Execution Methods

[homerfobe]

Why would we do that? He hasn't endorsed the death penalty yet, "releasing them" has no relevance to life without parole, and he thinks that life without parole would be a greater deterrent than the death penalty.
He does? More liberal bullshit. How's that great deterrent working out so far?

I'd suggest that you "Give it a few minutes", homerfobe, but you're more likely to figure it out if you find a middle school student to explain it to you.
I don't particularly care to get any more of your classmates involved. Your superior to them anyway.

[homerfobe]

So do crying babies, drunks and the mentally ill. What's your point and do you really think that your repeated diversion from mine -
your absolute faith in government - is not noticed by all of us?
My absolute faith in government. You really are eat up on yourself aren't you?

No, I have lots of concerns, killing the innocent is just one of them. Confessions can be coerced and all of the convicted have supposedly been
"caught in their crimes".
Yep. Every damn one of the prisoners in U.S. prisons is innocent. Their confessions were coerced, and none of them were ever caught
in the act, nor had real evidence presented to convict them.

I've never gotten unemployment benefits. You've screwed up, again.
Oh, so Mommy and Daddy did support you while you were globe hopping. Or did you have a dog named Boo?

That "coddling" is the Constitution you swore to uphold. Comparing actual death penalty costs to your wishes for an America without a Constitution is nonsensical and unpatriotic.
Wow! How many times have I wished America didn't have a Constitution? There's your bullshit twisting again.
Damn, you should have had a career in the circus side shows. Your the best mind reader ever. A bonus to your pay would have been the ability to guess weight and age, o great gay swami goat.

You swore to uphold the Constitution. Comparing actual death penalty costs to your wishes for an America without a Constitution is nonsensical and unpatriotic.
Do I hear an echo? All of the bullshit you spew is nonsensical. It serves one purpose. To glorify you.

[homerfobe]

Why would we do that? He hasn't endorsed the death penalty yet, "releasing them" has no relevance to life without parole,

Points run away from, as usual.

and he thinks that life without parole would be a greater deterrent than the death penalty.

He does?

Uhhh, yes:

...I'd rather be dead than live in prison for a life sentence... to me, that's not life.

Dang you're illiterate, homerfobe.

More liberal bullshit.

You're the one in this chat that thinks government is infallible, socialist worker.

How's that great deterrent working out so far?

On average, states without the death penalty have less violence than those with it. Didn't you know?

I'd suggest that you "Give it a few minutes", homerfobe, but you're more likely to figure it out if you find a middle school student to explain it to you.

I don't particularly care to get any more of your classmates involved. Your (sic) superior to them anyway.

As usual, failed simple comprehension and lashes out like a little child instead of manning-up. Shame you never learned personal responsibility.

As usual, failed simple comprehension and lashes out like a little child instead of manning-up.
When you point one finger at me, you've got three more pointing back at yourself.

[bannination]

So if your entire family was murdered, out of fear of others thinking you were only seeking revenge or your own liberal stupidity, you would just shrug your shoulders and say what the hell, my familys gone, they got him, he'll not hurt anyone else, so I wish him well in prison? And you honestly think most people would feel the same? Anyone who thinks with that frame of mind is the abnormal one, buddy boy, and there's no question about it.

Wish him well? No. Would I think he deserved a painful death at the hands of the state? Nope. That should not be their job. I guess the difference between me and all those "normal" people is I can look beyond my own selfish needs and wants for meaningless revenge and do or want the right thing. What kind of revenge is satisfied by a government employee killing someone? That would seriously make you feel better?

If he was caught in the act by me or otherwise and he was "hurt" in the process of trying to stop him of course I don't care. I'd shoot/maim/mutilate him myself.

I guess I'm thankful I'm abnormal.

[O Really]

Some people have difficulty distinguishing between what an individual might want to do, or believe, and what the state should do in enforcement of the law. If it were my family member killed, I would happily dispose of the killer by chopping off his nuts, pulling each tooth with pliers, and hacking off other parts until he's gone. But I don't think that's an appropriate thing for the government to do. I also think goats are messengers of God and anyone who injures one should be cast into the volcano, but I don't think complying with my particular religious beliefs is appropriate for the government.

I don't actually have a problem with killing convicted violent criminals. I have a problem with "capital punishment" and all the ridiculous twisting of the act. The US is a violent society. Killing as punishment is a violent act. Own it. Killing is killing. Don't call it "execution." Don't call killing deer "harvesting." Don't call killing two Great Danes whose cage was invaded "euthanasia."

[bannination]

...I also think goats are messengers of God and anyone who injures one should be cast into the volcano...

[Crock Hunter]

The execution method should fit the crime.

Ahh.. so you've chosen Death by Enema for yourself... fitting I suppose.. ...

If the victim suffered a traumatic and lingering death, the prisoner should face the same lingering and suffering.

If the evidence can support the sentence .. I have no problem with the death penalty.. but to do as you suggest lowers all of us to the perpetrator's (and apparently your) level..

Our social contract allows for justice .. what you suggest is government sanctioned revenge.

A case perhaps could be made for vengeance.. but in carrying such out you violate the social contract and are subject to being brought to justice..

[Mr.B]

"You're the one that thinks it (the government) should exercise the absolute and irreversible power to kill its citizens"

Despite the bickering between you two, I have to say that Homer has a valid point.

If the government (state or federal) should suddenly decide they will no longer "exercise the absolute power" to execute or even punish murderers,
who should be responsible to do so, and what action should be taken, providing they were even taken into custody? What would be the results then?
Would we regress to a lawless society where there is no fear of retribution for heinous crimes?

Now....more realistically. Our prisons are packed with homicidal maniacs, rapists, murderous pedophiles, and people who cannot function in society.
Our court system is backlogged years (one reason criminals don't fear the death penalty) because the Constitution guarantees the right to a trial which
includes appeals when given the maximum sentence. Attorneys will milk that cow until it runs bone dry, especially if the client has money.

You said "On average, states without the death penalty have less violence than those with it." I fail to find verification of that statement.

I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. How it's carried out makes no difference, but "make the punishment fit the crime" was a good point.
I don't believe that violent, murderous criminals should live off the taxpayer's dollar for the rest of their lives and having all their "basic needs"
given to them. It's amazing how much it costs to feed and clothe lifer prisoners when that money could be used to feed and clothe the thousands of
poor families in each state.

"...I also think goats are messengers of God and anyone who injures one should be cast into the volcano..."

I thought you didn't believe in God....? Goats are messengers of Satan; you don't remember the statue the atheists want to erect?

[O Really]

If a death penalty were really a deterrent, it would solve the problem by simply making all crimes punishable by death. No more crime. All would-be criminals would be deterred.

[Mr.B]

"Life without possibility of parole, a nasty, nasty fate, is hardly no retribution and neoplacebo and I agree that we would prefer death. However, it does give society the ability to reverse intentional or inadvertent mistakes."
OK...you prefer death. Who should carry out the execution? You want it out of the hands of the government....who? Who, in this country makes the laws?

"Our prisons are packed with nonviolent drug offenders. Are you seeing a theme here? Your team wants government to have all the power - more imprisonments per capita than anywhere else - and thinks it's so infallible that it should be able to take permanently uncorrectable action."
Right there's your biggest gripe. Drug possession/use incarceration. The discussion isn't about drugs, Vrede; it's about capital punishment for heinous crimes against other humans. If "my team", as you so eloquently twist it, didn't have "all the power", who should have partial, or all the power? Just who should uphold the law?

"Will you never learn? Here's a list of the top 10 executing states, followed by the number of executions they've carried out since 1976, and their rank in murders per capita:...Every single one of the states that legally murder the most has a higher illegal murder rate than more than half of the other states except Ohio, and it barely squeaks by at #26."
So you're saying that execution is legal murder......(another subject.....what do you call abortion that your bloodthirsty nature favors?)
I suppose that means you believe that one who murders another has performed a legal murder and should not be illegally put to death?

"Again, the death penalty costs more and there's no changing that unless you throw out the Constitution. Are you as unpatriotic as homerfobe that you, too, would spit on the Constitution?"
Are you so uncaring as to the suffering of victims in their final moments, when they realize they'll never see another tomorrow or hold a loved one again, because they're facing unknown cruelties before their life is snuffed out? You would prefer the murderer to be coddled and patted on the head?
So which is the larger cost....a one time execution, or a lifetime of support to clothe, feed, keep a dry roof over his head and tend to his medical needs?
Or worse....cater to his every whim, such as taxpayers paying for a sex-change operation?
Who spit on the Constitution first Vrede... me? homerfobe? how about that murderer that you favor to be coddled the rest of his life that deprived
another of his/her Constitutional Rights?

[Mr.B]

"The volcano part is a clue, heh heh heh."

I don't wanna know...

[O Really]

Mr.B's got a strange definition of "coddle."

[Mr.B]

"OK...you prefer death. Who should carry out the execution? You want it out of the hands of the government....who? Who, in this country makes the laws?"

"I don't think it should be carried out. Why are you unclear on this point?"

1. Whoosh.....right over your head, or you chose to twist it around. I left the quote in larger type so you could re-read and comprehend my question.
You said you prefer death over life imprisonment. So, if you're given the death penalty for a crime, who should carry out the sentence?
Why was my question so unclear to you?

"You brought up packed prisons."

2. I was referring to maximum security prisons...you know, those places where violent offenders are kept....not the minimum security
boy scout camps like we used to have here in Henderson County. Why is that so unclear to you?

"I suppose that means you believe that one who murders another has performed a legal murder and should not be illegally put to death?"

Unintelligible.

3. You ducked the point, figures. Why is that so unclear to you? In your eyes and mind, capital punishment is illegal.....
how is that any more illegal than a common murderer taking an innocent life?

"Life without possibility of parole, a nasty, nasty fate, is hardly "coddled and patted on the head". Are you really so ignorant as to what our prisons are like? Wow."

4. If prison is such a "nasty, nasty fate", why do many criminals who have been released commit crimes so they can go back to prison? Could it be because
they have practically anything they need handed to them? Sure, it's no cake-walk, there's restrictions, they're separated from their families; but lets' see.....
recreation, hanging with the guys, libraries, three squares a day, TV, a/c-heat, a bed to sleep in, free dental/medical....etc.
Are you really so ignorant as to what our prisons are like? Wow!

"Besides, I'm the one that has eased suffering and saved lives for decades, not you. Don't play the caring card with me."

5. You ducked the gist of the question...what part is so unclear to you?...we're not talking about health care and saving lives. What you do is commendable,
but to put you back on track, we're talking about a wanton murderer snuffing out a life. Yet you favor giving that individual the opportunity to continue
on with his life, while being supported by tax dollars. I'm not biting on your silly diversion.

"Who spit on the Constitution first Vrede... me? homerfobe? how about that murderer that you favor to be coddled the rest of his life
that deprived another of his/her Constitutional Rights?"

"He's not part of this conversation, so homerfobe, then you."

6. Your reply doesn't make sense. What part of my question was unclear to you? Who's not part of the conversation? You accuse me and Homerfobe of
"spitting on the Constitution".....I asked if that murderer you favor to coddle didn't spit on someone else's Constitutional Rights by killing them.
Something about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness....why was that so unclear to you?

"I favor women's freedom with their bodies"

7. Nonetheless, a murder was committed....legally; whereas capital punishment for murder is illegal....got it.
Thanks...it's all clear to me now, thanks to your brilliancy.

"Mr.B's got a strange definition of "coddle."

See #4 above, then think about it.

[O Really]

Threat of retribution affects some behaviour some of the time - for example, a criminal might try to avoid killing a cop because of the degree of effort put forth to avenge the killing and the likely higher sentence if he does get caught. But that doesn't keep cops from getting killed in instances where the criminal might have few alternatives. But generally threat of retribution isn't an effective deterrent because the criminal doesn't expect to get caught. And many don't - at least not for a long time. Further, other than single-instance criminals (e.g. people who got desperate and robbed the bodega for food), they live a life expected to be short. They shoot each other. The idea of getting caught is just one of many hazards, and not necessarily the worst.

[O Really]

" If prison is such a "nasty, nasty fate", why do many criminals who have been released commit crimes so they can go back to prison?"

I'm sure you could come up with some isolated examples of somebody who tried to get back to prison. But generally, they don't "commit crimes so they can go back to prison." They commit crimes because they're criminals, and that is their life. Sometimes by choice, more often by necessity. How many ex-cons have you hired or welcomed as neighbors, Mr.B?

[Mr.B]

"How many ex-cons have you hired or welcomed as neighbors, Mr.B?"

Got one living next door. Assault w/deadly weapon with intent to kill. Served time for beating up an old man with a bat because he owed him money.
Had he killed the man, he deserved capital punishment....but, obviously, murder is no longer a capital offense.

Now...ask me if I should "Stand my Ground" should he come after me.......

[O Really]

"How many ex-cons have you hired or welcomed as neighbors, Mr.B?"

Got one living next door. Assault w/deadly weapon with intent to kill. Served time for beating up an old man with a bat because he owed him money.
Had he killed the man, he deserved capital punishment....but, obviously, murder is no longer a capital offense.

Now...ask me if I should "Stand my Ground" should he come after me.......

Personal - personal - opinion, I think knowing that record would be grounds for fearing for ones safety if he was mad at you. But that wasn't really the question. Knowing his history, would you have invited him to move in next door? I wouldn't have. Given his past propensity for violent confrontation, would you hire him? I wouldn't, unless the assault was when he was like 19 and he's now 45 with a stellar record since. But if we don't want them living in our neighborhood, and we don't give them jobs, how hard is it to understand that they might find crime to pay better than their available alternatives?

[O Really]

Sigh. Somebody or somebodies who shall remain nameless really like to muck up a simple issue. Clearly it is the state's job to mete out whatever punishment is applicable to a criminal. Nobody here has said otherwise. Yes, I said something about letting the family do it. That was or should have been obviously wildly theoretical with no practical value. The issue is, and always was, what punishment(s) should be in the state's repertoire. Some believe that killing the criminal shouldn't be on that list. Others believe killing the criminal should be an option for various crimes. Only a certified drooler would think it appropriate for the state to have the option to pull out teeth, chop off limbs, or proscribe the criminal being eaten by pigs. There have been too many Constitutional decisions gone down to go back to having "hanging judges" who strung the allegedly guilty culprit up within days after conviction. So the financial argument against killing criminals would always prevail. Less expensive is not always better, though, and probably shouldn't be the final decision point.

[bannination]

Back to the thread topic - While I oppose the death penalty under any circumstances I especially oppose the use of medicine and healthcare workers to implement it.

The people that want that job are a strange breed.

[JTA]

Back to the thread topic - While I oppose the death penalty under any circumstances I especially oppose the use of medicine and healthcare workers to implement it.

What if there was an individual that killed many people, including infants and children, and did terrible and heinous things to them and showed no remorse for his crimes, and it was proven without any reasonable doubt whatsoever that he perpetrated the crimes?

In this scenario:

1) Would you be against executing the prisoner if it could be done completely painlessly no chances of suffering whatsoever?

2) What if at some point in the future they came up with some kind of device like in that movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise where they could stash prisoners away in a warehouse and de-animate them until their sentence is up or they die of natural causes. For example: the serial killer in my example committed his heinous crime and was sentenced to life without parole. Tom Cruise leads him to the prison where he'll serve his sentence and hooks him to the prison machine. The serial killer is put under to sleep the rest of his life away. Tubes provide him with nourishment keeping him alive until some time later when he dies of old age. Do you think this is a good substitute for the death penalty?