|
Fire posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H9CAdwGMiU I would just like to point out that that video is from 2005. Also in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of minors (at the time of their crime) is unconstitutional, citing the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause of the 8th Amendment, in Roper v. Simmons. So actually, in the last five years, America has executed no one who was a minor at the time of their crime.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
HBKevin posted:I would just like to point out that that video is from 2005. Also in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of minors (at the time of their crime) is unconstitutional, citing the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause of the 8th Amendment, in Roper v. Simmons. In 2005, an enlightened democracy and the leader of the free world decided that executing minors was bad for publicity. Meanwhile, 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 08:47
|
|
|
The Reaganomicon posted:In 2005, an enlightened democracy and the leader of the free world decided that executing minors was bad for publicity. I'm not sure what 'publicity' has to do with it, or the death penalty would have been banned altogether. I was simply correcting some false/outdated information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 09:07
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:I'm not sure what 'publicity' has to do with it, or the death penalty would have been banned altogether. I was simply correcting some false/outdated information. The death penalty has widespread support in America, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
The Reaganomicon posted:The death penalty has widespread support in America, sorry. I did not dispute that. I raised the point that the death penalty for minors was ruled unconstitutional in 2005. That is all I said. I wanted to clarify as I have read about the Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty in recent years and wanted to share this information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:I did not dispute that. I raised the point that the death penalty for minors was ruled unconstitutional in 2005. That is all I said. I wanted to clarify as I have read about the Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty in recent years and wanted to share this information. My claim was that the death penalty for minors was abolished because of bad publicity, not out of some moral or legal compulsions. JLWOP is basically the same sort of abomination and it's alive an well. America #1 in JLWOPs 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
The Reaganomicon posted:My claim was that the death penalty for minors was abolished because of bad publicity, not out of some moral or legal compulsions. JLWOP is basically the same sort of abomination and it's alive an well. Graham v. Florida http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-7412.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 09:08
|
|
|
Lucasville hunger strike ends after state meets demands including semi-contact visitation.quote:"I think they (the inmates) regard it as a victory," Alice Lynd told The Dispatch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Lucasville hunger strike ends after state meets demands including semi-contact visitation. I have to admit, I am suprised the state met the demands. This is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Lester B. Pearson posted:I have to admit, I am suprised the state met the demands. This is pretty good. I hope other inmates can copy their success with similar strike actions. What was the latest-known outcome of the larger strike in Georgia across a few prisons?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
The Reaganomicon posted:My claim was that the death penalty for minors was abolished because of bad publicity, not out of some moral or legal compulsions. JLWOP is basically the same sort of abomination and it's alive an well. I understand what your claim is, but it doesn't make sense to me. I think if publicity was the motive, the death penalty would not still exist in the US, since it is so unpopular in most other countries. I think it was based on legal reasoning that minors have less culpability for their actions than adults. As for life without parole, that is an entirely different issue. I personally think that imprisonment for life without parole is the only appropriate punishment for a murderer, regardless of age, because it ensures that person will never murder someone in society again (although sadly there is the chance that they will murder another prisoner). I do not agree with the death penalty, although I used to. My stance is now pro-life across the board, wherever possible. I think it is only justified in rare cases where permanent imprisonment is not possible, such as with foreign imprisoned dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:I understand what your claim is, but it doesn't make sense to me. I think if publicity was the motive, the death penalty would not still exist in the US, since it is so unpopular in most other countries. I think it was based on legal reasoning that minors have less culpability for their actions than adults. As for life without parole, that is an entirely different issue. Wait, so you think people who commit a murder should be basically removed from society and given up on, but not killed? You don't believe, at all, in rehabilitation or is murder just the exception?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Wait, so you think people who commit a murder should be basically removed from society and given up on, but not killed? I believe rehabilitation is possible and desirable for some criminals, but in the case of murderers, I don't think it's worth the risk that they will murder another person, to take the chance that they are rehabilitated. Now, I do recognize that there are different types of murder, legally speaking. I should clarify that I'm referring mostly to 1st degree murder, or 'Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_degree_murder#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States I also understand that there are some homicides which would be more than manslaughter, but not pre-meditated, or a 'crime of passion' or 'temporary insanity', such as a husband who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man. However, when it comes to say, two murderers who each tortured and then brutally killed a person(s), and one is 17 and the other is 18, I don't think they should be treated differently legally. I think mental development is a more important factor, in an extreme case such as mental retardation, which deserves special consideration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:I personally think that imprisonment for life without parole is the only appropriate punishment for a murderer, regardless of age, because it ensures that person will never murder someone in society again (although sadly there is the chance that they will murder another prisoner). Ah yes, murderers. The irredeemable sub-humans that... have the lowest recidivism rates across the board?  Either you are incredibly naive or incredibly vindictive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
The Reaganomicon posted:Ah yes, murderers. The irredeemable sub-humans that... have the lowest recidivism rates across the board? You seem to be the vindictive one, judging by the personal attacks. I actually value human life very highly. That's why I don't think it's worth the chance that they are rehabilitated, to take the risk that they will murder another person. It doesn't matter if the recidivism rate is comparatively lower than other crime. Even a small risk that they will murder another human being is too high a risk to take, in my view. And there have been plenty of cases where released murderers have gone on to murder another person(s), once released. Obviously it won't be as frequent, as say, theft. So, don't try and play the compassion card. The victims of crime deserve it just as much as the perpetrators, and usually more. HBKevin fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Jan 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:So, don't try and play the compassion card. The victims of crime deserve it just as much as the perpetrators, and usually more. So you value human life, unless conditions A, B and C are met, in which case you want to kill them. Meanwhile, you use the same arguments that justify the current system, along with "some people are just broken and cannot be fixed" and the crowd favorite "the victims deserve to have their revenge." Sorry man, you're not breaking any new ground here. You're a card carrying apologist with some inkling of conscience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:You seem to be the vindictive one, judging by the personal attacks. I actually value human life very highly. That's why I don't think it's worth the chance that they are rehabilitated, to take the risk that they will murder another person. This is complete bullshit. There's always at least a small possibility that any individual in a given population could commit murder. Should they be locked away for life, too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:31
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:You seem to be the vindictive one, judging by the personal attacks. I actually value human life very highly. That's why I don't think it's worth the chance that they are rehabilitated, to take the risk that they will murder another person. I have trouble understanding both your logic and your belief. For one, your belief seems a bit empty to me. I mean, by supporting life sentences for murderers, I assume your definition of life is more or less biological function. I think it's a bit silly to say you value human life when you really mean that you feel every human should breathe and have a heartbeat for the longest period of time possible. Simply put, a life sentence in a supermax prison cell isn't "living", it's more like undeath. (I mean, I assume you believe even criminals deserve to stay alive as long as possible and, since we're talking about murderers, they should be segregated to prevent further murders, right?) Second, your logic. You say that murderers should stay behind bars because no matter how small, any chance of loss of human life is unnacceptable, right? But this is silly. I mean, for one, every human has the potential to commit a murder. Plus, you know, if any chance of loss of life is unnacceptable, shouldn't you be against cars, guns, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
The Reaganomicon posted:So you value human life, unless conditions A, B and C are met, in which case you want to kill them. Meanwhile, you use the same arguments that justify the current system, along with "some people are just broken and cannot be fixed" and the crowd favorite "the victims deserve to have their revenge." It is unfortunate that you take the liberty to attack my conscience, without having ever met me. I didn't say I 'want to kill' anybody. In fact, I clearly said I am against the death penalty for domestic criminals, because I believe life is valuable and sacred, and also because of the chance of an innocent person being executed. I only believe execution is acceptable in very rare cases such as in captured dictators in war, to prevent them from committing/ordering further mass murders if they are released from prison after the victorious country's military returns home. You are misrepresenting my statements to an absurd degree, so you can expect no further responses from me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Holy poo poo posted:This is complete bullshit. There's always at least a small possibility that any individual in a given population could commit murder. Should they be locked away for life, too? There is a much greater possibility that someone who has committed premeditated murder before, will do it again if released, than that an average well-adjusted person will commit premeditated murder. It is disingenuous not to recognize that probability. HBKevin fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Jan 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I have trouble understanding both your logic and your belief. Thank you for being the only one to respond with civility. Your post deserves a considered reply, and I will respond tomorrow when I have more time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:There is a much greater possibility that someone who has committed premeditated murder before, will do it again if released, than that an average well-adjusted person will commit premeditated murder. It is disengenuous not to recognize that probability. But the statistics show that's not true and, in theory, if you were to rehabilitate criminals, that wouldn't be an issue at all. Murder isn't some sort of drug one can get addicted to, the fact that murderers have rather low recidivism rates kind of proves that. Not to mention murderers are humans. Everyone can be a murderer given the right circumstances. it's disingenuous to say that only some people have the potential to commit premeditated murder, but most don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:But the statistics show that's not true and, in theory, if you were to rehabilitate criminals, that wouldn't be an issue at all. Murder isn't some sort of drug one can get addicted to, the fact that murderers have rather low recidivism rates kind of proves that. On the first point: statistics seem to show fairly clearly that released murderers have a fairly low rate of committing murder again, but that "low rate" is still many times higher than that of the general populace. Having killed once is not an absolute predictor of future killings, but it still is a predictor. Further, what I've been able to find suggests that recidivism rates in general are heavily dependent on the age of the criminal at release quite aside from sentence time, having sharp drops both when the released prisoner is over 18 and over 35. Murder sentences tending to be longer than many other crimes might lead to an older average release age than for some other crimes, though even the question of which is cause and which is effect, if either, is a good one. Now, that all aside, I agree with the basic statement that recidivism rates are low enough that "if we let them go they'll probably just kill again" is untrue, and the ability to judge this on an individual rather than a blanket level is what the sentencing and parole process is all about. Unthinking automatic sentences for any crime meeting a general descriptor is only going to lead to a higher proportion of excessive, ineffective punishments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:But the statistics show that's not true and, in theory, if you were to rehabilitate criminals, that wouldn't be an issue at all. Murder isn't some sort of drug one can get addicted to, the fact that murderers have rather low recidivism rates kind of proves that. Recidivism rates only tell half the story in many cases. It depends on what you're measuring. Returns to prison. Returns to prisons for the same offense. Returns to prison for similar offense (what are similar offenses). What about convictions without a return to prison? Out of state? Yadda Yadda. I think there are murders or whom LWOP serves a valid public safety purpose. Multiple Murders like Charles Manson (who doesn't have LWOP) area prime example. There are others where it makes no sense. The push for LWOP for all murders is certainly rooted in a combination of free and a desire to punish. Really, LWOP is a prime example of the problem with determinate sentencing. Few people now realize that before the 1970/1980s sentencing was much different. Sentencing was indeterminate. Someone would get sentenced to a high max number of years, but they started seeing the parole board very early. This, in theory, would allow the reformed prisoners to get out early and keep the unreformed prisoners for a very long time. The problem is that this didn't really work. Race, class, fear of releasing someone who might possibly maybe hurt someone caused problems. In theory, it is a much better system, but I wonder if it would actually work today. Along with the drug war, the end of indeterminate sentencing and mandatory minimums (which is what ended this) played a key role in ballooning prison populations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:
There are going to be several hundred and possibly thousands of violent young offenders added to California prisons. The state is going to close several of the state run Juvenile Prisons, belonging to the Dept. of Juvenile Justice (renamed from the California Youth Authority since CYA had such a terrible reputation). Some juvenile halls will take these kids, but the increase of 16-18 year old offenders into general populations at state run facilities will be significant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 11:37
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:I personally think that imprisonment for life without parole is the only appropriate punishment for a murderer, regardless of age, because it ensures that person will never murder someone in society again (although sadly there is the chance that they will murder another prisoner). Prisoners are members of society, as much as some would like to deny it. So your draconic punishment won't even have its desired effect. I suppose you could lock them away in solitary for the rest of their lives, but at that point just putting them to death seems to me to be the more humane thing to do. Lifelong torture or state sanctioned murder, take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 11:49
|
|
|
dr.gigolo posted:There are going to be several hundred and possibly thousands of violent young offenders added to California prisons. The state is going to close several of the state run Juvenile Prisons, belonging to the Dept. of Juvenile Justice (renamed from the California Youth Authority since CYA had such a terrible reputation). Some juvenile halls will take these kids, but the increase of 16-18 year old offenders into general populations at state run facilities will be significant. I'm not sure moving felons to jails is such a bad thing. Yes, there is overcrowding. There is overcrowding because people get put in jail for stupid poo poo and judges are reluctant to give low bail. This increases the costs of needless incarceration on the counties who are causing the entire problem. Maybe now the DA (who is a county employee) will think twice before asking for 90 days on a public intox or actual prison time (rather thn probation) on low level felonys. I am all for shifting the costs and hassles of mass incarceration on the people responsible. In this case, it is counties that want to be tough on crime. Also, in CA, with the exception of LA, jails are generally more humane places than our prisons regardless of crowding. They are run by the Sheriff who is much more likely to handle themselves properly than prison guards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 11:57
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:For one, your belief seems a bit empty to me. I mean, by supporting life sentences for murderers, I assume your definition of life is more or less biological function. I think it's a bit silly to say you value human life when you really mean that you feel every human should breathe and have a heartbeat for the longest period of time possible. Not what I mean at all. Life, on a basic level, is indeed breathing and having a heartbeat. And we don't have the right to take that away from another person except in the most dire of situations, namely, to preserve our own or others' lives in imminent danger. However, I'm a Christian, and I believe we have an eternal soul. Even though life in prison is a largely joyless existence, they will continue to live and think and feel, and make decisions, particularly about whether they have remorse for their murder(s), and whether they repent or not for their actions. Further, the 'quality of life' argument is not valid when comparing life to death. There are plenty of people who have miserable existences on this Earth, such as starving children in Africa. Should we kill them, to put them out of their misery? Of course not. The difference is that they did not choose their fate by their actions, while the murderer did. He has earned his unpleasant life by consciously choosing to end another person's life, which he has no right to do, and thus forfeits his own right to self-determination and freedom. quote:Simply put, a life sentence in a supermax prison cell isn't "living", it's more like undeath. See above. quote:(I mean, I assume you believe even criminals deserve to stay alive as long as possible and, since we're talking about murderers, they should be segregated to prevent further murders, right?) Yes. quote:Second, your logic. You say that murderers should stay behind bars because no matter how small, any chance of loss of human life is unnacceptable, right? But this is silly. I mean, for one, every human has the potential to commit a murder. Plus, you know, if any chance of loss of life is unnacceptable, shouldn't you be against cars, guns, etc.? We cannot ban everything that is dangerous. Humans can kill each other with their bare hands, or die merely by natural accident. So removing guns and cars from society will not solve the problem of people dying a premature death, and people who have not violated the law have a right to liberty and to use technology such as firearms and automobiles. However, people who have murdered another human being once, especially first degree murder, such as an unusually brutal murder, or involving torture, have shown they are capable of taking a human life. We can't read people's minds to know if they will ever commit a murder, for the first time, or otherwise. But we can act reasonably based on past behavior and evidence, and not allow someone who has already committed murder to walk freely in society and put innocent people at an increased unnecessary risk of a brutal death. To allow such a situation would be morally irresponsible and frankly, cowardly on the part of the government and civil society at large.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:Not what I mean at all. Life, on a basic level, is indeed breathing and having a heartbeat. And we don't have the right to take that away from another person except in the most dire of situations, namely, to preserve our own or others' lives in imminent danger. I know I won't change your mind, but I strongly disagree with you. I find especially chilling the idea that you think it's a good thing to be stuck in a small room with no human contact until death comes "naturally" with nothing more than the choice to regret your acts without actual possibilities for redemption. Sure, you'll say, he can read the bible and accept Jesus, but that won't actually change his life. Really, the only difference between a death sentence and a life sentence without opportunity for parole is that one of them takes longer before you die. It's the same thing as the electric chair, lethal injection, the guillotine. It's just that the tool used to kill the convict is time. Again, you say "whether or not they repent" by which I assume you mean "whether or not they find Jesus behind bars and die with a bible on their bedside", which leads me to believe the only reason you support LWOP over the Death Penalty is because LWOP gives a person a higher chance of finding your religion. Also, seriously, don't go on the whole "mercy killing" path. This has nothing to do with anything here and you're the one who raised the issue to deflect the attention. Supermax prisons are borderline psychological torture. You might think they're "better than being dead" but it's really like choosing whether you want one arm cut off or both. quote:We cannot ban everything that is dangerous. Humans can kill each other with their bare hands, or die merely by natural accident. So removing guns and cars from society will not solve the problem of people dying a premature death, and people who have not violated the law have a right to liberty and to use technology such as firearms and automobiles. Again, you say that it's irresponsible to allow the risk of letting a first degree murderer at large regardless of the person. I mean, really, how do you think parole works? Do you think first degree murderers are just let out if they promise not to kill anyone? Seriously, do you really mean that people who commit first degree murder are irredeemable? That they can never be rehabilitated? I mean, really, how is letting a man who's deemed not a danger to society by a parole board less responsible than letting a 16 year old drive a car or, heck, letting an alcoholic drive a car? I mean, we can see that alcoholics usually drink alcohol and, therefore, are more at risk to drive drunk. Honestly, I'd rather live with a reformed murderer next door (as in, someone who had a very long sentence and got out with parole) than be in a car driven by a 16 year old who likes to party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Really, the only difference between a death sentence and a life sentence without opportunity for parole is that one of them takes longer before you die. It's the same thing as the electric chair, lethal injection, the guillotine. It's just that the tool used to kill the convict is time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
nm posted:Another difference: when we find out the person is innocent 10 years later, we can actually release them, instead of saying, "welp, sorry" to a headstone. I do grant that, and this is why I am against capital punishment, but it's also not an excuse to be inhumane with life sentences or to hand them out indiscriminately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 12:15
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:Further, the 'quality of life' argument is not valid when comparing life to death. There are plenty of people who have miserable existences on this Earth, such as starving children in Africa. Should we kill them, to put them out of their misery? Of course not. The difference is that they did not choose their fate by their actions, while the murderer did. He has earned his unpleasant life by consciously choosing to end another person's life, which he has no right to do, and thus forfeits his own right to self-determination and freedom. Quality of life is one of the biggest factors used when determining which patient should get a donororgan. Quality of life is a major factor in handling requests for euthanisia. So yes, quality of life is very valid, even when comparing life to death. Living can be worse than death, being in a state of perpetual torture is one of them. Starving children in Africa should be put out of their misery actually, by feeding them. The difference here is that you are purposefully choosing to put people in a miserable living condition, which is a step worse then choosing not to do anything to uplift people out of miserable living conditions. You say you are a Christian, so I must ask, where is your forgiveness? You say a murderer has chosen to have himself be tortured for life by society. I say that this is you passing lifelong judgment. Perhaps you should read your own holy book more carefully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 12:29
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I do grant that, and this is why I am against capital punishment, but it's also not an excuse to be inhumane with life sentences or to hand them out indiscriminately. Really though the major value of LWOP is that it kills a major argument capital punishment proponents use, that they might get out. The goddamn Mason parole hearings, even though he will never, even get let out, is pro-death penalty gold. "This guy with the swastika on his face might get out and when he hears a Beatles song he'll kill you! this is why we need to kill them all, so they never get out." Orange Devil posted:Quality of life is one of the biggest factors used when determining which patient should get a donororgan. Quality of life is a major factor in handling requests for euthanisia. So yes, quality of life is very valid, even when comparing life to death. Living can be worse than death, being in a state of perpetual torture is one of them. Ideally, you know because that won't happen in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
The only company in the US that makes sodium thiopental for lethal injections is stopping production.quote:COLUMBUS, Ohio – The sole U.S. manufacturer of a key lethal injection drug said Friday it is ending production because of death-penalty opposition overseas — a move that could delay executions across the United States. Europe says "gently caress You!" to US executions and good on them for doing so. But for the love of god, don't read the comments section after the article. "Like most other European countries, however, Italy does not have capital punishment and opposes the death penalty" Out of 50 European countries, only 2 still have the death penalty on the books: Belarus and Latvia. In Latvia, it only applies for crimes committed during war time. Belarus did execute two people last year, but currently have noone awaiting execution. But it's not all good news: quote:But California, which placed an order for 521 grams of the drug before the ban, filed a notice in federal court Friday that the order had been received. The state's lethal injection protocol calls for preparation of 3 grams of the drug for execution, along with 3 grams on a backup tray. Prisons spokeswoman Terry Thornton said portions of the drug are also used for training. California has enough of the stuff to kill anywhere between 86 and 172 people and Oklahoma is adding insult to injury by using drugs designed for animals. Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Jan 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:The only company in the US that makes sodium thiopental for lethal injections is stopping production. Unfortunately, this will slow the death penalty down like 2 weeks. 9I'd also note that Belarus is basically an evil dictatorship, so being behind them sucks)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 14:04
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:words What makes your post completely chilling, is that both this and your previous you've hinted that you're ok with the wars abroad for the vagueries of "defending yourself and others" when that results in far more death, murder, rape, and suffering at the hands of paid US soldiers than 5+ years of homicides within the US. If you aren't against the US's foreign wars of the past 10 years, you have absolutely zero moral authority to author a pip in defense of capital punishment stateside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:What makes your post completely chilling, is that both this and your previous you've hinted that you're ok with the wars abroad for the vagueries of "defending yourself and others" when that results in far more death, murder, rape, and suffering at the hands of paid US soldiers than 5+ years of homicides within the US. Sanctity of life is easy to defend when it just means "keep people alive longer". The best way to deal with a discrepancy like that is pretend it doesn't exist or say it's better than some really terrible situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 15:53
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Oklahoma is adding insult to injury by using drugs designed for animals. The drugs designed for animals probably cause less pain than the current cocktail* (*I'm absolutely 100% against the death penalty, but given that the US has it, they could at the very least use the most humane method possible, such as a lethal overdose of general anaesthetic or inert gas suffocation. There are dozens of methods of killing someone that are essentially KNOWN to be painless because they render the subject fully unconscious very rapidly before any lethal action occurs. Many of them can be administered non lethally without pain to cause unconsciousness. I still have no idea why the lethal injection "sedates and paralyses" rather than renders fully unconscious)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Fatkraken posted:I still have no idea why the lethal injection "sedates and paralyses" rather than renders fully unconscious I'm pretty sure you know why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 18:20
|
|