No wonder I was confused. You are personally opposed to the death penalty, but you don’t think that is relevant to whether the death penalty should exist, but you do believe society shouldn’t have the death penalty because we’re bad at it. 
I believe in the sanctity of human life, from the moment of conception until natural death.
Hard to believe that a society that routinely and humanely puts animals to sleep can’t figure out how to do the same for murderous humans.
Oh, and Kenneth McDuff.
Um… not really.
You are personally opposed to the death penalty…: yes.
…but you don’t think that is relevant to whether the death penalty should exist…: yes.
…you do believe society shouldn’t have the death penalty…:yes.
…because we’re bad at it.: Sorta. Yes, we are bad at it, but the badness serves to outline in stark relief its flaws, both practical and moral, and it’s for those flaws, practical and moral, that I oppose it.
I am not bothered that some states feel the death penalty is necessary. I am disgusted when, such as in this instance, they are too eager to carry it out. I know she stayed the second execution, but I think the Governor should publicly admit that she should have obeyed the Court’s original order and she takes full responsibility for the prisoner’s needless suffering.
I love that you included this. You’re the one who likes to turn discussions about right and wrong into legal and illegal, not everybody else. But anyway, yes, the death penalty is horrifically barbaric and is a nice way to kill off people who couldn’t afford better lawyers.
I’m opposed, too, but I would think a light sedative and pure carbon dioxide would be a lot less trouble, and less painful for the executee.
You also said “But my principles are not any kind of reason for the rest of the country to adopt policy” – does this mean that you do not support outlawing the death penalty?
On a purely practical level, I don’t understand how hard it is to hire a chemist to whip up big batches of midazolam and sodium thiopental and get someone to teach a few guards the basics of hypodermics.
It is almost more embarrassing that not only are we so inept as to feel we need to kill people who are not fit for society, but also we cannot even manage to kill them quickly and with a minimum of fuss.
“nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Just to throw this out there, with nearly 3/4 of UN members abolishing the death penalty (either by law, or just not using it) does that now make it an unusual punishment?
Yes, I do.
So I should draw a distinction between the set of principles that guide me, but which I acknowledge to be unprovable and not based on secular postulates that the general run of society is prepared to accept, and the set of principles I accept that are shared by the general run of society and based on secular postulates which which the general society seems in uncontroversial agreement.
My statement is now more clear: my personal principles, ones not grounded in secular postulates, are not any kind of reason for the rest of the country to adopt policy – until my coronation day.
Okay. So I take it that the same applies to your position on abortion?
Yes.
However, on abortion, the basic postulate is not so neatly categorized into secular and non-secular. Everyone agrees, I expect, that life begins at some point. The position that human life begins at conception and that the human life that has begun at conception is worthy of legal protection are not precisely secular, nor precisely non-secular.
What? He did not rape this girl, but he raped the other girl. From your own cite:
Regarding the thread: I agree the death penalty should be eliminated.
Bullshit. No experimentation is necessary. I’m not a pharmacist, doctor or anything remotely close to it, but if the State of Oklahoma really can’t figure out how to kill someone with drugs more effectively than that, I’ll use my super over-80 IQ to come up with some suggestions.
The death penalty is barbaric, no matter what horrible or clean-looking, or painful or painless method is used.
If we lived in a society where we couldn’t keep people in prison, there could be an argument for the death penalty. We don’t live in that society.
I’m against the death penalty (barely) because our government and judicial system is just so inefficient at doing it. If I trusted them to get it right and do it in a reasonable amount of time and for an affordable price I’d have no problem with it.
However, I don’t see what the case of this unfortunate prisoner has to do with the debate. Something went wrong. That happens sometimes. Let’s fix what went wrong and use a better method if needed. But to stop using the death penalty because one time it went wrong seems misguided.
I have a question about the details of this accident. There are usually a series of chemicals injected, right? The first one puts you out and then others kill you. Was he already unconscious when the vane popped? Did he wake up? If he was asleep the whole time that’s quite different than if he woke up and was in pain and had awareness during the minutes in between the vein pop and his heart attack.
This is literally super-villain logic. “I didn’t want to irradiate Metropolis! Superman made me do it when he stopped me from robbing that bank!”
Sorry. Mixed up the dead guy and the not-yet-dead guy a bit.