• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Killer on death row is denied painless death by Supreme Court

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Personally, I oppose capital punishment for the most part.

But I don't see any reason to inflict pain. Overdose? Large caliber bullet to the back of the head?
Give the convict a choice?
Tom
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Not really a fan of the death penalty myself. I see the death penalty as unnecessary.

If however you decide you need to kill someone, dead is dead. What's the point in pretending to be humane about it.
I imagine the person being put to death sees a great deal of point to it.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Personally, I oppose capital punishment for the most part.

But I don't see any reason to inflict pain. Overdose? Large caliber bullet to the back of the head?
Give the convict a choice?
Tom
I've long said if we must perform capital punishment, a massive overdose of diamorphine would seem the simplest, most humane method. We know it works. We know how it works. We know it's painless. We know where to get it. Why the various states intent on killing people insist on mucking around with difficult to procure, untried and/or unreliable methods is quite beyond me.

But then, the concept of wanting to execute anyone when justice is less than 100% accurate is rather beyond me, too, so maybe I'm missing something.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've long said if we must perform capital punishment, a massive overdose of diamorphine would seem the simplest, most humane method. We know it works. We know how it works. We know it's painless. We know where to get it. Why the various states intent on killing people insist on mucking around with difficult to procure, untried and/or unreliable methods is quite beyond me.

But then, the concept of wanting to execute anyone when justice is less than 100% accurate is rather beyond me, too, so maybe I'm missing something.

I have mixed feelings about capital punishment myself. I think the main problem is that it seems to inordinately be targeted at lower class people and minorities. I think it should be more consistent. Either every person convicted of first degree murder is put to death - or none of them. This wishy-washy way of doing it now - sometimes we put them to death, sometimes we don't - just doesn't seem right.

And, as you say, we can never be too sure about someone's guilt, since the justice system can't really be trusted, so there's that to consider. However, in this case, I believe the condemned man admitted to his crime, so he's not claiming innocence.

But if we are going to put people to death, doing it as quickly and painlessly as possible seems the best course. A bullet in the back of the head seems quick and painless enough. Either that, or the guillotine. How quick is that? The electric chair, lethal gas, hanging, and even lethal injection take too much time.

But what's really odd to me is that, a few years ago, a condemned inmate tried to commit suicide. They went to an extraordinary effort to save his life - just so they could execute him a few days later. Why not just give them the option of suicide? They call it "cheating the hangman," but what's so great about the hangman that he shouldn't be cheated?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I am against the death penalty except in one specific instance: where the accused admits that s/he did it, the murder was premeditated, and there is absolutely no doubt (because of the accused's confession plus solid forensic evidence) that s/he did it....and the accused asks for the death penalty. I include this exception because, well....life without the possibility of parole and lots of solitary confinement and a complete and forced disengagement from the rest of human society is worse than death, IMO.

this is not me being all softhearted and squishy. This is me being, well, mean spirited and nasty. I think that putting someone who has been found guilty of murder into a cell with few amenities and no privileges for the rest of his/her natural life (which I hope will be a long one) is a better option. After all, all 'dead' does is get him/her out of OUR hair. It ends all punishment for the murderer.

"Life without possibility of parole" in a high security prison. Period. I know that I would rather die than face twenty or thirty years in such a situation. At best it would be eternally and terminally boring. At worst it would be the sort of mental torture that would drive me mad.

Oh....and then there is that little bit about sometimes the guy who got convicted isn't the one who did the murder. Not often, of course, but even once in awhile is one too many.

.........and it would be considerably less expensive for the rest of us to just warehouse them instead of dealing with decades of appeals and cases that WE have to pay for.

Just me putting my oar in.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I've long said if we must perform capital punishment, a massive overdose of diamorphine would seem the simplest, most humane method. We know it works. We know how it works. We know it's painless. We know where to get it. Why the various states intent on killing people insist on mucking around with difficult to procure, untried and/or unreliable methods is quite beyond me.

But then, the concept of wanting to execute anyone when justice is less than 100% accurate is rather beyond me, too, so maybe I'm missing something.
Why is 100% accuracy required? We don’t require that in other things. Driving certainly isn’t 100% safe and innocent people die. Yet we recognize that there is a trade off of accepting rare innocent deaths to gain the benefits of driving, including saving other lives. If rare innocents are executed in order to reduce murders through deterrence, is that an acceptable trade off? Then there are the innocent military members who were drafted. Some died even though they are innocent. Yet society recognizes that their deaths are a tragic loss that allows society as a whole to survive. Why are you more concerned with the innocent people killed on death row than the innocent soldiers or victims of driving deaths? 100% is the goal, not the required standard.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Why is 100% accuracy required? We don’t require that in other things. Driving certainly isn’t 100% safe and innocent people die. Yet we recognize that there is a trade off of accepting rare innocent deaths to gain the benefits of driving, including saving other lives. If rare innocents are executed in order to reduce murders through adeterrence, is that an acceptable trade off? Then there are the innocent military members who were drafted. Some died even though they are innocent. Yet society recognizes that their deaths are a tragic loss that allows society as a whole to survive. Why are you more concerned with the innocent people killed on death row than the innocent soldiers or victims of driving deaths? 100% is the goal, not the required standard.

So innocent people potentially being murdered is worth preventing innocent people from potentially being murdered?

The rest of the civilized world has survived without capital punishment, and have far fewer murders. So much for deterrence.
Also, comparing it to war or driving is an asinine analogy.

Life imprisonment fulfills the same purpose, so let's be honest: it's about some sick snuff-esque gratification, isn't it.
 
Last edited:

Duke_Leto

Active Member
Why is 100% accuracy required? We don’t require that in other things. Driving certainly isn’t 100% safe and innocent people die. Yet we recognize that there is a trade off of accepting rare innocent deaths to gain the benefits of driving, including saving other lives. If rare innocents are executed in order to reduce murders through deterrence, is that an acceptable trade off? Then there are the innocent military members who were drafted. Some died even though they are innocent. Yet society recognizes that their deaths are a tragic loss that allows society as a whole to survive. Why are you more concerned with the innocent people killed on death row than the innocent soldiers or victims of driving deaths? 100% is the goal, not the required standard.

Aren’t you Jewish? Shouldn’t you be opposed to capital punishment?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Why is 100% accuracy required? We don’t require that in other things. Driving certainly isn’t 100% safe and innocent people die. Yet we recognize that there is a trade off of accepting rare innocent deaths to gain the benefits of driving, including saving other lives. If rare innocents are executed in order to reduce murders through deterrence, is that an acceptable trade off? Then there are the innocent military members who were drafted. Some died even though they are innocent. Yet society recognizes that their deaths are a tragic loss that allows society as a whole to survive. Why are you more concerned with the innocent people killed on death row than the innocent soldiers or victims of driving deaths? 100% is the goal, not the required standard.
Because I find the thought of executing an innocent person insufficient justification for any perceived arguable benefits capital punishment may have. Sorry.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I have mixed feelings about capital punishment myself. I think the main problem is that it seems to inordinately be targeted at lower class people and minorities. I think it should be more consistent. Either every person convicted of first degree murder is put to death - or none of them. This wishy-washy way of doing it now - sometimes we put them to death, sometimes we don't - just doesn't seem right.

And, as you say, we can never be too sure about someone's guilt, since the justice system can't really be trusted, so there's that to consider. However, in this case, I believe the condemned man admitted to his crime, so he's not claiming innocence.

But if we are going to put people to death, doing it as quickly and painlessly as possible seems the best course. A bullet in the back of the head seems quick and painless enough. Either that, or the guillotine. How quick is that? The electric chair, lethal gas, hanging, and even lethal injection take too much time.

But what's really odd to me is that, a few years ago, a condemned inmate tried to commit suicide. They went to an extraordinary effort to save his life - just so they could execute him a few days later. Why not just give them the option of suicide? They call it "cheating the hangman," but what's so great about the hangman that he shouldn't be cheated?
Confessions can be coerced, so even that isn't a guarantee. Even if a murderer is rightly convicted, I don't trust any extant justice system to take into account every mitigation there might be. Too much scope for overly harsh sentences, to many people motivated by by something other than justice, too many different ideas of what "justice" is. For those reasons and more I don't believe we should be condemning anyone to death. Frankly, I don't trust our extant justice systems to get it right handing out lesser sentences, either, but at least no one dies in those cases.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Confessions can be coerced, so even that isn't a guarantee. Even if a murderer is rightly convicted, I don't trust any extant justice system to take into account every mitigation there might be. Too much scope for overly harsh sentences, to many people motivated by by something other than justice, too many different ideas of what "justice" is. For those reasons and more I don't believe we should be condemning anyone to death. Frankly, I don't trust our extant justice systems to get it right handing out lesser sentences, either, but at least no one dies in those cases.

I suppose a confession could have been coerced in this case, however there will usually be time to recant and claim prosecutorial or police misconduct. We definitely need more citizen oversight of the police, attorneys, and judges in this country. Just as with other workers who are under surveillance in this day and age, the same level of supervision is needed in every courthouse and police station in the country - reviewed and controlled by independently elected citizen committees.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So innocent people potentially being murdered is worth preventing innocent people from potentially being murdered?

The rest of the civilized world has survived without capital punishment, and have far fewer murders. So much for deterrence.
Also, comparing it to war or driving is an asinine analogy.

Life imprisonment fulfills the same purpose, so let's be honest: it's about some sick snuff-esque gratification, isn't it.
But that is a false dichotomy. Whether there is a state death penalty or not innocent people die. And, yes, the death penalty does work as a deterrent. Your statement that the rest of the world has fewer murders is not factually correct.

No, it isn’t about enjoying the killing of innocents, just the opposite. It is recognizing that ultimately fewer innocent people die with a state death penalty, if done well, than without one.
 
Top