Letah Injection - Cruel and Unusual.

[HForrest]

We recently put our old family dog down. They basically gave her an OD of painkiller, and she was out within seconds, peacefully. I don't know why the current lethal injection method has to be so complicated... Why not just make it simpler and more humane? Who came up with this system that uses three chemicals?

[Cosmoline]

Electrocution, lethal injection and other methods are bunk.  Americans should SHOOT the wrongdoers with a half dozen .30'06's firing 150 grain SP's.  That will work, every time. 

[S. Williamson]

IMO, (which matters not to the people of the United States nor the Supreme Court) the terms "cruel" and "unusual" are pretty ambiguous.

If a particular new method of dispatching/punishing a criminal becomes widely adopted, would it not soon no longer be an "unusual" practice?

Also, if a criminal is cruel (going by the Merriam-Webster definition "disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings"), would cruelty in turn not be an effective deterrent to assist in preventing future violations, whether it be from the offender or others?

Call me insensitive if you wish, but my parents broke more than one paddle over my rear until I got enough sense in me to "straighten up."  I never held it against them, either; even if it was something as "benign" as defiance, the paddle was administered.  Paddling is a method which employs solely pain as a means of correction, and each time my parents would make the threat of getting it out, it worked, whether it was for my brother or myself (we would each swear never to do whatever it was we did ever again, even if it was the other one getting spanked).  And it worked.

So why can't this same principle be adapted and utilized for use on those proven guilty?

[RocketMan]

To be honest, I have some issues with the death penalty. There is no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been executed/remain on death row. We cannot trust our governments to spend our tax dollars wisely; how can we trust our governments to make life and death decisions? I cannot accept the fact that innocent people executed are the cost of using the death penalty.

I'm with you, baldguy.  While not having a problem, philosophically, with the death penalty, I have zero confidence that our justice system gets it right every time.  And when the State chooses to take someone's life, they must get it right, every time.  Period.  And that is simply not possible.
For an innocent life to be mistakenly taken by the State is not tolerable.

An honest-to-goodness life sentence in a maximum security prison is, to me, much more hellish.

There is something to this, IMHO. 

[Waitone]

My only problem with capital punishment is it take too long between pronouncement of guilt and imposition of sentence and it is used too infrequently.

Method?  Those who are being executed should be wide awake and fully aware of what is happening and why.  I might be convinced to dope up the perp if his victim was unaware of what he was doing to them.  Short of that make'em see it coming.

If my attitude disturbs our more "enlightened" members, too bad.  I have my reasons.

[mustanger98]

I'm with you, Waitone. I don't know your reasons, but your opinion makes sense. But, the part about doping up a perp if they doped up their victims... nahhh, let 'em see that coming too.

[SomeKid]

Simply for cheap economical effectiveness, a guilotine. Except, I would make them look up at it. And, it wouldn't work solely by gravity. It would drop slow, then two feet away SLAM home. Nice eh?

[Strings]

Anybody here remember Logan's Run? Remember the lil' acid sprayers that the Sandmen used after dispatching a runner? A room so equiped would work QUITE well as an execution chamber, said execution administered by one shot to the back of the head (we could even give the condemned their choice of caliber)...

[Joe Demko]

It's a mantra here that the government *expletive deleted*s up everything it does.  Yet so many are, not just willing, but eager to hand that government the power of life and death...and the more theatrical the death the better, it would seem.  Why is it that folks who do so much bellowing about America and The Constitution find it so easy to cheerlead for the Red Chinese and the Saudi Arabians when we get around to talking about executing folks?

[mustanger98]

Any of ya'll ever read "Treason". Ann Coulter told about how communists working in the Roosevelt Administration (among other Democratic administrations) cheered the Russian gov't on during Stalin's show trials which involved a whole lot of announcing a fast guilty verdict followed by a faster execution. Those so-called "American" communists were talking real big about how swift Russian "justice" was. But that was the Russian gov't's response to dissedents. I know most of us are familiar with that sort of thing in theory from looking at so much of Oleg's work.

As I said, somebody commits murder or rape or sexually molests a child, hang 'em.

[Joe Demko]

As I said, somebody commits murder or rape or sexually molests a child, hang 'em.

What are your standards?  Accusation?  Conviction by a jury/ What about appeals?  The whole kill 'em now! thing sounds good on the surface but disregards the complexity of real life.

[mustanger98]

As I said, somebody commits murder or rape or sexually molests a child, hang 'em.

What are your standards?  Accusation?  Conviction by a jury/ What about appeals?  The whole kill 'em now! thing sounds good on the surface but disregards the complexity of real life.

My standards are... proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law. DNA and any other evidence. All pertaining evidence, guilty or innocent, must be presented and all testimony and not just grey matter must be heard (which I've understood isn't always the case as "the game" is played in this day and time). Appeals? My understanding of appeals is to be sure the law is applied correctly. I see nothing wrong with that. Even Saddam Hussein is having the benefit of 30 days worth of appeals before the hanging is set to take place. His crimes, such as the gassing of Kurds, I understand they have videotape of that. Scott Peterson is awaiting lethal injection in PRK for murder with about 25 years worth of waiting and appeals... probably longer now that they suspended executions. I bet he won't suffer near as much on his way out as his wife did or as much as her family has. Tookie Williams, the Crips co-founder who was convicted of murder... they executed him knowing he did the crimes. Williams went out a whole lot easier than his victims did and look how many people his gang has killed over the years he was incarcerated. The whole process begins with someone either making the accusation or catching someone in the act of a crime. It has to be proven one way or the other beyond a shadow of a doubt. I never said real life was simple. But justice used to be a lot swifter than it is now.

[Strings]

>sexually molests a child<

mustanger, as much as I like the idea of terminating anybody who does this, I think maybe you should find out just how hard it is to prosecute these cases now (without the death penalty being involved)...

[Dannyboy]

While I don't think they need to suffer prolonged pain, shouldn't there be some pain involved?  I mean, they are being killed.

[Perd Hapley]

For an innocent life to be mistakenly taken by the State is not tolerable.

Yet failing to carry out justice is also intolerable. 

Nonsense.  Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.  There will be some who escape justice because they are never caught, never convicted, or because we don't have sufficient evidence to order the death penalty.  On the other hand, there will be some "innocent"* men who are put to death unjustly.  This is the best we can do.  To err too far on either side is what is truly "intolerable." 

*I say innocent in quotation marks, because few law-abiding people will be sentenced to death for murder.  Those few wrongly convicted will usually be people who already have enough of a criminal record to make themselves look suspicious. 

[slzy]

a modified defib would be an electric chair. a bicycle innertube and a drycleaner bag is all ya need.

[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%.

[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. 

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. 

[Joe Demko]

Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.

No.  You demand that they be put to death.

[ArmedBear]

Personally, I find Lethal Injection to be neither cruel, nor unusual.

Here in California, few people are sentenced to lethal injection. Those who are, are heinous criminals. I can't think of any for whom the punishment could reasonably considered "cruel", in light of the crimes for which they were sentenced. Nor can I think of any innocents who have received this punishment in my adult lifetime. So that takes care of cruel.

As far as unusual, it's actually a very common way to administer the death penalty, so it's not unusual, either.

What I do think, however, is that it is unsporting. Perhaps we need an amendment that guarantees a sporting death to those convicted.

[Perd Hapley]

Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.

No.  You demand that they be put to death.

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

[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.

[Guest]

Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.

No.  You demand that they be put to death.

 +1

[Nightfall]

Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.

No.  You demand that they be put to death.

I dunno. Isn't the basic idea of justice an equal balance? How is letting a murderer live out his life while his victims are gone forever equal?

[Perd Hapley]

Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.

No.  You demand that they be put to death.

 +1

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.

Both sides have opinions based on reason, religion, tradition, etc.  Simply objecting to another person's opinion without giving a reason is ... pointless.