Letah Injection - Cruel and Unusual.

[roo_ster]

In my view, the death penalty is a moral statement we, the people make. It's a way of making it abundantly clear certain crimes can not and will not be tolerated.

Of course, moral statements are anathema to leftist extremists, who believe only the state can define values, not people.

 Do you still think "the people" legislate? "People" disagree about morals/values all the time. Isn't that obvious? The very fact that some are against the death penalty proves that it can't be a "moral statement we, the people make".

 Morals are subjective. (Trying to refute that statement proves it.) Heck, arguing over what's cruel and unusual proves it.

I am uncomfortable with the state having the power of life and death for the scribbles they pass by 51%.

Basic COTUS:  The people select representatives and other gov't officials to represent them.  So, yes, "the people" legislate (ideally) under the strictures provided by the COTUS.

Many of the bills passed, signed, and upheld have moral content.  I think you might have the words "can't" and "may" mixed up.

[Joe Demko]

Am I not allowed to have a different idea of how to justly deal with murder than you do?

Certainly.  You, however, did not phrase it as an opinion, but rather as if were a fact.  e.g. Justice demands...

[Eleven Mike]

Morals are subjective. (Trying to refute that statement proves it.)

Not at all.  To say that morality is objective is not to say that no one disagrees about right and wrong.  It means that, no matter what anyone thinks about morality, there is an absolute, transcendent standard of right and wrong.  That is, God or Nature or some other law-giver is in charge of right and wrong, and no matter how strongly you disagree, right and wrong never change.

  This is merely your opinion. I disagree.  Therefore you can't use it as a premise. If I state that something is moral for me, it is, period.

Further, your statement doesn't work because it is an intellectual and not a moral discussion.  We can disagree about whether morality comes from your opinion or a transcendant base, while being in total agreement over the specific demands of morality. 

 Intellectual discussions "don't work"? If there is a transcendant law-giver, why doesn't it make the exact laws known? Why is it left to flawed men to deliver them to me? Why is there widespread disagreement?

 No, I have my own values. They are sometimes morally, culturally and subjectively different from those of others.

I'm really not trying to argue any of that with you.  I was trying to explain what "subjective" means.  Check your PM's the next couple of days, I'll try to explain further.  Or, you could look up "subjective" and "objective." 

[Guest]

In my view, the death penalty is a moral statement we, the people make. It's a way of making it abundantly clear certain crimes can not and will not be tolerated.

Of course, moral statements are anathema to leftist extremists, who believe only the state can define values, not people.

 Do you still think "the people" legislate? "People" disagree about morals/values all the time. Isn't that obvious? The very fact that some are against the death penalty proves that it can't be a "moral statement we, the people make".

 Morals are subjective. (Trying to refute that statement proves it.) Heck, arguing over what's cruel and unusual proves it.

I am uncomfortable with the state having the power of life and death for the scribbles they pass by 51%.

Basic COTUS:  The people select representatives and other gov't officials to represent them.  So, yes, "the people" legislate (ideally) under the strictures provided by the COTUS.

 Yes, this is what's taught in public school, but, get real; the rulers make the laws and the ruled follow them...or else. If I didn't personally agree to a new law, I don't consider that I "made a statement", moral or otherwise. So "I" am not part of "we". Standing Wolf said that "the death penalty is a moral statement we, the people make."

Many of the bills passed, signed, and upheld have moral content.  I think you might have the words "can't" and "may" mixed up.

 What I was trying to say is that if even one citizen disagrees with a new (statement of) law, it is not accurate to say (cannot be said to be true) that "we" made a statement.

[Guest]

Morals are subjective. (Trying to refute that statement proves it.)

Not at all.  To say that morality is objective is not to say that no one disagrees about right and wrong.  It means that, no matter what anyone thinks about morality, there is an absolute, transcendent standard of right and wrong.  That is, God or Nature or some other law-giver is in charge of right and wrong, and no matter how strongly you disagree, right and wrong never change.

  This is merely your opinion. I disagree.  Therefore you can't use it as a premise. If I state that something is moral for me, it is, period.

Further, your statement doesn't work because it is an intellectual and not a moral discussion.  We can disagree about whether morality comes from your opinion or a transcendant base, while being in total agreement over the specific demands of morality. 

 Intellectual discussions "don't work"? If there is a transcendant law-giver, why doesn't it make the exact laws known? Why is it left to flawed men to deliver them to me? Why is there widespread disagreement?

 No, I have my own values. They are sometimes morally, culturally and subjectively different from those of others.

I'm really not trying to argue any of that with you.  I was trying to explain what "subjective" means.  Check your PM's the next couple of days, I'll try to explain further.  Or, you could look up "subjective" and "objective." 

 I will do both.

[Moondoggie]

OK, all issues of morality, justice, gov't ineptitude aside...

Why not slip the condemed a "rufie" or other "mickey finn" in a meal when TPTB decide the time has come without all of the hype?

Then shuffle the unconscious inmate off to a gas chamber and introduce Carbon Monoxide until the convict expires.  Cremate the remains and dispose of the ashes.

Cheap, painless, effective.

I think all of the ritual and signifigance "We, the people" (and the media) create surrounding an execution is ridiculous. 

Send the victims and NOK a form letter advising that inmate X was executed on whatever the date is.

End of story.