« HIghlighting again the need for better crime data (and national leadership on the issue) | Main | Noting a notable economic cost from white-collar pardoning »
May 2, 2025
Florida completes its fourth execution in 2025
As reported in this AP piece, an "Army combat veteran whose Gulf War experience triggered severe mental problems was executed Thursday evening in Florida for the 1998 shotgun slayings of his girlfriend and her three young children." Here is more:
Jeffrey Hutchinson, 62, was pronounced dead at 8:15 p.m. following a lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was the fourth person executed this year in the state under death warrants signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, with a fifth execution set for May 15.... The execution was carried out soon after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a final appeal without comment.
Hutchinson had long claimed that he was innocent and that two unknown assailants perpetrated the killings under a U.S. government conspiracy aimed at silencing his activism on claims including Gulf War illnesses involving veterans. Hutchinson served eight years in the Army, part of it as an elite Ranger. Court records, however, showed that on the night of the killings in Crestview, Hutchinson argued with his girlfriend, 32-year-old Renee Flaherty, then packed his clothes and guns into a truck. Hutchinson went to a bar and drank some beer, telling staff there that Flaherty was angry with him before leaving abruptly.
A short time later, a male caller told a 911 operator, “I just shot my family” from the house Hutchinson and Flaherty shared with the three children: 9-year-old Geoffrey, 7-year-old Amanda, and 4-year-old Logan. All were killed with a 12-gauge shotgun that was found on a kitchen counter. Hutchinson was located by police in the garage with a phone still connected to the 911 center and gunshot residue on his hands.
Darran Johnson, the brother of Renee Flaherty, said after the execution that justice was done but the family’s pain will never end. “Not a day goes by that we don’t think about the loved ones that were taken from us,” Johnson said....
Hutchinson filed numerous unsuccessful appeals, many focused on mental health problems linked to his Army service. In late April his lawyers sought to delay his execution by claiming he was insane and therefore could not be put to death. Bradford County Circuit Judge James Colaw rejected that argument in an April 27 order. “This Court finds that Mr. Hutchinson’s purported delusion is demonstrably false. Jeffrey Hutchinson does not lack the mental capacity to understand the reason for the pending execution,” the judge wrote.
In their court filings, Hutchinson’s lawyers said he suffered from Gulf War Illness — a series of health problems stemming from the 1990-1991 war in Iraq — as well as post-traumatic stress disorder and paranoia related to his claim that he was targeted by government surveillance....
So far this year, 15 people have been put to death in the U.S. including Hutchinson.
With six serious execution dates in six states scheduled for the next couple months, the US is well on pace for the most executions in 2025 than in any year in more than a decade.
May 2, 2025 at 08:27 AM | Permalink
Comments
Go DeathSantis.
Posted by: federalist | May 2, 2025 10:11:13 AM
I suspect it would not be an optimal use of my time to wait for the usual abolitionist commenters to chime in for a guy who shot to death a nine year-old, a seven year-old, and a four year-old. Abolitionism may not have a whole lot of sense, but my guess is it has more than that.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 2, 2025 1:21:46 PM
Yeah Bill, I'll bite. The implications of letting one person's monstrous acts justify dragging a "civilized" society into similar monstrous acts doesn't bode well for the principles we claim to stand for. What if we just started from the basic adage we teach kindergartners that "two wrongs don't make a right"? And God forbid we get a career prosecutor to adopt Blackstone's rationale, much less have even the modicum of scruples or awareness to recognize that we might just get some of these wrong.
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | May 3, 2025 4:12:06 AM
If execution of brutal murderers is a "monstrous act[]," then what would you call foisting criminals upon citizens? What would you call Biden's policy of putting children in the hands of "family members" read sex traffickers?
Posted by: federalist | May 5, 2025 1:46:28 PM
Or while I am at it, policies like this: https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2025/05/04/minneapolis-restaurant-robbed-multiple-times-by-same-guy-n2412345
The robbery of an innocent citizen is far more appalling than the execution of a murderer. I defy you to take the contrary position.
Posted by: federalist | May 5, 2025 1:49:58 PM
While not currently on the list of scheduled executions, Missouri has one case that could/probably will be set for later this year -- Lance Shockley. Cert was denied on his federal habeas last month and the deadline for Mr. Shockley to respond to the motion to set execution is later this month.
From what I have seen in recent responses in opposition to such motions, the response will not include even a colorable reason (i.e. a pending challenge to the conviction) in opposition to the motion, and the Missouri Supreme Court will set an execution date. Vague claims that the defense is investigating possible further challenges have not been persuasive.
Posted by: tmm | May 6, 2025 12:41:43 PM
Jon S --
"The implications of letting one person's monstrous acts justify dragging a 'civilized' society into similar monstrous acts..."
So you think (1) an adult's flash of vicious anger resulting in his killing three little children who have done nothing wrong is "similar" (your word) to (2) society's judgment, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, and reviewed by multiple judges for years thereafter, that execution is an appropriate and deserved punishment for his intentional behavior?
I guess you have your own personal definition of the word "similar."
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
Your invocation of this truism simply assumes your (erroneous) conclusion -- that executing an adult for intentional, multiple child murder is an equivalent "wrong" to the murders themselves.
"And God forbid we get a career prosecutor to adopt Blackstone's rationale, much less have even the modicum of scruples or awareness to recognize that we might just get some of these wrong."
First, don't get smart with me sonny. I'm not the one who spends his career doing his best for child rapists. Second, it is of course true that prosecutors, like everyone else including you, might get a case wrong. That's one reason we have such extensive judicial review. But the question pertinent to this thread is whether the prosecutor got THIS CASE wrong, i.e., did he accuse the wrong guy. You make no argument that he did, there being no argument to be made.
If we let the inescapable fact of human fallibility paralyze us -- from justice to spaceflight to medicine or anything else -- we'd still be living in caves rather than going to the moon.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 6, 2025 1:23:14 PM
Bill, as I bet you know, people like Jon are so full of themselves. I can respect a categorical opposition to the death penalty. The problem is that this respect is NEVER a two-way street with these people. They live their lives with the casual assurance of their moral superiority. The rest of us, with lives, understand that our judgment isn't always perfect and that different perspectives can alter our views.
They are also cowards. They never really engage. They flit in an out doing drive-by analysis. I don't know why I bother in here.
Posted by: federalist | May 8, 2025 11:28:44 AM
Didactic semantics aside, attempting to weigh the scale of one monstrosity against another as justification to strap someone down and inject them with poison to kill them in the name of the government while acknowledging we may get some of those wrong along the way is a hell of a ringing endorsement. That doesn’t, of course, take into account that the death penalty as “society’s judgment” is only randomly applied by some prosecutors, in some jurisdictions, during some administrations, by certain random juries, and ultimately has nothing to do with any real equivalency determination for “appropriateness” at all. The argument that “we get plenty right so that should absolve us from those we get wrong” certainly doesn’t comport with Blackstone, whether or not THIS CASE meets your criteria for when someone really deserves it. Fair enough, but you could have just said that you’re not interested in the concept.
Don't get smart with me sonny, because you defend bad people? Sure, Bill, I hope you always led your crim law classes teaching future prosecutors with the tried-and-true false equivalency of questioning the rationale of being the only developed country who still routinely executes people even though we get plenty wrong with just being a scumbag for having the gall to defend child rapists, I guess? At least lead with that on your syllabus so people know how you honestly feel about the defense bar, and don’t hide behind the illusion that you give a shit about such quaint notions as burden of proof, due process, or justice and not just winning when you determine it’s justified.
And executing people as prosecutors’ moon shot? Woof. It's not paralysis to reject that we can be better than whatever margin of error might justify when deciding the concept of basic human dignity no longer applies to all and we have the right to snuff out a life (regardless of their wrongs). No one is advocating for stopping all criminal prosecutions because we get some wrong, just that locking someone up for life at least allows for some measure of balance to correct for those we do get wrong. Extensive judicial review still misses plenty and can’t un-ring that bell.
Federalist, henceforth any response to you should just start with, "Are you ok?" Anyhow, tell us, what margin of error for executions is acceptable? I say only 0% would begin the conversation based on any perceived “deservedness,” hence my categorical opposition. What is the acceptable margin of error for killing some innocents in order to continue justifying the practice as a whole?
It’s because none of us are morally superior (even to those who commit heinous acts hurting others) that leads me to see our imperfect judgment as the very premise for opposing the death penalty. If the two-way street is understanding that some sort of determination of proportional revenge should be warranted in terrible cases, in the form of the death penalty as lex talionis, I reject that as a fundamental principle or theory that should govern our punishment. Even the potential for one innocent killed in pursuit of that principle destroys the very heart of the principle, even if we kill 1000 guilty.
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | May 9, 2025 5:27:01 AM
"Federalist, henceforth any response to you should just start with, 'Are you ok?' Anyhow, tell us, what margin of error for executions is acceptable? I say only 0% would begin the conversation based on any perceived 'deservedness,' hence my categorical opposition. What is the acceptable margin of error for killing some innocents in order to continue justifying the practice as a whole?"
Well, for starters, I am ok, and I don't see the need for base insults when all I did was point out your stridency. And thanks for proving my post was spot on about your attitude. Like I said above, I respect your POV. A couple responses: (1) innocent people in prison face a not-insignificant chance of death. So are we to junk incarceration because innocent people die (other than from natural causes) in prison? (2) It is not acceptable to put an innocent man to death--but the key point is knowing. So your question completely ignores the reality that we wouldn't know. Death cases get far more scrutiny, and if someone is innocent, the scrutiny given to his case will almost certainly smoke out innocence and will certainly give a better chance at righting a wrongful conviction than if the guy got LWOP.
You see--there's a place for rational discussion without the stridency.
Posted by: federalist | May 9, 2025 3:36:04 PM
Jon S --
Rather than answer your most recent post here, I invite you to debate. The moderator would be Doug (if he agrees, which of course he is under no obligation to do). We would each appear on camera, and give our names and educational and professional backgrounds. The debate would then proceed under a format to be agreed upon, and be taped and shown unedited right here (again with Doug's permission).
You seem like an intelligent man with, obviously, strong feelings on the subject, so I hope you will agree.
P.S. I will say only this for now. You write, "At least lead with that on your syllabus so people know how you honestly feel about the defense bar..."
Anyone who's read this blog for any time at all knows how I feel about making a career (and making money) doing one's best to get a favorable disposition for people almost all of whom are guilty of at least what they are charged with and are frequently dangerous as well, and just waiting to do it again if they can come up with a trickster acquittal (or a jury their gang members have threatened). And I begin each semester by giving my background and general views of law. Then there is a drop/add week in which students can leave the course without penalty. Some have done that, although more have added it.
Now: Will you debate?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 10, 2025 8:23:47 PM
You're always challenging people to debate you in forums other than the one at hand, Bill.
There are more candid ways to admit that you can't deliver the goods in the present venue.
I don't doubt that you're quite skilled at snowballing your interlocutor--and observers--with fast-paced verbiage that intimidates your opponent and leaves little time for fact-checking or the recognition of logical fallacies. I stipulate that it served you well professionally with your innovative appeal waiver, a form of arbitration agreement that sends all contested matters of fact and law directly to the trash can.
Young lawyers now rotating into jobs at the DOJ will surely benefit from your "government always wins" attitude and teaching. We'll have more Robert Brooks and Messiah Nantwi cases in no time, but at the federal level where murderous COs can be swiftly pardoned by the winner-in-chief.
Posted by: Frank Fosdick | May 12, 2025 10:02:44 AM
Frank Fosdick (or whoever you actually are) --
"You're always challenging people to debate you in forums other than the one at hand, Bill."
Sure you want to stick with "always"? I do it every now and again, you bet. That's because live, in-person exchanges where you have to face opponents' questions in real time, and audience questions as well, are revealing in ways internet exchanges can't be and aren't. Not that you don't already know this.
"There are more candid ways to admit that you can't deliver the goods in the present venue."
Who other than you says I'm "not delivering the goods" here? And what goods are you talking about, while we're at it? The proposition that Dylann Roof was really a nice guy and that we're being too harsh on him? And as to my supposed lack of candor: That the guy who hides behind a fake name launches a LACK OF HONESTY accusation at the guy who uses his real name is its own (admittedly weak) brand of humor. But you are wonderfully faithful to the defense bar's motto: STAY ON OFFENSE NO MATTER WHAT.
Of course, like Doug Berman (who's debate me live a couple of times, quite enjoyably for both of us), YOU could debate me if "Jon" prefers to stay behind the curtain.
Gonna?
"I don't doubt that you're quite skilled at snowballing your interlocutor--and observers--with fast-paced verbiage that intimidates your opponent and leaves little time for fact-checking or the recognition of logical fallacies."
The most taxing and most frequent form of debating I've done has been at the podium of the federal courts of appeals (all of them, although many more in the Fourth Circuit than the others). It generally took two to three months for the Court to produce an opinion -- plenty of time to catch up to "fast-paced verbiage" and do plenty of fact-checking and analysis of "logical fallacies." And those judges, mostly twice my age at the time, SURE WERE INTIMIDATED by me!!!
P.S. Wanna know my record? I did way more than 100 arguments, so it should be representative.
Hey, look, no problem. I'll tell you my record when you tell me your actual name. Why hide it?
"I stipulate that it served you well professionally with your innovative appeal waiver, a form of arbitration agreement that sends all contested matters of fact and law directly to the trash can."
Do waivers of trial (known for the last few decades as "standard plea bargains") likewise "send all contested matters of fact and law directly to the trash can"? Well gads, SCOTUS should get rid of them right quick!!! Could you remind me of which of its cases did that? And could you cite a single case in SCOTUS or any of the circuits that has banned the waiver of appeal? I mean, it's been around forever, since I won US v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51 (4th Cir. 1990). That was 35 years ago this month! Surely some benighted defense lawyer could have gotten that reversed in THIRTY FIVE YEARS.
No?
"Young lawyers now rotating into jobs at the DOJ will surely benefit from your "government always wins" attitude and teaching."
The government wins the great majority of the time, true. That's mostly because the defendant and his lawyer understand that they're dead meat on the evidence and are relieved to get away with a bargained guilty plea. Those who go to trial, like your serial rapist/ideological ally Diddy Combs, are going to wish they'd made a better judgment, but they can make their own choices. I doubt I even would have offered Combs a deal, while we're at it. I think it's a good thing to put on the public record exactly what his behavior was -- and what his lawyer's behavior now is going to be, insulting the women he pushed, shoved, kicked, drugged and raped.
Still, defense counsel will get his fee -- and quite a fee it will be!!! -- so, hey, look, stuff happens!
Welcome to your world, "Frank Fosdick."
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 13, 2025 10:52:35 AM
Bill
What would you and I possibly debate? Whether Blackstone's ratio is mere idealistic balderdash, or whether it actually should help guide the principles of modern-day sentencing procedure and policy? Whether a society has a right to kill in the name of revenge, or whether the inherent dignity of a person demands that we do not consider them solely evil or irredeemable based on only their worst acts? What is an acceptable margin of error for executions?
Perhaps whether one's complete lack of capacity to acknowledge the defense bar as anything more than mere ambulance chasing hucksters makes one unfit to opine on justice? Fwiw, I have had the privilege of being a student under a handful of current and former federal prosecutors. The humility every single one brought to the classroom in regularly acknowledging the flaws in our system as a baseline to view punishment and human dignity was informative, and certainly not a weakness.
You started your responses above to me with that whole "don't get smart with me sonny" schtick as some sort of cudgel to not only assert your experience and age, but because I (or people like me) or only after the fees we get from defending child rapists apparently. Name is Jonathan Scheib. Feel free to connect on LinkedIn or the like, peruse my education or background and fire away. Nobody's behind any curtain - relax.
Everyone knows that certain type of prosecutor who thinks no matter the government misdeed or overstep, the ends justify the means, all defendants are really guilty (of something definitely, even if not what they are (over)charged for), and they are the real white hats doing God's work without whom society would simply collapse. It does not matter the facts or data that say otherwise, building more prisons and locking more people up is what is keeping society safe. Your career, and commensurate reputation, make clear where you stand.
Again, what would you and I possibly need to debate in real time? Without having the wildest idea of my background or experience, you inherently don't respect what I do or certainly why I do it. Doesn't seem like a great foundation for two people debating, imho. Candidly, I don't respect large swaths of what you have said and done over your career. The web is replete with those criticisms; pointless for me to reiterate them here. The inherent tension between some dinosaur screaming "get off my lawn" and a generation of people who are convinced your views will be relegated to the dustbin of history is nothing new, either.
That said, whenever you, or Federalist, or whoever, wants to flippantly diminish Jeffrey Hutchinson, or Dylann Roof, or whoever we are killing today in the name of justice, as someone who we get to no longer consider human or worthy of dignity, I'm happy to speak up. Recognizing their victims were monstrously and unjustifiably killed is not mutually exclusive to seeing a system that also dehumanizes by continuing to engage in draconian executions as monstrous.
Federalist, are you ok? Your classic playbook playing out as usual:
1. Federalist name calls and insults- "...so full of themselves...", "cowards..." [checks numerous previous interactions w/ Federalist]- "hypocrite," "rank hypocrite," "liar", etc;
2. Call out Federalist for name calling and insulting
3. Federalist clutches pearls and gaslights: "I don't see the need for base insults...."
4. Call out Federalist for doing what he claims others are doing, like name calling and insulting
5. Federalist completes the gaslight loop with more whataboutism, goal post moving, deliberate misrepresentation, projection, etc: "I'm just here to have a respectful conversation about policy, what's with all the harsh words...."
6. Rinse, repeat
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | May 14, 2025 5:12:40 AM
Jon S. --
1. Thank you for giving your name.
2. Your caricature of me and other death penalty supporters is wildly false, as you knew when you typed it.
3. You speak as if it were obvious to anyone but a barbarian that the death penalty is per se immoral. That's nonsense, and arrogant nonsense at that. Is every member of the Supreme Court a barbarian? Is Barack Obama? Is a consistent majority of the American public?
4. "Again, what would you and I possibly need to debate in real time?" Whether the death penalty should be abolished in all circumstances.
The invitation to debate in real time is still open.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 15, 2025 1:15:33 AM
Jon S. --
One further question or the moment: Are you proud of how the defense lawyers for Diddy Coombs badger, insult and humiliate the woman he slapped, punched, kicked, drugged and raped (repeatedly).
This is not a question about the grand state of the world or Blackstone, etc. It's just what it is, about whether you're proud of his performance. Are you?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 15, 2025 10:01:49 AM
Puff Daddy as apropos to the conversation at hand? Eesh, hardly. Even so, I haven’t followed the case closely, nothing beyond the headlines, so can’t comment on any specific cross or treatment of the victim. Very generally, to me the “ick” in these situations tends to emanate from an emotional reaction rather than a moral or ethical one. Part of that in my mind, is because it ignores a necessarily much broader conversation about the adversarial system as imagined structurally and historically practiced, injecting the victim as a stakeholder with commensurate rights of the accused, if you will, mostly in the relatively recent past.
It wasn’t a caricature of death penalty supporters; it was a caricature of prosecutors who lack scruples. The caricatured doth protest too much, methinks!
The death penalty under the moral questions as I framed them (particularly margin of error/Blackstone – btw, have yet to hear an answer from you or Federalist about what is an acceptable margin of error when implementing a punishment that can’t be undone as every one of my posts in this thread continues to put forward that question – also, no real discussion from any of us here around whether any sort of adoption of Kantian dignity precludes executions, but I’d suggest that also supports the following four words) is per se immoral. Beyond that, I do believe the death penalty is barbaric and people who support it should be ashamed of themselves; again, that’s based on my own moral framework as I chose to present it here.
Is that nonsense, or arrogant? Those are two pretty different things.
Nonsense implies that there isn’t a reasonable or logical path to the conclusions, but as of yet in this entire thread you’ve failed to offer any substantive answer to the primary objection I’ve presented – that we get some wrong, and as such the thread of killing a single innocent should preclude execution of all. If my premise is as flawed as you seem to think and my position is nonsense, should be pretty easy for you to pick it apart.
I'd suggest arrogance assumes that I’m not willing to consider an alternative moral framework that could lead to a different conclusion on whether execution as a continued systemic punishment is justified. I very much appreciate different perspectives, particularly ones with real gravitas, but up until now in this thread no such perspectives are even being posited. And that is also aside from the fact that the current accepted moral framework of execution is, in fact, the status quo, making any suggestion that it needs legitimate consideration from anyone pretty redundant.
Instead, to now in this thread, arguments in favor of the death penalty are categorized as thus (pulling from both your posts above and Federalist, what a team!): 1) they’re really bad and deserve it; 2) we have to execute people because if we don’t we paralyze the justice system (e.g. prosecutor’s moonshot is killing people; again, woof); 3) prisons are dangerous and people might die there so really no difference if we execute them; 4) we don’t really KNOW that we’ve executed innocent people, do we?; 5) extensive judicial review should give us comfort cause how could innocent people slip through all of that?; 6) but some of them are REALLY, REALLY BAD people (i.e. Roof), so we don’t need to address anything of substance on a policy level; 7) the Supreme Court and Obama; 8) but the public supports it.
While I’d suggest some of those don’t provide any real substance to the argument (2, 3), some can be conclusively dismissed with actual information and data that says otherwise (4, 5), and a couple don’t really cut to the heart of the issue (7, 8), at least a couple that are left (1 and 6) actually cut to the heart of how I chose to frame my objections to the death penalty in my initial comment in this thread: if our current system allows for some innocent people to be subject to execution, how can it be morally acceptable to continue to sanction that system even for the really bad ones that deserve it.
See, Bill, we’re debating. Nobody's asking you to pontificate on such grand things as redemption or dignity, just a straightforward question: what is the allowable margin for error for executions?
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | May 16, 2025 6:11:22 AM
Jon S.
"See, Bill, we’re debating. Nobody's asking you to pontificate on such grand things as redemption or dignity..."
The reason no one is asking me is that you've cornered the market on pontification.
"...what is the allowable margin for error for executions?"
Let's say the DP is put entirely off the table, as you want. Some convicted bloodlusting killers who could previously have been executed but weren't then kill again (in prison to a "disrespecting" cellmate, to a guard or infirmary worker; or on the outside after release or escape).
What is the allowable number of such murders -- murders that would have been prevented had the DP been imposed and carried out?
See how that works? Trying to pretend that the lethal costs of fallibility run in only one direction is false and fraudulent. You might be too ideologically blinkered to understand that, but I doubt it. I think you understand it full well.
Still, if you want to play that game, fine. I repeat: what is the allowable number of murders that could have been prevented had the killer previously been subjected to the death penalty for his first one?
And a related question: When a previously convicted killer serving LWOP does it again in prison, what punishment would you suggest, with the DP no longer available? Loss of canteen privileges? What?
"It wasn’t a caricature of death penalty supporters; it was a caricature of prosecutors who lack scruples."
So are you saying I lack scruples? I've had a long career -- longer by far than yours. Please name a single case where the court (or the Bar of the Office of Professional Responsibility) said that I lacked scruples or anything vaguely similar. Or do you just toss around accusations like that because you think there are no consequences for being a smear artist?
"Beyond that, I do believe the death penalty is barbaric and people who support it should be ashamed of themselves; again, that’s based on my own moral framework as I chose to present it here."
So the following people -- unlike your sainted self -- are "barbaric" and should be ashamed: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Obama and -- yes -- Biden, who conspicuously left several people of federal death row. Barbarians all, right? But not you.
Do you even hear yourself? Do you? And you act puzzled because I say you're arrogant??
"...if our current system allows for some innocent people to be subject to execution, how can it be morally acceptable to continue to sanction that system even for the really bad ones that deserve it."
OK, that's a serious question without your arrogant snark, for once, so I'll give a serious answer.
The death of innocent people because of government decisions is an extremely high cost but has never been considered a prohibitive one. The law of self defense permits the use of lethal force, including by the police, if the person using the force has an objectively reasonable EVEN IF MISTAKEN view that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. The law has accepted this for at least 1000 years.
The government permits driving at very high speeds even though we know that we could save thousands of lives every year by lowering the national speed limit to, say, 25. We don't do that mostly just for convenience -- people would go nuts if they had to go 25 all the time. But we know in advance, and from years of experience, that we'll lose thousands of innocent and otherwise savable live with a much lower speed limit.
Does the refusal to adopt a lower limit make us "barbarians"? (P.S. Do you personally support lowering the limit to 25, or are you a "barbarian" who's willing to see thousands killed just so you can get to the game faster?)
In WWII, we killed thousands of innocents -- because that is not avoidable at a rational cost -- in order to win the war. Thousands of Japanese and German children got killed by our bombing. So should we have refrained from entering the War and just let the Nazis take over the world?
You can't possibly be this dense. Killing is needed from time to time, and killing unavoidably accepts the risk that, sometimes, you'll kill innocent people. The human race has known this since it started civilization. And it's one of the reasons your favorite, Blackstone, SUPPORTED THE DEATH PENALTY, despite your constantly and dishonestly implying that he opposed it.
Now, again: Will you do a live debate to be taped and shown on this forum (with Doug's permission)?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 16, 2025 11:23:34 AM
[Ctrl-C][Ctrl-V] - "...just a straightforward question: what is the allowable margin for error for executions?"
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | May 17, 2025 4:15:46 AM
Jon S --
What was the allowable margin for error in bombing in WWII? That is, exactly how many innocent German and Japanese children could we kill in order to win the War?
Grow up, sonny. Your question -- and mine -- are both "legitimate" but only in an empty sense. They're GOTCHA questions. Fine for the ninth grade debate team but not in any adult consideration.
Here's the serious question: Do you agree that human fallibility, and the consequent inescapable risk of lethal error, exist both if we use the death penalty (because we can get the wrong guy) and if we never to use it (because the killer lives to do it again)?
Bonus question: Do you still consider yourself morally superior to Washington, Lincoln and FDR, all of whom both supported AND USED the death penalty? Or are you still of the view that they are "barbaric" (your word)?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 17, 2025 10:01:19 AM
Jon S --
While awaiting your answer, I should note that the other famous philosopher you cite, Immanuel Kant, also strongly supported the death penalty, https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/death-penalty-dilemma/. What's the purpose of trying to mislead about this?
Well, whatever. We now have you directly implying that you were morally superior to Washington and Lincoln and smarter than Blackstone and Kant. Far out!!
So yes: Your position is both nonsensical and arrogant, probably more the latter.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2025 9:15:45 PM
