A valid test for what constitutes torture could be subjecting a political or military leader to such “enhanced interrogation techniques” and asking them under these conditions whether they are being tortured. I suspect that an appropriate and qualified answer would be forthcoming.

As a former veteren of US military service, including the first Gulf War, I’m disgusted with the conduct of the higher eschelon of the current military forces for permitting such controversial tactics.

The thing is, that was really a subterfuge. The truth is that the same folks who were eager to define the Bush torture techniques as “not torture” don’t particularly think much of the laws against torture in the first place (or think that they should be riddled with exceptions for situations where torture is seen as “necessary”).

If the Bush Administration had defended the techniques as “torture” rather than denying that they were torture, I suspect the same people would have supported the policy. The genesis of this position is that some people believe that these guys deserved to be tortured.

cubanbob: Supreme Court has ruled that one does not have a right to be born

This is false, see Gonzales v. Carhart. Laws against murdering unborn children have generally been held constitutional also. The old common law rule was that one had to be born alive in order to possess any rights under law. Modern American jurisprudence and legislation (including the Roe and Casey decisions which made a distinction between viable and non-viable fetuses) has moved away from this concept.

yankee:
I am not talking about errors, I’m talking about the expansion of the death penalty beyond its legitimate purview.As with the statute I cited, death penalty proponents have given us laws in which you can be sentenced to death for nonviolent drug dealing.Can death penalty proponents commit to the absence of an organized movement to expand the death penalty even further than that?

Supreme Court has ruled that one does not have a right to be born, so why the outrage for death to drug dealers violent or otherwise? What do drug dealers do but sell poison to other people’s children. Indeed selling poison to other people’s children is a form of violence. It follows that if you have no right to be born you have no absolute right to life after you are born. If you wish to return the sanctity of life to those who are eligible for a death penalty for a non violent crime, then perhaps the road starts with elevating the life of those whose only crime is their mere existence.

Bama 1L: Well, I wonder how many of those polled would be in favor of the death penalty for their loved ones.

With the assumption of their loved one committing a capital crime? Perhaps more than you would think depending on the nature of the crime. If it makes you happy, just consider the death penalty a retroactive abortion.

Richard Aubrey: Yankee. Swearing there will never be an error is different from swearing there will never be a successful, organized movement to change something.

I am not talking about errors, I’m talking about the expansion of the death penalty beyond its legitimate purview. As with the statute I cited, death penalty proponents have given us laws in which you can be sentenced to death for nonviolent drug dealing. Can death penalty proponents commit to the absence of an organized movement to expand the death penalty even further than that?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by pr_law: Terror, Torture, and Death in Public Opinion http://bit.ly/gx0pl #postrank #law…

Houston Lawyer: I miss the prison rodeo. When they announced the name of the contestant, they always gave the length of his sentence.

I’m sorry I missed that. In fact, there are lots of such TV shows I’d love to see:

“Inmate Idol”
“Supermax Survivor”
“Dancing With the Cons”
“Allenwood’s Next Top Model”
“Lifer Week on Jeopardy”

just to name a few.

I think there’s a lot to learn by looking at what beliefs seem to come together…

Yes. Well, if by “the rest of their life,” you mean it. No hope of ever getting out. If someone is so bad they must be kept alive in a cage for decades until they die, I think that is monstrous and indefensible. I suppose you would not object to putting a sign over the gate that says, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”

If it is right to inflict that sort of punishment on someone, the non-silly thing to do is to recognize that such a person deserves the death penalty, and should get it.

and you don’t think some others might view it differently? I don’t think there’s any shortage of “lifers” that would rather not be put to death because of your view that life in prison constitutes something “monstrous.”

I don’t see any real inherent conflict in saying that in a given case the significant possibility of recidivism (Future harm on society) merits separating the criminal from society indefinitely but that what the criminal has done in the past doesn’t merit execution. The two just aren’t equivalent.

Although I admit I’m making a bit of a hyperbolic point, what you’re arguing is tantamount to arguing that we might as well kill those with incurable mental illnesses that make them dangerous to those around them because there’s no substantial chance they can be “cured” and live outside of a supervised environment.

Are you really suggesting that there’s absolutely no set of circumstances in which a criminal might be sent to prison for the rest of their life, but should not be executed?

Yes. Well, if by “the rest of their life,” you mean it. No hope of ever getting out. If someone is so bad they must be kept alive in a cage for decades until they die, I think that is monstrous and indefensible. I suppose you would not object to putting a sign over the gate that says, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”

If it is right to inflict that sort of punishment on someone, the non-silly thing to do is to recognize that such a person deserves the death penalty, and should get it.

Besides, and as people repeatedly keep pointing out, the results, i.e., the numbers, change depending on how you characterize the questions – so there’s really nothing concrete here and the satisfaction of epiricism is illusory.

Richard Aubrey: But when you read of some outrage here or there, the perp is frequently out of jail after X number of years, of a sentence of 2X or 3X.
Is there a reason to trust the authorities, the legislators, and the judges when they pinky-swear that neither they nor subsequent folks in their position will change this?

One can say the same thing the other way around. Is there any way we can trust the death penalty supporters when they pinky-swear that only people who really really deserve it will get it? No chance of it being used on, say, nonviolent drug dealers? (see subsection (b)(1))

Richard Aubrey: It would be interesting to ask how many of those who opposed LWOP as an alternative to the DP did so because they did not believe the guy would actually be in prison for life.
IOW, is LWOP a code for letting him out when the authorities think nobody’s looking?
Perhaps you could initiate the question by making it clear we’re talking about some incredibly unlikely hypothetical where LWOP actually means the guy never gets out.

Maybe I’m just confused because there’s so many different standards, but isn’t that exactly what LWOP means?

In the federal system there is no parole, so life is life. But year terms don’t typically mean that number of years because there’s various and sundry policies that undermine it. Double time for good behavior, credits for education etc etc etc.

In the state systems I’m familiar with “Life” generally actually means a “sentance with a minimum of 20 (or 25) years, and a maximum of life.” Theoretically that means parole hearings begin in 20 years. In reality that means parole hearings begin in some lesser time. (I don’t know the truth of 14 years, but it’s plausible so I’ll accept it as true).

Whereas, life without parole means no parole hearings. So life is life. he only gets out if clemency is granted, or some special circumstances exist.

so maybe we have a terminology problem, and I’d accept your point if you meant the study ought to have more directly qualified between a true “life sentance” of LWOP and a “life sentance” that is 14 years, but I’m confused if you’re actually making the assertion that LWOP is 14 years.

For the rest of us, we accept the reality that if we do not believe someone deserves the death penalty then we necessarily agree that someday that person will again be free to live among us.

Frankly I think this is a little bit silly.

Are you really suggesting that there’s absolutely no set of circumstances in which a criminal might be sent to prison for the rest of their life, but should not be executed? It’s also notable that the federal prison system doesn’t have parole at all. That doesn’t necessarily mean that sentance times are fixed, they just don’t have the concept that ones sentance is “7 years then we’ll consider whether you can get out every year for another 5 years”

If for no reason other than I think that a diversity of punishments is a useful thing for prosecutors to fit the circumstances of the crime, then life sentences are worth having.

For the same reason mentioned above I really don’t have a problem with the death penalty. I think it serves a valid purpose in the justice system, although its severity does merit some additional safeguards in my opinion. But, to be honest, few things make me start to reconsider that opinion more than the naked retributionist opinions that appear whenever the death penalty is discussed in certain forums.

Richard Aubrey: Steve.
We’re talking about an opinion poll. We don’t need a long track record.We only need one case known to the person answering the question.
Given our 24-hour news service, that needn’t be a huge number in the aggregate.However, as an earlier poster mentioned “life” means, effectively, fourteen years.
Any reason to think LWOP is not going to similarly evolve?
Do you know of a long history of sentencing not evolving and remaining as originally legislated?But when you read of some outrage here or there, the perp is frequently out of jail after X number of years, of a sentence of 2X or 3X.
Is there a reason to trust the authorities, the legislators, and the judges when they pinky-swear that neither they nor subsequent folks in their position will change this?
Of course not.
Can you absolutely insist that there will not be another judge like Rose Bird, except wrt LWOP?Of course you can. Because it wouldn’t bother you if you could see LWOP on that basis and then see it eviscerated.

You can still free someone in prison if they didn’t commit the crime… capital punishment not so much.

However, as an earlier poster mentioned “life” means, effectively, fourteen years.
Any reason to think LWOP is not going to similarly evolve?
Do you know of a long history of sentencing not evolving and remaining as originally legislated?

But when you read of some outrage here or there, the perp is frequently out of jail after X number of years, of a sentence of 2X or 3X.
Is there a reason to trust the authorities, the legislators, and the judges when they pinky-swear that neither they nor subsequent folks in their position will change this?
Of course not.
Can you absolutely insist that there will not be another judge like Rose Bird, except wrt LWOP? Of course you can. Because it wouldn’t bother you if you could see LWOP on that basis and then see it eviscerated.

If LWOP is to exist then separate prisons should be constructed for those receiving that sentence, with 100% of the cost of running those prisons paid by death penalty opponents. This would be entirely appropriate since such prisons would not exist for the good of the public in general but only for the benefit of the death penalty opponents with a desperate need to feel good about themselves by keeping alive those criminals that are so depraved and dangerous they can never be allowed to live among decent people.

For the rest of us, we accept the reality that if we do not believe someone deserves the death penalty then we necessarily agree that someday that person will again be free to live among us.

I miss the prison rodeo. When they announced the name of the contestant, they always gave the length of his sentence. They didn’t announce the crime though, since children were in attendance.

byomtov: This seems like a very poorly worded and confusing question. What exactly does a “yes” or “no” mean?

Not having seen the survey, I would presume that the resposes were “should be allowed” and “should not be allowed” instead of a “yes/no.”

“I would contend that the reason for the swing with McVeigh would be that all those on the right who favored the death penalty anyway would still be so inclined, while many of those leftwingers who claimed to be totally against it would be happy to make an exception for the “crimes” of those they perceive to be on the right, like McVeigh, Nixon, Bush/Cheney or Palin.”

Or, you know, for the fact that McVeigh killed not one, but 168 people, and thus meets their higher threshold for what warrants the death penalty.

Naturally, you go instead for the interpretation that allows you to fill in your Mad Libs script.