Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ohio.com)   The ACLU is a strong proponent of personal privacy. Unless you're a prison executioner. Then they want to tell everyone who you are   (ohio.com) divider line
138
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

5886 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jun 2007 at 4:43 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



138 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
asmodeus224
2007-06-05 4:02:37 PM  
But, aren't the executioners PROUD of what they are doing? They are keeping us all safe!

There isn't anything to be ashamed of, is there?
 
jimmyhaha
2007-06-05 4:15:24 PM  
The ACLU supports personal privacy, and opposes government secrecy. They seem to be consistent here.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-06-05 4:15:54 PM  
asmodeus224: But, aren't the executioners PROUD of what they are doingto be wiretapped? They are keeping us all safe!

There isn't anything to be ashamed of, is there?

/ftfy
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2007-06-05 4:16:21 PM  
Public employee. See the difference subby?
 
Churchill2004
2007-06-05 4:17:04 PM  
asmodeus224: But, aren't the executioners PROUD of what they are doing? They are keeping us all safe!

There isn't anything to be ashamed of, is there?


"If you have nothing to hide"?

I hope you're just trolling.

jimmyhaha: The ACLU supports personal privacy, and opposes government secrecy. They seem to be consistent here.

Individual empolyment records fall under personal privacy, even if the employer is the government.
 
Calmamity
2007-06-05 4:24:04 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: /ftfy


You call that mess fixed?
 
Whamdangler
2007-06-05 4:24:50 PM  
Individual empolyment records fall under personal privacy, even if the employer is the government.

A police officer has to identify himself or herself, by name, especially if he or she is not in uniform, when acting in their official capacity. They are employed by a government entity. So your statement does not always hold true.
 
Churchill2004
2007-06-05 4:27:14 PM  
Whamdangler: A police officer has to identify himself or herself, by name, especially if he or she is not in uniform, when acting in their official capacity. They are employed by a government entity. So your statement does not always hold true.

That's a little different. They have to identify themselves specifically to the person they're interacting with.

The only point of this lawsuit is so the guy can be harassed. If you want to protest, fine. You right to protest does not include harassment of individuals.
 
Whamdangler
2007-06-05 4:30:36 PM  
That's a little different. They have to identify themselves specifically to the person they're interacting with.

So, the executioner should at least identify themselves to the comdemned.

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya... Prepare to die."
 
Churchill2004
2007-06-05 4:31:18 PM  
Whamdangler: So, the executioner should at least identify themselves to the comdemned.

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya... Prepare to die."

8^)

Sure, have at it.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-06-05 4:33:05 PM  
Calmamity: You call that mess fixed?

Let's just try that again:

But, aren't the executioners average Americans PROUD of what they are doing to be wiretapped? They are keeping us all safe! There isn't anything to be ashamed of, is there?
 
Blues_X
2007-06-05 4:35:51 PM  
Churchill2004: The only point of this lawsuit is so the guy can be harassed. If you want to protest, fine. You right to protest does not include harassment of individuals.

No, it's to track the competency of the people doing this work.
 
ScottMpls
2007-06-05 4:45:36 PM  
"A police officer has to identify himself or herself, by name, especially if he or she is not in uniform, when acting in their official capacity."
+++

What about those undercover cops?
 
EvilElecBlanket
2007-06-05 4:47:25 PM  
I grew up in Lucasville Ohio with this prison in my backyard, so I'm getting a kick out of these stories.

/seriously
//the 1993 riot was scary as fark
 
NuttierThanEver
2007-06-05 4:47:26 PM  
So Churchill2004 by that logic I am assuming you think abortion providers should be allowed to keep their identities secret so they don't get harassed?
 
Kaltros
2007-06-05 4:47:29 PM  
If they'd quit screwing around with dripping drugs into people's veins and went back to using a heavy ax, they wouldn't have these kinds of problems.

/use a sharp ax.
//requested by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
 
SocrapticMethod
2007-06-05 4:48:01 PM  
ScottMpls

Wait- You're not a cop are you?
 
tonesskin
2007-06-05 4:49:19 PM  
Wait, so knowing who kills people on behalf of the government is a matter of privacy? Those crazy ACLU people; always wanting to know who is killing black men.
 
degreeless
2007-06-05 4:49:23 PM  
NAMBLA

/thread
 
IAmRight
2007-06-05 4:49:36 PM  
I wish I could be an executioner. Where are the applications on job boards?
 
tanager2
2007-06-05 4:49:38 PM  
I think this just goes back to history...executioners wearing the hood and all that. I mean, it could actually endanger someone if it were known that they were the one hitting the switch (there are a whole team of people involved in the death house now, though.)

90 minutes to find a vein. Whiners. Bet their victims didn't have it so easy. If that's so inhumane, let's go back to the guillotine, which was designed to be humane. Gross, but humane.
 
xebeche_tzu
2007-06-05 4:50:17 PM  
So the government will hire Dr. Nick Riviera to do your execution?
 
Torc
2007-06-05 4:50:58 PM  
Kaltros

If they'd quit screwing around with dripping drugs into people's veins and went back to using a heavy ax, they wouldn't have these kinds of problems.

Of course. Nobody would want to know if the guy who decapitated people for a living happened to live next door.
 
Great Caesar's Toast
2007-06-05 4:51:00 PM  
What kind of sick fark would volunteer to kill someone?
 
tonesskin
2007-06-05 4:51:26 PM  
You don't need to know your local judges either; personal privacy and all.
 
JohnBigBootay
2007-06-05 4:51:36 PM  
That the aclu has become, in the eyes of many, a partisan organization.... well, it just boggles the mind.
 
Fluid
2007-06-05 4:51:37 PM  
ScottMpls: "A police officer has to identify himself or herself, by name, especially if he or she is not in uniform, when acting in their official capacity."
+++

What about those undercover cops?

They have to identify themselves if they want to make use of the powers given to them in their official identity, I guess.
 
Kadin2048
2007-06-05 4:52:07 PM  
NuttierThanEver: So Churchill2004 by that logic I am assuming you think abortion providers should be allowed to keep their identities secret so they don't get harassed?

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Although, it might adversely affect his practice -- if nobody knows he does abortions, he's probably not going to get many new patients.

But if someone were to publish his personal information, specifically so that he could be harassed ... that certainly seems like it's stepping outside free speech.
 
Secret Master of All Flatulence
2007-06-05 4:52:29 PM  
A police officer has to identify himself or herself, by name, especially if he or she is not in uniform, when acting in their official capacity. They are employed by a government entity. So your statement does not always hold true.

Right. But the fact that they must identify themselves while on-duty does not mean that they should be forced to publish information like where they live or where their kids go to school.

There is a very good reason for this.
 
tonesskin
2007-06-05 4:52:37 PM  
Fluid

They have to identify themselves if they want to make use of the powers given to them in their official identity, I guess.

That's an urban legend.
 
Disgruntled Postal Worker
2007-06-05 4:54:43 PM  
Fark the ACLU.

Execute the condemed they way they killed their victims.
 
tonesskin
2007-06-05 4:55:45 PM  
Execute the condemed they way they killed their victims.

So how do we execute the condemned who are actually innocent?
 
solo13
2007-06-05 4:56:16 PM  
fark the ACLU.

IMO. Never has there been a more bass ackwards group of morons in the history of this country.
 
Nemo's Brother
2007-06-05 4:56:50 PM  
The ACLU feels the Constitution should be protected and fought for vigorously..unless it is the 2nd Ammendment. Then it should be disgarded.
 
tomcatadam
2007-06-05 4:57:42 PM  
solo13: IMO. Never has there been a more bass ackwards group of morons in the history of this country.

Yeah, but they're pretty good at protecting the rights of people to pray where they want.
 
Blues_X
2007-06-05 4:58:08 PM  
And now we get the queue of idiots who attack the ACLU based on what Rush told them.
 
Secret Master of All Flatulence
2007-06-05 4:58:10 PM  
//the 1993 riot was scary as fark

Don't you have the means to effectively defend yourself and your home?
 
Disgruntled Postal Worker
2007-06-05 4:58:19 PM  
So how do we execute the condemned who are actually innocent?


As hard as some have been looking, none have been found innocent after the fact yet. Why not, they all might be innocent so lets just let them all go.
 
Great Caesar's Toast
2007-06-05 4:58:33 PM  
The ACLU feels the Constitution should be protected and fought for vigorously..unless it is the 2nd Ammendment. Then it should be disgarded.

False, they just choose to let the NRA handle the 2nd amendment cases, so they can focus their resources elsewhere.
 
tonesskin
2007-06-05 4:58:39 PM  
Never has there been a more bass ackwards group of morons in the history of this country.

Exactly! I mean, that Constitution is a pretty ass backwards piece of paper. Or at least it's a piece of paper that politicians use on their ass.

If ACLU weren't inconsistent (2nd Amendment), they'd be one of the only organizations out there who really fight for the Constitution.
 
Kaltros
2007-06-05 4:58:47 PM  
Torc: Of course. Nobody would want to know if the guy who decapitated people for a living happened to live next door.

I was referring to the time of death being some 106 minutes after the execution started. 90 minutes to find a vein? 16 minutes to poison a helpless person?

As for identity protection, I can see not wanting that on my resume. Who'd hire you? Who'd want to do your work evaluation?

Might help with parking, though. Hm...
 
MooseBayou
2007-06-05 4:58:58 PM  
"I prefer to remain anonymous. Deep down, I'm painfully shy."

roussimoff.comView Full Size
 
michykeen
2007-06-05 4:59:11 PM  
FTFA - ...the American Medical Association has threatened to sanction doctors who assist in executions - because it is a violation of their oath to "first, do no harm."

That sounds like kind of a problem to me. Then again, don't they have prison nurses? Couldn't they do the injection? They are government employees, unlike these volunteer doctors.
 
clgrin
2007-06-05 4:59:38 PM  
I thought it was an accountability issue... in order to keep people away from the execution chambers who could be proven to be incompetent. If the execution of the inmate goes awry, I'm sure the inmates atorney and family would like to know who's responsible. If you think we're coddling death-rowers fine, but currently their state law says executions need to be carried out in a specific manner and anyone not doing so is in violation of a state order...

still... I think this could best carried out by realizing the names with an NDA to an 3rd party background checker, who check them out before the execution and hold to them should any new evidence of malpractice emerge. Releasing them to the general public serves no purpose other than to taint anyone with information on the executioners skills with the knowledge of what that information would be used for
 
Animatronik
2007-06-05 4:59:45 PM  
This is less about botched executions, and more about the ACLU trying to stop executions by gumming up the works. I think the death penalty should be abolished in the U.S., but this ACLU mentality of "the end justify the means" is not good.

Basically, if they are able to get the name of the executioner published, very few people will be willing to do this job - for several reasons, one being retaliation by family and gang members. the ACLU knows this, and is working that angle to stop executions.
 
WeTheSheeple
2007-06-05 5:00:05 PM  
The identity is hidden so that the family of the condemned does not murder the person who is simply carrying out the act of the state. It isn't personal for that human pressing the button, it's simply that person's job.

However, the family of the condemned could irrationally make it personal for that human. Hence, their identity is rightfully protected. Let's not forget that there were thousands of steps taken towards bringing the condemned to the moment in time where their life is ended. There were many, many people involved in acting on behalf of the state - including those who pronounced the sentence. However, irrational people will focus on the very last person in that step and unfairly inact revenge upon them.

It really is logical to keep this person's identity secret. In fact, for the longest time several people would "throw switches" and no one would know whose switch would do actually commit the act of ending the life - hence, this problem would go away. I say we move back to that methodology.
 
Great Caesar's Toast
2007-06-05 5:00:19 PM  
Disgruntled Postal Worker
As hard as some have been looking, none have been found innocent after the fact yet. Why not, they all might be innocent so lets just let them all go.

You wish
 
Secret Master of All Flatulence
2007-06-05 5:00:59 PM  
Yeah, but they're pretty good at protecting the rights of people to pray where they want.

This is true, but only if those people wanting to pray are not Christians.
 
StillH2O
2007-06-05 5:01:05 PM  
So I'm being asked to respect the privacy rights of hired killers? Sorry, my conscience just doesn't quite bend that far.
 
tonesskin
2007-06-05 5:01:36 PM  
As hard as some have been looking, none have been found innocent after the fact yet.

They typically don't do much of that after the fact, but there are at least two cases without DNA that the person is most likely innocent. See the book Actual Innocence.

Why not, they all might be innocent so lets just let them all go.

Congratulations on the dumbest comment of the thread. Because me replying to the barbaric, "KILL THEM LIKE THEY DONE KILLED" with "then how would that work with the innocent" is exactly the same as me saying, "LET EM ALL FREE!"
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

$10 a month since 19 aught diddly.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.