Lethal Injection for Execution: Chemical Asphyxiation?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Any backup for that? The deterrent effect, that is.

Try your own mind for starters! Google the rest. It is not rocket science.

-S

[Tchocky]

I understand the intuition; I will not kill someone because I will be killed for it, etc. But I've found that the idea of deterrence isn't borne out in fact. Reports and statistical analysis from criminologists show that there is no discernible deterrent effect, and many of the studies that did show one used flawed methods. This is all in the link I posted.
not rocket science at all :hmm:

[Skybird]

The deterring effect of death sentences is questionable and debated until today. Statistically, most crimes with killings happen to be killings "im Affekt" (= in the heat of the moment), as a result of situational variables that are not calculated in advance, and are not preplanned. The deterring effect of executions concerning other potential perpetrators also is highly quetionable, the quick look I had at Google, indicates that even US crime statistics do not indicate a correlation between falling capital crime rates, and death penalty. If anything, it indicates exactly the opposite: that states with death penalty even have a higher capital crime rate by tendency. Finally, death penalty can even motivate additonal killings - to get rid of witnesses, for example. The increasing brutalizing effect even is pointed out in concerned socio-psychological literature.

But all that is not the thread's focus, as I said in the opening. It is about the possible cruelty of a special way of killing a person that is to be executed, and that by ruling of the 8th amendement, "cruel punishment" is illegal in the US.

[Tchocky]

Skybird, posting your opinion in such terms, then saying "lets ignore that", sounds to me like "the dog ate my homework".
Looks like you want it both ways here, one opinion, then no more.

[Skybird]

Read the first posting that I started it with, the first paragraph. Especially where it reads: "Let'S ignore that debate."

Subman said what was his, you said what was yours, I said what was mine on that side-issue. I can understand that this side-discussion would be showing up in this thread - the temptation is close when you say something about a method of execution - but I don't want it to continue hijacking this thread.

the issue of this thread is that chemical execution does not seem to work reliable and may cause a considerable ammount of pain and cruelty to the deliquent, and that this should be changed, since it is not in congruence with american legal standards. Else we will end up sooner or later with not just killing prisoners, but by an argument of "an eye for an eye" torturing them to death.

and then we are on the same level with those who still commit stoning-to-death.

If this topic continues to change into a discussion on how un-/justified death penalty is, i will ask a moderator to lock this thread. You can start a new one focussing on just this issue. We also had some of these in the past. But it is not the theme of this thread.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Skybird, posting your opinion in such terms, then saying "lets ignore that", sounds to me like "the dog ate my homework".
Looks like you want it both ways here, one opinion, then no more.

That about sums it up. Don't bring it up if you don't want a discussion Skybird. By the way, I am not done here yet, just trying to finish up some work before I continue this discussion, so you better get the thread locked.

-S