Lethal Injection for Execution: Chemical Asphyxiation?

Originally Posted by Heibges

Isn't the United States the only Western Country that has the death penalty?

Is the death penalty a deterrant?

I don't want the right to take a life in the hands of the government. I don't think they should even be able to levy an income tax, much less execute folks.

The death penalty is not compatible with a Christian Society. Jesus pretty much lays it all out for us.

For the record the death penalty is not placed in the hands of the government.
All death penalty verdicts are passed by a jury, which are made up of citizens which are not government officials.

EDIT: here in Colorado a law was passed which assigned judges for death penalty cases to make the decission as to weather or not to execute the convicted. SOCTUS struck down the law as unconstitutional. If I can find anything on it I'll post it.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Heibges

The death penalty is not compatible with a Christian Society. Jesus pretty much lays it all out for us.

Quite the contrary in my opinion.

-S

[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:

[Tieg]

or my favorite the guillotine

To me that would seem to be the quickest way to end ones life as a result of choices he or she made...

This following quote comes from this CNN article which is probably where this discussion started from:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/23....ap/index.html

Steve Stewart, prosecuting attorney in Clark County, Indiana, where an execution is scheduled for May 4, said the simple solution seemed to be to give a higher dose of the anesthetic, which probably would not satisfy opponents who see all methods as barbaric.
"It doesn't matter a whole lot to me that someone may have felt some pain before they were administered poison as a method of execution," he said.

That last sentence pretty much sums it up. Who cares...me personally I think they should air executions on Pay Per View so that way if those that want to see them can by paying for it and those who don't want to see them have the option not to see them. Also the money the goverment makes they can apply to some program that maybe could reduce our taxes of some sort or another...or at least for some good. Like maybe a nice sharpening stone for the guillotine.

[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

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

PS. The thought of death is a much worse thing in my mind than worry about sitting in jail for the rest of my life. No one can ever tell me any different. Its a natural instinct to want to do everything possible to avoid it. I can can guarantee that they think the same way.

I'll have to disagree somewhat. There are enough stories going around that more then a few lifers preferred death to being locked in an 8x10 for the rest of their lives. And no, I'm not going to hunt links. Without experiencing either I think I would prefer death to an existence in an 8x10 and that is why in a lot of cases I am against the death penalty because it gives the criminal an easy way out and an 8x10 is a long slow death. However if it comes down to me thinking death I would prefer an execution as like they did their victim but it would have to be overwhelming evidence and not a reasonable doubt type decision. An eye for an eye and a fist for a fist.

[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 bradclark1

I'll have to disagree somewhat. There are enough stories going around that more then a few lifers preferred death to being locked in an 8x10 for the rest of their lives. And no, I'm not going to hunt links. Without experiencing either I think I would prefer death to an existence in an 8x10 and that is why in a lot of cases I am against the death penalty because it gives the criminal an easy way out and an 8x10 is a long slow death. However if it comes down to me thinking death I would prefer an execution as like they did their victim but it would have to be overwhelming evidence and not a reasonable doubt type decision. An eye for an eye and a fist for a fist.

You are right I am sure in that a couple of them felt so terrible that death was what they wanted, but I doubt that is the majority. Most of them file appeal after appeal to prlong their life that it is pathetic. That one Chinese guy who is tottally toying with the courts to prolong his execution date comes to mind.

-S

[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]

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.

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!

[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

[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.