A bullet in the back of the head should do the trick or is that just too messy for your average septics sensibilities?
An Ohio death row inmate is attempting to postpone his imminent appointment with the lethal injection gurney by claiming a possible allergy to the anaesthetic used by the state to dispatch its condemned prisoners. Darryl Durr Darryl Durr (pictured) is sentenced to die next Tuesday for the 1988 rape and murder of 16-year-old …
The way I read it, if the comments are entirely unmoderated, then the person hosting them is not held liable. However, if there is a moderator, then they are liable for what they let through, even if they are letting everything through. The tacit acknowledgement that the comments are being read by a moderator could lead to the argument that they are moderated, in a legal sense. Again, however, IANAL so what do I know?
"Raped and murdered a 16 yr old girl"
And that's a fact is it? I mean, you know that for sure. There's no way the evidence could have been misrepresented or misunderstood. No way at all. Despite countless examples of ... er ... what do they call it now .. ah yes ... a "miscarriage of justice". It's even happened enough times that we have a word(*) for it.
You're a murderous throwback, and in my court, you'ld be strung up by your woefully underdeveloped frontal lobes. All I need is 12 idiots and a few crooked coppers. Shouldn't be too hard.
(*) Grammar / Semantics Nazis, go fuck yourselves.
"And that's a fact is it?"
I don't know and neither do you, I probably know as much about this case as you do which is precisely fuck all. But, I'll sure as hell take the word of a legal system that still finds a guy guilty after 22 years of appeals to the point where as a last ditch attempt to get him off the hook the lawyers argue he would be alergic to the method of execution.
Yeah, I'd take their word over your five lines of year 11 social philosophy anyday.
"12 idiots and a few crooked coppers"
Oh yes, of course how silly of me it really is that easy isn't it - Oh wait a minute, it's not, there's masses of effort spent scrutinising every piece of evidence and a whole industry created around such cases. What a stupid throwaway comment.
Your title is apt.
IANAE but I believe the reason why a bullet is not used is that according to Constitutional law the executioner needs to have a psychological escape route - i.e. they have to be able to believe that they didn't actually kill someone. That's why typically they have 2 executioners, both of whom press a button at the same time to start the execution, but only one button is connected. With a gun it tends to be pretty clear if you killed somebody or not.
Although I still have no idea why the procedures are so darn complicated - there must be simpler ways which still allow for a psychological escape route.
Stalin because he wasn't troubled by such petty hindrances as psychological escape routes.
Yup, that's how military firing squads used to get round it. It was always said that some of the guns were loaded with real ammo and some with blanks, so nobody firing could be sure whether or not they'd actually shot the condemned.
Whether it was ever true or not I can't say. Personally I call bollocks as there's a world of difference in generated recoil between a blank and a live round, so anyone with any experience should know damned well whether or not they were in on the kill.
"I'm all for capital punishment when murder, rape or sexual abuse is proved beyond all reasonable doubt"
"Beyond all reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "absolutely, positively did it".
The death penalty is bad not just because eye for an eye simply doesn't work. It's bad because there will always be that one innocent person who is found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The risk of executing one innocent person just isn't worth executing even a thousand murderers.
At least with life imprisonment you have the chance of correcting your mistake. With the death penalty you don't (and it's the poor who can't afford decent defence lawyers who end up being most affected by this).
I recall a documentary in which Michael Portillo found out that hypoxia was the most humane method of execution -- but an advocate of the death penalty in the US wouldn't hear of it because it produced euphoria and didn't cause suffering.
Perhaps the morons in Ohio should use a method of execution known to be painless instead of one they just think is probably painless for most people?
Funny how it's the very people who are pro death penalty are the ones who seem to want to make it as barbaric as possible -- which seems to detract from their cause somewhat.
I'm from Ohio and the death penalty is arguably the best deterrent for persons contemplating killing another. I personally don't understand how someone casually decides to take another person's life, especially someone they don't know or hardly know, but the threat of having your own life taken away if you kill someone should cause some hesitance, maybe.
Life in prison seems like a free ride; Maybe you have to do some laundry or cooking, you can't go anywhere you like and you have to hang around with other prisoners who could be rough or homosexual, but that doesn't seem enough of a deterrent to me. Some murderers might like that sort of thing.
Plus the state has to pay for housing, feeding and health care for this person doing life. I think the Ohio estimate was $35,000 per year or better. Plus the repeal of the death penalty in Ohio in the 70's sent the crime rate way up.
Ohio has a Democrat, moderate liberal, albeit, religious Governor who agrees with the death penalty.
Ohio also has a museum with "Old Sparky" in it. Decommissioned in 1963, Old Sparky was at one time considered to be humanitarian. And there are a few reproduction of Old Sparky in various places in Ohio. So if the convicted rapist murderer is allergic to his lethal injection which will take 30 second or so, there are other options. ;)
A beer to Old Sparky.
Here in the Cleveland, Ohio area, we had some guy trying to park downtown last week for a Cleveland Cavaliers basketball game who tried to park in a handicapped space, and when confronted by the lot attendant he pulled a gun out of his car trunk and murdered the attendant.
A friggin' parking space is worth someone's life?
So should this guy just do life in prison? If you murder someone so you don't miss the first quarter of a basketball game, is life in prison justice?
"Here in the Cleveland, Ohio area, we had some guy trying to park downtown last week for a Cleveland Cavaliers basketball game who tried to park in a handicapped space, and when confronted by the lot attendant he pulled a gun out of his car trunk and murdered the attendant.
"A friggin' parking space is worth someone's life?"
And this is your evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent?!? It didn't even stop a man who was just in a hurry to get a seat!!!!
All it suggests to me is that allowing people to buy and carry guns is a Very Bad Idea.
Well said - all you have to do is compare the murder rate in the US (death penalty - great deterrent) with, say, the wimpish UK (no death penalty and a slap on the wrist if you're lucky) and you'll see how effective your 'best deterrent' is. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate for example and it will prove your point.
"I'm from Ohio and the death penalty is arguably the best deterrent for persons contemplating killing another. I personally don't understand how someone casually decides to take another person's life, especially someone they don't know or hardly know, but the threat of having your own life taken away if you kill someone should cause some hesitance, maybe."
Sorry, but you think that someone who has "casually" decided to take another's life is going to stop to consider the consequences may include being executed?
Taking it one step further, are you comfortable believing that there are people who *would* commit these crimes but are waiting for laws to slacken because they've actually done a risk/reward calculation and decided the outcome is not optimal yet?
"Ohio also has a museum with "Old Sparky" in it. Decommissioned in 1963, Old Sparky was at one time considered to be humanitarian. And there are a few reproduction of Old Sparky in various places in Ohio. So if the convicted rapist murderer is allergic to his lethal injection which will take 30 second or so, there are other options. ;)"
According to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's web site, the electric chair was eliminated as a form of execution on Nov 15, 2001, and "Old Sparky" was decommissioned on Feb 26 2001. I believe the last time "Old Sparky' was used was in 1963.
Technically, unless the stat government makes a change, there are no other options in Ohio at the moment, as lethal injection is currently the only method authorized by law, since "old Sparky's" retirement.
I'm sorry, but the idea of prison being "a free ride" or the other popular meme "like a holiday" is so wrong I can't even begin to address it.
Yeah, I'm sure spending however many years in a place filled with murderers, rapists etc is a fantastic get away from the pressures of the modern office.
The US justice system has such a terrible set up - worst of all the stupid "three strikes" rule where the majority trapped by this end up being pot smokers. Great way to ruin a persons life, put them into a place with the worst of society. And then you wonder why they're changed when they come out, not to mention how their future prospects for employment has been destroyed.
That's not even mentioning how the US penal system is increasingly being turned into slave labour for private profit - in of itself abhorrent.
Advocating the death penalty makes you just as bad as the criminal you want to use it on. Far better to leave them with the rest of their lives to contemplate their deeds while stripping them of their freedom.
"I'm from Ohio and the death penalty is arguably the best deterrent for persons contemplating killing another."
Well, it may seem that way but does it really work?
Do you think that people sit there and weigh up the pros and cons of what the outcome of their actions is to such an extent?
"I personally don't understand how someone casually decides to take another person's life,"
Which could be why *you* think the death penalty is a good deterrent....
"especially someone they don't know or hardly know, but the threat of having your own life taken away if you kill someone should cause some hesitance, maybe."
The death penalty reduces risk of repeat offence (true) but kills the occasional innocent person.
How many innocent people are you happy to have murdered to make sure that some murderers get killed as well?
Not to get into a large argument here, but, a quick look at the crime statistics from the early 60s to 2008 (available here: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ohcrime.htm ) shows that there was a jump at about 1970, but, since then, the numbers have stayed pretty steady, simply fluctuating down and up a bit. As a matter of fact, in the past five or six years there appears to be a slow but steady net DECREASE in violent and other crimes.
I do not think that the death penalty works as an overall deterrent. However, it works very well for the individual being killed. Death is a solid guarantee that individual will not be a danger to society again.
"Allergic to a lethal injection", FFS???
I thought that was the whole bloody point!
One thing I don't get is this convoluted 3-chemical method. Just render the SOB unconscious (like hospitals have managed for decades with ease), and if an operating theatre can remove half a person's innards without the patient knowing anything about it, why don't they simply use the same anaesthetic, then, once unconscious, give him a hell-of-a-lot more of it? Painless.
Or, am I missing something?
Next appeal against being State-Stiffed will be a claim that it breaks 'elf and safty' rules. That of the condemned, natch.
which is the whole root of the problem. Hospitals can put people to sleep most of the time without problems, but that's because they have trained anaesthesiologists who've taken the Hippocratic Oath (i.e. sworn to preserve life, not take it). Executions aren't performed by doctors/anaesthesiologists as a rule because they'd be violating their oath.
Which means prisons are dependent on staff who may or may not have followed IV 101, but are in any case not medical professionals.
Hand grenade because that would do the trick.
> "Allergic to a lethal injection", FFS???
> I thought that was the whole bloody point!"
Err no. Lethal injections are not designed to kill via an allergic reaction, otherwise you would have to spend ages finding the specific allergens for each condemned criminal.
> Just render the SOB unconscious (like hospitals have managed for decades with ease)
Hospitals use a general anaesthetic. That's what he's claiming to be allergic to, not lethal injections per se.
> Next appeal against being State-Stiffed will be a claim that it breaks 'elf and safty'
If he was a smoker he was probably forced to kick his habit on the grounds it was bad for his health. If the state of Ohio had given him 60 a day for the past 20-odd years, he could have slowly self-administered a lethal dose.
Now what's your poison?
Same as yours, judging by the Icon ;-)
Everyone is allergic to arsenic, same as all cats are allergic to aspirin, as guinea-pigs are allergic to penicillin (luckily Florey chose mice for testing).
As peanuts do for some people, Death Cap mushroom has a 90 percent chance the allergy won't just give you a bit of hay-fever. (Nasty way to go, BTW)
The allergy is rather extreme, depending on the dose, naturally. We've arsenic in our bodies as a requirement for nervous system fuctionality.
The 'allergy' can kill very swiftly.
I think your argument is like me saying 'I'm allergic to bullets' as in a bullet won't do me any good. Or, possibly better, a small dose of a lethal injection might give me a bit of a snuffle.
Chuck a fucking gallon in the perp, see how allergic that makes him. He won't have time to even sneeze.
Andus - Dead against the death sentence, BTW.
Firstly, why are the majority of the condemned held in a facility often labelled "Correction facility"? That's some helluva correction...Sure, (s)he won't do it again...but, like 199 years-to-life, it's just a joke. How can anyone take a judiciary seriously when they come out with that bollox?
Why are they held for - maybe half their lives - before their sentence of execution is carried out?
Why does the case close shut (evidence destroyed) after the 'perp' has been executed? Are the Government afraid an innocent person's death may come to light?
If you haven't worked it out yet, the McCoatover is totally against the death sentence. Unless, Science* can make it reversible. (And will someone explain how to use those three sea-shells...)
* Actually, possibly Scientology might have the answer. "Tom Cruise, come out of the closet!! We need Your Thetan'kin advice!!"
For gods sake.
The guy is clearly clinging on to life for as long as possible. Either kill him like the Ohio law dictates, or don't and let him serve a life sentence.
I'm pretty sure he didn't give to much concern over what his actions did to his victim. Why should the executioner care about him?
Hope he gets raped in hell for eternity.
What's so uncivili "S" ed about trying to increase the average purity of the human race? If all sexual predators had their knees capped and then buggered by a huge frikkin shotgun before being released from this planet, then there would be no sexual abuse. Bring on the draconian actions for these sub-humans.
Iconset: Evil jobs - cos a butt raping by him would be the first step
Next comes the grenade - cos that's one way to blow their knees
Finally, it's our best friend and worst enemy - the flame. Burn baby burn
Yeah, I don't get that at all.
For that matter, junkies regularly manage to shoot up with too much heroin/coke and off themselves; and here in the UK we've had medical "professionals" offing patients by accidentally or deliberately giving them overdoses of opiate painkillers. Granted there may be some variation between patients as to what's a lethal dose - but if you give them a metric sh1tload of it that'd kill a rhinoceros, the result should be pretty much certain. And if there's one thing opiate drugs guarantee, it's a pleasant exit.
I wonder if you're referring to the bit "In Texas in 1989, Stephen McCoy "reacted violently to the chemicals and began choking and seizing, despite being restrained". A state official later admitted "a heavier dose might have been warranted".
In 1992, Oklahoma prisoner Robyn Lee Parks "also had a violent reaction as the muscles in his jaw, neck, and abdomen began to spasm about two minutes after the drugs started to flow"."
Note the plural in the "chemicalS". These folks were topped by the 3-chemical method.
Or, is this the bit you're gagging on:
"an untried sedative and painkiller combination, which when injected into muscle is "supposed to produce death" "
Sarah, have another shot at "Reading and Intelligent Reasoning 101". You might pass next time...
I have to agree with Andus McCoatover. Why can't every single method of death sentence be replaced with something completely painless? How about decapitation? 100% effective, no _verified_ proof of life after the procedure and 100% painless.
Bring back the guillotine. Make it modern and administered from behind the person (so they don't see the blade coming), make it a sphincter or... jeez whatever you get in camera lenses for aperture control (think Stargate iris). Instant death. Perhaps a little bit of mess though. Hmmm.
What I'm getting is that the barbaric 3-chemicals and strapped to a table thing is definitely cruel and unusual. Electric chair? How is that _any_ better? Gas chamber? Deeply unpleasant way to experience death. I think I'd prefer a bullet. The problem appears to be that they want witnesses and putting a bullet in someone makes a mess they won't want to see... What, watching someone do the 50,000V (or however much it is) shuffle, cough gas or scream as the chemicals go in isn't going to give you nightmares? Have a coroner watch and pronounce and just get it done.
Alternatively abolish the death sentence.
Lavoisier (and others since) put paid to that idea.
When he was executed during the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution, he decided to put the experience to good use and settle once and for all the argument over whether or not death by guillotine was instantaneous.
He arranged for his manservant to stand adjacent to him on the scaffold and said that he would blink for as long as he was able after his head was severed. It is recorded that he blinked rhythmically for about 45 seconds after decapitation.
Other examples exist of research into the length of time a decapitated head remains capable of conscious thought, notably the work done by Dr. Beaurieux at the execution of the condemned criminal Henri Languille in 1905.
I think we're well into "cruel and unusual" territory there. Also I'd have thought that anyone who subscribes to the rather two-faced view of killing people but only in a nice way would probably object to the mess caused by decapitation, as it might offend their sensibilities.
Why not use the old head chopper? Can have as many buttons as you want to trick someone into thinking they havent killed someone. However, I have to say if you are willing to press a button which may kill the person where 2 buttons are pressed then you would be willing to press it if there is only one button.
Taking someones life away is probably punishment enough, making them suffer in the process is just nasty, if you want to take somebodys life away and make them suffer in the process it probably says more about you and your moral values.
The people who end the prisoners lives are not medically trained (in fact doctors and nurses are usually not allowed to participate), even if they get it right there are serious doubts that it's in fact painless (The Lancet v365), they are just paralysed and unable to express the pain (but they still feel it), while you might think this is OK for murderers and in fact you might want them to suffer, but again, even if they were in fact guilty of their crimes, what does this say about you when you're not even the victim or anyone related to the victim?
> Taking someones life away is probably punishment enough, making them suffer in the process is just nasty, if you want to take somebodys life away and make them suffer in the process it probably says more about you and your moral values.
I'm sure he was also considerate when he murdered the 16 year old girl.
Personally, I wonder if he's allergic to a 9mm to the back of the skull?
So you seem to think that crimes cancel each other out. Is that right?
Are you one of the wonderful people who have such a lust to see another human suffer and die you are jumping at the chance to do it with some (dubious) moral high ground?
If *we* as a society are no better than the criminals what right do we have to judge them? If it is simply law of the strongest then there was no crime.
Any reason why they can't go back to the previous method?
Quote "He faces a single injection of thiopental sodium, rather than the traditional three-chemical cocktail used for such executions. Ohio last year became the first state to switch to the one-hit lethal anaesthesia method."
Or, they could transport him to another state that still uses the old method.
Curious what the supposed benefits are that caused them to change over in the first place, actually, you know what, i'm not that curious it's a bit morbid for a Thursday PM to go searching the net for information on lethal injections.
That's why they switched over. So the thio wears off as the muscle relaxant takes hold. You are aware, in fact fully conscious, but unable to move any voluntary muscle as you (a) become hypoxic and (b) the KCl causes your heart to go into VF.
Real nice. That's why they changed it. With an overdose of an anaesthetic induction agent you're out and stay that way.
Not that the death penalty is anything I could ever support in any way.
If you've decided you're going to execute prisoners you have to do it painlessly, so put them in a chamber and fill it with nitrogen.
1. They can't be allergic to it, as it's the main components of air.
2. They'll have a brief moment of euphoria, be unconscious after a few breaths, and dead as a doornail in a few minutes.
No skill required.
I made an admittedly oblique reference to this on the first page of comments.
When asked by Michael Portillo one lawman in a state wit hteh death penalty said that the fact the victim would experience euphoria meant it wasn't suitable as there was no suffering in that.
The fact is that, despite pretending they want this to be painless, what the people involved in this want is to make it a barbaric process. Fuck knows why, as I think more people may consider the death penalty a good idea if it weren't for all the pointless fucking around.
Yeah i remember that Portillo documentary - as i recall they tried different gasses (on pigs?) and found some gasses (nitrogen etc) although effective caused the pigs to become stressed due to suffocating (i.e. it would be inhumane). I think they settled on argon? But as you said the pro-death penalty guy said it was too easy - but that might have just been an extreme opinion for the sake of 'good TV'.
Kinda reminds me of what the great man once said:
"In prisons, before they give you a lethal injection, they swab your arm with alcohol...Well they dont wan't you to get an infection! And you can see their point, wouldn't want someone to go to hell AND be sick! Would take a lot out of the sportsmanship out of the whole execution."
I think executions should be conducted by the nearest relative or best friend who wants to do it, and should replicate the method used by the killer on his own victim.
That way the punishment fits the crime and the aggrieved are sated.
Although personally I'm more for a lifetime of breaking stones and instant coffee.
Seems odd that no-one has really only said the following: the death penalty is plain wrong. A life in prison for his crimes - fine. Killing someone for their crimes - abhorrent. There's reason it was banned in the UK (and is banned in 95 countries, and forbidden by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
the criminal have committed a crime, that is why s/he is getting *punished*.
but no matter what the crime was, *WE* are the ones that carry out the punishment. The punishment reflect *us* and our standards.
demanding that the rapist should be raped or have a *violent* death, is *revenge* not *punishment*. Keep that in mind young people.
...with the most egregious serial offenders first, shall we? Bush/Blair/Cheney/Rummie et al rise to mind... (Contemporary equivalents included; bring y'own batteries.) Get around to the Karadich- and Amin-level butchers after...
We all might or might not end up safer goin' that way (I think so, mese'f) but either way, there'd be sure to be a difference.
"Keep that in mind young people."
As a young person, can I vote for "not being a complete bunch of savage cunts and stooping below their level?" You know, we could always *not* kill the guy.
Or you could all readily jump to your feet and suggest more efficient ways to kill sentient human beings, I dunno.
God, I need a drink.
Which Good Old Book would that be? Or do you mean the Good Book?
And which of the two Good (Old) Books are you referring to? The Old Testament, eye for eye Judaism thing, or the New Testament with Jesus and the turn the cheek thing and forgiveness thing?
For goodness sake, if you are going to tell us what's good enough for God, at least read the Bible.
..also known as a "panic attack". Instant Hangover is a good description, yes. Lasts 30 minutes to an hour maybe, during which time you're highly recommended not to try moving (though, you really won't want to anyway). The best way to avoid puking your guts up is probably not to lie down. Rather, sit up but lean over.
And Ms Bee? I've heard the term "throw a whitey", "pull a whitey", "pop a whitey".. but I'm curious as to how you know about your particular definition?
>I've never heard a panic attack referred to as a whitey.
Probably because a marijuana-induced panic attack leaves you slumped on the sofa/floor/wherever in addition to the palpitations, dry throat and all the other symptoms. A normal panic attack presumably leaves you somewhat more capable and without the drastic loss of blood pressure that results in the pale face. The term "panic attack" is something of a misnomer anyway, as it doesn't necessarily mean you run around wibbling like a headless chicken thinking the sky is about to fall in.
>How do I know? Tsk. I'm a woman of the world.
Mmhmm. "The World" being Amsterdam? Dammit Sarah, why are you not PM or something?
Heart because, well, everybody loves the moderatrix, surely?
For those in this thread who do not understand the difference between a killer and an excutioner, or even why there should be a difference (bullets, grenades, multiple stab wounds, why not rape him while you're at it, see how he likes it? etc...) I will make an attempt to educate.
The point of a society is that it sets the bar for the levels of civility demaded by it's population and gives, through the efforts of that population, the ability for that level of civilisation to exist.
There will always be those who do not uphold those levels of morality and methods of dealing with these trangressors are devised. It is possible to detrmine much about a society by looking at those methods.
In this case, the state has set the moral bar that, while this individual has shown no regard for the life and suffering of others they bloody well aren't going to stoop to his level and, while it is their duty to kill this man in line with a sentence arrived at through due legal process, they're going to do it in the least worst way possible with regard to the fact that he is another human and, in our civilised society, deliberately causing suffering to another human being is Not On.
If they cannot find a method of execution that complies with the levels of morality they have set for themselves then to continue with it regardless would be a failure of that society. In my ignorance I would suggest this guy is detained until such time as a method of execution that complies is found or he dies of natural causes, in which case the state has no complicity in the nature of the death.
Disclosure: I do not agree with capital punishment. I believe that, if you have capital punishment, it should be merely pragmatic rather than punitive.
Also: Jesus Christ on a fucking Space Hopper,fellow commentards! You lot are sick, sick people!
..because trying to punish someone who have taken a life, by taking their life, puts us in the camp of wrong-doers. So people will tie themselves in knots trying to justify it. And where do you draw the line? At rape and murder? Or murder? Or rape and manslaughter? Best to avoid it, as taking a life is always going to be wrong. Yes, the criminal was wrong to do what he did, but the death-penalty is more revenge than punishment. And as such, why does it matter if he suffers or not? The reasoning is dishonest, just admit that it (Taking revenge on the guilty) is more to do with making the victims/society feel better, rather than claim it makes everyone safer because of the deterrence effect. If it is deterrence you want, surely death by torture would be even better?
"If it is deterrence you want, surely death by torture would be even better?"
Why, that very question is being (ahem) *researched* every day by (hak-kaff) *scientists* and their MIL-spec helpers at Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, the Salt Pit, Camp No, and a half-dozen or so nameless US Navy prison vessels steaming in endless circles here and there all about the globe while the (ahem) *research* is taking place, now ain't it so?
One might think that by now, a decade-plus on, the torture (erm, ahem) *research* results might likely indeed indicate no particular reduction in resistance activity levels, erm, that is, (ahem) the *terrorism* rate, but where are those results anyway, HM?
"Deterrent" my sainted tainted damp puckered rictus-riddled dahlia. Human life and basic consciousness does not work in such a manner as presupposed by that wee theory, to be sure. As to the Ohio man: Same exact principle, only on a different level, is all.
The killing must stop, yes it must. ALL of it. (All is all.)
And that is all.
Not at all. We shoot rabid dogs, not out of revenge, but to stop them from injuring further. This is simply a case of taking out the trash.
If they're really worried about the pain, I'm sure there's a police officer with a gun nearby. A .40 between the eyes is about as instantaneous as it gets.
Ah yes, the tired old saw... "Isn't killing someone for murder hypocritical?"
First off, your proposed solution "Lock them up for life" is also a "death sentence", it's just the cowardly way out of it. Keeping people locked up for life ultimately costs the average citizen more than any kind of capital punishment. So great, we have here someone who has decided he didn't want to live by the rules of society and instead of making the criminal pay for it, society does instead.
Second, I just love all the gentle hearted people crying about the criminal. What about the victim? What about their rights? The big difference between the criminal and the victim here is that the criminal is still alive. Just because the victim is dead does not mean we should forget about them.
Third, all the bleeding hearts in the world have made prisons more like a long holiday than an actual deterrent. If prisons were places that actually punished the people in them, then maybe we wouldn't have to send as many people there. Sure, you get locked up, and possibly raped repeatedly, but you get taken care of, all at the taxpayers expense. The farce that is the death penalty is also not much of a deterrent these days. How many years and how many tax dollars are spent before the sentence of death is actually carried out?
Fourth, the old "what if you execute an innocent argument". What makes you think that there's any realistic way that any government would be able to compensate someone they locked up that long?
The death penalty isn't uncivilized. What is uncivilized is letting all these people who don't care about the community, or have any respect for the people they live with locked up and making the society pay for it all. Not only do they not contribute to the society, they feed it on it, sucking up tax dollars like a parasite while not have to do anything at all.
Society takes better care of its criminals than it does to the law-abiding people that live within it. How can you possibly call that "civilized"?
"They're locked up, they're constantly guarded, they're beaten up and b**f***ed regularly, they only get to see their loved ones in short pre-programmed slots, but hey -- they get free TV, a free bed and free food!!!! So what if the food's rubbish and the bed is slightly too hard and they share a cell with a chronic snored, it's free!!!! They've got it easy, not like us that have to walk through the park to get to the office in the morning, and have to pay for our juicy fresh steak sandwiches or have the choice to go to the cinema when there's F all on TV. They don't have to pay for their bedding, and they don't have to go to the shop to buy it. Yeah, they don't get a choice, but hey -- it's free! They've got it easy, sure 'nough."
>Keeping people locked up for life ultimately costs the average citizen more than any kind of
"Average cost in both Texas and Florida is 2.3 million. This, however includes the multiple appeals, the average 6 year incarceration of the prisoner before appeals are exhausted and then the actual execution." (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_the_death_penalty_cost)
"The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment." (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty)
You may want to revise that argument a little.
>Fourth, the old "what if you execute an innocent argument". What makes you think that there's
>any realistic way that any government would be able to compensate someone they locked up
I believe "you're free to go" would be a start, and something you are entirely unable to say with any meaningful effect to a corpse.
@ Bryce 2
Huge amount of fail there but what makes me laugh is:
"Society takes better care of its criminals than it does to the law-abiding people that live within it. How can you possibly call that "civilized"?"
So we can agree that society fails to look after the law abiders (not that being in prison is so easy, if it was, why dont you try it sometime?) but rather than object to that injustice you seem to think the solution is to bring every one down to the level of suffering...
But as I said, if it is so great in prison, why dont you go and spend your life there. Seriously, what is stopping you from taking up that life of luxury?
Its about how much money can the State and private companies make off of "ciminals" (both real and manufactured). You did know that a state has to pay the federal government a "license fee" to put someone to death on top of the private companies running the prisons, right? And, as the State and private companies can't drag out the payments on a person being put to death (as opposed to the lifetime of residuals of incarceration), the costs usually get higher to penalize the taxpayer, making the more "humane" penalty palatible.
That's why it is so much more important to slurp up people and throw them in prisons, even when the State must continually make more and more things illegal. There's a growing market out there employing lots of people - can't let that die! Its much easier to control a society by constantly threatening them with prisons - either the fear of being put in on, or of those people already in them. And a damn sight easier than the remedy for society - true education instead of state run institutions of "learning" that resemble the penal fortresses all too well...
"He who opens a school door, closes a prison. " - Victor Hugo
Check any statistics from the US - at either state or federal level. The total cost of life imprisonment is considerably lower than that of the death penalty. The reasons:
(1) a death row prisoner actually spends a very long time in prison. In their own cell. With better food than average.
(2) a death row prisoner gets unbelievable leniency in use of legal time. They take up a huge amount of time in government funded lawyers, and also in appeals court judges and other staff.
Next time you have a rant, check your facts.
I got a letter printed in the Metro on this.. to be promptly pounced upon by one person who would be absolutely fine with killing children, and another one who for some reason thinks machines carry out executions. Yep, because prisoners are strapped down and have IVs inserted by robot. Fuck it, I'll post the general idea here:
OK, so you fuckwits want the death penalty brought back? Fine. OK, we should have a referendum. The key feature here is, anybody who votes for the death penalty gets their details stored and put on a list.
When it's time to give someone a go on the old neck-stretching equipment, you pick someone from that list. That person is the executioner. No excuses, no get-out clause, no "psychological escape". If you want the death penalty, it's all yours and everything that goes along with it. There's the prisoner, there's the lever. Go and pull it.
Oh, and if the prisoner is found to be innocent post-mortem, you get to be told about it.
@M Gale "When it's time to give someone a go on the old neck-stretching equipment, you pick someone from that list. That person is the executioner."
I'm all for it. I see it as no different from jury duty. Though I would prefer to use my personal sidearm. I expect .45 ACP applied to the base of the skull is much quicker than hanging or lethal injection. But I do agree with you this much, anyone who is pro death penalty should be willing to do so personally, just as much as anyone who eats meat should not disdain the job of a butcher.
Seriously, a man who raped and killed someones daughter? His tender feelings "and possible allergic reactions" are not my concern. The state executing him isn't murder, its pesticide. My concern is the life of a young girl cut short, and a family with a hole in its own life and heart and suffering a pain that NEVER heals. His crime was committed 20 years ago, the parents should be grandparents now, not decorating a sad grave and having to think on what might have been.
All this time said offender has been in jail, watching TV, shooting hoops, working out, or whatever hobby suits his fancy, and with decent food and a warm bed provided, and better medical care than most of us in the US with actual JOBS can hope for.
I expect the high minded idealists here have not had to live elbow to elbow packed in with these human predators, or they might not be quite so full of love and concern for them. I assure you they have no qualms about you.
You are assuming that the tards that are baying for blood would actually be reluctant to kill someone. Well, probably many of them are blowhards and wouldn't have the guts. And the others are presumably thugs who would happily kill someone if they could do it at no risk to themselves.
"Oh, and if the prisoner is found to be innocent post-mortem, you get to be told about it." You think, if they were happy to kill somebody in the first place, they'd actually care about a trivial detail like that? How about: "If the prisoner is found to be innocent post-mortem, you get executed yourself". Then they might be a bit less eager.
"You are assuming that the tards that are baying for blood would actually be reluctant to kill someone. Well, probably many of them are blowhards and wouldn't have the guts. And the others are presumably thugs who would happily kill someone if they could do it at no risk to themselves."
Oh no, I'm just counting on the majority of the country not being bloody-minded psychos. Of course, we could get a massive vote in favour of the death penalty (and a large supply of potential executioners). In which case, well, this country is going to Hell anyway. I might as well just enjoy the handbasket ride down.
My only objection to the death penalty is the risk of an innocent person being convicted, which happened ridiculously often in Illinois, but then, what does one expect of a state with four former governors in jail and a fifth one heading that way?
But nope, no problem at all pulling the lever on filth like this. I'll drown him in the toilet if you prefer.
If you apply the liberal view of "better that 100 guilty people walk free than kill 1 innocent person", you sound like someone who thinks that they are doing a great service to civilisation. If you think a bit harder, of those 100 guilty people who are not properly punished, there's a very high chance of re-offending. What would you say to the victims or their families?
I would suggest that there is a case for capital punishment. Not that I expect to see its return in my lifetime, but I feel that it could be the ultimate sanction against the most dangerous in society.
This post has been deleted by its author
Bryce, I assume?
If you apply the liberal view of "better that 100 guilty people walk free than kill 1 innocent person", you sound like someone who thinks that they are doing a great service to civilisation. If you think a bit harder, of those 100 guilty people who are not properly punished, there's a very high chance of re-offending.
Very high chance? You have proof of this? And exactly what is "properly" punished? Should we send them to the moderatrix because they've been a very naughty boy?
I'm sure she'll love that. Cat o' nine tails, perhaps.
What would you say to the victims or their families?
See here's the thing: In my book, life means life. Yes, there would be some chance to prove you didn't do it. Always some legal access. However, you wouldn't be out in a few years for good behaviour after brutally murdering someone.
And, perhaps strangely to you; if in the course of their defence the would-be victim fatally injures the would-be murderer, I wouldn't exactly complain.
However, this doesn't mean I would ever advocate the killing of anyone for any reason. If someone forces the law of the jungle on you, you're only sensible for following it. However, this is supposedly a "civilised" country. Such cold-blooded, clinical barbarism as the death penalty, I feel, has absolutely no place in any judicial system.
I would suggest that there is a case for capital punishment. Not that I expect to see its return in my lifetime, but I feel that it could be the ultimate sanction against the most dangerous in society.
Despite the current resurgence in popularity for the judicial killing of people (personally I think there's just a cruel or repressed streak in some people that makes them want to see someone swing), you shouldn't forget that the death penalty was banned in the UK because people just plain didn't like it. Yep, people who had grown up with the death penalty, didn't like it. Anyway, the "most dangerous" in society are the ones seeking your vote. They kill with a smile, a speech and the stroke of a pen.
But of course that's different.
My take on this argument runs thus -
The bottom line of justice is eye for an eye - the criminal suffers exactly what they gave.
Anything less than this is mercy
Anything more is cruelty
Fortunately almost every nation on Earth chooses the former by very considerable margins but if you are going to have the death penalty then it should be quick (read instantaneoous or near instantaneous). Why the need to faf around with drug cocktails that may or may not be painless why not just use the rope - it's quick, efficient and time proven.
I've got a better idea. Let's get all the people opposed to the death penalty on a list. Let them pay for all the expenses that the criminals who deserve a death penalty incur for as long as they are in prison.
A person murders a member of your family? Congratulations, you are now responsible for the care and feeding for that person for the rest of their life (or yours).
How does that thought strike you?
The problem is, dear Bryce, you seem to treat morality as an absolute. It's not: you have a choice. And where you make your choice determines who's right and who's wrong.
You also seem to deny the possibility that you yourself could be that killer or rapist. Perhaps you don't know yourself well enough. Take a good long look. You've already shown that you're capable of justifying your actions to kill someone. Has it not occurred to you that the murderer had too? Perhaps you've never been pushed far enough. Try poverty. Try isolation. There's no decision.
Has it never occurred to you that perhaps life in a prison isn't meant to be punishment. If they're there then you and your society has failed; and you need to rectify that: give the murderer a chance - if it takes a lifetime then so be it. Killing someone is the cowardly way out: sweeping the problem under the carpet; saving yourself some cash.
I've got a post waiting for the increasingly-fed-up moderatrix to get around to. Have a read of it.
Compared to paying to kill someone? Sure, I'll do that. I'll be a couple of million dollars better off than paying for the death penalty. That's pretty favourable even after the exchange rate.
Remember this person has only been *convicted* of a crime. It doesn't mean that they 100% absolutely definitely did it. Reducing someone's life to economics? I believe the word I'm looking for is "twat".
Epic fail in both analogy and understanding.
Well done Sir.
First off do you think the death penalty is fast? Are you prepared to pay all the expenses incurred before the final needle?
I have a better plan - round up every supporter of the penalty, put them on a list. In the event that an innocent person is found guilty and executed, kill every one on the list.
Seems fair to me.
I am against the death penalty in general.
I would, however, have no problem whatsoever in having some kind of 'firearms accident' with this individual.
I could also see a 'baseball bat accident' but that would damage my soul.
Or, if I had to, just beat the MF to death.
But I don't think I have a very strong opinion here.
No, he seems a nice guy.
Let me get this straight... It's not ok for the state to kill a bad person, but it's ok for the state to put a uniform on someone, tell them to go stand in front of people in other uniforms who are trained to shoot people in that uniform.
And I don't think people get the whole thing about painless capital punishment. The preference is for a method which doesn't necessarily cause discomfort to the condemned, but for the witnesses. Even where beheading is practiced, they draw off most of the blood beforehand to make it less like Mortal Kombat. If they could make it like flipping an off switch on a human being, it won't ever go away, because it doesn't distress people enough. Accidentally decapatate a few people, and there's a shot.
People like to think they're above all that. But the state does retain the authority to kill it's subjects when it deems to be necessary... don't kid yourself. One makes sense while the other does not. At least you blokes don't have conscription.
A country can't do it to bad people by any justification, but they can do it to good people with really good justification. Is that what you're trying to say?
(that said, I don't think it's much of a deterrent. It's used really in only aggravated murder cases here)
Granted the guy is probably a piece of human trash and deserves to die. Its funny though how these right wing white aholes foam at the mouth for some african american piece of ghetto trash who is evil but only screwed over a small group of people but defend white rich aholes like the bankers and war criminals like Cheney who have ruined a hell of lot more lives. I guess its the whole well he looks like me and belongs to my country club so therefore he can do no wrong.
As the right says, everyone must be held accountable for their actions especially if they are black and poor. Rich people are naturally more favored by God and better people so of course we need to make dilluted crack cocaine 100x more illegal than white guy preferred pure cocaine. Like I said this guy is trash and deserves to die and far too many poor people blame the system for their shortcomings but also far too many suburban neighborhood association fat people think money makes them better people.
Just so you all know...
All the guilty-criminal does in prison all day is eat, sh*t, do drugs, bum f*ck each other, read magazines, watch tv, form families and friendships with other prisoners, joke around with one another and play basketball "hoopies" all day high-fiving each other for doing such great work. Do they sit in the cells being depressed and feeling sorry for their victims and their families? Nope. If they were capable of feeling sorry for others they wouldn't be out raping and murdering children. They're only sorry that they got caught and nothing more.
These aren't "normal" people that work 5 days a week, that have families to support and that feel horrible when they hear or read about tragic crimes or incidents in the news. They have no conscience so therefore I can't understand why I should care about their existence. I say, let them die.
It has sucked when it is learned that an innocent person has been executed. Oh well, at least I was not the one who chose their punishment.
I suggest you do some study as to the suicide rates within prisons. They are not nice places. Possibly nicer than being dead, but obviously some people disagree.
"They have no conscience so therefore I can't understand why I should care about their existence. I say, let them die."
"It has sucked when it is learned that an innocent person has been executed. Oh well, at least I was not the one who chose their punishment."
So, you're saying that anybody who is a psychopath (that would be, someone devoid of a conscience) must die, then coming out with a statement that seems to border on the psychopathic. Someone innocent dies, *shrug* oh well?
Not leaping to the defence of psychopaths here, just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.
Is to my way of thinking the best way to deal with those who don't want to live by the principles of civilised society. Earmark an island in the middle of nowhere, and drop off all these rapists/murderers there to work out and live by their own rules. No guards, no walls, no rules, no free meals, just each other on an island with nowhere to go and nothing to do, Lord of the Flies style. If society's rules don't work for them then put them somewhere they can make up their own. Then we don't live with barbarity of executing people, and it costs us nothing beyond the fuel to drop them off there. I'm sure they'd make a right little paradise for themselves.
Yes, I live there.
But the way Australia was run as a convict colony wasn't quite what I had in mind in this case. The Australian penal colony was still run as a traditional prison, with guards, cells, and work routines.
What I'm talking about is a place where these murderers can live by their own rules. No guards, no walls, no regulations - just plant them all on an island somewhere and leave them alone to have at it. I wonder how long they'd survive.
Render him out for the count then use what ever method to kill him? no pain.
What every method used it needs to not turn who ever does into the kind of person they are killing. Yeah I have no peticular feeling against a death sentance, just do it quick and as painlessly as possble.
I wonder how many of you opposed to the death penalty have had someone murder someone close to you or to your family.
And I wonder how many of you would change your mind once you've gone through the experience.
For those of you that have had the experience, how do you feel about it?
I support the death penalty. I'm not afraid to hide behind the AC tag to state that fact.
If you'd just had a close relative murdered, you probably wouldn't be thinking straight. Your judgement would be too clouded by your own emotions to make rational decisions based on what is right and proper for the whole of society at large.
That is why victims absolutely should not be involved in the justice process.
Although I wouldn't wish for ANYONE to go through the horrible experience of losing a loved one to a murderer I think that those bleeding heart liberals will only truly understand the anguish of a victim's family if they go through it.My family did go through it several years ago and the grief /loss is always there. I do believe in capital punishment without question.This animal decided that a young girl should die based on his terms and her family will always be tortured by visions of her death as well as dealing with the emptiness left in their family. I personally believe he should die the same way she did so any type of lethal injection is way too good for this caliber of "human being".In answer to your question I completely agree with you!
Did the murderers death bring the little girl back?
Did it stop the tortured visions? Did it fill the emptiness?
I have a very close friend who was killed by the IRA in Northern Ireland. The man who (most likely, m'lud) did it was released under the Good Friday Agreement. Should he be executed for his crimes?
No, I dont think so. Nothing that happens to the criminal will make amends for the life of a loved one. Killing them simply brings everyone down into the gutter and removes any real moral grounds to say we are better than them.
Its funny how so many people seem to want an anarchy state where who ever can bring the strongest resoureces gets to kill other people....
The measure of a society is how it treats those it values least. So how about this: Every adult should spend some period of time -- let's say 3 months -- in prison, as a sort of rite of passage.
You would be selected at random and placed in a cat. B prison, just like anyone who had committed a crime. Everyone involved -- from the screws to the other inmates -- would be led to believe you were found guilty in a court of law. ("I'm just the work experience kid" would cut no ice. Besides which, all the real criminals would be using it anyway.)
I fully expect those who believe prisons are like holiday camps to be among the first to volunteer to take part in this experiment.
I'd have to disagree with that. Lawmaking seems to be increasingly influenced more by politicians understanding of how they believe a public, spoon fed by the media is feeling about individual perps and victims.
In the UK as an example look at the hysteria over paedophiles and kid killers, the response to the last round of London bombings, or even the dangerous dogs act. A weak and media/voter courting government in each of those cases has resulted in rafts of bad legislation in response to a few high profile, well publicised events that has taken weeks or months of work to get pushed through the legislative process despite having adequate laws to punish the perps already on the books,and doing little of themselves to affect the chances of a recurrence.
Whilst I've been lucky and nobody has been murdered amongst my family and friends, given the fallible nature of law enforcement, if I or anyone I care about was murdered, then I'd hate to see capital punishment employed against those responsible. One fsck up in a game with these stakes is one too many.
No, "Society" is supposed to decide the punishment that fits the crime. That's why there are laws that determine boundaries of behaviour. There needs to be the option of a punishment that fits the crime.
You may or not agree with the death penalty, I definitely believe that is one that should be allowed as an option.
Right. So pulling out the 'How would you feel if it where your kid?' argument is moot.
Personally I'm against the death penalty because the law makes mistakes (quite a lot of mistakes) and pardoning a dead guy doesn't help him much. However if the people want state ordered killing then they shouldn't be so squeamish and just get on with it; Jury foreman says guilty then the defendant dies there and then. Probably public stoning would give the people what they want.
>>That's what the government is supposed to provide. Justice for its citizens.
What Sarah described is "Revenge", "Justice", however is something completely different, in those circumstances we would all want revenge, making someone suffer is revenge not justice, there may be justice in punishment (loss of liberty, loss of life) but there is no justice in revenge (hence cruel and unusual).
I'm indifferent to the death penalty, I don't think it works, but conversely, in the grand scheme of things it hasn't made any real impact to the justice system, and it must be (logically) supported by most of the people that it's in place for (i.e. in a democracy you get the government you deserve). My main problem with the justice system is the number of people with mental health problems inside, and point in case, how can anyone in their right mind want to kill someone? I'm convinced that everyone put to death were legally guilty, they almost certainly had an overwhelming weight of evidence against them, but maybe fault and blame are not the same thing (which is why it's not a deterrent).
All that said, if you're anti or pro, watch "the life of David Gale", Kevin Spacey is as brilliant as ever it's a cracking film.
By her own admission Sarah lets through better than 90% of the comments she gets, rejecting only the most egregiously offensive and idiotic posts. I know I've posted my share of off-colour rants in my time here (I AM an El Reg commentard after all!) and Sarah has published nearly all of them even when she disagrees with them. So assuming she hasn't moderated *any * comments in this thread we're only seeing the extra 10% that would otherwise be rejected; the rest of it is the normal run-of-the-mill you'd see on El Reg any day.
Sarah knows full well that contentious topics like the death penalty will inevitably unleash a shitstorm of commentardery - hence her first post in this thread - and given that she has to moderate dozens of other threads as well, it makes sense that she shouldn't put too much needless effort into this one!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021