I'm pretty sure I'm wrong (I must be) but it sounds like the legal argument in Texas is that "if we have to feed you, we can execute you."
4
I'm not sure the death "penalty" is much of a deterrent in a country where 40,000 people take their own life every year.
1
I've always thought if there must be a death penalty, it should be administered publicly.
This would accomplish two things: First, if the death penalty is to serve as a deterrent, then its value as a deterrent will be maximised by the public execution. Second, a public execution will show the public exactly the horror that's being done in their name.
I suspect the legality of the death penalty would not long survive public executions.
This would accomplish two things: First, if the death penalty is to serve as a deterrent, then its value as a deterrent will be maximised by the public execution. Second, a public execution will show the public exactly the horror that's being done in their name.
I suspect the legality of the death penalty would not long survive public executions.
2
If we, as a country of caring people, took all the energy and resources currently being spent to prosecute and execute the mentally ill and instead spent it on ways to help them, then we'd be much better off. Treatment and caring for the mentally ill in this country is absolutely shameful. In most states there simply is no public treatment available. The criminal justice system is the fallback agency to deal with these people. There is no real care. There is no real compassion.
That a State's laws could be based on a fictional character reflects the emotional distance lawmakers want to keep the issue. The ill cannot even be given the respect of being discussed as real people. And Justice Alito wants to defer to State standards rather than the opinion of professional bodies? Well that's crazy.
That a State's laws could be based on a fictional character reflects the emotional distance lawmakers want to keep the issue. The ill cannot even be given the respect of being discussed as real people. And Justice Alito wants to defer to State standards rather than the opinion of professional bodies? Well that's crazy.
1
Using fictional characers to describe a story to jurors and lawyers and citizens is perfect. There aren't any hidden surprises, no long-lost brother or secret sex affair. And that's how we humans "think" of ethics questions--in terms of stories.
1
I have on my desk a copy of "In Dubious Battle" by.....John Steinbeck. I thought I had read most of his published works, but there it was in my local library. The man in his search to expose all that is wrong with America from generations ago is more relevant today than anyone else than I can think of. And perhaps Shostakovitch from a musical perspective
The Supreme Court is not in full mode to decide major issues:
The Supreme Court is hampered by The GOP in Congress who have blocked
the necessary 9th judge.
Actually it is the GOP in the US Congress who should be upended as
defying the US Constitution...the obstruction to justice...by the present
Congressional GOP members...that is the real issue..there needs to
be 9 members on the Supreme Court...and I would say that Mitch McConnel
should be ousted for his defiance of law.
The Supreme Court is hampered by The GOP in Congress who have blocked
the necessary 9th judge.
Actually it is the GOP in the US Congress who should be upended as
defying the US Constitution...the obstruction to justice...by the present
Congressional GOP members...that is the real issue..there needs to
be 9 members on the Supreme Court...and I would say that Mitch McConnel
should be ousted for his defiance of law.
3
The opponents of the death penalty have successfully challenged several State policies which give the Judge too much control over the imposition of it, rather than the jury. By the same standard, any proposal which gives medical personnel control rather than the jury, should be struck down as well.
Similarly Jeffrey Wood was granted a [30-day] stay 8/19 and his case sent back down to the lower court for review in lieu of his scheduled date with the needle under the "Law of Parties" tomorrow.
"...Wood was convicted and sentenced to be executed although he was not present in the store during the killing, being outside at the time, and claims that he was not aware that Reneau was going to use force. Wood has been on the Texas death row since March 3, 1996. Additionally, Wood has a history of mental illness and was initially not mentally fit to stand trial..." (wiki)
Such should be considered in this case and/or clemency and the sentence commuted to life w/o parole.
"...Wood was convicted and sentenced to be executed although he was not present in the store during the killing, being outside at the time, and claims that he was not aware that Reneau was going to use force. Wood has been on the Texas death row since March 3, 1996. Additionally, Wood has a history of mental illness and was initially not mentally fit to stand trial..." (wiki)
Such should be considered in this case and/or clemency and the sentence commuted to life w/o parole.
3
The United States need to move away from Capitol Punnishment. Look at all the time is spent making aguments either way. The State's obligation is to protect the citizens. Giving a convicted killer Life in Prison protects society. Many think life in prison is no big deal. Taking one's freedom from them and living an existance in prison is worce than death.
The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Eventually the courts will come around to agree. On this issue as well as on many others, it is too bad we have to wait for those living in the past to come into the present.
1
The death penalty should be abolished in all states. The world hates it and won't manufacture nembutal to kill criminals. Scalia knowingly sent a black man who was innocent to death row because the trial was like a game, where the best lawyer wins and justice is not served. If the GOP hates killing embryos, why do they kill human beings when statistics show that between 2-5% of all men who die are innocent. That is too big a margin
of error for me.
of error for me.
1
Talk about intellectual disability; basing a life and death decision on the basis of a fictional character is as intellectually debilitating as the diagnoses it is trying to define. Intelligence is a fluid criteria with IQ only one contributing factor. One would need to weigh the individuals adaptive abilities as evidenced by his ability to live in the community in addition to his ability to understand the consequences of his behavior in additiion to an understanding of right and wrong.The variance in IQ scores could be attributable to environmental factors such as drugs or intermittent psychiatric impairments.
q
q
You broach an interesting area which is delicately tip-toed around in mental illness: IQ v Emotional IQ.
As a TBI survivor who had the privilege of 'co-teaching' the brain injury course curriculum to both medical and physician assistant students for 17-years at one of the medical schools in Houston's Texas Medical, ANYTHING is possible after sustaining a brain injury. For example, I don't know how to grieve; express genuine sorrow; cry. Its not for lack of caring but because the brain of damage it just isn't going to happen.
The point of sharing that is to note in cases such as this, without a proper history of the individual, applying the appropriate legal standard may not be done.
As a TBI survivor who had the privilege of 'co-teaching' the brain injury course curriculum to both medical and physician assistant students for 17-years at one of the medical schools in Houston's Texas Medical, ANYTHING is possible after sustaining a brain injury. For example, I don't know how to grieve; express genuine sorrow; cry. Its not for lack of caring but because the brain of damage it just isn't going to happen.
The point of sharing that is to note in cases such as this, without a proper history of the individual, applying the appropriate legal standard may not be done.
3
If people can be falsely convicted in a Death Penalty case,
how many have been falsely convicted in Life Sentence cases
or case of 20 - 40 years in prison ?
We need a complete overhaul of our "lack" of Justice system.
Meanwhile if you have a 'good day" on your IQ test - you may be executed.
But if you are a 'bit off' that day - you may not be executed.
how many have been falsely convicted in Life Sentence cases
or case of 20 - 40 years in prison ?
We need a complete overhaul of our "lack" of Justice system.
Meanwhile if you have a 'good day" on your IQ test - you may be executed.
But if you are a 'bit off' that day - you may not be executed.
Steinbeck was a brilliant writer who captured the difficulties of people fighting to survive the Great Depression; leave it to Texas to find the threshold for killing intellectually challenged individuals as their main takeaway.
1
John Steinbeck's Lennie was given a quick death by a true friend - not as leniency, but to save him from the brutality of people going berserk out of prejudice.
Unfortunately, the US system of "justice" -and the moral standing of the country as a whole- have not moved from the standard and status of semi-Wild Western farmyards. While other countries have often made great efforts, and often decisions taken against backward more rural than urban "farmyards", to give Justice the part that is her Role in a civilized society: To secure, prevent, rehabilitate!
It is humanity that marks a state, and separates Rogues from Civility.
Unfortunately, the US system of "justice" -and the moral standing of the country as a whole- have not moved from the standard and status of semi-Wild Western farmyards. While other countries have often made great efforts, and often decisions taken against backward more rural than urban "farmyards", to give Justice the part that is her Role in a civilized society: To secure, prevent, rehabilitate!
It is humanity that marks a state, and separates Rogues from Civility.
1
The Supreme Court should establish a new broad spectrum standard of constitutionality, The Texas Standard. If any given law is popular in Texas it should be ruled unconstitutional.
1
The money spent, not only on the trials for the death penalty,but on deciding if it's okay to kill someone is ridiculous. State sanctioned murder is never right. The blood lust will cause people to look for any reason to execute...historically it was because of color of skin, socio economic ability and just plain desire to have vengeance. Trying to understand intellectual ability as a cut and dried, binary issue is ridiculous. My adult intellectually disabled son can use a weed wacker. He can read. He has an excellent memory. He cannot, however, put anything in context. When he found out that his friend lived in a place called Mercury. He started to worry that his friend couldn't breathe at home because the other planets don't have air. He could not reason that towns are named after planets unless he was told so. Now he knows. When he saw the plane crash into the twin towers and was told what happened, his response"oh those bad men who hijacked the plane will have to go to jail". He couldn't put it in the context that everyone died in the crash. So the defendant put on a mask...bad guys on TV put on masks. He can copy what he sees on TV. Intellectual functioning is a very complex thing. How about we get out blood lust satisfied some other way and save a bunch of money in the process? We are an exceptional western nation...we kill more people in the name of the law than any other western country by far. We're right up there with Saudi Arabia...sharia law, anyone?
1
That's funny the Texas court basing their standards on a fictional character from a book written by a man the right wingers consider a communist.
1
George Milton and Lennie Small: Mr. Steinbeck’s tale of “The best laid plans” does not establish the “Lennie-Rule”. Reading without comprehension leads to the mangling of the intent. Lennie, “I get to tend the rabbits, George”, is so void of understanding that he doesn’t even understand death. George, mercifully, shoots his friend, execution style, to spare him the torment we will inflict upon this creature, probably by establishing “Lennie-Rules”.
I knew What’s-Its-Name would get it wrong merely by reading the Silly Headline.
I knew What’s-Its-Name would get it wrong merely by reading the Silly Headline.
Just another reminder that Donald Trump is not the only source of shame in these United States.
The fact that there is still a death penalty for US Courts to quibble about in such demeaning and degrading ways demonstrates how stunted and retrograde we remain.
The fact that there is still a death penalty for US Courts to quibble about in such demeaning and degrading ways demonstrates how stunted and retrograde we remain.
1
The average number of murders (per capita) in states with the death penalty are greater than the average in states without the death penalty. It would be difficult to argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
Additionally, there are mistakes. Stories abound of death row inmates being exonerated.
Thirdly, I, a white man, am far less likely to be sentenced to death than a black man, especially if my victim is black.
Why do we still have the death penalty? Certainly part of it is racist and part of it, I think, is understandable outrage when a heinous crime is committed. But that is not justice.
Additionally, there are mistakes. Stories abound of death row inmates being exonerated.
Thirdly, I, a white man, am far less likely to be sentenced to death than a black man, especially if my victim is black.
Why do we still have the death penalty? Certainly part of it is racist and part of it, I think, is understandable outrage when a heinous crime is committed. But that is not justice.
1
According to Bryan Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, one in nine convicted of murder is innocent. He goes on to explain that if one in nine airplanes crashed we in no way consider that a good track record. He also rightfully states that the criminal justice system treats one better if they are wealthy and guilty than it does if they are poor and innocent.
His book "Just Mercy" was an enthralling eye opening read, as is his TED Talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice
As is that of Adam Foss regarding a better way to see justice served in non-murder cases:
http://www.ted.com/talks/adam_foss_a_prosecutor_s_vision_for_a_better_ju...
His book "Just Mercy" was an enthralling eye opening read, as is his TED Talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice
As is that of Adam Foss regarding a better way to see justice served in non-murder cases:
http://www.ted.com/talks/adam_foss_a_prosecutor_s_vision_for_a_better_ju...
Much of this discussion would be obviated by making the death penalty, if it is not abolished entirely, highly selective and applicable only to crimes of the most serious nature where intent is a critical element regarding the application of the death penalty. People of inferior intellect would most likely be exempt on those grounds.
The state killing an innocent is the worst possible injustice.
And poor minorities are most likely to be wrongly convicted.
Our criminal justice system is too flawed for society to allow for the death penalty.
And poor minorities are most likely to be wrongly convicted.
Our criminal justice system is too flawed for society to allow for the death penalty.
8
But what of those who sentence innocent children to death or a terrible life due to Zika? Should they be exempt from the death penalty?
Oh, they're Republicans.
Oh, they're Republicans.
3
I think Thomas Steinbeck was intellectually disabled.
2
What good is executing someone who cannot appreciate the impact of he did on others? Someone with an IQ of less than 70 does not have the intellectual capacity, no matter how much he/she fakes it, to appreciate what he/she did when it comes to murder and other things. A developmentally disabled person can be convinced to do some pretty horrible things, not because they are bad but because they are gullible and unable to understand. The insistence on executing people in America and the appeals that have to be done before the execution is carried out cost more than incarcerating them for the rest of their lives would cost us. And executing a person with an IQ so far below normal doesn't deter the next one with the same IQ. What they are being executed for isn't the crime. They are being executed for having a very low IQ.
Perhaps it's time we stopped relying upon the death penalty as a deterrent particularly since it doesn't seem to stop someone who really wants to kill or it punishes the wrong people. We are not doing ourselves any favors when we kill people, some of whom are innocent and others who don't understand why they are being killed. When we do this we're showing that we truly don't care about who we execute or why. We're just doing it because we can.
Perhaps it's time we stopped relying upon the death penalty as a deterrent particularly since it doesn't seem to stop someone who really wants to kill or it punishes the wrong people. We are not doing ourselves any favors when we kill people, some of whom are innocent and others who don't understand why they are being killed. When we do this we're showing that we truly don't care about who we execute or why. We're just doing it because we can.
6
I'm not sure why all the hub-bub over this one legal abstraction? Is it because it's got a name, "Lennie," instead of "the rational man" or even "the average individual?" Since when is it so extraordinary in the law to hypothesize that there is an organism possessing a set of attributes and to compare the instant actor's (some criminal or civil defendant usually) behaviors against that imaginary standard, producing an opinion deciding the matter?
Okay, J. Steinbeck would be outraged to learn that his fictional construct had a starring role in another piece of literature. Why? Isn't it what he intended, to pose this specific question--and, by the way, didn't he have George resolve the question by blowing Lennie away?
Sure, capital punishment's wrong, no matter how you look at it. (For example, my personal opinion is that it's too good for people who really, truly ought to be permanently removed from the population.) So, why anguish over who gets it and who doesn't and bump the penalty down to heavy incarceration with strict subsequent periodic review.
Okay, J. Steinbeck would be outraged to learn that his fictional construct had a starring role in another piece of literature. Why? Isn't it what he intended, to pose this specific question--and, by the way, didn't he have George resolve the question by blowing Lennie away?
Sure, capital punishment's wrong, no matter how you look at it. (For example, my personal opinion is that it's too good for people who really, truly ought to be permanently removed from the population.) So, why anguish over who gets it and who doesn't and bump the penalty down to heavy incarceration with strict subsequent periodic review.
2
We need new standards for criminal justice.
The standard should be, in cases of murder and severe injury, can they do it again?
I am tired of hearing about bad childhoods and low IQs. I am tired of hearing about how a violent criminal had mean parents or was picked on as a kid.
Those that murder or severely injure others have no place in our society. Remove them.
The standard should be, in cases of murder and severe injury, can they do it again?
I am tired of hearing about bad childhoods and low IQs. I am tired of hearing about how a violent criminal had mean parents or was picked on as a kid.
Those that murder or severely injure others have no place in our society. Remove them.
7
Excuse me, but there's a pantload more to "Of Mice and Men" than just the stuff about Lennie.
Typical Texas hogwash.
Typical Texas hogwash.
2
Leave it to Texans to fail to distinguish between fact and fiction, perhaps driven by their limited knowledge and interest in the sciences. Let me translate -- "y'all are too stupid to figure out a movie ain't real"
5
Your article on "the Lennie Standard" was exhaustingly overwritten. After reading it three times I still couldn't figure out what was being said. The NYT is so intent on being comprehensive in its treatment of material that it often becomes more confusing than clarifying. Try editing these overworked pieces to make them understandable. Stop trying to capture every last detail. You just leave readers confused.
2
This is satire, right?
4
I sure hope so, Steve.
The mentally disabled are potentially the most dangerous. If a person can kill another human being impulsively and without thinking, that is particularly scary. I don't care whether a mentally disabled murderer is executed or not, but they should never be let out of prison.
6
Has anyone else noticed that much of the world Conservatives think and talk about is imaginary?
6
Well Mr. McCarble got the death penalty and he did nothing wrong. He was murdered by a man who attempted to disguise himself and to hide his weapons. The robbery was premeditated by a man who decided that mowing lawns wasn't as easy as armed robbery.
The real tragedy here is that Mr. Moore murdered Mr. McCardle in 1980, 36 years ago. Mr. Moore has had at least 30 years more than he deserved all at taxpayer expense.
The real tragedy here is that Mr. Moore murdered Mr. McCardle in 1980, 36 years ago. Mr. Moore has had at least 30 years more than he deserved all at taxpayer expense.
4
One of the great novels, posing an important, timeless question. How does society deal with the mentally deficient of the world?
If a person has no notion of responsibility, how can he be held accountable? When Reagan was questioned finally about his role in the Iran-Contra affair he was apparently deep into Alzheimer's, and couldn't even remember if he was president.
His questioners saw the futility of asking further questions.
If a person has no notion of responsibility, how can he be held accountable? When Reagan was questioned finally about his role in the Iran-Contra affair he was apparently deep into Alzheimer's, and couldn't even remember if he was president.
His questioners saw the futility of asking further questions.
If you'll recall, President Reagan also oversaw the defunding of huge numbers of mental health facilities, turning thousands of patients into homeless street people.
6
The Texas Court System will find a way to execute anyone, anytime, anyplace, and anywhere. Their system is from the "Dark Ages" or maybe they just flip coins. It will stay that way until the federal courts take control of all Texas death penalty cases forever.
If a frog killed a toad they'd execute both and not give a damn that frogs and toads don't understand English or that their brains are too small to understand the court proceedings.
If a frog killed a toad they'd execute both and not give a damn that frogs and toads don't understand English or that their brains are too small to understand the court proceedings.
2
First things first: the issue is not whether the death penalty is right or wrong, but what constitutes retarded. Most of comments here are a rehash of stale and familiar arguments over why DP should be abolished. In the context of this case and article irrelevant and irritating, because the legality of DP is not at issue and won't be addressed.
Coming to the point at hand, as pointed-out in the article, the definition of what constitutes retarded is, by SCOTUS ruling, left to the States to figure-out. More specifically, "“we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences.”.
The scope of the case then, is whether Texas' development of the restriction was appropriate or not. IMHO, the ruling did indeed provided sound basis, which is that demonstrating the ability to distinguish right from wrong and hiding the (right) wrong was sufficient-enough to deny the exemption.
However, the problem is whether injecting Lennie in this argument by the judge was necessary. To me it seems not just odd and TMI, but also cruel, because the judge took extra pains to demonstrate how smart and well-read she was to a defendant who clearly was not. Therefore it was not just wholly unnecessary but also insensitive. In other words, the judge's development of a way to apply the restriction was _inappropriate_.
Which, then, creates grounds to rule against the COA and in favor of Mr. Moore. Good luck.
Coming to the point at hand, as pointed-out in the article, the definition of what constitutes retarded is, by SCOTUS ruling, left to the States to figure-out. More specifically, "“we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences.”.
The scope of the case then, is whether Texas' development of the restriction was appropriate or not. IMHO, the ruling did indeed provided sound basis, which is that demonstrating the ability to distinguish right from wrong and hiding the (right) wrong was sufficient-enough to deny the exemption.
However, the problem is whether injecting Lennie in this argument by the judge was necessary. To me it seems not just odd and TMI, but also cruel, because the judge took extra pains to demonstrate how smart and well-read she was to a defendant who clearly was not. Therefore it was not just wholly unnecessary but also insensitive. In other words, the judge's development of a way to apply the restriction was _inappropriate_.
Which, then, creates grounds to rule against the COA and in favor of Mr. Moore. Good luck.
3
To all those self righteously opposed to the death penalty: how would you want the court to deal with someone who had brutally raped and murdered your daughter?
The issue is not whether the possibility of execution deters future criminals. It is about how society helps surviving families cope with inexplicable, unbearable loss.
The issue is not whether the possibility of execution deters future criminals. It is about how society helps surviving families cope with inexplicable, unbearable loss.
5
Simply not true.
Criminal punishment in a civilized society is established by rule of law, not base revenge.
Criminal punishment in a civilized society is established by rule of law, not base revenge.
10
How would you want the court to deal with someone who accused your brother or anyone you loved of being a child molester when they weren't? How would you feel if you had to worry about every little thing your handicapped brother said because the locally righteous liberals are really idiots when it comes to understanding handicapped people period? Executions don't bring back the dead. Furthermore, if you execute the wrong person the right one may still be out there committing more crimes.
Our current justice system is prejudiced against minorities and anyone who cannot afford a good lawyer. So, before you talk about executions think of what you'd do if you were falsely accused and charged with a death penalty crime.
Our current justice system is prejudiced against minorities and anyone who cannot afford a good lawyer. So, before you talk about executions think of what you'd do if you were falsely accused and charged with a death penalty crime.
9
No thinking person would support the death penalty if there is any remote doubt about guilt, but in most heinous crimes there is no question about the perpetrator. It makes a mockery of the sanctity of life to afford such criminals a lesser sentence than they inflicted upon victims and their families.
3
He committed his crime in 1980 and presumably has been in custody ever since. In other words he's already served a 36 year sentence. Only in America, life in prison followed by the death penalty.
2
So 36 years free room and board at all of our expense. There's got to be something faster and better.
3
The death penalty is nothing less than modern day lynching an takes the US one step closer to North Korea.
2
“The character of Lennie was never intended to be used to diagnose a medical condition like intellectual disability,” Thomas Steinbeck...said in a 2012 statement. “I find the whole premise to be insulting, outrageous, ridiculous and profoundly tragic.” We should listen to the younger Steinbeck.
10
It is hard to comprehend that we are having this conversation in the second decade of 21st. century. Abolish death penalty NOW.
7
Ryan Lochte is paying particular attention to this issue. No way his IQ exceeds 70.
3
Don't be silly. His problem is that he should have known better, and was more than capable of it.
1
I wish we could charge our entire society in a crime like this. What if Mr. Moore and his family had options -- like halfway houses and employment opportunities lwhich might have included mowing lawns. Mr. Moore might have had a shot at a decent life, and Mr. McCarble would still be alive.
4
I have a better idea. How about we let Mr. Moore take responsibility for his crimes.
3
The government shouldn't be killing its own citizens, period, although it IS one activity that Texans really seem to enjoy. ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY throughout the nation. It's barbaric. And stop imprisoning people, for many years, for non-violent crimes. Hooray for the governments decision to withdraw from privately owned and operated prisons. It's the first step in the right direction.
12
Texas does enjoy the death penalty and so do most rightists. During the GOP primaries, when a moderator noted that under Rick Perry Texas had executed 279 prisoners, the audience erupted in applause and hooting.
9
Jonathon--That is just sick. And it can be proven, unlike Trump's claim that New Jersey Muslims cheered on 9/11. Just a sad, sick bunch.
3
"...Judge Cochran, who later said she had reread “all of Steinbeck” in the 1960s while living above Cannery Row in Monterey, Calif...."
I, also, lived near Cannery Row from 1959 to 1960 at the Presidio of Monterey. What a dump like Lennie's mind; I would hate to represent Lennie as his defense would be very difficult. Inactive Public Defender
I, also, lived near Cannery Row from 1959 to 1960 at the Presidio of Monterey. What a dump like Lennie's mind; I would hate to represent Lennie as his defense would be very difficult. Inactive Public Defender
What if a person's I.Q. is 81? The entire notion that a person's intelligence can determine a cognitive awareness of one's behavior, criminal or not, is ludicrous. We continue to vainly attempt to read what is in the minds and hearts of man. We are so extraordinarily arrogant.
It is wrong, with any reason, to murder. No state can have laws prohibiting murder except when the state deems it just or necessary. Ultimately it is hypocrisy. Using fictional characters as the basis for law is lunacy. And we call ourselves civilized. Arrogance!!!
It is wrong, with any reason, to murder. No state can have laws prohibiting murder except when the state deems it just or necessary. Ultimately it is hypocrisy. Using fictional characters as the basis for law is lunacy. And we call ourselves civilized. Arrogance!!!
11
It's not IQ alone that determines this. You are distorting the dilemma of what the law has to face.
Today's conservatives should be very careful that in the future some of their idiocies, such as the "Lennie definition", don't come back to bite them in the butt...
3
Abolish the death penalty because politicians cynically use it as a political bargaining chip to influence elections. In 1992, Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, refused to stay the execution of Rickey Ray Rector, who was severely impaired after shooting himself in the head. The New York Times wrote that at the time of his execution, Rector did not know what death is nor understand that the 2 people he killed were not still alive. Rector saved the dessert from his 'last meal' so he could 'eat it later.'
Governor Bill Clinton had allowed previous executions in Arkansas to be carried out and embraced the death penalty at least in part because in 1992 he was running for president as a moderate '3rd way' Democrat. His embrace of the death penalty was a signal to Republican voters that he wasn't a liberal.
No person should be executed in furtherance of someone's political career. A governor who permits the execution of someone incapable of understanding what 'death' is in order to win an election is morally unfit for office.
Governor Bill Clinton had allowed previous executions in Arkansas to be carried out and embraced the death penalty at least in part because in 1992 he was running for president as a moderate '3rd way' Democrat. His embrace of the death penalty was a signal to Republican voters that he wasn't a liberal.
No person should be executed in furtherance of someone's political career. A governor who permits the execution of someone incapable of understanding what 'death' is in order to win an election is morally unfit for office.
5
Most of the comments argue for the abolition of the death penalty. For a short period, the Supreme Court put the death penalty on hold, but then it backtracked. In the words of Justice Blackmun in 1994, "I shall no longer tinker with the machinery of death."
1
Tinkering with the machinery of death is certainly one of the Supreme Court's duties.
2
Only in Texas, a state that takes great pride in ignorance, would they use a book that 99% have never even read to establish some sort of legal standard that is so vague as to be useless to determine if someone lives or dies.
Then staunchly defend it with a straight face.
Then staunchly defend it with a straight face.
6
Apart from moral opposition to state sponsored, ritualistic killing, the practical problem with the death penalty is the crisis of lack of due process that exists in our country. If you're indigent, and especially if you're black, and accused of capital murder, the odds are overwhelming that the process that you will receive will be pervaded by cynicism and insufficient resources; it is almost certain that you won't get a fair trial. As University of Michigan Professor Eve Brensike Primus has written in the Michigan Law Review, "A Crisis in Federal Habeas Law" (2012), "Because state procedures are clearly deficient, state judges have done almost nothing nationwide to ensure that criminal defendants receive effective representation at trial. As a result, trial attorney ineffectiveness is rampant. Lawyers routinely fail to investigate cases before trial, do not meet with their clients before trial, and consistently fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence offered at trial. Public defenders regularly handle well over 1,000 cases a year, more than three times the number of cases that the American Bar Association says one attorney can handle effectively." Americans read "Darkness at Noon" with self-satisfaction, mostly not comprehending that we are not as far removed from that nightmare as we like to believe.
20
Conflicted. Glad that judges in Texas are literate, well one at least. Also glad to know she read Steinbeck. But the "Lennie" standard?
Judicial activism indeed.
Judicial activism indeed.
3
Probably could use a standard from "To Kill a Mockingbird" as well to demonstrate how the law can be misused to satisfy our innate prejudices.
4
Padfoot--Good one. So true.
2
Abolish the death penalty, period. It's barbaric.
6
So everyone has an oipinion on the death penalty when someone is severely challenged. So instead of making a horrible mistake that would end the life of an individual, abolish the death penalty. Simple reasonning but this way, no innocent will die. Even this poor man derserves better.
4
An innocent person already died.
Not by my hands. As a citizen, however, I am implicated in every killing carried out by the state.
I find myself equally repulsed by using an IQ threshold for sparing persons from execution as it was used for state-performed compulsory sterilization.
8
I'm an atheist and against the death penalty. Why is it that so many "Christians"
in this country favor it? What about "Thou shalt not kill"? Judge Cochran, I've read all of Steinbeck's books too, some more than once, and Steinbeck, I think, would not approve of the execution of Mr. Moore. The State did not kill Lennie; his friend George did. What should happen to George?
in this country favor it? What about "Thou shalt not kill"? Judge Cochran, I've read all of Steinbeck's books too, some more than once, and Steinbeck, I think, would not approve of the execution of Mr. Moore. The State did not kill Lennie; his friend George did. What should happen to George?
17
willlegarre--Because Christians are members of a perverse death cult. Ya gotta have some blood with your ritual.
2
Willegare, the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not kill"; that's just poor translation. In Hebrew it says "You shall not murder", The Hebrew Bible describes several crimes worthy of the death penalty, some of which are not crimes in America today, such as adultery and male homosexual acts.
The Christian Bible does not renounce state execution.
Like you I am against the death penalty, but unlike you I don't think it is un-Christian per se.
The Christian Bible does not renounce state execution.
Like you I am against the death penalty, but unlike you I don't think it is un-Christian per se.
Disclosure: I'm a life member of Mensa.
I would make a strenuous argument that IQ scores should absolutely not be used as a measure of intellectual functioning in matters of life and death. Most especially a court should not apply a rigid cutoff such as 70. No, no, no, no, NO.
As Mr Moore's own case demonstrates, the score can be highly variable. (I myself have taken multiple tests; my IQ is 135 or 158, though of course vanity compels me always to quote the higher score!) Which test(s) you use, the time of day, whether the testee had breakfast or has a headache or is worried about his brother's health or grieving the death of his dog - or understandable anxiety that his life may hang on the test result - or any of a thousand other factors may affect the result.
Undoubtedly some standard is needed to assess culpability in cases like Mr Moore's. I have no suggestion as to what that alternative might be. Nor will I opine on the degree of Mr Moore's guilt, except that from the facts given here, he appears to have known right from wrong and to be able to control his actions, and thus is culpable. But as I understand the history, IQ tests were originally devised to assess various levels of functioning for the mentally handicapped in order to fashion appropriate therapies. This is their only appropriate use (except perhaps as a yardstick for entry into an international social club) and decisions of life and death should not hinge on them - no, no, no, no, NO.
I would make a strenuous argument that IQ scores should absolutely not be used as a measure of intellectual functioning in matters of life and death. Most especially a court should not apply a rigid cutoff such as 70. No, no, no, no, NO.
As Mr Moore's own case demonstrates, the score can be highly variable. (I myself have taken multiple tests; my IQ is 135 or 158, though of course vanity compels me always to quote the higher score!) Which test(s) you use, the time of day, whether the testee had breakfast or has a headache or is worried about his brother's health or grieving the death of his dog - or understandable anxiety that his life may hang on the test result - or any of a thousand other factors may affect the result.
Undoubtedly some standard is needed to assess culpability in cases like Mr Moore's. I have no suggestion as to what that alternative might be. Nor will I opine on the degree of Mr Moore's guilt, except that from the facts given here, he appears to have known right from wrong and to be able to control his actions, and thus is culpable. But as I understand the history, IQ tests were originally devised to assess various levels of functioning for the mentally handicapped in order to fashion appropriate therapies. This is their only appropriate use (except perhaps as a yardstick for entry into an international social club) and decisions of life and death should not hinge on them - no, no, no, no, NO.
4
I more or less agree with you (am also MENSA member, IQ 137). However, mental incapacity, whether very low intellectual functioning, or schizophrenia or extreme bipolar, certainly should be taken into consideration in a court of law.
3
Anne Russell--Lots of high IQ folks are just plain nuts. It's no "standard" for a death penalty. There is NO standard that is legitimate for a death penalty. All it is is state murder and revenge. Makes the proponents just as bad as, or worse than, the "criminals."
2
I strongly advocate for drastic reform in its administration and uniform standards for its appropriateness; but I'm not a total abolitionist. It seems to me there are crimes so heinous one does forfeit the right to live;that there's little or nothing to be gained by spending decades of effort and wealth just to keep someone like, say, Charles Manson breathing. I do agree it should never be done from vengeance, but as a dispassionate assessment: 'you cannot be allowed to live among civilised people, and there is nothing else to do but what is done to rabid dogs - as painlessly and swiftly as possible, to put you down.'
I certainly agree mental illness such as schizophrenia should be a mitigating factor, and I believe it generally is taken as such. But IQ points? Our 'dueling scores' - 137 vs 135 - aptly illustrate the fallacy of a rigid cutoff such as 70. Two points? That's a rounding error. That's what you had for breakfast. :} IQ tests are too fallible to use as a decisive factor in ANY decision that cannot be ameliorated or undone. If such tests are to figure in sentencing at all, their use should always err on the side of the defendant.
I certainly agree mental illness such as schizophrenia should be a mitigating factor, and I believe it generally is taken as such. But IQ points? Our 'dueling scores' - 137 vs 135 - aptly illustrate the fallacy of a rigid cutoff such as 70. Two points? That's a rounding error. That's what you had for breakfast. :} IQ tests are too fallible to use as a decisive factor in ANY decision that cannot be ameliorated or undone. If such tests are to figure in sentencing at all, their use should always err on the side of the defendant.
If a criminal is intellectually disabled and has proved a danger to society, this person should never be allowed free in the community, but should always be kept under close supervision. A killer is a killer, whatever the IQ, and killers should not have opportunity to kill again.
14
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting he be released. The issue is about killing/executing him.
9
They don't have to be released into society, however they can be held in a secure mental institution for the rest of their lives. As far as cost goes, the death penalty is a lot more expensive than life in prison due to it's extensive appeals process and as you can tell from the article it takes decades to exhaust those appeals and actually execute the convicted.
These people commit horrible crimes and should be executed.
6
Let's start with death penalty for homicidal psychopaths and serial killers, before we execute those whom Nature has deprived of sound judgment.
1
Isn't a psychopath someone of whom Nature has deprived of sound judgement.
2
What is the IQ of a state that determines that it must kill a man with a 70 IQ? Killing comes too easily to man unkind. As the Buddha asked Angulimala after he proudly hacked off the limb of a tree with one mighty swing of his sword; "now put it back on". The power to kill isn't power.
44
I respectfully propose that both the federal and state courts replace M'Naghten rule with the "TRUMP" rule. This new legal standard would require that defendants proffering insanity defenses prove that not only did they not understand right from wrong, but also that they just "didn't give a crap."
1
They shot him in the end. Works every time.
I think the death penalty should be abolished, simply because the state makes mistakes, and the death penalty is irreversible. But I don't think there is anything wrong with using literature, especially great literature, to make sense out of our moral distinctions. There is good scientific evidence (described in the article below) indicating that the fundamental cognitive structure of our minds is the stories we tell about the world. Literature is not just made up for our amusement, it contains great abstract truths that help us make sense out of the facts. The problem described in this article comes, not from using literature, but from a clumsy misuse of literature. As it points out, Lennie himself would have executed by the Lennie standard.
https://www.academia.edu/5539383/Algorithms_and_Stories
https://www.academia.edu/5539383/Algorithms_and_Stories
24
Why don't we go back to executing 14-year-olds?
These people cannot contribute to their own defense. They may or may not have known the difference between scaring someone with a gun and killing someone. I'm not saying to release them from prison if they have violent tempers and no understanding of the consequences of their actions.
We seem to think there's something special about revenge. There isn't.
Let's reserve the death penalty for terrorists against whom we have strong evidence and a few traitors who've enriched themselves at the cost of many lives.
Countless innocent men and a few innocent women have been executed here in the US. It's time to stop this nonsense.
Revenge is for playground bullies, not state governments.
These people cannot contribute to their own defense. They may or may not have known the difference between scaring someone with a gun and killing someone. I'm not saying to release them from prison if they have violent tempers and no understanding of the consequences of their actions.
We seem to think there's something special about revenge. There isn't.
Let's reserve the death penalty for terrorists against whom we have strong evidence and a few traitors who've enriched themselves at the cost of many lives.
Countless innocent men and a few innocent women have been executed here in the US. It's time to stop this nonsense.
Revenge is for playground bullies, not state governments.
7
Steinbeck's "Lennie" would be exempt from capital punishment under almost anyone's standard; i.e., including professional analysis. If not per se "wrong" for a defense attorney or judge to reference "Lennie" for analogy, a prosecutor would be justified in arguing that, without other fictional characters to use for comparison, the "Lennie" analogy is a surrender to emotion. Alternately, would using the "Lennie" test be any different than using a fictional character to serve as a minimum execution model, replacing psychology with interpretation? How might different people feel about a "Randle Patrick McMurphy" test?
I'm a simple man myself ...
I don't understand why we're discussing killing anyone at all ... regardless of their intellectual capacity ...
Shouldn't the discussion be on how to save more lives ...
I don't understand why we're discussing killing anyone at all ... regardless of their intellectual capacity ...
Shouldn't the discussion be on how to save more lives ...
26
If you really wanted to save more lives, you would utilize the death penalty.
Insanity or imbecility are the worst excuse to remain among the living if you kill. The compassion for the perpetrator should never abnegate the the requirement for justice to the victim.
9
No one denies that murderers should be punished and controlled. But why does justice require an eye for an eye? Our criminal justice system doesn't sentence rapists to be raped, or steal cars from car thieves. Why should it require us to murder murderers?
57
Does 'justice' for the victim necessarily entail taking another life? And, is justice really about the victim or about society?
Is there a 'best' excuse to remain among the living if you kill?
This is ... just silly. And ... sad.
Is there a 'best' excuse to remain among the living if you kill?
This is ... just silly. And ... sad.
7
What sort of justice is that? Oh, yes, the old testament "eye for an eye" form of justice that does not define justice for all victims and their loved ones. (Just pointing out, as I think we should, the obvious.)
3
The law is merely a reflection of our values as a society.
We are seriously discussing whether it is ok to kill people who don't have the mental acuity to know the days of the week.
Look carefully in the mirror, America. This is who we are as a people.
We are seriously discussing whether it is ok to kill people who don't have the mental acuity to know the days of the week.
Look carefully in the mirror, America. This is who we are as a people.
161
Well a reflection of Texas perhaps, I'd rather not be included with such a blood thirsty cabal.
4
The murderer does not need to know the days of the week to commit murder.
Who cares if they are smart or dumb? What matters is that they have committed murder- and by doing so they have demonstrated the ability to do it again.
Who cares if they are smart or dumb? What matters is that they have committed murder- and by doing so they have demonstrated the ability to do it again.
1
If an IQ of 70 was the cutoff—which is apparently considered too low by many—a full 16% of blacks would be ineligible for the death penalty, compared to 2.5% of whites.
Is the argument really that more than one out of six black people in the US is so profoundly intellectually disabled that they cannot be held fully responsible for their crimes?
This seems a dangerous path for death penalty opponents to tread—should, for example, people who have too little cognitive function to be held responsible for murder be allowed to drive motor vehicles? Own firearms? Have children?
Is the argument really that more than one out of six black people in the US is so profoundly intellectually disabled that they cannot be held fully responsible for their crimes?
This seems a dangerous path for death penalty opponents to tread—should, for example, people who have too little cognitive function to be held responsible for murder be allowed to drive motor vehicles? Own firearms? Have children?
5
People with low cognitive function should not be allowed to own firearms, that should be a given, although it's an aside in this conversation. You seem frustrated that we might not be able to execute enough "blacks" using an IQ system, which is frightening to even read.
Two points: what a shame that some groups in American suffer with such low IQ's (maybe we should do more education), and, stopping the death penalty for everyone might indicate the social elevation of America to a new moral high ground. Your comments were hard to stomach.
Two points: what a shame that some groups in American suffer with such low IQ's (maybe we should do more education), and, stopping the death penalty for everyone might indicate the social elevation of America to a new moral high ground. Your comments were hard to stomach.
20
Where are you getting those statistics from? They do not at all seem accurate.
If the IQ test is as rigorous as our society believes then we should see equal proportions across all racial/ethnic lines. However, if the test is skewed or biased then we will see a lot of disparities in how groups score. And, if that's the case, then we need to have the test immediately re-vamped.
If the IQ test is as rigorous as our society believes then we should see equal proportions across all racial/ethnic lines. However, if the test is skewed or biased then we will see a lot of disparities in how groups score. And, if that's the case, then we need to have the test immediately re-vamped.
14
to Wills11111 ?????? Could you please provide references for your IQ distribution statistics?
2
As a criminal lawyer, I make two salient points. First, the criminal law requires specificity in standards for imposing/excusing or mitigating criminal liability. This has always been the law. Second, that the Texas court satisfied itself with a "Lennie" standard was no mere accident or oversight. It invited vagueness and one is left with the deeply disturbing inference that the Court wanted to invite more convictions--some with executions to follow. I hope the Supreme Court swiftly vacates this dangerous standard.
102
We can all agree that there are people who are violent sociopaths. These people can never ever be rehabilitated. Human society will never be rid of this inevitable human trait. The death penalty will never make us safe. Would Jesus approve?
6
Leave Jesus out of this......he would be biased......remember he was executed!
1
The violent sociopaths should be extirpated from society. The point is those that are truly intellectually deficient should not as a matter of both civil society and mercy. They may require lifelong incarceration/supervision, but state samctioned execution is not appropriate. Whether jesus would approve is not the standard we use
1
The very idea of haggling over the exact point at which a person is too intellectually or psychologically compromised to be executed is outrageous. Having a point or two on such arbitrary scales as intelligence tests spell the difference between life and death is one of many strong arguments against the death penalty.
There is no clear dividing line on one side of which it is just or right for the state to put a human being to death. Of course Bobby Moore needs to be prevented from killing anyone else, probably by life imprisonment. But ruling that he is Just barely intelligent enough to be executed for his crime is not something a court in a civilized modern society should do.
(And of course Stephen Steinbeck is absolutely right about the absurdity of using a fictional character to define a legal standard.)
There is no clear dividing line on one side of which it is just or right for the state to put a human being to death. Of course Bobby Moore needs to be prevented from killing anyone else, probably by life imprisonment. But ruling that he is Just barely intelligent enough to be executed for his crime is not something a court in a civilized modern society should do.
(And of course Stephen Steinbeck is absolutely right about the absurdity of using a fictional character to define a legal standard.)
102
"Lennie" isn't used to define a legal standard, but to illustrate it. That is a perfectly legitimate use of literature, I would think.
3
The State should not be in the "revenge" business. As much as the relatives of a murdered individual understandably want vengeance against the person responsible, the State should be the rational actor in the scenario and do what is best for society. Unfortunately, politics is what subverts the State's role.
69
All states are in the revenge business. We can argue about what form that revenge takes (death penalty v. incarceration--I favor incarceration), but it is revenge nonetheless. For instance, has locking up Bernie Madoff made anyone safe or restored a dime of the money he stole? He could easily be barred from dealing in securities or money management. There's no "need" to physically incarcerate him for the rest of his life. So why do it? Because punishment and justice are linked. After all, let's say you could 100% guarantee that Charles Manson would never break another law for the rest of his life... do we let him go? No. Justice demands he be punished. For the sake of order, individuals suppress their individual desire for vengeance and "outsource it" to the government. We understand that victims, in their haste, may lash out at innocent people, so we have trials and juries and evidentiary standards. At the end of the day, though, much of the criminal justice system revolves around the simple idea of punishment.
Neither is punishment about pure rage. Violent crimes are an affront to the dignity of the victim. It is not merely a safety issue. When a police officer, for instance, seems to have killed someone without good cause, the cry is that the victim's inherent value be acknowledged by demanding a price from the offender. We can debate what that price should BE (not necessarily death), but pretending punishment is not warranted is a recipe for vigilantism.
Neither is punishment about pure rage. Violent crimes are an affront to the dignity of the victim. It is not merely a safety issue. When a police officer, for instance, seems to have killed someone without good cause, the cry is that the victim's inherent value be acknowledged by demanding a price from the offender. We can debate what that price should BE (not necessarily death), but pretending punishment is not warranted is a recipe for vigilantism.
6
Punishment is not revenge. Society punishes offenses after the fact to deter the original offense ... In the past, punishment took other forms -- but usually as deterrence; even the payment of weregild was intended as deterrence. Using jail as punishment has the side effect of making it more difficult (or impossible) for the offender to repeat the offense for a certain period of time.
1
@VZ- Deterrence is one purpose of the criminal justice system, as is segregation (i.e., locking someone up for safety's sake), but so is punishment. Many people point to statistics saying that deterrence simply isn't working and there's an argument that they are right. But even IF it could be proven that there was no deterrent value in sentencing someone to imprisonment, does it follow that imprisonment is inappropriate?
In any case, while we're on the subject, is deterrence somehow more legitimate than pure punishment? Punishment is an ethical/moral concern. Deterrence is just a policy matter. Deterrence is premised on people making a risk-reward calculation and finding that the severity and certainty of the sentence FAR outweighs the benefits of the crime. That means whoever is being used as a deterrent example (i.e., a convict) must be sentenced very harshly NOT because of the harm they have caused, but as a way of scaring hypothetical criminals elsewhere. Mandatory sentencing, for instance, assigns punishments wildly out of proportion to the harm caused BY DESIGN in an attempt to achieve this effect.
Legitimate punishment, on the other hand, only concerns itself with the harm caused. People will have differing opinions about the amount of harm, but the goal is still to assign a punishment that is in proportion to the crime. Deterrence always demands a sentence much harsher than the harm caused (otherwise the risk-reward is essentially 50-50).
In any case, while we're on the subject, is deterrence somehow more legitimate than pure punishment? Punishment is an ethical/moral concern. Deterrence is just a policy matter. Deterrence is premised on people making a risk-reward calculation and finding that the severity and certainty of the sentence FAR outweighs the benefits of the crime. That means whoever is being used as a deterrent example (i.e., a convict) must be sentenced very harshly NOT because of the harm they have caused, but as a way of scaring hypothetical criminals elsewhere. Mandatory sentencing, for instance, assigns punishments wildly out of proportion to the harm caused BY DESIGN in an attempt to achieve this effect.
Legitimate punishment, on the other hand, only concerns itself with the harm caused. People will have differing opinions about the amount of harm, but the goal is still to assign a punishment that is in proportion to the crime. Deterrence always demands a sentence much harsher than the harm caused (otherwise the risk-reward is essentially 50-50).
Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, doesn't want professionals weighing in on a defendant's intellectual disability.
"Those pointy-headed know-it-alls" like the American Psychiatric Association.
Indeed, why bother at all with professional legal representation?
"Those pointy-headed know-it-alls" like the American Psychiatric Association.
Indeed, why bother at all with professional legal representation?
35
Yes, because professional psychiatry has such a sterling track record in the last century. Surely, we should just turn over all judicial decisions to them.
5
The real "Lennie" in the picture are the judges who keep trying to intellectually justify murder.
Rather than reading Steinbeck they should read the Bible.
The death penalty is immoral.
Rather than reading Steinbeck they should read the Bible.
The death penalty is immoral.
36
While I agree with you end result, that the death penalty is immoral, I do not use the Bible as the authority to come to that agreement.
The Bible is full of vengeance and death. It is a "book", perhaps fictional, written by men many hundreds of years ago. It can no more be construed as clearly factual or even appropriate in this age of society, as the Constitution. We use our religious leaders like we use the Supreme Court. We use them to interpret the meaning of the Bible and how to apply it. But, unfortunately, we still use men to make that decision.
A true religious leader would always come down on the side of eliminating the State's killing of people in retaliation of their acts. Basic morality of the Universe would tell us we should not be imposing the death penalty. Basic humanity tells us we should stop now.
The Bible is full of vengeance and death. It is a "book", perhaps fictional, written by men many hundreds of years ago. It can no more be construed as clearly factual or even appropriate in this age of society, as the Constitution. We use our religious leaders like we use the Supreme Court. We use them to interpret the meaning of the Bible and how to apply it. But, unfortunately, we still use men to make that decision.
A true religious leader would always come down on the side of eliminating the State's killing of people in retaliation of their acts. Basic morality of the Universe would tell us we should not be imposing the death penalty. Basic humanity tells us we should stop now.
26
The death penalty is in the Bible.
1
Your sentiments against the Bible are very much in vogue today. And yet if you read the Bible, especially the New Testament, you will not find it "full of vengeance and death." Quite the contrary.
And one of the Ten Commandments, as you know, forbids killing.
Indeed, YOUR sentiments are readily found throughout the Bible.
"Learned" folks these day loudly trash the Bible (pointing to its flaws), usually without having read the New Testament, and readily missing the point (especially as to why it is so revered and how and why it moves so many good people to do good things).
And one of the Ten Commandments, as you know, forbids killing.
Indeed, YOUR sentiments are readily found throughout the Bible.
"Learned" folks these day loudly trash the Bible (pointing to its flaws), usually without having read the New Testament, and readily missing the point (especially as to why it is so revered and how and why it moves so many good people to do good things).
1
I am disappointed that Mr. Liptak would so offhandedly accept "originalism" as a legitimate guide for how we should interpret the Constitution.
Should we really base decisions on who should be executed on the views of property-owning men in England in 1750, or at least what Blackstone thought were their views? Because, when the rhetoric is stripped away, that is what we mean when we talk about the common law.
And If that was indeed the "original understanding" of the men who ratified the "cruel and unusual" clause--something no serious historian would claim to know for sure--that only means it was the view of a minority of the population of under four million in 1790. Yet, according to the originalist view, we cannot change the standard unless a supermajority of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures agree.
"Originalism" is antidemocratic, it creates bogus and easily manipulable "history," and it fetishizes the "wisdom" of the Virginia slaveholders and Boston merchants of 1790. Please stop taking it seriously as intellectual analysis.
Should we really base decisions on who should be executed on the views of property-owning men in England in 1750, or at least what Blackstone thought were their views? Because, when the rhetoric is stripped away, that is what we mean when we talk about the common law.
And If that was indeed the "original understanding" of the men who ratified the "cruel and unusual" clause--something no serious historian would claim to know for sure--that only means it was the view of a minority of the population of under four million in 1790. Yet, according to the originalist view, we cannot change the standard unless a supermajority of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures agree.
"Originalism" is antidemocratic, it creates bogus and easily manipulable "history," and it fetishizes the "wisdom" of the Virginia slaveholders and Boston merchants of 1790. Please stop taking it seriously as intellectual analysis.
70
"We cannot change the standard unless a supermajority of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures agree."
The standard being changed by five unelected jurists is preferable?
The standard being changed by five unelected jurists is preferable?
1
To me, Liptak doesn't "offhandedly accept 'originalism...,'" he just sets it forth as a doctrine that some, such as the dissenting justices in the Atkins case, would apply. Here, he's just acting as the Times' Supreme Court reporter/columnist, setting forth the issues.
E.C.: yes
1
Instead of discussing nuances about who should be put to death, how about if the state just stopped killing people? Prison for the culpable, and for those unable to be culpable, a facility that can assist them and protect us.
132
Because not everyone agrees with that stance.
2
I am not a lawyer, so I cannot argue points of law and precedent. I do however, have a question: "Does the Death Penalty Work?" We have states with death penalties and those without, is the incidence for capital crimes lower in states with a death penalty? In states with a death penalty, is the cost of keeping an inmate on death row and financing the decades of appeals, less than the cost of life without parole?
My understanding of the purpose of laws is that they should be a mechanism for providing for the common good and a well functioning society. The taking of a life, particularly by the state, should be something done only when there are no other options. So again my question: "Does the Death Penalty Work?"
My understanding of the purpose of laws is that they should be a mechanism for providing for the common good and a well functioning society. The taking of a life, particularly by the state, should be something done only when there are no other options. So again my question: "Does the Death Penalty Work?"
58
States and countries that had abolished the death penalty have NOT experienced any increase in murder retes.
28
It has been shown repeatedly that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime. In fact, states that have have death penalty consistently have HIGHER murder rates:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-...
The death penalty is state-sponsored vengeance, pure and simple, which seems to run counter to the notion of "justice." And that's not even getting into the serious problems of false conviction, unequal application of the death penalty based on race, the inadequate legal representation of poor defendants in capital cases...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-...
The death penalty is state-sponsored vengeance, pure and simple, which seems to run counter to the notion of "justice." And that's not even getting into the serious problems of false conviction, unequal application of the death penalty based on race, the inadequate legal representation of poor defendants in capital cases...
37
The answers to these questions are the hardest points for any death penalty proponent to hear. The last question to ask is, "how many victim's families have felt "justice" or "resolution" after the perpetrator is put to death"? The overwhelming consensus is also bad for the death penalty cause. An eye for an eye does not bring back vision, insight or forethought.
17
Tinkering with the mechanisms of death. Why is the State of Texas so intent on killing that it is willing to go to such incredible intellectual contortions to justify its savagery? Wouldn't it be simpler, to say nothing of intellectual honesty, to admit that the death penalty is, by definition, cruel, and be done with all of this barbarism?
77
Unfortunately the New York Times is not widely read in Texas.
10
The current notion that midazolam ("dazzle" on the street) renders people deeply unconscious is simply stupid. It's a relatively mild sedative.
I've never had the misfortune of having succinyl chloride while awake, but I was given undiluted potassium by a confused nurse. It only got as far as the vein in my arm before I raised hell and promised to pull out the IV setup, but I would have sworn it was battery acid, not a life-saving electrolyte. (I did need the potassium.) The nurse finally asked someone how to hang an IV minibag and hung it correctly. (I stand up for myself in hospital.) I had phlebitis in that vein for a year.
If we are administering IV potassium to paralyzed, restrained, but mostly awake people, we might as well return to the lash or hanging, drawing, and quartering.
Do not claim to be civilized if this is state-sponsored execution.
I've never had the misfortune of having succinyl chloride while awake, but I was given undiluted potassium by a confused nurse. It only got as far as the vein in my arm before I raised hell and promised to pull out the IV setup, but I would have sworn it was battery acid, not a life-saving electrolyte. (I did need the potassium.) The nurse finally asked someone how to hang an IV minibag and hung it correctly. (I stand up for myself in hospital.) I had phlebitis in that vein for a year.
If we are administering IV potassium to paralyzed, restrained, but mostly awake people, we might as well return to the lash or hanging, drawing, and quartering.
Do not claim to be civilized if this is state-sponsored execution.
1
And it's that kind of sweeping generalization that pits the rest of the country against east coast residents, branding us as intellectual snobs. I know plenty of people in Massachusetts who eschew the Times, and plenty of Texans who don't.
4
For starters, I recommend that everyone read Bryan Stevenson's great book on this subject: Just Mercy. Secondly, based on the fact that too many documented mistakes have been made in the application of the death penalty the death penalty should be abolished. Thirdly, the killing of mentally challenged human beings, no matter what their crime is beneath us as a society.
60
The death penalty serve one and only one useful purpose.
It convinces me beyond a shadow of a doubt that we humans are just one more soul-less animal species living in a godless jungle.
"An eye for an eye...and the whole world blind."
Capital punishment has never saved ONE victim.
But many innocent people have been murdered by the state in the name of God and justice.
It convinces me beyond a shadow of a doubt that we humans are just one more soul-less animal species living in a godless jungle.
"An eye for an eye...and the whole world blind."
Capital punishment has never saved ONE victim.
But many innocent people have been murdered by the state in the name of God and justice.
127
Capital punishment has, without a doubt, saved people.
Murderers are released. Murderers can escape.
When a person is murdered there can be no justice. That person is gone- forever. All we can do is remember the victim and ensure, through life-in-prison or through the death penalty, that the murderer can never commit another crime again.
We owe it to the victim and the family of the victim. And we owe it to ourselves.
Murderers are released. Murderers can escape.
When a person is murdered there can be no justice. That person is gone- forever. All we can do is remember the victim and ensure, through life-in-prison or through the death penalty, that the murderer can never commit another crime again.
We owe it to the victim and the family of the victim. And we owe it to ourselves.
2
Your comment does not belong on this thread. You are showing compassion for the actual victim. The commentors and author here only care for the murderers.
You can’t prove a negative and you can’t show the number of non-victims that weren’t murdered because a potential killer didn’t kill for fear of being executed if caught. Having the death penalty is justified if only one life is saved.
Doesn't sound like it "hinges" on the Lenny allusion--which is stupid anyway, since Lenny was executed--by his friend, to save him from the mob, which would have done worse.
5
Spoiler alert!
Yes, no one in the story seems to have actually read the novel, at least not all the way to the end.
Yes, no one in the story seems to have actually read the novel, at least not all the way to the end.
2
The death penalty is unconstitutional. texas is a legal backwater.
18
If there is any question about the intellectual capacity of this individual he should not be put to death. Period.
6
What I should have said is the death penalty should be abolished.
15
We know that the American justice system is rigged against the poor (no matter what color, cast or creed), and people of color. Here is another outrageous example of state supported, approved, blessed homicide.
Make America Great Again. Indeed.