Lethal Injection for Execution: Chemical Asphyxiation?

[Skybird]

thank you everybody for successfully hijacking this thread against the repatedly announced intention of the originator.

And remarkably - not a single person so far had a comment to make about the orignal thread.

Originally Posted by Skybird

thank you everybody for successfully hijacking this thread against the repatedly announced intention of the originator.

And remarkably - not a single person so far had a comment to make about the orignal thread.

If I wasn't on your ignore list you would have seen one. Thank you for your non-attention. :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And remarkably - not a single person so far had a comment to make about the orignal thread.

That is because it is uninteresting. So what if they die in such a manner? Death is usually not a pleasant experience. I have no sympathy. There, I made a comment about the original thread. Happy?

-S

[Skybird]

subman,

You're damn pain in the ass, and that's all about you. The orignal topic is defined by me, not you. That is because I launched this thread, so I define the content, not you. Start your own freaking thread, teflonman. This thread was about unneeded cruelty in execution, which according to your own fantastic constitution (8th amendement) is illegal. This contradiction is what it is about. If it is uninteresting for you, fine, but then keep the hell out of it, and don't start a rumble just to get your personal fun from it. Do your own thread with stuff that interest you. You will get your according audience.

We have had repeatedly threads about the justification yes or no of death penalty in the past, and if it is a deterrant, or not. And almost all of them ended nasty, and aggressive, as far as I remember. That'S why I said clearly in words that such debates should be avoided here. Subman was the first ignoring that request. Tschocky went next, both laid out their basic arguments. I finally commented on that, unpersonally, and then asked again everybody to stick to the topic, and abandon this old debate.

What exactly is it that is beyond your ability to understand in this, teflonman? Tell the answer the mods at appropriate opportunity. I have asked Tak to extract everthing that does not belong here.

Hijacking a thread is okay when it does not result in aggression, is commonly accepted, and not excluded by the author. It can be fun, and entertaining. But here you guys have turned it into exactly the mess I wanted to avoid.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

subman,

You're damn pain in the ass, and that's all about you. The orignal topic is defined by me, not you. That is because I launched this thread, so I define the content, not you. Start your own freaking thread, teflonman. This thread was about unneeded cruelty in execution, which according to your own fantastic constitution (8th amendement) is illegal. This contradiction is what it is about. If it is uninteresting for you, fine, but then keep the hell out of it, and don't start a rumble just to get your personal fun from it. Do your own thread with stuff that interest you. You will get your according audience.

We have had repeatedly threads about the justification yes or no of death penalty in the past, and if it is a deterrant, or not. And almost all of them ended nasty, and aggressive, as far as I remember. That'S why I said clearly in words that such debates should be avoided here. Subman was the first ignoring that request. Tschocky went next, both laid out their basic arguments. I finally commented on that, unpersonally, and then asked again everybody to stick to the topic, and abandon this old debate.

What exactly is it that is beyond your ability to understand in this, teflonman? Tell the answer the mods at appropriate opportunity. I have asked Tak to extract everthing that does not belong here.

Hijacking a thread is okay when it does not result in aggression, is commonly accepted, and not excluded by the author. It can be fun, and entertaining. But here you guys have turned it into exactly the mess I wanted to avoid.

Not sure who you are refering to, but I am commenting on your comments if you are refering to me. Read your own words - you describe flawed logic, long term jail sentences, etc yourself (duh!):

Originally Posted by Skybird

The flawed logic of understanding the killing of a man as a penalty, while a penalty in modern understanding is not to rebalance a cosmic scales by a principle of "an eye for an eye", but is understood as a sanction by which the behavior of the deliquent is to be influenced and changed (for which it is a precondition that he continues to live), would be a topic for itself. Also where longterm jail sentence fit into this description.

Zig zag - you are very good at it. We should call you springey!

[August]

The term Skybird is "cruel AND unusual".

All death is cruel, or at least can be argued by lawyers to be such, however lethal injection, hanging, firing squads or any other traditional methods of executing criminals in our history is by no means "unusual" and there your argument falls flat.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

The term Skybird is "cruel AND unusual".

All death is cruel, or at least can be argued by lawyers to be such, however lethal injection, hanging, firing squads or any other traditional methods of executing criminals in our history is by no means "unusual" and there your argument falls flat.

You are right, August, that piece gave me quite a time to think about. However, In the excerpt from wikipedia I highlighted in red this part (following is a longer quote than before):

The use of the word and (instead of or) has been held to have some significance. Cruel punishments are allowable as long as more than one court system applies the punishment. Similarly, unusual punishments are permitted so long as they are not cruel, although some lawyers would argue that any unusual punishment is cruel. Thus, for example, three strikes laws have been upheld by the Court as not conflicting with this clause, because even if they are unusual, they are not cruel (in the sense that there is no physical torture).
The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

• The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
• "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
• "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
• "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.

when summarizing it all, I came to the conclusion that despite the debate about the word "and" (curel and unusual), as indicated by you and the author of the wikipedia entry, there nevertheless seem to be consensus that torturing somebody to death is fulfilling both conditions.

what remains is the question to what degree suffocation is degrading to human diginity and by it's quality is equal to the pain implemented by intentional torture. Last year, so says a German blog, death candidates in Missouri and South Dakota reached a court ruling that this form of execution is scratched from the list of execution methods that are considered constitutional, because the reliabilty of one or two of the three involved agents to succeed in the purpose for which they are used already was at doubt. However, courts in Florida, Kentucky and Texas ruled differently, saying that a certain ammount of pain does not automatically cause a method of execution to be classified as "verboten". Last decembre, the dying of Angel Diaz in Florida lasted longer than half an hour.

I did not understand how that can be brought into congruence with what has been written about execution and torture in the part from wikipedia above.

Anyway, I see no reason why people should be executed with unneeded pain and suffering (which includes years and years of waiting, hoping and dissappointment, btw.) even animals do not take pleasure from the suffering of their prey, they kill to eat, and that's it. some of mankind's societies reserve the right to kill as a legalized form of retaliation. But doing that with more cruelty than needed is inhumane, barbaric, and reminds me strongly of pleasing the cheering crowds in the circus maximus. And I must say that is too cheap for me.

So when there are death penalties, and they are confirmed from highest instance - why can'T one just go and have the person shot the same day or week? For me death penalty is no penalty anyway, only a removal of a person. I oppose the idea of death as a penalty, but I take legalized preemptive killing in case of certain types of crimes into account. For example if big fishes of weapon and drug smuggling, cartell bosses, and the like, must be expected to rule their business from inside the prison, or could be the reason of kidnappings in order to have them released.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are right, August, that piece gave me quite a time to think about. However, In the excerpt from wikipedia I highlighted in red this part (following is a longer quote than before):

...

when summarizing it all, I came to the conclusion that despite the debate about the word "and" (curel and unusual), as indicated by you and the author of the wikipedia entry, there nevertheless seem to be consensus that torturing somebody to death is fulfilling both conditions.

what remains is the question to what degree suffocation is degrading to human diginity and by it's quality is equal to the pain implemented by intentional torture. Last year, so says a German blog, death candidates in Missouri and South Dakota reached a court ruling that this form of execution is scratched from the list of execution methods that are considered constitutional, because the reliabilty of one or two of the three involved agents to succeed in the purpose for which they are used already was at doubt. However, courts in Florida, Kentucky and Texas ruled differently, saying that a certain ammount of pain does not automatically cause a method of execution to be classified as "verboten". Last decembre, the dying of Angel Diaz in Florida lasted longer than half an hour.

I did not understand how that can be brought into congruence with what has been written about execution and torture in the part from wikipedia above.

Anyway, I see no reason why people should be executed with unneeded pain and suffering (which includes years and years of waiting, hoping and dissappointment, btw.) even animals do not take pleasure from the suffering of their prey, they kill to eat, and that's it. some of mankind's societies reserve the right to kill as a legalized form of retaliation. But doing that with more cruelty than needed is inhumane, barbaric, and reminds me strongly of pleasing the cheering crowds in the circus maximus. And I must say that is too cheap for me.

So when there are death penalties, and they are confirmed from highest instance - why can'T one just go and have the person shot the same day or week? For me death penalty is no penalty anyway, only a removal of a person. I oppose the idea of death as a penalty, but I take legalized preemptive killing in case of certain types of crimes into account. For example if big fishes of weapon and drug smuggling, cartell bosses, and the like, must be expected to rule their business from inside the prison, or could be the reason of kidnappings in order to have them released.

Like other contentious issues, the institution of lethal injection as the preferred execution method is an attempt at making death less distasteful to witness. Like putting a favored pet down the idea is that criminal just goes to sleep and that's it, except as we now know in certain cases like Diaz's, death did not come so quick. To me that just means we should change the cocktail to something that insures relatively instant unconsiousness as was originally intended.

It's funny though that you should mention Angel Diaz as he is like a poster boy for the death penalty as much as he is for changing the method employed.

In 1978 he murdered the director of a drug rehab organization by stabbing him 19 times while his victim slept, for which he was sentenced to a paltry 10-15 years and put in the general prison population. This gave him the time and opportunity for escape and a year later he murdered again. Now the death penalty might not be a deterrent to first offense crimes but I firmly believe that had Angel "Papo la Muerte" Diaz been put on inescapable death row for the first murder his second victim would still be alive today.

If a person proves themselves willing to kill for fun and profit then the death penalty will ensure that person never gets the chance to do it again and that IS deterrence.

[Skybird]

For the telfonmen of this world:

The flawed logic of understanding the killing of a man as a penalty, while a penalty in modern understanding is not to rebalance a cosmic scales by a principle of "an eye for an eye", but is understood as a sanction by which the behavior of the deliquent is to be influenced and changed (for which it is a precondition that he continues to live), would be a topic for itself. Also where longterm jail sentence fit into this description.
However, let's ignore that debate.



And wonder oh wonder, the text goes on a bit more:



This is the story:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0040156



And finally this:



Now what the the eigth amendment has to say on cruel punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Not difficult to understand. Not even for you, teflonman. All the bullying you are trying here is intentional provokation, I have no doubt. And that's why I use that wonderful magical button on you now that by miracle and wonder will hide you from my field of vision in the future. So spare your breath, or take the chance to impress the audience. I don't care anymore.

Like it was with Iceman and Waste Gate, I do not ban different opinions. Only bad behavior.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

For the telfonmen of this world:

The flawed logic of understanding the killing of a man as a penalty, while a penalty in modern understanding is not to rebalance a cosmic scales by a principle of "an eye for an eye", but is understood as a sanction by which the behavior of the deliquent is to be influenced and changed (for which it is a precondition that he continues to live), would be a topic for itself. Also where longterm jail sentence fit into this description.
However, let's ignore that debate.



And wonder oh wonder, the text goes on a bit more:



This is the story:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0040156



And finally this:



Now what the the eigth amendment has to say on cruel punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Not difficult to understand. Not even for you, teflonman. All the bullying you are trying here is intentional provokation, I have no doubt. And that's why I use that wonderful magical button on you now that by miracle and wonder will hide you from my field of vision in the future. So spare your breath, or take the chance to impress the audience. I don't care anymore.

Like it was with Iceman and Waste Gate, I do not ban different opinions. Only bad behavior.

Hahahaha! I finially made it to the block (that is I think I did - not sure who you are referencing actually)! Just a little note for the future if you can still see this - do not make a broad statement such as you say, and then say leave it for another thread. That doesn't work! If you don't want to talk about it in your thread, don't bring it up - then you have an argument for what you write when you say not to hijack your thread! This is not hijacking if you brought it up in the very first post you make in your own thread! This idea you have is moronic in my opinion to suggest anything other.

-S

Originally Posted by Skybird

subman,

You're damn pain in the ass, and that's all about you. The orignal topic is defined by me, not you. That is because I launched this thread, so I define the content, not you. Start your own freaking thread, teflonman. This thread was about unneeded cruelty in execution, which according to your own fantastic constitution (8th amendement) is illegal. This contradiction is what it is about. If it is uninteresting for you, fine, but then keep the hell out of it, and don't start a rumble just to get your personal fun from it. Do your own thread with stuff that interest you. You will get your according audience.

We have had repeatedly threads about the justification yes or no of death penalty in the past, and if it is a deterrant, or not. And almost all of them ended nasty, and aggressive, as far as I remember. That'S why I said clearly in words that such debates should be avoided here. Subman was the first ignoring that request. Tschocky went next, both laid out their basic arguments. I finally commented on that, unpersonally, and then asked again everybody to stick to the topic, and abandon this old debate.

What exactly is it that is beyond your ability to understand in this, teflonman? Tell the answer the mods at appropriate opportunity. I have asked Tak to extract everthing that does not belong here.

Hijacking a thread is okay when it does not result in aggression, is commonly accepted, and not excluded by the author. It can be fun, and entertaining. But here you guys have turned it into exactly the mess I wanted to avoid.

What a cry baby. If you don't want your threads 'hi-jacked' stop posting. Everyones threads are 'hi-jacked'. Get over it!

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If you don't want your threads 'hi-jacked' stop posting. Everyones threads are 'hi-jacked'.

Yeah, that´s usually because some people don´t think before they post.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Yeah, that´s usually because some people don´t think before they post.

How about people that don't think before they start a new thread? Am I correct that if you don't want to talk about something that you do not talk about it in your initial post? Or am I off my rocker on that one?

-S

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Yeah, that´s usually because some people don´t think before they post.

Hey Gizzmoe

If you are going to quote me in a Skybird thread maybe it would be more of a contribution if you quoted all my posts. I'm on his ignore list and posting one only contributes to the hard feelings he may have toward me and I uspect Skybird dissmisses them out of hand. Thanks.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If you are going to quote me in a Skybird thread maybe it would be more of a contribution if you quoted all my posts. I'm on his ignore list and posting one only contributes to the hard feelings he may have toward me and I uspect Skybird dissmisses them out of hand. Thanks.

Its a private club! Its easy to enter - just disagree with Skybird is all it takes! If you views differ from his, and you don't put up with his personal attacks, you get blocked - easy as that! If he can't beat you, he blocks you. I love it! Now I don't have to deal with his bad and backwards ideas in relation to my posts. Its about time.

-S