Maybe it's high time to overthink the death penalty?
1. A person has to commit and be convicted of, and sentenced for a (potentially) capital crime. 2. That person has to escape from their final prison. 3. That person must then commit, and be convicted of another capital crime (probably with some mitigating circumstances, like murders that are arguably part of the escape and evasion don't qualify for the death penalty, but escaping, then going out of your way to murder a civilian do).
For most bad crimes, life without parole is more than adequate. And if you escape and dedicate yourself to keeping your nose clean, then the worst you should face is an extended sentence. The death penalty should be reserved for people who pose such a proven, dire risk to society that the goal of the punishment is risk mitigation for society, not justice. Ted Bundy is the best real-world example I can think of.
Only politicians and judges should face that possibility, only because they wield the flaming sword of the state!
That's the point. You speak as if we do this mistakenly.
> Imagine being put in a concrete cage with only dudes, you are literally regimented by force to someone else's early-morning schedule,
Yes. I can imagine this. My imagination acts as a deterrent. I implore you to continue to urge others to imagine it, particularly those at risk of becoming criminals themselves.
If deterrance worked, why is the US so imprisoned today? The memes surrounding the tree of liberty did not spring up in a vaccuum, groups of men with power have a long sordid history of atrocities. Those men use magick (psychological trickery) to gain your consent to act on others by force, or the consent of others to act on you by force.
I am a pro- liberal gun ownership and pro- restricted state power kind of girl (especially re: "War on ___"): I have better chances of survival shooting back at criminals than goons in Fashi garb.
Tangentially, in some Scandinavian (I believe?) countries, escaping from prison is not a punishable offense. To be clear, you will be looked for, and taken back to prison when found, but their legal system has ruled that the craving for freedom is a natural human urge, and that it's punishing human behavior to punish escapees for escaping.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that escape shouldn't be treated as a crime (one way to view crime is an explicit rejection of the idea that a government can or should dictate our actions, so in that light, trying to get out of a legal punishment is itself a rejection of that government's right to issue punishments). But certainly, if the only additional crime is the escape itself, then the death penalty is entirely unwarranted.
It would also be weird to punish people for a failing of the state.
1. A person has to ~~commit and~~ be convicted of, and sentenced for a (potentially) capital crime. 2. That person has to escape from their final prison. 3. That person must then ~~commit, and~~ be convicted of another capital crime
Of course if a person remorselessly commits a capital crime it changes a lot of things. But one big problem is that justice system can't reliably always determine who committed the crime (or was it committed at all).
And a good criticism to my concept is that if a person is falsely convicted of one heinous crime, then escapes and is accused of some other heinous crime, the original conviction would likely be used as evidence towards motive and means.
I'm not sure of a good solution to that problem, although it would certainly shrink the number of executions of innocent people, it would not completely eliminate them.
Also, another case in which the death penalty could be warranted:
The person has confessed to the crime, does not recant their confession, and accepts (or even desires) the death penalty in lieu of lifetime imprisonment. (Yes, there are cases like this.)
Of course, this reads a bit more like suicide, and may not be necessary if we had appropriate "right-to-die" provisions in general (such that they also applied to prisoners). Maybe we should just give all such prisoners access to a seppuku knife once a year.
Honestly, I don't understand the desire to make the death additionally torturous. If we must kill, just give people a gram of fentanyl. They'll enjoy the last few moments of their life, a grace that's traditionally afforded in the form of a last meal, and simply forget to breathe.
Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them?
> undiagnosed autism
I think autism mild enough to not be diagnosed cannot possibly excuse somebody for shaking a baby, and as somebody with autism so mild that it went undiagnosed for 30 years I'm personally offended that anybody could believe otherwise.
> Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them?
It sure can, and a number of babies diagnosed with SBS have been abused or killed.
However, the way shaking is typically inferred from a small set of supposedly characteristic medical findings (radiological and pathological evidence of blood in the layers surrounding the brain and at the back of the eyes) has a weak scientific evidence based — determining abuse requires a far more sophisticated approach. [1]
You would generally expect neck trauma to be involved in shaking a baby so hard their brain starts to bleed. Their necks lack musculature, and are nearly limp. Their vertebrae are what’s eating the force of their head shaking. There would likely be obvious trauma to the neck if the baby had been shaken.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18788...
I also edited my comment to make it very clear as I had just been echoing on what was to read there; no room for confusion in these matters. Fully agreed.
Maybe the state has failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but unless that witness has recanted I think he's more likely than not to be guilty.
Dear God, I hope I never get into legal trouble and have you on my "jury of peers". I'd be better off being judged by a panel of... sorry, I can't finish that sentence without venturing into ad hominem territory.
Do believe that every Karen has a legitimate beef, then? Every parent who goes out in public and has their child {have a tantrum, demand to have something, make a loud noise} knows that they are being judged, often harshly, by someone with less than a full picture. It is not hard at all to imagine a very concerned and upset observer deciding that what they think they are seeing is in fact what is happening, and it's horrible and must be stopped and they are a noble savior for calling it out. And be full of crap. It happens all the time. It may or may not be what happened here, I don't know enough and I doubt you do either.
When my son was small, say I don't know, 10 or 11 months, I'd pick him up under his arms, hold him at arm's length, and (gently) shake him while chanting "shake the baby! shake the baby!" and he'd start giggling so uncontrollably he'd be gasping for breath before he stopped. My wife always gave me the stink-eye. I think he still wanted me to do that until he was 3 or 4, he was getting too heavy to be able to do it very well.
Think what would have happened if I'd been dumb enough to do it in public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas#Ca...
In this case, it's presumably because the (supposed) murder victim was under 15.
Many cops tend to rely on getting a “feel” for the suspect. High-functioning autistic folks often have “resting bitch face.” They don’t come across as “likable,” and people can “get their back up” over it.
I’m a bit “on the spectrum,” and, as anyone in my shoes can tell you, we’re bully magnets. My grade school days were absolute hell. I got the shit kicked out of me, on a regular basis, for no other reason, than “I don’t like the way you’re looking at me!”. I spent many years, training my “resting face” to be fairly open and friendly. People seem to think I look like an idiot, but that’s OK, because they also tend to underestimate me. At least, they don’t think I’m being hostile.
> Robert Roberson’s case is riddled with unscientific evidence, inaccurate and misleading medical testimony, and prejudicial treatment. In 2002, Mr. Roberson’s two-year old, chronically ill daughter, Nikki, was sick with a high fever and suffered a short fall from bed. Hospital staff did not know Mr.
> Roberson had autism and judged his response to his daughter’s grave condition as lacking emotion. Mr. Roberson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death under the now-discredited “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS) hypothesis.
Anyways edited and reworded it just to be crystal clear here and keep closer to how article(s) put it in context of a criminal investigation:
> highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous)