Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by JeF4y, Jan 20, 2011.
Really? What, is he afraid of an allergic reaction?
He hasn't received any of the information because the state believes it to be a dead issue.
How 'bout they get back to him next weekend.
Maybe he's afraid of being paralyzed but still fully conscious as he dies? Maybe if the drugs are mixed the wrong way in the wrong quantities he might suffer extra physical pain?
This is the kind of crap we have to deal with when liberal activists rewrite the 8th Amendment to say "the death penalty can only be permitted when it is done in a painless way that does not mutilate or scar the body of the felon, and the entire process must not be physically or psychologically traumatic to the condemned felon."
I'd go back to the original intent of the Framers, which I believe is: Kill the S.O.B. in any manner that is fast and effective, but don't intentionally choose a method that is painful or mutilating of the body simply for those reasons. If the method of death is quick and effective but happens to have the unintended consequence of some pain or trauma to the body, so be it."
Hanging was the standard method of execution in the coloninal period AND through the 19th century, and in the old days (including the entire first generation of early Americans who founded this nation) it was short-drop hanging. The condemned died from strangulation, not from a broken neck (long-drop hanging came much later). So if it was good enough then, it's got to be good enough today, unless the constitution is modified by Amendment.
i see what you did there.......
Interesting bit of trivia: firing squad is currently the most practiced form of lethal punishment used, globally speaking.
Not too much. Enough. After you're dead.
Can we get on with it now?
(Edited to fix "your" to "you're". )
While, I am 100% against the death penalty, lethal injection is not the quick, efficient method it's made out to be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y44E5Kv09pE - NSFW
Around the 2:30 mark.
Why does it have to be so perfectly easy and humane for the condemned? Hang 'em high at noon in the town square, then it will be a deterrent again.
You really think anyone is "deterred" from killing?
That assumes that:
1) They believe they will get caught and face said punishment
2) They are acting rationally
3) The consequences of their actions are greater than their impulses
Do any of those three things sound like the thoughts of a murderer to you? Murderers don't believe they will get caught (so consequences are irrelevant) are completely insane (so they're not going to be rational anyway) or are so caught up in what is happening that distant consequences don't enter their brain.
The death penalty is useless as a deterrent. If there is any deterrent effect to be had, a life sentence is more than enough to scare anyone who is actually thinking about it. For the rest, killing them won't create more of a deterrent.
It sounds really punishing...however, there is no such thing as a life sentence....
At least that one person, after receiving the humane cocktail, is deterred from killing again...unlike the others that are released and kill again!!!
let him choose his demise. Fry or drugs? Maybe offer him a shot of lead or beheading. At any rate, he should be gone on time!!!
So? Do you really think people are thinking "Man, I wanna kill this guy, I'll *ONLY* be in jail for 25+ years, so I guess I'll go ahead!" ?
If your compliant is that they aren't actually getting life sentences, work to make them longer. That's not an excuse to kill them.
Bad things happen when government is allowed to kill its own citizens. I'm continually amazed by people on this site that are terrified of the government taking away their gun rights but ENCOURAGE the government to take away people's lives. Especially when those same people rant about how incompetent government is.
What makes a logical person say "government sucks at managing money, roads, and our freedoms... but I trust them to KILL the right people?" You really trust them to get it right? I sure don't.
The jury made up of the "people" make the decision.
The only thing that bothers me about the whole death penalty thing are the people that are found out to have not committed the crime to begin with years after the fact. Those people also had a jury...who just happen to wrongly seal the prisoner's fate.
Ropes and bullets are cheaper, let him pick and then get on with it. Just saying.
i dont like the death penalty in its current form. prisons in general cost the taxpayers way too much money. i have always felt that if it is a violent felony charge and there are atleast 3 credible eye witnesses, then they should take the guy in question out behind the courthouse and do the deed.
we spend too much on prisons that dont work.
I struggle with it... Yeah, I suppose, make it humane for the people watching and doing the job, but just so long as the end result is relatively quick for the condemned, I don't care how it's done.
You can thank the drug war for that.
If prisons ONLY housed true criminals, the cost of holding a murderer for this whole life would be negligible in real terms. Right now, holding a prisoner for life (though it is STILL cheaper than administering the death penalty) seems expensive. In real terms -- especially in preventing damage to society -- that would not be the case if we weren't wasting tens of billions on the drug war.