Just another botched execution...

[Nippelspanner]

"According to the Arizona Attorney General’s office (https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-tom-horne-announces-execution-joseph-r-wood-iii), Joseph R. Wood III, who was sentenced to death for killing his ex-girlfriend and her father in 1991, was pronounced dead at 3:49pm, nearly two hours after his execution commenced at 1:52p.m."
Source (http://time.com/3026551/arizona-execution-botched-lethal-injection/)

Well done US of A! :yeah:
Good to see how valuable human rights are in that country.
Now they started to experiment on people to see if a fantasy-death-cocktail is actually working,
so greetings to "Dr." Mengele when you see him, whoever is ultimately responsible for this mess. :doh:

While I sure have no sympathies for a murderer, I hold even less for a system that lets things like this happen, over and over and over again.

I wonder,
How advanced is a country really when it still wants to rely on barbaric and dark-age-like laws and punishments, unable to learn from past mistakes - like so many other countries?

Anyways, inbeforetheclassics:
- "He murderer, he no rights!"
- "Death penalty ensures he won't do it again!"
- "Ask the victims how they feel about this!"
- "Dur durkin urr durth pernaltey!"

Gah! :shifty:

[AngusJS]

It's been proven that the death penalty in the US doesn't prevent crime. It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life in the current system. And despite all the safeguards, we still are putting innocent people on death row.

:nope:

[vanjast]

OP, So would you still say the same thing if it was your sister/father that were done in by this guy - maybe he felt the pain he's caused.

People are all very righteous, until the ..1t hits their fan.. then you see a different story.
:03:

[vanjast]

It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life in the current system. And despite all the safeguards, we still are putting innocent people on death row.
:nope:

..and putting criminals back on the streets to repeat the same crimes - the cost would then be .. how much ?

[CCIP]

OP, So would you still say the same thing if it was your sister/father that were done in by this guy - maybe he felt the pain he's caused.

People are all very righteous, until the ..1t hits their fan.. then you see a different story.
:03:

That's a pretty stupid myth and paints people in a very negative, primitive light. Is there like, a magical substance that gets released from the tears of the dying criminal that can be made into medicine for grieving relatives? Is there an implication here that death can actually make people happy?

I lost a very close family member to murder a few years ago, over nothing more than about $400 worth of goods, and I can say that I've never felt any desire for the guy who did it to be executed. Although I've never had the opportunity, if I did have to face the perpetrator in court, I would probably be there arguing for leniency on him.

Punitive and retributionary justice is a stupid and medieval idea. Justice needs to be protecting and improving society. People are better than this.

[Skybird]

Often explained by me: the meaning of a punishment is that the subject lives to feel the punishment. In modern understanding, it is not that much eye-for-an-eye anymore, although this is is argued by libertarian thinking and to some degree I tend to agree with it, but modern understanding is the alteration of the subject's behaviour, and compensation of damage. "Death penalty" therefore is a contradiction in itself. I accept it only under most serious, rare, and special conditions, to prevent future acts of major crime that does by far not qualify for ordinary everyday murder, robbery and the like. I think of bosses of organised crime clans, major figures in drug and slave trafficking, weapon traders, Führer-figures of ideological extremism and according situation who in prison could become the excuse to commit terror in order to blackmail the state for their release, and criminals of high ranks and power who cannot be prevented to influence the business of their cartel form inside a prison.

Bank robbery, simple streets murder, rape - are NOT what I have on mind.

Why they do not simply use a pistol and a bullet and execute the death penalty on the day the judge announced it instead of letting the subject wait for years to get killed, will be forever beyond me.

The rate of errors in death penalty verdicts, is extremely high. That so many subject that were executed later were shown to be innocent or guilty of lesser deeds that by the law would not deserving execution, gives a loud and sound verdict against the general implementation of death penalties as a routine tool of jurisdiction and law enforcement. The state, this monopolised criminal, murders too many innocents as if this practice can be tolerated. And once murdered and dead, any mistake can no longer be corrected and compensated.

The scare factor from death penalties, preventing crime, is very low, if it even exists. that is because most deeds that get sentenced with death are committed in situation where the individual does not and is not able anymore to reasonably judge and weigh and make reasonable assessments, but is on adrenaline, or in social group situations where expectations by others take over control of the individual's decisions all too easily. When emotions have taken over, reason and sanity flee right out of the window. An individual that is in the state of mental irrationality, facing group dynamics and/or feels the adrenaline pumpi8ng through its veins, is extremely difficult to be effected anymore by telling it the consequences of its deeds.

[banryu79]

It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life in the current system.
What!? :o It is really so? Could you, please share your source for this information?

[Dread Knot]

My biggest issue with the death penalty is that there is a really thin line between justice and vengeance. We want justice, but having a justice system based on vengeance and retribution seems like a big backward step in the civilization stakes.

Capital punishment seems awful on so many counts, unsafe convictions, the sometimes decades long interval between the crime and carrying out the sentence, the finality of the sentence, the lack of deterrent effect that this supposed 'punishment' has, the use of violence on the violent, the focus on vengeance rather than forgiveness. Now you can add botched executions to the list. Is it any wonder that the list of states that have either abolished it, or put moratoriums on it keeps growing?

On a lighter note, I've always favored an Escape from New York approach. :D Perhaps some desolate spot in the Aleutians. But sooner or later some intrepid reporter or social justice warrior will drop in for a look-see, and a tragedy will result....:-?

[Jimbuna]

A hot topic for most people regardless of their beliefs whether they be for or against.

[Tribesman]

Now you can add botched executions to the list. Is it any wonder that the list of states that have either abolished it, or put moratoriums on it keeps growing?


Blame the Europeans, if they didn't ban the sale of the drugs for executions then the US wouldn't be using these experimental cocktails.

On a lighter note, I've always favored an Escape from New York approach. :D Perhaps some desolate spot in the Aleutians. But sooner or later some intrepid reporter or social justice warrior will drop in for a look-see, and a tragedy will result....:-?
They tried that, today it is called Australia

[Schroeder]

What always boggles my mind is how the US is carrying out the sentences. What's wrong with a guillotine or a shot in the neck (make that two if the gunner screws up the first)? But no, it had to be fancy with gas (not a pleasant way to die when your lung is full of acid which makes you drown in your own blood), electricity (what idiot ever got that idea???) or injecting funny cocktails that take hours to "work".
You can think about capital punishment what you want but the way the US carries them out is just disgusting and barbaric. Hell, if a country like North Kore has more humane execution methods (shot in the neck/head) then something is really messed up.

[Dread Knot]

Blame the Europeans, if they didn't ban the sale of the drugs for executions then the US wouldn't be using these experimental cocktails.

Some Southern states are thinking of dusting off the electric chair. I just don't see that flying well in any department. Not to mention what might result from an unexpected power surge. :nope: Executions seem to be plagued by bad karma lately.


They tried that, today it is called Australia :rotfl2:

So if we set up a penal colony on Adak Island, maybe in 200 years we get the arctic version of Vegemite, Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman? :)

[Feuer Frei!]

this information?

Amongst others:

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.U2GuaMdOS9M

However:

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/04-01_rep_mdtreatmentorincarceration_ac-dp.pdf


Prisons are big business.

[Feuer Frei!]

injecting funny cocktails that take hours to "work"
Only in botched administration.

You can think about capital punishment what you want but the way the US carries them out is just disgusting and barbaric. Hell, if a country like North Kore has more humane execution methods (shot in the neck/head) then something is really messed up.

Let's not trivialize the reason why the majority of these so called people are there in the first place.
Botched administration doesn't make for pleasant viewing in the gallery.
But really, should this be entertainment in the first place?
Humane treatment is subjective.
Treatment via injection, gas chamber, shot to the neck, beheading, hanging, are any of these humane?
What makes a execution humane?
An execution that is clean, easy on the eye, death coming quickly with no pain?

Once again, we are trivializing just who these people are and how they got there for the treatment in the first place.
Let's not lose focus on that and argue about what's humane and what's not.
For the person that was (rightly convicted) of IN-humane acts towards others, deserves a HUMANE death?

Does the administration of lethal injection make us the same as the mass murderer or mass rapist?

If we have to ask this question, then we've lost focus already.

[Oberon]

Let's not trivialize the reason why the majority of these so called people are there in the first place.


So the execution of an innocent person is what? Collateral damage? :hmmm:

[Feuer Frei!]

So the execution of an innocent person is what? Collateral damage? :hmmm:

You're putting words in my mouth.
And conveniently leaving out "For the person that was (rightly convicted) of IN-humane acts towards others, deserves a HUMANE death?"

I should have been more specific and literal in the sentence you quoted me on.

[vanjast]

Punitive and retributionary justice is a stupid and medieval idea. Justice needs to be protecting and improving society. People are better than this.

Being lenient on criminals, is to give them 'carte blanche' to continue their medieval ways without fear of punishment.

Like it or not Vengence, Fear and Retribution are of the few deterrents in the arsenal.

Sure it won't stop crime as you always have idiots in this world, but it certainly will go a long way to prevent the anarchy that will result from no heed to common law - eg: your criminals

[Oberon]

You're putting words in my mouth.
And conveniently leaving out "For the person that was (rightly convicted) of IN-humane acts towards others, deserves a HUMANE death?"

I should have been more specific and literal in the sentence you quoted me on.

The catch is making sure the right person is rightly convicted.

If you imprison a person for life and he's later found to be innocent, you can let him go and compensate him, if you execute him, you can't very well resurrect him (or her for that matter).

[Tribesman]

Being lenient on criminals, is to give them 'carte blanche' to continue their medieval ways without fear of punishment.




By "Lenient" you mean not killing them?

[Feuer Frei!]

The catch is making sure the right person is rightly convicted.

If you imprison a person for life and he's later found to be innocent, you can let him go and compensate him, if you execute him, you can't very well resurrect him (or her for that matter).

Agreed.
But this thread is bringing out the moral crusaders who are arguing for a clean pleasant treatment.

Not the rightful conviction crusaders.

Arguing about whether to use a treatment method or not, when the crime was abhorrent.

Strange.

[Wolferz]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
If we followed that idea, we wouldn't be able to cobble together an execution squad. Locking them in a cage and throwing away the key isn't more humane in my book. Forget the drugs, just put one in the brain stem and shut them off from the computer. Quick and easy and the perp won't feel a thing. If we really wanted to punish these animals, we would toss them into a pit full of hungry alligators and let nature take its course. Televise it on a reality show and the number of heinous crimes might inch toward zero. The Vegas bookies would have a field day with people betting on how long the criminal would last.:huh:

[Oberon]

Agreed.
But this thread is bringing out the moral crusaders who are arguing for a clean pleasant treatment.

Not the rightful conviction crusaders.

Arguing about whether to use a treatment method or not, when the crime was abhorrent.

Strange.

However, how much satisfaction does a tortured death bring? And how are we different from they if we inflict that upon others, even if they are guilty?

[Feuer Frei!]

And while the moral crusaders are out and about strolling around, it seems the much-advertised 'agonizing, hell hath no fury, inhumane and absolutely worse than the crime committed death the crim endured, seems inconclusive.
Not clear-cut.

Only thing that is clear-cut is that a treatment was adminiistered which took longer than the usual 5-18 minutes that a normal 3-drug treatment lasts for.

counted several hundred of his wheezesSounds painful and agonizing. Asthmatic who never done wrong in his or her life wheezes all their life.

One thing is certain, however, inmate Wood died in a lawful manner, and by eyewitness and medical accounts he did not sufferThis from the Governor, Brewer.
Sounds like a horrible agonizing death doesn't it?

The question of whether he suffered divided those who watched the procedureDoesn't sound conclusive to me.

A spokeswoman for the Arizona attorney general's office who was also a witness disputed that. “There was no gasping of air. There was snoring,” Stephanie Grisham said. “He just laid there. It was quite peaceful.Another account of an agonizing terrible death.

And so on....

Once again, let's not trivialize this.

And play to the sensationalized as per usual, and of course unsurprising reports from 'reporters'/media.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-execution-20140723-story.html

[Tribesman]

Arguing about whether to use a treatment method or not, when the crime was abhorrent.

Strange.
Tell that to Turing.

[banryu79]

Amongst others:

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.U2GuaMdOS9M

However:

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/04-01_rep_mdtreatmentorincarceration_ac-dp.pdf


Prisons are big business.
Thanks.

I red the articles linked above. At first accuratley, then (when I recognized that the things said even if in different articles was word-by-word almost excatley the same -- a strong indicator of a single original source that is cited many times) I skimmed the last articles very rapidly.

When I was referring to "sources" I was thinking about something more authoritative than media articles, but if I really want to inform myself seriously about this matter I should take for myself the burden od the search.

Btw, I have to take my time to read the last link, the .pdf one.

Thanks again for sharing.

The only thing I want to comment about death penalty and this case is that I found *ABSURD* to kill the comdamend 15 years after the crime.
I mean, 15 years are a long, long time. How do we know we are killing the same person that did what he did? 15 years are a long time.

[Rockstar]

There wouldn't be a dang thing to argue about had this clown just stayed home and refrained from extingushing the lives of two people. It's not the states fault, it's not the victims fault, it's not the justice systems fault. It is his fault that he had to go through what he went through, no one else is to blame.

[Dread Knot]

Thanks.



The only thing I want to comment about death penalty and this case is that I found *ABSURD* to kill the comdamend 15 years after the crime.
I mean, 15 years are a long, long time. How do we know we are killing the same person that did what he did? 15 years are a long time.

Actually in this case it was 25 years ago. The murders took place in 1989.

[Aktungbby]

The catch is making sure the right person is rightly convicted.

If you imprison a person for life and he's later found to be innocent, you can let him go and compensate him, if you execute him, you can't very well resurrect him (or her for that matter).

HEY! there is always the posthumous pardon (formal quash?)! who needs resurrection! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans) & on our side of the pond: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-posthumous-pardons-united-states (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-posthumous-pardons-united-states) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/Timothy_Evans_Grave.JPG/220px-Timothy_Evans_Grave.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timothy_Evans_Grave.JPG)

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I don't start arguing whether death penalty is good or not. I just ask this: If botched executions are problem, why don't you behead the convict? Guillotine should be relatively reliable and you can always have traditional axe as back up. :hmmm:

[mapuc]

Don't know if I should wish there were death penalty for some type of criminality in my country or not.
And again when thinking about it....not really

In the last 20 years, two male person have been accused and jailed for many years and it turned out they were innocent. Imagine these two person had been executed....

Markus

[Platapus]

Why can't we just use the same drugs we use to put down dogs and cats?

[Nippelspanner]

OP, So would you still say the same thing if it was your sister/father that were done in by this guy - maybe he felt the pain he's caused.

People are all very righteous, until the ..1t hits their fan.. then you see a different story.
:03:
Ah, the firs one to reply with a "classic" logical phallacy (apply to emotion...)

But NO.
I would not feel the same. I would want to kill that guy with my own hands, most likely and sure would like to see him suffer... and you know why?
Cause I am human and controlled/influenced by my emotions.

That doesn't make it right though!

So: :03: right back at you.

:/\\!!

[Platapus]

OP, So would you still say the same thing if it was your sister/father that were done in by this guy - maybe he felt the pain he's caused.

People are all very righteous, until the ..1t hits their fan.. then you see a different story.
:03:

If a member of my family were involved, my opinion would be subjective and emotional. Which is why we want objective people to make these decisions. We don't want people who are emotionally subjective to make these decisions.

That's the only way we should do things in our society.

[Feuer Frei!]

Why can't we just use the same drugs we use to put down dogs and cats?

They already do:

pentobarbital. Called Nembutal.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-execution-hearn-animal-583/

https://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=68249

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/LethalInjectionInfographic.jpg

[Armistead]

It's been proven that the death penalty in the US doesn't prevent crime. It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life in the current system. And despite all the safeguards, we still are putting innocent people on death row.

:nope:


We should make it pay for view to cover the cost and maybe get a message across..

[Buddahaid]

We should make it pay for view to cover the cost and maybe get a message across..

Which message would that be?

[Stealhead]

That paying to watch is fun.:hmmm:

[Cybermat47]

If the death penalty has to be administered, make sure that the person is guilty, and make the execution as humane as possible. Just because the criminal is a cruel bastard doesn't mean we have to be :down:

[razark]

Which message would that be?
"Killing is wrong. Now watch us kill this guy!"

[Feuer Frei!]

If the death penalty has to be administered, make sure that the person is guilty, and make the execution as humane as possible. Just because the criminal is a cruel bastard doesn't mean we have to be :down:

Guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with this thread.
Like Oberon, you are debating the wrong point here.

We are led to believe by the op's article that the crim was rightfully convicted and tried to be executed, as per that state's law.
Let's treat this as a guilty verdict and not debate the possibilities and implications of wrongful convictions in this thread.
Which doesn't address the point of this thread at all.


It's clear the op posted the thread to discuss the morality or in his opinion the lack of morality in the treatment of lethal injection.

The conviction or wrongful conviction is a entirely different debate which isn't the point of this thread.

Are lethal injections barbaric?
No.
A normal time line of administration and the time of death is mostly 5 to 18 minutes.
Admittedly, the administration of barbituates is not necessary, as has been admitted by medical staff and also veternarians. I use vets because 2 drug(s) that i know of are used to put down animals has and is being used to execute humans.

A 1 drug injection has been introduced in most states, but not all.
The 3 drug injection is still being used by some states, and 2 of these drugs are barbituates.
The 3rd is the 1 that kills you.


As with everything in life, mistakes are and can be made.
You (as in general) cannot tell me that the state has the simple goal in mind that when executing someone that the primary objective is to make that person suffer.
Seems some people are arguing that that may be the case.
There are of course restrictions on drugs to any organisation in place that practices executions.
These organisations often then purchase the drug or drugs from underground or obscure non-reputable pharmacies to administer the execution.
Hence where some of these botched executions take place.


If the people are purely debating the moral implications of a lethal injections based on botched reports, which have been sensationalized by the media, (see my post further down to highlight the latimes article), then that needs to be looked at and revised.
Rather than just bleating and making a uneducated often and ill-informed opinion.
Or at least a more solid and reasonable debate needs to be put forward to counter the administration of lethal injections, to persuade the victim's families and also the state and us on the side of 'why in the hell are we debating what drug was used and how it was administered, considering the often violent crime(s) committed by the accused which sort of puts that debate into a revision area.

Purely debating that lethal injections are barbaric is a weak argument.

[Tribesman]

Purely debating that lethal injections are barbaric is a weak argument.
Yet you have already provided enough proof that they are.
If it wasn't barbaric then there wouldn't be any problem sourcing the materials from open and reputable manufacturers.
Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.
Well my dear, that sounds like a textbook definition of barbaric behaviour.

[Feuer Frei!]

Yet you have already provided enough proof that they are.
If it wasn't barbaric then there wouldn't be any problem sourcing the materials from open and reputable manufacturers.
Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.
Well my dear, that sounds like a textbook definition of barbaric behaviour.

You and i seem to have a different view on the term barbaric then.

And if you think that posting the latimes article and the quotes i pulled from that article prove that i agree that i think lethal injections are barbaric then i'm sorry my dear, but you may be putting words in my mouth.

The use of drugs that are used for our furry friends to execute humans also doesn't prove that lethal injections are barbaric.

Me posting the fact that because of supply issues and costs associated with obtaining drugs to execute criminals from drug suppliers also doesn't prove that lethal injections are barbaric.
You may say that the drug companies stopped because they think it's unconstitutional and inhumane.
That is their viewpoint.
A viewpoint doesn't make it fact.
Especially when you consider that most executions are carried out peacefully and quite normally.


The only reason i see so far bandied about by the antis is that because a clenched fist, wheezing up to 600 times (all allegedly), breathing, and being alive longer than the normal duration of anywhere btw 5 and 18 minutes is barbaric, then well, we have a difference of opinion.
And a different definition of barbaric.
Which can happen.

Barbaric-exceedingly brutal, savage, vicious, heinous, murderous,
inhumane.

Lots of things come to mind when looking at those definitions.

Lethal injections aren't one of them.

If there were no botched executions via lethal injection, would we be debating this thread? Would this thread even exist?
Doubt it very much.

[vanjast]

For a 'normal society' to function there has to be some form of 'limits and control'.

If you just stand back and say I'm not going to be a savage (I'm like too above that) while savage's are killing you off - you are going to be killed sooner than later.

The concept of the Death Penalty and other forms of punishment didn't just appear out of thin air - it became a necessity for society to function in a peaceful way.

Read HG Wells' Time Traveller.. it explains the pacifist scenario very aptly.
:arrgh!:

[banryu79]

This affirmation is most intresting:

The concept of the Death Penalty and other forms of punishment didn't just appear out of thin air - it became a necessity for society to function in a peaceful way.

What about states in which "death penalty" is not part of the "forms of punishment"? Are these states not functioning in a "peaceful way"?

Are, instead, the states in which death penalty is used as a form of punishment, functioning in a "peaceful way"?

Another one: are states with death penalty functioning in a *more* "paeceful way" than states without death penalty?

Finally: is death penalty *necessary* for a state to make it "functioning in a peaceful way"?

[Tribesman]

You and i seem to have a different view on the term barbaric then.

Yes, mine fits the definition.:yep:

And if you think that posting the latimes article and the quotes i pulled from that article prove that i agree that i think lethal injections are barbaric then i'm sorry my dear, but you may be putting words in my mouth.

I don't think they prove that you agree, they simply prove that you are wrong.

The use of drugs that are used for our furry friends to execute humans also doesn't prove that lethal injections are barbaric.

Horses for courses old boy.
If you wish to equate humans with guinea pigs then it says a lot about you and your views


You may say that the drug companies stopped because they think it's unconstitutional and inhumane.
That is their viewpoint.
A viewpoint doesn't make it fact.

Since their viewpoint would be considered an expert viewpoint by specialists in the business then it is based on fact unless you can prove that the experts are wrong.

If there were no botched executions via lethal injection, would we be debating this thread?
But since there are and we are what is your point?

Lots of things come to mind when looking at those definitions.

Lethal injections aren't one of them.

I think you do not understand what you are talking about.
Let me repeat it.....

Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.

[Feuer Frei!]

Yes, mine fits the definition.:yep:

Your viewpoint. Not mine.


I don't think they prove that you agree, they simply prove that you are wrongThey prove a whole lot more than that i agree with their summation: that it isn't barbaric.
If you want to jump on the press bandwagon and be swayed by sensationalist reporting, be my guest.
You should read my quotes from the latimes again, which addresses the op's concerns that this particular case of lethal injection was barbaric.
The reports from the governor, amongst others, were of a event which unfortunately for you doesn't fit your definition of barbarity.
If you think their descriptions of the event that took place defines barbarity, well.....


Horses for courses old boy.
If you wish to equate humans with guinea pigs then it says a lot about you and your viewsNow now, let's not spin this into a trivialization and make a mountain out of a mole hill.
And furthermore assume what i think of humanity, and that my morals towards humanity aren't in the right place.
I don't know if you know but we are addressing the op's point about this particular case where a crim was lawfully dealt with, in that state.
Was it barbaric that a treatment of lethal injection was given to that crim?
You say yes, i say no.
We agree to disagree.
If you want to start assuming that my moral fibres are lacking towards humans then we need to discuss that in another thread.
Here, in this thread, we are discussing the lawful execution of said crim.
Which has put some poeple's noses out of joint, including yours.

You have your own vision of what occurred there it seems, which conveniently doesn't fit in with the reports of the governor, amongst others.


Since their viewpoint would be considered an expert viewpoint by specialists in the business then it is based on fact unless you can prove that the experts are wrongWhat is based on fact?
That the drugs don't work?
Rubbish.
The only thing the viewpoint is based on is that it's unconstitutional and inhumane.
That's not fact, that's a moral stance.
The drugs work, lab tests are conducted, which proves that the drugs work.
The botched lethal injections occur due to inexperienced administration of the drug or drugs.
Not because specialists have said that they don't work.
I will admit that specialists (not the ones consulting drug companies who have banned the supply) admitted that in the case of the 3 drug adminsitration, the first 2, which are barbituates, are really not necessary, and a lethal does of the third is only needed.
That's as far as that goes.
Hence why there are only a few states left that administer 3 drugs


But since there are and we are what is your point?My point is that are lethal injections ok if there are no botched executions via lethal injection.



I think you do not understand what you are talking about.I understand perfectly what i'm talking about.
Lethal Injections.
Am i right or am i right?

Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.
You are saying that all drugs are untested in labs before the supply is completed?
Think carefully here.
No experimentation is occurring, it's the administering of a single drug, in most states, apart from a few from 2009, which are still using the 3 drug injection, which is tried and proven.
If we were still in the experimental stages, as you claim, then i can guarantee you there would be a hell of a lot of botched executions, and a hell of a lot of threads like this started.
And people like you defining barbarity as something which only ties in with their moral beliefs.

We agree to disagree, this debate will go around and around and around.

EDIT: And i think we may have to define what a human is and what is not human.
Now i'm sure you will come up with a definition and comparison with a human who commits no crimes and is a law-abiding citizen, and a human who commits rape, pillage, murder, paedophilia and any other lovely crimes you wish to put into that fold to describe someone who is not human.
Are they both human? Genetics would say yes.
Do they deserve a clean and humane death, with absolutely no botched chances forthcoming?
I think that's where you stand.
I don't unfortunately, or actually, fortunately share your stance on that.

So questioning my moral fibre on my vies on whether a paedophile should be cared for and looked after until his or her final moments and that we should strive to uphold humanity and every moral fibre in our bodies to ensure that they not be given a barbaric execution is thankfully not something i need to stress about.

[Armistead]

Which message would that be?


Don't trust the govt. for a proper execution!

Something to think about before you kill people.

[Tribesman]

Your viewpoint. Not mine.

By definition, use any dictionary you want.

They prove a whole lot more than that i agree with their summation: that it isn't barbaric.

Yes dear, civilised proceedures don't require the politicians involved having to order an inquest into the screw up.

You should read my quotes from the latimes again
And?

Now now, let's not spin this into a trivialization and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

You are supporting fatal medical experimentation on humans, you don't have a leg to stand on.

And furthermore assume what i think of humanity, and that my morals towards humanity aren't in the right place.
You are supporting fatal medical experimentation on humans, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't know if you know but we are addressing the op's point about this particular case where a crim was lawfully dealt with, in that state.

You are supporting fatal medical experimentation on humans, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Get it yet?

Here, in this thread, we are discussing the lawful execution of said crim.

Is that the botched execution they have ordered an inquiry into?

What is based on fact?

the fact is that legitimate suppliers are refusing to sell the chemicals. Perhaps they refuse because it is not profitable to sell things?
Perhaps they refuse because they view it as barbaric?
One of those doesn't make sense, can you see which it is?

The drugs work, lab tests are conducted, which proves that the drugs work.

Really, can you supply the studies?
Pretty hard to find human subjects to volunteer for the clinical evaluation isn't it.:hmmm:
Perhaps you could rehash some of 731s work, though of course such studies are uncivilised and barbaric which is why the people that did them were called heinous criminals.

The botched lethal injections occur due to inexperienced administration of the drug or drugs.

Are you trying really hard to make my point?:rotfl2:

My point is that are lethal injections ok if there are no botched executions via lethal injection.


Yet there are so it isn't.


Am i right or am i right?

Not in the slightest.

You are saying that all drugs are untested in labs before the supply is completed?
Think carefully here
Horses for course.

And i think we may have to define what a human is and what is not human.

congratulations, you have gone into the sub human mode.
So that's not just 731, you have gone full on Buchenwald.
Never go full on Buchenwald.:doh:

[Jimbuna]

I see both of you sinking into that level of condescention using the term "Yes Dear".

Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with each others opinions and viewpoints but try debating in a more acceptable way.

I'm off to work now but have asked another moderator to act appropriately should the need arise.

TIA of your cooperation.

[Aktungbby]

That paying to watch is fun.:hmmm:

We should make it pay for view to cover the cost and maybe get a message across.. Don't trust the govt. for a proper execution!

Something to think about before you kill people.

A conservative federal appeals judge called for replacing lethal injection with firing squads: "Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and beautiful — like something any one of us might experience in our final moments," U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in a dissent in the Arizona death penalty case of Joseph Rudolph Wood III.
"But executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf....I personally think we should go to the guillotine,:/\\chop but shooting is probably the right way to go,":o Kozinski said." I personally disagree as wild crime ridden river-town Napa has a history of its own. Napa has the dubious distinction of being the site of the last public hanging in the state. It happened back in 1897 for a murder that so enraged the Napa community that instead of sending the criminal to San Quentin Prison, the judge turned the responsibility over to the Napa sheriff so the hanging could occur in the Napa County Jail yard. In preparing for the hanging, the sheriff hired carpenters to build a corrugated iron fence enclosure in the county jail's yard. It was 40 feet long and 34 feet wide. He also ordered a platform for visitors to view the hanging. 400 tickets were sold and the rope cut into souvenirs; the noose was retained by the sheriff.
"January 15, 1897, Roe was led from the jail to the wooden gallows. A photographer was present to take the official photo. One of the doctors who attended Roe's autopsy managed to get hold of the body and took the bones to a roof in downtown Napa to bleach them. He then put the skeleton back together. It reportedly was used to teach high school students taking biology courses. Eventually it disappeared in the '60s, and its whereabouts are unknown today." A proper hanging can be a career stepping stone::up: "In 1870, Grover Cleveland was elected sheriff of Erie County, New York, in which capacity he personally oversaw the hanging of two condemned men. On September 6, 1872, Grover Cleveland personally served as the hangman to the convicted murderer Patrick Morrissey. So infamous was the murderer, his execution was covered by the New York Times. Morrisey had stabbed his widowed mother to death while drunk.
The Erie County Sheriff was empowered to carry out death sentences, and instead of delegating the job to one of his deputies or an assistant, he decided to take responsibility for the handing of Morrissey himself. He tripped the engine of execution with his own hands, as he would again, on February 14, 1873, when he again personally hanged another murderer, John Gaffney. Both executions took place in public. The Republicans hung on him the pejorative nickname "The Buffalo Hangman.". Within 11 years the chief executioner was a 'hands on':doh: chief executive.:smug:

[vanjast]

This affirmation is most intresting:

What about states in which "death penalty" is not part of the "forms of punishment"? Are these states not functioning in a "peaceful way"?

Are, instead, the states in which death penalty is used as a form of punishment, functioning in a "peaceful way"?

Another one: are states with death penalty functioning in a *more* "paeceful way" than states without death penalty?

Finally: is death penalty *necessary* for a state to make it "functioning in a peaceful way"?

A hypothetical country - consists of 2 states, one has the death penalty and one doesn't, and criminals can be extradited across states.

Where would the murderers be living ?
Where is the highest probability of homicide/murders likely to be committed.

You open a loophole and the criminal mind will be through before you can blink.

Look what Hitler got away with, until it was too late - the cost was 50 million lives. His was a criminal mind and the world 'appeased' him for too long - an extreme example, but it happens if you let it.
:)

[scott613]

Lethal injection, hanging, guillotine, firing squad, electric chair, keel hauled, or drawn and quartered all fine with me as long as they have the same end result - far too much focus on the criminals - not nearly enough on the victims - if you ask me...

[Tribesman]

A hypothetical country - consists of 2 states, one has the death penalty and one doesn't, and criminals can be extradited across states.

Where would the murderers be living ?
Where is the highest probability of homicide/murders likely to be committed.

You open a loophole and the criminal mind will be through before you can blink.

Look what Hitler got away with, until it was too late - the cost was 50 million lives. His was a criminal mind and the world 'appeased' him for too long - an extreme example, but it happens if you let it.
:)

Provide any evidence linking homicide rates with the presence or absence of the death penalty.
Good luck with that.

[Schroeder]

Look what Hitler got away with, until it was too late - the cost was 50 million lives. His was a criminal mind and the world 'appeased' him for too long - an extreme example, but it happens if you let it.
:)
Hitler had a lot of people executed and the death penalty was ever present in Nazi Germany...guess it was the most peaceful nation on earth....

[Betonov]

Well, Slovenia has one of the lowest rime rates, and the worst punishment one can get is 30 years in prison.

[Tribesman]

Hitler had a lot of people executed and the death penalty was ever present in Nazi Germany...guess it was the most peaceful nation on earth....
Plus they conducted fatal medical experimentation on humans.:yep:
Though of course it was only done on criminals and other sub humans

[Onkel Neal]

That's a pretty stupid myth and paints people in a very negative, primitive light. Is there like, a magical substance that gets released from the tears of the dying criminal that can be made into medicine for grieving relatives? Is there an implication here that death can actually make people happy?

I lost a very close family member to murder a few years ago, over nothing more than about $400 worth of goods, and I can say that I've never felt any desire for the guy who did it to be executed. Although I've never had the opportunity, if I did have to face the perpetrator in court, I would probably be there arguing for leniency on him.

.


Sure throwing the word "stupid" around a lot. It's stupid to keep these type of criminals alive in prison, just shoot them. That works most of the time.

Punitive and retributionary justice is a stupid and medieval idea. Justice needs to be protecting and improving society. People are better than this.

You're living in a dreamworld. You should spend a little more time focusing on what these "people" have done to merit a death penalty.

It's been proven that the death penalty in the US doesn't prevent crime. It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life in the current system. And despite all the safeguards, we still are putting innocent people on death row.



It may cost more, but that's only because of the endless appeals and bs that drags the sentence out for decades. If they would execute 30 days after a single appeal, I bet that would bring the cost down.

I will agree with you as far as putting innocent people on death row, that the standard of proof should be very high for death penalty cases. But in cases where the evidence is clear cut, someone who murders a child in cold blood has forfeited the right to continue living. And yes, that will bring the crime rate down by at the very least: 1.

[Nippelspanner]

If they would execute 30 days after a single appeal, I bet that would bring the cost down.
Yep. And it would make first page on every news paper if new/revised evidence proof the now dead "perpetrator" was not guilty.

You usually put more thoughts behind what you say, I am surprised...

[Onkel Neal]

I don't need to put a lot of thought behind simple matters like this, it doesn't require it. You're too caught up in searching for nuances when it's simple.

Let's see, you think this perp (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0725/Doctor-shoots-armed-patient-in-Philly-hospital-A-gun-rights-case-is-born)will be miraculously found "not guilty"?

Judge: "I sentence you to death."
Firing squad: "Bang!"
Next day: OMG! that guy was innocent! It was some other guy who shot the case worker, the doc shot a guy who he owed money to.":rotfl2:

Like I said above, the standard of proof needs to be pretty high, but there are a lot of cases like that where there is no doubt, not just a reasonable doubt. Unless you are a Hollywood screenwriter.

[Nippelspanner]

I don't need to put a lot of thought behind simple matters like this, it doesn't require it. You're too caught up in searching for nuances when it's simple.

Let's see, you think this perp (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0725/Doctor-shoots-armed-patient-in-Philly-hospital-A-gun-rights-case-is-born)will be miraculously found "not guilty"?

Judge: "I sentence you to death."
Firing squad: "Bang!"
Next day: OMG! that guy was innocent! It was some other guy who shot the case worker, the doc shot a guy who he owed money to.":rotfl2:

Like I said above, the standard of proof needs to be pretty high, but there are a lot of cases like that where there is no doubt, not just a reasonable doubt. Unless you are a Hollywood screenwriter.
You are aware that there have been enough cases of people landing on death row while being innocent after all, do you not?
And who knows how high the dark figure might be?

But... its rare so just never mind?
Most people who get killed were guilty, so it's kewl?

I am in awe.

[Onkel Neal]

You are aware that there have been enough cases of people landing on death row while being innocent after all, do you not?
And who knows how high the dark figure might be?

But... its rare so just never mind?
Most people who get killed were guilty, so it's kewl?

I am in awe.

I give you points for use of ridicule. If you cannot get someone to agree with you, that's a good backup strategy.

Yes, I think I mentioned above, there have been people on DR who were later acquitted. It's important to distinguish acquittal from "not guilty of the actual crime". And indeed, they may have been as innocent as a lamb. So, yes, to avoid this, I said the standard of proof has to be a lot higher than it has been in the past. I said that three times now. The state should not sentence someone to DR unless the proof is certain.

[Nippelspanner]

And what is "certain"?
In all cases, they were quite certain, were they not?

It doesn't work.
It isn't safe.

[Oberon]

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/20111008_WOM936_0.gif

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Death-Penalty-Map2.jpg

[mapuc]

When reading some of your post I remembered a debater, who was a very strong supporter of the death penalty

if it came to execute innocent, this person had no problems with it.


Markus

[Onkel Neal]

And what is "certain"?
In all cases, they were quite certain, were they not?

It doesn't work.
It isn't safe.

By the existing standard of proof, they thought so, but they were wrong.

What is certain? I believe I have mentioned two example in the last few posts.

When reading some of your post I remembered a debater, who was a very strong supporter of the death penalty

if it came to execute innocent, this person had no problems with it.


Markus

If you are speaking to me, you're thinking of someone else, I am not that guy. I do not want to see an innocent person executed. I do want to see guilty executed.

Oberon, charts. Explain?

[Oberon]

Oberon, charts. Explain?

Just really some information to bring to the debate, in a way it shows that corporal punishment does not necessarily affect crime rates in any meaningful manner. If you compare homicides per person in nations with and without it, there is no noticable correlation.

For example, a good portion of Western Europe doesn't use corporal punishment (if not all of it) and the homicide rate is lower than the US, and yet Russia, who also doesn't use corporal punishment has crime rate which is higher than the US, but a lower one than Uganda which has the death penalty.

Of course, you might say that this is because of the quality of life difference between Uganda, Russia, Western Europe and the US.
So, a more accurate comparison would be between two More Economically Developed Countries, but obviously population wise we cannot compare a single nation of Western Europe with that of the US...so instead it would be better to compare the whole of Western Europe with a population of around 397 million with the United States with a population of around 318 million.
So, Western Europe (without corporal punishment) vs the US (with [although I realise it varies from state to state]), and if you compare the murder rates per 100,000 inhabitants you find that in Western Europe it is 0.9 and in the United States it is 4.8, so even with a comparable population size and comparable living quality there is a greater murder rate in the US than in Western Europe. Therefore, one could certainly draw the conclusion that corporal punishment is no deterrent to those committing homicides.

Of course, there are possibly other factors that are outside of this threads scope that might affect the homicide rates in comparison between the US and Western Europe, but nevertheless it does show that corporal punishment does not necessarily equal a lower homicide rate.

[mapuc]

By the existing standard of proof, they thought so, but they were wrong.

What is certain? I believe I have mentioned two example in the last few posts.



If you are speaking to me, you're thinking of someone else, I am not that guy. I do not want to see an innocent person executed. I do want to see guilty executed.

Oberon, charts. Explain?

It wasn't about you Neal, it was a general post. It was a Danish male person who wrote this on a Danish forum many years ago.

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

In any case, I think we are witnessing the end of capital punishment in the US. Murderers and rapists will rejoice.

[Tribesman]

By the existing standard of proof, they thought so, but they were wrong.

What is certain? I believe I have mentioned two example in the last few posts.

Yes, but how do you separate the cases where they are certain they are certain from cases where they are certain they are certain but wrong?
After all they made special provisions not long ago for dealing only with the worst of the worst, then ended up locking up a huge bunch of nobodies in Cuba.
With your 30 day limit single appeal you are just asking for miscarriages of justice.
Miscarriage of justice doesn't serve the population, it doesn't serve the victims of the crime or their family, the only people it serves are the real criminals.

[Feuer Frei!]

@ Tribesman:

so i've gone full Buchenwald. :haha:
Nice analogy.
So are we now going down the often-trodden road of going full-on nazi name-calling now?
Hope so, this should be enjoyable.
You think my moral fibres are terrible?
Yet you liken me to Buchenwald.
I can't be that bad then.

You keep on championing for your lovely death row inmates.
It's ok, because i know it will make you feel better in the end, like most moral crusaders.
They can't help themselves, by picking up on something that has been sensationalised and immediately persuaded to come out in full and go all non-Buchenwald and in this case, champion the anti-lethal injection bandwagon, because you know, it's barbaric :haha:

3 'botched' injections in the last 6 mths in the United States.
Not a bad hit rate if you ask me.
Certainly doesn't seem like the execution via lethal injection is in crysis mode.

And the British ban on sodium thiopental was purely on moral grounds.
In light of new information I have taken the decision to control the export of sodium thiopental. This move underlines this government's and my own personal moral opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances without impacting legitimate trade
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11865881

i know i know, i don't need to prove your assumption wrong again and again that the Eu based their ban on other factors, such as the ineffectiveness of the drugs used for example, rather than their oh so mighty moral stance.
Perhaps you should work for them.
Seems you and them share the hazy and oh so realistic view that lethal injections are barbaric.
They certainly won't go all Buchenwald on you at least.
Unless of course the drug company wants to apply for a license to sell a drug that is on the current EU Torture ban, which can enable that drug company to go totally Buchenwald and start supplying states in the US for the executions via lethal injections.

Which they have done.

Texas uses pentobarbital, has done so since 2012, has carried out 33 executions since then, with no complications.
Oh my, sounds barbaric doesn't it?
They are going full Buchenwald, yet, with no complications, Buchenwald sounds peaceful and serene doesn't it.

I really think that people way too easily jump on the moral high horse and to make themselves feel better and to think that this will count a point for them to improve their chances to go to heaven perhaps need to re-evaluate really why they are championing this cause.
The so-called barbaric treatment of lethal injections, which i have shown to be anything but, although Tribesman thinks i'm a Buchenwald intern.

Tribesman:
So you think the Criminal's Victims were quite entitled to suffer more agonizing deaths than your barbaric treatment of lethal injection?
Where a botched treatment shows in a lot of cases a clenched fist, wheezing, gasping for air, chest raising up from the gourney, rem, as barbaric and that this should not occur because Crminals deserve much much better than what their victims did?

Time to for a hard self-evaluation again i think for you.
If it makes you feel better to be a champion for the lovely and dear crims, that have wreaked wait for it......barbaric acts of violence against their victims, and all you want to do is argue that clenched fist and wheezing, or gasping for air is barbaric and that the execution took longer than the normal time, then i think there';s not much point in continuing to debate is there?

I mean i've gone full Buchenwald haven't i?

And you've gone full-delusional.

[Nippelspanner]

Murderers and rapists will rejoice.
Right, because life in prison is so awesome, they're gonna have a ball and say "let's kill even more people!".

Pretty sure it's not how it works.

If you wanna bring numbers of homicides down, fix your society instead of experimenting with death-cocktails.

[Tribesman]

@ Tribesman:

so i've gone full Buchenwald. Unless you can find other clinical studies then yes you have.:down:

So are we now going down the often-trodden road of going full-on nazi name-calling now?
You set yourself up for it, if the cap fits:down:

You keep on championing for your lovely death row inmates.
Would you like some more straw to pack that with?

It's ok, because i know it will make you feel better in the end, like most moral crusaders.
:har::har::har::har::har:

3 'botched' injections in the last 6 mths in the United States.
Not a bad hit rate if you ask me. Yes but you don't think.

And the British ban on sodium thiopental was purely on moral grounds.
Like the ban on murder?
Weird that morals thing isn't it:rotfl2:

i know i know, i don't need to prove your assumption wrong again and again that the Eu based their ban on other factors, such as the ineffectiveness of the drugs used for example, rather than their oh so mighty moral stance.
I hate to break it to ya, but US courts ruled on it, the drugs are being used for a purpose for which they have not been tested.
You are supporting fatal medical experimentation on humans, you don't have a leg to stand on.:down:


So you think the Criminal's Victims were quite entitled to suffer more agonizing deaths than your barbaric treatment of lethal injection?
Must be a hell of a harvest for you to gather all that straw.

Texas uses pentobarbital, has done so since 2012, has carried out 33 executions since then, with no complications.
Oh my, sounds barbaric doesn't it?
You mean Nembutol designed and tested for the treatment of epilepsy.
You really like your fatal experimentation on humans don't you.:hmmm:

The so-called barbaric treatment of lethal injections, which i have shown to be anything but, although Tribesman thinks i'm a Buchenwald intern.
You have proven that you are, your own words show you to be exactly that sort of person.

I mean i've gone full Buchenwald haven't i?
Lets see, you approve of fatal human medical experimentation on "sub humans".
Yep you really have. congratulations :doh:

Time to for a hard self-evaluation again i think for you.
If it makes you feel better to be a champion for the lovely and dear crims, that have wreaked wait for it......barbaric acts of violence against their victims, and all you want to do is argue that clenched fist and wheezing, or gasping for air is barbaric and that the execution took longer than the normal time, then i think there';s not much point in continuing to debate is there?


Yoohoo planet earth calling FF....fatal medical experimentation on humans, get it yet?

And you've gone full-delusional. Have you read your regular dose of The Daily Sheeple yet?
Please keep linking to it as its good for a laugh:har:

[Oberon]

Ok, I think you two had probably better end it there before infractions start getting handed out again.

[Tribesman]

Ok, I think you two had probably better end it there before infractions start getting handed out again.
Fair enough, he already provided all the proof himself.
his definition....Barbaric-exceedingly brutal, savage, vicious, heinous, murderous, inhumane.
Now all you need to do is cross reference that with the legislation
covering these chemical substances and see how many of those other words for barbaric it contains.
After all he seems happy with the definition.:03:
Though maybe that's just European sensibilities, I suppose American based pharmaceuticals raising objections and withdrawing their products because they are not designed or tested for that purpose would be a clincher on the medical experimentation front.

[Tribesman]

Sorry to add again, but I just read this funny thing, and it ties nicely with the mention of Unit731 from earlier.

Why is there no proper testing? With the gas chamber you used to at least test the thing for leaks regularly so it would be effective; but as far as I am aware the patients are really also the guinea pigs. Moreover it does not appear adequate data is obtained from these live tests. At least the Japanese had the saving grace of properly documenting their findings.

[Oberon]

Well, I did suggest you stop, enjoy the inevitable infraction. :/\\!!

[Feuer Frei!]

Set myself up for a racial slur?
Riiiight.
Usual ignorant dribble from a non-German of course.
Shouldn't have expected much more than that.

Boring. Really boring.

If you can't come up with something a bit more imaginative than likening a German's stance on something to that of the Nazi era, then you should really look at your debating skills.
And you advertise your viewpoint on the subject of lethal injections as barbaric.
Inhumane.

Yet you have no hesitation in a ethnic slur.

Next time you want to debate something, leave the racial undertones out of it.

It would actually make you look a little more diplomatic and civilized.

Diplomacy goes a long way.

What a cruel, inhumane, brutish, uncivilized, vicious way to debate something.

Notice those definitions?

You should.


I'm done before i get an infraction for debating a subject, being subjected to a ethnic slur, defending that ethnic slur and happy to continue debating on the ethics of lethal injections, all within the bounds of the rules of this forum.

[Tribesman]

Set myself up for a racial slur?

A political slur.:know:

Riiiight.
Usual ignorant dribble from a non-German of course.
Shouldn't have expected much more than that.

That's a racial slur, it is based on nationality or ethnic origin:yep:

If you can't come up with something a bit more imaginative than likening a German's stance on something to that of the Nazi era, then you should really look at your debating skills.

There are two well known examples from the 20th century of what you advocate, I mentioned both.

And you advertise your viewpoint on the subject of lethal injections as barbaric.

Barbaric is the term for these experiments, inhumane, uncivilised.
Heinous criminals is what the medical practitioners who conducted them were called.

Yet you have no hesitation in a ethnic slur.

Political slur.

Next time you want to debate something, leave the racial undertones out of it.

Political undertones.
You advanced one angle by wishing to categorise some humans as not humans, there is a political movement which did that, they were the ones doing the experiments at Buchenwald.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, i thought that maybe your definition of barbaric was askew.
Now it seems another definition is also askew.

Political slur :haha:

So you're mudslinging then?

The spotlighting of lethal injection executions is bs.

Even moreso when the voices of the moral crusaders say that the death of a convicted murderer, or worse, is a tragedy.

The deaths and suffering of victims is too easy to ignore.

What a joke.
Are you anti-death penalty full stop?
Or just anti-lethal injection?
That's a serious, unloaded question.

I ask again:
a clenched fist, wheezing, chest raising up, snoring, gasping, heart failure, are these symptoms of the botched, i repeat, botched executions, barbaric?
If you answered yes, then there really is no hope in continuing the debate on this with you.
Stay on the EU's moral high horse, they welcome you with open arms i'm sure.
Another supporter to their delusional cause :haha:
The more the merrier right?

If you liken the lethal injection executions to that of 'experiments at Buchenwald then you really need to take a deep breath, grab yourself a glass of something potent and re-think your comparison.

You have some strange ideas about what barbaric is.

Buchenwald and a botched lethal injection.

Makes for some difficult decisions in attempting to compare the two doesn't it?

:haha:

I will add:

Why these controls have been put in place and background about UK national controls on drugs used for lethal injection

The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle and has led the way in introducing controls in this area. The UK originally imposed a national control on the export to the USA of sodium thiopental in November 2010. These controls were subsequently extended in 2011 to include controls on a further 3 drugs potentially used in execution by lethal injection - namely: potassium chloride, pancuronium bromide and sodium pentobarbital. At the same time, the UK has also been actively urging the EU Commission to implement an EU-wide control on the export of drugs used for lethal injection.

The EU-wide measures have been introduced collectively in order to ensure that controls imposed by individual EU member states can’t be circumvented by the movement of drugs across the EU. These measures will also help UK exporters competing against others.

The EU regulation supersedes the original UK measures taken to introduce national controls on drugs used for lethal injection in the United States, insofar as they apply to sodium thiopental and pentobarbital. The national controls on export to the USA of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride remain in force.

wikilink i think.

Seems the UK is your biggest ally :haha:

God bless them then.
They are doing the Lord's work then.


A matter of principle eh?

Same for you then i take it?

[Tribesman]

Well, i thought that maybe your definition of barbaric was askew.
Now it seems another definition is also askew.

Political slur :haha:

Yes a political slur, your location is irrelevant.
Did you complain that I was comparing you to Imperial Japan operating medical experimentation in Manchuria?
Did I slur you for being Japanese?
Neither did I slur you for being German.
Simple isn't it.

So you're mudslinging then?

No it is putting your views in a historical context.
You were invited to provide any other clinical studies.
Unsurprisingly you were unable so you are stuck with Buchenwald and 731.

The spotlighting of lethal injection executions is bs.

the topic is lethal injections, more specifcly the topic is ballsed up lethal injections.
If the topic is bs then don't participate.

Even moreso when the voices of the moral crusaders say that the death of a convicted murderer, or worse, is a tragedy.

....fatal medical experimentation on humans, get it yet?
You still don't get it, that is why you are getting nowhere and instead are building strawmen.

I ask again:
a clenched fist, wheezing, chest raising up, snoring, gasping, heart failure, are these symptoms of the botched, i repeat, botched executions, barbaric?

Lets see. Harvard medical school they would be experts wouldn't they.
Failed medical experiments which it would be irresponsible to continue:hmmm:
Irresponsibly continuing failed lethal medical experiments is barbaric isn't it.
Columbia University. A third of these experiments have failed. This is clearly a failed medical experiment.:hmmm:
Continuing failed medical experimentation with lethal consequences is barbaric.
John Hopkins University and Stanford . These practitioners are clearly unqualified and the proceedures are incorrect.:hmmm:
Conducting fatal medical experiments using unqualified staff and incorrect proceedures is certainly barbaric.

Stay on the EU's moral high horse, they welcome you with open arms i'm sure.

Oh sorry, those were all leading US medical faculties I just mentioned.:har:

If you liken the lethal injection executions to that of 'experiments at Buchenwald then you really need to take a deep breath, grab yourself a glass of something potent and re-think your comparison.


Once again, if you can provide any other clinical studies please do so.
If you cannot then you are stuck with comparisons to 731 and Buchenwald.
If you are uncomfortable with the comparisons and are unable to provide other clinical studies then perhaps your discomfort is telling you something about the nature of your position.:yep:

I will add:

How many words from your definition of "barbaric" are included in the legislation?

[Oberon]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4861842688/hFA6BB4A2/

[Onkel Neal]

Right, because life in prison is so awesome, they're gonna have a ball and say "let's kill even more people!".

Pretty sure it's not how it works.

If you wanna bring numbers of homicides down, fix your society instead of experimenting with death-cocktails.

Hi Nips, first I wanna apologize for being less cordial than I should be. My lame excuse, when my side of the discussion is framed as "barbaric, Medieval, and stupid", I tend to get cranky. Plus, I am touchy to the "I expected you were smarter than that" approach. :cool: Truth is, I probably am not smarter than that, but I can live with that.

Sure, prison is not a paradise, but having visited a prison as a guest, I don't think it's harsh and punitive--TV, activities, light work detail: many of the inmates have a similar life outside of prison. It's not a hell on earth.

Fix our society? We can't. Half of the population here is squishy liberal (of which includes opponents to the death penalty, btw), soft on crime, and feels the solution is to help the criminals and welfare class with more handouts and less accountability. Why do criminals become criminals? According to liberals, the "disadvantaged" didn't get the help they need in life. So lets tax the working class more, so we can provide for them. Probably we need a program where every taxpayer is assigned an underprivileged citizen to mentor, feed, and guide through life.

We're not going to fix anything, there is no fix. When hurricane Katrina kicked New Orleans in the teeth, Texans reached out and brought in 30,000 people, housed them and helped them. Now Houston crime has gone crazy, thanks for that.

Ah, another headline: Carjackers run over, kill 3 kids in Philadelphia
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/26/us/philadelphia-carjacking-3-kids-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

And the worst thing they have to look forward to: a long life in a small room, where they can read to their heart's content. That's what I call retirement.:hmm2:

[Oberon]

Liberal really is a swear word over there, isn't it? :dead:

[Platapus]

Liberal really is a swear word over there, isn't it? :dead:

It generally means having a different opinion. :D

[Oberon]

It generally means having a different opinion. :D

It just makes me sad, the hatred between the left and right in America, if I'm honest. Not that it's much better in Europe, but it seems louder in America.

[Tribesman]

It just makes me sad, the hatred between the left and right in America, if I'm honest.
Look on the bright side, from a European perspective its more like hatred between the right and the right

[Oberon]

Look on the bright side, from a European perspective its more like hatred between the right and the right

:hmmm: There is that.

[Buddahaid]

I'm sure it looks that way from a media perspective. You watch the news after an earthquake like the Loma Prieta one we had here and you'd think everyone was dead. From my perspective the solutions are always somewhere in between the dipole spouting of rhetoric, but compromise is viewed as being weak and a failure of policy so it's difficult to foster real solutions.

[Oberon]

but compromise is viewed as being weak and a failure of policy so it's difficult to foster real solutions.

And that is, if I had to put my finger on it, one of the biggest fatal flaws of the United States of America and one that's really going to bite it on the backside in the coming years.

[Buddahaid]

And that is, if I had to put my finger on it, one of the biggest fatal flaws of the United States of America and one that's really going to bite it on the backside in the coming years.

It's pretty much been that way forever as far as I can tell. You find the same tired rhetoric in 90 year old newspapers.

[Oberon]

It's pretty much been that way forever as far as I can tell. You find the same tired rhetoric in 90 year old newspapers.

How on earth does anyone get anything done then? Is this one of the reasons that government isn't trusted? Because it's too deadlocked to do anything? :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

How on earth does anyone get anything done then? Is this one of the reasons that government isn't trusted? Because it's too deadlocked to do anything? :hmmm:

The less the govt "does", the better. What do they need to do? What happened to self-reliance? :)


It just makes me sad, the hatred between the left and right in America, if I'm honest. Not that it's much better in Europe, but it seems louder in America.

I don't hate them, but it's hard to take them seriously. Listening to This American Life on NPR today, very liberal program. They had a segment on a man who was arrested at 21 years old for 17 armed robberies. The focus was on the judicial system of offering a plea deal, where he would plead guilty to all counts for 25 years. Naturally he insisted on a jury trial, and was found guilty (let's assume he did it, even he admits he did it, ok? :O:). Now, since he chose to go to trial, he got 75 years. The show was trying to make the case that it isn't fair to a man to hold him to a single decision, such as rejecting the plea deal. The reporter claimed he found Christ (isn't that startling!) and was a model inmate. Why, he would make such a productive citizen!

Hello! 17 armed robberies! :/\\!!:/\\!!


But that's common thinking for the left. It's like dealing with children. Who can vote.

[Onkel Neal]

Oh, why not. transcript to the episode
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/134/transcript

Act Four. Saying No For 75 Years.

[Tribesman]

Listening to This American Life on NPR today, very liberal program. They had a segment on a man who was arrested at 21 years old for 17 armed robberies. The focus was on the judicial system of offering a plea deal, where he would plead guilty to all counts for 25 years. Naturally he insisted on a jury trial, and was found guilty (let's assume he did it, even he admits he did it, ok? :O:). Now, since he chose to go to trial, he got 75 years. The show was trying to make the case that it isn't fair to a man to hold him to a single decision, such as rejecting the plea deal. The reporter claimed he found Christ (isn't that startling!) and was a model inmate. Why, he would make such a productive citizen!

Hello! 17 armed robberies! :/\\!!:/\\!!


But that's common thinking for the left. It's like dealing with children. Who can vote.
Well plea bargains are contraversial, on the one hand it saves time and money for the state on the other hand it rewards criminals.

So to the main thrust of your point, do you know many armed robbers?
If you do, do you know any that have gone on to be productive citizens?
If you don't know any armed robbers then what is the basis for your position on armed robbers being unable to get sense?

Let me put forward just two examples.
The first was a bible quoting religious nut, when he was caught he took a plea deal where he not only copped for those crimes he was caught for he owned up to lots of other stuff he hadn't done to help the police "clear their books" in exchange for preferencial treatment by the courts
The funny part of it is he owned up to so much it was such a long list of crimes so he got a longer term than he thought he had been promised.
The really funny part was that he appealed the jail term and got a much longer much term instead as he clearly had confessed to a hell of a lot of very naughty crimes and the judge decided his initial term was obviously far too lenient
That person was scum, he was always scum and will always be scum.
But the downside of it is that the crimes he didn't commit but admitted to mean the real criminals in those cases will never face punishment.

Now this other fellow was a real crazy nut with morals so disfunctional it would make a nihilist blush.
He was scum
Nowadays he is happily married, works like a slave 6 months of the year to support himself and his family and cover his taxes, he spends the other 6 months of the year out in war torn third world hell holes doing the good work of his Lord.
He is no longer scum.

It all depends on the individual, if it were easy to tell which scum would remain scum and which scum would stop being scum life would be simpler and the penal system could function better, but it isn't.
But writing off scum as always being scum just doesn't work either.

[Buddahaid]

I don't disagree with your point that these criminals are not beyond redemption, but you seem to disregard paying the penalty for the crimes they were convicted of in whatever form that takes.

Edited.

[Tribesman]

I don't disagree with your point that these criminals are not beyond redemption, but you seem to disregard paying the penalty for the crimes they were convicted of in whatever form that takes.

Edited.
Well that all depends on the form it takes.
To take the topic in hand on form.
I don't agree with fatal human experimentation using untested drugs of doubtful provenance, administered by "medical practitioners" who think that the point where brain function is absent and the point where brain stem activity cease can be made by visual observation.

[Catfish]

^ Numerous examples though, two being the Tuskeegee and Guatemala "experiments".

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/01/guatemala.syphilis.tuskegee/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/01/guatemala.syphilis.tuskegee/)

But this was 40 years ago ..
"Because of the ethical guidelines that all research institutions must follow, these kinds of studies would not happen in the United States today,"

[Dan D]

Oh, a debate competition here on subsim. I will join the pro-capital punishment side. Personally I am against death penalty.

Reason: "The law of the land kills those who have killed. If one wishes to abolish the death penalty in such cases, let the murderers begin – if they do not kill, we will not kill them".

[Feuer Frei!]

I will join the pro-capital punishment side. Personally I am against death penalty.

? Pro or anti?

Or both. :haha:

Pro lifers who are pro capital punishment.
They do exist.

[Buddahaid]

Oh, a debate competition here on subsim. I will join the pro-capital punishment side. Personally I am against death penalty.

Reason: "The law of the land kills those who have killed. If one wishes to abolish the death penalty in such cases, let the murderers begin – if they do not kill, we will not kill them".

Cute, but the argument centers around the fidelity of the court verdict. If there is a real, and demonstrable as it appears, chance that the accused is in fact innocent, then is it moral to commit State sponsored murder knowing you get it wrong on occasion?

[CaptainMattJ.]

The less the govt "does", the better. What do they need to do? What happened to self-reliance? :)




I don't hate them, but it's hard to take them seriously. Listening to This American Life on NPR today, very liberal program. They had a segment on a man who was arrested at 21 years old for 17 armed robberies. The focus was on the judicial system of offering a plea deal, where he would plead guilty to all counts for 25 years. Naturally he insisted on a jury trial, and was found guilty (let's assume he did it, even he admits he did it, ok? :O:). Now, since he chose to go to trial, he got 75 years. The show was trying to make the case that it isn't fair to a man to hold him to a single decision, such as rejecting the plea deal. The reporter claimed he found Christ (isn't that startling!) and was a model inmate. Why, he would make such a productive citizen!

Hello! 17 armed robberies! :/\\!!:/\\!!


But that's common thinking for the left. It's like dealing with children. Who can vote.
:roll:

Anecdotal, baseless generalizations. When you listen to a far left show, what do you expect? Anybody on the extremes of anything is going to claim ridiculous things. "Common thinking" is a horribly subjective term that can easily be applied right back the other way. if i were to listen to rush limbaugh, i could use the verbal excrement he spews and apply it baselessly to the republican party and claim they're wackos, but of course that's not true. It doesn't take much intuition to weed out the extremists and identify that their views are not accurately representative of a group.

That's a MAJOR part of the problem with politics today. If i were to claim myself a "liberal", then i would automatically be associated with every aspect of liberalism. In the same way, if i take a "liberal" stand on a certain issue, even if i havent claimed myself a liberal, i will be branded as a liberal. And generally because they THINK im a liberal, no amount of logical argument will convince them of anything. Conservatives don't even listen to what a "communist liberal" has to say, and instead they talk AT people about all the misinformation they heard from Faux news (and conversely all the liberals who regurgitate stuff from MSNBC make me sick)

That's why i dont associate myself anymore. Because party politics demand "All or nothing". I can't weigh each issue individually and independently, i either agree with the party on every issue or im part of the other party. I'm so tired of the brainwashing and the political bullying. Whatever "your" party agrees with is what you must agree with, and to have a different view means youre part of that no-good opposing party who you must learn to hate and obstruct lest they gain the upper hand. If you're unsure about an issue or dont know much about it, no problem, we'll tell you exactly how to think about it and why our view is the only right option, using every manipulative journalistic method we can. Its tribalism, nothing more. There's no other explanation for the utter misinformation coming from every side, no explanation for how so many people can burst at the seams from the sheer amount of party line bs that they get force fed. I'm done with it. I'm completely done with associating myself with anyone anymore, lest i be confused for a sheep.

[Onkel Neal]

I can appreciate that, Matt. I think there are a lot of people who feel that way. Most people associate with a party because the party represents some/part of their political views. But not all. I'm a Republican but I am not a religious man, nor do I support the tobacco industry.

My point is, there certainly are a lot of people who think like the far left radio programs I mentioned; that's why they exist.

I can work with liberals who understand basic economics and sociology. For example, I tend to support the existence of unions and organized labor. That certainly serves as a balance to business interests. Now, my experience with unions, when I was a member of one (plant operators) for 10 years, they tend to be self-destructive and short-sighted. But, it's good that they exist, even in imperfect form.

Because party politics demand "All or nothing"

Very true. I agree, and that's why I do not listen to Rush Limbo or Sean Hammity, or other right wing radio--it's just too devisive. Yes, I agree with many of their points, but wow, they try as hard as possible to avoid any common ground with the left, when there are things we can do together.

My favorite politician since Reagan: Bill Clinton. I voted for him in '88, and with the necessary pressure by the Republicans in Congress, he effected common sense legislation to curb the growth of welfare.

Budda, there is no way to ensure every verdict will be correct every time. Should we avoid sentences of 30 years? Because that's a long time for an innocent man to sit in prison.

There are many cases where there is no doubt of a killer's guilt. When you catch one in the act, with multiple layers of evidence, hey, that's a death penalty case. If one wants to speculate that it's impossible to judge in these cases, then, I guess we have to start listening to Holocaust deniers and World Trade Center conspiracists.

[Oberon]

There are many cases where there is no doubt of a killer's guilt. When you catch one in the act, with multiple layers of evidence, hey, that's a death penalty case. If one wants to speculate that it's impossible to judge in these cases, then, I guess we have to start listening to Holocaust deniers and World Trade Center conspiracists.

That's the kicker.
Of course, the people who will be presenting the evidence will be Law Enforcement Officers, and I do believe there is a culture of a deep mistrust of the police in America...so who do you trust? Is the evidence as watertight as they claim it, or has money passed hands in the background?

Furthermore, one has to be sure why you're executing this person, is it a form of vengence? Is it to satisfy a public demand for blood for blood? Is it to stop prison overcrowding (you do have the equivilent of the population of Slovenia in prison after all)?

If you start bringing emotions into the legal process, then you risk it dissolving into a system composed of vengence as opposed to justice, and you might as well go back to kangaroo courts then. :03:

[Dread Knot]

Furthermore, one has to be sure why you're executing this person, is it a form of vengence? Is it to satisfy a public demand for blood for blood? Is it to stop prison overcrowding (you do have the equivilent of the population of Slovenia in prison after all)?




When you take a look at the comments section on almost any article about a capital offense execution, you will see comments extolling the virtues of making the killer suffer, that he deserved it. You do get the sense it is about exacting vegence. Maybe our laws, functionally, through democratic means, reflect this kind of thinking. Maybe that should be thought about.

A great deal of bad comes from the assumption that most people are good.


On a lighter note, I've come up with a simple solution: put everyone on death row in the same big cell with a few sharp knives laying around and just one TV and one remote. The lone survivor gets life but all the cable TV he wants. :O:

[Aktungbby]

The lone survivor gets life but all the cable TV he wants. :O:
Without the porn channel??:Kaleun_Mad:now that WOULD be 'cruel and unusual punishment'! A clear violation of the eighth amendment! too often 'honored in the breech' already!:woot:

[Tribesman]

That's the kicker.
Of course, the people who will be presenting the evidence will be Law Enforcement Officers, and I do believe there is a culture of a deep mistrust of the police in America...so who do you trust? Is the evidence as watertight as they claim it, or has money passed hands in the background?

So to take one rather famous case of appeal which was rejected.

To overturn the verdict would mean accepting that the police and government agencies fabricated the evidence and lied to the courts, it would mean rejecting the expert testimonies and the forensic evidence supplied by those experts....I am not willing to accept that and all it implies for the State, it's law enforcement and the justice system.

15 years later a different judge did accept all of that and all it implied.:hmmm:

[Platapus]

Generally, when people are trying to make a political argument and they use terms like "The Right" and "The Left", they immediately lose credibility with me. There is no unified group called "The Right" or "The Left" where all of the respective members all think alike on all the issues. :nope:

But that's how those terms are used

"The Right wants this". "The Left always does this". :nope::nope:

Unfortunately, for the past 30 years (almost) that is what American perception of politics has devolved into.

It is sad. It is frustrating. I, unfortunately, see it only getting worse.

The "American Empire" was able to resist external enemies, but may fall, as did so many past empires to internal division.

We will not be able to solve any of our problems if we continue to consider it as a "right or left" problem. We have American problems that need to be solved by Americans.... all Americans.

Regrettably, few seem to see it that way. :nope:

[TarJak]

That's such a centrist view. :D

[Tribesman]

Damn centrists sitting in the middle , weaving a little this way and a little that way as they feel each different situation deserves.
Pick a side and stick to it, straight ahead no matter what, you damn wobbly weaver.:hmph:

[Tribesman]

Perhaps botched is a bit of an understatement with this execution.
Massively botched experiment might be more appropriate.
The dose of drugs are supposed to be effective on a person weighing up to 500lbs.
The procedure as set out in the local law allows for a single follow up dose to be administered 3 minutes after the first if the first is not effective.
I suppose that is just in case the human weighs more than a massively obese 500lbs.
In this case 14 additional doses were administered.:nope:

[Nippelspanner]

Texas DID execute an innocent man, claim investigators (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570863/New-evidence-suggests-Texas-executed-innocent-man-accused-killing-three-daughters-house-fire.html)

Well, if true, he may be a free man now if not for the revenge-lust of some.
Whoopsie... :woot:

[Oberon]

Well, he's a free spirit! :O:

[Onkel Neal]

Generally, when people are trying to make a political argument and they use terms like "The Right" and "The Left", they immediately lose credibility with me. There is no unified group called "The Right" or "The Left" where all of the respective members all think alike on all the issues. :nope:

But that's how those terms are used

"The Right wants this". "The Left always does this". :nope::nope:

Unfortunately, for the past 30 years (almost) that is what American perception of politics has devolved into.

It is sad. It is frustrating. I, unfortunately, see it only getting worse.

The "American Empire" was able to resist external enemies, but may fall, as did so many past empires to internal division.

We will not be able to solve any of our problems if we continue to consider it as a "right or left" problem. We have American problems that need to be solved by Americans.... all Americans.

Regrettably, few seem to see it that way. :nope:

So, no one thinks of themselves as "right" or "left" then?:timeout:

Anyway, call it what you will. As for solving problems, sure, as long as we do it my way. (I'm sure we can agree to that!) I want to stop illegal immigration, which essentially undermines the sovereignty of my country. Ask the Indians how it worked out for them. Or, the Vietnamese, when the first French missionaries showed up. Or even the Mexicans, when they gave Stephen Austin a grant to allow gringos into Texas.

I see they are going for broke in Missouri! (http://time.com/3083198/missouri-lethal-injection-execution-michael-worthington/)

Still, they have a long way to go to catch Texas :shucks:
Missouri has executed 76 inmates since 1976, the year the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, making it fifth among U.S. states behind Texas (511), Oklahoma (111), Virginia (110) and Florida (88).

Texas DID execute an innocent man, claim investigators

Well, if true, he may be a free man now if not for the revenge-lust of some.

Yep, you are probably right. See, we can agree sometimes. I agree that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, where in my standard, since he was not caught in the act, he would not have gotten the DP.

Oh, I have been wondering for a week, when you say "fix my society", what would you suggest? I'm guessing whatever it is, it's going to cost me more money ;)

[Feuer Frei!]

"Texas DID execute an innocent man, claim investigators"

Well, nothing has been proven yet.

This comment doesn't make sense.

DID and claim are two different things.

Better to re-phrase:

It is possible that an innocent person was executed, so investigators claim.

See?

[Nippelspanner]

"Texas DID execute an innocent man, claim investigators"

Well, nothing has been proven yet.

This comment doesn't make sense.

DID and claim are two different things.

Better to re-phrase:

It is possible that an innocent person was executed, so investigators claim.

See?
Splitting hairs, or what are you trying?
Did anyone ever said they DID?
It was made very clear by the article that investigators claim that they did - not that this is a fact yet.

[Tribesman]

It was made very clear by the article that investigators claim that they did - not that this is a fact yet.
In this case it looks like it is approaching fact.
They have already said the forensics presented was bollox, now the only "witness" says he made up his evidence under the instruction of the prosecutor in exchange for preferential treatment, cash and the promise of a job.:hmmm:

[Nippelspanner]

In this case it looks like it is approaching fact.
They have already said the forensics presented was bollox, now the only "witness" says he made up his evidence under the instruction of the prosecutor in exchange for preferential treatment, cash and the promise of a job.:hmmm:
I know, I just want to be careful until I hear a definite answer instead of making false accusations.
Like the other side did by executing him...

[Catfish]

I know, I just want to be careful until I hear a definite answer instead of making false accusations.
Like the other side did by executing him...

But then there's always the possibility of a legal revision ..
...oh wait.


OT:
I wonder how they want to compensate some Iraquis being in Guantanamo for more than ten years, tortured, without being guilty, and never a prosecution. Will they also kill them, to evade uncomfortable questions and legal counter-action ? Or will they just go on like before and let them rot ?

[Nippelspanner]

What do you mean, compensate?
They are Iraqis... Tewwowists, as we know since 2001, no?

I don't think there are innocent people in Guantanamo.
The US gov. would not do things like that, they are the good guys!

Don't you ever watch CNN?
Are you a communist or something?

Not cool Catfish. :down:

[Feuer Frei!]

Splitting hairs, or what are you trying?
Did anyone ever said they DID?
It was made very clear by the article that investigators claim that they did - not that this is a fact yet.

No splitting of hairs, just makes me shake my head when media formulates a heading which doesn't rhyme with reason.

DailyFail Australia.

[Nippelspanner]

I don't see what's wrong with it honestly.
They said exactly what is the case. Investigators claim...

[Tribesman]

I don't see what's wrong with it honestly.
They said exactly what is the case. Investigators claim...

You are correct, it says exactly what it says and what it means to say.

Feuer Freis' re phrasing attempt simply makes it into a meaningless statement.

[Nippelspanner]

You are correct, it says exactly what it says and what it means to say.

Feuer Freis' re phrasing attempt simply makes it into a meaningless statement.
Is he pro CP or against it?

Cause it looked to me like a try to defend CP/distract from the actual problem and put another "problem" in the foreground... the phrasing of some news articles headline...