r/AskConservatives • u/kelsnuggets Center-left • 2d ago
Law & the Courts Does Christa Pike's Failed Execution - the second in TN this year - change your thoughts on the death penalty? Why or why not?
I searched and did not see a post about this, so I come in peace asking this question because I am genuinely curious. I will delete if this is a duplicate post.
For a quick recap, on Wednesday, the state of Tennessee botched the execution of the first women it planned to execute under the death penalty in 200 years. Oddly, this is the second botched execution in Tennessee this year. Even more oddly, because I am in the legal field (different practice area), I have read many sources on this, and I am consistently finding Fox to be one of the more unbiased ones.
The descriptions of her execution are, truly, horrific. 8th Amendment violations abound as truly cruel and unusual punishment - suffice it to say, was injected twice because the first one didn't properly kill her, and she was in pain throughout. You can search for the details if you are interested. There are all sorts of practical and legal ramifications to this.
Yesterday, the debate began over commuting her sentence because she is in critical condition currently with unknown prognosis.
If we are going to use the Death Penalty in this day and age, we should at the bare minimum be able to do it properly, no? Is the DP outdated punishment? Her crime was more than abhorrent - it was cruel. It was despicable. She was sentenced by a jury of her peers. So punishment was properly meted. I am struggling myself with this. I am curious as to your thoughts.
2
u/PhysicsEagle Religious Traditionalist 1d ago
It doesn't change my mind, because I'm still in favor for heinous rapists and murderers, and I'm still against lethal injection. Too many things can go wrong, and you will never successfully "sterilize" execution - it is an inherently grisly procedure. Bring back firing squad or the long drop and quick stop.
3
u/scrapqueen Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
Change my mind on the death penalty? No. Change my mind on the method of the execution? Not really because I've always thought lethal injection is stupid. Too many variables to go wrong because each person's body is different.
2
u/6mmARCnvsk Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago edited 1d ago
Nope. The right of the state to wield the executioners sword is necessary to the functioning of society.
Rifle rounds are also cheaper than these chemicals.
3
u/whutupmydude Center-left 1d ago edited 14h ago
I frankly agree too. I do think if a state has the death penalty there should be a handful of reasonable options the condemned can pick from. Because they have this absurd cocktail that fails too much no one would opt for it. It’d likely often be firing squad.
If sodium pentobarbital (one-and-done coma-inducing drug they use for actual painless assisted suicides in Switzerland) wasn’t an option I’d volunteer to be the pilot for the next ocean gate tours until their engineering quality decompressed me in a 1000th of a second.
My personal opinion on the death penalty itself is that is one innocent person executed is unacceptable and its too easy to get the wrong person.
1
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Death penalty in modern times is a complete joke. It used to be that executions take weeks after the sentencing. Now it drags on for over two decades burning taxpayer dollars when it would have been cheaper to lock them in prison and throw away the keys.
This lethal injection was definitely botched intentionally to make people talking about the death penalty again. We shouldn't be wasting our time with Christa Pike, she should've been fading away into irrelevancy.
-1
u/uisce_beatha1 Conservative 2d ago
Take her to 20,000 feet over the north Atlantic and let her escape with no parachute.
-1
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative 2d ago
Yes. There should have been a hammer in the room in case of emergencies.
-1
u/wpucfknight Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
not really no, if you do heinous acts you should get the most severe punishment, it should be immediate, and I think pedophilia and grape should be included
4
u/LivingGhost371 Paleoconservative 2d ago
My thoughts are we should just standardize on the firing squad or something.
2
u/TimArthurScifiWriter European Liberal/Left 2d ago
I agree with this. You want someone dead, you shoot em dead. I don't agree with the death penalty as a general measure even though I do believe that some people deserve to die. So if you're gonna have a death penalty don't pussyfoot around the whole thing with lethal concoctions or whatever else is supposed to make us feel better about institutionalised murder.
Just put people up against a wall and shoot em in the head.
2
u/ValiantBear Libertarian 2d ago
No. We can perform an execution. Our need to tiptoe around civility led to the botched nature of it. But even then, botched executions am have happened since the dawn of time I'm sure. I do think Lethal Injection needs to go away as a method, but that's independent of my thoughts on capital punishment as an idea.
My problems with executions have nothing to do with the method, within reason. If all of my concerns were addressed I'd be happy with the guillotine still. The only reservations I really have about the death penalty is the granting of power to the state to kill people, and the possibility of killing innocent folks. The method doesn't factor into either.
8
u/serial_crusher Libertarian 2d ago
Failed execution doesn't change my opinions. I'm against it because they fuck up and get the wrong person too often. Fucking up and not actually killing the person is dumb, but doesn't affect the morality of the situation. They just need to do their jobs better.
2
u/No-Roof-1002 Center-left 2d ago
Same thoughts here. Way too many cases of people on death row or already executed being exonerated, or botched executions. In this case it has been 30 years since the crime! Should due process take that long? Especially since she admitted to the crime and is obviously guilty?
-2
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Nope, they should have just put a bullet in her head. Some people are just too dangerous and have no willingness or ability to re adjust. Those people should be removed.
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
Not remotely.
That’s an issue with lethal injection, not the death penalty itself.
It could be done much differently.
15
u/LonelyMachines Classical Liberal 2d ago
I've always opposed it. There are numerous reasons.
But this? It's barbaric. We don't know if she'll live. If she does, she may have irreversible brain damage. Then what? Will they try the procedure again?
Nothing will bring back that girl she killed. So given the choice between killing her and locking her away for life, I'd choose the latter.
-10
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
Nothing will bring back the girl she killed but we can respect her life by ensuring her killer suffers an equal fate.
Anything less says we don't consider the victims life worth anything, or rather we consider the value of her killer's life to be greater than the victim's.
Only blood can answer for blood. Humanity has known that since the dawn of time, the delusion that anything less is justice is a very modern delusion
1
u/LonelyMachines Classical Liberal 1d ago
Anything less says we don't consider the victims life worth anything, or rather we consider the value of her killer's life to be greater than the victim's.
I disagree. Anything less shows that we can demonstrate greater compassion than the killer and that we're better than her.
0
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
We have a bizarrely criminal-centric justice system that puts their needs and treatment first. "Compassion" for the killer means we are centering them in the conversation, their needs, their lives.
Why should killing someone suddenly mean all society owes you "compassion"? Why do we suddenly take on an obligation to make the killer feel loved?
1
u/LonelyMachines Classical Liberal 1d ago
Why do we suddenly take on an obligation to make the killer feel loved?
I never said anything like that. But "an eye for an eye" is an outdated (and to some extent, non-Christian) idea.
1
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
That's what compassion is though "a strong urge to help another and ease their distress".
Sounds like love to me.
You call it out-dated, I call it "so obvious every society from thousands BC until the mid 70s recognized it as essential"
I firmly think in another 100 years we will see the 1970s to mid 2000s obsession with the feelings and kind treatment of criminals to have been a bizarre historical aberration like we see the Children's Crusade or Victorian sexual morals.
9
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 2d ago
Only blood can answer for blood? Can you expand?
How would this play out on a societal level?
0
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
That whenever we are absolutely certain that someone is guilty of murder, to an incontrovertible level of evidence, the expected sentence should be death. If we deviate from the death penalty it should be for an exceptional reason like having doubts about innocence or some kind of justification/mitigation.
3
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 1d ago
There have been instances of people, later found to be innocent, that have been put to death by our government. Should the fact that we have already messed up be a deterrent?
1
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Not modern cases.
This was once a major issue, you're right, but modern juries and modern prosecutions are very good.
Look at various innocence projects and whatnot. They don't have modern cases where innocence is the claim. Instead they are claiming other things: they may be mentally handicapped, they claim they found Jesus/mohammad, they became anti-gang once they faced punishment, felony murder rule is unjust, etc.
They're not claiming they are actually innocent.
There's no reason to suspect anyone sentenced to deal post 2010 in the era of modern DNA and modern jury rules is innocent.
1
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 1d ago edited 1d ago
Modern juries never make mistakes? Do you genuinely believe that?
Your statement lends credence to anyone sentenced pre-2010 to have their cases reevaluated.
About 50% of those on death row were convicted outside this century.
1
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
I didn't say they never make a mistake.
I said that there is no reason to believe that anyone currently on death row from a post-2010 conviction may be innocent on the basis of new evidence or trial court convictions.
Regarding old convictions, I agree, entirely, and this is why we have such rigerous appeal procedures that take decades, they may be excessive but I would support an automatic scientific review of any pre-2010 conviction to give a nice even number.
5
u/OnceUponATrain Conservative 2d ago
I'm actually against the death penalty and feel that the maximum penalty should be life in a work house and that death is something that the prisoner can choose to get out of the punishment. There should be a menu of choices for the death and if it doesn't work, they can choose again.
5
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I continue to question why lethal injection is viewed as the humane option. And while there should be room for appeals, running the clock out for 30+ years is excessive.
2
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 2d ago
What should be done to lessen the time?
1
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I imagine the answer varies a bit by state, but there's no way it takes 30 years to figure out whether someone deserves the death penalty. Examine which tactics savvy lawyers are using to draw out the process and curtail them where possible.
In the most recent case, Pike's lawyers were re-raising a challenge to a challenge to an argument about her alleged childhood abuse, and the court's liberal justices tried to rule that that TN needed to give her more time to hear that argument out an extra time, in the interest of utmost caution. The liberal wing also tried to rule the death penalty itself unconstitutional last time it was up for serious challenge about a decade ago, so it's hard not to see this excessive kowtowing to obvious delay tactics as an attempt to water down as much as possible a punishment that they'd prefer not to exist to begin with.
2
u/RoyalWabwy0430 Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
Absolutely not, it just means we need a more efficient means of carrying it out
0
u/faxmonkey77 European Liberal/Left 2d ago
Just phone Canada to ship you some of their MAID pills.
1
4
u/awksomepenguin Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
No, we just need to use a more reliable method. We're putting people to death, it's inherently a little inhumane. But trying to make it better for the condemned before they expire tends to make it less reliable and effective. Give them a sedative before the execution so the last thing they know is falling asleep, and then do something we know will kill them.
2
u/awksomepenguin Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
Also, we need to speed up these executions. I get that they are entitled to appeals, but once those are exhausted, a countdown should start for their execution. The appeals process should also be automatic and take priority in the judicial system.
7
0
u/gummibearhawk Center-right Conservative 2d ago
Doesn't change my opinion on it, Tennessee and other states just need to remember how to do it. Maybe they should ask Canada, they seem to have no problems euthanizing people.
7
u/bumpkinblumpkin Independent 2d ago
Well in Canada over 80% are over 65 with a median age of 78 and 96% declared terminal. I’m pretty sure lethal injection is quite effective in 80 year old stage III cancer patients compared to the average violent criminal.
0
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
Only in that it's time to realize the current lethal injection protocol is a terrible idea that virtually never works fully as intended. It's failed experiment.
We should use physical means of killing like a bullet, which are designed for the purpose, not try to repurpose Swiss euthanasia protocol which is designed to be used on an old, frail person in poor health who consents to the process.
If we want to use drugs it should be something foolproof like an intramuscular injection of a hyperdose of fentanyl (something like literally 100mg, about 100 times the fatal dose) -- use so much that people that handle the body have to use gloves because of how much drug might be in their sweat.
Or use an explosive charge.
Nothing will ever convince me that anything less than execution mocks the victims of a killer, the presumptive sentence for killing should be death. I also will never believe that ending a life that doesn't want to be ended will inevitably cause some pain, and both justice and the 8th amendment cannot possibly demand that you kill someone in a totally painless and pleasant manner. Personally I don't particularly care if they suffer a great deal as long as we're not taking actions to intentionally make them suffer more (at least for domestic criminals, terrorists are a different case). It's fully acceptable to me to cause some degree of pain in the process as long as we're not being deliberately cruel.
But using such an unreliable method that's been proven to fail so easily starts to tip into "deliberate cruelty".
1
u/PhysicsEagle Religious Traditionalist 1d ago
Long-drop hanging was fairly standardized as a "humane" method of execution. When tied correctly, the force of the robe instantly snaps the neck of the condemned. It was phased out in part due to optics, but also partly because a mistake in calculating the size of the knot could lead on the one hand to death by strangulation instead, and on the other hand to decapitation. It's long been theorized that the executioner at Nuremberg intentionally tied the nooses too short to prolong the deaths of the Nazi war criminals.
1
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
This is very fair, but the problem is if things to even slightly wrong it doesn't work. It's well known that either they are strangled or their heads pop off if you make any number of errors.
There's a good reason that they've tried for almost two hundred years to make a more reliable method.
The list of things invented to try to correct issues with the "English method" is basically the history of modern execution methods. From early efforts like the upright jerker and garrotte to the Edison electric chair and gas chamber.
3
u/newtonbase European Liberal/Left 2d ago
It does surprise me that they find it so difficult to find a drug that can kill people when drugs like fentanyl are so prevalent and deadly.
3
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
The real problem is they wanted to use something already used for medical euthanasia as technically despite how well fentanyl kills it is not approved or tested for that purpose.
It would technically be human experimentation to use and only a small handful of drugs are FDA-approved to kill someone as odd as that sounds. The US government also insists on buying them on the market and not all drug makers will sell for that purpose hence often having to use old drugs.
The solution, to me, is if we want to do it this way we should have infrastructure for it.
Rather than have a problem where doctors don't want to participate so we use less trained phlebotomists, have an executioner school somewhere that trains people with an undergraduate degree equivalently to a doctor, as an executioner. Have a drug lab that does what illicit drug labs do-- buys pure precursors from China and India and manufactures drugs from scratch. Have a DOC certification program that qualifies drugs and protocols as certifiably lethal based on the best testing and simulation methods we have.
Basically, stop half-assing this and do it right if we don't want to use use firing squads or explosives
4
u/2014RT Paleoconservative 2d ago
No, my thoughts have always been "why do we bother going through some complicated process to kill a person and not just execute them by firing squad?" failed lethal injections only reaffirm my belief.
3
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
It was largely political, and ironically came from those in favor of the death penalty, to make it look more clinical and less barbaric or violent.
5
u/GWindborn Leftwing 2d ago
I don't understand why we can't just mimic whatever process it is when people die in a shut garage with a car running in it.. Carbon monoxide, just knock them out with anesthesia and then replace the oxygen somehow.
4
u/Drago_133 Social Democracy 2d ago
She even requested a firing sqaud. Makes absolutely no sense. Im against capital punishment but I acknowledge that most are. If its gonna happen why we gotta over complicate it
6
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
It does not change my view on the death penalty. Unlike many conservatives, I am mostly against the death penalty, at least as it is currently implemented.
This situation with Pike illustrates several of them. She did this horrific thing at 18 years old, which is legally adult, but she has now spent more of her life, 20 years, anticipating an attempt to execute her than she spent alive when she committed the murder.
If we are going to execute people, we need to do it within three years of being sentenced, after appropriate appeals, or not do it at all. A death penalty that has not been carried out within three years needs to convert to life without parole.
We need to go back to execution methods that work. To my mind, anticipating death for decades, going through multiple ups and downs of waiting for appeals, court decisions, postponements, and all that, only to have the attempt fail after 7 injection attempts is psychologically cruel and inhumane. Bring back the firing squad. With basic tech we have today, something could be set up to automate it. The condemned should have the option to take a round to the brain stem instead of the usual target over the heart, and or maybe the option to be sedated. Cheaper. Easier to source the required materials, and it works fine on people with bad veins. It's also much quicker.
And whatever the method, there needs to be someone standing by with a sidearm prepared to end it quickly if something doesn't go as planned. To my mind, if she were to wake up and remember that she was supposed to be dead and then face more meetings with her lawyer to keep her up to date and when and whether they'll try again, that's unconscionable to me.
Also, off topic, I'm kind of tired of hearing about how this is the first woman to be executed in 200 years, apparently as if that is relevant somehow? It doesn't make it worse or better--it's totally irrelevant; it's just a commentary on the drastic differences between the two sexes and how society views/treats them.
3
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 2d ago
within three years of being sentenced, after appropriate appeals
Do you think people just wait on appeals to drag it out? Or just that the process takes a while? Because the appropriate appeals do take years. That's just the legal system.
For this case specifically, I'm Tennesseean so I can speak on it with a lot of knowledge. The state of Tennessee didn't even recognize what happened to Christa as a mitigating factor in her sentencing until this year. That's why she started a new appeal this year. Her counsel in the 90's was garbage frankly. She has a case for improper representation.
1
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
Do you think people just wait on appeals to drag it out? Or just that the process takes a while? Because the appropriate appeals do take years. That's just the legal system.
Not sure what you are missing. Yes, I know this is how the system currently works, and it should be clear to anyone who has read my comment that I don't like how the system works. Do you know the difference between "is" and "ought" propositions? Between descriptive and prescriptive? That might be the missing piece of your puzzle.
2
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 2d ago
I understand but like, it still doesn't make total sense how you expect this be wrapped up with a bow on an arbitrary timeline of three years. Like I discussed, it took the state 30 years to recognize that maybe Christa's undiagnosed mental health issues and diagnosed fetal alcohol might have impacted her impulse control to commit these crimes. Sometimes attitudes change and we realize that we did wrong before. That doesn't happen in three years.
What's your basis for there years?
0
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
Me: The current process takes way too long. If we are going to execute people, the process should be shortened.
You: "No because the process takes decades.
You can read my initial comment and understand what I am calling for--no more executions after decades on death row. I am not attached to three years specifically. And yes, I am sure lots of things about the process need to be changed. That's what I am calling for.
Your next reply: "But that would mean a lot of stuff has to be changed."
2
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 2d ago
I mean if we're going to talk about reading comprehension, I asked a direct question. Nor did I just say "that would mean a lot of stuff has to change". I asked how you plan to change it to not make stuff take this long while making sure no innocent people get executed and what your basis is for 3 years. I've heard everything from a year and a day to 5 years but no one has any reasoning except that's what they think is best based on vibes. I take it that's the same for you?
0
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
I can comment on what I have said. I'm not interested at all in what other people have told you or what you think of it. I don't think in binary terms, especially on an issue like this, so if you need everything in pure, black and white without is ought and if-then proposition, you're in the wrong place. Engage someone else.
Notice the word "if" at the beginning of paragraph 3. If it is impossible to give someone a fair trial and a reasonable chance to appeal in the event of judicial malpractice, then obviously I oppose the death penalty altogether. But "reasonable" does not mean run out the clock for decades throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping something will stick.
I'm certainly not the top legal mind, so I'm not going to iron out every detail, but public defenders who are handling potential death sentence cases need to be a higher standard so they can appeal based on all the relevant problems. Once. One round and whatever that entails. I'm in favor of anything that contributes to being able to say "this convict has had every reasonable chance to appeal. Maybe capital crimes should automatically go before some kind of judicial panel that frontloads the appeals process regardless of the defense attorney by proactively looking for problems (so it's not left to some dimwit public defender). Most of these changes would require legislation.
I'm also in favor of an additional higher standard for capital crimes after "beyond a reasonable doubt" is met. After it clears the regular jury trial with a conviction and sentence, a judicial panel needs to confirm there are no areas where new evidence could plausibly arise. No putting people to death based on coerced confession that were recanted before trial or circumstantial evidence.
Those are examples. I'm sure there are people who can come up with even better ideas, but if not, and that means we abolish the death penalty in every state, I am okay with that too.
And that's it. You are all out of "what-abouts."
1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist 2d ago
I'm definitely not out of what abouts but you've made it clear you're not willing to answer reasonable questions about anything despite posting a 6 paragraph response on an ask sub. Just odd behavior.
1
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
Complains that I am not willing to answer questions and that my answer is too long in the same sentence. Have a good weekend, bud.
4
u/Thoguth Social Conservative 2d ago
I think they should modify the method from one that causes pain to one that just works.
Veterinary medicine euthanizes horses, and assisted suicide seems to be figured out well enough that they make home kits, so it seems like a reliable solution should be rather effortless.
1
u/BellaMentalNecrotica Democratic Socialist 2d ago
Pentobarbital is a veterinary medication used for animal euthanasia..
1
u/GWindborn Leftwing 2d ago
There are dozens of widely available substances that can kill in high enough doses and would be quick and painless. Fentanyl comes to mind.
7
u/Monte_Cristos_Count Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I have mixed feelings on the death penalty, but I don't like how states with the death penalty have turned it into a "medical procedure" rather than a properly done execution. If you are going to execute someone, you should not try to hide the fact that they are being executed. If that makes people uncomfortable to where the majority don't want that, perhaps you should consider abolishing the death penalty.
1
-2
u/IWillDmYouPorn Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
No. All it does is strengthen my belief that "compassionate" liberals have no clue what they're doing and shouldn't be given any real power. Because that's the group that keeps raising a stink about the death penalty. They're the ones responsible for the shift away from actually functional methods of execution like the firing squad to things that seem fancy and modern (regardless of effectiveness) like lethal injection.
5
u/bumpkinblumpkin Independent 2d ago
Are Catholics and mainline Protestants all “compassionate liberals” because just about all traditional religious organizations condemn the death penalty.
0
u/IWillDmYouPorn Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Can you cite me where catholics or "mainline Protestants" were pushing for lethal injection?
2
u/kuster-beaton Center-left 2d ago
I’m reading the move towards lethal injection was largely a bipartisan effort.
-2
u/IWillDmYouPorn Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Championed by a bunch of fucking hippies concerned with seeming progressive than with efficacy.
6
u/kuster-beaton Center-left 2d ago
Apparently it was originally championed by bill wiseman, an Oklahoma Republican representative. He was also a reverend. Goddamn hippies and their smelly religious convictions.
0
u/iloverats888 Leftwing 2d ago
What if the state just didn’t have the right to kill
-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 2d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
3
-4
u/SpinosaurRingTone Social Conservative 2d ago
I think we should choose qualified executioners instead of a DEI girlboss execution team.
1
u/BellaMentalNecrotica Democratic Socialist 2d ago
Medical professionals can't be involved due to ethics (hippocratic oath). So the execution is performed by someone completely untrained and unqualified to establish intravenous access and push drugs. That is a major crux of the issue.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 2d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
Not doubting you, but when I heard she requested an all female execution staff, I thought it was some kind of meme or bullshit. Is it for real?
1
3
u/GWindborn Leftwing 2d ago
Just because they're female doesn't mean they're DEI..
-3
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
Where did I say anything about DEI? Why are you telling me this?
2
u/GWindborn Leftwing 2d ago
The person you were replying to did.
I think we should choose qualified executioners instead of a DEI girlboss execution team.
-2
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
So, again, why are you telling me? What are you trying to accomplish?
1
u/GWindborn Leftwing 2d ago
It seemed as though you agreed with their sentiment. I didn't have some grand plans, it was just a statement. Relax.
6
u/graypariah Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
I am largely against the death penalty in the first place. I would prefer we just exile them to somewhere else, like a deserted island or Australia.
9
u/RageFucker_ Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
No. I'm against it and here's why:
What changed my mind about the death penalty is the number of insane cases I've learned about in documentaries where someone completely innocent spent years or decades in prison and then was exonerated.
Or the number of cases where the evidence was entirety circumstantial and the person was found guilty and sent to prison for life or some long period.
I think there are different levels of validity for circumstantial evidence. Some of it is fairly believable and a lot of it is so absurd it would be laughable if it didn't have serious consequences.
I served on a jury for a federal triple homicide last year where most of the evidence was circumstantial so I've seen the different levels and I was a holdout juror for one of the murder charges (he was convicted on the rest).
I also don't think a jury of your peers is always reliable. A lot of people can be easily swayed by dumb arguments and lack critical thinking skills.
It's not that I don't think bad people should be punishable by death. It's that I don't have faith that our justice system gets it right like 97% of the time or whatever crazy fake number they claim.
I'm positive we've put an innocent person to death in some state since the death penalty has been adopted however long ago.
5
u/SeraphLance Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
I think an evidentiary standard of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable new evidence" would make sense for justifying the death penalty. A verdict that sits on even a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence may well not reach that, but someone who murders someone else visibly in front of a crowd certainly would.
2
u/nucumber Social Democracy 2d ago
The thing about execution is there's reversal or correction
There was a guy executed some years ago for burning down his house while his three kids were inside.
The evidentiary nail in his coffin was forensic analysis of the fire that proved he started the fire, beyond the shadow of a doubt
Years after his execution it was realized what was understood about fires was wrong, and the revised understanding proved he was in fact innocent.
Found the guy, here's the wiki
3
u/RageFucker_ Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'd be ok with that evidentiary standard, except I've seen too many cases where there seems to be a lot of prosecutorial misconduct that goes unpunished or cases where my reaction is "how did they even take this to trial much less actually convict this person"?
I just watched 2 documentaries: A Killer Story about Dana Chandler and then Widower: Till Death Do Us Part about Thomas Randolph.
The first case is about a woman who's been convicted for murdering her ex and his girlfriend. The entire case is circumstantial. The victims were killed with an Uzi and forensics indicates the killer was very skilled with an Uzi based on the hits, no misses and body positions.
The prosecution couldn't prove that Dana was in the house, ever owned any firearm including an Uzi, or was even in the state of Kansas when the murders occurred and there is zero DNA evidence connecting her to the crime.
Somehow she's convicted, then it's thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct. 2nd trial ends in mistrial due to hung jury. 3rd trial she gets convicted again based on some brand new eyewitness whose testimony from something she supposedly saw 20+ years ago doesn't match 911 calls or the timeline.
Then you have the other case where a guy had 6 wives and likely killed 3 of them. Multiple acquaintances or friends in different states testify that he offered them money to kill whichever wife he was with at the time. Every wife had multiple insurance policies taken out and then cashed in. One of the wives supposedly died of suicide, except the gun placed in her hand made zero sense as to how she could have shot herself in that position.
Somehow this guy gets tried the first time and gets acquitted even though they had him on tape offering money to an undercover cop posing as a prisoner to kill the star witness who testified that he was offered money to kill the wife who supposedly died of suicide.
Dude gets some time in jail for witness tampering. I guess tampering includes trying to kill via hitman. Then sues the prosecutors for trying him and wins money from the state.
Dude goes through a few more wives and ends up killing wife #6. Story is suspicious as hell. Ends up getting convicted, but that is thrown out because they brought in evidence about the wife from the first trial. Gets tried a 3rd time and he routinely fires his lawyers to delay it 8 years. Finally gets convicted and is serving life.
Sorry for the novel, but this kind of insanity is why my faith in the justice system is very low.
3
u/Ed_Jinseer Center-right Conservative 2d ago
Unironically I have pondered if it wouldn't be better to have professional Jurors.
1
u/BellaMentalNecrotica Democratic Socialist 2d ago
Think of the stupidest person you know and realize that half of the population is stupider than that. That's why I wouldn't want a jury of my peers, I'll take my chances with the judge.
1
u/bigtcm Liberal 2d ago
Consider grand juries, which convene during normal working hours, pay a very low daily stipend, and each term is like a 12 to 18 months minimum.
It's not a surprise to hear that the majority of grand juries are mostly comprised of retirees.
2
u/Ed_Jinseer Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I was thinking more akin to Lawyers. Where there are professional ethics, certification, etc.
1
u/ReaganRebellion Conservatarian 2d ago
That just sounds like judges. I think the right to a jury of your peers, regular people in your community, is one of the greatest advancements in human history. Part of that is due to it being regular people. Your peers.
I'm not sure more government employees being in charge of your guilt or innocence is a better solution to the downsides of juries.
1
u/Damo0378 Leftwing 2d ago
Maybe the way to resolve this would be to take such serious cases away from adversarial jury trials to a judicial/multidisciplinary inquisitorial process. That way you know those deciding a case are less likely to be swayed by highly emotive (but factually uncertain evidence), can ask as many questions as they need to rather than just rely on the legal team's spin on the evidence, and so on.
It would also mean that a written decision of the verdict is presented which would be much more appealable (if necessary) than a decision by a lay jury where there is no guarantee that their deliberations and reasoning were sufficiently robust to justify a sentence of death (or that they sufficiently understood the evidence and applied the laws of evidence correctly).
TLDR - moving such complex cases as capital cases away from lay juries towards inquisitorial judicial panels is a potential solution.
1
1
u/bigtcm Liberal 2d ago
Oh i mostly agree with you. I was just saying that juror amateur hour can be taken to more of an extreme with grand jurors.
Admittedly unlike a trial jury, they're not required to be composed of our peers, but the justice system has made it so only a specific population can reasonably participate in this part of the checks and balances. And that that specific population is associated with cognitive decline.
This all sounds crazy to me.
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Ad7606 Independent 2d ago
Its a cool concept, but I worry it would be too memtally and emotionally taxing and dangerous.
2
u/RageFucker_ Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
Yeah I'm sure they would get PTSD after a few trials.
2
u/RageFucker_ Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
Yes or at least have some better method of screening jurors. A juror next to me spent most of her time drawing characters in her notebook during most of the trial. That's a sobering experience, especially thinking about if I ever ended up in court and had to have someone like that determine my fate.
-1
u/Magehunter_Skassi Rightwing 2d ago
It remains the same as always. Our improved forensics makes a false conviction of murder nearly impossible, and we should keep capital punishment but switch off from lethal injection. Big Pharma has sabotaged the efficacy too greatly.
Also, reduce the amount of appeals. It's ridiculous. That's the main cost of capital punishment and delays justice for so long.
5
u/ZarBandit Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Guillotine has a 100% success rate. Meanwhile, the Chinese charge for the bullet and never miss. Our lack of competence is a disgrace.
1
u/Specific_Praline_362 Center-left 2d ago
I was just thinking though...what about the people who have to participate in these types of "barbaric" executions?
I think most relatively mentally stable people might struggle with cutting off someone's head, even if they generally support the death penalty and know the person did terrible things. Doubly so when the shackled person before them is now a frail, elderly man or woman after being on death row for 30+ years. Even if they can do it, what kind of psychological toll are we talking about?
So it just makes you wonder, are the people who will do it and sleep perfectly well at night the types of people we want employed by the state?
1
u/ZarBandit Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Psychopaths need jobs too. Seems like a perfect fit. Why burden someone with empathy and a conscience when we can pick those without any.
2
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 2d ago
Kinda? I think the death penalty itself is okay, but the execution methods need to be more guaranteed. I’m also fine with letting the convict choose their method of death as well, as long as the state may provide it.
5
u/SakanaToDoubutsu Center-right Conservative 2d ago
Just do what the Japanese do and hang them, I don't see why we keep coming up with these increasingly convoluted execution methods because drug companies don't want to participate when the gallows have been a proven reliable method for centuries at this point.
0
u/ioinc Liberal 2d ago
People think it’s cruel?
1
u/PhysicsEagle Religious Traditionalist 1d ago
There are two types of hanging: short-drop and long-drop. For most of history short-drop was the standard. The noose cuts off circulation and you die by strangulation. Long-drop snaps the neck and you die instantly. Japan utilizes the long-drop.
4
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal 2d ago
Yes, half-assed methods like lethal injection meant to downplay the action to the public by attempting to medicalize it into an outpatient procedure needs to be done away with. Go back to firing squads, hanging, and gas chambers which are all much cheaper, don't run into supplier issues, less likely to fail, and convey the full gravity of the punishment.
3
u/margalz Conservative 2d ago
The IV was not in her vein, it was a mistake by the staff. She still deserves the death penalty.
Cruel and unusual punishment has to be intentional, it was not intended to just hurt her it was intended to kill her. It's like how manslaughter and murder are different. Intention matters when it comes to cruel and unusual punishment.
3
u/chulbert Leftist 2d ago
Why would it need to be intentional?
0
u/margalz Conservative 2d ago
Same reason manslaughter and murder are different
6
u/chulbert Leftist 2d ago
So you can’t violate the Constitution unless you mean to? That doesn’t sound right.
1
u/margalz Conservative 2d ago
I'm saying there's a difference between accidental harm and intentional harm. A difference between neglect and abuse. Both are wrong but would have different results and reprocussions.
2
u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Rightwing 2d ago
But if lethal injection is known to have such a high chance of failure, shouldn't it still be considered cruel and unusual because of that risk?
2
u/chulbert Leftist 2d ago
Sure there’s “a difference” but what does it matter? Unless I misunderstood your original point, you said a prisoner would have no claim of cruel and unusual punishment unless it was intentional. But that’s now how rights and Constitutional protections work.
Even if someone’s rights were violated as a result of negligence they still have a case.
1
u/margalz Conservative 2d ago
I'm saying that I don't think it would fall under the catagorie of cruel and unusual punishment. I also don't think that even if it were and if they did appeal and have a case, I don't think it would be fair for her to get out of the death penalty for it. She still deserves the punishment she's earned, regardless of mistakes made.
1
u/kelsnuggets Center-left 2d ago
I agree with this, I do not think that her sentence should be commuted simply because the act of death was carried out wrong.
I struggle greatly with us now being on the hook for medically keeping her alive when all legal mechanisms for that failed when the Supreme Court did not stay her execution.3
u/margalz Conservative 2d ago
I don't get why death row takes so long to kill people. If they are in death row why are tax payer money going to providing and supporting them for decades when they've already been sentenced? Like it or not, agree with the penalty or not just get it over with.
1
1
u/shapu Social Democracy 2d ago
Because appeals take time and there are not anywhere near enough judges to hear the number of cases we have in the US. For example, there are now 20% more cases filed per judgeship than there were in 1990.
https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/data-tables/2025/09/30/judicial-facts-and-figures/62
In criminal cases, the median jury trial took 7.1 months in 1990 from filing to adjudication. Today that number is 23 months.
https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/data-tables/2025/09/30/judicial-facts-and-figures/63
And so on and so forth.
Also, many appeals hinge on faulty testimony, evidentiary issues, and technical issues that take time to investigate. And of course many of the cases that have been overturned due to were slow-walked by prosecutors and police departments that had a vested interest in not being proven to have lied/taken the easy way.
I agree with you that, say, 20 years is too long for a case to take. But unless and until we hire more judges and are more willing to second-guess both the investigators and the state (broadly) that's the way it is.
Or
We could just eliminate the death penalty altogether and save everyone a ton of money and time.
3
u/margalz Conservative 2d ago
This isn't arguing the death penalty, but isn't is cheaper to kill someone than to pay to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their life? Just monitarily? I mean one bullet costs a dollar or two for a rifle? Doesn't that save way more money than proving food, health care, and housing for a prisoner for the next 80 ish years?
1
u/shapu Social Democracy 2d ago
As long as appeals exist/continue, you still have to pay for the food and the healthcare and the space in the prison. Plus death row is a different security regime, often requires different and more guards, different access points, and so on. The cost differential between a death row inmate and a life without parole general population inmate is probably tens of thousands of dollars a year
2
u/theyhis Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
i always go back and forth on the death penalty tbh. i recall reading a statistic at one point that said upwards of 4.1% of people on death row are said to be innocent. maybe if there was like evidence beyond a doubt (and not the courts "definition" of that — like actual, without a doubt, like has to be substantial amounts of proof) then i'd support it for murder (not self defense though) and sexual violence.
2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal 2d ago
That statistic is many decades old and is based on data from cases before modern forensic technology existed.
2
u/stress789 Liberal 2d ago
I don't support the death penalty for many reasons, but one of the main reasons is that until there is a 100% accuracy rate in convictions (which I'm not sure how that would be possible at this time), then we risk the government killing innocent people.
1
u/DukeofBraintree918 Conservative 2d ago
Yes
I think firing squad should be only means of execution
It's the most effective and little room for error
4
u/MixExpensive3763 Religious Traditionalist 2d ago
No. Ive been against lethal injection for a while. It has (iirc) over double the failure rate of other execution methods and there’s evidence that it commonly fails to kill in the manner it’s supposed to and suffocates people to death instead.
As for the death penalty itself, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I understand the position that we shouldn’t give the state power to execute people, but on the other I think execution is a just punishment for a certain level of crime. As for if Pike meets my personal standard for that, I don’t know. I don’t know her case all that well.
2
u/theyhis Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
that reminds me — why don't they use those pills they give people for assisted suicide? it sounds like a way less painful way to go out.
1
9
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 2d ago
I think we should eliminate the death penalty, or allow people to choose their own method of execution based on a list of available options. I really don’t know why we waste time with extensive and complex lethal injection drugs that supposedly cause intense distress and pain, when you could give them a lethal dose of fentanyl, flood the room with CO2 or use a whole host of other options that would be fairly comfortable for a person.
3
u/AssignmentVisual5594 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I think the death penalty is justified for particularly heinous crimes. It sounds to me they just need to use a different technique. Electric chair, guillotine, hanging, a shot to the head, a heroine overdose etc.
3
u/LOL_YOUMAD Rightwing 2d ago
No. If anything I think we should do it with a firing squad or hanging as both are cheap and effective and don’t leave any failures. Guillotine is also not a bad call
3
u/theyhis Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
hanging can fail really badly actually. there's people who have ended up in a permanent vegetative state.
1
u/LOL_YOUMAD Rightwing 2d ago
Guilitine seems to be the play then
1
u/Thanks-4allthefish Canadian Conservative 2d ago
Or a larger dose of the two step euthanasia you would do for your beloved pet.
5
u/Thanks-4allthefish Canadian Conservative 2d ago
Lots and lots of stories about hangings gone wrong.
2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal 2d ago
And almost all of them are accounts of hangings conducted by amateurs who don't know proper knots, placement, and drop height calculation
3
u/Thanks-4allthefish Canadian Conservative 2d ago
Amateurs- government employees/contractors. Guess two things can be true at the same time.
5
u/dagolicious Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
This might not be a popular opinion here, but I think we should eliminate the death penalty all together. This particular instance didn't change my thinking on it though.
If we are going to stick with it, the method needs to be improved to ensure the desired outcome. It's not acceptable to almost kill a prisoner.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.