Lethal injection in the US

[budda]

I dont know wether any of you heard this news story but it really got to me. Aparently there has been new research on one of the drugs used in the US for the lethal injection and it has been shown to cause serious pain and suffering.

In fact the chemical itself (I'll try and find its name) has been banned for use with animals because its cruel. Aparently it stops you moving totaly, so you look like your just drifting away but it causes a nasty pain response before you die.

Why they feel the need to do it at all is beyond me too.

[LadyJade]

And there they were advocating its use because it was supposed to be 'the most humane' way of killing someone.....

[Aladdin]

There is no humane way of killing someone.

For killing someone without their consent is not human.

But anyway, I have heard reports in the past that supposedly painless lethal injection is nothing of the sort.

But of course, the victim cannot express any pain, nor are there any visible nastiness, such as victims catching fire on the electric chair or people choking in agony in the gas chamber, so those righteous witnesses to the execution can feel better.

For a country that prides itself in being Christian, they have a very funny way of showing it.

And for a country that pretends to be the leader of the "free world", it's funny how they don't seem to have a problem being in the same league as such bastions of democracy and human rights as China or Saudi Arabia.

[LadyJade]

Originally posted by Aladdin
There is no humane way of killing someone.

For killing someone without their consent is not human.


Unfortunately it is very human, its just not very humane. ;)

[Aladdin]

Point taken. ;)

[Captain Slog]

Maybe they should use the guillotine. Its so quick you probably wouldn't feel anything. however it does leave a lot of mess to be cleaned up.

Perhaps the gallows would be the best compromise. No mess, not much suffering, fairly quick.

[rachie004]

but does this not lead to the argument of is capital punishment right in itself.... aaaand... if whatever they did was bad enough for them to be sentenced to death then do they not deserve to suffer?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Aladdin
For a country that prides itself in being Christian, they have a very funny way of showing it.

And for a country that pretends to be the leader of the "free world", it's funny how they don't seem to have a problem being in the same league as such bastions of democracy and human rights as China or Saudi Arabia.

Were in no position to throw stones.

Great Britain has, on a per capita ratio, more people serving out life sentences in our jails than any other country in Western Europe. 3500 of those people serving life are over 65. One guy is serving life on "two violent crimes and you're out" policy- he glassed someone once, then after twenty years of crime-free life he got into a violent fight he didnt start or provoke.

We arent any better than the Americans. Especially when you consider most US states no longer have the death penalty.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by rachie004
but does this not lead to the argument of is capital punishment right in itself.... aaaand... if whatever they did was bad enough for them to be sentenced to death then do they not deserve to suffer?

Kantian politics against Benthamite politics: something so interesting I had to start a thread about it:)

[Bandito]

Especially when you consider most US states no longer have the death penalty.

Speaking out again about issues you know nothing about?

FYI, 38 states currently have the death penalty on their statute books. Last time I checked we only have 50 states, so by my calculation that 38 would be a majority of states.

Now in your favor there are some states that don't execute even when a criminal is convicted and sentenced to death.

Texas is not one of those.

[Bandito]

The states of Idaho and Utah still utilize firing squads as the method of execution, although lethal injection can be used as an alternative. In Utah the inmate can select the method of his/her demise.

Oklahoma was the first state to adopted lethal injection as an execution method; however Texas was the first state to carry out an execution using this method.

[Alias]

I'm anti-death penalty on simple prinicpal that the state should not be in the position of deciding who lives and dies.

I had not heard anything regarding lethal injection causing pain. In fact, I thought it was the least painful. I would be interested in a link.

[hipipol]

Doesnt seem to work very well on that score


Seems horrific to me- I mean if its wrong for that person to kill, why is it ok for the State to do so

[hobbs]

[In Utah the inmate can select the method of his/her demise.
[/B]

a. how kind :rolleyes:

b. they are called prisoners these days

anyone seen monsters ball?

[budda]

Sorry I couldnt give more details I'll have a look and find out, I've actualy been in the US for the last week so I havent had time.

[budda]

Well heres one link, sorry its from CBS;

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/07/national/main576918.shtml

And heres another;

http://www.iht.com/articles/112788.html

[Hot Rob]

I agree to the argument that there is no humane method of execution, but lethal injection does seem to be the most “visibly tolerable”.

I’m not concerned with this at all, as the convicted criminal had no regards for their victims’ civil rights, and it is probably a pretty safe assumption that the victim wasn’t humanely shot/beaten/stabbed/raped.

[piccolo]

Originally posted by Hot Rob
I’m not concerned with this at all, as the convicted criminal had no regards for their victims’ civil rights, and it is probably a pretty safe assumption that the victim wasn’t humanely shot/beaten/stabbed/raped.
Hmmmm. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? :( It saddens me, the things people can do to each other. The death penalty is tantamount to murder, pure and simple. We have no right to decide who lives or dies. One can forfeit their right to full civil liberties but no one can ever forfeit their right to life.

[Hot Rob]

Originally posted by piccolo
Hmmmm. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?

While turning the other cheek is a kind and gentle philosophy, it is usually just an invitation to get the other cheek slapped as well. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need to turn the other cheek. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world.

Originally posted by piccolo It saddens me, the things people can do to each other.

It saddens me, too. But that’s why we have laws in place, to protect us from those who would do us harm and to serve as a deterrent. What saddens me most is the fact that more concern is shown for the criminals’ rights than those of his/her victim.

Originally posted by piccolo We have no right to decide who lives or dies. One can forfeit their right to full civil liberties but no one can ever forfeit their right to life.

Apparently, the convicted criminal didn’t see it this way. As they were convicted of a capital offense, they made that decision for someone else. It only becomes a moral issue to them when it’s their ass on the line.

Would I like to see the Death Penalty done away with? Absolutely. Do I think it is morally wrong to take another human beings life? Yes, definitely. But I have a stronger belief that people should be held accountable for their actions, and that the punishment should suit the crime.

I don’t like the Death Penalty, but I understand the need for it.

[budda]

I just fail to see what good it does, does it prevent crime? The statistics about murder rates in the US would suggest hevily not.

I find the idea that its some sort of justice and that it will make the victims feel better horrid, your taking pleasure in some ones death!

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Hot Rob



It saddens me, too. But that’s why we have laws in place, to protect us from those who would do us harm and to serve as a deterrent.



Please show me some conclusive evidence that the Death Penalty acts as a deterrant, I know of none.............

[Hot Rob]

Originally posted by Toadborg
Please show me some conclusive evidence that the Death Penalty acts as a deterrant, I know of none.............
Would you do something if you knew you could be executed for it?

[budda]

Thats not what he asked at all, most killings happen in a fit of passion so it really makes no odds what the outcome is, your not thinking rationaly.

There is also the issue of clear up rates, in a lot of places there is a good chance that you will get away with the murder, therefore the punishment is not a deterant, regardless of what it is.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Hot Rob
Would you do something if you knew you could be executed for it?

C'mon, you can do better than that surely?

I do believe that the majority of Death penalty sentences are awarded for, as bong suggests, 'crimes of passion' where there is little or no prior planning so I am not sure the question is entirely relevant.

Given also that many people on death row are mentally deficient in some way the question is even more irrelevant..........

[Aladdin]

By the look of it, shit loads of people are "doing things" in the States and elsewhere, regardless of the death penalty.

It doesn't work, and it is an immoral abomination. There are no possible excuses for such barbarian practices to exist.

[piccolo]

Originally posted by Aladdin
By the look of it, shit loads of people are "doing things" in the States and elsewhere, regardless of the death penalty.

It doesn't work, and it is an immoral abomination. There are no possible excuses for such barbarian practices to exist.
:yes: Hear, hear. The statistical evidence shows that the death penalty itself does not lower crime rates. I'm sorry I can't quote examples, but it is something I have read a few times.

Originally posted by bongbudda
most killings happen in a fit of passion so it really makes no odds what the outcome is
And there's why it doesn't help. Yes, I agree, there are some sick people in this world who will commit violent crimes in cold blood, but msot don't. I am not condoning the actions of murders who kill in passion.

Originally posted by Hot Rob
While turning the other cheek is a kind and gentle philosophy, it is usually just an invitation to get the other cheek slapped as well.
You say that, but I'm not convinced. As I said earlier, there are other ways to punish murderers. Take someone's liberty, you have no more right to take their life than they did to take the life of their victim. It's not justice. It's murder.

I'm sorry, that was not a personal attack on you, I appreciate that you don't agree with the death penalty, although I would argue that it is not necessary. British society seems to me to function just as well as, say, Texan society without the death penalty.

[Murph Redux]

A question. Would you put someone who was responsible for thousands of murders to death. A Josef Mengele for instance. We put down rabid animals and so why not those animals that murder innocents?

How would you feel about the death penalty if your whole family was systematically tortured and then murdered. How is a determination made statistically that the death penalty does not reduce crime? Wahington DC in the US has no death penalty and yet has one of the highest murder rates per capita of any American City. New York State, wherein you will find the City of New York, has the death penalty and the murder rate has dropped precipitously. The death penalty as preventative measure cannot be ascertained by either situation. Cause and effect are more likely determined by other mitigating factors. Thus the statistical statements cannot be addressed with any particular certainty in my book.

The death penalty is a statement by a society that it will not tolerate certain behavior. The majority of the people in this democratic society favor it. Barbaric? That may be a culturally relative outlook.

How would people in the UK vote on this issue?

[Aladdin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look at the whole of the US instead of pairing cities, there is no difference in crime between States that have the death penalty and those that don't. I know there are some pro-death penalty websites that try to argue the opposite, but then there are some anti-death penalty websites that actually claim it's often worse in States that have the death penalty.

At the end of the day, it doesn't work as a deterrent. But even if it did...

I would not ask for the death penalty for someone who had murdered my whole family. Nor I think many people here or elsewhere in Europe would. Because it is simply lowering to the level of the murderer himself. Besides, if you are bent on revenge a life without parole sentence is far worse than death.

Not to mention the endless miscarriages of justice or the repulsive act of giving the death sentence to the mentally disabled or to minors.

Like I said earlier, for a country that prides itself in its Christianity they have a funny way of showing it. If God existed do you think he would approve of a governors executing people like it’s going out of business and then going to church on Sundays and pretending to be holier than thou?

[piccolo]

Originally posted by Murph Redux
How would people in the UK vote on this issue?
Actually, it's interesting, I remember reading in politics once that something like 70% of the British population would vote to bring back capital punishment if there were to be a referendum. Scary stuff.

I'm with Aladdin on this one, I cannot conceive of a time when I would really wish for the death penalty to be brought back. If I were to lose my whole family, how would it help me to watch both the murderer and his/her family suffer another death? Why should I hurt his family as he hurt me?

[budda]

I would be surprised if you couldnt get the majority of the people in the UK to vote for the death penalty for pedofiles, but then the public attitude to that is another issue.

There is also the issue of, if you really want to punish someone for what have they have done, is it not better to keep them locked up for 25-30 years for them to think about it? Rather than a quick death?

[Rexer]

Any referendum would get 70% in favour so long as leather faced Murdoch tells the plebians how to vote.

The majority of this country don't like to think for themselves.

[Whowhere]

You all miss a vital point. The Americans don't use the death penalty as a deterrant. They use it as a punishment.
If you take someone's life, they take yours.


I suggest they use hanging, quickest method of execution after beheading. If the criminal's neck isn't snapped, then they choke and suffocate within seconds.
The American methods are inefficient and clumsy, and cause too much pain for all those involved, criminal and witnesses included.

While I agree in part to the death penalty, I disagree that people should be allowed to watch.

[Aladdin]

On the contrary. I think all those campaigning for the death penalty should be made not only to watch, but to turn on the juice on the electric chair themselves. To watch the condemned fry to death, his hair to catch fire as it often does and the room to start smelling of bacon. And then to ask them: do you feel vindicated now?

[Whowhere]

Well no, because the electric chair is crap.
Making them watch the murderer of their child hang would be a much more satisfying experience for them.

I believe in capital punishment as a punishment, not as a deterrent and only for use against the most serious of offenders. Serial killers, child rapists, terrorists and those found guilty of treason.
The ones who would never have been deterred in the first place but deserve a suitable punishment.

[budda]

Can you hear what you are saying? Getting satisfaction from someones death?! Can you not see how terribly savage that is?

[Rexer]

He's saying we've criticised it for being inappropriate as a deterrance, but we haven't really considered the matter of atonement...I think.

Right Whowhere? :-\

Rexer

[Aladdin]

And the carrying out of that punishment Whowhere makes as every bit as despicable as the condemned.

I still believe that most people, if given the choice to spare the life of the condemned as he has the rope round his neck, would do so. Frankly, anyone who doesn't must be seriously fucked up and if they had any human emotions left would deeply regret it later in life.

[Murph Redux]

A tough moral question this. The correct interpretation of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not commit murder" as opposed to "that shalt not kill". (The original Hebrew text not the English translation). Therein lies the Christian interpretation for what it is worth.

I favor the death penalty for those who have committed premeditated murder. I believe that those who kill officers of the law should also be subject to the death penalty. Moreover, I believe that those that perpetrate genocide and mass murder should be executed.

While that me seem f****d up it is what I believe. Yes, I would pull the lever or trigger as necessary. Some individuals need to be removed from the gene pool. I don't moralize and ask others to believe as I do but I cannot see people getting away with murder. If it were my family I would like the creep(s) to get there just deserts.

Aladdin I respect your principaled stance on the issue but I must disagree with it. Actually I am not despicable but then again some have ventured the opinion that I am at times f****d up.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Murph Redux
A tough moral question this. The correct interpretation of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not commit murder" as opposed to "that shalt not kill". (The original Hebrew text not the English translation). Therein lies the Christian interpretation for what it is worth.

Which means bugger all when you consider that the law courts have no standing in the eyes of the Church and therefore their decision to someone should die is still murder in the eyes of God.

I believe that those who kill officers of the law should also be subject to the death penalty.

Why? What makes a police officer's life more important that, mine or yours?

[budda]

Murph Redux; You talk of the need for some people to be removed from the gene pool, but that argument doesnt really hold water does it. If they are going to held in prison for 25-30 plus years they are very unlikely to father/mother children are they.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Murph Redux

Some individuals need to be removed from the gene pool.

That seems aninnocuous statement but it may have deeper maening.

Seems to suggest the belief that muderous tendencies are generally a genetic/biological phenomenon rather than a product of living that persons life (or a combination of both)

That seems very wrong to me........

[budda]

Also is it not a very dangerous slippery slope to be going on. Talking about people needing to be removed from the gene pool, thats only a relatively short step from purification.

[solo]

Albert Pierrepoint, our last senior hangman wasn't greatly 'f****d up' by his duties, he retired, ran a pub in Hampshire and lived to old age, similarly his asst. Sid Durnley - an untroubled olser age. Maybe dispatching murderers isn't the trauma some would claim it to be.

Public opinion , last I heard, would like the restoration of the death penalty, it's the harshest of penalties for the most heinous of criminals (saying that though, the harshest penalty for Ian Brady would be to deny him his radio + anti-depressants)

[Murph Redux]

Man of Kent,

Would you please elaborate on the point concerning the law courts having no standing in the eyes of the church. I am a bit muddled on that point.

As concerns officers of the law....they are the thin line that keeps order for us in a civilized society.

An individual so depraved as to have indifference towards the living symbol of order and law in society must be dealt with harshly. If a criminal is willing to kill an officer then he has lost all consideration for the rules of civil society and would not hesitate to murder those less able to defend themselves.

Aside from religious arguments, why is it wrong to put someone to death for the commission of crimes as I stated in the earlier post?



bongbudda and toadborg,

The term "removed from the gene pool" is used here as a colloquialism and is not intended to serve as a justification for eugenic purification of society. I don't believe in eugenics or societal purification of the sorts mentioned in your posts.

[Zella]

A Josef Mengele for instance.
Who?

Originally posted by Whowhere
and those found guilty of treason

Ah, but why treason? No one really cares about the royal family anymore, they have no real influance on modern society as the queen no longer makes the rules, the govenment do, although i think she signs the bills they passed or somthing. (sorry im new to all this) i think its just tradition more than anything else really, we could survive without a royal family.
And also if you kill a swan you have committed treason, and could be killed for that still.

i hope i make sence.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Murph Redux
Would you please elaborate on the point concerning the law courts having no standing in the eyes of the church. I am a bit muddled on that point.

Sorry, I'm not religious, but my understanding is that only God can judge. Therefore it isn't inconcievable for the church to say that any death which isn't natural is murder in accordance with the commandments.

As concerns officers of the law....they are the thin line that keeps order for us in a civilized society.

An individual so depraved as to have indifference towards the living symbol of order and law in society must be dealt with harshly. If a criminal is willing to kill an officer then he has lost all consideration for the rules of civil society and would not hesitate to murder those less able to defend themselves.

Surely though, if the person killed anyone then they are equally depraved/indifferent towards law and order.

Aside from religious arguments, why is it wrong to put someone to death for the commission of crimes as I stated in the earlier post?

It's murder, premeditated at that.

Just because it's done in the name of the state doesn;t make it acceptable.

If the state argues that it is wrong to take a life, then why is it acceptable for them to take one?

[budda]

'A state that has to be perpetually conquered can not be governed'

If the police are really the only thing holding everyone back from slaughtering anyone in sight, well that’s a deeply depressing thought.

To me that sounds as though you are saying that everyone would be a dangerous criminal if we didn’t have the police. That cant be right, or at least I don’t want to accept its right. Most people obey the law, not because they are afraid of the police but due to some sort of decency.

[Bandito]

Quote by Aladdin:
It doesn't work, and it is an immoral abomination. There are no possible excuses for such barbarian practices to exist.

All arguments aside there is one fact that can not be disputed about the death penalty as a punishment for capital murderers:

executed murderers will NEVER kill again. (not on this planet anyway)

[Aladdin]

Whereas a convicted murderer serving life without parole will kill how many?

[Bandito]

Whereas a convicted murderer serving life without parole will kill how many?

I don't know, I suppose it depends how many other inmates or guards piss him/her off.

[Aladdin]

That's not much of a valid reason and you know it.

Firstly, I presume most people who advocate the death penalty couldn't care less if a murderer kills another- on the contrary! Think of all the money the State would save...

If you are so concerned for the lives of those who in your opinion don't deserve the death penalty for their crimes (such as robbers for instance) all the State needs to do is put all murderers in the same wing. Problem solved.

And how many guards have been murdered by inmates in the last 50 years? Two? Five? Does it justify in your view executing hundreds of people just in the off chance that once every decade a guard might get killed?

Should be execute all the burglars, petty thieves or fraudsters just in case one of them gets up in a bad mood one morning and kills a guard? Better not risk the life of prison guards eh?

[Bandito]

Firstly, I presume most people who advocate the death penalty couldn't care less if a murderer kills another- on the contrary! Think of all the money the State would save...


Excellent point! Another good case made for proponents of the death penalty.;)

[Bandito]

But one example - Inmates kill another inmate (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/10/24/two.inmates.escape.ap/)

Convicted Priest Murdered By Another Inmate (http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/October2003/October_01/News/reg_pr_1001a.asp)

Private Prisons - Inmate on Inmate and Guard Violence (http://www.afscme.org/private/ep04.htm)

Interesting - Know Your Kentucky Murderer/ess (http://www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_row.htm)

This was just a very quick search of the web. An in-depth search would turn up much more.

The point is that violence in prison is very real, whether murderers are doing the killing or not. You must agree that one doing time for a violent crime is probably much more predisposed to that sort of behavior than a white collar offender.

[budda]

If your suggesting that murderers should be killed just so they dont hurt anyone else, why dont we just better secure the prisons?

But then as much as I dislike the idea of the death penalty would it almost be more humane than isolating someone for 10's of years by themselves in very high security?

[BlackArab]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

If capital punishment is a deterrent, shouldn't the murder rates of London be higher than New Yorks?

Also, where as I totally understand the point about what the victims family would want, I would argue that they are too emotionally involved to make a rational decision.

If someone slapped your sister and you saw the person in the street the next day, would you make a rational decision to phone the police knowing that person will end up with no more than a fine? or would you introduce him to Mr Baseball Bat?

This is a similair scenario I faced when I was 20, to this day I thank the Lord, that I didnt actually see the Guy and I was not living in the state of Texas, as I wouldn't be here to post this.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Bandito
Excellent point! Another good case made for proponents of the death penalty.;)

Death penalty often more expensive than life imprisonment due to expense of all the precautionary legal measures........

[budda]

I've heard that too, because of the checks and appeals its tends to go on and on for years and years.

That and I really dont see the argument about prison gaurds. Surely if one of them is killed by an inmate that is a failure of the prison service, not a reason to kill them.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Bandito
executed murderers will NEVER kill again. (not on this planet anyway)

Executed convicted "criminals" won't kill anyone ever again. Agreed.

State murders will continue unabated.

BTW How many people who have been executed were later found to have been not-guilty? If this has happened even once, is that a price worth paying? If it has happened even once, doesn't that make their death "murder" (i.e. innocent person killed by state decree)?

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Bandito
I don't know, I suppose it depends how many other inmates or guards piss him/her off.

Convicted criminal kills convicted criminal. You have a problem with that then?

[budda]

Why dont we just put them all in a big pit and let them fight it out then?

Seems a reasonable solution.