The Supreme Court's new death penalty order should make your skin crawl

[Jilly_in_VA]

Hamm v. Reeves, a death penalty order that the Supreme Court handed down Thursday night, is an epilogue to a longstanding tension between drug companies that do not wish their products to be used to kill people, and states that are willing to use unreliable drugs to conduct executions if effective sedatives are not available.

It’s also unsettlingly cruel.

The upshot of the Court’s 5-4 decision in Hamm is that a man was executed using a method that may have caused him excruciating pain, most likely because that man’s disability prevented him from understanding how to opt in to a less painful method of execution.

There is significant evidence that Matthew Reeves, a man convicted of murder that the state of Alabama executed after the Supreme Court permitted it to do so on Thursday, had an intellectual disability. Among other things, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in a 2021 dissenting opinion, an expert employed by the state gave Reeves an IQ test and determined that “Reeves’ IQ was well within the range for intellectual disability.”

The Supreme Court held in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) that “death is not a suitable punishment” for someone with an intellectual disability. Nevertheless, in its 2021 decision in Dunn v. Reeves, the Supreme Court voted along party lines to effectively prevent Reeves from avoiding execution.

The issue in Hamm, the decision that the Court handed down Thursday night, is quite narrow. After Dunn, it was no longer a question of whether Alabama could execute Reeves. The only question was how Alabama could conduct this execution — and whether the state was allowed to use a method that may very well amount to torture, even over Reeves’s objection.

https://www.vox.com/22906309/supreme-court-death-penalty-alabama-intellectually-disabled-hamm-reeves
_________________________________________________________________________________
"Pro-life" my sainted Aunt Matilda!

[Mr. Ected]

1. I guess right wingers get to decide who lives and who dies

Every life is sacred until they say it isn't.

[sanatanadharma]

11. Every life is sacred until after birth

Then, so says WI Senator Johnson, society no longer has any obligation to take care of you. or your born kids.

[SergeStorms]

40. Do you mean.....

like a "death panel"?

And here I thought only socialized medicine had the oft described "death panels", at least according to right-wing-nuts.

[Hugin]

2. "... the Supreme Court voted along party lines... " Add to 'Things I Never Thought I'd Read' file..

Vol. VI Chap. XXIV Section II Block VIII.

Must everything be partisan and politicized?

[Polybius]

43. ACB voted with the liberals n/t

[Historic NY]

3. Prolife my ass.

[dchill]

4. This SCOTUS is disgustingly out of bounds.

Salem witch trials next? Spanish Inquisition, anyone? It's just like they're flexing their muscles.

[jimfields33]

10. Those are not good examples.

Neither of those groups killed anybody or even did anything wrong.

[robbob]

48. I hate to be a logic nazi...

But these seem like perfectly good examples when using the “what next…?” type of rhetoric. When arguing “what next” (the slippery slope), we start with an objectionable behaviour, and then imagine how much worse things could get if you allow that to stand. So, to rephrase the post you are replying to:

They are allowing states to use chemicals which may cause great pain, to the point of torture, in order to execute prisoners found guilty of terrible crimes? What next? Torturing and burning people at the stake for practicing alternate herbal medicine (witchcraft)? Torturing people for expressing heretical religious views (the Spanish Inquisition)?

The innocence or guilt of the persons being tortured isn’t the point, the point is, if the state is allowed to get away with cruel and barbaric behaviour then that could lead to even more cruel and even more barbaric behaviour.

Anyway, silly rant mode off; I just didn’t understand the logic of your objection. I don’t really think they’re bringing back the Spanish Inquisition. But then again, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition! (Cardinal Fang)

[jimfields33]

50. Thank you for the reply.

I think I need to read the entire post before commenting. Lol. You bring up many valid points.

[Runningdawg]

15. OK is leading the way

We actually have a woman in prision for manslaughter for a miscarriage. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/And when asked what her job would be as first lady of OK Mrs Stitt said "to bring Jesus to each and every person". And he has declared several days during the pandemic "official days of prayer". #UnderHisEye

[ProudMNDemocrat]

5. Conservatives use the "putting down a rabid dog" excuse.

When justifying the Death Penalty. The manner in which a person is executed is what is barbaric.

Perhaps beheading would be less barbaric and swifter a method with a sedative to remove any anxiety, like what is used when one undergoes a Colonoscopy or Endoscopy?

Asking for a friend.

[lastlib]

41. Don't give 'em ideas......

When will we ABANDON this BARBARIC practice of killing?

[USALiberal]

6. I am surprised how many DUers like the death penalty.

[DLevine]

7. Barbaric. nt

[Chainfire]

8. We like to pretend that we are a civilized society.

Yet our government murder people who have mental disabilities. We are among the most violent people in the world. That is how this "Christian Nation" rolls. Here is our statistical "neighbors" ranked by violence: (this list starts around number 30) We ought to be ashamed, we need to do something about it.


Zimbabwe
Ethiopia
Azerbaijan
Saudi Arabia
The United States
South Africa
Niger
Myanmar

Our propensity for hate and murder will come home to roost when the haters decide to rid the country of Jews, blacks, Latin Americans and liberals. For many of them, that is their final solution to Make America Great Again.

[DFW]

9. This is why when a Republican says they are "pro-life" I say, "no, you're not"

I ask, "do you eat meat?" The answer is always yes.
I ask, "are you in favor of the death penalty?" The answer is always yes.

I say, "You have to kill animals to eat meat. You have to kill people to carry out a death sentence. You are pro-death, not pro-life. Get your terminology straight."

[Dial H For Hero]

12. Do you also describe Democrats who eat meat as "pro-death"?

[DFW]

14. Only if they support the death penalty AND claim to be "pro-life" n/t

[Dial H For Hero]

17. Fair enough, although I would point out that plants are also alive, and must be killed to be turned

into food.

[KPN]

21. That's such a piss poor argument in the face of animal agriculture and ultimate human

sustainability. Just saying. Do you have a lawn?

[Dial H For Hero]

28. I was merely pointing out that if one calls someone "pro-death" because they eat meat,

by the same logic the term would apply to someone who eats plants.

For the record, I don't have the slightest problem with eating meat. I will cheerfully chow down on a medium rare porterhouse.

(and while I have no personal lawn, my apartment complex does)

[KPN]

36. You can't have it both ways.

You weren't merely pointing out what you incorrectly view as a logic flaw. You approve of killing sentient beings to eat. If it were absent the barbarism of corporate animal agriculture, that would be acceptable, but it's not.

[Dial H For Hero]

38. You may assert that corporate animal agriculture is unacceptable, but that doesn't make it so.

Given how universally it's practiced, it certainly seems to be accepted by the great majority of people, does it not?

[KPN]

39. Well, as far as extent to which people en masse find it acceptable, that is changing in leaps

and bounds. Global warming was acceptable not too many years ago, no?

I don't care whether you eat meat or not, the argument that eating plants is the same is specious at best.

[Dial H For Hero]

42. I just checked Gallup. In 2018 5% of those polled described themselves as vegetarians.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/6424/Nutrition-Food.aspx

As for growing by leaps and bounds, in 1998 the figure was 6%.

As for eating plants and animals being different, I quite agree. I was simply pointing out that the term “pro-death“ is overly broad in this context, given that eating plants by necessity involves death. For that matter, I feel exactly the same about the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. The proper terms (IMHO) are “anti-abortion rights” and “pro-abortion rights”.

[dsc]

24. actually not all of them

many we eat the leaves of not the roots so they grow back after we eat them.

[DFW]

27. Not to mention

That would apply to fruits and nuts as well.

[Dial H For Hero]

30. I hadn't considered that, although I suspect those who restrict their diets to such plants are rare

indeed.

[DFW]

25. Unless you are Roald Dahl

I would submit that there is more than a subtle difference in violently taking the life of an animate, conscious, thinking being, as opposed to harvesting a plant for food--or, in the case of trees, shelter, for that matter.

[Dial H For Hero]

33. Granted. Mind you, I do approve of taking the life of non-human animals so I can eat them.

[USALiberal]

47. WTF, parody??? Nt

[Hekate]

44. It might help if you understand DFW stipulated who he was talking to when making this argument

It’s not one I’ve ever heard him make to DUers.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. +1

DFW strongly communicates his thoughts.

[lame54]

51. So, choice is pro death

[Johonny]

13. Your pro-life party ladies and gentlemen.

They'll kill you every chance they get.

[jmowreader]

16. Lethal injection needs to be declared cruel and unusual punishment

The states like it because it looks peaceful to the witnesses, but if you’re the object of the exercise it sure isn’t.

[Jilly_in_VA]

49. Agreed

If you've ever seen anyone die of an OD of anything, you would agree too.

[Fullduplexxx]

18. But supplies of sodium thiopental dried up, at least for executioners, around 2010 -- in part because

But supplies of sodium thiopental dried up, at least for executioners, around 2010 — in part because pharmaceutical companies refused to sell the drug for use in executions, and in part because the European Union forbids companies from exporting drugs for such a purpose. As a result, some states turned to less reliable sedatives.

[jmowreader]

52. Thiopental is the wrong drug for this use anyway

It will knock your ass out QUICK, but not keep it that way. They use a different drug to maintain anesthesia after the thiopental or propofol has done its work.

If they would have looked in a medical book, it would have told them, “once the inmate is unconscious get him on nitrous oxide right away.”

Besides, the only company that made it no longer does, because of lethal injection.

[KPN]

19. Meaningless, unrealistic outburst but here goes anyway -- Expand the Frigging Court!

[Dial H For Hero]

20. How? The votes aren't there.

[Jilly_in_VA]

22. If you read the article I posted the other day

it had a better suggestion. Term limits, and rotate federal judges through at random.

[KPN]

32. Yeah, probably more realistic, but these days, not by much if at all. I think we -- a Democratic

President -- should just expand the court, let the SCOTUS shoot it down along party lines, and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe if we expand our hold on the Senate and House the other solution would be more realistic, doable and a better solution as well (which I actually agree it would be) -- but until then, I prefer my outburst; it just feels better.

[Traildogbob]

23. Who should be scared

Treasonist and seditionist. The laws on the books are not in their favor. No drugs, use ropes and their precious guns for them.

[KPN]

26. Barbarian judges. nt

[llashram]

29. troubling

but not unexpected with this Court...

[Marthe48]

31. These executioners make me skin crawl:

roberts
alito
thomas
gorsuck
I like beer

[Buckeyeblue]

34. My issue with the death penalty is less the death penalty than it is the justice system

People with resources get better results. White people get better results than non-white people.

We have had too many people on death row exonerated. How many innocent people have been executed?

So my position is less anti-death penalty than it is anti-justice system.

How did this guy get executed when Eric Rudolph gets life in prison? I could go on with numerous examples.

Honestly though, I'd rather be executed than grow old and rot in prison.

[BobTheSubgenius]

35. Absolutely horrible.

I'm not sure, but this might be the "cocktail" that is barred for use in euthanizing animals because it's considered cruelty. To animals, not humans, apparently.

You could remove the 4th through 7th word from the headline, and the sentence would still read fine.

[secondwind]

37. I think we may be on a very slippery slope with this problem........

It's frightening.....

[not fooled]

45. Anyone read Umair Haque?

He postulates that most of human history--e.g. feudalism--has been essentially fascist, in that those who deem themselves worthy because of blood/religion etc. seize power, then control and impose their will on everyone else. Democracy--which respects individual rights and confers inherent worth in everyone, equally--has existed for only brief periods.

Looks like we're heading back to full-on fascism. The U.S.A. is a dead man walking, it's just that most Americans don't realize it yet.

[link:https://eand.co/is-america-becoming-a-nazi-country-ede270781c73|]

If we think about human history, what is one of its defining characteristics? Societies began to organise themselves along lines of caste. Human society, for the vast, vast majority of people, was made of “nobles” and “peasants.” The line between them was genetic — “nobles” were said to have “pure” or “superior” “blood,” which gave them superior strength, intelligence, goodness, and peasants had “impure” or “inferior “blood,” which meant they were deficient in virtue, weak....

This form of social organization — feudalism, patriarchy, because “pure blood” was passed down along familial lines, and hence so was ownership and privilege — was widespread. The norm. It was present in Europe, Japan, China, Asia, Africa — everywhere. The relative equality of pre-agrarian village society had disappeared, and as societies grew in scale, feudalism as a form of social organisation emerged as a global form. Serf and peasant, exploited by King and Lord. It was hardly just European — think of India, with its castes of nobles, warriors, and untouchables.

It’s hard not to think of all this as fascism. What is fascism? Intellectually, it’s the project of dividing people into human and subhuman, superior and inferior, by virtue of blood. From there proceeds fascist morality, which says the right place of the strong is to exploit and subdue the weak, and thereby prove their strength. The weak are liabilities and burdens upon the strong, and therefore, the greatest good is had by exploiting them, abusing them, using them for whatever they’re good for, and disposing of them when they aren’t good for that any longer.

Fascism, it seems to me, is the norm in human history. That is an uncomfortable truth to arrive it. But I think it gives us a much, much clearer picture of where we are, and even who we are. The centuries of slavery and empire, of noble and peasant — how can they seriously be described as anything but fascism? And all this culminated in a terrible, terrible catastrophe, an atrocity to never forget. The Holocaust. The slaughter of the Jews, at the hands of Nazis. Where else was this road of fascism ever going to lead, but to a spectacular climax of history-shattering violence, aiming to completely exterminate the most hated of all?