« Two new grants of sentence reductions rejecting DOJ's arguments that change in the law an improper ground | Main | "Reaching a Verdict: Empirical Evidence of the Crumbling Conventional Wisdom on Criminal Verdict Format" »

February 2, 2024

Rounding up some continuing discussions a week after Alabama's nitrogen gas execution

Unsuprisingly, conversations and debates over Alabama's pioneering next execution method are continuing a week after that state used nitrogen gas to carry out a death sentence for a murder committed over 35 years ago.  Here is an abridged round-up of some of the recent pieces that have caught my eye:

From the AP, "Oklahoma governor says he’s not interested in changing from lethal injection to nitrogen executions"

From the Louisiana Illuminator, "Landry wants Louisiana to resume executions, fulfill ‘contractual obligations’ with victims’ families"

From the New York Times, "A Select Few Witnessed Alabama’s Nitrogen Execution. This Is What They Saw."

From Slate, "'It Was the Most Violent Thing I’ve Ever Seen': Inside the chamber for Alabama’s experimental new execution technique."

From the Statehouse News Bureau, "Opponents of nitrogen executions bill cite Ohio's ban on gas for pet euthanasia"

February 2, 2024 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

Comments

There will never be a satisfactory form of execution to the Left, as I suspect almost everyone knows. Part of this is because the Left simply lives to complain about stuff, but most of it is because the Left opposes capital punishment no matter what the facts of the offense. Indeed a goodly chunk of it opposes any punishment at all, on the theory that the USA is such a wretched, horrible place that it has no moral standing to punish anyone for anything. (The one exception is Trump, who they want to string up yesterday).

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 2, 2024 3:08:15 PM

They do want to string Trump up. But they also want to keep their hands in the cookie jar:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13038317/Fani-Willis-accused-Fulton-Commissioner-racist-questioning-lover-Nathan-Wade.html

Posted by: federalist | Feb 2, 2024 4:11:12 PM

It is so boring to hear "the same old same old" from Mr. Otis and Mr. Federalist....nothing new...just more of the same whine.

Included in his post above is an unusually inane rant from Ol' Bill: "Indeed a goodly chunk of it opposes any punishment at all, on the theory that the USA is such a wretched, horrible place that it has no moral standing to punish anyone for anything". What bizarre nonsense.

Bill, please name specifically who has articulated, written, or expressed such a belief, and where and when they did so. I'm betting that any such example that you would point to will laughingly be from the 1960s or 70s and from an outlier group such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, or the like. We will be standing by, holding our collective breath for your reply.

Posted by: SG | Feb 2, 2024 8:21:59 PM

SG --

"It is so boring to hear "the same old same old" from Mr. Otis and Mr. Federalist....nothing new...just more of the same whine."

You, however, are the soul of originality!!! P.S. If those of you who groove on crime would tell different lies, you'd get different corrections. Until you do, you'll be getting the same corrections.

Still, you crack me up, although one thing is starting to get clearer -- why you won't sign your name.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 2, 2024 8:37:26 PM

From my perspective as a leftist (albeit likely a "sleepy" one by contemporary metrics), there's no reason at all to string up Trump. Permanent disqualification from federal office and non-immunity from criminal prosecution are adequate remedies. He's spent his entire life enjoying the latter, under the gentlemen's agreement that preserves the privileges of the wealthy. It's probably too much to hope that having more prosecutors view him as a potential "perp" in any investigation where his name comes up will produce any sympathy among right-wingers for the large classes of people to whom this perspectives attaches well in advance of any criminal history. Conservatives are the original "in crowd" and they know it, for all that they cosplay iconoclasm. (Good job on the Jackie Robinson statue in Wichita, though. You'll be dining out on that episode of owning the libs for months, at least if you can find a Klan lodge with a kitchen.)

Better if Trump sticks around for a while, in fact, as a continuing source of strife between the conservative base and Republican politicians who actually desire to win elections outside of districts that are R+30 or better.

(If nothing else, that will impressively advance the state of the art in gerrymandering algorithms.)

Trump's humiliation in being made to face the consequences of his actions, an unfamiliar scenario to him (and to his many fans, at least aspirationally), will be far more satisfying than his demise. But he may well grace us with the latter sooner rather than later. You can only scarf so many cheeseburgers while tweeting from a darkened room at Mar-a-Lago at 3am before you choke on one...

Posted by: Pabst Blue Ribbon | Feb 2, 2024 8:58:30 PM

SG,

Bill has a point. It's pretty hypocritical for libs to keep modulating changes on the same old songs while complaining about conservatives not even going that far. The song's supposed to remain the same.

First unpropertied men got the vote, a slippery slope if there ever was one. Then, through shady maneuverings, black folks got it, then women. In the good old days you could beat the hell out of gay folks and nobody would give you any trouble about it. (No distinction was made among bi, trans, intersex, or other varieties of queer folk--all got the same epithets hurled at them.)

In a proper society, rights and privileges do not extend to every person but only those who prove loyalty to as static a cultural configuration as possible. It's not hard to do, even if just staying out of jail is not nearly enough. You can always get a buzz cut or a MAGA hat, though if you fancy yourself smart, you could try going to law school and coming out with a briefcase. Don't take the canons of ethics too seriously, though. Only people who aren't scum are worthy of a vigorous defense. Conversely, when you know you're working for the good guys, you can literally do no wrong. Prosecutors swallow guns so that cops can plant them. One hand washes the other.

If you should have a moment of weakness and ever ask yourself whether what you're doing is right, put yourself to the test: "Am I advancing the interests of the most powerful person on Team Conservative that I can?" In that situation, yes means yes. (In others, what happens at the frat house stays at the frat house. Ask Justice Kavanaugh.)

Can't you just see the flag waving and hear the proud melody of "God Bless America"?

Posted by: Pabst Blue Ribbon | Feb 2, 2024 9:20:09 PM

Pabst --

"In others, what happens at the frat house stays at the frat house. Ask Justice Kavanaugh."

It wasn't allegedly at a frat house. It was allegedly at a high school classmate's home. And Kavanaugh was himself in high school, not in college and not in a frat.

Of course the main thing is that it was just a fabulist concoction. There was zero corroborating evidence for this 30 year-old accusation. But that's OK. The Left doesn't need evidence. It just needs solipsistic certainty, and it's got plenty of that.

P.S. Still, I should ask: Will you be joining the Nick Roske Fan Club? Peaceful change and all that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/28/roske-supreme-court-justice-threats/

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 3, 2024 1:35:47 PM

Bill's prior rant of Feb. 2, 2024, posted above: "Indeed a goodly chunk of it ['the Left'] opposes any punishment at all, on the theory that the USA is such a wretched, horrible place that it has no moral standing to punish anyone for anything".

My response to Bill:
"Bill, please name specifically who has articulated, written, or expressed such beliefs, and where and when they did so. I'm betting that any such example which you would point to will laughingly be from the 1960s or 70s and from an outlier group such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, or the like".

Bill? Direct response?

In the alternative, you may withdraw your unfounded statement.

Posted by: SG | Feb 5, 2024 4:45:14 PM

SG --

Is there some reason I should continue to answer your questions (like the several you asked about nitrogen gas executions) while you refuse to answer earlier ones I asked you (like whether you snicker at DP supporters like Washington, Lincoln and FDR as Madame Defarge-like bloodlusters)?

For that matter, is there some reason I should pay attention to you at all since, although I freely given you my name and education, you hide yours?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2024 2:03:54 AM

I'd be entirely comfortable with offering the condemned a reasonable list of options for how their life is ended and letting them choose, with a default option in place if they don't make a selection.

What is not tolerable is this endless litigation asserting that whatever method the state is currently trying is too cruel. Death is obviously likely to involve pain for someone. Which is what got condemned murderers where they are in the first place.

Posted by: William C Jockusch | Feb 6, 2024 5:35:46 PM

William C. Jockusch --

Exactly.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2024 8:17:54 PM

I get it Bill. You don't want to answer directly, and you won't answer directly. So be it.

As to my choice not to answer personal questions (on this or any other public site), this is an exercise of my freedom of speech, which includes my silence. I find it quite boorish of anyone to attempt to pry personal information from me, or from anyone else on any public website.

I don't mind witticisms, critiques, barbs, or mocking characterizations of my ideas, beliefs, expressions, etc. but only as it may apply to the various issues raised here. That is fair game. The rest of it - no. I have never asked you or anyone else about their personal histories, their qualifications or their true names. It's none of my business. I believe such information is completely irrelevant to the issues being debated. If someone elects to publish their personal histories, be it their name, education nor anything else, that is their right. After all, we are all blessed by our creator with such unalienable rights to do so, or not to do so. True?

So let's not make this personal. Let's all just stick to the issues, and continue with our good-natured debates, our back and forths, our barbed witticisms, and yes, even mocking of ideas. I'm not so thin-skinned as to take such postings personally. How about you?

Posted by: SG | Feb 6, 2024 8:21:04 PM

SG --

Since you didn't answer (again), I'll try asking (again):

Is there some reason I should continue to answer your questions (like the several you asked and I answered about nitrogen gas executions) while you refuse to answer earlier ones I asked you (like whether you snicker at death penalty backers like Washington, Lincoln and FDR as Madame Defarge-like bloodlusters)?

Do you really not understand that millions of intelligent people of good faith (and a majority in this country, as you concede) support the death penalty?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 7, 2024 3:31:21 AM

Bill

Do I snicker? No.

Do I understand that some people support the DP? Yes.

Now, your turn to answer.

Posted by: SG | Feb 7, 2024 6:14:39 PM

SG --

That's not an answer. It's a deliberate evasion. I didn't ask you about just "some people," as you full well know.

You're just playing games, occupying my time with nonsense. I'm not interested.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 7, 2024 9:16:33 PM

Bill,

Ok..yes, I understand "that millions of intelligent people of good faith support the death penalty". But so what?

Is this really the argument you will hang your hat on? Are you saying that because a slim majority (53% to 47%) do not oppose the DP, no one then can argue against it? And should the majority be AGAINST the DP, would you cease to argue FOR IT?

Posted by: SG | Feb 8, 2024 3:53:10 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB