Markham vs. South Carolina: is it good law?

Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr

unread,

Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98

to

When I finished my master's degree in canon law I learned that respect for the
law was a significant mark of civilization in a person. Also, if you majored
in law at college you usually ended up driving a Volvo at some point in your
career. Be that as it may, my own legal researches have taken on new life with
Chapter 24 of The Stand, uncut. First some points of law. There is no such
case as Markham vs. South Carolina. No case by that name has ever been
adjudicated, excepting in King's mind. Jon Markham alleged crime, the rape and
murders of three co-eds, has most certainly been committed in the annals of
crime history. In a later post I will speculate on the state of mind Markham
may have been in when he murdered the first co-ed because it is relevant to
the murder of the second and third one. Markham as law, however, is another
matter. The lawyer Devins isn't clear when explaining it to Lloyd. Purportedly
it refers to the phrase, cruel and unusual punishment. That phrase has indeed
been treated by the highest court in our land: Billingsgate vs. Lobotomy,
Franchise Tax Board vs. Bungler, and McDougal and Whitewater vs. California
State Excise Tax Bureau. Does that phrase refer to the means of execution
or does it refer to the wait? Is it cruel punishment to keep a prisoner
dangling by a state law, like some thread in Pinnocchio's shop? King goes on
to suggest that the Supreme Court has decided that speed, the expediting of
the sentence, is critical to fulfillment of the law. In my readings I can
find nothing to suggest that this is 1. law or 2. should be law. Thus,
I came to absk to ask your opinion, Constant Reader, is it cruel and
unusual to dangle a man in front of the electric chair either with 1. thread,
2. rope, 3. time, 4. appeals, 5. sympathy letters, or 6. endless tv viewing?
Would any or all of these be considered cruel and unusual forms of torture?

Waiting for your kind responses:

Michael

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

AlexGUru

unread,

Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98

to

IMO...if the guy/gal is on death row, and is facing the electric chair...then
obviously there's a good reason for it...I say SCREW him...if any of those are
forms of torture than SO BE IT...Let 'em suffer...

Alex...@aol.com

"Friends come in and out of your life, like busboys in a restaurant." SK

~~~~~~~~~~Rebels don't make trouble, trouble makes rebels~~~~~~~~~~
Alex...@aol.com

Jon Skeet

unread,

Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98

to

AlexGUru <alex...@aol.com> wrote:
> IMO...if the guy/gal is on death row, and is facing the electric chair...then
> obviously there's a good reason for it...

Stevie, do you want to post your list of people on death row /
having been execute despite reasons to believe them innocent?

--
Jon Skeet
Web page: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Stephen King, Dungeon Keeper, Worms, Friends... it's all there.

stevie canuck

unread,

Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98

to

Jon Skeet wrote:

> AlexGUru <alex...@aol.com> wrote:

>>IMO...if the guy/gal is on death row, and is facing the electric
>>chair...then obviously there's a good reason for it...

> Stevie, do you want to post your list of people on death row /
> having been execute despite reasons to believe them innocent?

You asked for it, you got it ...

350 people convicted of capital crimes in the USA between 1900 and 1985
were innocent of the crimes charged, according to a 1987 study. Some
prisoners escaped execution by minutes, but 23 were actually executed.

All this information and more on the topic is available at the following
URL:
http://www.abolition-now.com/#innocent

Stevie C

to e-mail me change .com to .ca

Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to stevie canuck

In article <3519E4...@rogerswave.com>,
stevie canuck <ste...@rogerswave.com> wrote:
<snip>

> > having been execute despite reasons to believe them innocent?
>

Stevie isn't interested in innocence nor is he interested in justice. That's
why he doesn't understand the death penalty. The death penalty is instituted
by society because society has a taste for blood. The fact that someone
is innocent of a particular crime is merely a TECHNICALITY. What we want is
the sacrifice, the blood sacrifice. And as Alex pointed out evidence of
innocence is merely appropriate to some cases; most criminals have committed
other crimes--take Dolores Claiborne as a fictional example--so the death
on the row is really a social necessity. EVEN IF THE CONDEMNED IS INNOCENT we
want to see them fry. It's human nature at its lowest and meanest and truest.

Liberals like Stevie don't get it...they make the issue one of cynical self
promotion.

Donovan Colbert

unread,

Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98

to

C'mon now, whose side are you really on...

:)

JSM

unread,

Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98

to

His own.

;)

In article <01bd5cf5$97fc9e20$6e8a...@Nat01Dcolbert.sgum.mci.com>,
dcol...@nospam.campus.mci.net says...

--
John for e-mail, "mod_con" = "modcon"; "nospam.org" = "ionet.net"

Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr

unread,

Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98

to

In article <01bd5cf5$97fc9e20$6e8a...@Nat01Dcolbert.sgum.mci.com>,

"Donovan Colbert" <dcol...@nospam.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>
>
> C'mon now, whose side are you really on...
>
> :)
>

let me just add some remarks. liberals never have understood human nature.
man is a dark, mixed up being and his actions are frequently self-defeating.
rationality in our world is rare and fleeting. to many other impulses act
on our constitutions to be balanced most of the time. liberals lack clear
analytic tools for grasping this. i stand on the side of absolute authority,
control by fear, and persuasion issues from the barrel of a rifle.

JSM

unread,

Apr 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/2/98

to

In article <6ft0cd$ga2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
says...

>
>In article <01bd5cf5$97fc9e20$6e8a...@Nat01Dcolbert.sgum.mci.com>,
> "Donovan Colbert" <dcol...@nospam.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> C'mon now, whose side are you really on...
>>
>> :)
>>
>let me just add some remarks. liberals never have understood human nature.
>man is a dark, mixed up being and his actions are frequently self-defeating.
>rationality in our world is rare and fleeting. to many other impulses act
>on our constitutions to be balanced most of the time. liberals lack clear
>analytic tools for grasping this. i stand on the side of absolute authority,
>control by fear, and persuasion issues from the barrel of a rifle.

If you really belive this garbage you are one sick puppy.

Mankind can cooperate for the good of each other. This has been proven more
than once. If the Gun needs to be used, if force is necessary to get the
cooperation, then there is no real cooperation - just coercion. This lends
itself to the very things you argue against and smacks of the very nature you
say is the norm. Society gets much more out of willful cooperation than
coercion.

Force is should only be necessary as a last resort to protect oneself and the
rest of society from those who truly are like you claim to believe everyone
is. It has no place otherwise.

And don't say I'm a liberal who doesn't understand human nature. I understand
it very well and know that a factor in most people's decisions is 'what do I
get out of it?' Selfishness, self-preservation and self interest play a large
role in most decisions made by most people when there is something that they
must pay (and I use this in the loosest term) in order to do something or be
part of society. (As an aside: Some feel that self-satisfaction is enough
payback for their contributions. Some don't.)

This is not some dark secret or side of man, this is simple and logical
behavior.