Oh, Stop Screaming - the Pain's Not "Severe"

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But I don't believe you have to be an expert in Constitutional Law to understand what "cruel and unusual" means and to see the logical consequences of judicially approving the infliction of pain.

Today's Supreme Court decision upholding Kentucky's lethal-injection death penalty does far more than put state executions back on track.

It confirms the idea that there's an acceptable level of pain that American officials can inflict on prisoners without fear of violating Constitutional principles.

This is a philosophy of justification that owes far more to Abu Graib than to Madison and Hamilton.

Patriotic Americans still hoping to establish through the courts that the torture and denial of habeas corpus practiced at Guantanamo are un-Constitutional depravities unbecoming a Democracy should despair at this decision.

Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices have just announced that American officials inflicting on prisoners pain that falls just short of "severe" is perfectly fine with them.

That Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas align themselves with the evil depravity of Smirky-Darth is no surprise, but for Kennedy to join them is a disappointment. And the concurrence of Breyer and say-it-ain't-so! John Paul Stephens is devastating. Only Ginsberg and Souter dared to defy the torture-loving perverts among their Brethren.

I'm not saying that lethal injection constitutes torture. I'm saying that when the Supreme Court starts pronouncing on levels of acceptable pain, their justification of torture can't be far down the road.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Oh, Stop Screaming - the Pain's Not "Severe"" >>

At the end of the day

All three Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary, Edwards, and Obama -- support the death penalty "...as have virtually all leading Democrats running for office in the past 20 years.... Why so much longstanding support for capital punishment? It is the easiest way to combat the quadrennial charge that Democrats are 'soft on crime.' "

The NYT editorial board endorsed Hillary as their Democratic "primary choice." Is this a good thing when the Times publishes loony columnists Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and MoDo? They also endorsed McCain as their Repub "primary choice." Well, at least the NYT has Paul Krugman on board. Still...

Michigan and Florida delegates -- When the DNC objected to states moving their primary dates up, they decided to strip the states of their delegates. Edwards and Obama removed their names from the ballot in Michigan but Hillary and Kucinich did not. "Today, Hillary announced that she will demand the DNC seat Michigan's and Florida's delegates. Delegates that only she - in violation of DNC rules - competed for." Yellow Dog provided details. Via Deb-TUD, Josh Marshall had something to say about it, too.

Yesterday, Joe Conason indicated he's gotten some heat for not bashing Hillary enough. His response: "There's no taking sides" and concluded, "I perceive strengths and weaknesses in both of the leading Democrats. They're politicians and human beings, not angels or devils. I can certainly imagine voting for either of them in the general election." His favorite pick for president didn't run. Hmmm, I would guess that's Al Gore!

Mitt and McCain vie for who's the biggest tax cut whore of all! But, wait a minute... Rudy wants the coveted title.

FactCheck.org identified Repub falsehoods in last night's GOP debate in Boca Raton, FL. Mitt "misrepresented" Hillary's health care plan, plus note the Huckster's "FairTax fairy tale," "Giuliani's fables," and "McCain's tax evasion." Some are old lies, and some are new. Unsurprising, isn't it?

Atrios pointed out the Draft Bloomberg effort has recorded "a whopping 3136 signatures." At the time of this posting, the amount has catapulted to 3,375! Wheee-oooo. Are you feeling the "Mikementum"? His favorable rating is "Teh Suck".

The latest Florida poll, a national Gallup primary poll, and Mark Blumenthal discussed variations in SC polling.

Cernig at Newshogger posted an in-depth discourse on a "nuke policy blog tank." An excellent synopsis and worth the time to click the link (h/t to blogging goddess, Avedon).

Toe-tappin' Larry Craig sex sting -- "No one on the tight-lipped Senate committee will say how far along any investigation is or whether they expect it to yield any findings." CREW hasn't heard anything. Craig's lawyer remains silent. Is anything being investigated? "No one with the committee has asked to speak with anyone connected with Craig's arrest or asked for more information about it, said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport." McClatchy

Tortured silence -- Today during a press conference, AG Mike Mukasey wouldn't say if waterboarding is torture. "In a letter to Mr. Mukasey this week, all 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed him again for an answer to the question of whether waterboarding is torture and suggested it would be a focus of an oversight hearing next week at which the attorney general is scheduled to testify." Tomorrow's NYT

Bloody Iraq -- Today Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said "that Iraqi reinforcements have begun moving toward the northern city of Mosul for a 'decisive' battle with the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda." Also in Mosul, "A provincial police chief was killed by a suicide bomber" on Thursday. "Duraid Kashmoula, the governor of Nineveh province, said the number of people killed in Wednesday's attack had increased from 15 to 38.... The revised death toll made Wednesday's bombing the deadliest in Iraq since mid-December. Kashmoula said 134 people had been wounded."

Pakistan -- SecDef Gates said the U.S. will send "troops to conduct joint combat operations with Pakistan's military against al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas."

Check out Corpus Juris' funny video post below. Hilarious! Our hyperbolic media stars... erupt!

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Racial bias in death penalty sentences AND executions

Black murder of whites not only the most likely to get the death penalty; Hispanic odds also greater than white-on-white murders

It’s also the most likely to lead to execution. Here’s the details, from a new research study by David Jacobs, a sociologist at Ohio State University.

A black who killed a white person has twice the risk of being executed than a white person who killed a non-white, he said. “The fact that blacks who kill non-whites actually are less likely to be executed than blacks who kill whites shows there is a strong racial bias here,” Jacobs said. “Blacks are most likely to pay the ultimate price when their victims are white.”

Hispanics who killed whites were also more likely to be executed than were whites who killed non-whites, the study found. But the risk of execution was not as strong for Hispanics who killed whites as they were for blacks who killed whites.

The study also reinforced previous findings by Jacobs that the likelihood of a legal death penalty was greater in states with higher proportions of black residents, an ideologically more conservative population, and in states where there was greater support for Republican candidates.

In the new research, Jacobs found that execution probabilities increase in states along with the population of African Americans, up to a point. But when the population of blacks reaches about 16 percent of the population, executions start to decrease. Probably at that point, African-Americans have enough votes and political influence within a state to reduce the number of executions, Jacobs said.

One more piece of evidence that racial bias still exists in sentencing, above all in death penalty cases. One more reason to abolish it.

Cross posted at SocraticGadfly.

There's more: "Racial bias in death penalty sentences AND executions" >>

Supreme Court Reverses Two Death Sentences

The United States Supreme Court has reversed and remanded a death penalty conviction in the case of ABDUL-KABIR fka COLE v. QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Case Number No. 05–11284.

Held: Because there is a reasonable likelihood that the state trial court’s instructions prevented jurors from giving meaningful consideration to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence, the CCA’s merits adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by [this] Court,” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1), and thereby warranted federal habeas relief. Pp. 10–30.

The judge's capital punishment instructions limited the jury's consideration to two questions: whether the defendant’s conduct was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation it would result in his victim’s death and whether it was probable he would commit future violent acts constituting a continuing threat to society. Justice Stephens writing for the 5/4 majority noted that the Court had

long recognized that sentencing juries must be able to give meaningful consideration and effect to all mitigating evidence that might provide a basis for refusing to impose the death penalty on a particular individual, notwithstanding the severity of his crime or his potential to commit similar offenses in the future. . . . Because this would not satisfy Penry I’s requirement that the evidence be permitted its mitigating force beyond the special issues’ scope, it would have followed that those issues failed to provide the jury with a vehicle for expressing its “reasoned moral response” to (the defendant’s) mitigating evidence.

The instructions were simply too limiting.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined, and in which Alito, J., joined as to Part I.

The court also reversed and remanded the death penalty conviction in the case of SMITH v. TEXAS, No. 05–11304 on similar but slightly different grounds. In that case

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined.

There's more: "Supreme Court Reverses Two Death Sentences" >>