@sayfiereview -- Well, it would be a good start anyway ...

I get my Florida political news each morning from Sayfie Review. 90% of the time if I comment on a Florida political news story, that's where I found it. This morning's tidbit, via the Lakeland Ledger:

Juries would have to be unanimous before recommending the death penalty for defendants in murder cases under a bill filed Tuesday by a South Florida lawmaker.

The bill (HB 139), proposed by Rep. Jose Javier Rodriguez, D-Miami, will be considered during the 2015 legislative session. Under current law, a majority of a jury can recommend that a defendant receive the death penalty, with a judge ultimately deciding whether to impose the sentence

Now, I oppose letting state employees kill anyone in cold blood (as opposed to "in the heat of the moment" necessity in defense of the lives of self or others), period. And I don't think that position is something justified solely in terms of my own anarchism.

For you "limited government" types out there, how can a government be considered "limited" in any sense if it has the acknowledged power to kill someone who is, at the moment, not a threat to the lives of others by virtue of having been brought to bay and caged? Any other power can be curtailed ex post facto: Taxes can be refunded, property that was taken can be given back, innocent people who were jailed can be released and paid restitution for the damage done them. Once you've killed a guy, it's done. There's no way to undo it, there's no way to compensate the dead person if it turns out he or she was innocent of the offense, etc. Capital punishment is, by any reasonable definition, an instance of unlimited government.

But, while I'd like to get rid of capital punishment altogether, I can endorse pre-application limits on it as an interim measure without judging myself hypocritical. I think requiring a unanimous jury recommendation is a good start.

A good next step would be to forbid voir dire questioning of prospective jurors with respect to their views on capital punishment (in at least some states, the law allows for or requires dismissal of jurors from capital cases if they oppose the death penalty).

A good third step would be to outlaw the practice of keeping the identities of the killers and their accessories secret, as some states already do or are moving to do (the current excuse being that pharmacies won't sell the state its killing drugs unless their identities are kept secret from the people who pay the bills).

But the next to the absolutely best thing would be to simply deny the state the power to kill in cold blood (the absolutely best thing would be to abolish the state altogether, of course).

Sometimes I Hate Having My Worst Opinions Confirmed

This one, for example.

Per The Guardian:

The state of Oklahoma botched one execution and was forced to call off another on Tuesday when a disputed cocktail of drugs failed to kill a condemned prisoner who was left writhing on the gurney.

After the failure of a 20-minute attempt to execute him, Clayton Lockett was left to die of a heart attack in the execution chamber at the Oklahoma state penitentiary in McAlester. A lawyer said Lockett had effectively been "tortured to death."

No, I did not predict -- nor could I have reasonably predicted -- this particular outcome with respect to this particular victim at this particular time.

But such outcomes are inherent in allowing the state to not just kill people, but to do so a) under the protection of secrecy laws relating to personnel, purchases, procurement, etc., and b) using methods that approximate Junkie Russian Roulette in terms of concoction.

Oklahoma's governor has called for an "independent review" where "independent" means "conducted by people who work for me."

I think a different approach is in order -- the next execution protocol the governor signs off on should first undergo human trials. Let her and her cabinet draw straws for the honor of participation in said trials. If they think they've got it right before the whole executive branch is pushing up daisies, the remaining members, including the governor or her successor, can pass the ball to the legislature for expanded trials, maybe five or ten politicians at a time. Just to be sure, you know.

People who want the state to kill people should be willing to put some skin in the game.

I'm not always a big fan of Rachel Maddow, but she definitely covered the issue in detail tonight. If the embed works, you can watch it yourself in 3, 2, 1 ...

Support Capital Punishment? Own It.

I'm fine with the death penalty if it's levied by the victim of a violent crime, or someone acting in that victim's defense, at the scene and time of the crime and consistent with self-defense.

I don't support allowing state officials to kill when it's not "in the heat of the moment" -- i.e. when the perpetrator of a crime has already been subdued and caged. The math isn't hard on that: I don't support letting the state exist or do anything, so killing is definitely right out.

But if you do support state-levied capital punishment, insist that your agents stand up and be counted instead of hiding from their own actions like embarrassed cowards.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected two death row convicts' demands to know who is providing the drugs with which a doctor (in blatant violation of the Hippocratic oath and any sane canon of medical ethics, by the way) will kill them.

One idiot pol, state representative Mike Christian, wants to impeach the court's members for even taking up the case. His fellow idiot pol, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, bellyaches that it's a case of "intimidation used by defense counsel and anti-death penalty groups" (because employees of the most powerful street gang around strapping someone to a gurney and lethally poisoning him isn't "intimidating," right?).

But I think this is being looked at from the wrong angle:

It isn't about the inmates, it's about the public.

Even if you think it's OK for politicians to steal your money and use that money to kill people, surely they should at least have to do so openly instead of secretly -- if for no other reason than that secrecy in state killings looks like a very, very slippery slope to stand at the top of. It's stump-stupid to let sociopaths like Mike Christian and Scott Pruitt dispose of human lives in the first place. It's even more stupid to let them hide their methods.

If a compounding pharmacy doesn't want to lose the business of customers who oppose pharmacists assisting in killing people, that pharmacy shouldn't assist in killing people. Moaning that their company's identity should be kept secret so they don't have to face the consequences of their business practices? World's smallest violin tuning up, people.

If a doctor wants to take a paycheck from the state for killing people, that doctor's picture and name should be pasted up on the nightly news so taxpayers know who they're paying (and so patients who prefer real doctors to pusillanimous money-grubbing killers for their healing needs are forewarned).

Ashamed to be a paid killer for the state? QUIT. Otherwise, own it.