We are studying psychopaths. The death penalty is not creating a shortage of them to study nor is it preventing study, nor will eliminating the death penalty result in more study of psychopathy.
It's a red herring argument that people should stop making.
I think the argument that psychopaths are still human beings deserving of life, and that we shouldn't keep the death penalty around just for them.
Even with zero chance at rehabilitation, there is still a reason for incarceration in protecting the rest of society, while still keeping the retribution aspect of the death penalty off the table.
I'm not sure what the phrase "deserving of life" means, but I am sure it has no business in the criminal justice system.
You being sure doesn't make something true. If you want a criminal justice system that doesn't value human life then you're going to end up with increasingly monstrous abuses, which I'd argue is something that's happening.
We are studying psychopaths. The death penalty is not creating a shortage of them to study nor is it preventing study, nor will eliminating the death penalty result in more study of psychopathy.
It's a red herring argument that people should stop making.
I think the argument that psychopaths are still human beings deserving of life, and that we shouldn't keep the death penalty around just for them.
Even with zero chance at rehabilitation, there is still a reason for incarceration in protecting the rest of society, while still keeping the retribution aspect of the death penalty off the table.
I'm not sure what the phrase "deserving of life" means, but I am sure it has no business in the criminal justice system.
You being sure doesn't make something true. If you want a criminal justice system that doesn't value human life then you're going to end up with increasingly monstrous abuses, which I'd argue is something that's happening.
We are studying psychopaths. The death penalty is not creating a shortage of them to study nor is it preventing study, nor will eliminating the death penalty result in more study of psychopathy.
It's a red herring argument that people should stop making.
I think the argument that psychopaths are still human beings deserving of life, and that we shouldn't keep the death penalty around just for them.
Even with zero chance at rehabilitation, there is still a reason for incarceration in protecting the rest of society, while still keeping the retribution aspect of the death penalty off the table.
I'm not sure what the phrase "deserving of life" means, but I am sure it has no business in the criminal justice system.
You being sure doesn't make something true. If you want a criminal justice system that doesn't value human life then you're going to end up with increasingly monstrous abuses, which I'd argue is something that's happening.
We are studying psychopaths. The death penalty is not creating a shortage of them to study nor is it preventing study, nor will eliminating the death penalty result in more study of psychopathy.
It's a red herring argument that people should stop making.
I think the argument that psychopaths are still human beings deserving of life, and that we shouldn't keep the death penalty around just for them.
Even with zero chance at rehabilitation, there is still a reason for incarceration in protecting the rest of society, while still keeping the retribution aspect of the death penalty off the table.
I'm not sure what the phrase "deserving of life" means, but I am sure it has no business in the criminal justice system.
We are studying psychopaths. The death penalty is not creating a shortage of them to study nor is it preventing study, nor will eliminating the death penalty result in more study of psychopathy.
It's a red herring argument that people should stop making.
I think the argument that psychopaths are still human beings deserving of life, and that we shouldn't keep the death penalty around just for them.
Even with zero chance at rehabilitation, there is still a reason for incarceration in protecting the rest of society, while still keeping the retribution aspect of the death penalty off the table.
I'm not sure what the phrase "deserving of life" means, but I am sure it has no business in the criminal justice system.
But "deserving of death" does?
Not if you axiomatically think it applies to everyone.
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I dunno guys. It strikes me as pretty hard to argue in some cases that some people are deserving of life, while it is rather easy to argue that they do not deserve death.
Life is what they already got, no "deserve" about it. And nobody deserves to be put to death by the state or anyone.
I dunno guys. It strikes me as pretty hard to argue in some cases that some people are deserving of life, while it is rather easy to argue that they do not deserve death.
Life is what they already got, no "deserve" about it. And nobody deserves to be put to death by the state or anyone.
I find the whole idea of the criminal justice system handing out to people what they "deserve" really strange, but I find the idea of "deserving life" even stranger. Clearly what's meant here is not justice, because surely no one would say that mass murderers being struck down by lightning is unjust. It also can't mean something you've earned - how does anyone earn life? - or the allocation of a finite resource - life clearly isn't. So like I said I have no idea what this means, except a warm and fuzzy way of saying "Execution! Boo!!!!"
I think all this bad literature about psychopathy is because until 2013, with DSM V, it was not an official term for what we call Antisocial Personality Disorder, of which it is still a subset. Any paper that utilizes the term as a keyword is likely to be more of a study of criminal justice than psychology. Which is fine, but not as sophisticated in determining the state of the art in treating the disorder.
It is true that clinical trials have been negative in all approaches to treating people with antisocial personality disorder, but I find that 2006 article you quoted incomplete and polarizing. The criteria by which it defines psychopathy - criminal behavior - is totally at odds with the alternative definition that DSM V provides, and moreover, offers no finesse of scale between people who have mild psychopathic traits and steal CDs from a supermarket vs. people who wear a hat made of baby scalps. This black and white view actually hurts the article at the end when it dissects and dismisses the results of the Skeem et al 2002 paper. Of course the worst psychopaths are resistant to all treatment, but gradation is not always a selection bias! It may teach us that perhaps we should not put every case in the same category, and the latest alternative trait model attempts to acknowledge that, flawed as it may be.
As for my opinion, I don't know if I'm willing to make the leap to consider danger to society in the rubric for euthanasia, which is really what this is about. I think the person's actual wish to die or a state of perpetual pain would be more important factors to consider before actually killing them.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I dunno guys. It strikes me as pretty hard to argue in some cases that some people are deserving of life, while it is rather easy to argue that they do not deserve death.
Life is what they already got, no "deserve" about it. And nobody deserves to be put to death by the state or anyone.
I find the whole idea of the criminal justice system handing out to people what they "deserve" really strange, but I find the idea of "deserving life" even stranger. Clearly what's meant here is not justice, because surely no one would say that mass murderers being struck down by lightning is unjust. It also can't mean something you've earned - how does anyone earn life? - or the allocation of a finite resource - life clearly isn't. So like I said I have no idea what this means, except a warm and fuzzy way of saying "Execution! Boo!!!!"
Being struck down by lightning is neither just nor unjust, unless you tied somebody to a lightning rod.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The solitary confinment thing, and removing people from the general prison population reminds me of Breivik (the 2011 Norway terror attack) and how, while they removed him from the general prison population, they had rotating guards so that he had human contact for a few hours a day, a PC (not connected to the internet), reading matterial, and a TV.
While I personally wouldn't be happy with such an arrangement, I doubt that I would consider it torturous.
Wasn't there quite a bit of brouhaha at the time from various U.S. sources on how the Norwegians were coddling a serial killer, just because he wasn't stuck in a box and locked in a dark cupboard?
The solitary confinment thing, and removing people from the general prison population reminds me of Breivik (the 2011 Norway terror attack) and how, while they removed him from the general prison population, they had rotating guards so that he had human contact for a few hours a day, a PC (not connected to the internet), reading matterial, and a TV.
While I personally wouldn't be happy with such an arrangement, I doubt that I would consider it torturous.
Wasn't there quite a bit of brouhaha at the time from various U.S. sources on how the Norwegians were coddling a serial killer, just because he wasn't stuck in a box and locked in a dark cupboard?
A gilded cage is still a cage. Restriction or imprisonment in general will be tortorous or overwhelm many people, even Breivik's level of accommodation or house arrest.
From my understanding Supermax is not designed with the explicit intent of being cruel, rather the entire design was based on being safe and secure - no risk to prisoners, and no chance of escape (either from within or without).
People don't just get thrown into Supermax - they have demonstrated themselves to be an extreme danger to their guards or fellow prisoners, they are considered to be at extreme risk of injury or death if they are around other prisoners, or they have escaped or attempted to escape from less secure facilities. On paper, Breivik's conditions aren't particularly different than those of a Supermax prisoner.
There are reading materials, interactions with other prisoners (remotely, by video), exercise, some interaction with guards, and in cases of good behavior visitation. Yes Supermax is a hole, but it's a hole by necessity.
While Supermax may represent some problems with the prison system, I think the far more problematic situation is at a lower level, such as regular overcrowded maximum security prisons where sexual abuse and violence are widespread. Especially for-profit prisons.
I do love the point that if he wants his sodium thiopental, he's going to have to smuggle it in (on account of the FDA being legally enjoined to seize any such shipments coming into the US.)
Public Act 12-5 not only reflects this state’s longstanding aversion to carrying out executions, but also represents the seminal change in the four century long history of capital punishment in Connecticut. Accompanying this dramatic departure are a host of other important developments that have transpired over the past several years. Historians have given us new chronicles of the history and devolution of the death penalty in Connecticut. Legal scholars have provided new understandings of the original meaning of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Social scientists repeatedly have confirmed that the risk of capital punishment falls disproportionately on people of color and other disadvantaged groups. Meanwhile, nationally, the number of executions and the number of states that allow the death penalty continue to decline, and convicted capital felons in this state remain on death row for decades with every likelihoodthat they will not be executed for many years to come, if ever. Finally, it has become apparent that the dual federal constitutional requirements applicable to all capital sentencing schemes—namely, that the jury be provided with objective standards to guide its sentence, on the one hand, and that it be accorded unfettered discretion to impose a sentence of less than death, on the other—are fundamentally in conflict and inevitably open the door to impermissible racial and ethnic biases. For all these reasons, and in light of the apparent intent of the legislature in prospectively repealing the death penalty and this state’s failure to implement and operate a fair and functional system of capital punishment, we conclude that the state constitution no longer permits the execution of individuals sentenced to death for crimes committed prior to the enactment of P.A. 12-5.
The more legal precedent that mounts against it, the better.
Yes it was a necessary thing to address the inmates currently on death row for past crimes, they needed to either pass more legislation or get this ruling from the court.
I dunno guys. It strikes me as pretty hard to argue in some cases that some people are deserving of life, while it is rather easy to argue that they do not deserve death.
Life is what they already got, no "deserve" about it. And nobody deserves to be put to death by the state or anyone.
I find the whole idea of the criminal justice system handing out to people what they "deserve" really strange, but I find the idea of "deserving life" even stranger. Clearly what's meant here is not justice, because surely no one would say that mass murderers being struck down by lightning is unjust. It also can't mean something you've earned - how does anyone earn life? - or the allocation of a finite resource - life clearly isn't. So like I said I have no idea what this means, except a warm and fuzzy way of saying "Execution! Boo!!!!"
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
With Love and Courage
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
The more legal precedent that mounts against it, the better.
Yes it was a necessary thing to address the inmates currently on death row for past crimes, they needed to either pass more legislation or get this ruling from the court.
Do you reckon that the sociological grounds for the ruling, that capital punishment is racist in its implementation, will have much relevance for banning it in other states?
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
The more legal precedent that mounts against it, the better.
Yes it was a necessary thing to address the inmates currently on death row for past crimes, they needed to either pass more legislation or get this ruling from the court.
Do you reckon that the sociological grounds for the ruling, that capital punishment is racist in its implementation, will have much relevance for banning it in other states?
Well I'm sure Connecticut isn't the most racist state in the union so...
I'm sure the viewpoint is that it's better to let a hundred innocent men die than let one guilty man live (unless that guilty man does a plea bargain).
There are petitions to grant Richard Glossip a stay of execution at MoveOn.org, Change.org, and FaithfulAmerica.org - there are most likely others, but those are the three I'm aware of. Phone numbers for OK Governor Mary Fallin's office and the OK Pardon and Parole board are here.
-Glenn Ford was wrongly convicted of murder and served 30 years. He was exonerated when the real killer confessed to an informant.
-Prosecutor Marty Stroud said that he was 'arrogant and caught up in a culture of winning'.
-Public defenders had never practiced criminal law.
-Shortly after his release, Ford learned he had Stage 4 lung cancer. He has since passed away.
Damn, horrible. But at least he probably got millions of dollars for this miscarriage of justice though, right?
Wrong.
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
There was some compensation. Glenn Ford was given a $20 gift card the day he left Angola prison.
Glenn Ford: Gave me a card for $20 and said "Wish you luck."
Bill Whitaker: How long did that last you?
Glenn Ford: One meal. I had some fried chicken, tea and the French fries came with it. I had $4 and change left.
Bill Whitaker: After 30 years in prison?
Glenn Ford: Right.
Bill Whitaker: Do you forgive him?
Glenn Ford: No. He didn't only take from me; he took from my whole family.
Bill Whitaker: It sounds like you don't think you could ever forgive him.
Glenn Ford: Well, I don't. But I'm still trying to.
Bill Whitaker: Do you think you deserve his forgiveness?
Marty Stroud: No. If somebody had done that to me, I don't know if I could forgive them.
Three weeks after we met him, Glenn Ford died, penniless. His final months he lived off charity. Donations covered the cost of his funeral.
Dale Cox: There was a tragic outcome. And these tragic outcomes happen all the time in life. It's not like the Glenn Ford case is the only tragedy you'll ever see or I'll ever see in our lifetime. The question is, was there anything illegally done, improperly done that led to this. And-- and I can comfortably say, based on the review of the record, no, there was not.
In Glenn Ford's will, he directs that any state money he might receive go to his 10 grandchildren so they can have a better chance than he did. And Marty Stroud? He has asked the Louisiana Bar Association to discipline him for his role in the Ford case.
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
That only applies in the trial sense. In every other sense, it's an uphill battle.
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
I'm I reading him right, that he's saying if a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime, they're not entitled any compensation unless they can also prove they aren't guilty of any other crime someone should happen throw at them?
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
I'm I reading him right, that he's saying if a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime, they're not entitled any compensation unless they can also prove they aren't guilty of any other crime someone should happen throw at them?
More that because he had knowledge of the crime potentially happening, this invalidated the fact that the state had inflicted a grievous injustice to him.
The autopsy report was sent to the office of Dale Cox, the first assistant district attorney of Caddo Parish, which includes Shreveport. After reading the police reports, he decided to seek the death penalty. Cox told me that in the past forty years he had never prosecuted a man between the ages of seventeen and twenty-six who grew up in a nuclear family. “Not one,” he said. He believes that the “destruction of the nuclear family and a tremendously high illegitimate birth rate” have brought about an “epidemic of child-killings” in the parish.
At the time that he learned of Crawford’s case, he was prosecuting another young black man accused of killing his infant. After the man was sentenced to life without parole, rather than death, Cox told a local TV station, “I take it as a failure that I was unable to convince the jury to kill him.”
...Last March, a former colleague of Cox’s published a letter in the Shreveport Times apologizing for causing an innocent black man to spend thirty years on death row. “We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death,” he wrote. When a journalist with the paper, Maya Lau, asked Cox for his response, he said that he thought courts should be imposing the death penalty more, not less. “I think we need to kill more people,” he told her. “We’re not considered a society anymore—we’re a jungle.”
Cox does not believe that the death penalty works as a deterrent, but he says that it is justified as revenge. He told me that revenge was a revitalizing force that “brings to us a visceral satisfaction.” He felt that the public’s aversion to the notion had to do with the word itself. “It’s a hard word—it’s like the word ‘hate,’ the word ‘despot,’ the word ‘blood.’ ” He said, “Over time, I have come to the position that revenge is important for society as a whole. We have certain rules that you are expected to abide by, and when you don’t abide by them you have forfeited your right to live among us.”
Of course, the atmosphere of the office wasn't much better:
Others thought that he had become too immersed in the culture of the D.A.’s office; it was the sort of institution where a longtime assistant district attorney felt comfortable hanging a large portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and an early leader of the Ku Klux Klan, on the wall. “Nobody there is that far from turning into a savage,” Walker told me. “If somebody releases the chain, they’ll be off and running.”
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
I'm I reading him right, that he's saying if a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime, they're not entitled any compensation unless they can also prove they aren't guilty of any other crime someone should happen throw at them?
Basically, yeah. And you can pretty well expect there to be no negative PR for such a viewpoint because criminals are sub-human monsters. Why should taxpayers compensate the wrongful incarceration of a criminal monster?
According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
Interviewer Bill Whitaker: Do you believe he should be compensated for the time he spent in prison?
Current District Attorney and Unapologetic Dickhead Dale Cox: No, I think we need to follow the law. And the statute does not require that you be charged or convicted or arrested for any of these other crimes. The statute only requires that Mr. Ford prove he didn't do these other crimes.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
I'm I reading him right, that he's saying if a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime, they're not entitled any compensation unless they can also prove they aren't guilty of any other crime someone should happen throw at them?
Basically, yeah. And you can pretty well expect there to be no negative PR for such a viewpoint because criminals are sub-human monsters. Why should taxpayers compensate the wrongful incarceration of a criminal monster?
It "helps" in this case that he's dead. Really easy to paint random family members suing as nowhere near as sympathetic.
Posts
You being sure doesn't make something true. If you want a criminal justice system that doesn't value human life then you're going to end up with increasingly monstrous abuses, which I'd argue is something that's happening.
Not what I said.
Maybe not what you intended to say.
But "deserving of death" does?
Not if you axiomatically think it applies to everyone.
Life is what they already got, no "deserve" about it. And nobody deserves to be put to death by the state or anyone.
I find the whole idea of the criminal justice system handing out to people what they "deserve" really strange, but I find the idea of "deserving life" even stranger. Clearly what's meant here is not justice, because surely no one would say that mass murderers being struck down by lightning is unjust. It also can't mean something you've earned - how does anyone earn life? - or the allocation of a finite resource - life clearly isn't. So like I said I have no idea what this means, except a warm and fuzzy way of saying "Execution! Boo!!!!"
It is true that clinical trials have been negative in all approaches to treating people with antisocial personality disorder, but I find that 2006 article you quoted incomplete and polarizing. The criteria by which it defines psychopathy - criminal behavior - is totally at odds with the alternative definition that DSM V provides, and moreover, offers no finesse of scale between people who have mild psychopathic traits and steal CDs from a supermarket vs. people who wear a hat made of baby scalps. This black and white view actually hurts the article at the end when it dissects and dismisses the results of the Skeem et al 2002 paper. Of course the worst psychopaths are resistant to all treatment, but gradation is not always a selection bias! It may teach us that perhaps we should not put every case in the same category, and the latest alternative trait model attempts to acknowledge that, flawed as it may be.
As for my opinion, I don't know if I'm willing to make the leap to consider danger to society in the rubric for euthanasia, which is really what this is about. I think the person's actual wish to die or a state of perpetual pain would be more important factors to consider before actually killing them.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
MWO: Adamski
Being struck down by lightning is neither just nor unjust, unless you tied somebody to a lightning rod.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Wasn't there quite a bit of brouhaha at the time from various U.S. sources on how the Norwegians were coddling a serial killer, just because he wasn't stuck in a box and locked in a dark cupboard?
A gilded cage is still a cage. Restriction or imprisonment in general will be tortorous or overwhelm many people, even Breivik's level of accommodation or house arrest.
From my understanding Supermax is not designed with the explicit intent of being cruel, rather the entire design was based on being safe and secure - no risk to prisoners, and no chance of escape (either from within or without).
People don't just get thrown into Supermax - they have demonstrated themselves to be an extreme danger to their guards or fellow prisoners, they are considered to be at extreme risk of injury or death if they are around other prisoners, or they have escaped or attempted to escape from less secure facilities. On paper, Breivik's conditions aren't particularly different than those of a Supermax prisoner.
There are reading materials, interactions with other prisoners (remotely, by video), exercise, some interaction with guards, and in cases of good behavior visitation. Yes Supermax is a hole, but it's a hole by necessity.
While Supermax may represent some problems with the prison system, I think the far more problematic situation is at a lower level, such as regular overcrowded maximum security prisons where sexual abuse and violence are widespread. Especially for-profit prisons.
Supermax? Not so much.
I loves me some Frontline. Thanks SIG, I'll be bookmarking this for later viewing.
UPDATE TIME: They didn't fuck it up!
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
I'm stealing Dollar Store Lex Luthor for my own personal use.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
I do love the point that if he wants his sodium thiopental, he's going to have to smuggle it in (on account of the FDA being legally enjoined to seize any such shipments coming into the US.)
You know, like some sort of drug mule.
note that they had already repealed it for all future crimes
Here is the slip opinion http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306.pdf
The more legal precedent that mounts against it, the better.
Yes it was a necessary thing to address the inmates currently on death row for past crimes, they needed to either pass more legislation or get this ruling from the court.
Do you reckon that the sociological grounds for the ruling, that capital punishment is racist in its implementation, will have much relevance for banning it in other states?
Well I'm sure Connecticut isn't the most racist state in the union so...
A good thing too - Lamar Burgess was woefully lax in not following up Agatha's minority reports and what they meant for the entire Precrime division.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
-Glenn Ford was wrongly convicted of murder and served 30 years. He was exonerated when the real killer confessed to an informant.
-Prosecutor Marty Stroud said that he was 'arrogant and caught up in a culture of winning'.
-Public defenders had never practiced criminal law.
-Shortly after his release, Ford learned he had Stage 4 lung cancer. He has since passed away.
Damn, horrible. But at least he probably got millions of dollars for this miscarriage of justice though, right?
Wrong.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really how the American justice system works any more, is it?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's never been how it worked in a lot of places.
That only applies in the trial sense. In every other sense, it's an uphill battle.
I'm I reading him right, that he's saying if a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime, they're not entitled any compensation unless they can also prove they aren't guilty of any other crime someone should happen throw at them?
More that because he had knowledge of the crime potentially happening, this invalidated the fact that the state had inflicted a grievous injustice to him.
Cox is a vicious goose - the New Yorker did a longform piece involving him this summer, which had some chilling bits:
Of course, the atmosphere of the office wasn't much better:
Basically, yeah. And you can pretty well expect there to be no negative PR for such a viewpoint because criminals are sub-human monsters. Why should taxpayers compensate the wrongful incarceration of a criminal monster?
It "helps" in this case that he's dead. Really easy to paint random family members suing as nowhere near as sympathetic.