Pakistan & Jordan apply the hangman's noose again, execute 17 people

[Tender Branson]

Both countries had death penalty moratoriums before:

Four more hanged in Pakistan as execution campaign widens after Peshawar tragedy

Four more death-row convicts were executed today in Pakistan for their involvement in an attack on former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf after the country lifted a ban on the death penalty following last week’s deadly Taliban attack on a Peshawar school.

Zubair Ahmed, Rasheed Qureshi, Ghulam Sarwar Bhatti and Russian citizen Akhlaque Ahmed were hanged at the district jail in Faisalabad in Punjab province, two days after two prisoners were hanged in the same jail.

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/neighbours/pakistan-hangs-four-more-after-peshawar-tragedy

Jordan ends death penalty moratorium with 11 executions

Jordan has executed 11 men convicted of murder, ending an eight-year moratorium on the death penalty in the country.

The interior ministry said the men, convicted in different cases, had been hanged at dawn on Sunday.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30567738

[Tender Branson]

Stupid, useless move.

As if terrorists (or murderers in general) care about it ...

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

Obama could do so Federally if he wished, but it would be up to individual States to do so at the State level.

[Beezer]

Pakistan means business.

Pakistan to execute 500 militants in light of Peshawar massacre

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/22/pakistan-to-execute-500-militants-in-light-of-pesh/

[Cory]

Good, good.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Jordan had an unusualy high execution rate before the moratorium was in place.

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

Obama could do so Federally if he wished, but it would be up to individual States to do so at the State level.

I think the only viable way to enact a nationwide moratorium would be a SCOTUS ruling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Jordan had an unusualy high execution rate before the moratorium was in place.

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

Obama could do so Federally if he wished, but it would be up to individual States to do so at the State level.

I think the only viable way to enact a nationwide moratorium would be a SCOTUS ruling.

Which won't happen with this court, thankfully.  I say that because it should be obvious to everyone that a constitution which in its very language condones the use of capital punishment for certain crimes cannot be reasonably interpreted in a manner that prohibits it altogether unless we abandon the the idea of government by the people and replace it with government by nine black-robed judges.That clearly is something for which a national ban requires a constitutional amendment.

[Tender Branson]

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

Obama could do so Federally if he wished, but it would be up to individual States to do so at the State level.

Why would he do that ? Obama is a strong death penalty supporter.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Good, good.

Okay, Cory, maybe you could explain what exactly is so "good" about it.

One of the convicts who's waiting for his execution now is Shafqat Hussain, who was sentenced to death at the age of 15 based on a confession which was apparently obtained through the use of torture.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-291234-Who-are-we-hanging?
http://www.reprieve.org.uk/case-study/shafqat-hussain/

So, what's so "good" about applying death penalty in a country which lacks due process?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Jordan had an unusualy high execution rate before the moratorium was in place.

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

Obama could do so Federally if he wished, but it would be up to individual States to do so at the State level.

I think the only viable way to enact a nationwide moratorium would be a SCOTUS ruling.

Which won't happen with this court, thankfully.  I say that because it should be obvious to everyone that a constitution which in its very language condones the use of capital punishment for certain crimes cannot be reasonably interpreted in a manner that prohibits it altogether unless we abandon the the idea of government by the people and replace it with government by nine black-robed judges.That clearly is something for which a national ban requires a constitutional amendment.

While the Constitution's language condones the use of capital punishment, one can argue that death penalty in the United States doesn't meet standards of "due process" and ban of "cruel and unusual punishments", therefore being unconstitutional in practice, as it being applied.

I believe that was a conclusion Harry Blackmun came to: constitutional in theory but not in practice, as opposed to Brennan or Marshall, who believed death penalty is being unconstitutional per se.


I agree it's not going to happen under this Court. The only other theoretical way would be, in my opinion, Congress passing an amendment abolishing capital punishment with enough states ratifying this. It's not going to happen either, of course, but it's still somehow more likely than all states and the federal government abolishing it or declaring a moratorium.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Jordan had an unusualy high execution rate before the moratorium was in place.

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

Obama could do so Federally if he wished, but it would be up to individual States to do so at the State level.

I think the only viable way to enact a nationwide moratorium would be a SCOTUS ruling.

Which won't happen with this court, thankfully.  I say that because it should be obvious to everyone that a constitution which in its very language condones the use of capital punishment for certain crimes cannot be reasonably interpreted in a manner that prohibits it altogether unless we abandon the the idea of government by the people and replace it with government by nine black-robed judges.That clearly is something for which a national ban requires a constitutional amendment.

While the Constitution's language condones the use of capital punishment, one can argue that death penalty in the United States doesn't meet standards of "due process" and ban of "cruel and unusual punishments", therefore being unconstitutional in practice, as it being applied.

I believe that was a conclusion Harry Blackmun came to: constitutional in theory but not in practice, as opposed to Brennan or Marshall, who believed death penalty is being unconstitutional per se.

The due process reasoning is what led to the moratorium and reform of our death penalty laws in the 60s and 70s.  If anything, what has a resulted is a system with too much process.  As for the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, that was never intended to let the courts decide what is cruel.  The clear legislative history of the phrase, going all the way back to the English Bill of Rights, is that was intended as a limit on judges imposing arbitrary punishments not specified in the law and not as a limit on legislatures deciding what punishments to impose.  Granted, SCOTUS has creatively reinterpreted that clause so that it grants the courts more power instead of less but I think that it has been profoundly wrong to do so.  It's clear that deciding what is cruel is a subjective decision, and thus a decision that in our system of separated powers should be made by legislatures.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Jordan had an unusualy high execution rate before the moratorium was in place.

I'm more concerned that Jordan and Pakistan can enact moratoriums on capital punishment, but the United States can't.

Obama could do so Federally if he wished, but it would be up to individual States to do so at the State level.

I think the only viable way to enact a nationwide moratorium would be a SCOTUS ruling.

Which won't happen with this court, thankfully.  I say that because it should be obvious to everyone that a constitution which in its very language condones the use of capital punishment for certain crimes cannot be reasonably interpreted in a manner that prohibits it altogether unless we abandon the the idea of government by the people and replace it with government by nine black-robed judges.That clearly is something for which a national ban requires a constitutional amendment.

While the Constitution's language condones the use of capital punishment, one can argue that death penalty in the United States doesn't meet standards of "due process" and ban of "cruel and unusual punishments", therefore being unconstitutional in practice, as it being applied.

I believe that was a conclusion Harry Blackmun came to: constitutional in theory but not in practice, as opposed to Brennan or Marshall, who believed death penalty is being unconstitutional per se.

The due process reasoning is what led to the moratorium and reform of our death penalty laws in the 60s and 70s.  If anything, what has a resulted is a system with too much process.  As for the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, that was never intended to let the courts decide what is cruel.  The clear legislative history of the phrase, going all the way back to the English Bill of Rights, is that was intended as a limit on judges imposing arbitrary punishments not specified in the law and not as a limit on legislatures deciding what punishments to impose.  Granted, SCOTUS has creatively reinterpreted that clause so that it grants the courts more power instead of less but I think that it has been profoundly wrong to do so.  It's clear that deciding what is cruel is a subjective decision, and thus a decision that in our system of separated powers should be made by legislatures.

It's hard to have due process when your prosecutor is an elected official whose uninformed constituents will vote based on their ability to convict as many people as possible, and when your ability to have a competent counsel hinges on your ability to pay for a good defense attorney.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I understand Ernest's concerns about "legislating from the bench". I'm not comfortable with this concept either, whether I politically agree with the ruling or not.

However, I believe the courts are within their right; more, they has a duty to issue decisions aggressively protecting the constitutional right to due process. That's diffrent from "legislating from the bench".

And I agree with Indy Texas. It's at best debatable whether there is real "due process" regarding capital punishment in the United States. The 1970s decisions, rather than make an improvement, only replaced serious problems with another serious problems.