Ohio prepares to resume executions, seeking to end three-year lull - Polidicks

[quote]For the first time in more than three years, the state of Ohio plans to execute a death row inmate and end a lull following an unusually drawn-out execution that relied on a controversial lethal-injection drug. State officials are scheduled to execute Ronald Phillips by lethal injection on Wednesday morning at a state prison in Lucasville, about 80 miles south of Columbus, the state capital.[/quote] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/26/ohio-prepares-to-resume-executions-seeking-to-end-three-year-lull/[/url]

Raped and murdered a three year old. Yeah, no sympathy there. I'll still object on the basis of executing the wrong person, but that's is one fucked up thing to do.

[QUOTE=download;52508874]Raped and murdered a three year old. Yeah, no sympathy there. I'll still object on the basis of executing the wrong person, but that's is one fucked up thing to do.[/QUOTE] i object that we should even seek executions since they're nothing but an appeasement to the right wingers in this state. ohio's prisons are bad, they aren't exactly living a full life as it is we haven't executed anyone lately and violent crime hasn't spiked in response so the typical bullshit we get fed here about it being a deterrent is laughable

[QUOTE=download;52508874]Raped and murdered a three year old. Yeah, no sympathy there. I'll still object on the basis of executing the wrong person, but that's is one fucked up thing to do.[/QUOTE] Most people executed are executed for having done fucked up things. The problem stems from the fact that inevitably some of them will have been incorrectly sentenced for it. No one actually wants to execute an innocent person, they all think they're punishing evil people, but having executions period will inevitably mean that some small percentage of people who unfortunately got caught up in it will be put to death for crimes they did not commit.

[QUOTE=Maegord;52509518]Most people executed are executed for having done fucked up things. The problem stems from the fact that inevitably some of them will have been incorrectly sentenced for it. No one actually wants to execute an innocent person, they all think they're punishing evil people, but having executions period will inevitably mean that some small percentage of people who unfortunately got caught up in it will be put to death for crimes they did not commit.[/QUOTE] Why not just do executions for people who are completely guilty? Like caught red-handed type situations.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52509909]Why not just do executions for people who are completely guilty? Like caught red-handed type situations.[/QUOTE] thats not how a legal system works though.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52509909]Why not just do executions for people who are completely guilty? Like caught red-handed type situations.[/QUOTE] As far as the court is concerned, there is only one level of guilt, and that is guilt. You shouldn't even be [i]convicted[/i] unless you have ironclad evidence that proves your guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." [editline]27th July 2017[/editline] What you've essentially said is that it's okay to convict people even if you're not able to [i]really prove that they did it[/i], but executions should be reserved for when you can fully prove it. That's not very just.

[QUOTE=Maegord;52509518]Most people executed are executed for having done fucked up things. The problem stems from the fact that inevitably some of them will have been incorrectly sentenced for it. No one actually wants to execute an innocent person, they all think they're punishing evil people, but having executions period will inevitably mean that some small percentage of people who unfortunately got caught up in it will be put to death for crimes they did not commit.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should read what I said more carefully instead of rehashing what I said.

[QUOTE=download;52510886]Perhaps you should read what I said more carefully instead of rehashing what I said.[/QUOTE] So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..

[QUOTE=TyPhOn!;52511841]So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..[/QUOTE] I see another person who needs to find their glasses and try again.

[QUOTE=TyPhOn!;52511841]So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..[/QUOTE] Nice appeal to emotion, but seeking revenge doesn't actually help anyone. Pointlessly killing the perpetrator won't give them their child back.

[QUOTE=TyPhOn!;52511841]So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..[/QUOTE] I'm sure they'd be deeply disappointed by not being able to sacrifice the perp to somehow bring their son back. There's a point in locking up such people for life. Killing them doesn't serve any purpose, though.

[QUOTE=TyPhOn!;52511841]So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..[/QUOTE] A single innocent person murdered by the state outweighs a thousand guilty people executed. There is no reasonable margin of error for execution.

[QUOTE=TyPhOn!;52511841]So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..[/QUOTE] Eye for an eye is not justice.

[QUOTE=TyPhOn!;52511841]So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..[/QUOTE] he's going to be in a 3x3x8 concrete cell the rest of his life, which will be prolonged as long as possible, with no access to any form of entertainment or people and may depending on his sanity, be restrained for his own protection.

[QUOTE=TyPhOn!;52511841]So how are you going to explain to the mother and father of that 3-year old boy you won't execute the perp because police didn't actually witness it. His hands must've been red, but that doesn't suffice for the legal definition of 'getting caught red handed'..[/QUOTE] So whatever the victims of a crime want is what should happen? That's pretty fucking barbaric.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52518803]Whether it's barbaric or not is besides the point. That would be a fairly typical emotional response from the victims.[/QUOTE] Appeasing vengeful emotions of victims is not the purpose of punishment. The purpose is to stop the crime from happening again most efficiently. This kind of thinking is what leads to insane recidivism rates.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52519743]In what sense of the word is lifetime incarceration more "efficient" than death? Like I said above, I don't personally believe that decades in a cell is more "ethical" or humane than death. [editline]29th July 2017[/editline] Actually I would argue that death is more efficient because those guys are kept in solitary instead of potentially influencing other inmates who WILL be released.[/QUOTE] Because lifetime in prison means that if there's suddenly new evidence that proves innocence, they can be set free. Unlike the death penalty

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52523120]Because lifetime in prison means that if there's suddenly new evidence that proves innocence, they can be set free. Unlike the death penalty[/QUOTE] and if not, they get to suffer prison instead of the release of death barring suicide. win/win

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52509909]Why not just do executions for people who are completely guilty? Like caught red-handed type situations.[/QUOTE] That's what we've "been doing." Justice isn't blind, however.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52519743]Like I said above, I don't personally believe that decades in a cell is more "ethical" or humane than death.[/QUOTE] If you're going to claim the death penalty is somehow more "ethical" and "humane" than a life sentence, why not simply give them the right to euthanasia instead of forcing that choice on them "for their own good"? This kind of argument is disingenuous and disgusting.

I believe that excecutions belong to the past, it's a bit too revenge-oriented for a modern state. IMO, large part of the US needs to focus more on mental health and prison rehabilitation rather than extremely long sentences (and executions in some states.)