Post by: SomeKid on December 15, 2006, 06:58:28 PM
http://fox40.trb.com/news/ktxl-121506death%2C0%2C2055243.story?coll=ktxl-news-1
Death Penalty Ruled Unconstitutional
December 15, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO A federal judge who imposed a moratorium on state executions ruled Friday that the current method of lethal injection violates a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
California's "implementation of lethal injection is broken, but it can be fixed," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said.
Fogel said the case presented the narrow question of whether a three-drug cocktail administered by San Quentin State Prison officials is so painful that it "offends" the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Fogel said he was compelled "to answer that question in the affirmative."
The decision is the latest in a nationwide challenge to lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment and came just after Florida Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all executions in that state after a botched execution this week.
Lethal injection is the preferred execution method in 37 states.
Last month, a federal judge declared Missouri's injection method, which is similar to California's, unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld executions - by hanging, firing squad, electric chair and gas chamber - despite the pain they might cause, but has left unsettled the issue of whether the pain is unconstitutionally excessive.
California has been under a capital punishment moratorium since February, when Fogel called off the execution of rapist and murderer Michael Morales amid concerns inmates might suffer excruciating deaths.
Fogel found substantial evidence that the last six men executed at San Quentin might have been conscious because they were still breathing when lethal drugs were administered.
He ordered anesthesiologists to be on hand, or demanded that a licensed medical professional inject a large, fatal dose of a sedative instead of the additional paralyzing agent and heart-stopping drugs used. No medical professional, however, was willing to participate.
Attorneys for Morales alleged in a lawsuit that Morales might appear unconscious after being injected with a sedative, but internally he would succumb to excruciating pain, "burning veins and heart failure," once the paralyzing and the death drug were administered.
Morales, 47, of Stockton, raped and brutally beat a 17-year-old Lodi girl 25 years ago. Terri Winchell was found beaten and stabbed in a secluded vineyard.
There are more than 650 men and women on California's death row, the nation's largest.
Copyright © 2006, KTXL
I bolded that part for the following commentary. Some sack of crap rapes and kills a 17 yo girl before I am even born, and still breathes my air? You know what, I never wanted to set foot in CA, but I would be glad to go cut this worms heart out with a dull knife. That would make stepping into a third world state worthwhile. And I wouldn't even bill the state for my time if they'd pay transportation, room and board. Hell, I might even meet them halfway on expenses...
Post by: HForrest on December 15, 2006, 07:10:06 PM
Edited for spelling.
Post by: SomeKid on December 15, 2006, 07:22:11 PM
What I want to do to the bastard undoubtedly is cruel and unusual. But what I want isn't going to happen.
However, can you honestly tell me you think lethal injection is cruel and unusual?
Post by: Snowdog on December 15, 2006, 07:23:22 PM
As for capital punishment, I am not strongly opposed. However, I am somewhat mildly opposed as I see it as a waste of human resources.
For years now, I’ve always felt the condemned should be given a choice of forced labor in an industrial setting with their execution perpetually deferred by 24 hours. If they fail to meet their (realistic) production quota, repeatedly make inferior goods or simply refuse to work, their original punishment should be irreversibly reinstated, to be carried out within the day (ala Chinese preference of a 15 cent bullet to the head).
Some might feel this is a cold and unfeeling perspective of human life, but cruel it is not; as long as they prove useful, they get to live. After all, they’ve already been convicted and sentenced for some horrendous crime in which their victim was given no such conditional reprieve.
Post by: cosine on December 15, 2006, 08:02:20 PM
Cruel and unusual punisments are still unconstitutional and wrong, no matter how sick/evil the person in question is.
Agree fully. However, even though I may be opposed to capital punishment in the United States in this day and age, I don't think I categorize lethal injection in the "cruel and unusual" punishment category.
Post by: Antibubba on December 15, 2006, 08:05:40 PM
Post by: gunsmith on December 16, 2006, 12:09:52 AM
Contents
Post by: roo_ster on December 16, 2006, 01:23:27 AM
As far as the OP, CP is not unusual: it was used in colonial times as and been since. Nothing unusual.
CP as practiced in the USA has never been cruel: hanging, firing squad, ol' sparky, the big shot are all pretty quick ways to send someone off to their next state of being. When states start drawing & quartering folks is when I'll bang the drum and point tot the COTUS.
Post by: grislyatoms on December 16, 2006, 05:16:55 AM
I did some looking into the agents they use for lethal injection some time back.
What I can't understand is why they use one of the drugs they use.
From Wikipedia:
"The intravenous injection is usually a mixture of compounds, designed to induce rapid unconsciousness followed by death through paralysis of respiratory muscles and/or by inducing cardiac hyperpolarization. The execution of the condemned in most states involves three separate injections:
1. Sodium thiopental: to induce a state of unconsciousness intended to last while the other two injections take effect.
2. Pancuronium/Tubocurarine: to stop all muscle movement except the heart. This causes muscle paralysis, collapse of the diaphragm, and would eventually cause death by asphyxiation.
3. Potassium chloride: to stop the heart from beating, and thus cause death: see cardiac arrest."
#2 is the one I question. IF the folks receiving lethal injection DO feel pain, they would not be able to make it obvious because #2 causes a complete paralysis. Why bother, when a dose of #1 followed by #3 would do the trick? Or, maybe just use a lethal dose of #1 (it's a short-acting barbiturate, if I understand correctly) for that matter? Or just give them an OD of morphine? They would fall asleep and not wake up.
Sheesh, even hemlock seems to be a better alternative, given the anecdotal evidence I have read about how it works. Probably more cost effective, too.
Here's the scenario that bugs me:
Condemned gets agent #1 running through his veins. Condemned SEEMS unconscious. Then, they give him #2, causing complete muscle paralysis. What if condemned isn't entirely unconscious? At this point, he/she would not be able indicate pain, and would be unable to draw breath.
Partially conscious and unable to breathe sounds cruel and unusual to me.
Were I in that position (condemned), I would choose hanging or firing squad.
Kind of reminds of something from a Terry Pratchett novel.
Character 1: "I have heard that death is quite painless"
Character 2: "Who told you?"
Post by: mfree on December 16, 2006, 05:28:58 AM
"come on, dead man walking. it's time."
"Oh look, it's midnight" *unholster* *pop* *thump*
"Cleanup call...."
==============
Or, introduce "the boat"... park 'em a half mile from shore shackled into a dinghy with a couple hundred pounds of surplus explosives. Helps feed the fish too...
Post by: Iain on December 16, 2006, 06:08:16 AM
Post by: vaskidmark on December 16, 2006, 07:13:47 AM
Read it and THEN make your comments about lethal injection and the 8th Amendment.
My understanding of the 8th Amendment is that just as we do not execute the retarded because they will not understand why they are being killed, we should not intentionally inflict pain if there is another way of killing the &)P&)(^*^(*% who is to be executed.
There are a number of machines that have been patented and used for pitting the brain of the guest of honor. Several of them are activated by multiple persons (removed the singular guiot issue) and others by variations such as sunlight entering a tube with a solar cell at the bottom.
Not only did I get to talk with a number of persons on death row, I got to review the autopsy reports & forensic evidence of their victims. All I will say is that unless one is very careful, one may develop a certain perspective that might not be considered socially appropriate for dinner-table conversation.
stay safe.
skidmark
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2006, 07:52:16 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2006, 07:53:11 AM
We've been around my views on CP before, I don't like the practicalities as regards human justice. The practicalities of the act itself are in question, I don't see lethal injection as cruel and unusual any more than any execution could be referred to as such. What I do object to, and it seems a Bush brother shares my view, is the botched nature of the recent Florida execution. Terribly incompetent.
How exactly was the recent Florida execution "botched"??
Post by: Nightfall on December 16, 2006, 08:22:37 AM
Post by: AJ Dual on December 16, 2006, 08:42:36 AM
There goes all that R&D money I sunk into the "Paper-cut-lemon-juice-o-matic 5000" I was about to sell to the State of California.
From what I hear, the CA penal system was going to reserve it for thier absolute worst-of-the-worst. People who killed Spotted Owls, homophobes, people with pistol-gripped semi-auto rifles, and those who are skeptical about global warming...
Post by: Dannyboy on December 16, 2006, 08:48:09 AM
#2 is the one I question. IF the folks receiving lethal injection DO feel pain, they would not be able to make it obvious because #2 causes a complete paralysis.
Here's the scenario that bugs me:
Condemned gets agent #1 running through his veins. Condemned SEEMS unconscious. Then, they give him #2, causing complete muscle paralysis. What if condemned isn't entirely unconscious? At this point, he/she would not be able indicate pain, and would be unable to draw breath.
Partially conscious and unable to breathe sounds cruel and unusual to me.
Here's the scenario that bugs me:
Condemned gets agent #1 running through his veins. Condemned SEEMS unconscious. Then, they give him #2, causing complete muscle paralysis. What if condemned isn't entirely unconscious? At this point, he/she would not be able indicate pain, and would be unable to draw breath.
Partially conscious and unable to breathe sounds cruel and unusual to me.
I think that's what the judge was think, as well. That what I gathered from this: "Fogel found substantial evidence that the last six men executed at San Quentin might have been conscious because they were still breathing when lethal drugs were administered."
Post by: thebaldguy on December 16, 2006, 09:42:24 AM
Remember that lethal injection is popular not because if its benefit to the condemned; it's mentally easier for the officals to administer. It's less gory/messy than electrocution, shooting, beheading, or hanging. Many states also give the condemned sedatives to keep them calm to make the process easier for all involved.
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.
Post by: Iain on December 16, 2006, 10:33:43 AM
How exactly was the recent Florida execution "botched"??
Missed the vein.
Quote
He needed a second dose of the lethal chemicals as the needles were injected straight through his veins and into the flesh of his arms.
Following the autopsy, the medical examiner concluded the injections had been wrongly administered.
He was found to have large chemical burns on both arms and his lawyer reported that the 55-year-old continued to move and mouth words more than 20 minutes after the initial dose.
Inmates are supposed to be rendered unconscious by the chemicals within three to five minutes.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6185007.stmFollowing the autopsy, the medical examiner concluded the injections had been wrongly administered.
He was found to have large chemical burns on both arms and his lawyer reported that the 55-year-old continued to move and mouth words more than 20 minutes after the initial dose.
Inmates are supposed to be rendered unconscious by the chemicals within three to five minutes.
Heard his lawyer (so perhaps a pinch of salt) say that Diaz was conscious and struggling to breathe twenty minutes in to the procedure. Twenty minutes of consciousness, with chemical burns (and I've experienced misplaced IV lines tissuing nasty painful antibiotics) isn't exactly clean and efficient.
Post by: Standing Wolf on December 16, 2006, 10:58:52 AM
Of course, moral statements are anathema to leftist extremists, who believe only the state can define values, not people.
Lethal injection has always impressed me as being both much more expensive and far less efficient than simple, old-fashioned hanging, which takes less than a second, and involves the use of a rope that can be reused any number of times.
Post by: mustanger98 on December 16, 2006, 01:15:19 PM
...somebody commits rape or murder or sexually molests a child... hang 'em.
Now, take the case of Timothy McVeigh- he blew up a building and killed 147 (IIRC, +/-) people... some adults and some were innocent kids. He got lethal injection. He took a bomb to all those people and blew 'em up and all he got was to go to sleep. He got off real easy. Way too easy. Now, using a mechanical gallows, he'd have had to stand there with that noose on his neck, sweating, listening to that water drip until it finally dropped the trapdoor out from under him.
Firing squad seems appealing in a good many of these cases we hear about too. 'Least it does to me.
Post by: Cromlech on December 16, 2006, 01:35:44 PM
Though to be honest, a single well placed bullet would do the trick. Or maybe a modified defibrillator thingy could be employed.
Post by: Monkeyleg on December 16, 2006, 02:00:25 PM
I favor the death penalty in general, although I think it should be imposed sparingly. An honest-to-goodness life sentence in a maximum security prison is, to me, much more hellish.
There are cases so outrageous, though, like McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmer, where the public needs to have the convicted executed in order to maintain some sort of societal sensibility.
(Dahmer wasn't executed by the state, but by another prisoner (whose family, I'm betting, was paid well by one of the families of Dahmer's victims).)
Post by: S. Williamson on December 16, 2006, 02:23:17 PM
I can't help but ask... why are we so concerned with punishment not being cruel and/or unusual?
Post by: Iain on December 16, 2006, 02:29:45 PM
Post by: HForrest on December 16, 2006, 02:57:10 PM
Post by: Cosmoline on December 16, 2006, 03:05:14 PM
Post by: S. Williamson on December 17, 2006, 02:41:44 AM
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?
Post by: RocketMan on December 17, 2006, 12:49:51 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
An honest-to-goodness life sentence in a maximum security prison is, to me, much more hellish.
There is something to this, IMHO. Post by: Waitone on December 17, 2006, 01:53:12 PM
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.
Post by: mustanger98 on December 18, 2006, 02:01:53 PM
Post by: SomeKid on December 18, 2006, 03:41:06 PM
Post by: Strings on December 18, 2006, 08:00:47 PM
Post by: Joe Demko on December 19, 2006, 01:49:37 PM
Post by: mustanger98 on December 19, 2006, 02:09:04 PM
As I said, somebody commits murder or rape or sexually molests a child, hang 'em.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 19, 2006, 03:28:39 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: mustanger98 on December 19, 2006, 05:06:55 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Strings on December 19, 2006, 10:27:00 PM
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)...
Post by: Dannyboy on December 20, 2006, 01:53:47 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2006, 04:45:45 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: slzy on December 20, 2006, 08:24:57 AM
Post by: Guest on December 20, 2006, 10:22:39 AM
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.
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%.
Post by: Eleven Mike on December 20, 2006, 11:37:00 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 20, 2006, 12:22:28 PM
Quote
Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.
No. You demand that they be put to death.
Post by: ArmedBear on December 20, 2006, 12:47:34 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2006, 02:02:54 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: Guest on December 20, 2006, 02:16:01 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Guest on December 20, 2006, 02:17:14 PM
Quote
Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.
No. You demand that they be put to death.
+1
Post by: Nightfall on December 20, 2006, 05:58:16 PM
Quote
Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.
No. You demand that they be put to death.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2006, 07:56:46 PM
Quote from: fistful
Justice demands that duly convicted murderers be put to death.
No. You demand that they be put to death.
+1
Quote
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.
Post by: roo_ster on December 20, 2006, 08:13:05 PM
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.
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.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 21, 2006, 03:31:30 AM
Quote
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...
Post by: Eleven Mike on December 21, 2006, 03:41:27 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
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."
Post by: Guest on December 21, 2006, 06:22:09 AM
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.
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."
Quote
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.
Post by: Guest on December 21, 2006, 06:35:54 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Moondoggie on December 21, 2006, 10:53:03 AM
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.