Stopping an execution because the victim had died (horribly)

[woolley]

 

 

I'm perfectly comfortable with the state exacting a "revenge killing" on someone who raped and murdered an 11 month old child. Sorry you don't agree, but I don't think sitting them down on pink beanbags and trying to get in touch with their feelings to understand them is really fair and just.

 

And in those countries that don't have the death penalty this kind of stuff still goes on so I dont think talking to them is really deterring them either. So if we can agree that there's nothing that can be done to deter this type of person, then I don't really have an issue with them being murdered by the state, ideally in a long, drawn out and horrific way.

 

 

Let them rot alive in a neon lit concrete hell, where all they can do is stare at the walls for year after year after year. It’s like being buried alive. Nobody knows what happens after we die.

 

 

How utterly naiive if you think that's what happens, or what could happen.

The majority of posters in this thread would be up in arms.

Correct. If that actually happened I might get on board with the idea.

[woolley]

.All in accordance with modern thinking and the European Convention on Human rights.

 

One of the great problems, if not the greatest folly of our time, in many spheres and not just this one, is the belief by a complacent liberal establishment that "modern thinking and the European Convention on Human Rights" are by their very nature the highest form of reason and the best codes by which to organise society. Sadly, this is far from the case and will bring about the downfall of western civilisation as we know it today in Europe.

[Donald Trumps]

Certainly the Russians seem to like a leader who'll indulge in a bit of light genocide every now & then

[woolley]

Quite apart from causing the perpetrator time to reflect on the horror of their actions it also gives them the opportunity to repent and find salvation, a thing that should be withheld from on one.

Dear, dear dear. What makes you think that they would want to repent?

[Thomas Jefferson]

What about people who murder someone who was a menace to society?

They should get medals.

[doc.fixit]

I've been following this debate with interest and a question for me, is which is the right path, that is, the most humane option. Lifetime or longtime incarceration with all the long term psychological, mental and physical problems that entails, or, death which includes those problems but for a very short length of time, ( if the guilty party isn't kept waiting).

 

Are there any other options which will keep the guilty party off the streets or which will satisfy the rest of humanity's need to punish or come to terms with the death of a loved one?

 

Indeed, a second question is what is the reason for the chosen sanction and does it achieve its aim?

 

Just musing........

[Lonan3]

 

What about people who murder someone who was a menace to society?

They should get medals.

You're probably asking for trouble there, TJ.

[wrighty]

I really think the US are overthinking their execution methods. My, possibly incorrect, understanding of the problem is that they use 3 drugs - a sedative, then a muscle relaxant, then potassium chloride, but on 'human rights' grounds the EU have banned exports of the sedative so they're stuck trying to find alternatives.

 

At the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland they use an oral barbiturate, which again, if taken in a large enough dose, is fatal. That's only 1 drug.

 

Thousands of animals are killed by vets every day - from what I've seen of the practice it's quick and easy, with one injection, and the animal just seems to be put to sleep.

 

We can argue all we like about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, but if they are going to do it why are they complicating it so much. There'd be far fewer problems if they just got a vet to do it for them.

[ballaughbiker]

I think the best drug (Thiopental sodium) which has been around since the 50s ceased production in about 2009. I understand it has largely been replaced originally by Methohexital (also now no longer in production in the UK) then Propofol in anaesthetics mainly due to their shorter acting (ie duration) properties and much quicker post-op recovery. Neither of these properties are right handy in an execution, so Thiopental ended up mostly being used just for executions.

 

The firm that made it in the US stopped its production on ethical grounds but moved the manufacture to Italy where I think the same thing happened. I think they are therefore using Propofol as the anaesthetic/sedative 1st drug but whilst this probably isn't really the agent of first choice, I don't think that is the problem in this despicable case.

 

It was bad technique by an operative who should have stopped the execution at a much earlier stage when they (as reported) couldn't maintain a good enough vein for the cannula to get the drugs in. The failure to kill him quickly therefore wasn't directly related to the lack of availability of the ideal drug. It was a poor operator and, yes, a vet or one of those nice ladies in the blood test dept at Nobles who likely does a thousand or two venipunctures a year might have had more "luck".

 

However it is a bit disingenuous for "the antis" to seize on this case and the drug unavailability issues which, if accurately reported, would not have come to light if they'd just had the skill to find and maintain a good vein or if they'd just stopped when that obviously didn't happen.

 

Edit for speling

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

The most important disagreement with capital punishment is so basic that it ought to be obvious to even the most intellectual insignificant - if we as a society have a problem with violence, we can't use punishment as violence.

If someone is killed and has killed someone, which are considered wrongful acts against any person, you can't then be violence or kill, or both and think that is moral.

If the principles is paramount then that principle should be upheld.

Well that is all very nice. Of course we don't believe in violence but you can't fight violence with softness and loving care. There have to be appropriate sanctions. What would your attitude be if required to fight a war if your country was in peril of invasion?

How does my argument involve softness and loving care?

 

You're terrible at this. Talk about straw-manning an argument.

 

And then you throw in 'appropriate sanctions' without engaging with my argument.

 

AND, what the fuck does a war have to do the issue? If you're talking about self-defence (of which modern wars are very often a poor example) then you're talking about a different issue entirely. A State does not use capital punishment as self-defence.

[Chinahand]

@Wrighty & BB - A New York Times piece on lethal injectons which basically agrees with Wrighty.

[alibaba]

It's apparently 'humane' to electro shock and then fire a bolt through the head of a cow, after terrorising it by forcing it down a tight corridor filled with blood, piss and shit, the stench of fear and the howls and shrieks of other animals about to meet the same fate.

 

Humane.

 

Do that to these people then if it's so humane.

[Lisenchuk]

I really think the US are overthinking their execution methods. My, possibly incorrect, understanding of the problem is that they use 3 drugs - a sedative, then a muscle relaxant, then potassium chloride, but on 'human rights' grounds the EU have banned exports of the sedative so they're stuck trying to find alternatives.

 

At the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland they use an oral barbiturate, which again, if taken in a large enough dose, is fatal. That's only 1 drug.

 

Thousands of animals are killed by vets every day - from what I've seen of the practice it's quick and easy, with one injection, and the animal just seems to be put to sleep.

 

We can argue all we like about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, but if they are going to do it why are they complicating it so much. There'd be far fewer problems if they just got a vet to do it for them.

Would pharmaceutical heroin be a dependable option?

[wrighty]

 

I really think the US are overthinking their execution methods. My, possibly incorrect, understanding of the problem is that they use 3 drugs - a sedative, then a muscle relaxant, then potassium chloride, but on 'human rights' grounds the EU have banned exports of the sedative so they're stuck trying to find alternatives.

 

At the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland they use an oral barbiturate, which again, if taken in a large enough dose, is fatal. That's only 1 drug.

 

Thousands of animals are killed by vets every day - from what I've seen of the practice it's quick and easy, with one injection, and the animal just seems to be put to sleep.

 

We can argue all we like about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, but if they are going to do it why are they complicating it so much. There'd be far fewer problems if they just got a vet to do it for them.

Would pharmaceutical heroin be a dependable option?

Enough diamorphine would certainly do, trouble is calculating how much is enough, as individual responses are very variable. A barbiturate is almost certainly a better option.

[paswt]

It's apparently 'humane' to electro shock and then fire a bolt through the head of a cow, after terrorising it by forcing it down a tight corridor filled with blood, piss and shit, the stench of fear and the howls and shrieks of other animals about to meet the same fate.

 

Humane.

 

Do that to these people then if it's so humane.

I think you'll find they don't "electric shock" a cow they just use a captive bolt pistol (an improvement on the pole axe).

 

Jewish ritual slaughter is without any stunning . Halal ritual slaughter can include stunning.

 

Pigs ans sheep are stunned with an 'electric shock"

 

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the the process .