na na na, hey hey, goodbye.
Hannio said...
To deter also means to prevent. Capital punishment is the ultimate deterrence.
Better hope the government is never controlled by someone like Hillary. Or Occasio Cortez.
They are very much into deterrence also.
This is not a differential cost analysis however which means it is not usable for the purpose cited here.
I never intended it to be.
@Enlighten-NewJersey:
J. Farmer, given Ray’s rap sheet, do you suppose he was a devout Muslim?
I don't have the slightest clue, and it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. In the course of my career I have met many people who claim devout religious faith while having committed any number of bestial acts. You can't tell someone who believe they're in love that they're not.
Some people in our government want to deter driving and disagreeing with them.
There are more “devout” Muslims in the federal government. They are into deterring people from not being Muslim.
You deterrence nuts are crazy.
@Achilles:
Better hope the government is never controlled by someone like Hillary. Or Occasio Cortez.
Who is president does not really matter since the overwhelming majority of capital offense cases are handled by local prosecutors.
The potential for executing an innocent person is, in my mind, the most powerful argument against the death penalty. But there are mechanisms, such as the layers of judicial review, to help prevent such an injustice.
There are more “devout” Muslims in the federal government. They are into deterring people from not being Muslim.
Someone's been reading too much Frank Gaffney.
There is an interesting question here of religious conventions.
It has been customary to have a Christian priest or minister present at such things for three reasons - ritual prayers - last rites, and confessions, and civic custom, as a Christian society. The first two are things for which a Christian priest is traditionally required, as some things can only be done by a properly qualified person.
The old Roman customary social functions also apply, these having been inherited by the Christian Church. I suppose the Protestant ministries inherited at least the customary appearance-functions of the office, if not the specific duties.
Sunni Islam however does not really have a "priesthood" as such, nor are there any rituals that require anyone but the prisoner himself. Islam is both a personal and communal religion, but there is no necessary mediating class, nor a particular need for one. Imams are in the main either religio-legal scholars and judges, to which the people bring their questions and disputes, or de-facto leaders of a congregation, different from the ordinary congregant only in their having assumed leadership.
Shiites are different, but there are extremely few Shiite converts in the US.
The headline is badly written, it reads like he was executed because the SCOTUS denied him the right to have his Mulsim Cleric present.
In other words, having an Imam assume the civic role of a Christian priest is rather off, in both directions.
The implied civic ritual function it seems to me would be rejected by Islamic scholars.
And the Imam would be unsuitable for the ancient Roman civic-religion role.
Liberals LOVE Muslim immigration. It gives them another Minority they can love and ANOTHER minority they can cry racism about.
you can just imagine all the liberals - watching like Hawks - just waiting to pounce on any expression of White/American bigotry against our new fabulous minority religion.
And hugging themselves smugly for being so free of "hate". LOL!
This post about Kagan shows the bullet we dodged with trump being elected. As Althouse noted, Kagan would've been the "Center" Justice if Hillary had been able to replace Scalia and Kennedy with two wacko Liberals.
Everytime I think all the damage would've done to the USA, I feel like finding Bill Kristol, MItt Romney or some "Never trumper" and punching them in the face.
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
Better hope the government is never controlled by someone like Hillary. Or Occasio Cortez.
Who is president does not really matter since the overwhelming majority of capital offense cases are handled by local prosecutors.
I specifically named one such local prosecutor.
The people who run the King County prosecutors office are notoriously corrupt. They are pikers compared to Cooke county and offices in Austin Texas.
Soros has made a particular push getting his people into attorney general and local prosecutor positions.
You all better hope they don’t start using the death penalty.
Why every aspect of the Death Penalty and Abortion is a matter for the SCOTUS to decide is beyond me.
But everyone's cool with it. So, who am I to complain.
I'll believe the death penalty is NOT a deterrent when men on death row stop appealing their death sentences.
For some reason, no one thinks life imprisonment is worse than dying. Amazing.
Sunni Islam however does not really have a "priesthood" as such,
"The Persian Night," by Taheri finally taught me the difference between Sunni and Shia. The comparison would be Sunni =Protestant and Shia = Roman Catholic. The Imam in Shia Islam would serve a function analogous to a priest,
Of course, life imprisonment is NEVER life. Once, the Killer has served 20-30 years then all the liberals start bleating about how "we're cruelly keeping an old man in jail" etc.
And so they usually get released when they get in their 50's.
Look, let them have the Mormon Tabernacle choir present - if they can fit them in the room - just Kill the S.O.B.
Maybe the Supreme Court simply misread that as being an Apple device?
iHell. It's easy to scare superstitious people.
"As described in the Quran, Hell has seven levels (each one more severe than the one above it); seven gates (each for a specific group of sinners); a blazing fire, boiling water, and the Tree of Zaqqum. Not all Muslims and scholars[sic] agree whether hell is an eternal destination or whether some or even all of the condemned will eventually be forgiven and allowed to enter paradise."
Fire and levels. Very creative. /sarcasm.
Who does the media write these stories for? I can't believe even 10% of Americans GAF about this killer or his religion or his last act on this earth. And where do these death row inmates get the money to do all these appeals? Charity donations from bleeding heart nitwits?
rcocean said...
This post about Kagan shows the bullet we dodged with trump being elected. As Althouse noted, Kagan would've been the "Center" Justice if Hillary had been able to replace Scalia and Kennedy with two wacko Liberals.
...
True, and we both agree that Althouse is right.
...Everytime I think all the damage would've done to the USA, I feel like finding Bill Kristol, MItt Romney or some "Never trumper" and punching them in the face.
But Bill Kristol didn't support Hillary. Mitt Romney certainly didn't, and I expect that like me Romney voted for Trump.
I voted for Trump, for federal judiciary selections. What you are talking about is why a confirmed Trump-hater like me voted for Trump. And the reluctant support of "never Trump" (not a terribly accurate phrase) is why Trump won. At least, our not withholding our support was the difference in Michigan and probably Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
You might credibly say that it was Trump's turning out a bunch of working class folks who really aren't all that engaged with federal judiciary nominations is what won it for Trump. After all, here in Michigan Barack Obama won Macomb County (the original home of the Reagan Democrats, by many accounts) twice before Donald Trump won it in 2016. But then you should look at those people. Talk to THEM about federal judges.
Absolutely any of the Never Trump conservatives you might care to talk about ALL supported the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations. I dare say that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have been the dream nominees if we had a President Cruz, a President Romney, a President Rubio, or a President Graham. The Kavanaugh nomination in particular is the brightest shining example of unity between Trump and Never Trump Republicans.
I'd like to personally attest to that, and point to my own commenting record here on that account.
" I support the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but I don't think the death penalty offers much deterrent to crime."
I agree, at least as such a sentence is carried out in this country - few people can truly envision something bad that will happen twenty or so years from now when they are young, as most murderers are - too distant and abstract. Shorten the time frame considerably (and, for true deterrence, have the penalty apply to many many more people) and you would likely get deterrence.
None of this is to say that other reasons for having the death penalty are not valid (retribution, actual prevention of future crimes - someone with a life sentence has little reason not to commit further violence in prison - and the like). This is also not to say that I support the death penalty, much less the acceleration of the schedule and/or increase in its application (although I suspect that all of the legal work involved in the appeals process could be done in far less time, every other type of case gets through the appellate process far quicker). This is only a discussion of the deterrence effect.
Had it been a gas chamber, perhaps the imam would have been allowed to be present.
Why?
It's funny that they arrange the guys with their arms outstretched while killing them, as though they were being crucified. IOW, sacrificed.
To the gods of justice. That explains the overly complex physical procedures they use to kill some asshole rather blow their brains out or OD them on heroin and bleach in the alley behind the prison.
"For some reason, no one thinks life imprisonment is worse than dying. Amazing."
The problem is that they don't think that life imprisonment is worse than not killing the particular individual(s) they were convicted of murdering.
rcocean, I apologize - my last comment was directed towards a misreading of your 2:46 post. My bad...
Had it been a gas chamber, perhaps the imam would have been allowed to be present.
Fernandistein: Why?
It's a joke, son.
A priest, a rabbi and a minister walked into the execution room...
The priest asked "where is the imam?" The rabbi...
@Fernandistein, all of the gas chambers I've read about have two seats.
@Fernandistein, all of the gas chambers I've read about have two seats.
[FWIW, I deleted my previous comment which had a bogus link]
[death penalty] Probably would have little to no effect.[on crime/murder rate] I support the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but I don't think the death penalty offers much deterrent to crime.
Why?
I'd guess that the most rational justice would be that which minimized damage to innocent people, even though it didn't scare or hurt the not-innocent, the "bad people" ... as much as someone wanted?
How much is that? How is it determined? How much hurt would that be if the hurt were determined by something other than deterrence? Surely "an eye for an eye" is mafia/little-kids level morality based on superstition if it doesn't result in a reduced number of missing eyes.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
Plus murders are often crimes of passion ...
A murder may be a crime of passion. This is referred to as murder in the 2nd degree. First degree murder is a planned crime—“cold-blooded murder.”
If you can plan it, you can consider the repercussions.
“ ‘The investigation into the death of Tiffany Harville continued for several months. There were numerous leads and suspects, and at one time an individual was arrested and held without bond for the murder of Tiffany Harville. Finally, the codefendant in this case, Marcus D. Owden, came forward and gave the police a full accounting of the events and circumstances surrounding the death of Tiffany Harville. Owden testified at [t]rial against the Defendant Ray that it was their intent to form a mob or a gang, and that they had intended to find Tiffany Harville for the purpose of having sex with her. Owden stated that he did not know Tiffany, but that Ray did and that it was Ray's idea to go and get Tiffany. Owden testified that they had talked about having sex with her before they went to her house to get her. On the evening of July 15, 1995, Owden and Ray picked Tiffany up and proceeded to take her to [the] Sardis community located in Dallas County, Alabama, on or near Highway 41. Owden stated that they had decided they were going to ask her for sex first, and if that didn't work, that they would take it. He described during his testimony how he and the Defendant Ray [had] had sex with her and how she [had] pleaded for help.
“ ‘Owden testified that Ray cut her throat and that he, Owden, cut her as well. He then described that they took part of her clothing along with her purse, which contained $6 or $7.
“ ‘In addition to the testimony of Marcus D. Owden, the State offered into evidence the statement of the Defendant, Dominique Ray. In his statement, he admits to his role in the rape and murder of Tiffany Harville, yet attempts to establish Owden as the primary perpetrator.
“ ‘Dr. [James] Lauridson, the State Medical Examiner with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, described 12 defects in the skull which were consistent with stab-like defects. He [wa]s unable to testify with regard to soft tissue wounds, due to the decomposition of the body.” ’
Just so you know it wasn't for stealing a loaf of bread for his starving family.
Sigh. The link above should be to C.S. Lewis's "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment", whence originates the bogus quote " Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims ..." and in which he claims that punishments should maximize revenge and sadism rather than deterrence. No data of any kind of course, because superstition doesn't require data.
Blogger Enlighten-NewJersey said...
“I don't think the death penalty offers much deterrent to crime.” Ray killed two brothers, ages 13 and 18 in 1994. He then killed a 15 year-old girl in 1995. Had he been convicted, sentenced to death and executed in 1994 Ray never would have killed the girl in 1995 or anyone else for that matter. He’s now been executed, I’d say he’s been utterly deterred from killing again.
And he has now been deterred from killing:
-a fellow prisoner
-a prison guard
-another innocent civilian, in the event that some future bleeding heart were to grant him weekend furloughs
so what his moslem name, that is why he requested an imam right?
"Reviewing 15 state studies of death penalty costs conducted between 2000 and 2016, the study found that, across the country, seeking the death penalty imposes an average of approximately $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death."
Which is entirely the result of Federal policy, specifically that the Federal Government directly funds counsel for appeals in capital cases, without any consideration of merit, while not doing so for any other sort of sentence. Thus in capital cases the state has to respond to case-spamming subsidized by the Federal Government, while in other cases they don't. Eliminate the differential in Federal funding, and the differential in costs to states would go away.
“Sunni Islam however does not really have a "priesthood" as such, nor are there any rituals that require anyone but the prisoner himself. Islam is both a personal and communal religion, but there is no necessary mediating class, nor a particular need for one. Imams are in the main either religio-legal scholars and judges, to which the people bring their questions and disputes, or de-facto leaders of a congregation, different from the ordinary congregant only in their having assumed leadership. ”
One of the things specifically rejected by mainline Protestantism is the legitimacy of a mediating class. The church I was raised in is run by a Session comprised of ruling elders and teaching elders, the latter being the ministers, and in modern days typically requires a divinity degree of some sort. My understanding of Mormonism is that there is even less of a priestly class, with its bishops coming from the laity, instead of the clergy.
“"The Persian Night," by Taheri finally taught me the difference between Sunni and Shia. The comparison would be Sunni =Protestant and Shia = Roman Catholic. The Imam in Shia Islam would serve a function analogous to a priest,”
Quite a few parallels. For example, in the Protestant church in which I was raised, there are no human depictions whatsoever in the sanctuary. No statues of Jesus or Mary, no pictures of Saints, etc. none. There are however photos of current and former clergy in the room in which coffee is served after services. The justification for this ban is the same as that used by Sunni Islam - the Biblical ban on idolatry.
all that's left is the jizda
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272801/shameful-censuring-hallandale-commissioner-joe-kaufman
Big Mike said...
Damn you, 8th Amendment!
The 8th prohibits "cruel AND unusual" punishments.
Do something often enough, and it is no longer "unusual".
Thus, legal, regardless of cruelty.
probably so:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/extremist_imam_keynotes_civil_rights_fundraiser.html
"But Bill Kristol didn't support Hillary. Mitt Romney certainly didn't, and I expect that like me Romney voted for Trump.
Pathetic. Never Trumpers criticized Trump AFTER he became the R nominee, supported 3rd Party (Egg McMuffin and Libertarian) and loudly stated they were NOT going to vote for Trump.
but they didn't LITERALLY say in public "I support Hillary". Okey Dokey.
I always love it when Never Trumpers "Play Dumb".
rcocean you make a good point!
Who are you supporting in the 2020 Republican primary?
Trump
Did I miss something or did no one notice that we have a 5-4 ruling when one Justice, RBG, has been absent for two months?
Is this not an issue or a red flag? If its Telecommuting, can the Chief Justice show us an email log?
Who cast her vote? Who wrote any opinion under her name?
We have enough dead people voting in elections in Chicago, Fl and GA. What is voting in the Supreme Court these days?
Just saying.
Red
Plus murders are often crimes of passion, and people are not typically deterred by future consequences when committing them.
@Farmer, I had been thinking about this remark of yours all day. Here’s another thought experiment: what if the death penalty deters murders other than the ones that are crimes of passion, which, as you point out, are hard to deter in any case.
Is this not an issue or a red flag? If its Telecommuting, can the Chief Justice show us an email log?
Who cast her vote? Who wrote any opinion under her name?
I think at this point somebody has to go on TV and assure the American people that RBG is alive and well and participating. I would accept a brief 20 sec spot by RBG herself more than sufficient.
Do something often enough, and it is no longer "unusual".
Thus, legal, regardless of cruelty.
That's not the way it works. The Amendment bans "cruel" and "unusual" punishments, not "cruel and unusual" punishments.
CAIR stayed out?!
Discuss.
I think at this point somebody has to go on TV and assure the American people that RBG is alive and well and participating. I would accept a brief 20 sec spot by RBG herself more than sufficient.
Yep. If they think they can carry on this charade until after next year's election, they are mistaken.
How about a Roger Stone-like predawn FBI raid with loaded, fully automatic rifles and CNN cameras rolling on Ginsburg’s townhouse?
Blogger rcocean said...
Trump
2/8/19, 5:23 PM
That’s great.
What if Trump resigns in the fall of 2019, after devastating criminal allegations surface this summer and broad consensus rises in the public and then among the Republican Conference in the Senate ? Asking for a friend.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा