Considering the acts not only of terrorists outside the US, but also murders, rapists and other such “villains” within the US, does anyone believe that simply injecting a lethal fluid into such prisoners, with a near instantaneous death, is far too quick and painless for their crimes?
Yes.
No.
Nope
No
(With such in-depth analysis, this surely belongs in Great Debates…)
I’m opposed to the death penalty in all cases so I think the lethal injection is too much.
I’m personally in favor of an “Escape From New York”-style offshore island with provisions supplied on a regular basis for the population, not unlike Australia may have been at one time.
Death penalty as “punishment” is ridiculous. To cause someone to cease to exist does nothing to “return the favor” of the harm they have caused. If anything, it might deprive them of a life of guilt. It also neither prevents nor undoes the crime. The only way in which a death penalty could be useful is to remove a dangerous person from the world of the living.
That said, I am neither for nor against the death penalty in theory. However, this thread presents some good arguments against the way it is currently being practiced.
I heard somewhere, and if someone could confirm or deny this it would be greatly appreciated, but the gist of it was that two injections are given - first an anaesthetic and then the actual lethal agent. The claim was made that the lethal agent causes such agony that the executed must first be paralyzed so as not to show outward signs of suffering.
There are actually three injections which are generally used. The first is a barbituate to knock you out, the second, usually pancuronium bromide, paralyzes you, and the third, potassium chloride, kills you for sure. (In fact, the barbituate dosage is so high that it’s possible that you’ll be dead before you even get the potassium chloride.)
The reason that the pancuronium bromide is used is that the potassium chloride can cause muscle contractions and other ugly side-effects. Even if the second drug is skipped, however, there’s no way anyone under the influence of so high a dosage of barbituates could feel it. A potentially troubling problem is if they get the dosage wrong, in which case there’s a possibility that the person could feel pain.
Thank you, friedo - I really appreciate it.
No. And I don’t believe the death penalty is appropriate punishment. (It’s certainly unusual – few places in the world allow it).
After all, aren’t we supposed to be better than the terrorists? Why should we stoop to their level?
No.
One death is far too quick and painless to pay for one death?
and,
How much pain would be “enough”?
and,
The proposal sets up a rule that will perform evil on certain innocents, those erroneously convicted.
This is an argument based on revenge. Revenge is not justice, and governments should not cater to it. I have no problem with the death penalty, provided that it’s accurately and justly assessed, and efficiently carried out, but it should be used to maximize public safety, not to sate the public’s thirst for blood.
The Constitution, the foundation of our goverment, forbids cruel and unusual punishment. I see no reason to scrap our way of government just to satisfy a lust for vengeance. “Let the punishment fit the crime” comes from Gilbert and Sullivan, not from the Founding Fathers.
I think it’s too cruel as it is. They should take 'em down with an OD of heroin. Seriously.
I’m not against the death penalty though. Killing people strikes me as less cruel than locking them in cages for years on end.
The difference is that you can let people out of a cage if a mistake has been made, but they are going to stay in that coffin forever.
I sometimes wonder if corporal and or capitol punnishment should be optionally allowed to prisoners. That is a prisoner with a life sentance should be allowed to chose a quick easy death instead of years in jail. Or a prisoner might substitute a longer conventional prison sentance for a shorter one involving hard physical labour. Maybe even allowing some form of public flogging to be chosen over a jail term. These would be morally acceptable I believe if the prisoner themself gets to choose between ‘punishment’ and regular prison.
I’m against executing children and the mentally incompetent.
I see no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
The system should be about justice, not revenge.
I hate the idea of executing innocent people.
Of course I don’t live in the US.
I definitely agree with this idea. A prisoner who was wrongfully convicted will know that the sentence was wrongful. If instead of a mandatory life sentence or mandatory death sentence they were given an option, then they could choose not to be put in a coffin for something they know they didn’t do.