- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
The government should never be allowed to put its own citizens to death. The government is not infallible. The government has put innocent people to death.
The same government can’t even be trusted to reliably fix a pothole.
Boomer humor. Government did something imperfect or not to MY personal standards therefore the whole thing is shit. Hahahahhahahahahaha aren’t I funny?
/s
No, the whole thing really is shit.
Okay, then just go ahead and whip out a better system. I’m waiting lol
Do not execute people.
Wow that was easy.
Just don’t live near Robert Bedella or Jeffery Dharma! Simple!
Or Jimmy Savile…
…or Jack the Ripper. Or any number of people who are lifetime murderers, rapists, torturers, criminals.
Simple!
Yeah because we’ve only two forms of punishment: slap on the wrists or execution. There’s nothing in between.
Feel free to go live off the grid and no longer enjoy all the everyday qualities of life that are a result of government that you take for granted.
If your spouse or child were imperfect would you also toss them in the trash?
this is such a fucking strawman holy shit
Edit: just looked through your comment history, honestly you should probably live off the grid you are a net negative to society
That edit tho
Imagine wasting your life reading other peoples post history on a site that doesn’t matter.
How’s it feel to me the old man screeching about the way elvis moves his hips.
Nah, boomers love the death penalty. Which seems paradoxical, considering how they hate government.
Because conservatives view government as a cudgel rather than a social net
Subjecting human beings to inhumane torture by consistently failing to kill them is so far below anybody’s standards for a death sentence that the mere action itself should be illegal.
deleted by creator
Death penalty needs to go.
I feel like if they fuck it up your sentence it should be commuted. They shouldn’t get a do-over.
It’s not the case here, but fuckups tend to happen when the person is morbidly obese and therefore a vein can’t be found.
Not making a point one way or another, just sharing a bit of information. This is a problem in the medical field as well.
I used to think people stay years on death row. Are you saying you can stay morbidly obese on prison food?
I believe that photograph is from 1999 when he got arrested. He was sentenced to death in 2000, so that’s over 20 years waiting. And yes, obesity is becoming a problem inside prisons too (prisonlegalnews.org).
Not sure about death row, but many prisons have a commissary where you can buy junk food with personal funds either brought in with you from the outside or transferred from friends and family outside. Some people don’t get fat -until- they go to prison.
Your question is so out of left field. I didn’t say anything related to the topic. But yes, there are actually obese inmates.
This attempt had nothing to do with the failures of lethal injection. They tried to fill a room with 0% oxygen and it failed spectacularly causing suffering and trauma, but not death.
That’s why I started with “not the case here”.
That’s fair.
They failed specifically because they didn’t try to fill the room with nitrogen. The dude was insistent that a priest be allowed to stay in physical contact with him for the duration of his execution. So they couldn’t fill the entire room, because the priest was in the room with him.
Instead, they tried using a gas mask so only he would suffocate. The issue was that the mask failed (or wasn’t designed properly, or wasn’t used properly,) and oxygen was allowed to get into the mask for an extended period of time; His attempted execution lasted for way longer than it should have, because he was still able to get oxygen.
Abolish capital punishment. Freaking primitive apes.
Regardless of the method of execution, imagine knowing the exact date and time of your death and knowing nothing you could do would stop it. That is torture, plain and simple. It should be in violation of the eighth amendment.
Consider Japan, who does it differently. Death row inmates in Japan are not told their execution dates, as they had issues with people committing suicide before they could be executed. So now they only find out with just a few hours of notice when they’re going to be executed. You could be sitting in your cell, ten years into your sentence, enjoying an otherwise ordinary, quiet day in prison, only to be told that it’s time to die, whether you’re ready for it or not, the equipment and staff are already prepared and there’s no time left to argue your case.
Honestly, I don’t know which one is “better”. They’re both cruel in their own ways.
The better one is no death penalty at all.
“Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning.”
As you wish.
It’s been ruled that a punishment needs to be BOTH cruel AND unusual, to qualify as a violation. One or the other is fine, as long as it’s not both. Scalping someone for petty theft would be okay as long as most-everyone convicted got scalped.
In this specific case, I wouldn’t call it usual and it certainly is cruel.
I would also argue that, since it is not applied evenly in any way and that only a minority of people get the death penalty, even though some people who don’t get it have committed worse crimes, it is always unusual. Usual is prison for some length of time, possibly life.
I would also add that SCOTUS found it both cruel and unusual at one point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia
Then it was reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia because SCOTUS claimed that some states met some arbitrary criteria they didn’t actually meet.
Or is it cruel to make someone wake up and ask “is this the day that I will die?”
That’s just life
But also, apparently all of the available methods of execution barely work at all because of gross incompetence of the people who create the systems. That’s the more important issue, here, imo. The state clearly isn’t capable of serving a death sentence, nor do I expect they ever will be, so they shouldn’t even have the right.
I don’t think they should have the right if they are capable. The power of life and death over its citizenry is not a power a state should ever have.
I’m a consequentialist with aversion to suffering, so I think there are some very rare cases where it would be warranted if reform were considered truly impossible or would cause more suffering than it is worth, such as older or insane accused with very solid evidence convictions by a jury of peers.
Hard choices exist in this world, people sometimes have to choose what they can protect.
I’m really not understanding your argument. What does this ‘suffering’ have to be worth? And if an elderly or mentally ill person suffers in prison, that sounds like we should make prison a less horrible place, not euthanize people we feel deserve it.
I’m operating in the very real world assumptions that the restrictions of freedom of a large class of people will never so easily be made “a less horrible place.” This is far moreso true for chronic mental illness care. I don’t have a plan for any of that, and it doesn’t appear as though you do, either, so instead a simple solution is to only give a death sentence under very specific and hard to establish conditions agreed upon by a majority of people.
The plan is caring for mentally ill people with psychiatric supervision, possibly medication and/or therapy, something our prison system doesn’t offer, not killing them. You’re doing the “I shot the dog because he was untrainable and killed chickens” Kristi Noem defense, except for killing people.
Psychiatric Supervision, Medication, and Therapy don’t necessarily eliminate all suffering, and certainly have no guarantee of reform or a cure. Kristi Noem had a perfectly fine young animal capable of training by qualified owners of which many were likely available in her area, she instead chose to kill her dog. This is a great example of how outcomes with excess suffering are always worse and that many people are too mentally incompetent to weigh their options. If her dog were judged by a jury, it would have been acquitted.
If you survive one execution I don’t think they should be allowed a do over, let him live in his cell, he earned it.
I think there was a case somewhere that the prisoner was sentenced to death, and was executed ina fashion that didn’t quite work.
But technically he did die for a minute or two before his heart restarted, and he sued to be released from prison because he technically served his sentence.
Did it work? Did he win?
Unfortunately it doesn’t look like it. I misremembered a few details, he “died” from natural causes in prison, not execution. The court ruled “Schreiber is either alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is dead, in which case this appeal is moot.”
His name was Benjamin Schreiber.
I think ‘technically’ you didn’t die if your heart stops for a couple of minutes and then restarts.
I’ve heard (don’t know if it’s true) that in the old days if you survived a hanging then you were allowed to live
I’d always heard the sentence ‘hung by the neck until dead’ was taken literally: If you survived the drop, you’re just gonna be hanging there longer. The result is the same.
I’m gonna be pedantic for a second, hanged* not “hung”
“… and they was right!”
Could be both
You never know 😉
I reject your pedantry, you’ve learnt a different localized lexicon and your defence of the specifics of the English language ain’t gonna hold up.
The law/sentence was actually changed after a Scottish woman survived being hanged resulting in this specific wording. There was a time when people did survive and were freed.
I think that rule applied to the guillotine. If the blade stopped on the way down it was considered an act of god or some such.
I agree. You get one try to execute, you fail? To bad.
Cruelty is the point for conservatives
Yeah, I’m pretty sure* they took a method that was supposed to give a clean painless death and deliberately implemented it in a way that would cause agony.
Edit: after further reading about this, there are other possible mechanisms that could have lead to that first one being in agony, so it is possible that the nitrogen asphyxiation method was approached and implemented in good faith while still causing agony. Though I’d say continuing to use it despite how the first one went does bring that good faith into question plus the possibility of good faith doesn’t imply it wasn’t in bad faith, but I no longer stand by that “pretty sure” I originally stated above.
Cruel and unusual. Unconstitutional.
Barbaric
I can’t think of a time in human history where we weren’t barbaric.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t change but I sure a fuck don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Don’t they have bullets? Gassing people seems very cruel and unusual. Being shot is not unusual.
I’m not pro-death penalty, but if it’s going to be done at least get the shit right.
deleted by creator
They don’t. They put a gas mask on the prisoner, which lets oxygen in, rather than putting them in an airtight chamber.
My understanding is that the problem with the gas mask is not oxygen, but rather it’s so small that CO2 builds up, so the prisoner feels that they are suffocating.
A problem that has been solved for respirators meant for breathing, including in space when you don’t want to just expel the air to the surrounding environment. If it’s ok to expel it to the environment, the technology is as simple as a rubber flap over a hole in the mask.
Though reading more about it, there are mechanisms that could still cause distress even if the mask is designed to expel CO2 properly, including CO2 poisoning because the body’s ability to expel it can be compromised by the lack of oxygen. And it’s possible that executionees experience inert gas asphyxiation differently from accidental victims because they are aware of what’s happening while accidental victims might pass out without ever realizing they were dying, which can affect the way the body uses resources.
I always wondered why they don’t just drain their blood until they die. Seems like the most painless and easiest way to do it.
The norm in the US – lethal injection – is apparently to essentially knock someone out, then stop their heart. I don’t imagine that one feels anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection
In most states, the intravenous injection is a series of drugs given in a set sequence, designed to first induce unconsciousness followed by death through paralysis of respiratory muscles and/or by cardiac arrest through depolarization of cardiac muscle cells. The execution of the condemned in most states involves three separate injections (in sequential order):
-
Sodium thiopental or pentobarbital: ultra-short-action barbiturate, an anesthetic agent used at a high dose that renders the person unconscious in less than 30 seconds. Depression of respiratory activity is one of the characteristic actions of this drug. Consequently, the lethal-injection doses, as described in the Sodium Thiopental section below, will—even in the absence of the following two drugs—cause death due to lack of breathing, as happens with overdoses of opioids.
-
Pancuronium bromide: non-depolarizing muscle relaxant, which causes complete, fast, and sustained paralysis of the striated skeletal muscles, including the diaphragm and the rest of the respiratory muscles; this would eventually cause death by asphyxiation.
-
Potassium chloride: a potassium salt, which increases the blood and cardiac concentration of potassium to stop the heart via an abnormal heartbeat and thus cause death by cardiac arrest.
The problem with that is dosages. First drug knocks you out, second drug paralyzes you, third drug stops your heart. But if you fuck up the dosages, the first drug wears off while the second drug is still in effect. So you are awake but paralyzed and can’t move, so nobody knows you are awake. That leaves you conscious while your heart dies which is quite painful.
The companies that make the drugs used to perform lethal injection have refused to participate in the death penalty any longer which is why other forms are being explored.
The drug companies didn’t exactly decide to step away from the death penalty fully on their own initiative. They were threatened with criminal prosecutions in Europe for abetting executions in the United States.
I fully support drug companies not wanting their medications to be used to kill people. On the other hand, we give our dogs and cats painless deaths with their drugs and, if we’re going to be killing people, they deserve the same dignity.
I agree…. If it’s their choice. Not as punishment
-
Keep it Classy Alabama
Why all this trouble when $20 of fentenyl from the dealer outside the courthouse would do the job
Because drug companies don’t want to sell to states for the purpose of murder.
I mean, a bullet to the head generally kills people very quickly and relatively painlessly.
It’s about making it more palatable for observers.
Lethal injection was much, much less humane than the guillotine, but it wasn’t as pretty so that’s what we switched to.
