LOL! I said most of this several pages ago. The issue isn't black and white, which is why there is no moral high ground in this. Our morality on this particular instance is so skewed that if someone says they're for DP, then automatically they're a bad person. Yet if someone says they're for DP for those that are completely un-rehabable and thinks that lifetime incarceration is torture, people have no idea what the fuck to think. We're so conditioned to view this as a black and white issue that we make it one, no matter what we personally believe.
Disclaimer: I do not think those who are pro-DP are bad people
But I do think its a bit different since it is rare for people to beg the state to kill them but there are many who beg the state to NOT kill them. KWIM? But I do think this problem is solved by giving those sentences to live the option to kill themselves or have someone kill them. Money saved. Torture averted.
The problem I see with this is that people are going to say, "If they want to commit suicide, then there must be something wrong with them mentally."
Disclaimer: I do not think those who are pro-DP are bad people
But I do think its a bit different since it is rare for people to beg the state to kill them but there are many who beg the state to NOT kill them. KWIM? But I do think this problem is solved by giving those sentences to live the option to kill themselves or have someone kill them. Money saved. Torture averted.
The problem I see with this is that people are going to say, "If they want to commit suicide, then there must be something wrong with them mentally."
I can see that, in our culture.
But we do have ways to evaluate someone's mental state.
I say this as someone with little to no training in psychology so I could be totally off.
Then what the hell are you talking about when you bring up Manson and the small cell? I didn't take anything you posted as what you just said.
Because you were stuck that I used Manson as an example? He was the first person I thought of that is 100% incapable of being rehabbed. The world would be a better place without him.
I didn't realize people would get so stuck on the one example I used, but this is CEP where sometimes people skim and don't get the full conversation.
I don't think I was the only one (since so many mentioned it). I will just say I am anti-DP. The Manson thing was just part of my question above. The other was the pages of the small confined space. It seems you are pro-DP. I don't understand this stance in rational terms. I get the emotion, but not the rational part.
Because you were stuck that I used Manson as an example? He was the first person I thought of that is 100% incapable of being rehabbed. The world would be a better place without him.
I didn't realize people would get so stuck on the one example I used, but this is CEP where sometimes people skim and don't get the full conversation.
I don't think I was the only one (since so many mentioned it). I will just say I am anti-DP. The Manson thing was just part of my question above. The other was the pages of the small confined space. It seems you are pro-DP. I don't understand this stance in rational terms. I get the emotion, but not the rational part.
In very short and simple terms that I'm sure will come back and bite my butt, I'm pro-DP for those that are utterly un-rehabable. I'm anti-torture just to torture someone because society doesn't want to take their life.
I'm really not sure what kind of reforms keep a guy who delights in hurting children from spending the next 40 years of his life enjoying the memory of the times he hurt children.
I'm really not sure what kind of reforms keep a guy who delights in hurting children from spending the next 40 years of his life enjoying the memory of the times he hurt children.
I thought I had heard all arguments on either side, but this is a new one, at least to me. We need to kill people so they no longer have the memories of their crime.
**ETa: I do not mean my summary to be flippant at all. See earlier post about drinks.
I thought I had heard all arguments on either side, but this is a new one, at least to me. We need to kill people so they no longer have the memories of their crime.
**ETa: I do not mean my summary to be flippant at all. See earlier post about drinks.
Prison is not a punishment if you get to sit around lost in fairytale land glorying in the memories of the horrific crimes you've committed. Fwiw, I don't believe most people do this, only the truly sick and twisted who commit crimes for funsies or get sexual gratification out of their crimes.
I'm really not sure what kind of reforms keep a guy who delights in hurting children from spending the next 40 years of his life enjoying the memory of the times he hurt children.
That already isn't punishable by the DP (Imaybe that is the point?) so, to me, confinement is punishment in that freedom is gone, any interaction is gone, etc. They still will eat and be alive (more than can be said for their victims) so, to me, it is not torture.
I'm really not sure what kind of reforms keep a guy who delights in hurting children from spending the next 40 years of his life enjoying the memory of the times he hurt children.
That already isn't punishable by the DP (Imaybe that is the point?) so, to me, confinement is punishment in that freedom is gone, any interaction is gone, etc. They still will eat and be alive (more than can be said for their victims) so, to me, it is not torture.
What isn't punishable? The second guy in line was up for dp for raping and killing an 11 month old.
That already isn't punishable by the DP (Imaybe that is the point?) so, to me, confinement is punishment in that freedom is gone, any interaction is gone, etc. They still will eat and be alive (more than can be said for their victims) so, to me, it is not torture.
Except that pixy has already posted studies that suggest that confining someone and giving them limited human interaction over the course of years degrades one's sanity.
That already isn't punishable by the DP (Imaybe that is the point?) so, to me, confinement is punishment in that freedom is gone, any interaction is gone, etc. They still will eat and be alive (more than can be said for their victims) so, to me, it is not torture.
What isn't punishable? The second guy in line was up for dp for raping and killing an 11 month old.
Torture/rape (I believe it was HJ that referred to SCOTUS saying it was not punishable by DP). I thought that is what HBC was referring.
That already isn't punishable by the DP (Imaybe that is the point?) so, to me, confinement is punishment in that freedom is gone, any interaction is gone, etc. They still will eat and be alive (more than can be said for their victims) so, to me, it is not torture.
Except that pixy has already posted studies that suggest that confining someone and giving them limited human interaction over the course of years degrades one's sanity.
That's why there is no moral high ground here.
For a non-human? I have little to no sympathy. I think 3 squares is a lot more than most get. Again, though, i don't think it is black and white.
Except that pixy has already posted studies that suggest that confining someone and giving them limited human interaction over the course of years degrades one's sanity.
Torture/rape (I believe it was HJ that referred to SCOTUS saying it was not punishable by DP). I thought that is what HBC was referring.
I'm referring to people who murder in horrific, torturous ways merely because they enjoy it and then spend the next 40 years rubbing one out to the memory of those crimes.
Post by fortmyersbride on Apr 30, 2014 21:59:03 GMT -5
Here is a link discussing the threatened anesthetic shortages had MO gone through with a propofol based lethal injection: propofol-info.com/risk-eu-sanctions.htm
Fresenius (our major supplier for propofol to the US) stated that their company is ethically opposed to the DP, but also b/c it is illegal in the EU, it could have caused sanctions on further exporting to the US. Had we lost the Fresenius supply of propofol to the US due to 1 lethal injection, our ability to provide anesthesia in the US would have been severely impacted.
Each anesthetic agent with limited European suppliers that gets implicated in lethal injections becomes threatened or removed from US anesthesia supply sources. The states using the DP have since turned to compounding their own anesthetics (pentobarbital) or using generic anesthetic/amenesic/analgesic medications with US suppliers. None of these drugs are new or unknown. But each person' s physiology is so different that it surprises me not at all that a dose of narcotic or benzo that killed one inmate barely sedated another. It's my understanding that the original cocktails contained a paralytic plus a bolus of IV potassium to stop the heart after the inmate was asleep, but I don't know why those protocols changed.
I'm personally anti-DP, but whenever I read stories about "botched" lethal injections, I can't help but think- these states need MUCH better medical advising on medicine titration, dose determination, procedure if one suspects an IV infiltrates. But then I quickly realize there probably aren't many people lining up to take on such a role--so I'll quit with my backseat driving.
AKA, the "I'm going to talk to you like you're a 5 year old because I cannot POSSIBLY BE WRONG" lectures that she gets to somewhere around page 8. And I'll qualify that by saying that unless she was actually there she can't actually know what happened. Especially considering the doctors on hand don't actually know what happened either since there were 2 lines going into the guy. I doubt the blew 2 lines at once.
Everyone on here is guessing at this point. It's what we do best. But please let's not pretend that anyone is Right.
Evidently some people need things explained to them like they're five.
3. It'd be an interesting board discussion if they did go back to public executions, and the firing squad. I don't think anyone is pretending that death is an easy way to deal with criminals. I do think that people are too willing to let criminals disappear into the justice system, because what they don't see they forget about. Until said criminal commits another crime and the gnashing of teeth starts, "Why did they let him go? He killed and molested blah blah blah! He should never have seen the light of day again!" We have articles like this come up all the time. They are let go because that is our justice system.
1. You know I'm quoting something from the COMMENTS of an article right? I don't farking know! Maybe guilt beyond ANY doubt? Confession or video evidence required? Not a lawyer. 2. cool 3. The more I think about this the more I am on board. A bullet to the head is quick and probably painless, but certainly violent and gross. Certainly a deterrent and not candy coating what is intended to be and IS the most irreversible, most extreme punishment. If we want to say "OK, we KILL criminals who do certain things"; if we want to sanction death as a punishment, then just fucking do it. Lord knows we're not running out of bullets anytime soon.
I thought I had heard all arguments on either side, but this is a new one, at least to me. We need to kill people so they no longer have the memories of their crime.
**ETa: I do not mean my summary to be flippant at all. See earlier post about drinks.
Prison is not a punishment if you get to sit around lost in fairytale land glorying in the memories of the horrific crimes you've committed. Fwiw, I don't believe most people do this, only the truly sick and twisted who commit crimes for funsies or get sexual gratification out of their crimes.
I would argue that prison is, indeed, punishment and I think Pixy has posted some links to back up that prison is the worst form of punishment.
We can't police someone's thoughts. I'm pretty horrified by that image, actually. So I don't really care what their twisted mind goes to in dark times.
3. It'd be an interesting board discussion if they did go back to public executions, and the firing squad. I don't think anyone is pretending that death is an easy way to deal with criminals. I do think that people are too willing to let criminals disappear into the justice system, because what they don't see they forget about. Until said criminal commits another crime and the gnashing of teeth starts, "Why did they let him go? He killed and molested blah blah blah! He should never have seen the light of day again!" We have articles like this come up all the time. They are let go because that is our justice system.
1. You know I'm quoting something from the COMMENTS of an article right? I don't farking know! Maybe guilt beyond ANY doubt? Confession or video evidence required? Not a lawyer. 2. cool 3. The more I think about this the more I am on board. A bullet to the head is quick and probably painless, but certainly violent and gross. Certainly a deterrent and not candy coating what is intended to be and IS the most irreversible, most extreme punishment. If we want to say "OK, we KILL criminals who do certain things"; if we want to sanction death as a punishment, then just fucking do it. Lord knows we're not running out of bullets anytime soon.
Yep, I think this is where I am.
What about the martyrdom aspect of a public execution? Or do we assume that ANY execution can turn a criminal into a martyr in the minds of the wrong people?
I've actually been IN that death chamber (like, the actual room where the inmate is executed) in Oklahoma accompanying a colleague on a graduate course tour. Learning about how it works, I think, actually made me more anti-death penalty, in part because I'm so sickened by the process. When I was there (prior to the new drugs) there were three drugs administered, and they were actually administered by private citizens who were each paid $50.00 for their services. A nurse put in the IV, but each citizen pushed one of the plungers (from behind a wall) into the IV. I think the thing that grossed me out the most is that citizens write in to the governor's office "applying" for these positions. I can *maybe* see wanting to be a part of the death of someone who killed your sister, but you don't know when you get called up which inmate you will be executed. I can't express it well, but that most people won't write a letter to their congress people but these folks will write in begging to execute someone really made me feel uncomfortable. It's almost like the state is facilitating more people's desires to kill.
That said, I'm totally fine with people being in death-row-esque cells forever. There are FAR fewer privileges there (e.g., no visitation, locked down in solitary cells nearly all the time, getting out, essentially, for one shower/week.
How is it morally superior to not give a shit how people live, the state of their mental health vs the death penalty?
I am thinking this might be to me? TO me, they have healthcare, they get 3 square meals, they get shelter. I don't care much else. I do have a problem with killing (anyone). I do have a problem with how unbalanced our judicial system is with regard to minority people/incarcertated. I do have a problem with wrongful convictions. I guess that is where it is morally superior....erring on the side of caution, even if 99.9% sure the person did it.
A person that commits such unspeakable crimes loses their humanity, in my eyes.
Then why are you so concerned if we kill them or not?
Because it is still a life, even if they are now a 'monster'. I don't agree with the DP. Why is this difficult? (I am not making that to be snotty, but I just don't get why some-not you, just in general-don't see why taking a life, especially in light of overturned convictions is a big concern. I am not of the pro-life mindset as my only reason, but I have a problem with it).
How is it morally superior to not give a shit how people live, the state of their mental health vs the death penalty?
I am thinking this might be to me? TO me, they have healthcare, they get 3 square meals, they get shelter. I don't care much else. I do have a problem with killing (anyone). I do have a problem with how unbalanced our judicial system is with regard to minority people/incarcertated. I do have a problem with wrongful convictions. I guess that is where it is morally superior....erring on the side of caution, even if 99.9% sure the person did it.
We all agree that the justice system is a piece of crap, and people are wrongfully convicted all the time.
However, there are people that are completely and 100% guilty. Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Timothy McVeigh... should these men have been spared and allowed to stay in the penal system? I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to life and prison, and was beaten to death by a fellow inmate. Saved the state a few bucks I guess. The men, who you avow have no humanity left, should have been kept alive simply because... they were alive?
We all agree that the justice system is a piece of crap, and people are wrongfully convicted all the time.
However, there are people that are completely and 100% guilty. Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Timothy McVeigh... should these men have been spared and allowed to stay in the penal system? I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to life and prison, and was beaten to death by a fellow inmate. Saved the state a few bucks I guess. The men, who you avow have no humanity left, should have been kept alive simply because... they were alive?
Yeah, in Dahmer's case it would have been more humane to put him in front of a firing squad rather than how he died.
That being said, in the case of serial killers in particular, they are often given life without parole because withholding the death sentence is how we've gotten them to give up the locations of the bodies they've buried and details about their victims.