According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, irony is defined as “the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning”, and according to the Collins Dictionary, irony is “a subtle form of humour which involves saying things that you do not mean”.
I didn’t stop reading; your assumption there is, of course, in error. It’s just that I agree that, if we’re to remove such an offender, we then discuss how to do it: that’s what then brought me to my point, about whether an offender in a prison cell will murder again — as opposed to whether an offender in the grave will murder again — when discussing the question of how to remove them from society.
It happens in animal euthanasia too. My sweet 15 y.o. old pup had lymphoma and steroids were no longer helping. We had the vet come out to put her down, but the disease had so destroyed her veins that the vet couldn’t place the needle properly. The repeated pokes were causing her unneccessary distress, so the vet finally put the drug straight into her heart. It was awful to watch, but over quickly.
The point of this semi hijack is that all circumstances are different and that what works flawlessly on one occasion may not on another. My own personal POV is that there are some people who the planet would be much better off without, but that the state must not intentionally cause suffering. As has been mentioned, N2 asphyxiation is one method recommended by “death with dignity” advocates as relatively painless. That doesn’t mean it’s infallible.
I’m glad the nitrogen method seemingly worked more seamlessly than lethal injection did for this particular inmate. He’s had enough torture – already strapped down to be killed, and then the State failed to do it. That should have been enough to commute his sentence.
My view, since I’m essentially anti-DP, would be quick and painless, but gory deaths. Let’s not dance around the fact that we the people are killing people by making it look like they are dying peacefully. Put a bullet in their head or guillotine or something – vengeful killing shouldn’t be sanitized like this. If a bullet in the head or a guillotine is too barbaric, then maybe state-sanctioned killing is also too barbaric.
Yeah, no method is foolproof and unless we find a way to communicate with the dead we’re not going to be able to ask anyone “was that as unpleasant as it looked?”
I would have to consider also that it could be one thing when anoxia happens to the unaware (industrial accident) or the even eagerly willing (assisted euthanasia) vs. when the subject is already distressed and knows exactly what’s happening.
This is an excellent point – in an industrial accident, the victim isn’t trying to hold their breath, because they have no idea what’s going on.
If someone were to strap one of those masks on me, you better believe I would struggle and do whatever I could to hold my breath as long as possible, panicking when I couldn’t hold it any longer. Scary stuff!
So you’re basing your support for the death penalty on the supposition that a convicted murderer will kill again within the prison, or that he will somehow escape and kill again, or that a parole board will err in releasing him at some distant time. I would say the slim chances of any of those things happening are greatly outweighed by the damage to the national psyche of institutionalized murder and the numerous instances of false convictions like the famous one below, which vividly illustrates how badly flawed the justice system can be.
Yes, you would say that. I wouldn’t. The voters in various jurisdictions apparently wouldn’t, in general. The judge and jury in a specific case there apparently wouldn’t, in particular — and, if it’s a case where the convicted murderer then gets turned down by the Governor, well, apparently the Governor wouldn’t either.
AFAICT, the electorate and the elected officials have heard that people like you think that A greatly outweighs B, and have furrowed their brows and considered the matter and said what I’m saying now: no, I don’t think it does; I’ve thought it over, and I’ve pondered what you said about possible damage and the psyche, and I’ve decided in favor of B — which doesn’t strike me as being greatly outweighed by A.
They could reuse the gas chamber, and eliminate the hassle of cyanide by simple hooking it up to a car exhaust. AIUI, death by carbon monoxide is relatively stress free. The condemned goes to sleep, and eventually dies. But that wouldn’t satisfy DP proponents who think death itself isn’t quite enough, and there should be at least a minimum of discomfiture to the prisoner.
I don’t think it’s any more stress free or pain free than nitrogen, but is a significantly higher risk to bystanders.
That was one of the arguments against the gas chamber that also applies to this execution method, in that unlike, say lethal injection, the death requires the victim to take an active, if unavoidable, role in their own demise.
Maybe that’s because the public psyche is already broken in many of those jurisdictions, which also heartily approves of the three other examples of barbarism I listed in post #216. They are all of a piece. In a barbaric culture, they reinforce each other, because callousness and savagery are contagious. First they are rationalized, and then they become normalized.
With regards to struggling, why isn’t that a problem with lethal injection? If the person is uncooperative and thrashing around, wouldn’t that make getting a needle into a vein just about impossible?
The crowd may be into it (though not always! E.g., the Cato Street conspirators were plotting to murder all the cabinet ministers and the prime minister, so you can imagine where the people’s sympathy lay, and the executioners had to hide for their own safety), it’s just that violent and gruesome torture and execution are unconstitutional in the U.S.
That seems terribly convenient for your argument — a bit like the bit where someone says you’re in denial, and if you say no, I’m not, well, that’s what someone in denial would say, wouldn’t they?
If they were to wish to rebut your claim, staying on defense while letting you define terms, merely saying, no, though we favor applying the death penalty in some cases, we’re neither barbaric nor savage, is there any hypothetical evidence you’d accept that they’re correct? Or would you just reply, no, it’s all of a piece, like I was saying: barbaric, reinforcement, callousness, savagery, contagious, rationalized, normalized while simply insisting that the relevant psyche is already broken?
Which is why I said ‘essentially’ dead. There is no consciousness and
Will never BE any conciousness.
I don’t know how I’m expected to respond to this bit of rhetoric, but I’ll just say the following. I’ve already provided evidence (in post #216) of policies that are objectively (a) rare or non-existent in modern democracies around the world, and (b) tend to be supported most strongly in US jurisdictions that are historically less enlightened and associated with lower levels of education and historical knowledge. I consider these facts to support the adjectives I used. I have no doubt that voters in those jurisdictions would have rationalizations for their dumbassery, like we always see from gun nuts and those who argue that UHC in other countries is a socialist horror that is literally killing people.
Of course I’m not talking about the extremes of gruesome practices that we had in the past, like crucifixions and burning alive. But the problem is that the Constitution is intentionally vague on this subject. This is the crux of what I meant when I said, with regard to barbaric practices, “first they are rationalized, and then they become normalized”. When some barbaric practice is rationalized as “necessary for the public good”, and then regularly carried out, it ceases to be “cruel and unusual” punishment and becomes normalized. It’s a fundamental fact of human psychology that when a lot of people are engaged in a barbaric practice, especially when it’s been formally approved and institutionalized by governing powers, it becomes unexceptional and readily accepted.
You are keeping a prisoner locked up for ~~30 years and are not able to prevent them from using intraveneous drugs and you think you are qualified to execute them?
Wow
The scarification from prior IV drug use doesn’t go away. And I’m against the death penalty. Maybe you misread/misunderstand what I said, or perhaps I’ve put it poorly.
I find the idea that a lot of the inmates of death row are junkies offensive in a lot of ways.
Nothing to do with you. 