Just another botched execution...

[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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Which message would that be?

Don't trust the govt. for a proper execution!

Something to think about before you kill people.

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.

[Jimbuna]

I see both of you sinking into that level of condescention using the term "Yes Dear".

Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with each others opinions and viewpoints but try debating in a more acceptable way.

I'm off to work now but have asked another moderator to act appropriately should the need arise.

TIA of your cooperation.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

That paying to watch is fun.

Originally Posted by Armistead

We should make it pay for view to cover the cost and maybe get a message across.. Don't trust the govt. for a proper execution!

Something to think about before you kill people.

A conservative federal appeals judge called for replacing lethal injection with firing squads: "Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and beautiful — like something any one of us might experience in our final moments," U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in a dissent in the Arizona death penalty case of Joseph Rudolph Wood III.
"But executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf....I personally think we should go to the guillotine, but shooting is probably the right way to go," Kozinski said." I personally disagree as wild crime ridden river-town Napa has a history of its own. Napa has the dubious distinction of being the site of the last public hanging in the state. It happened back in 1897 for a murder that so enraged the Napa community that instead of sending the criminal to San Quentin Prison, the judge turned the responsibility over to the Napa sheriff so the hanging could occur in the Napa County Jail yard. In preparing for the hanging, the sheriff hired carpenters to build a corrugated iron fence enclosure in the county jail's yard. It was 40 feet long and 34 feet wide. He also ordered a platform for visitors to view the hanging. 400 tickets were sold and the rope cut into souvenirs; the noose was retained by the sheriff.
"January 15, 1897, Roe was led from the jail to the wooden gallows. A photographer was present to take the official photo. One of the doctors who attended Roe's autopsy managed to get hold of the body and took the bones to a roof in downtown Napa to bleach them. He then put the skeleton back together. It reportedly was used to teach high school students taking biology courses. Eventually it disappeared in the '60s, and its whereabouts are unknown today." A proper hanging can be a career stepping stone: "In 1870, Grover Cleveland was elected sheriff of Erie County, New York, in which capacity he personally oversaw the hanging of two condemned men. On September 6, 1872, Grover Cleveland personally served as the hangman to the convicted murderer Patrick Morrissey. So infamous was the murderer, his execution was covered by the New York Times. Morrisey had stabbed his widowed mother to death while drunk.
The Erie County Sheriff was empowered to carry out death sentences, and instead of delegating the job to one of his deputies or an assistant, he decided to take responsibility for the handing of Morrissey himself. He tripped the engine of execution with his own hands, as he would again, on February 14, 1873, when he again personally hanged another murderer, John Gaffney. Both executions took place in public. The Republicans hung on him the pejorative nickname "The Buffalo Hangman.". Within 11 years the chief executioner was a 'hands on' chief executive.

[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.

[scott613]

Lethal injection, hanging, guillotine, firing squad, electric chair, keel hauled, or drawn and quartered all fine with me as long as they have the same end result - far too much focus on the criminals - not nearly enough on the victims - if you ask me...

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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by CCIP

That's a pretty stupid myth and paints people in a very negative, primitive light. Is there like, a magical substance that gets released from the tears of the dying criminal that can be made into medicine for grieving relatives? Is there an implication here that death can actually make people happy?

I lost a very close family member to murder a few years ago, over nothing more than about $400 worth of goods, and I can say that I've never felt any desire for the guy who did it to be executed. Although I've never had the opportunity, if I did have to face the perpetrator in court, I would probably be there arguing for leniency on him.

.

Sure throwing the word "stupid" around a lot. It's stupid to keep these type of criminals alive in prison, just shoot them. That works most of the time.

Punitive and retributionary justice is a stupid and medieval idea. Justice needs to be protecting and improving society. People are better than this.

You're living in a dreamworld. You should spend a little more time focusing on what these "people" have done to merit a death penalty.

Originally Posted by AngusJS

It's been proven that the death penalty in the US doesn't prevent crime. It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life in the current system. And despite all the safeguards, we still are putting innocent people on death row.

It may cost more, but that's only because of the endless appeals and bs that drags the sentence out for decades. If they would execute 30 days after a single appeal, I bet that would bring the cost down.

I will agree with you as far as putting innocent people on death row, that the standard of proof should be very high for death penalty cases. But in cases where the evidence is clear cut, someone who murders a child in cold blood has forfeited the right to continue living. And yes, that will bring the crime rate down by at the very least: 1.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

If they would execute 30 days after a single appeal, I bet that would bring the cost down.

Yep. And it would make first page on every news paper if new/revised evidence proof the now dead "perpetrator" was not guilty.

You usually put more thoughts behind what you say, I am surprised...

[Onkel Neal]

I don't need to put a lot of thought behind simple matters like this, it doesn't require it. You're too caught up in searching for nuances when it's simple.

Let's see, you think this perp will be miraculously found "not guilty"?

Judge: "I sentence you to death."
Firing squad: "Bang!"
Next day: OMG! that guy was innocent! It was some other guy who shot the case worker, the doc shot a guy who he owed money to."

Like I said above, the standard of proof needs to be pretty high, but there are a lot of cases like that where there is no doubt, not just a reasonable doubt. Unless you are a Hollywood screenwriter.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I don't need to put a lot of thought behind simple matters like this, it doesn't require it. You're too caught up in searching for nuances when it's simple.

Let's see, you think this perp will be miraculously found "not guilty"?

Judge: "I sentence you to death."
Firing squad: "Bang!"
Next day: OMG! that guy was innocent! It was some other guy who shot the case worker, the doc shot a guy who he owed money to."

Like I said above, the standard of proof needs to be pretty high, but there are a lot of cases like that where there is no doubt, not just a reasonable doubt. Unless you are a Hollywood screenwriter.

You are aware that there have been enough cases of people landing on death row while being innocent after all, do you not?
And who knows how high the dark figure might be?

But... its rare so just never mind?
Most people who get killed were guilty, so it's kewl?

I am in awe.