another botched execution.

[methylatedghosts]

I do uphold the death penalty... I just dont believe I have the authority to pronounce it or enforce it. But i agree with it. And the reason why i agree with it is because God himself originated it. Of course God has the absolute right to enforce it, but for now, he allow mankind self-rule.

My preference is that no one ever kills or hurts anyone EVER... but that is not realistic because there are some very bad people in the world and for those sorts of people, i support the death penalty whether its brought by God in the future or by the ruling authorities in the meantime.

Come on, just play the game. Stop putting the responsibility of your beliefs aside. Your beliefs are represented in government and in law, and have very real consequences. The hypothetical situation I proposed is simply to emphasise this. Normally, no, you're not the one committing the act. But hypothetically, this person tied to the chair had already been sentenced to death. According to your beliefs, also, he must die. You have the responsibility to make it happen, yet you say you wouldn't commit to the act. Smart Guy too, is in the room, in the same situation as you. I'm there, but my beliefs say he shouldn't die, so I'm not going to kill him, but I'd not want to get in the way of the law by preventing his death.

So... What do you do?

 

[Father Heathen]

contradictory beliefs in this thread:

1) people should not kill others
2) people who kill others should be killed by other people who don't.
3) executioners are not included in the group "people who kill others"

Sigh... again, this implies that there is no distinction between innocent victim and guilty criminal, justified and unjustified, etc.
Pretending that circumstances aren't relevant is a silly oversimplification.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Also, you didn't answer the question earlier concerning your family member being the murderer

 

[Smart_Guy]

Does an executioner kill in hot blood?

I see that no, the law does not end lives aimlessly and selfishly in cold blood when they do. The law ends lives as a result of a cruel murder with good intentions and it stops there 100% for good when it comes to that murderer. Not doing so opens doors and give opportunities for that murderer to go on killing others selfishly and with cold blood... again. Even the slightest risk of having an innocent murdered by the same murderer is never worth it. And that what happened, the subject murderer did indeed murder another innocent person.

Besides, the law is not just picking random people from the street and execute them. The murderer at hand sure did so.

I have before killed and slaughtered my own meat. It's not something I'm uncomfortable with. I feel it really connects me to the animal t turned into steak, and makes it very real. I'm much more appreciative of the life given up for me

I'm not not comfortable with it, yet I know it is necessary. I choose to no do it myself.

How many government officials do you know that have experience killing someone tied to a chair?

Our views are the views that are represented in government. Do you really believe execution would be legal if all the citizens thought execution to be wrong?

I'm not talking about this specific execution. Injecting a human with something that causes torture is not something I agree with. I'm talking about the principle of execution in general.

If it is about this specific execution, then rest assured, I completely agree with you.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Sigh... again, this implies that there is no distinction between innocent victim and guilty criminal, justified and unjustified, etc.
Pretending that circumstances aren't relevant is a silly oversimplification.

Whatever motivations there are, you're just as dead either way, and that is my point. It's not ok to kill someone, whichever reasons you have for doing so, especially if there are other options available. (self-defence aside)

 

[methylatedghosts]

I see that no, the law does not end lives aimlessly and selfishly in cold blood when they do. The law ends lives as a result of a cruel murder with good intentions and it stops there 100% for good when it comes to that murderer. Not doing so opens doors and give opportunities for that murderer to go on killing others selfishly and with cold blood... again. Even the slightest risk of having an innocent murdered by the same murderer is never worth it. And that what happened, the subject murderer did indeed murder another innocent person.

if you imprison someone for life, does that not also prevent them from killing another innocent person?

Besides, the law is not just picking random people from the street and execute them. The murderer at hand sure did so.

Au contriare - most murderers know their victims

I'm not not comfortable with it, yet I know it is necessary. I choose to no do it myself.

Oh, but killing animals for meat is actually entirely unnecessary for survival. Though, that's kind of side tracking now ...

I'm not talking about this specific execution. Injecting a human with something that causes torture is not something I agree with. I'm talking about the principle of execution in general.

If it is about this specific execution, then rest assured, I completely agree with you.

I've long since stopped talking about this specific execution. Execution is simply not necessary in the justice system

 

[Smart_Guy]

if you imprison someone for life, does that not also prevent them from killing another innocent person?

People complain about putting animals in cages and that it's again animal rights. I don't think imprisoning a human for life is less cruel than executing them for mercilessly murdering an innocent human being with cold blood for lusty and selfish reasons. We also talked about the possibilities we could have in life imprisonment; i.e. risking another murder in prison or in running away which is common.

Au contriare - most murderers know their victims

This is what I'm saying, those murderers target those victims and kill them for lust and selfish reasons, whither they know them or not. The law does not. The law doing executions is nothing near the level of those murderers.

Oh, but killing animals for meat is actually entirely unnecessary for survival. Though, that's kind of side tracking now ...

I'm referring to circumstances. There are circumstances that make killing animals for meat absolutely necessary, even if we don't want it, just as the case with things we don't want to do but at some point the option is there. Again, You and I are living peacefully. We do not know how ugly this world can be.

I've long since stopped talking about this specific execution. Execution is simply not necessary in the justice system

Sorry about that. I misunderstood since you used that specific execution method as an example. I'm not really a supporter of execution. All I'm saying is that is has to be an option somewhere, and it has to be done as fast as possible and without pain, for the purpose of justice or defense. To plainly say execution should never ever take place no matter what, I think is wrong.

Edit:
I did a quick Google search and found examples of escaped murder inmates committing other murders. Also some cases of released inmates doing so too. Dunno man, just reading those scared me and got me worried about my loved ones and myself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reading Foucault's Discipline and Power is giving an interesting lens to view these botched executions through.

 

[Pegg]

Come on, just play the game. Stop putting the responsibility of your beliefs aside. Your beliefs are represented in government and in law, and have very real consequences. The hypothetical situation I proposed is simply to emphasise this. Normally, no, you're not the one committing the act. But hypothetically, this person tied to the chair had already been sentenced to death. According to your beliefs, also, he must die. You have the responsibility to make it happen, yet you say you wouldn't commit to the act. Smart Guy too, is in the room, in the same situation as you. I'm there, but my beliefs say he shouldn't die, so I'm not going to kill him, but I'd not want to get in the way of the law by preventing his death.

So... What do you do?

leave it to the professionals?

 

[Pegg]

Also, you didn't answer the question earlier concerning your family member being the murderer

regardless of whether they are my own family member or not, each of us are equally responsible for our actions. If a death sentence was imposed on my family member due to such a serious offence, i would accept it.

People need to understand that their actions do not only affect the person they inflict injury upon... it is far more reaching then that because mankind are interconnected. Murder is murder and they should be treated the same, family or not.

 

[methylatedghosts]

leave it to the professionals?

I.e. shift your responsibility aside, onto someone else.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm simply not understanding why executing someone is absolutely necessary. To me, it just makes no sense to continue the very thing you're trying to avoid, which at the end of the day, is killing more people. It achieves so little that cannot be achieved in other ways. It does even less to prevent others from committing crimes, and unless you'd be willing to flick the switch, to inject the drugs, to swing the axe yourself, you're in no position to condemn another person to death, no matter the severity of her crime.

It's very nice to be able to sit at home, separate yourself from a part of society you see only on TV and in newspapers and declare "that person should be put to death." It's easy to do so if you distance yourself even further by referring to him as "the criminal", "the inmate" - anything, as long as you can pretend she's not a human. If we simply swept all those people away, we would be able to forget about them, pretend they never existed, and convince ourselves that it's "for the good of society". We then can pretend that it somehow makes us better people, and say to one another "well, if he truly didn't want to die, he wouldn't have murdered someone" as though it helps. And then we can nod gravely to one another, pick up our frothy caffeine in a paper cup, and feel the worries of the world evaporate, secure in the knowledge that our beliefs are killing off those people we'd rather not have to deal with.

Blech.

No thanks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really, it is interesting. From Foucault wrote, it seems we are shifting into a phase in which the penal system (and society) is going back to some thing that is a public spectacle, and something that must be done. Also it is interesting to note that these sort of hour-long cruel executions are heavily related to Medieval, Conquistador, and Ottoman torture. And in this day in age, of a global panopticon, these sort of botched executions quickly become public spectacle, even much faster than the beatings of Rodney King. Theoretically, we could all "be there" at these executions as they happened during the Medieval days. It doesn't really sound like it's a good direction to be heading, especially considering the religious zeal of the New Right.

 

[Pegg]

I'm simply not understanding why executing someone is absolutely necessary. To me, it just makes no sense to continue the very thing you're trying to avoid, which at the end of the day, is killing more people. It achieves so little that cannot be achieved in other ways. It does even less to prevent others from committing crimes, and unless you'd be willing to flick the switch, to inject the drugs, to swing the axe yourself, you're in no position to condemn another person to death, no matter the severity of her crime.

Quite right, thats why i would not condemn another person to death. But if the authorities did, then i respect their right to do so when dealing with these sorts of crimes.

it's very nice to be able to sit at home, separate yourself from a part of society you see only on TV and in newspapers and declare "that person should be put to death." It's easy to do so if you distance yourself even further by referring to him as "the criminal", "the inmate" - anything, as long as you can pretend she's not a human. If we simply swept all those people away, we would be able to forget about them, pretend they never existed, and convince ourselves that it's "for the good of society". We then can pretend that it somehow makes us better people, and say to one another "well, if he truly didn't want to die, he wouldn't have murdered someone" as though it helps. And then we can nod gravely to one another, pick up our frothy caffeine in a paper cup, and feel the worries of the world evaporate, secure in the knowledge that our beliefs are killing off those people we'd rather not have to deal with.

Blech.

No thanks.

And when a person is finished their jail time and are released, will you take responsiblity for any further murders that they commit?

Will you stand up and say that you supported the murder over his victims. This is why i would support it.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Quite right, thats why i would not condemn another person to death. But if the authorities did, then i respect their right to do so when dealing with these sorts of crimes.

Just because the authorities HAVE that right, does not mean it is the right thing to do. In the 1930s (to pick an over used example), German authorities had the right in Germany to displace and kill millions of Jews, and thousands of others they didn't like or didn't want to deal with.

And when a person is finished their jail time and are released, will you take responsiblity for any further murders that they commit?

Will you stand up and say that you supported the murder over his victims. This is why i would support it.

NEVER will I undermine victim rights. Never have I suggested it, nor implied it. Neither have I said to release a prisoner instead. Maybe they do need to spend their remaining lives in prison.

It is difficult to know what is the right thing to do, but what I do know is that killing another person is wrong. Full stop. End of story. No excuses.

 

[icehorse]

Hmmm...

Hypoxia can (in most cases) be lethal, but because of the extended time required to effect a desired outcome, many would argue (like "lethal injection") that the process just "takes too long", and therefore remain exposed to (once again) allegations of "inhumane"treatment.

Can ANYONE "guarantee" that a chosen execution will be "instantaneous"? NO. Barring throwing all accused and summarily then convicted into our local sun, no.

Then again, can society insure that any chosen convicted for execution, initially afforded that same standard for those that they wantonly murdered?

Most unlikely.

For me, the question remains.

Can (or may) an enlightened and informed society choose for itself, a means of justice and imposed retribution amongst those that evidently eschew those same established standards?

Can a collective society determine that some individuals, have evidently chosen to exclude themselves from the entire human race? Can someone forfeit the rightful claim therefore to be deemed "human"?

I believe, in certain and most specific circumstances, the answer is "YES".

And a society that is both righteous and fair and deserving of the exacted retribution upon those that are then prosecuted and subsequently convicted beyond ANY reasonable doubts of unapologetic heinous acts, those summarily condemned have earned their release from this existence.

What an "automated" firing squad CAN offer (just watch "Mythbusters" for examples for non-partisan results), is a quick, and virtually 100% assured "instantaneous" death by state execution. Four 30=-30 caliber shots to the heart, and three to the head, on target and remotely done, will KILL 99.999% of any accused instantly, with no suffering or question.

Just saying...

A delayed response... There are simply too many flaws in the legal system to support the death penalty. I have other issues with it but this one is sufficient.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Maybe they do need to spend their remaining lives in prison.

What about who escapes? The feelings of the families of the victims? The security of the innocent with the risk of getting killing again after the escape?

Please reconsider. I'm not telling to support death penalty, I'm only asking to go with circumstances and adopt with this dangerous life.

Please check these out:

Murderer may have killed again after prison escape | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Execution set for escaped murderer who killed again - San Antonio Express-News

And there are more.

I personally believe in flexibility and having anything as an option within reason and as circumstances call for. I'm not saying that murder should necessarily get execution, I only say that execution should be there as an option. At least as an option for the two cases in the links above.

 

[methylatedghosts]

What about who escapes? The feelings of the families of the victims? The security of the innocent with the risk of getting killing again after the escape?

Please reconsider. I'm not telling to support death penalty, I'm only asking to go with circumstances and adopt with this dangerous life.

Please check these out:

Murderer may have killed again after prison escape | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Execution set for escaped murderer who killed again - San Antonio Express-News

And there are more.

I personally believe in flexibility and having anything as an option within reason and as circumstances call for. I'm not saying that murder should necessarily get execution, I only say that execution should be there as an option. At least as an option for the two cases in the links above.

As a percentage, there aren't that many prison escapes, and many of those are the result of prison staff making mistakes, and simply being understaffed. Prison guards don't earn that much money, it's a high-risk job, and they have a high staff turnover rate. Those things would be relatively easily solved by increasing staff numbers and salaries. Do that, and I bet you'll see fewer prisoners escaping.

That aside, the chance of a prisoner escaping should not be a factor in deciding whether to put one of them to death. It's a different problem entirely.

Should the results of poor staffing be killing prisoners? No.

As I said before, killing people is wrong, across the board, regardless of what said person may or may not have done

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm simply not understanding why executing someone is absolutely necessary. To me, it just makes no sense to continue the very thing you're trying to avoid, which at the end of the day, is killing more people. It achieves so little that cannot be achieved in other ways. It does even less to prevent others from committing crimes, and unless you'd be willing to flick the switch, to inject the drugs, to swing the axe yourself, you're in no position to condemn another person to death, no matter the severity of her crime.

It's very nice to be able to sit at home, separate yourself from a part of society you see only on TV and in newspapers and declare "that person should be put to death." It's easy to do so if you distance yourself even further by referring to him as "the criminal", "the inmate" - anything, as long as you can pretend she's not a human. If we simply swept all those people away, we would be able to forget about them, pretend they never existed, and convince ourselves that it's "for the good of society". We then can pretend that it somehow makes us better people, and say to one another "well, if he truly didn't want to die, he wouldn't have murdered someone" as though it helps. And then we can nod gravely to one another, pick up our frothy caffeine in a paper cup, and feel the worries of the world evaporate, secure in the knowledge that our beliefs are killing off those people we'd rather not have to deal with.

Blech.

No thanks.

I'd do it.

A murderer isn't just someone I'd rather not have to deal with. A murderer is dangerous. A murderer has proven that he cannot be trusted to uphold his end of the social contract. He has no respect for the rule of law, nor an appreciation for the value of human life, and therefore must not be permitted to waste space/resources on this planet.

Like one who drives drunk must face the consequence of having his driver's license revoked, one who commits murder (in a jurisdiction which sanctions capital punishment) must face the consequence of having his life revoked.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'd do it.

A murderer isn't just someone I'd rather not have to deal with. A murderer is dangerous. A murderer has proven that he cannot be trusted to uphold his end of the social contract. He has no respect for the rule of law, nor an appreciation for the value of human life, and therefore must not be permitted to waste space/resources on this planet.

Like one who drives drunk must face the consequence of having his driver's license revoked, one who commits murder (in a jurisdiction which sanctions capital punishment) must face the consequence of having his life revoked.

Killing people is unacceptable. If you ever hope to stop people killing people, you must do exactly that.

Stop killing people.