Oklahoma executes inmate who dies vomiting and convulsing

[GoCubsGo]

Pharmaceutical lobotomy?

[Vrede too]

... And no, I don't support his execution. What he did was horrible. But there are other ways to deal with a sicko like him. Non-lethal anti-psychotic medications, for example. Along with life in prison.

You seem to make a habit of presuming that White terrorists are mentally ill. Excusing them?

Pharmaceutical lobotomy?

I defer to Useless' expertise on that.

[O Really]

... I haven't see you describe any benefit to society from state killing.

I'd agree that there's no valuable benefit to society for keeping an incorrigible killer around for 20 years and then killing them. But it would certainly be a benefit to society not to have serial or mass killers around anymore. And in the current system, it is more expensive to sentence a convict to death than it is to keep him life without parole. But if you killed him off more quickly, that wouldn't apply, and if you weren't keeping him in a cage for life, you wouldn't have that expense. And if you killed off those who would otherwise be on "Death Row" you don't pay the very high costs of supermax type cages. Benefit to society - major reduction in cost of running penal system. The current system provides no disincentive to violent crime. Criminal doesn't really expect to get caught, but if he is, he probably won't get the death penalty and even if he does, he's got a bunch of appeals and many years before he ever gets killed, if ever. A prompt and inevitable killing would be a greater disincentive. Criminals don't steal from or attack people from the mob, do they?

[Ulysses]

Nearly all the nations of Europe have abolished the death penalty. The exception is Belarus, which as I recall has a neo-fascist government. Russia has suspended executions but as yet not fully approved the abolishment thereof.

If Europe can do it, why not the supposedly morally superior US of A?

Hmmpf?

[Vrede too]

I'd agree that there's no valuable benefit to society for keeping an incorrigible killer around for 20 years and then killing them. But it would certainly be a benefit to society not to have serial or mass killers around anymore. And in the current system, it is more expensive to sentence a convict to death than it is to keep him life without parole. But if you killed him off more quickly, that wouldn't apply, and if you weren't keeping him in a cage for life, you wouldn't have that expense. And if you killed off those who would otherwise be on "Death Row" you don't pay the very high costs of supermax type cages. Benefit to society - major reduction in cost of running penal system. The current system provides no disincentive to violent crime. Criminal doesn't really expect to get caught, but if he is, he probably won't get the death penalty and even if he does, he's got a bunch of appeals and many years before he ever gets killed, if ever. A prompt and inevitable killing would be a greater disincentive. Criminals don't steal from or attack people from the mob, do they?

Your wishes would require overturning decades of court rulings and law. We have to debate the death penalty based on reality, not unlikely speculation. By the same token, "it is more expensive to sentence a convict to death than it is to keep him life without parole" will continue, so any discussion of flipping that cost comparison is pointless. If speculative cost savings are a reason to use the death penalty, then the reality of higher costs are a reason to end the death penalty, right?

There is no evidence that the death penalty, implemented rapidly or not, creates a "disincentive to violent crime." On the contrary, there is evidence that it validates violence.

Finally, faster killing will inevitably increase:

... My problem with the current system (or lack thereof) is that it ... includes a frightfully large number of people whose guilt hasn't been proved with several miles of "without reasonable doubt."

How many have been exonerated only after years of further investigation?

Then, there's the ongoing racist use the death penalty. Faster killing will also inevitably increase that.

[O Really]

Well, let's address the Europe issue first. The US has an intentional homicide rate of more than twice that of Canada, and over 3 times the rate of the European average. England, France, and Germany have rates about a fourth of the US rate. There are more guns per capita by far in the US than in any of those place. Overall violent crime is substantially higher in the US. So comparing criminal punishment in Europe with the US doesn't tell us much without the crime occurrence comparison too. The US is arguably the most violent "civilized" or "first world" country in the world.

I disagree that reinstating a rapid kill system would require overturning "decades of court decisions and law." Most of those decisions and laws all tie to "cruel and unusual punishment." One Supreme Court decision could redefine that term. The real impediment to changes in capital punishment is people in most all states who want to argue over whether to use it in their state yes/no. Nobody wants to debate improvement of the process from a practical standpoint. As recently as the start of the 20th century, fairly rapid killing of convicts was common.

In 1984, the average time between sentencing and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years, according to BJS. By 2019, that figure had more than tripled to 264 months, or 22 years. The average prisoner awaiting execution at the end of 2019, meanwhile, had spent nearly 19 years on death row.

Current criteria for getting a death penalty is pretty lax - the main cause of all these people who turn up not guilty later. Reserve the death penalty only for those for whom there is no doubt of guilt of the most heinous crimes. Have their case/trial reviewed automatically by a three-judge appellate panel who are drawn randomly from active judges with extensive experience (no appointments, no elections). If after review the trial verdict is upheld, the doomed convict is dropped without fanfare within 30 days.

[Ulysses]

Ah, but the failure of our justice system to guarantee that those who get the death penalty but who in fact are not guilty is evidence enough that the death penalty needs to go. After all, there are no mulligans once an innocent person is executed.

The issue of the higher murder rate of the USA vs other nations is not really relevant to the death penalty question. If anything, the death penalty could make would-be murderers more inclined to irrational behavior, of which murder is the ultimate manifestation.

Second amendment concerns therefore are not a valid argument against elimination of the death penalty.

[Vrede too]

Well, let's address the Europe issue first. The US has an intentional homicide rate of more than twice that of Canada, and over 3 times the rate of the European average. England, France, and Germany have rates about a fourth of the US rate. There are more guns per capita by far in the US than in any of those place. Overall violent crime is substantially higher in the US. So comparing criminal punishment in Europe with the US doesn't tell us much without the crime occurrence comparison too. The US is arguably the most violent "civilized" or "first world" country in the world.

It's far more than just Europe. See above for the list of the very few nations that still practice state killing.

I see a connection between state killing and murders. The two feed off of each other.

I disagree that reinstating a rapid kill system would require overturning "decades of court decisions and law." Most of those decisions and laws all tie to "cruel and unusual punishment." One Supreme Court decision could redefine that term.

:confusion-scratchheadblue: Thus overturning "decades of court decisions and law."

The real impediment to changes in capital punishment is people in most all states who want to argue over whether to use it in their state yes/no.

How do you plan to end that?

Nobody wants to debate improvement of the process from a practical standpoint. As recently as the start of the 20th century, fairly rapid killing of convicts was common.

In 1984, the average time between sentencing and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years, according to BJS. By 2019, that figure had more than tripled to 264 months, or 22 years. The average prisoner awaiting execution at the end of 2019, meanwhile, had spent nearly 19 years on death row.

Current criteria for getting a death penalty is pretty lax - the main cause of all these people who turn up not guilty later. Reserve the death penalty only for those for whom there is no doubt of guilt of the most heinous crimes. Have their case/trial reviewed automatically by a three-judge appellate panel who are drawn randomly from active judges with extensive experience (no appointments, no elections). If after review the trial verdict is upheld, the doomed convict is dropped without fanfare within 30 days.

Govt is neither always honest nor always competent. Everybody sentenced to death has already been found guilty of a heinous crime "beyond a reasonable doubt", yet exonerations are still common. Sounds like you're arguing for better PR, not better convictions.

You're again imagining a massive and complex revamping of the capital crime justice system when there are tens of millions of us that will resist any effort to make state killing more palatable. Given the we have the life without parole option, why not accept our current reality and just continue our civilized nation planet's evolution towards no executions?

[Leo Lyons]

His name is not Dylan Root. It's Dylann Roof. If you've going to kill him, at least get his name right.
Makes no difference; that's picking fly shit out of the pepper. His name is mud right now.
Beside, that a typo; the T is just above the F.

And no, I don't support his execution. What he did was horrible. But there are other ways to deal with a sicko like him.
Non-lethal anti-psychotic medications, for example. Along with life in prison.
So ... keep him doped up at the expense of our tax dollars? Fuck that.

I haven't see(n) you describe any benefit to society from state killing.

Nor have I seen you describe (other than your personal feelings) as to why a convicted killer's life in prison
would benefit society.
Execution of convicted killers (the mistaken or framed convictions are far less than actual confessions or finding of guilt)
rids society of those who give no care to the preciousness of the lives of others.
You say that the death penalty is no deterrent to vicious crime; nor is life in prison. Life sentences have shown
to be of absolutely no deterrent. The fear of death is generally much greater, except in cases of those who
cowardly kill themselves when capture is upon them.

[billy.pilgrim]

His name is not Dylan Root. It's Dylann Roof. If you've going to kill him, at least get his name right.
Makes no difference; that's picking fly shit out of the pepper. His name is mud right now.
Beside, that a typo; the T is just above the F.

And no, I don't support his execution. What he did was horrible. But there are other ways to deal with a sicko like him.
Non-lethal anti-psychotic medications, for example. Along with life in prison.
So ... keep him doped up at the expense of our tax dollars? Fuck that.

I haven't see(n) you describe any benefit to society from state killing.

Nor have I seen you describe (other than your personal feelings) as to why a convicted killer's life in prison
would benefit society.
Execution of convicted killers (the mistaken or framed convictions are far less than actual confessions or finding of guilt)
rids society of those who give no care to the preciousness of the lives of others.
You say that the death penalty is no deterrent to vicious crime; nor is life in prison. Life sentences have shown
to be of absolutely no deterrent. The fear of death is generally much greater, except in cases of those who
cowardly kill themselves when capture is upon them.

Life in prison - I can't even imagine the horror

Execution seems to be the easy way out for everyone

[O Really]

I've spent way more time in my life arguing against the death penalty than for it. And without doubt I think the current system(s) are of little value to anyone except maybe appellate lawyers.

But that's because I think it's a crappy system, not because I have a problem with killing those whose deeds and behaviours show unmitigated evil. And we have a lot more of those running around than one might think.

There was a documentary on a few weeks ago where one of the long-time serial killers (now in prison) was interviewed. How anybody could look at this guy with his fish-cold eyes and listen to him calmly discuss how he'd pick up a woman at a truck stop, eventually tie her up and keep her for multiple rapes and torture for a few days and then kill her and chuck her body out of the truck. And saying that if they let him out, he'd be killing again. I'd be interested in some benefit to society for keeping this guy in a cage for life, except maybe as a lab rat to study the mind of a killer.

The people I'd want killed don't include some random Black guy in Mississippi who may or may not have patted a white girl on the ass, nor does it include somebody acting in an uncharacteristic rage, or even in the cliché of a drug deal/robbery "gone wrong."

Serial killers, mass murderers, school/church shooters - people whose guilt is not just the technicality of a prosecution-favorable jury but whose DNA is all over, or seen on video, or maybe even bragged about their deeds on their own media - those people should be exterminated promptly.

[Vrede too]

I haven't see(n) you describe any benefit to society from state killing.

Nor have I seen you describe (other than your personal feelings) as to why a convicted killer's life in prison
would benefit society.

Yes you have, pay attention:
The death penalty is implemented in a racist fashion.
The death penalty costs us more than life without parole.
Executions are associated with increased societal violence.
Innocent people are being killed.
The US is associated with your list of distasteful countries, as well as the list of nations actually practicing state killing that most Americans disapprove of.
viewtopic.php?p=147658#p147658

Also:
State killing makes opponents complicit with your blood lust against their will.

Execution of convicted killers (the mistaken or framed convictions are far less than actual confessions or finding of guilt)

ANY "mistaken or framed convictions are" unacceptable. No reversal is possible post-execution.

rids society of those who give no care to the preciousness of the lives of others.

So does life without parole.

You say that the death penalty is no deterrent to vicious crime; nor is life in prison. Life sentences have shown
to be of absolutely no deterrent.

Those are your feelings. You can look up how death penalty locales are more violent.

The fear of death is generally much greater, except in cases of those who cowardly kill themselves when capture is upon them.

Unsupported claim. Our unscientific poll of O Really, neoplacebo, billy.pilgrim and myself would prefer death to life in prison. So, you would be doing a favor for many murderers. What a guy.

So, I'm still waiting for you to describe a clear benefit to society from state killing. It's all "your personal feelings" desiring vengeance, what the perp "deserves".

[O Really]

IMNVHO, the only clear benefit to society necessary is that people like the guy in my post above isn't in it anymore. Or we could just let them loose. Loose in the middle of, say, the Congo.

[Ulysses]

His name is not Dylan Root. It's Dylann Roof. If you've going to kill him, at least get his name right.
Makes no difference; that's picking fly shit out of the pepper. His name is mud right now.
Beside, that a typo; the T is just above the F.

And no, I don't support his execution. What he did was horrible. But there are other ways to deal with a sicko like him.
Non-lethal anti-psychotic medications, for example. Along with life in prison.
So ... keep him doped up at the expense of our tax dollars? Fuck that.

I haven't see(n) you describe any benefit to society from state killing.

Nor have I seen you describe (other than your personal feelings) as to why a convicted killer's life in prison
would benefit society.
Execution of convicted killers (the mistaken or framed convictions are far less than actual confessions or finding of guilt)
rids society of those who give no care to the preciousness of the lives of others.
You say that the death penalty is no deterrent to vicious crime; nor is life in prison. Life sentences have shown
to be of absolutely no deterrent. The fear of death is generally much greater, except in cases of those who
cowardly kill themselves when capture is upon them.

Life in prison - I can't even imagine the horror

Execution seems to be the easy way out for everyone

Yes.

[neoplacebo]

Life in prison - I can't even imagine the horror

Execution seems to be the easy way out for everyone

I agree. Personally I'd rather die than have a "life" prison sentence. Some assholes need to die; simple as that. Child killers, hammer beaters, repeat baby whippers.....you name it. The so called "crimes of passion" committed in a frenzy of sentimental illogical activity somehow sheds a light of sympathy to death penalty situations. But there are some assholes who need to die.

[Ulysses]

What's that commandment?

Oh, yeah... "Thou shalt not kill" ...

[GoCubsGo]

What's that commandment?

Oh, yeah... "Thou shalt not kill" ...

Cause there's never anything contradictory in the bible.

The act of murder is rampant in the Bible. In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night. In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God’s irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.

https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-ho ... ng%20night.

[Ulysses]

So handcuffing/shackling someone and killing them, for whatever reason, is IMHO murder. The reason, IMHO, is immaterial. It's still murder.

[O Really]

I guess I don't need to remind anyone here that "murder" is a legal term. While all murder is killing, not all killing is murder. Likewise "insane" is also a legal, not a medical, term. And just because there was a lot of killing described in the Bible doesn't mean that killing wasn't in violation of the Commandment. And just because somebody says "God told me to" doesn't mean it's true. But in any case, if one takes the Commandment literally that "thou shalt not kill" then one also cannot kill in self defence, war, or law enforcement.

[Ulysses]

I guess I don't need to remind anyone here that "murder" is a legal term. While all murder is killing, not all killing is murder. Likewise "insane" is also a legal, not a medical, term. And just because there was a lot of killing described in the Bible doesn't mean that killing wasn't in violation of the Commandment. And just because somebody says "God told me to" doesn't mean it's true. But in any case, if one takes the Commandment literally that "thou shalt not kill" then one also cannot kill in self defence, war, or law enforcement.

Quite logical.