I should have just waited until HBC had responded.
There is no moral right when it comes to individuals who have committed crimes so great they are faced with the death penalty. Either they are faced with death by a government who could give two shits about them, or they are imprisoned for life in a daily psychological torture chamber that is high security prison. There have been several studies that show imprisonment exacerbates any underlying psychological conditions, and rather than treat them, prisoners are left in their own mental morass. Again, there is no moral high ground on this, other than to salve whatever individual guilt you may have by telling yourself one way is better.
Our prison system is irreparably broken. So broken. We don't focus on rehabilitation. We focus on containment and torture, and at this rate, it's never going to change.
Also, has anyone been watching the documentaries regarding solitary confinement that have been airing?
This is a really excellent point. To me, it's not even that we make them worse criminals, as I've heard people say before. It's that we willfully and blindly expose them to a dangerous and degrading environment that breaks them down mentally and forced them into alignment with other dangerous people in order to survive.\
Now I'm not all boohoo bad people but I don't think it does society any favors to have a system that basically serves as a criminal and mental illness stew and think that theses people are going to get out and be normal or that staying in this environment for life is somehow better than not living at all.
In general, i am opposed to the death penalty. In general, i do not want people who could be innocent suffering a cruel and unusual death. In general i think we pay too much for death row inmates. Inngeneral i leave the death sentence decisions to God.
In these cases, burying a woman alive and raping an 11 month old? These are perfect cases for experimental drugs for the death penalty, should it continue. And God save my soul for not giving a fuck about these two criminals.
I appreciate that but you can't tell me that you can't put them under general anesthesia, then give them an OD of meds that will stop their breathing/heart. Politics aside, it isn't that complicated. If it is being monitored by a physician, it should never come to experimental cocktails of drugs.
I view your example as a waste of resources and even more ethical issues. Of course anything that is given in exteme doses can cause heart to stop but whether that is ethical can be up for debate. Anesthesia was mot designed to kill people. You can give sedateds to intubate- they can take a few minutes to work but they you'll going to put in a breathing tube. You can give medications to make someone's blood pressure low or high- but once again it can take minutes and cause additional pain. In nursing school they always teach to never give Potassium IVP as it will cause instant death. I don't know why that's not used.
It is more ethical than giving the inmate an experimental cocktail of drugs and not knowing what the reaction is going to be. If the state is going to allow the DP they have a responsibility to handle it appropriately. It is not a waste of resources to allow this to happen.
And what about the recent study showing that 1 in 25 death row inmates is likely innocent? What if the next time that an execution is botched the dead man is later exonerated? The system itself is unreliable and corrupt, whether or not you believe it's just for these two inmates to die for their crimes.
Are we talking about the system or are we talking about this specific case? Because in this specific case, where there are virtually zero doubts as to his guilt, I am going with IDGAF.
If we're talking about the system, then yes, I have serious problems with the way the death penalty is applied in the United States.
I do not have a problem with the death penalty itself on principle, though. Which means I don't have a problem with it in this case.
I view your example as a waste of resources and even more ethical issues. Of course anything that is given in exteme doses can cause heart to stop but whether that is ethical can be up for debate. Anesthesia was mot designed to kill people. You can give sedateds to intubate- they can take a few minutes to work but they you'll going to put in a breathing tube. You can give medications to make someone's blood pressure low or high- but once again it can take minutes and cause additional pain. In nursing school they always teach to never give Potassium IVP as it will cause instant death. I don't know why that's not used.
It is more ethical than giving the inmate an experimental cocktail of drugs and not knowing what the reaction is going to be. If the state is going to allow the DP they have a responsibility to handle it appropriately. It is not a waste of resources to allow this to happen.
So tell me exactly how you give a cocktail of drugs that is NOT experimental. How do you propose that a death penalty drug be tested?
It is more ethical than giving the inmate an experimental cocktail of drugs and not knowing what the reaction is going to be. If the state is going to allow the DP they have a responsibility to handle it appropriately. It is not a waste of resources to allow this to happen.
So tell me exactly how you give a cocktail of drugs that is NOT experimental. How do you propose that a death penalty drug be tested?
My point is we already have this knowledge. Medical professionals know how to do this. How do you think people handle assisted suicide?
Oh he is the one who buried the woman alive? Still don't care.
I feel like I have to say that I am not actively out there being all pro death penalty. I would vote for a candidate who wanted to end the death penalty and I wouldn't go stomping around all pissed if there were a moratorium on the death penalty. I also agree that the system is flawed and does not focus enough on rehabilitation. That said, I do not care about these people or their pain fear or suffering. Hearing that the one died a horrible terrifying death does not make me want to take up the fight to end the death penalty, petition politicians, march outside of prisons. I simply don't give a fuck. I do not care what happens to these two men.
Post by cattledogkisses on Apr 30, 2014 10:00:22 GMT -5
I will never be ok with torturing people to death, no matter what crime they've committed. This was cruel and unusual punishment, and unconstitutional.
I understand the visceral reaction to his crimes, but torturing criminals is not something our justice system should condone.
I will never be ok with torturing people to death, no matter what crime they've committed. This was cruel and unusual punishment, and unconstitutional.
I understand the visceral reaction to his crimes, but torturing criminals is not something our justice system should condone.
I will never be ok with torturing people to death, no matter what crime they've committed. This was cruel and unusual punishment, and unconstitutional.
I understand the visceral reaction to his crimes, but torturing criminals is not something our justice system should condone.
Is any sort of suffering torture, though?
No, I don't think so. Although I think people are interpreting it that way if we're considering firing squad cruel and unusual. It certainly isn't unusual given it's widespread use since the invention of the firearm.
No, I don't think so. Although I think people are interpreting it that way if we're considering firing squad cruel and unusual. It certainly isn't unusual given it's widespread use since the invention of the firearm.
Death by firing squad is pretty instantaneous, and I would not consider it cruel and unusual.
40 minutes of dying in agony is certainly cruel and unusual though.
Just to kick the can down the road some more - Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in 1971. CA did away with the death penalty in 1972 and his sentence was then transferred to life in prison. To date, he's had 12 (!!) parole hearings. 12 hearings that his victim's families had to attend to keep the guy in jail. By all accounts he is still crazier than a rat in a shithouse. There is no reason to keep him alive. There are no redeemable qualities to him. At his last parole hearing he said, "I am a very dangerous man." (Read more - abcnews.go.com/US/charles-manson-denied-parole-dangerous-man/story?id=16111128 )
Post by cattledogkisses on Apr 30, 2014 10:17:22 GMT -5
To me it's not even about being pro vs. anti death penalty, it's about the fact that we as a country decided in our Constitution that it is unacceptable to administer punishment like this inmate received.
Just to kick the can down the road some more - Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in 1971. CA did away with the death penalty in 1972 and his sentence was then transferred to life in prison. To date, he's had 12 (!!) parole hearings. 12 hearings that his victim's families had to attend to keep the guy in jail. By all accounts he is still crazier than a rat in a shithouse. There is no reason to keep him alive. There are no redeemable qualities to him. At his last parole hearing he said, "I am a very dangerous man." (Read more - abcnews.go.com/US/charles-manson-denied-parole-dangerous-man/story?id=16111128 )
Just to kick the can down the road some more - Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in 1971. CA did away with the death penalty in 1972 and his sentence was then transferred to life in prison. To date, he's had 12 (!!) parole hearings. 12 hearings that his victim's families had to attend to keep the guy in jail. By all accounts he is still crazier than a rat in a shithouse. There is no reason to keep him alive. There are no redeemable qualities to him. At his last parole hearing he said, "I am a very dangerous man." (Read more - abcnews.go.com/US/charles-manson-denied-parole-dangerous-man/story?id=16111128 )
Why are we keeping him alive again?
now i am going to go on a wiki rabbithole trip but what happened to the people that actually killed Tate and the others, since Manson himself never did it?
To me it's not even about being pro vs. anti death penalty, it's about the fact that we as a country decided in our Constitution that it is unacceptable to administer punishment like this inmate received.
We, as a country, haven't. The whole reason drugs started being used is because other forms of execution were perceived as being too barbaric. Most drug executions are quick and painless. Unfortunately, the drugs that used to be administered are not available and new ones are being used.
I said it before, but when they were administrating the drugs, they did not set out to torture this man.
Just to kick the can down the road some more - Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in 1971. CA did away with the death penalty in 1972 and his sentence was then transferred to life in prison. To date, he's had 12 (!!) parole hearings. 12 hearings that his victim's families had to attend to keep the guy in jail. By all accounts he is still crazier than a rat in a shithouse. There is no reason to keep him alive. There are no redeemable qualities to him. At his last parole hearing he said, "I am a very dangerous man." (Read more - abcnews.go.com/US/charles-manson-denied-parole-dangerous-man/story?id=16111128 )
Why are we keeping him alive again?
They are never letting this guy out. Never.
And yet, there were 12 parole hearings to let him go.
To me it's not even about being pro vs. anti death penalty, it's about the fact that we as a country decided in our Constitution that it is unacceptable to administer punishment like this inmate received.
According to whom? It has not been ruled cruel and unusual by a court, so right now, it's a matter of personal opinion.
To me it's not even about being pro vs. anti death penalty, it's about the fact that we as a country decided in our Constitution that it is unacceptable to administer punishment like this inmate received.
According to whom? It has not been ruled cruel and unusual by a court, so right now, it's a matter of personal opinion.
I don't know how you can say that the way this man died was not cruel and unusual.
Just to kick the can down the road some more - Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in 1971. CA did away with the death penalty in 1972 and his sentence was then transferred to life in prison. To date, he's had 12 (!!) parole hearings. 12 hearings that his victim's families had to attend to keep the guy in jail. By all accounts he is still crazier than a rat in a shithouse. There is no reason to keep him alive. There are no redeemable qualities to him. At his last parole hearing he said, "I am a very dangerous man." (Read more - abcnews.go.com/US/charles-manson-denied-parole-dangerous-man/story?id=16111128 )
Why are we keeping him alive again?
Because locking someone up and making them go through a process they know they will be denied every time for the rest of their life is more humane. Duh.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Post by Velar Fricative on Apr 30, 2014 10:35:59 GMT -5
Hold up re: the Charles Manson parole hearings. So, 12 hearings in about 30 years, but the parole board set his next hearing 15 years after his most recent one. So am I understanding correctly that states don't have laws that say, "If you're convicted under X charge, you will have parole hearings every Y years," and that the board at each parole hearing instead decides "Okay, no parole for you but we've decided that your next parole hearing will be in Y years"?
Am I making sense? Because if it's the latter, how the hell did Charles Manson manage to score 12 parole hearings in ~30 years?