The Sick Moon Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I'm generally pro the death penalty I know, I've heard your Shostakovich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 It reduces those involved in trying and convicting him to his level. I've thought long and hard about this subject and I keep coming back to this comment which I now feel I wholeheartedly agree with. There's just something not right, something I can't quite get my head around about a jury passing down a sentence of death in an advanced post-industrial 21st century western society. But then the statistics for how many in that society believe the earth is 6,000 years old or in a literal Noah's ark is again something I can't get my head around. The America of today is not the Republic of the late 18th century. Something has gone seriously amiss. It's now a backward society of savages which goes around the world bombing people, stealing natural resources, with a celebrity cult of personality, the highest prison population in the world, prisons run for profit, militarisation of police forces, preparations for fullscale marshall law. Really, the place appears to be going to hell in a handbasket. The overzealous use of the death penalty and this bomber's terrorism appear to be symptons of the same societal madness. We're seeing the collapse of an empire and I just hope we don't go down with them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagman Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Any hospital or pharmacy will have plenty of drugs that in overdose will kill. The point with the supply argument is that the manufacturers of these drugs object to their use in judicial killings and have threatened to stop supplying them for medical purposes if they're misused. I do find it hard to understand why the US government, or each state for that matter, can't set up a small lab just for producing their own drugs, if they're so inclined. It's not as if the drugs are under patent or anything. Similarly, just go to the local vet and get a dose of something he'd use to kill a horse. That'd work. I'm generally pro the death penalty, for some classes of un-rehabable criminal. Child abductors who go on to molest and then murder for example - I'd happily pull the trigger or inject the thio myself for those. Have to be proven absolutely of course, which these days is easier than it used to be. I don't see the point of locking someone up forever. I've posted before on here that in cases such as this bomber, I'd give them the option - life without parole, or death. I agree that it's not beneficial, in terms of reducing the likelihood of further attacks etc, but it is probably cheaper. Agree with you again for most of this, except giving him an option, I`m all for killing terrorists,peado`s,rapists, etc. - what is the success rate for rehabilitation? - Just kill them, atleast it`s one less and might save an innocent person from being killed or abused in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agoraphobia Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Too many innocent people have been locked up and killed by the justice system in the United States and elsewhere. It's a mistake to give people the power of life and death when they're so inclined to errors of judgement. There are even cases where evidence showed the person was innocent but the state governor has ignored it, refused a re-trial and allowed the person to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 There are some human shaped creatures whose behaviour has shown that they are unfit to have the rights associated with being a decent member of society extended to them. In the case of this example of homo excreta I oppose imposing his extermination for the simple reasons that he then becomes a martyr for others to emulate and because it's a soft option. As I wrote a modern day oubliette provided with the necessities of life but absolutely no human contact and let him rot. And the same for all of his type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 life imprisonment in a bedsit in salford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Not necessarily. He might be rehabilitated and on release become an upstanding and useful member of society. I could also win the lottery, the odds are probably the same People win the lottery ever week. Just once would do me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 There's been a great deal of discussion and even consideration shown to this piece of excrement and none to his victims. They should be considered before he is. They have a right to see him suffer even though it can never be to the same extent as they have and will continue to do. It is more than possible that there may be some Christians amongst the victims and their families who would not want to see him be punished, but the majority doubtlessly are not so inclined and their wants have been expressed by the US courts and justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I thought that doctors were prevented by the hippocratic oath from taking part in the killing itself. Hence the protocols in the US where prison officers receive training in inserting IV lines and any other necessary 'medical' procedures. The doctor only gets involved to certify death. Hippocratic oath is irrelevant. Firstly, it's not widely used - I certainly never swore to it. Secondly, it prevents other things too, such as abortion (which is widely carried out by medical practitioners), and lithotomy (cutting for stone - leave that to the surgeons, it says). So forget about that. I was talking hypothetically, rather than offering my services to become a public executioner, as a way of expressing my personal view of the death penalty - I was not in any way speaking for medics in general. In a way you're right - if compared with abortion, for example, no doctor can be compelled to take part if it is against their personal code of ethics. I suspect the same would be true of judicial killing, but I can't see it being prevented by any oath. Medical regulatory bodies may have other views of course, but put it this way - who would you rather have carrying out an execution - a fully qualified anaesthetist or a couple of prison officers who take multiple attempts at finding a vein before botching the injection protocol? Wrighty, thanks for the information about the Hippocratic oath, I was under the illusion that it was something that existed in the modern world. I think you put your finger on it when you say that medical regulatory bodies may take a view. I feel sure that they would, as a clear ethical problem would exist for a medic employing their professional skills to deliberately kill a healthy person against their will. As for the question of whether I would prefer a qualified anaesthetist over a prison officer, I would prefer that the death penalty was not carried out at all. If it is carried out, then I would not want to see doctors acting as executioners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Bottom line the justice system is administered by people and people make mistakes. The two fruitcakes who shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices decided to go out "in a blaze of glory" or some such crapulence. I've no doubt at all that in places like Islamic State this would be approved of and held up as an example to others. Rotting away in a French jail for the rest of your natural probably doesn't have the same sort of appeal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 For those saying execution is wrong etc isn't it more humane than locking someone for 23 hours a day in the knowledge they have no prospects, no life to live and they will die in there? If it was me I would be begging for the lethal injection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 For those saying execution is wrong etc isn't it more humane than locking someone for 23 hours a day in the knowledge they have no prospects, no life to live and they will die in there? If it was me I would be begging for the lethal injection And if you had committed some act such as this individual has I would refuse you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Any hospital or pharmacy will have plenty of drugs that in overdose will kill. The point with the supply argument is that the manufacturers of these drugs object to their use in judicial killings and have threatened to stop supplying them for medical purposes if they're misused. I do find it hard to understand why the US government, or each state for that matter, can't set up a small lab just for producing their own drugs, if they're so inclined. It's not as if the drugs are under patent or anything. Similarly, just go to the local vet and get a dose of something he'd use to kill a horse. That'd work. I'm generally pro the death penalty, for some classes of un-rehabable criminal. Child abductors who go on to molest and then murder for example - I'd happily pull the trigger or inject the thio myself for those. Have to be proven absolutely of course, which these days is easier than it used to be. I don't see the point of locking someone up forever. I've posted before on here that in cases such as this bomber, I'd give them the option - life without parole, or death. I agree that it's not beneficial, in terms of reducing the likelihood of further attacks etc, but it is probably cheaper. The drugs are patented in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 If it was my 8 year old boy who had died, I would want blood. At first. Then i would stop, think, and think more. It is my firm belief that the state should not have the right to take a life. It is also my firm belief that no member of the medical profession should be involved in state sponsered execution. The hippocratic oath should apply to all medics. This eye for an eye stuff is beyond stupid. " Vote for me, I believe in Jesus" they all shout. "Vote for me and I will give you Justice". No I shout.." Jesus preeches to forgive" God wants justice, they respond. It's a sad state of affairs, when the number one country in the world needs to play for fundamedalist religious votes. The vote from the right wing Christians, who demand an eye for an eye. And the same people insist of bombing campains against the barbaric Muslims who behead people. I cant figure this out. Why is it ok for one country to quote from a fairy story book as justification to kill people, then they bomb another country for doing the same thing. Sorry, but States have no right to take a God given life. Or an evolution given life. Hey... vote for me.... I executed 200 people when I was Governer of Texas. "Hey Hos, I will vote for you.... Jesus will love you for what you done" Nope. The death sentence is a religious thing. We dont need it. What we need is secular Governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Nope. The death sentence is a religious thing. We dont need it. What we need is secular Governments. How does that work in China? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're pretty secular and kill more than everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.