Kentucky and Death Penalty

[CmdrWilkens]

A couple thoughts first on the Death Penalty at large. I think that it is currently used in situations that don't warrant it and not used in situations which do. The fact remains that there will always be, by the very nature of people, some folks who are too far removed from even the most basic concept that killing others is wrong. For the sake not just of society, which I feel has the right to permanently remove those who have demonstrated that they are incapable of being a part of it, but of even the other prisoners that would be alongside such criminals. In the end some of them may have done wrong and deserve punishment but they don't deserve to be haunted by the spectre that there is someone sufficiently removed from any shred of decency that their life is forfeit too. basically there are going to be cases where the guy is a threat not just to normal civil society but also his fellow inmates, who has shown such a degree of indifference to the rules of society that help is not possible. For those cases the Death Penatly needs to be available.

Now we come to how to do it:

Morphine: Sounds great but in the end the strapping down and vein probbing which Marina objects to is still going to occur. So long as we are injecting then there is no way around this.

Firing squad: Sooner or later they are going to miss and I think nothing goes into the cruel category more than being shot and not dying immediately but having to wait for the coup de grace even if it comes immediately afterwards as a matter of course because it will take time for someone to get close enough to administer the shot after the firing squad has done its job.

The noose w/ coup de grace: Probably the best bet though I think it would be a hard sell.

[Oskuro]

All the ideas about making the execution more humane sound nice... But I somewhow get the impression that a bit of cruelty is expected to appease the victims, don't you think?

In essence, death penalty feels more like a revenge, the classical "eye for an eye".

To want revenge, to react with anger, hatred and murderous intent aganist those who have hurt us, is an impulse borne out of our most basic instincts. Unfortunately, instincts know nothing of justice, so they cannot be allowed to guide our society. For that reason, processes of justice have to be completely dispassionate, carried out by people not involved in the event, thus ensuring fairness, and justice for all the parts concerned.

Now, killing someone, means robbing that person of the chance to repent and see the error of its ways. Stating that such a person would never repent is just an excuse to avoid the most important meaning of true justice, that the rights of all parts involved, even those of the criminal, must be defended and guaranteed.

Of course, in order to make sure that, while repenting, the criminals do not cause more harm, certain measures have to be taken... In other words, money has to be spent.


In the end, killing a criminal is often faster, cheaper, and, more disturbingly, provides a sense of vindication for both the victims and society at large.


Yes, I'm completely aganist the death penalty in any form.

[Stark]

You know that the whole reason they use lethal injection is that it's supposed to be more humane, right? So pointing out that it's full of suffering is a valid criticism?

No valid justice system can be built on revenge.

[CmdrWilkens]

People may say the death penalty is about revenge but that is petty and simplistic. Yes there may be some temporary satisfaction on the part of the victims relatives but that is temporary. If that is all there was to Capital Punishment then there would be no justice behind it. The deterrent aspect is minimal because there will always be crimes committed which are horrendous, its in the nature of humanity. So given that is there any justification: Yes and I already mentioned it. Society reserves the right to protect its members from those who are unwilling or unable to follow the rules. For most people this means incarceration or confinement in a mental ward (in the former where they have shown disregard for the rules and in the later when they have shown they lack capacity to understand the rules). However there will always be cases (and they are few but real enough) where an individual is so incapable of following the guidelines that he is a threat not just to the rule following society but even to those with whom he might be confined, not because he lacks capacity but rather because he is incapable of seeing anything wrong with destroying life for his own purposes. You cannot confine such a person as it represents an unconscionable risk to those whose actions only rise to the level requiring their seperation from society. For the safety of everyone it is better that such a person be removed permanently.

[Mr Bean]

To expand on a point I made before.

Death by old age is still a death sentence, and carried out every year in most every prison, it lets people think their hands are clean, but if you lock a man in a box until he dies, your still killing him. Without a death penality your still killing people, your simply waiting for nature to step in and do the deed for you.

Logically it makes no sense to be anti-death penalty, and yet still support incarceration for life.

[Gil Hamilton]

There are some people for whom the supreme penalty is necessary and appropriate in society. I simply don't endorse how it is carried out currently, regarding lethal injection as a gross inhumanity. I'd suggest that in addition to extending the process of automatic appeals, a special federal investigative branch should review all death penalty cases as an impartial outside observer to the process, which can intervene to halt executions, and as a final measure, in addition to a jury and judge concurring on the death penalty, there must follow a panel of behavioural science experts who agree that the subject is completely incapable of ever functioning in society again and can make no conceivable worthwhile contributions from prison.

Then, you take them out into the prison exercise yard, offer them a blindfold and a cigarette, and deliver them to the afterlife with a seven-man firing squad.

I'm just not seeing the inhumanity of lethal injection. We use it to euthanize cherished family pets, for pete's sake, including my dog Sam last summer who was a considerably nicer individual than people who rate the death penalty, even if he was a dog. Something I was present for, incidently. This is one of the rare incidents where Shep and I are on the same page. If it was good enough and humane enough for my dog, then your average serial killer is getting a mercy.

You described the cocktail used as "cruel", but which is cruel? The sodium pentathol, the potassium chloride, or the pancurium bromide? The first one in fact is the same stuff they use for anethesia when they want to slice into someone with scalpels and bonesaws without them feeling it... and they use a massive dose in the case of executions, much more than they do for surgery. I have trouble with your description in your original post because of it. If a very carefully measured dose of sodium pentathol can knock out a person so they sleep through doctors cutting out their appendix, I'm doubting too many people are going to be "struggling with awareness" with the megadose they do in executions. By itself sodium pentathol can be lethal (hence the importance of trained anesthesiologists in hospitals) and is lethal in the dose they use. The only reason they add the other two is to speed up the process.

[Flagg]

To expand on a point I made before.

Death by old age is still a death sentence, and carried out every year in most every prison, it lets people think their hands are clean, but if you lock a man in a box until he dies, your still killing him. Without a death penality your still killing people, your simply waiting for nature to step in and do the deed for you.

Logically it makes no sense to be anti-death penalty, and yet still support incarceration for life.

Yeah, except you can't unkill someone if you find out they aren't guilty.

[Oskuro]

I hope my previous point was clear despite my convoluted english.


Anyway, there's no way to be humane when killing someone who does not want to die. The mere knowledge of its fate is a torture by itself, as pointed previously. Probably, the most cruel part of a death sentence, is the time spent in Death Row, waiting for the inevitable...

And please, tell me something, if there is no vengeful intent at all in executions, then why prevent Death Row inmates from commiting suicide? They would be ending the threat they present anyway, right?

Barring a hypothetical super-human who could not be contained by a simple cell, or maybe an straight jacket, I see no need to execute someone, no matter how potentially dangerous they might be.

Even the most obscene killer could repent from its crimes. Who has the right to take that away from them? Who can see the future and tell what'll happen?
Lets not forget that the ability to forgive is not only a sign of greatness, but the only way social wounds can be healed and finally closed. Execution is an outright refusal to forgive.

[Darth Wong]

"Forgive"?

Who the fuck says we have the right to "forgive" people on behalf of others? If someone punches you in the face, do I have the right to forgive him on your behalf, no matter what you may feel about the matter?

Now ask yourself how forgiveness can be granted in the case of a murder.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think that lethal injection is good enough for animals, as a matter of fact, and in making the comparison I was trying to bring about a rather more visceral image, the fact that we put down people like we put down wild dogs. It isn't appropriate to the dignity of a thinking individual.

As for forgiveness, I agree with Mike. We're not pathetic Christians to turn the other cheek and fill our hearts with saccharine mercy and apologetics to those who are evil. There is nothing wrong with hate, in conserved measure, nor with feeling pleasure at vengeance. These are equally normal human emotions as love, and the bizarre Christian guilt-complexes which dominate our society are the only thing which makes them appear otherwise.

[Oskuro]

Errrr, ok, I'll clarify.

I meant forgiveness in the sense that once the price has been paid (by the criminal), the victim should "let go" of its need for revenge, or else the wound will never heal.

If someone punches you in the face, do I have the right to forgive him on your behalf, no matter what you may feel about the matter?

I'll use your example to explain my point. The idea is that, If someone punches me in the face, I should contain the urge to punch him back, and instead sue him for agression and let the system punish him, and then let go of my agression (a bit simplified, but that's the gist).

The forgiveness bit comes at the end. No matter how much I want to punch him back, once the guy has been punished by society, I should forgive him and let go of my anger.

The whole concept is that if I take revenge on the guy, I'm no better than him, and I'm actually contributing to the problem, rather than solving it. That's the difficult part of doing the right thing: When you really don't want to do it.

Hope thats clearer.

[Flagg]

I've never understood why forgiveness is supposed to be this great thing, or why it's seen as a virtue by most people. If someone kills a relative and you forgive them, you're not a better person, you're just a fucking idiot.

And it sure as hell isn't the states business to "forgive". A murder (or robbery, rape, ect.) isn't just a crime against an individual and their immediate family, it's a crime against society. Society isn't in the business of forgiving, it's in the business of being a cohesive system that keeps civilization together and anarchy at bay.

But I'm against the death penalty. I don't think the state has the right to kill one of it's citizens in the peoples name. I think murder is wrong, and capital punishment is clearly premeditated murder. There's also the chance that the person was wrongfully convicted.

About the only situation where I could agree with capital punishment is treason in a time of war or that directly resulted in the deaths of those working for the government overseas. Robert Hanson comes to mind.

[Oskuro]

To Duchess of Zeon....

I'm not talking about mindlessly turning the other cheek. I agree that hate is a human emotion, just as love is, and I assure you, that should a loved one be hurt, I'd be the first to demand the offender's head on a platter.

My whole point is that, while people are supposed to have visceral reactions (we're people, after all), society cannot.

I can understand a father killing the man who raped his daughter in a fit of anger.
I can't understand or accept a government behaving in such a fashion. And Death Penalty is something applied by the government, in a cold, methodical way, not an irrational reaction of a grief-ridden victim.

The forgiveness part, again, is about the effort the victims have to do in order for the whole thing to work out, but, of course, the guilty must be punished... Leaving them to rot in a cell and see their life trickle away is a fitting punishment, that still leaves room for reformation.



-------------------------------------
Argh! Why can't I keep my posts simple? Sorry for the obvious rant mode

[Uraniun235]

But I'm against the death penalty. I don't think the state has the right to kill one of it's citizens in the peoples name. I think murder is wrong, and capital punishment is clearly premeditated murder. There's also the chance that the person was wrongfully convicted.

About the only situation where I could agree with capital punishment is treason in a time of war or that directly resulted in the deaths of those working for the government overseas. Robert Hanson comes to mind.

Why is capital punishment okay when the crime indirectly causes the death of government employees overseas, but not okay when the crime directly causes the death of several citizens?

[Flagg]

But I'm against the death penalty. I don't think the state has the right to kill one of it's citizens in the peoples name. I think murder is wrong, and capital punishment is clearly premeditated murder. There's also the chance that the person was wrongfully convicted.

About the only situation where I could agree with capital punishment is treason in a time of war or that directly resulted in the deaths of those working for the government overseas. Robert Hanson comes to mind.

Why is capital punishment okay when the crime indirectly causes the death of government employees overseas, but not okay when the crime directly causes the death of several citizens?

Because it has the potential of putting the entire nation at risk.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't think that lethal injection is good enough for animals, as a matter of fact, and in making the comparison I was trying to bring about a rather more visceral image, the fact that we put down people like we put down wild dogs. It isn't appropriate to the dignity of a thinking individual.

Out of curiousity, do you have a fear of needles and have trouble getting blood drawn/donating blood?

Because I'm struggling to figure out why you think that a chemical cocktail that painlessly kills a person while they are knocked out is somehow any less dignified than marching them to the gallows and hanging them or putting them against a wall and shooting them. It's not romantic as the latter two (if you can call such things romantic) and it certainly doesn't fit into your whole the Imperial Age Is Super Awesome thing, but really, we are already executing them, very likely after many years on death row. If they aren't at peace with it or at least willing to face it, going to the gallows or being shot isn't going to be any better for then than getting strapped to a chair and then put to sleep. Chances are they've gotten most of the indignities in their life out of the way while in prison waiting for the State to get around to killing them anyway.

[Zwinmar]

My opinion-somone commites a heinous crime, sure, forgive them, but they still have to pay for said crime, that is justice.

I find it is an injustice to all involved to allow loopholes, that is, allowing someone to appeal for 20 years, its rediculous and could be considered inhumane.

Some people deserve to die

I will also point out that, the person who cannot protect themself should not expect anyone to protect them.

[lPeregrine]

Because I'm struggling to figure out why you think that a chemical cocktail that painlessly kills a person while they are knocked out is somehow any less dignified than marching them to the gallows and hanging them or putting them against a wall and shooting them.

Because it's painless only in theory. Read http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =8&did=478 and tell me you think that's a "dignified" way to die. When it goes wrong, it's torture, nothing more.

Now compare that to the zero ways a high-caliber bullet to the head (from close range, of course) can go wrong. No slow lingering death, you're perfectly normal and pain-free, then before your brain even has time to process a message from pain cells it's completely destroyed. A pistol shot to the head might carry some bad historical connotations, but I'd prefer it no questions asked to lethal injection.

[K. A. Pital]

So wait, bullet execution has "bad historical connotations" while execution by chemical agents doesn't have a thousand times worse historical connotations?

[CmdrWilkens]

Because I'm struggling to figure out why you think that a chemical cocktail that painlessly kills a person while they are knocked out is somehow any less dignified than marching them to the gallows and hanging them or putting them against a wall and shooting them.

Because it's painless only in theory. Read http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =8&did=478 and tell me you think that's a "dignified" way to die. When it goes wrong, it's torture, nothing more.

Now compare that to the zero ways a high-caliber bullet to the head (from close range, of course) can go wrong. No slow lingering death, you're perfectly normal and pain-free, then before your brain even has time to process a message from pain cells it's completely destroyed. A pistol shot to the head might carry some bad historical connotations, but I'd prefer it no questions asked to lethal injection.

Actually given the nature of some headshot wounds that troops are even now suffering on a smei-routine basis with high veolicty pieces of shrapnel even a bullet shot at close range can go wrong. Moreover as "mental anguish" goes I think it would be a bit more terrifying for something to have a gun held to their head than to have a needle injected.

[Dooey Jo]

The crime rate has been skyrocketing in Scandinavian countries in the past decades, particularly violent crimes like rape.

The simultaneous skyrocketing of alcohol consumption is to blame for much of that, though. Murder and relapse rates have been pretty constant throughout that time. At least here, I can't speak for the rest of Scandinavia.

[Aaron]

I don't think that lethal injection is good enough for animals, as a matter of fact, and in making the comparison I was trying to bring about a rather more visceral image, the fact that we put down people like we put down wild dogs. It isn't appropriate to the dignity of a thinking individual.

What? In a great number of countries you get rid of wild dogs by shooting them. So I don't see how that supports your point.

[Mr Bean]

Yeah, except you can't unkill someone if you find out they aren't guilty.

So we can't kill anyone anywhere because we might someday kill an innocent man?

That's flimsy logic at best, because there exists a VAST number of methods to prove the guilt of innocents of someone. The Duchess's example of a Federal Department set up with the express purpose of reviewing all Death penality cases.

One could also set the bar of evidence very high for example, it is not an all or nothing thing as anti-death penalty advocates would have it.

[Mr Bean]

Let me go back onto another point here.

The current method of lethal injection is stupid. Morphine does the job as well by itself!

Yes good old Morphine, get some of it and you get a high, get to much of it and it knocks you out, get much more and your heart stops and you die, but who cares? You got the biggest rush of your life, fell asleep and died. As far as method's of execution goes, it's pretty damn kind.

We had this very same topic not a month or so ago. I know because I was the one to start it

Talking to medical professionals since then, Morphine is a surefire method of killing someone, and it knocks you out every time. Simply take the lethal dose, multiply it by five and there's not a person on the planet who could take all that at once and not die.

[Flagg]

Yeah, except you can't unkill someone if you find out they aren't guilty.

So we can't kill anyone anywhere because we might someday kill an innocent man?

Umm... Yeah? Unless you think killing innocent people every now and then is "worth it".

That's flimsy logic at best, because there exists a VAST number of methods to prove the guilt of innocents of someone. The Duchess's example of a Federal Department set up with the express purpose of reviewing all Death penality cases.

One could also set the bar of evidence very high for example, it is not an all or nothing thing as anti-death penalty advocates would have it.

So you would rather spend millions (or even billions) on federal departments and new standards of evidence to keep killing people rather than to lock them up away from society for the rest of their lives?

And yes, I know that's still "death by old age" in your view, but since you can't unkill the wrongfully convicted, but you can release them from prison, then I don't see how it isn't the better option.