Just another botched execution...

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!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

[banryu79]

This affirmation is most intresting:

Originally Posted by vanjast

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"?

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

Yes, mine fits the definition.

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!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes, mine fits the definition.

Your viewpoint. Not mine.

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

They 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 views

Now 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 wrong

What 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.

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.
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?

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.

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by banryu79

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.

Originally Posted by vanjast

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]

Originally Posted by vanjast

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.

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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.
Though of course it was only done on criminals and other sub humans