Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions!"

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2973
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions!"

Post by Tribble »

Arizona raises a unique argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions!"
ARGUMENT ANALYSIS
In “odd” clash of statutory text and habeas precedent, three conservative justices seem undecided

On Wednesday, the court heard oral argument in Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones, two death penalty cases that will determine whether prisoners may develop new evidence to support claims that their lawyers were constitutionally ineffective at trial. The argument was notable because a surprising group of justices appeared genuinely to struggle with the legal issue at the heart of the case – repeatedly calling it “rather odd,” “very odd,” “close,” and “really a tough case.” In particular, a trio of conservatives – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – seemed sympathetic to both sides and at times wondered aloud how they should even approach deciding the issue. As Roberts put it, what should the court do in a situation where “the plain language” of a statute “seems to require one result,” while “the plainly logical meaning of a subsequent precedent” seems to require the opposite?

To recap the issue in the two cases: A 1996 statute, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, bars federal courts from holding evidentiary hearings in habeas corpus cases if a prisoner “has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court [post-conviction] proceedings.” But a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Martinez v. Ryan, held that a prisoner could raise new claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel if her lawyer in those state court post-conviction proceedings was himself ineffective. The question raised in Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones is: If Martinez allows the prisoner to raise the claim, does AEDPA nevertheless prohibit her from developing evidence to support it?

Arizona Solicitor General Brunn Roysden III started out, predictably, by emphasizing AEDPA’s text, arguing that the issue before the court is “fundamentally a question of statutory interpretation.” He acknowledged early on that the statute’s strict terms could lead to unjust results, stating “that no fact-finder could have found the prisoner guilty is not enough” to overcome AEDPA’s hurdles. In other words, it does not matter if the prisoner is actually innocent, as the lower courts found in the case of Barry Lee Jones. If Jones “failed to develop” the evidence of his trial lawyer’s ineffectiveness in state court, the federal courts are powerless to alter his conviction and death sentence.

Thomas began the questioning by calling it “rather odd” that courts could allow a prisoner to raise a claim but not allow him to develop the evidence for the claim. He stated that Arizona’s position would render Martinez “pretty worthless.” Notably, Thomas was one of two dissenters in Martinez and has been unperturbed by rendering decisions he disagrees with “pretty worthless” in other contexts. Nevertheless, he appeared uncomfortable with Arizona’s contention that the court should simply disregard its precedent in this case – or, at least, his questions were designed to address (and perhaps assuage) any such discomfort.

Roberts noted that it’s a “basic syllogism” that “if you do get the right to raise the claim for the first time, because your counsel was incompetent before, surely you have the right to get the evidence that’s necessary to support your claim.” He seemed firmly unpersuaded of the state’s position, even if it had grounding in the statute’s text.

Kavanaugh’s questions suggested he was genuinely wrestling with how to decide the issue. He repeatedly expressed uncertainty about both sides’ positions, calling the case a “close” one, and making each side’s argument against the other. Following Roberts and Thomas, he asked Roysden about his position, “Doesn’t it really gut Martinez in a huge number of cases? And then what’s the point of Martinez?” Roysden responded that to the extent Martinez cannot be reconciled with AEDPA, it should be overruled. Kavanaugh shot back, “Assuming we don’t do that, what’s your next answer?”

But this unexpected trio of justices similarly struggled with Ramirez and Jones’ position that AEDPA’s “failed to develop” language does not present a barrier to the court ruling in their favor. Appearing for the two prisoners, Robert Loeb argued that the statutory language should be interpreted through the lens of the court’s precedents, including Martinez, to require a finding of fault by the prisoner, and that where the prisoner’s lawyer had been constitutionally ineffective, the lawyer could not be treated as an agent of the prisoner. Just as he had called Arizona’s position “rather odd,” Thomas noted that this position, too, was “a bit odd” in that it would appear to “eviscerate the restrictions of AEDPA.”

Roberts asked if any precedent could guide the court in deciding how to reconcile the “plain language of the statute” with the “plainly logical meaning” of Martinez. Loeb responded, “I don’t have a case that’s going to satisfy you on that,” but argued that “Congress would have anticipated that if you weren’t going to be held at fault for failing to bring the claim, you weren’t going to be held at fault for failing to develop the claim.” Roberts replied, “That’s a lot of prescience to ascribe to Congress.”

Loeb ultimately argued that the fault really lay with Arizona, since it required defendants to wait until the post-conviction stage – when they have no right to counsel – to argue that trial counsel was ineffective. The state, he said, could not deprive prisoners of one fair and full opportunity to litigate that constitutional claim simply by slapping the label “post-conviction” on the stage of the litigation in which that claim could be raised. That particular feature of Arizona’s criminal procedure was part of what prompted the court to create the Martinez exception to the procedural default rule in the first place.

Kavanaugh asked Loeb whether the fact that Arizona has a separate procedural mechanism for raising an actual innocence claim resolves that problem with its state court procedure. Loeb responded, “Whether you are innocent or guilty, you have a right to a fair hearing.” He then put it in terms that seemed specifically geared toward Kavanaugh, who coaches his daughters’ basketball team and has shown himself fond of basketball metaphors on the bench, stating: “It’s like them saying if you’re coaching a basketball game and one team gets five players and one team gets one player, and we’re going to play the game, but at the end of the game we’re going to give [the team with one player] a shot from half court, and that’s going to make the game fair. That doesn’t make the game fair, Your Honor.”

The three other justices who asked questions during the argument made their views clear, and their positions were unsurprising. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan indicated agreement with Ramirez and Jones’ position that the statute must be read in conjunction with the court’s precedents. As Sotomayor put it, “The statute doesn’t define what ‘at fault’ means … So, by definition, what constitutes fault is defined by us, correct?” Justice Samuel Alito at first appeared to channel the concerns of his ambivalent conservative colleagues, saying “this is really a tough case” because adopting Arizona’s position “would drastically reduce what a lot of the lower courts have thought Martinez means.” But this really tough case proved no match for Alito, who in the next breath stated, “The fact remains that we have to follow the federal habeas statute. We have to follow AEDPA.” Notably, Alito joined the majority in Martinez but showed no interest in extending it to assist the prisoners here.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett asked no questions during the argument. It’s a safe prediction that Breyer and Gorsuch will split their votes between the prisoners and the state, respectively, so the case will likely come down to two of the three justices who were on the fence.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/12/in-o ... undecided/

There have been plenty of wrongful executions in American history (and potentially all executions are wrongful if you are against the death penalty). However, usually there's at least some excuse given as to why the person is guilty and should be put to death.

It looks like Arizona has finally dropped the pretense. Their argument is that it doesn't really matter whether people are actually innocent or guilty, why talk about silly things like that? What really matters is that they and the courts follow proper procedure at all times. A procedure which is seemingly designed to prevent new evidence supporting a person's innocence from ever being introduced to the courts.

"Don't have evidence to prove your innocence? We'll put you to death."
"Have new evidence proving your innocence? We'll fight tooth and nail to keep it coming to court... so that we can put you to death."

I mean, at least they are being honest about it?

Gonna be fun times once the Republicans fully take over.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29746
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by MKSheppard »

https://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/ramire ... rtinez.htm
During the early morning hours of May 25, 1989, David Ramirez, a parolee, murdered Mary Gortarez and her 15-year-old daughter, Candie Gortarez in their Phoenix apartment.

He stabbed Mary 18 times in the neck, in the back, in the stomach, and in the left eye. He stabbed Candie 15 times in the neck area. Neither Mary nor Candie died instantaneously.

Neighbors heard sounds of a violent struggle for about half an hour coming from the apartment and when police entered it they found blood smeared and spattered throughout.

Ramirez also sexually assaulted Candie Gortarez while she was close to death.

Ramirez, the only person alive in the apartment, was arrested at the scene. Ramirez was convicted of both murders.
https://murderpedia.org/male.J/j/jones-barry-lee.htm
In April 1994, Rachel's mother and her three children were living with Jones. On the afternoon of May 1, 1994, while she was asleep, Jones took Rachel out of the house in his van, and was later seen hitting her with his hand and elbow.

When the mother awoke, she discovered that Rachel's head was cut and she was bleeding. Jones said that Rachel cut her head when some neighbor children pushed her down. Rachel continued to bleed and throw up during the night, but Jones would not let Angela take her to the hospital. By the time Rachel was taken to the hospital, she was dead as the result of a ruptured intestine.
These are pretty weird cases to fight to the death over legalese; but IDK.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2973
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Tribble »

MKSheppard wrote: 2022-01-02 04:57pm https://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/ramire ... rtinez.htm
During the early morning hours of May 25, 1989, David Ramirez, a parolee, murdered Mary Gortarez and her 15-year-old daughter, Candie Gortarez in their Phoenix apartment.

He stabbed Mary 18 times in the neck, in the back, in the stomach, and in the left eye. He stabbed Candie 15 times in the neck area. Neither Mary nor Candie died instantaneously.

Neighbors heard sounds of a violent struggle for about half an hour coming from the apartment and when police entered it they found blood smeared and spattered throughout.

Ramirez also sexually assaulted Candie Gortarez while she was close to death.

Ramirez, the only person alive in the apartment, was arrested at the scene. Ramirez was convicted of both murders.
https://murderpedia.org/male.J/j/jones-barry-lee.htm
In April 1994, Rachel's mother and her three children were living with Jones. On the afternoon of May 1, 1994, while she was asleep, Jones took Rachel out of the house in his van, and was later seen hitting her with his hand and elbow.

When the mother awoke, she discovered that Rachel's head was cut and she was bleeding. Jones said that Rachel cut her head when some neighbor children pushed her down. Rachel continued to bleed and throw up during the night, but Jones would not let Angela take her to the hospital. By the time Rachel was taken to the hospital, she was dead as the result of a ruptured intestine.
These are pretty weird cases to fight to the death over legalese; but IDK.
The entire point of the current case before Scotus is that there is significant evidence to suggest that the above are innocent of the above, or at least that there's enough new evidence to warrant another trial. And that were it not for the incompetence of their lawyers, some if not all of that evidence would have come out in the initial trial. Arizona is fighting to prevent that evidence from being heard.

And Arizona's main argument is not that the new evidence is wrong. They are not even really arguing on whether they are innocent or guilty. Hell, they even outright state in their argument “that no fact-finder could have found the prisoner guilty is not enough” to overcome AEDPA’s hurdles and stop the executions.

So as far as Arizona is concerned they don't actually care if you are innocent or guilty before being executed, they only care that proper procedure was followed.

If you don't see the potential problems of Scotus agreeing with that line of argument and where that will lead to, well...
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
The_Saint
Jedi Knight
Posts: 729
Joined: 2007-05-05 04:13am
Location: Under Down Under

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by The_Saint »

If there's a statement that they could be innocent due to fact finding what's the chances are they are innocent? It seems to me the attempt at a retrial is more about lawyers doing a shit job at (a) previous trial.

Certainly Shep's snippets seem quite damning so is the Arizona statement about innocence of crime or innocence due to mistrial?
All people are equal but some people are more equal than others.
Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 113
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Nicholas »

Tribble has a very good point that we don't want to just say the proper procedure has been followed so we can execute them even though we know they are innocent.

On the other hand, while I am personally opposed to the Death Penalty I believe that if the people of Arizona want one they ought to be able to have one. The Arizona law being referred to appears to be an effort to prevent eternal appeals from preventing the state from ever executing anyone. That is a good goal. At some point Arizona ought to be able to say everything is finished it is time to execute this person.

If I'm reading this right the defendant had a lawyer (probably a public defender) at trial and was convicted and sentenced to death. The defendant had a second lawyer (another public defender?) who might or might not have argued on appeal in Arizona's state courts that their first lawyer was so incompetent that the first trail was unjust and they should get a new one. Once more the defendant lost. Now the defendant has a third lawyer who wants to argue before the federal courts (as the Supreme Court has said he has a right to) that the second lawyer was so incompetent they ought to get a new set of hearings in the state courts on the competence of the first lawyer. To try and prove that they want to do discovery in the federal courts but Arizona has a state law which says that in death penalty appeals discovery can't be done in federal court (I've got no idea on what Constitutional basis Arizona can have a law that says this), you can only use evidence already presented in state court. Since the state courts won't hear eternally recursive appeals on the competence of the defendant's lawyers there is no way for the third lawyer to do discovery in state courts thus this case.

At this point the practical question isn't is the defendant guilty or innocent it is how many times can he delay his execution by changing his lawyers and having the new one claim the old one was incompetent and demanding to do discovery to try and prove that. I don't have strong feelings whether the correct number is once or twice but it absolutely should not be more then that.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29746
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by MKSheppard »

Tribble wrote: 2022-01-02 05:29pmThe entire point of the current case before Scotus is that there is significant evidence to suggest that the above are innocent of the above, or at least that there's enough new evidence to warrant another trial.
To paraphrase Ray Stantz: "You never studied."

Arizona Police entered Mary Gortarez's Phoeniz AZ apartment on May 25, 1989 and found Ramirez covered in blood inside her apartment, with two dead bodies in the apartment as well.

The biggest issue in this 30 year long shitmess is that Ramirez's assigned public defender had never handled a capital case before -- and didn't order more detailed psychological tests than those ordered by the court that would have found Ramirez an idiot with a 75~ IQ.

OK fine we'll have a new court case, and find him guilty again; and restart the clock again. :roll:
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8146
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Straha »

Without commenting on anything else going on here (and there is much to say) it still blows my fucking mind that Clarence Thomas is asking questions during hearings. Truly we are in a parallel universe.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3992
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Formless »

Nicholas wrote: 2022-01-02 10:11pm Tribble has a very good point that we don't want to just say the proper procedure has been followed so we can execute them even though we know they are innocent.

On the other hand, while I am personally opposed to the Death Penalty I believe that if the people of Arizona want one they ought to be able to have one. The Arizona law being referred to appears to be an effort to prevent eternal appeals from preventing the state from ever executing anyone. That is a good goal. At some point Arizona ought to be able to say everything is finished it is time to execute this person.

If I'm reading this right the defendant had a lawyer (probably a public defender) at trial and was convicted and sentenced to death. The defendant had a second lawyer (another public defender?) who might or might not have argued on appeal in Arizona's state courts that their first lawyer was so incompetent that the first trail was unjust and they should get a new one. Once more the defendant lost. Now the defendant has a third lawyer who wants to argue before the federal courts (as the Supreme Court has said he has a right to) that the second lawyer was so incompetent they ought to get a new set of hearings in the state courts on the competence of the first lawyer. To try and prove that they want to do discovery in the federal courts but Arizona has a state law which says that in death penalty appeals discovery can't be done in federal court (I've got no idea on what Constitutional basis Arizona can have a law that says this), you can only use evidence already presented in state court. Since the state courts won't hear eternally recursive appeals on the competence of the defendant's lawyers there is no way for the third lawyer to do discovery in state courts thus this case.

At this point the practical question isn't is the defendant guilty or innocent it is how many times can he delay his execution by changing his lawyers and having the new one claim the old one was incompetent and demanding to do discovery to try and prove that. I don't have strong feelings whether the correct number is once or twice but it absolutely should not be more then that.
Emphasis mine. The whole reason that SCOTUS is SCOTUS is that Federal law trumps State law. I don't often appeal to the wisdom of the founders of this country, but the reason they wrote the Constitution that way was that they didn't trust State Legislatures not to abuse the rights of the people as laid down in the Bill of Rights. This seems like a pretty obvious example of that, trying to take away the defendant's right to Federal appeal on the basis that it would be too expensive for the state to keep the death penalty if defendants could do so. Tough cookie, that's not the State's right, and a big reason most states have gotten rid of the death penalty is indeed the financial price of executing someone. They couldn't shut down the appeals process, they could only choose whether or not the price of execution was worth it. The sheer number of hoops you have to jump through to do it is intentional, as the right to live is the last right you will ever strip from a person. I think SCOTUS is hearing this trial in the first place because they instinctively understand how fishy the law is, as its trying to tell the Federal courts, possibly SCOTUS itself, how to do their job. And that's the opposite of how its supposed to work. Even if there is no specific rule saying this kind of law is null, it seems to me that SCOTUS's ruling should be obvious here. Never mind the politics of Trump's appointees on SCOTUS.

Whether or not the argument that not one but two previous defense lawyers were doing their job competently would actually stand up to scrutiny is irrelevant to the argument at hand, and it seems to me like the chances of an infinite number of appeals on the same issue is highly unlikely to ever happen or work. At some point a higher court is going to either agree to a retrial, or dismiss the argument as extremely improbable. But I don't think there is anything special about a trial where the Death Penalty is on the line. You could try the same trick with any conviction, and it seems highly unlikely to work under most circumstances.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10522
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Elfdart »

Many years ago, when the abomination known as the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was being debated, the busy Florida columnist Leonard Pitts wrote that if the bill became law, and a miscarriage of justice like that shown in The Fugitive were to happen in real life, Harrison Ford would have been executed at the end of the movie anyway. This prompted the usual squeals from the Dr Pangloss types, but it was true then and it's true now. What's really infuriating is the smugly stupid response that surely the trial judge or prosecutors will admit their mistake. Or the governor would grant a pardon or at least commutation...

Ah who the fuck are they kidding? The whole point of executions is blood sport, and the prospect of killing innocent people only makes the baying mob crave more.
Image
Ralin
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3511
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Ralin »

Elfdart wrote: 2022-01-04 11:12pm Ah who the fuck are they kidding? The whole point of executions is blood sport, and the prospect of killing innocent people only makes the baying mob crave more.
So if that's true why aren't executions televised and why do they use lethal injection instead of something more showy and dramatic?
User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2376
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Darth Yan »

Ralin wrote: 2022-01-05 09:47am
Elfdart wrote: 2022-01-04 11:12pm Ah who the fuck are they kidding? The whole point of executions is blood sport, and the prospect of killing innocent people only makes the baying mob crave more.
So if that's true why aren't executions televised and why do they use lethal injection instead of something more showy and dramatic?
Because they like to think they're civilized. People are turning against the DP more and more, and supporters know they're a dying breed (just like morons who want to ban pit bulls.) The electric chair went out of style in part because of Jesse Tafero (his hair caught fire during the execution), and that's even leaving aside his innocence (his co defendant Walter Rhodes admitted to acting alone and a reenactment showed that it would have had to be the third person aka Walter Rhodes).

I've debated capital punishment cases and have been called "anti white" for pointing out evidence where the black person on death row was innocent.
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4232
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Jub »

Ralin wrote: 2022-01-05 09:47amSo if that's true why aren't executions televised and why do they use lethal injection instead of something more showy and dramatic?
Counterpoint.

If they aren't for show, why use them over cheaper methods that carry less risk of being botched or killing the innocent?
Ralin
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3511
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Ralin »

Jub wrote: 2022-01-05 02:50pm
Ralin wrote: 2022-01-05 09:47amSo if that's true why aren't executions televised and why do they use lethal injection instead of something more showy and dramatic?
Counterpoint.

If they aren't for show, why use them over cheaper methods that carry less risk of being botched or killing the innocent?
Because legal injection looks tidier and more sanitized and is less likely to upset onlookers despite it being often times horrifically painful for the condemned.
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4232
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Jub »

Ralin wrote: 2022-01-05 03:29pmBecause legal injection looks tidier and more sanitized and is less likely to upset onlookers despite it being often times horrifically painful for the condemned.
Sorry, I was obviously unclear. What is the point of any form of execution versus the alternatives?
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15982
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Batman »

Revenge, and the fact that the deceased rarely get to become repeat offenders.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4232
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Jub »

Batman wrote: 2022-01-05 05:44pm Revenge, and the fact that the deceased rarely get to become repeat offenders.
Revenge is a petty thing for a department of justice to dispense and life in prison or actual attempts at rehabilitation seem as effective and less costly. There's a reason only shitholes still murder those in their care.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29746
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by MKSheppard »

Nicholas wrote: 2022-01-02 10:11pmAt this point the practical question isn't is the defendant guilty or innocent it is how many times can he delay his execution by changing his lawyers and having the new one claim the old one was incompetent and demanding to do discovery to try and prove that.
This does seem to be the "bug" that death penalty opponents have discovered. Did my lawyer win for me a not-guilty verdict or a "life" verdict? No? Then he was incompetent. :)
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15982
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Batman »

Jub wrote: 2022-01-05 05:48pm
Batman wrote: 2022-01-05 05:44pm Revenge, and the fact that the deceased rarely get to become repeat offenders.
Revenge is a petty thing for a department of justice to dispense and life in prison or actual attempts at rehabilitation seem as effective and less costly. There's a reason only shitholes still murder those in their care.
The US 'justice' system being petty. Unthinkable. And the desire for revenge seems to be part of human nature, if not a universal one.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29746
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by MKSheppard »

Darth Yan wrote: 2022-01-05 11:08amBecause they like to think they're civilized.
You mean like Illinois? Capital punishment has been repealed there since 2011.

But that doesn't stop Illinois prosecutors from having their cake and eating it too.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pro ... r-82059621
A prosecutor said Monday he'll ask the Justice Department to review the case of two people charged in the shootings of two police officers at a northern Illinois hotel with the intention of pursuing federal death penalty charges.

Illinois is not a death penalty state, but the U.S. Attorney General can authorize the filing of a petition to seek the death penalty in a federal murder case under certain circumstances, Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe said during a bond hearing for Xandria Harris, 26, of Bradley in Kankakee County Circuit Court.

“I will be submitting an official request to the U.S. Attorney General for the Central District of Illinois and to the U.S. Attorney General to review the first degree murder case pending against Darius Sullivan and Xandria Harris for federal murder charges, and pursue a federal sentence of death against both defendants,” Rowe said.
Basically, a pair of cops go to a hotel to deal with a noise complaint about dogs barking in an unattended vehicle in the parking lot.

The perps basically then shot both cops, and then basically disarmed the other cop as she tried to crawl away and then shot her in the head fatally with her own service weapon.

It's basically showing us, there are two justice systems. One for PEONS where prosecutors simply shrug and go for a life sentence and one for THE KINGS MEN, where the prosecutors try to end run around and get the US Attorney to charge them to get around IL death penalty laws.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4232
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Jub »

Batman wrote: 2022-01-05 06:00pmThe US 'justice' system being petty. Unthinkable. And the desire for revenge seems to be part of human nature, if not a universal one.
How do other nations and states slake their unquenchable desire for bloodshed? Can it even be sated outside of the deadly altar where eyes are traded for eyes and yet none who visit ever think themselves blind?
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15982
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Batman »

Who said anything about 'unquenchable?' I 'said' the desire was NOT universal , nor limitless. It just appears to be there.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4232
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Jub »

Batman wrote: 2022-01-05 08:22pmWho said anything about 'unquenchable?' I 'said' the desire was NOT universal , nor limitless. It just appears to be there.
The US is a nation where people feel naked without a device that fires lead bullets designed to kill people and which still hasn't outlawed the death penalty. Toss in legalized slavery, entrenched racism, and literal fascist uprisings supported by a sitting President and it feels pretty unquenchable from the outside looking in.
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15982
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Batman »

You also said 'other nations' :D
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4232
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Jub »

Batman wrote: 2022-01-05 09:17pmYou also said 'other nations' :D
Yes, but only in comparison to the United States and phrased as rhetorically. As in, how could a nation serve justice without over sentencing people of color and letting rich white pedophiles walk on technicalities?
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15982
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Arizona's argument at Scotus: "Sure they may be innocent, but that's not enough of a reason to stop their executions

Post by Batman »

Since other nations routinely manage to do it the answer is obviously 'somehow'.
Your own words:
How do Other nations and states slake their unquenchable desire for bloodshed? which implies that desire exists in other nations too.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Post Reply