Botched Execution in Oklahoma

[Alnitak]

There is no execution method that is fail safe, and because execution is irreversible, there can be no guarantees that it is exercised without violating due process. Capital punishment is on its way out, as it was in Europe generations ago.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no execution method that is fail safe, and because execution is irreversible, there can be no guarantees that it is exercised without violating due process. Capital punishment is on its way out, as it was in Europe generations ago.

And prison slave labor is replacing it -- much more profitable.

 

[guyfromNY]

The death penalty is wrong and should be abolished. It has no place in our society.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Replace the blade with a hydraulic ram; replace the neck as target with the head.

The ram can squash the entire head to mush in less time than the eyes could tell the brain it was coming, if the subject was face-up.

Should I be worried that you've thought about it this much?

 

[Vitamin]

There is no execution method that is fail safe, and because execution is irreversible, there can be no guarantees that it is exercised without violating due process. Capital punishment is on its way out, as it was in Europe generations ago.

How many states have had the death penalty, abolished it, and then brought it back?

Yeah, the death penalty is going out in the US. Uh-huh.

 

[Rolyo85]

It's deeply depressing that a first world country has the death penalty...

 

[Kulindahr]

Should I be worried that you've thought about it this much?

It's sort of a carry-over from another thread, which I won't name because it's a carry-over from another thread.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Some thoughts:
1. There is no correlation between capital punishment and the number of capital offenses. Killing criminals does not dis-
courage or reduce killing. It just kills killers...very OT, Sharia.
2. The irony of Right Wingers who are Pro Life and Pro Capital Punishment has been noted.
3. Fucking up an execution is stupid. Anesthetize the victim like your gonna take out their appendix and either: crank the gas and/or open up the potassium chloride. Painless, and guaranteed effective.
4. OK, ethically the deal is that nobody wants to do the deed, like a doc, nurse, anybody who could do it right. They have a lind started and use all these seemingly ineffective drugs through a pump with a remote switch...first, do no harm.

 

[xbuzzerx]

An apt response to the "are we savages" question. The Left is too quick to argue the side of the criminal's rights and ignore injustice served to the victim and the victim's family.

No, we don't. We just don't believe that it's ethical to somehow determine some kind of commensurate retaliatory torture to sentence the criminal with and have the state administer it on the basis that "their victim suffered this much." Nor does the Constitution.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, we don't. We just don't believe that it's ethical to somehow determine some kind of commensurate retaliatory torture to sentence the criminal with and have the state administer it on the basis that "their victim suffered this much." Nor does the Constitution.

But all we ever do is retaliatory torture. Redefine it all we might, locking people up for a chunk of their lives is torture.

 

[TX-Beau]

Tell the truth and shame the Devil.

You most certainly DO believe it's ethical to mete out retaliatory punishment. You imprison the criminal in solitary, in rape-prone environments, with gang rule, and guards who are often as corrupt as the inmates. You know that rehabilitation is statistically a rarity, so you incarcerate FOR punishment, not rehabilitation. All this talk of deterrent in regards to death penalty is a sham, as you know prison itself is no deterrent either.

The Constitution was pretty silent to sentencing as it was written in a time in which life imprisonment, slave labor, forced labor, and execution were all givens in the culture of the time. Reading otherwise is pure revisionism.

And not least of all, your system denies justice to the dead, and to the dead's family. The deceased is entitled to retribution by the hand of the state. Writing off their murders as "too bad" is not justice. The wrong is NOT redressed.

Xbuzzer did all of that? My, he has been a busy boy. You make it difficult to take you seriously, you are by turns strident, preachy, condescending and presumptuous. You've told Buzzer what he thinks feels and believes, very curious, do you live in his head?

Plus you seem to have this idea that the FF's were old testament style hang'em high looney tuners. Strange.

They believed that it was better to let a hundred guilty men go free than convict one innocent man. They aren't responsible for the culture they were raised in and DID try to make the US legal system more equitable and fair than it had been under the English. But forget that since they were obviously responsible for slavery and torture. They have sins enough without making up sins for which to crucify them.

Plus that whole red herring about caring more about the "criminals" rights, well the "victim," has the whole weight of the state on his side, doesn't have to pay lawyers, investigate, hire experts, pay the police - on the strength of accusation WE pick up the bill for all of it, he has the whole weight of the state and resources of the taxpayer on his side, I'd say he was pretty damn well represented; and since you were getting so precious about definitions, there IS NO CRIMINAL until there is CONVICTION, just accused PRESUMED by the FF's who were so incredibly cruel to be innocent. Perhaps you disagree with this?

The "criminal's" rights we protect, are my rights, and yours and everyone else's - perhaps though you'd like to live in a state where the accuser has all the rights and the accused has none at all?

 

[Kulindahr]

Plus you seem to have this idea that the FF's were old testament style hang'em high looney tuners. Strange.

They believed that it was better to let a hundred guilty men go free than convict one innocent man. They aren't responsible for the culture they were raised in and DID try to make the US legal system more equitable and fair than it had been under the English. But forget that since they were obviously responsible for slavery and torture. They have sins enough without making up sins for which to crucify them.

Jefferson once said even a thousand. But the hundred saying was standard doctrine at the time. It grew out of a juror preference to let go men accused by the crown when here was any doubt at all, or when they thought the sentence or law was unjust. But the principal carried over -- I'm not sure when it began to fade, but it's a great loss to the Republic.

Plus that whole red herring about caring more about the "criminals" rights, well the "victim," has the whole weight of the state on his side, doesn't have to pay lawyers, investigate, hire experts, pay the police - on the strength of accusation WE pick up the bill for all of it, he has the whole weight of the state and resources of the taxpayer on his side, I'd say he was pretty damn well represented; and since you were getting so precious about definitions, there IS NO CRIMINAL until there is CONVICTION, just accused PRESUMED by the FF's who were so incredibly cruel to be innocent. Perhaps you disagree with this?

The "criminal's" rights we protect, are my rights, and yours and everyone else's - perhaps though you'd like to live in a state where the accuser has all the rights and the accused has none at all?

It's also swinging back; there are now circumstances under Oregon law when the right to face one's accuser is denied -- though IMO the hole "State v." nonsense, which is a carry-over from royal law, is a dodge in the first place. In addition, in Oregon at any rate you can be required to pay full restitution to a damaged party (e.g. in vandalism), pay a fine of equal size, and on top of that do jail time -- something the Founders would have considered paying three times for one thing, something they also abhorred.

Also on the victims' side is the fact that prosecutors will throw a dozen charges for one action -- a tactic to get plea bargains to sail through -- which the Founders also found abhorrent.

All in all, we're much harsher and more cruel than they were, despite the whippings and stocks and all -- which I could argue were indeed more humane than stealing long portions of people's lives an requiring those people to undergo the hell of prison.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Saw a pic of Jack Kevorkian the other day. Thought of this thread. Seems like his formula worked OK.

 

[T-Rexx]

A Utah state representative, Paul Ray, (R-Clearfield), will introduce a bill into the next Utah house legislative session to bring firing squads back to Utah.

Utah last used the firing squad in 2010, to execute Ronnie Lee Gardner. Five state police sharpshooters pumped four rounds of lead into Gardner's heart from 0.30 Winchester rifles. Utah has a long history with the firing squad - 40 of its last 49 executions were accomplished by firing squad. The technique was outlawed throughout the United States (and even in Utah in 2004) because it is regarded as outdated, inhumane, excessively violent, prone to error, and stressful for the sharpshooters.


http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/execution-by-firing-squad-more-humane/

 

[Kulindahr]

A Utah state representative, Paul Ray, (R-Clearfield), will introduce a bill into the next Utah house legislative session to bring firing squads back to Utah.

Utah last used the firing squad in 2010, to execute Ronnie Lee Gardner. Five state police sharpshooters pumped four rounds of lead into Gardner's heart from 0.30 Winchester rifles. Utah has a long history with the firing squad - 40 of its last 49 executions were accomplished by firing squad. The technique was outlawed throughout the United States (and even in Utah in 2004) because it is regarded as outdated, inhumane, excessively violent, prone to error, and stressful for the sharpshooters.


http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/execution-by-firing-squad-more-humane/

You'd have to pay me at least a quarter of a million bucks to be part of a firing squad.

 

[luckynumbah7]

In other words, murder is a horrifically unacceptable crime.

Which we will punish with murder.

The best way to limit suffering in a society is to create more of it.

Quite a few people think that leaving the guy alive who murdered the 19yr old would create more of it. It wasn't an accident. My problem isn't with the idea of capitol punishment, my problem is with how and why it's being enforced in situations. Then again, I also think the prison system needs to be drastically overhauled. But killing someone who killed someone in that situation? Can't say I'd feel guilty, no.

That said, I don't agree with suffering. Someone else prolly loves 'em, not nice to hurt their feelings more'n necessary. Just use a bullet or a well made rope and quit trying to pretend you're not killing anybody.

 

[luckynumbah7]

And prison slave labor is replacing it -- much more profitable.

Oh good, someone else noticed.

 

[T-Rexx]

You'd have to pay me at least a quarter of a million bucks to be part of a firing squad.

It was eliminated in part because of the stress it caused to the executioners.

But, America has a taste for blood. We will revisit that which we have already rejected as unacceptable, because we have need for the act of killing people. It is part of our national character.

 

[frankfrank]

Oh good, someone else noticed.

I've noticed, too - long ago. It would even be an "out" that Republicans could use in their campaigns. They could boast that they've brought more than one million jobs BACK TO THE UNITED STATES. All they have to do is set up assembly lines inside the prisons, and the for-profit prison companies (like CCA), which I sometimes call Incarcerations-R-Us, are in a win-win situation. These prison companies also often require states to sign contracts guaranteeing a minimum occupancy rate.

It is VERY profitable to gather and incarcerate more and more prisoners.

 

[TX-Beau]

Quite a few people think that leaving the guy alive who murdered the 19yr old would create more of it. It wasn't an accident. My problem isn't with the idea of capitol punishment, my problem is with how and why it's being enforced in situations. Then again, I also think the prison system needs to be drastically overhauled. But killing someone who killed someone in that situation? Can't say I'd feel guilty, no.

That said, I don't agree with suffering. Someone else prolly loves 'em, not nice to hurt their feelings more'n necessary. Just use a bullet or a well made rope and quit trying to pretend you're not killing anybody.

I do have philosophical issues with capital punishment, it isn't a deterrent, it isn't justice. That said people are generally surprised to discover that I also think there are some people who just need to die. I know it's judgmental, but if you rape an murder and will never stop, I see no logical reason to keep you around and pay for your upkeep. Of course forcing a society to pay for it's criminals is a way to stimulate a desire to prevent crimes.

If we create a financial incentive to imprison people, what do we all think is going to happen?

So much for Ivory Tower pretensions. My main argument against the DP is the extremely fallible and prejudicial nature of people, and the justice system they inhabit.