On what do you base your claim for it not being immoral.
On my side I can count every western democracy save the US and Japan, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church (Greek and Roman), the Episcopal Church, The UN declaration on human rights, The European Convention on Human Rights.
And on your side of the argument…
Only with the governor’s tanks on its lawn- hardly rule of law.
Of course, she was prepared to defy the earlier court order.
On what do you base your claim for it being uncivilized?
Morality is subjective and subject to the whims of the people. The people in this country have decided that capital punishment is moral; therefore, it is moral.
I’m pretty sure that it’s the people who actually perform it who are directly responsible. The opponents are, obviously, at worst indirectly responsible, as nothing they do has led to anyone killing anyone else in any way whatsoever.
Of course, no government should be killing people under any circumstances anyway. No-one should be killing anyone except to defend against an imminent threat to themselves, and no prisoner can be that to a government.
If the state hadn’t been unable to acquire the established and humane execution chemicals, they would have had no need to use an untested compound and this execution would likely have gone off without a hitch. The anti-death-penalty movement is therefore directly responsible for this outcome, which I’m sure they’re quite happy about since it “proves” that lethal injection is inhumane.
So, again, if a man is holding a gun to a child’s head, you’re saying that noone has any right to shoot him?
Since it hasn’t been posted yet and is a new article:
At least 4 percent of those sent to death row in US are innocent, researchers say
But hey! At least the victim’s families will still be getting their vengeance even if it’s not the right person, right? That’s all that matters in this work-a-day world is that the blood god gets its sacrifice.
So that means 96% of them are guilty? Would that the rest of the government could achieve such a lofty success rate.
No, that’s indirect. No-one was forced to use any chemicals to kill anyone.
You are right here, I should have said an imminent threat to themselves or others. The imminence being vitally important, though, as it means that in that circumstance, even if there’s another solution than killing there isn’t time to think of it.
If 4% of airplanes crashed nobody would fly. If a drug caused fatalities in 4% of patients it wouldn’t be allowed on the market.
“If only I could have bought a gun to kill my neighbour, I wouldn’t have had to stab him to death with a knife. Gun laws are responsible for my neighbour’s slow death”. See the similarity?
You seem to have trouble understanding actions before a crime and after a crime.
As an aside, I’ve never understood why conservatives support the death penalty… It would seem to be giving the government an absolutely unnecessary power that could be used against them, if they’re unlucky enough to be in the 4%. Seems to be the antithesis of conservatism to me.
He was going to be executed either way. The anti-death-penalty people embarked on a course of action which resulted in his death being less humane than it needed to be.
If killing someone during the commission of a crime is justified, then killing them afterwards is also justified.
If 4% of airplanes crashed, we’d build safer airplanes rather than ban air travel.
As long as it’s not over $15.
Need? They didn’t “need” to do anything. They “chose” to go forward with an execution knowing full well that they did not have a reliable way to perform the execution.
The fact that the state could not acquire the appropriate chemicals is none of MY concern. Nor are any producers of those chemicals required to supply product to anyone, it’s called freedom. Do you hate freedom? You’d prefer that the state be able to command people to provide them with materials against their will? Command people, like anesthesiologists, to perform executions when they do not wish to?
If the state wants to perform an execution and doesn’t have chemicals, pass a law that allows some other way. Guillotine, hanging, shooting, electrocution.
Unfortunately, it may delay the execution, which can’t be allowed to happen. Which highlights the primary reason why the death penalty needs to be retired. Executions are political, prosecutors push for them to advance their careers, governors push for them because they don’t want to be “soft on crime”. People in power are too invested in making sure the execution happens, that leads to mistakes, and mistakes in the death penalty result in innocent people being put to death.
No. Killing someone before may actually prevent the commission of the crime. Killing someone afterwards may not.
The man had been sentenced to die; as such, they had a legal obligation to execute him. Suddenly you’re OK with the state ignoring the courts?
Yes, for the same reason I don’t believe pharmacies have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.
Fine by me.
And they’re the greatest heroes of all.
It prevents them from ever being able to commit the same crime again.