another botched execution.

[CynthiaCypher]

There is a saying that goes "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" I'd say just take the head and be done with it

I just want the cycle of murder to end. Murder even if it is judicial solves nothing.

 

[Skwim]

Unfortunately, some do not know this

Those doing the shooting certainly do.

 

[Andras]

I just want the cycle of murder to end. Murder even if it is judicial solves nothing.

I agree it doesn't solve anything but it does remove a destructive element from society. We put down dogs when they get rabies, it's no fault of theirs but we do it without too much of a thought- why? Animals that have escaped from the zoo are sometimes killed for just being what it is in the wrong place- why?

 

[s2a]

It isn't that drugs don't exist - it's that companies are refusing to sell them for the purposes of executions. So your vet might be able to buy something (and who can say whether the horse suffers mentally if it's paralyzed, something that the current approved "cocktail" is supposed to avoid) but your stated department of corrections cannot.

Personally I suspect that this outcome is nearly impossible to achieve.

We've never achieved this level of perfection. I sincerely doubt we'll change.

Ummm, OK? Never? Never ever ever?

Is is your position that ALL "state sanctioned executions" have NO merit? NONE?

I wonder, does you argument seek foundation from matters of law (man-made) or a sense of religious morality?

So lock them away never to be paroled - after all if it's what they want than it isn't punishment right? (And again, cheaper, the least harmful in cases of error, etc.) I can't smile over these sorts of matters.

AS I offered before...this is not about "punishment".
It's about societal RETRIBUTION, and ridding ourselves of those that simply reject or renounce any further personal "right to exist".

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that some people simply abdicate or eschew any claims or desire to any "right to exist", Period.

A collective, motivated, a justice laden society with decades or even centuries of moral standards and laws may consider fairly enough, whether a duly and fairly convicted criminal no longer cares what happens to themselves or others as either individuals or of a united species.

I am certain that there are more than enough examples uf such people today, regardless of attributable/original cause, who's primary motivations evince utter disregard for others, or all as a species. OK, but in their actions and deeds...therefore...they abdicate all further rights, or desires to exist.

Period.

We no longer suffer a "mad dog" to "exist". They are, in fact put down, as humanely as possible. As both a dog-lover, and a citizen that both respects and desires fair justice done upon any "mad-dog", canine or human...yes, we can make that call. Right or wrong. Sociopath maniac, or diseased beyond all hope of recovery...the only remaining distinction to be defined is either one of mercy, or implemented societal retribution.

 

[Drolefille]

Ummm, OK? Never? Never ever ever?

Is is your position that ALL "state sanctioned executions" have NO merit? NONE?

I wonder, does you argument seek foundation from matters of law (man-made) or a sense of religious morality?

I oppose the death penalty on ethical principle. I don't have a religion. I couldn't speak to whether my ethical principles come from any sort of supernatural vs. legal vs. my own thought processes. That's sort of a nature/nurture thing with a side order of my agnosticism.

Do they have NO merit - no that isn't accurate. But I believe they have LESS merit than other methods of punishment or rehabilitation. I think they (executions) are incredibly prone to falling into our society's tendency for retaliation. I have a host of problems with the American prison system because of my experience working with it, and this isn't by any means the only one. Nor is it the most important one, personally, as capital punishment does not exist in my state.

As for accuracy, I'm not claiming all executions are on innocent people, just that the standard you spoke of is something I don't consider achievable - that there would be no mistakes, essentially. In light of that impossibility, it is only one more reason I can't support it.

AS I offered before...this is not about "punishment".
It's about societal RETRIBUTION, and ridding ourselves of those that simply reject or renounce any further personal "right to exist".

What differentiates retribution from punishment? And what differentiates it from retaliation or revenge? Retribution is not really anything more than punishment that is "deserved" or "morally right." It has to contain that punishment component.

I don't believe that I as a person can determine if someone else's right to exist should be revoked (or that they've revoked it themselves.) I don't think multiple other people can decide that either.

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that some people simply abdicate or eschew any claims or desire to any "right to exist", Period.

Those people, to me, are the ones who commit suicide. But even if they don't, I don't trust other people to make that judgement call. What is murder in the first place other than deciding that a person doesn't have the right to exist?

A collective, motivated, a justice laden society with decades or even centuries of moral standards and laws may consider fairly enough, whether a duly and fairly convicted criminal no longer cares what happens to themselves or others as either individuals or of a united species.

I don't think that "fairly enough" is a high enough standard. We like the concept, we kind of like the idea of vigilantes for example, taking out the criminals - see movies like Boondock Saints and well, Batman. Because we KNOW the bad guys are bad and that they deserve it. I don't think that knowledge exists outside entertainment.

I am certain that there are more than enough examples uf such people today, regardless of attributable/original cause, who's primary motivations evince utter disregard for others, or all as a species. OK, but in their actions and deeds...therefore...they abdicate all further rights, or desires to exist.

Period.

I just don't think that right is really abdicatable outside of suicide.

We no longer suffer a "mad dog" to "exist". They are, in fact put down, as humanely as possible. As both a dog-lover, and a citizen that both respects and desires fair justice done upon any "mad-dog", canine or human...yes, we can make that call. Right or wrong. Sociopath maniac, or diseased beyond all hope of recovery...the only remaining distinction to be defined is either one of mercy, or implemented societal retribution.

It's weird, the murderers I met have all been the most calm, quiet, people. Some quite vulnerable, some developmentally disabled, some struggling to make sense of a society they haven't seen in years.

They were all guilty of their crimes - 1st or 2nd degree murder - they admit it. But they also are some of the most rehabilitatable criminals. You'll find more sociopaths among the drug dealers I deal with than the murderers.

And no, I've also worked in mental health. I don't believe in "mad-dog" people. Dogs can be rehabilitated, but the money or the ability to do so safely isn't always present. We don't even really try to rehabilitate people, we just lock them up with even tougher criminals and then are shocked when they learn new tricks. Empathy can be learned, lacking it isn't exclusive to "sociopaths" but is fairly common, sadly. But treating people as less-than human is rather the direct opposite of empathy in my opinion.

I understand your beliefs, I simply disagree with them. I believe people deserve a base respect and rights for being people. There's no opt-out checkbox on that.

 

[s2a]

I oppose the death penalty on ethical principle. I don't have a religion. I couldn't speak to whether my ethical principles come from any sort of supernatural vs. legal vs. my own thought processes. That's sort of a nature/nurture thing with a side order of my agnosticism.

I proclaim no ethical attachments to religion either.

Now what?

Do they have NO merit - no that isn't accurate. But I believe they have LESS merit than other methods of punishment or rehabilitation. I think they (executions) are incredibly prone to falling into our society's tendency for retaliation. I have a host of problems with the American prison system because of my experience working with it, and this isn't by any means the only one. Nor is it the most important one, personally, as capital punishment does not exist in my state.

Fair enough, if you adhere to the sentiment that some people kill because they simply don't care, or do not even consider the consequences of those left behind.

As for accuracy, I'm not claiming all executions are on innocent people, just that the standard you spoke of is something I don't consider achievable - that there would be no mistakes, essentially. In light of that impossibility, it is only one more reason I can't support it.

Then, if you prefer, we can argue the merits of a democratic society governed by a republican rule of man made laws. NO, this is not a call to side with rules of a "lynch=mob" consensus,far be it. It does however suggest that "we the people" entrust such decisions to those that we believe to best represent or current values and humanistic ideals.


What differentiates retribution from punishment? And what differentiates it from retaliation or revenge? Retribution is not really anything more than punishment that is "deserved" or "morally right." It has to contain that punishment component.

I can only offer that "punishment" is a mortal's wish of an enactment of pain beyond the absolution of death.

I don't believe that I as a person can determine if someone else's right to exist should be revoked (or that they've revoked it themselves.) I don't think multiple other people can decide that either.

Indeed, and this is where we disagree.

Those people, to me, are the ones who commit suicide. But even if they don't, I don't trust other people to make that judgement call. What is murder in the first place other than deciding that a person doesn't have the right to exist?

We do. so long as a jury of peers in empaneled. It really is that simple...

I don't think that "fairly enough" is a high enough standard. We like the concept, we kind of like the idea of vigilantes for example, taking out the criminals - see movies like Boondock Saints and well, Batman. Because we KNOW the bad guys are bad and that they deserve it. I don't think that knowledge exists outside entertainment.

I hear you, really i do.[/quote]

I just don't think that right is really abdicate outside of suicide.[/quote}

Understood. I do.

It's weird, the murderers I met have all been the most calm, quiet, people. Some quite vulnerable, some developmentally disabled, some struggling to make sense of a society they haven't seen in years.

They were all guilty of their crimes - 1st or 2nd degree murder - they admit it. But they also are some of the most rehabilitatable criminals. You'll find more sociopaths among the drug dealers I deal with than the murderers.

And no, I've also worked in mental health. I don't believe in "mad-dog" people. Dogs can be rehabilitated, but the money or the ability to do so safely isn't always present. We don't even really try to rehabilitate people, we just lock them up with even tougher criminals and then are shocked when they learn new tricks. Empathy can be learned, lacking it isn't exclusive to "sociopaths" but is fairly common, sadly. But treating people as less-than human is rather the direct opposite of empathy in my opinion.

Let's bear in mind, again, of whom we speak. I'm talking about some folks that eschew the entirety of humanity. Not people that need a shave, or decent shower, of a regimen of tooth brushing. I'm talking about thaise that have evidently abandoned ALL social mores or standards in explanation of their acts.

I understand your beliefs, I simply disagree with them. I believe people deserve a base respect and rights for being people. There's no opt-out checkbox on that.

I remain of the strongest persuasion and opinion that a qualified few of us are mostly not only ugly and unfriendly. but far worse. Not accidentally...but quite on purpose. Are such folks "crazy people"? I don't know. Can you assert so with 100% authority? If not, then how long might we expect an unequivocal verdict?

 

[oldbadger]

But could you do that yourself ?.

...you never got an answer!

The pro-execution voters should all be kept on a database and called up at random for execution duty. That should reduce the vote somewhat at the next referendum.

Also, this convict was clearly quite bonkers at the time of his crimes, but that does not seem to have been taken into account.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

...you never got an answer!

The pro-execution voters should all be kept on a database and called up at random for execution duty. That should reduce the vote somewhat at the next referendum.

Also, this convict was clearly quite bonkers at the time of his crimes, but that does not seem to have been taken into account.

I take it, along those lines, you would prefer pro life voters be stored as well, and forced to adopt all unwanted children?

 

[s2a]

...you never got an answer!

The pro-execution voters should all be kept on a database and called up at random for execution duty. That should reduce the vote somewhat at the next referendum.

*puts hand up*

And interesting suggestion, and one that often echoes sentiments viewed/placed upon a woman's right to choose/eschew options afforded by abortion/contraception.

In principle and moral conscience alone, I oppose (generally) any implementations of execution to intentionally kill a common murderer or date rapist. Some acts, while reprehensible, may still be seen as "human nature" (albeit no less reprehensible). In many cases, pure "stupid" rules the case and the evidence...but "malice" or personal hate are/may not be involved.

Then there are those that simply murder people for the sport of it all, or hate of it all, or both. We, as a community and a whole, can, and should, when required...acknowledge the admittedly few offenders that simply don't care or igmore the consequences of their intents or actions. There is a plethora of dictators, despots, political cranks and conspiracy theorists, military rulers, etc. even within the last 100 years that easily fit within the genre. THese sorts, whether "convicted" of their blatantly obvious crimes against our entire species or not, have clearly chosen to obviate/abdicate any remaining claims to "exist".

Said before, but as iterated in the latest "Batman" film series, some people just "want to watch the world burn". They have nothing to contribute. Nothing to say. Nothing to carry forward, nor leave behind. Nothing. That, in and of itself is no crime, but neither is it ANY defense or rationale to provide as any further "reason to exist". Yes, I do believe it is he inherent responsibility of a civilization to remove anyone that disassociates themselves from humanity completely. Grant them the peace of absolution they seek.

Also, this convict was clearly quite bonkers at the time of his crimes, but that does not seem to have been taken into account.

No sane person would argue that any insane person should be held responsible/accountable for their actions whilst "insane".

But what I have repeatedly questioned over decades now is...

..is it "crazy" to desire someone gone (dead), or to kill anyone you see as unrighteous or deserving? Medically speaking, is it "crazy" to want to kill anyone that seeks to harm or murder your family? Is it insane? Even as a "temporary" explanation or "self-defense"? Is it crazy to seek out and kill enemies in warfare/combat? Is it really nutty a hope/desire that the murderer that slayed your children/family in cold blood for NO reason at all in some mindless mass-killing with no evident remorse, "has it coming"? Is that "crazy"?

Hmmm....

 

[Drolefille]

But what I have repeatedly questioned over decades now is...

..is it "crazy" to desire someone gone (dead), or to kill anyone you see as unrighteous or deserving? Medically speaking, is it "crazy" to want to kill anyone that seeks to harm or murder your family? Is it insane? Even as a "temporary" explanation or "self-defense"? Is it crazy to seek out and kill enemies in warfare/combat? Is it really nutty a hope/desire that the murderer that slayed your children/family in cold blood for NO reason at all in some mindless mass-killing with no evident remorse, "has it coming"? Is that "crazy"?

Hmmm....

No, it's not "crazy." But that doesn't make it "right." And it's the exact reason we don't permit vigilante justice.

I can speak as a mental health professional that it isn't "crazy" to have that desire until that desire significantly interferes with your life - such as facing your own murder charges, or becoming an obsession that eradicates everything else.


I didn't reply to your previous response to me because it simply comes down to us having different worldviews. There are indeed horrible people in the world, but they're still people. I have more sympathy for a military mission where people are killed as part of achieving an objective or to eliminate an immediate threat than I do for killing people for punishment. (And no, a prisoner is not a threat.)

 

[s2a]

No, it's not "crazy." But that doesn't make it "right." And it's the exact reason we don't permit vigilante justice.

I can speak as a mental health professional that it isn't "crazy" to have that desire until that desire significantly interferes with your life - such as facing your own murder charges, or becoming an obsession that eradicates everything else.


I didn't reply to your previous response to me because it simply comes down to us having different worldviews. There are indeed horrible people in the world, but they're still people. I have more sympathy for a military mission where people are killed as part of achieving an objective or to eliminate an immediate threat than I do for killing people for punishment. (And no, a prisoner is not a threat.)

I hear you, and acknowledge what you have to say.

It is my hope that you are not the only guy asked to negotiate with the next fanatic with a bomb vest.

 

[Wirey]

I think you have to define suffering a little more clearly. If I lock you in a room and tell you "Some time in the next two years, the State is going to kill you," doesn't that qualify as suffering? Waking up every day thinking "Is it now?"

 

[Drolefille]

I hear you, and acknowledge what you have to say.

It is my hope that you are not the only guy asked to negotiate with the next fanatic with a bomb vest.

A) I hope I'm not the person called at all as if the list is down to me, something else has gone quite wrong
B) You do tend to call negotiators to, ya know, negotiate, not shoot people
C) Shooting that guy would fall into the "military objective."

Killing someone in self defense is not the slightest bit comparable to killing an inmate FWIW. Personally I don't and won't own a gun because I don't believe I'd be comfortable with pointing it at someone and killing them. But that makes me unusual among my coworkers.

 

[Wirey]

Another botched execution? The guy died, didn't he? I'd call that successful. Unbelievably cruel, but successful.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Another botched execution? The guy died, didn't he? I'd call that successful. Unbelievably cruel, but successful.

The word "botched" doesn't imply that it wasn't successful. It only implies that the job was done in a clumsy manner.

As for "unbelievably cruel"... was it really? By what standard? The man wasn't a terminally ill patient being put out of his misery. He was a murderer being put to death.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I know our esteemed Revoltingest just had a post on this a few months back, but it appears to have happened yet again. This time the drug cocktail taking almost 2 hours to successfully induce not living.
So, thoughts?

Arizona inmate takes nearly two hours to die in botched execution

Go back to hanging. Or even better, a firing squad.

All of this suffering from drugs is the ironic result of doing away with perfectly good methods of execution.

 

[Wirey]

The word "botched" doesn't imply that it wasn't successful. It only implies that the job was done in a clumsy manner.

As for "unbelievably cruel"... was it really? By what standard? The man wasn't a terminally ill patient being put out of his misery. He was a murderer being put to death.

Please explain the difference between murdering a fellow citizen and torturing one to death. The state decided to take his life, but I don't think they're allowed to re-open the Inquisition.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Please explain the difference between murdering a fellow citizen and torturing one to death. The state decided to take his life, but I don't think they're allowed to re-open the Inquisition.

He wasn't accused of insincerely converting to Christianity and put on the rack. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

When I asked "By what standard?", I was highlighting the point that cruelty is subjective. Torture is subjective.

 

[Ingledsva]

What I don't understand is that the death penalty still exists. I think it's about time it was gotten rid of.

I think they need to add more crimes to the death list.

Torture - Attempted Murder (you missed, to bad) - Rape, and Child Molestation.


*

 

[Smart_Guy]

Dude, if you find it is necessary to execute, and no other option is there, please at least do it as fast and painless as possible. Why injections?

What I don't understand is that the death penalty still exists. I think it's about time it was gotten rid of.

I share your sentiment, but when I read the article and think about it, that murderer killed not one, but two innocent people. I think those two victims were in different cases and time frames. If so, if he was executed earlier for the first murder, the result of dishes... I mean deaths, would have been one innocent and one murderer instead of two innocents. If I get to choose, I'd choose the former scenario. I don't think it is good to keep the murderer alive and give him an opportunity to murder a third innocent person (let alone the possibility of it being someone we love, God forbid) just like he had one with the second victim.

No, I don't like execution, but I think it has to be there as very last resort option.

Dunno, I could be wrong in my analysis. I just care for the innocent more than I do murderers. Any thoughts?