Regardless of whether you should execute people or not, and this is going to sound really uneducated...
Why don't they apply a complete anaesthesia before injection? When unconcious, you're not going to feel any pain, right?
Are there complications that result in the drugs not working well enough, or is it too expensive?
I'm probably not the first to come up with this though, haven't seen it mentioned yet anywhere on the other hand
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44682932]Its faster, but HORRIBLY painful. You essentially force their heart to stop beating, and then they suffer for 2-4 minutes while their brain dies.
OR
You be the bigger person, don't stoop to their level, and keep them locked up for their life. Because what's REALLY punishment? Dying, or having to sit and think for 60-70 years?
The state shouldn't be killing ANYONE.[/QUOTE]
These people shouldn't be killing ANYONE.
What pain do you think that baby had? Or the girl was was shot and buried alive? I don't want this man being out free in 30-40 years. You cannot rehabilitate them.
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44682321]Actually, who am I kidding? Capital punishment is a great facet of the justice system. Just look at all these other progressive countries that make use of the death penalty alongside America:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Contemporary_use[/URL]
[IMG]http://oi61.tinypic.com/smx8oo.jpg[/IMG]
God bless[/QUOTE]
Thing is, those countries hand out death sentences like candy. You can be executed in China for political reasons. Same with Iran. Iraq is putting down terrorists. Saudi Arabia executes petty thieves.
Japan kills murderers. We (The US) is a huge country, with a large population. Of course we will have 43 inmates.
[QUOTE=Matthew7434;44686093]These people shouldn't be killing ANYONE.
You cannot rehabilitate them.
[/QUOTE]
You're probably right, but that shouldn't be an assumption.
[QUOTE=Matthew7434;44681813]One of them [B]RAPED AND MURDERED A ELEVEN MONTH OLD BABY[/B]
Another one [B]SHOT A WOMAN AND BURIED HER ALIVE[/B][/QUOTE]
okay great but murder is still not humane
murder is exactly what humane isnt regardless of context
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;44681760]Now I'm wondering if this is a case like Law Abiding Citizen where someone wanted him to suffer.[/QUOTE]
I think your thinking of [B]GOD[/B]!
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
On a serious note, why don't they use the toxic coctails they use in hospital euthanasia. I atleast have never heard of them backfiring like this. The patients usually just, pass away.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;44686263]okay great but murder is still not humane
murder is exactly what humane isnt regardless of context[/QUOTE]
Why not? No one has explained to me why it is important to preserve the life of a murderer yet.
How is this and being electrified and all this crazy retarded shit "humane" when we fucking know a bullet to the skull is sure death (even if it isn't, another bullet will quickly fix any suffering)
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44686432]Why not? No one has explained to me why it is important to preserve the life of a murderer yet.[/QUOTE]
Because the right to life is the most basic of human rights. Nothing can be allowed to violate that right, and nothing anyone does can forfeit his or her right to life.
You can argue that committing certain heinous crimes can be justification for forfeiting one's right to life, but then who decides what these heinous crimes are? Society? There are countries on this planet that deem drug trafficking a serious enough crime that the state will put them to death for it. Yet others find it sufficient to keep even mass murderers simply behind bars. Drawing such arbitrary lines in such a serious matter desecrates the sanctity of human life.
don't get me wrong, this prick deserved to die.
But no one deserves to suffer like that.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44686432]Why not? No one has explained to me why it is important to preserve the life of a murderer yet.[/QUOTE]
Well, why should we kill them? They're not dangerous anymore since they're in prison.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;44686820]Well, why should we kill them? They're not dangerous anymore since they're in prison.[/QUOTE]
Because I get rock hard at the thought of a murderer being kept healthy, well fed, clothed and housed on my dime.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;44686881]Because I get rock hard at the thought of a murderer being kept healthy, well fed, clothed and housed on my dime.[/QUOTE]
Again, for the millionth time, executing somebody costs you more than keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives.
That cost has nothing to do with the execution method (no, "just shooting them" would not be significantly cheaper); it costs more to execute people because of the lengthy appeals processes that death row inmates have access to (a process which frequently exonerates those on death row).
So if you want to whine about your "dime" (though the actual cost to you is probably less than a single dime), the only way to meaningfully decrease the amount you have to pay is to gut that appeals process and, consequently, let more innocent people end up executed because they didn't have that legal apparatus to plead and re-plead their innocence. Is even more innocent people dying in a deeply, intrinsically flawed system the kind of thing that gets you "rock hard," guy?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;44686797]Because the right to life is the most basic of human rights. Nothing can be allowed to violate that right, and nothing anyone does can forfeit his or her right to life.
You can argue that committing certain heinous crimes can be justification for forfeiting one's right to life, but then who decides what these heinous crimes are? Society? There are countries on this planet that deem drug trafficking a serious enough crime that the state will put them to death for it. Yet others find it sufficient to keep even mass murderers simply behind bars. Drawing such arbitrary lines in such a serious matter desecrates the sanctity of human life.[/QUOTE]
Why is the right to life a human right? Human rights are man-made concepts, just as where the line is drawn for determines whether are crime is a "henious crime". Nobody literally has any rights or privileges - these are the result of society. ([url=http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/]and the UN[/url], apparently), and what one considers a human right is subjective.
We already determine what a heinous crime is for locking a man in prison for the rest of his life, what's stopping us from going all the way? Locking a person away in jail is depriving him of his life outside of what is available in prison, and regardless of whether or not a murderer decides he wants prison life, why are we giving consideration to the killer? Why are we okay with locking away men for eternity but not okay with killing them? You can argue human rights all you want, but that just brings up the question: Why is it a human right? What is the importance in preserving [I]all[/I] life?
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44687560]So if you want to whine about your "dime" (though the actual cost to you is probably less than a single dime), the only way to meaningfully decrease the amount you have to pay is to gut that appeals process and, consequently, let more innocent people end up executed because they didn't have that legal apparatus to plead and re-plead their innocence. Is even more innocent people dying in a deeply, intrinsically flawed system the kind of thing that gets you "rock hard," guy?[/QUOTE]
I know you're talking to him, but I just want to iterate again that the fact that our justice system is screwed up is why I'm against capital punishment. It has nothing to do with the morality of taking another person's life.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44687705]Why is the right to life a human right? Human rights are man-made concepts, just as where the line is drawn for determines whether are crime is a "henious crime". Nobody literally has any rights or privileges - these are the result of society. ([URL="http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/"]and the UN[/URL], apparently), and what one considers a human right is subjective.
We already determine what a heinous crime is for locking a man in prison for the rest of his life, what's stopping us from going all the way? Locking a person away in jail is depriving him of his life outside of what is available in prison, and regardless of whether or not a murderer decides he wants prison life, why are we giving consideration to the killer? Why are we okay with locking away men for eternity but not okay with killing them? You can argue human rights all you want, but that just brings up the question: Why is it a human right? What is the importance in preserving [I]all[/I] life?[/QUOTE]
Prison is, ideally, supposed to be the bare minimum of infringement of a person's rights as is possible. It's purpose (though this certainly isn't realistically true in it's implementation, especially in America) is to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated and prevent those who can't be rehabilitated from harming anyone else. Denying prisoners luxuries is pragmatic and reasonable, but denying them food, exercise, contact with loved ones and killing or torturing them is gratuitous, as denying them those things or executing them can serve no possible function within that "rehabilitate or at least separate" framework.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;44686881]Because I get rock hard at the thought of a murderer being kept healthy, well fed, clothed and housed on my dime.[/QUOTE]
well fortunately for you, only something like one twentieth of that dime is going to pay for this one specifically murderous prisoner. that's how a tax works. if you have that much of a problem with paying an incredibly slight sum for a functioning prison system, consider moving to Saudi Arabia, or perhaps North Korea.
Remember, they're only "RIGHTS" when the situation fits our emotional response
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44683578]People still suffer, don't they? He's not saying people are dogs.
For people that ask for humanity and what not, they really do ignore the fact that sometimes death is a way, way better option than rotting away in a jail cell for the rest of their lives. Yeah, it shouldn't be that way, but it is. And we aren't getting any closer to that utopian justice system everyone talks about.
I continue to ask the question of why it is important to conserve [I]all[/I] life. The suggestion that anti-death penalty make in that humans should have the right to life is that the life of a murderer is just as necessary as the life of a mother when that is clearly not the case.
I am a man who believes that murderers are often made out to be inhuman which is not the correct mentality to have when understanding each other or the human mind. If I weren't to have pursued my career in computer science and music then I would have pursued a life in forensics and psychology. I have a friend who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and she scares people who do not understand her. She is not a murderer, but just as she can sometimes scare off people, I believe there is a reason why people become what people define as "monsters" whether it be completely mental or after a period of abuse. I have a fascination with serial killers, most notably Jeffery Dahmer, who was locked away in a prison until he was stabbed to death by another inmate.
I am also a man who is aware of our current possibilities. We can lock up our killers forever and put them in a place as terrible as our prison system, or we can kill them and save both the killer and our society different troubles. I just don't trust our justice system to make the decision, which is why I am against it. I am not against it because "life is precious" but because our justice system is messed up.
If you cannot hold an argument without shutting out what everyone else is saying and laughing at them, then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing at all. That's not a healthy way to argue.[/QUOTE]
As a question, how would you define a killer from somebody who killed somebody? I'm presuming that you're not referring to every single person who kills anybody for any reason. This is an honest question, I'm just curious to know because your viewpoint is very different from mine. What circumstances would make somebody's life continue to have 'value' if they killed somebody?
[QUOTE=aydin690;44682187]No, it's pretty simple. If you've deliberately taken a life, then you don't deserve to live.[/QUOTE]
That's a really really broad statement. What if you took it serving your country?
What if you took a life in a blind rage because you walked in on your spouse with another lover?
What if you took it by killing someone who has bullied you your whole life and you reached a breaking point?
I'm not saying those things are all justified, but surely they don't warrant a death penalty and shouldn't fall under a blanket statement.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;44688470]As a question, how would you define a killer from somebody who killed somebody? I'm presuming that you're not referring to every single person who kills anybody for any reason. This is an honest question, I'm just curious to know because your viewpoint is very different from mine. What circumstances would make somebody's life continue to have 'value' if they killed somebody?[/QUOTE]
Someone who immorally (in terms of societal morals) takes away the life of an innocent person, meaning they aren't doing it out of self-defense and they're doing it for revenge, they're serial killers, etc. Accidents or bad judgement shouldn't qualify someone as a killer - bad motives and purposefully and knowingly immorally killing someone should. The exception is when they literally can not tell right from wrong because of a mental disorder.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44682421]Devils advocate: How many innocent people do we lock up for like 60-70 years before we find out they were innocent and release them. They might as well have died in prison, they aren't going to get to live the way that they could have, and the courts say the same thing as an innocent put to death: "oops".
By this logic, we should imprison no-one, on the off chance they are innocent.[/QUOTE]
why is this argument made? incarceration and death are pretty different in that one is permenant.
you can't get back lost years from being wrongly imprisoned but the US has killed over 40 innocent civillians due to the death penalty. that's not okay.
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matthew7434;44686093]These people shouldn't be killing ANYONE.
What pain do you think that baby had? Or the girl was was shot and buried alive? I don't want this man being out free in 30-40 years. You cannot rehabilitate them.
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
Thing is, those countries hand out death sentences like candy. You can be executed in China for political reasons. Same with Iran. Iraq is putting down terrorists. Saudi Arabia executes petty thieves.
Japan kills murderers. We (The US) is a huge country, with a large population. Of course we will have 43 inmates.[/QUOTE]
So kill them because people like you are too personally angered by something that doesn't affect you to let a person live their lives? Yeah, he's killed people and he must pay the price, but killing him literally does nothing but establish that we don't actually give a shit about life.
He's isolated, not a danger to anyone else, and it's cheaper to keep him alive. Killing him does nothing. It doesn't satisfy some sense of retribution, it doesn't bring anyone back from the dead, it's "tit for tat". Childish.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44688742]Someone who immorally (in terms of societal morals) takes away the life of an innocent person, meaning they aren't doing it out of self-defense and [B]they're doing it for revenge[/B], they're serial killers, etc. Accidents or bad judgement shouldn't qualify someone as a killer - bad motives and purposefully and knowingly immorally killing someone should. The exception is when they literally can not tell right from wrong because of a mental disorder.[/QUOTE]
I don't want to pick holes here, but surely, on some level, killing murderers is still some level of revenge? Or is the legal system exempt from these rules? Again, I'm just trying to find this out here because to me, personally, I think it's a bit hypocritical. But again, you think differently to I.
We can't do the Firing Squad.
[video=youtube;QzDCH_MGQXI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzDCH_MGQXI[/video]
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;44681711]I really don't understand why we use lethal injection, like I'm against the death penalty, but it seems like such a fucking crapshoot. It seems only slightly better than being hung.
I'll take a firing squad over lethal injection any day.[/QUOTE]
Honestly if I were on death row, I would try to kill myself first
[QUOTE=mastoner20;44681647]So... did they try new lines and tubing to go with the new drugs, or is this just a 'oops' moment...?[/QUOTE]
It seems like it was the sedative (the "experimental" part of this) that failed, so yeah that one might not work, unless it really was just the lines failing, or the tech botching it up.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44688742]Someone who immorally (in terms of societal morals) takes away the life of an innocent person, meaning they aren't doing it out of self-defense and they're doing it for revenge, they're serial killers, etc. Accidents or bad judgement shouldn't qualify someone as a killer - bad motives and purposefully and knowingly immorally killing someone should. The exception is when they literally can not tell right from wrong because of a mental disorder.[/QUOTE]
So by your definition, any state that carries out executions is a serial killer then.
Human rights have three important properties: they are fundamental (simply being a human guarantees you these rights), universal (they apply everywhere) and egalitarian (they apply to everyone). Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant in the context of international law. They have been agreed upon and defined as such because otherwise, any person or state can simply decide that a certain person or groups of people are in contravention of their definition of the right to exist, and thus subsequently subject them to persecution and extermination. This has happened far too many times in history to bear repeating, but some of the more famous examples are the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide.
To respond to your other point, imprisonment, even for life, is a lesser infringement upon these so-called human rights that we have defined. The major difference is that imprisonment still guarantees that the prisoner can fulfil his basic needs, and, depending on his or her behaviour, can even pursue higher goals such as education and artistic production. To kill someone is to deny them the opportunity to continue with such pursuits, and, as a corollary, to deny the fact that they are a human.
There is also the issue of reversibility. No justice system can guarantee that all convictions are accurate and just. What if we get it wrong and we sentence an innocent man to death? Years down the road, when we find out that we have wrongly convicted him, what are we to do then? We can't bring him back to life. But I guess this is kind of related to your point that you don't trust the justice system. However, I still strongly disagree with your view that human rights are fluid and amorphous. They exist in a very concrete form, and for good reason.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44688742]Someone who immorally (in terms of societal morals) takes away the life of an innocent person, meaning they aren't doing it out of self-defense and they're doing it for revenge, they're serial killers, etc. Accidents or bad judgement shouldn't qualify someone as a killer - bad motives and purposefully and knowingly immorally killing someone should. The exception is when they literally can not tell right from wrong because of a mental disorder.[/QUOTE]
it's not like entire groups and cultures of people have been demonized by the majority of a country as a scape goat before with disastrous consequences, nope, that doesn't happen.
Isn't there speculation that one of the drugs used for execution can make your veins feel like they're on fire?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44681667]We don't know what the drugs were. Confidential and probably experimental.
Crazy how they're allowed to do that.[/QUOTE]
Considering he'd just gone and started bitching about the original drugs that were going to be used to kill him, I can't really say it's anybody's fault but his own that they had to use some other non-tested chemical.
[QUOTE=Satane;44684266]Why don't they use gas ?[/QUOTE]
Some still have it as an option, and it's pretty horrible. There's a reason it's been replaced by lethal injection.
[quote]The prisoner is instructed to breathe deeply to speed up the process. Most prisoners, however, try to hold their breath, and some struggle. The inmate does not lose consciousness immediately. According to former San Quenton, California, Penitentiary warden, Clifton Duffy, "At first there is evidence of extreme horror, pain, and strangling. The eyes pop. The skin turns purple and the victim begins to drool." (Weisberg, 1991) Caryl Chessman, before he died in California's gas chamber in 1960 told reporters that he would nod his head if it hurt. Witnesses said he nodded his head for several minutes [/quote]
[quote]One of the more infamous was that of Jimmy Lee Gray in 1983, who frantically gasped, moaned, and slammed his head into a steel pipe for ten minutes as the cyanide slowly took effect.[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
