I’m sensing sarcasm. However, how do we know the victims won’t come back to life? I, for one, am willing to take a chance on this. In the name of science. I say we execute him and see what happens. If the victims don’t come back to life, I will publically apologize to Bricker for getting it wrong that time, but I reserve the right to hope it’ll work the time after that.
It seems only fair.
Vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord…
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? If it is cruel to give him the needle, then our Constitution forbids it. Are you advocating that we repeal the eighth amendment? Good luck on that.
Danceswithcats, you apparently want this guy to suffer and you’re admonishing him for naturally trying to avoid this. If this dude suddenly changed his mind and said “Please, execute me in the most excruciating manner possible!” would you be happy? If you were mentally teleported into his body, what would you do?
See there? You’ve gotten so hung up on the fact that there’s an easy and too-often appropriate parody of your username that you completely missed the point that you’re one of those sad hypocritical imbeciles who has neither the reach nor the temerity to touch, much less punish, those they decide to hate. And the point that crowing vicariously over the death penalty imposed by the state upon some stranger isn’t an ethical position or even a completed thought; it’s just a childish bid for attention and a transparently empty claim to be recognized as someone who can discuss serious issues, which becomes especially obvious when you so shrilly resist any attempt to drag you into those deeper intellectual waters. And the point that the whole idea that anyone, for any sane or insane reason, should be made to or allowed to suffer and/or die is the very thing that’s broken in the head of Richard Cooey. And some others. Including, apparently, you.
Sorry. But in deference to you, I vetted the post by running it past a couple of fourth-graders, and they got it.
Bravo, sir; bravo!
Obviously, the authors of the Bill of Rights did not consider the death penalty per se to be “cruel” in the sense of the Eighth Amendment prohibition; the existence of the death penalty is clearly contemplated by the Fifth Amendment ("…a capital, or otherwise infamous crime…"). The notion that lethal injection is particularly cruel strikes me as rather dubious, but if that’s the issue it can be avoided by hanging him or shooting him or whatever instead.
Yeah but, the state did not and will not rape or mutilate Richard Cooey. They will feed him his last requested meal, he will bathe (or not) watch TV, read, or whatver he does, he will be strapped into a gurney, wheeled down a hallway into a stark room. He will be given an injection and an IV, he will fall asleep, then he will die.
He will not have a brick thrown through his windshield, then have someone pretend to help him, only to have the helper then kidnap, rape, stab, bludgeon and eventually violently murder him.
He will die at relative peace, compared to Dawn McCreery and Wendy Offredo, and die he should.
Yes, he was damaged, regardless of who did the damage, he is damaged, IMO beyond repair. If he is successful in another escape attempt the people of Ohio will be denied justice and endangered by this man yet again.
There are times when death is an appropriate sentence. This is one of those times. Richard Cooey should die.
Whether by LI, electric shock, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad, guillotine, trebuchet, iron maiden, or something even more creative, he has this coming to him. He forfeited his right to live when he and his cohort took the lives of those two women. Period.
Is it equally childish to have an equally emotional response to what happened to his victims? Or does that not count either because we weren’t there and they are strangers?
I can’t figure out if this is parody. It either doesn’t make any sense, or simply asserts that A=A. It certainly has no connection with reality. This is the kind of warped logic that screws around with semantics until government officials can say with a straight face that we don’t torture anyone.
Can you expand on this? What’s the difference between an execution and a murder? Is one not the other because it is carried out by the state?
We have multiple words for death because we attempt to believe that there’s a significant difference between an accidentally caused death (“tragedy”) and a deliberately caused death (“killed”). Hairs are further split to assuage our guilt: deliberate death of an enemy soldier through war (“casualty”) and the cold-blooded, premeditated death of someone who meant you no harm (“murder”) and the hasty, non-premeditated death of someone who did mean you harm (“self-defense”). The cold, premeditated death of someone who did you harm (“revenge”) is sometimes qualified by defining the cold, premeditated death of someone who has been adjudged guilty of doing someone else harm that you sympathize with. We call it “execution” or “justice.”
It’s semantic hair-splitting in the finest human tradition, to comfort the allegedly civilized and save them from their own guilt. My question is, why get into a lather about the difference between “execution” and “murder” and ignore all the other definitions? Because we think self-defense is better than murder?
It is murder (homocide) when innocent citizens die at the hands of other citizens in violation of hundreds of years of recognized law and for no other reason than the murderer had a screw loose, a hard on and was full of intoxicating chemicals.
Execution is the price that is paid ny the violator for the violation of that law. It is not murder. In the most extreme cases it is justice. In the natural world, it is consequence.
Let’s not cheapen the English language any more than it already is: an execution is also homicide.
The law does not cheapen the language.
What is the legal definition of homicide, and/or murder, again? I forget. It does have a legal definition, right?
A single bullet to the back of his head. It works for the Chinese and he’ll be dead before he’s even aware the trigger was pulled.
Weird thing is, Topamax actually causes you to lose weight.
But it must be cruel AND unusual to be against the Constitution, not OR.
So being cruel is OK, as long as we do it often enough to not be unusual.
The definition of the word homicide in the English language is: the killing of a human being by another human being.
This is also, as far as I know, the legal definition.
Homicide is, in and of itself, not necessarily a crime. It includes such acts as killing in self-defense, killing as an act in war, killing in the commision of a crime, and killing in a legally sanctioned execution.
It is, however, a very simple word with a very simple definition. If you have a problem with the fact that a state executioner is committing homicide, that’s your problem.