Not generally in favor of the death penalty, but kindof agree with neuroman - my first thought was “what about carbon monoxide?” but inert gas suffocation sounds better.
I find assertions about “The Left” sortof curious, since they seem to be the ones behind the idea that government should help make people’s lives worth living.
I’m pretty much opposed to the way the death penalty is imposed (randomly, capriciously, and too often wrongly). But when I read (in Cecil’s column) that it took a convicted murderer 24 minutes to die, I have to wonder how long it took his victim to die.
Would stretching out the time or increasing the pain of death somehow bring the victim back to life? If we are doing this purely for personal satisfaction, then surely we would need to increase the pain and/or the time of execution over time as our minds become numb to the effects.
I think the point is that if the killer didn’t care, why should we? Not that we should increase the pain just because. Personally, I’m opposed the the death penalty for more structural reasons…for someone convicted of a murder such that the death penalty is invoked, while I don’t think we should find the most painful method available, I don’t really care all that much about the feelings of the murderer. S/he didn’t obviously care that much about the feelings of the victim, after all.
So you’re saying: make 'em grow old and die in prison.
Me too. Like you say, that’s a worse punishment than execution.
So why are you mad at us lefties for preferring that alternative?
Exactly.
It also plays on one of the physiological quirks of the human body. Namely, when we suffocate, it’s the increasing carbon dioxide concentration in our blood that makes our bodies and minds freak out. In other words, it’s not lack of oxygen, but rather the inability to get rid of CO2 that causes the issue, presumably to cause a large inhalation to get more oxygen as well. In just about every situation humans are in, they’re pretty much one in the same… except the case of inert gas asphyxiation, where we can exhale the CO2 with no problem, and just don’t get any oxygen on the inward breaths.
So from the perspective of the dying person, there’s no struggle for breath (i.e. to get rid of CO2), and everything’s peachy until you run out of oxygen.
I’m personally aghast that we’re still using such slipshod methods as lethal injections when a better alternative is available, with little of the possibility for error or potential foreign interference, like we see with lethal injection (or at least as the error part goes, with electrocution). States could significantly decrease problems with botched executions, as well as have much more humane and cheaper executions in the bargain. There’s no real downside other than the lack of execution theater that goes with something like lethal injection.
How about this then: We execute people by casting 'em into an industrial-size wood chipper. Fast and painless – or at worst, it’ll only hurt for a half a second or so. Assuming we cast the condemned in head-first.
Thus, between the blood-thirsty make-em-suffer sadists and the wimpy squeamish bleeding-heart wusses, all that remains to be debated is whether to throw 'em in head first or feet first!
Why should society aspire to be more humane than those who kill?
That strategy just leads you into the Unexpected Hanging Paradox.
(One version of which is that the prisoner concludes, correctly, that he can never be hanged, and the executioner is stymied. In most tellings, however, the hangman comes and hangs him anyway.)
Quite obviously we do, since we are having this debate and since society has actually tried to make executions more humane and less painful…certainly less than the victims suffered.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
So you’re saying: make 'em grow old and die in prison.
Me too. Like you say, that’s a worse punishment than execution.
[/QUOTE]
That’s pretty much where I’m at on the death penalty. I feel we should get rid of it, as a society, and basically punish those who so cross the line with life in prison…and if they REALLY cross the line and are dangers to themselves and others, life in prison without the possibility of parole and solitary confinement with 1 hour of exercise daily in a fenced in yard being carefully watched.
Stop being a Der Trihs copycat. kthx.
Well of course it is. Although they are mostly self administered and accidental.
You disagree? Or the truth shocks you?
The Left: Advocates killing babies and elderly, mostly for economic reasons. Thinks people are a burden and drain on society. Advocates socialist programs which punish those who earn money and give it to those who think they deserve it more. Opposes basic civil rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of worship, the right to defend yourself, etc. Protects the ‘rights’ of criminals who actually kill people, often in horrible, unspeakable ways.
Yep. Sounds like a death cult to me.
Is this board moderated or isn’t it?
Moderator Warning
waddlingeagle, this is an official warning for trolling. Political rants of this kind belong in the Pit. Don’t do this again.
Colibri
Comments Moderator
Yes, but you need to report posts that may need moderator attention. We don’t read everything.
Why isn’t heroin used for lethal injections?
a) It might feel good.
b) It might lead to addiction.
You can’t be too careful.
[QUOTE=Cecil Adams]
I can imagine a defender of capital punishment arguing that this is all liberal handwringing and that the alternative, namely life in prison without chance of parole, is itself cruel (if hardly unusual).
[/QUOTE]
Dear Cece,
At least under some circumstances, it is argued by opponents.
http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/85499717.html
That was just one of the many hits I got when searching for “life sentence cruel”. Perhaps you may want to write an addendum.
Why not just use a combination of propofol, oxymorphone, and potassium cyanide?