Who gives a shit about the fucking state dinner already!
There is no evidence that he struggled to avoid the cannulisation. The official reports merely note that adequate sites could not be found. As a mental health nurse I can tell you that with a struggling patient the easiest route is in the arm, the most difficult is in the groin or axilla- ergo he was not struggling.
You cannot love and kill someone against their will; only hate allows that.
We have been two generations without state sanctioned killing and crime rates remain low and get lower.
Certainty of innocence, as I’ve said before, is not relevant. There is no way we can be certain of the guilt of everyone who has been executed, or who will be executed in the future and, in my opinion, absent that certainty there should be no executions.
It’s also my opinion that even with certainty there should be no executions, but I consider that a valid subject for debate. That the state should happily execute people it doesn’t know to be guilty, not so much.
So f’ing what?
They want to profit from their murdering, raping family member’s death.
But actually, I’m sure they are just doing that to give that to the murdered girls family. Because they, like you are just kinder and gentler.
Pjen you seem like a true believer, but just throwing stuff on the wall to see what will stick (see the steak discussion above) is counter productive.
Who’s point are you trying to prove here?
The points are:
1/ This is a moral issue, not a political one.
2/ So, it is more like slavery and racism, not an even playing field, but given our moral assumptions about what it is to be human, no one should suffer thus unnecessarily.
3/ The vast majority of liberal democratic rule of law states have accepted this as they have accepted the abolition of slavery and the avoidance of racism.
4/ Because of its interesting history, the USA remains an out-lier and behind the drift of western moral direction, though this is changing rapidly.
5/ Any action from posting in a challenging manner here, through campaigning against such killing, supporting groups that make such killing difficult by withdrawing drug supply, refusing to extradite to death making regimes such as the US, encouraging families of botched execution to sue for wrongful death, preaching from the pulpit and so on are a moral and not merely a political action. We would not accept a state saying that as it had voted for slavery or apartheid, it was justified in being treated as an acceptable partner rather than a pariah state.
I would support any legal action (and many illegal ones) that oppose judicial killing in the same way my ancestors opposed slavery, and I supported Civil Rights leaders and anti-apartheid campaigns.
I recognise the pro- killing arguments here as analogous to arguments defending slavery and apartheid.
OK. Clarifying then… Your interpretation of “accident of birth” seems to apply only to jus soli citizenship?
Such an interpretation would be wrong.
The accidents of your birth also include who your parents are, including what citizenship they hold (among many other factors). So whatever citizenship you received at birth, whether by jus soli or jus sanguinis, you can strike that up to an accident of birth.
And no accident of birth makes you a murdering rapist. That’s entirely of a person’s own making. As John Stuart Mill once said we impose the death penalty not because we hold human life so cheaply but because we hold it in the highest possible regard and look upon its extinguishing by murder as the most appalling of crimes and subject to the forfeiture of the killer’s own life. It’s always seemed eminently fair to me.
The thing about slavery – as helpfully noted in the 13th Amendment – is that it’s objectionable, and downright horrifying, to put people in involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The thing about apartheid is that it’s wrong to treat people as second-class citizens – unless they’re, y’know, felons getting locked up or whatever.
You state as fact a contention that is without scientific support. It is a political and moral belief that such personal responsibility exists. At best there is little empirical support for it, at worst the laws of nature make it a physical impossibility.
Exactly, and by the same argument it is wrong to kill people unnecessarily.
And, by the same argument, right to kill 'em as punishment – and wrong to lock 'em in a small cage unnecessarily, and right to do so as punishment.
Wrong. One of the basics of being human is the possession of ones own life. That is higher than possession of freedom. I have no problem with lifers or others deciding to end their own lives- unlike current practice which is to deny them that right as part of their punishment. But the right to life itself, if desired, is paramount and should not be removed except as a necessity.
You say they can choose to forfeit their lives.
I agree entirely.
If such is their choice as autonomous individuals; not if it is an undesired consequence of state sanctioned killing.
Big-hearted guy that I am, how about we compromise by announcing in a clear voice that if you choose to do X or Y or Z, you forfeit your right to life, and then let autonomous individuals so opt if they desire?
bolding mine
Can you clarify how widespread or narrowly the withdrawing of drug supply can be and still be morally justified? Does it matter if the drug is not available for others who might benefit from it for other medical purposes? Is it acceptable to deny a drug to 100 (or 1000, or 10000… pick a number) patients in order to prevent its use in 1 execution?
Is it morally justified for a drug manufacturer to refuse export to an entire country because some small fraction of their product may be used in an execution?
How about limiting it by state in the US? (Many states do not have the death penalty for state crimes).
Or must such withdraw of product be more limited? How do you decide.
How about that doesn’t sound like anything he meant? If you disagree with his contention just say so and skip these word games.
Of course I disagree with his contention, but that’s a pretty quick exchange: he says no, I say yes, we’re done. And if he wants to say nobody ever has the right to take any life, including one’s own, then I’d flatly disagree and that’d be it.
But if he wants to contend that people should be free to, uh, autonomously decide to forfeit their lives, then I’d like to explore whether he feels they can so choose under such a framework, because, again, I’m fine with tacking that warning label on.
He thinks that the right to take a life should only be a personal choice, and you want things to stay the way they are, where the state has the right to take a person’s life. Where is the compromise, again?
But only if the felon in question makes the personal choice to commit a capital crime. I can’t stress that enough.
Maybe “compromise” is the wrong choice of words. How about – “win-win”? My side gets to execute criminals, and his side gets to insist that said criminals make the personal choice to commit capital crimes.