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.

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

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).

By "Lenient" you mean not killing them?

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.

Ambivalent
 

"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:

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?

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.

Sounds painful and agonizing. Asthmatic who never done wrong in his or her life wheezes all their life.

This from the Governor, Brewer.
Sounds like a horrible agonizing death doesn't it?

Doesn't sound conclusive to me.

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/nation...723-story.html

Tell that to Turing.

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.

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.

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

Timothy was Welchman
 

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:

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