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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't understand the opposition to a firing squad.Awww...poor baby. I agree with @columbus, bullet to the brain. Quick, painless, cost effective.
I imagine the person being put to death sees a great deal of point to it.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'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.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
We had one inmate on death row that overate so that they would not hang him. He successfully argued that his weight could cause his head to be yanked off. His obesity killed him at a rather young age:Ooh, I do love watching armchair commandoes get all cavalier about shooting people *popcorn*
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.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 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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.