Treating human beings like dogs isn’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I think we should treat dogs well, too. I love dogs. But we also euthanize sick dogs without their consent – I don’t know of anyone who’d advocate treating humans that way, even supporters of a right to die. Dogs and people are different.
You do realize we’re talking about human beings, not dogs.
Anyway, someone taking an hour to put a dog down because he was using a new secret concoction should go to jail for animal cruelty and not be allowed to work with dogs again.
If the government is going to assert a right to take someone’s life, they better fucking well do it correctly. They use these chemicals to achieve the right “look” to the execution, making it palatable to the masses, not because it’s too difficult to quickly kill a person.
Then we’re in agreement that the anti-DP crowd have blood on their hands for making it impossible for states to get their hands on the chemicals that we know will kill these people safely and humanely.
I don’t see that there’s much difference between a mad dog and a man who executes his girlfriend’s father before her eyes and then kills her as well because she had the audacity to leave him.
It’s my fault that companies refuse to sell the drugs of death to states for use in execution? Damn, I didn’t know I was all the powerful!
It’s the fault of anti-DP groups that have pressured companies into making those drugs unavailable. Everyone who has ever lobbied these companies is responsible for the consequences of that lobbying.
Meh. Perhaps the companies have religions that conflict with taking lives. Corporations are people, you know! Anyway, those that goosestep to the Republican drumbeat are solidly in favor of capital punishment so making drugs available wouldn’t hurt them a bit financially.
I’m not sure what that giant non sequitur has to do with anything, since I’m not a Republican, and none of the companies that were making these drugs had any objection until your lot started trying to shame them.
Not a non sequitor, you stated that the companies were bowing to political pressure and I merely pointed out that they either have sincerely held religious beliefs and/or the political unity of one party in the belief that capital punishment is just peachy means that any market loss they would see by supplying those drugs is minor.
Free speech my friend. Isn’t freedom great? Are you suggesting that it should be illegal for American citizens to communicate with businesses? These business were also free to decide whether they wanted to continue providing these drugs or not. They decided it was in their interests to stop providing them. Are you advocating the government compelling these business to continue providing them? What is your idea for reversing this that is compatible with a free society?
I’m not saying any such thing.
I’m saying that if the people who demanded these businesses stop making the drugs available are now upset that it’s taking longer for condemned inmates to die, that they have only themselves to blame, and they should feel appropriately guilty for the undue suffering that they have caused to be inflicted on other human beings.
Are you claiming that these business were somehow ‘forced’ to stop providing these drugs for executions? Because if they were not forced to do it, and it was a free decision, then isn’t the whole free market to blame here by your logic? I don’t understand why you just stop at protesters that have no power to coerce anyone to do anything. By your definition of responsibility, the entire system that allows citizens to voice their opinions and which allows business to make their own business decisions is the real villain here right? If free speech were disallowed and businesses were at the command of state governments, then you would be happy? I’m not understanding what you actually want here as a recourse. Maybe you can suggest something?
and cleanly. Don’t forget that these chemicals are not actually necessary to execute someone safely and humanely, they just make the death look nice and clinical. These states could easily have bought a rope, or a few bullets, but that’s barbaric.
And I’d be perfectly OK with that. I assume you would also drop your objections if the states abandoned these “inhumane” lethal injections and just went with beheadings?
When are you going to sign up to be an executioner so that you can do it yourself? Why let others do all of the dirty work if you are so strongly in favor of capital punishment. Put your money where your mouth is maybe?
I would drop this particular complaint.
It is not my understanding that “executioner” is not just a job that a private citizen can waltz up and volunteer for, and I do not have any particular interest nor the job skills necessary to pursue a career in corrections.
Since this issue is mainly caused by an EU ban on the export of 1 of 3 drugs commonly used - not because companies refuse to sell, not because of Americans writing the companies and not even because of Republicans - you all are coming off as having no clue about what you’re arguing about. Here, edumucate yourselves if you like:
Can Europe end the Death Penalty in America
Clearly, the answer to the question is “No”.
How much money would I have to plunk down for the privilege?