The least cruel method of execution?

My biggest problem, which I feel needs some major changing is our laws. If someone intentionally takes another life, they should do life and life should be just what it says "life" with no chance of ever getting out.
Murderers should rot in jail for the rest of their living days, period!

I'm against the death penalty for 3 reasons.
1. Too many innocent people being convicted.

WTF? I expect this kind of foolishness from the likes of JTT, Joe, but not you. Denial of easily verified fact is a sorry excuse for argument.

Quote:

12/4/01 - Alabama
Triple killer serving life without parole kills another inmate; finally gets death sentence

A Holman Prison inmate found guilty in September of murdering a fellow inmate was sentenced to the electric chair in an Escambia County courtroom. Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, of Rainbow City, Ala., who was serving life without parole for 3 murders in Gadsden, was found guilty of capital murder and of having committed a murder after being convicted of other murders within the past 20 years.

Most literate people would read that and concede that Life without parole didn't stop Mr. Peraita from murdering again. Not you though, Joe? Really?

? Where did I say I wouldn't support devoting more resources to preventing murders by prisoners? (I didn't.) Interesting considering you provided me with my favorite definition of Strawman. Who are you? And what have you done with Joefromchicago? (Too many beers? Or did the Remora hack your screen name?)

joefromchicago wrote:

Hate the death penalty? I'm the only one who truly believes in it, unlike posers such as yourself.

That was a demented joke 5 years ago and remains so. It is also nonresponsive... probably because the truth is so patently obvious.

Really Joe? That's what you're going with? Pretty pathetic.

One question that I have…and if it has been answered earlier in the thread, I truly apologize:

I’ve had two instances recently where I had undergo medical procedures that required I be unconscious. They put an IV into me before wheeling me into the operating theater…and at some point fairly quickly after arriving, the anesthesiologist said, “Okay, I’m gonna put you to sleep now”"and apparently injected something into the IV.

And both times, as I was saying, “Okay!” in response…I was un-*******-conscious before finishing the word. No way there was even a gradual easing into unconsciousness...it was "POW!"

Then the doctors cut the hell out of me using knives and scalpels and all that kind of stuff.

Why on earth is one of the problems with lethal injections “possibly not being unconscious and still able to feel pain?”

Truly, I honestly cannot understand that argument.

So, whether this has or has not been treated so far in this thread, can anyone offer some wisdom on this issue?

Abstract
Anaesthesia during lethal injection is essential to minimise suffering and to maintain public acceptance of the practice. Lethal injection is usually done by sequential administration of thiopental, pancuronium, and potassium chloride. Protocol information from Texas and Virginia showed that executioners had no anaesthesia training, drugs were administered remotely with no monitoring for anaesthesia, data were not recorded and no peer-review was done. Toxicology reports from Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina showed that post-mortem concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than that required for surgery in 43 of 49 executed inmates (88%); 21 (43%) inmates had concentrations consistent with awareness. Methods of lethal injection anaesthesia are flawed and some inmates might experience awareness and suffering during execution.

Asked a question earlier...and no one replied to it. I'm going to pose it again. If anyone does have any information that can help me understand the following, I'd appreciate it. Here is what I posted:

Quote:

One question that I have…and if it has been answered earlier in the thread, I truly apologize:

I’ve had two instances recently where I had undergo medical procedures that required I be unconscious. They put an IV into me before wheeling me into the operating theater…and at some point fairly quickly after arriving, the anesthesiologist said, “Okay, I’m gonna put you to sleep now”"and apparently injected something into the IV.

And both times, as I was saying, “Okay!” in response…I was un-*******-conscious before finishing the word. No way there was even a gradual easing into unconsciousness...it was "POW!"

Then the doctors cut the hell out of me using knives and scalpels and all that kind of stuff.

Why on earth is one of the problems with lethal injections “possibly not being unconscious and still able to feel pain?”

Truly, I honestly cannot understand that argument.

So, whether this has or has not been treated so far in this thread, can anyone offer some wisdom on this issue?

Anyone????

OCCOM BILL wrote:

WTF? I expect this kind of foolishness from the likes of JTT, Joe, but not you. Denial of easily verified fact is a sorry excuse for argument.

Quote:

12/4/01 - Alabama
Triple killer serving life without parole kills another inmate; finally gets death sentence

A Holman Prison inmate found guilty in September of murdering a fellow inmate was sentenced to the electric chair in an Escambia County courtroom. Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, of Rainbow City, Ala., who was serving life without parole for 3 murders in Gadsden, was found guilty of capital murder and of having committed a murder after being convicted of other murders within the past 20 years.

Most literate people would read that and concede that Life without parole didn't stop Mr. Peraita from murdering again. Not you though, Joe? Really?

Yeah, you trotted that one out before. My response to that post, however, still applies now:

"None of these cases support your argument that the death penalty is preferable to life without parole. The cases where an inmate kills a fellow inmate or a guard or commits murder after escaping merely provide an argument in favor of better prisons, not capital punishment. "

Your position is rather like a school principal saying: "we know these kids aren't going to do well in school, so we might as well flunk 'em now." If prisons can't stop prisoners from committing murders, then the answer isn't to kill the prisoners -- including the ones who probably wouldn't commit any murders in prison.

I mean, really, was Karla Fay Tucker a serious risk to stick a shiv in some fellow prisoner?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

? Where did I say I wouldn't support devoting more resources to preventing murders by prisoners? (I didn't.) Interesting considering you provided me with my favorite definition of Strawman. Who are you? And what have you done with Joefromchicago? (Too many beers? Or did the Remora hack your screen name?)

Let me remind you of what you wrote: "There's a limit to what prisons can do and a finite amount of resources to do it. History has shown that the State cannot be relied upon to prevent murders from occurring, inside prison or out, and reasonable people understand this. It can, however, prevent convicted murderers from killing again."

In other words, no matter what we have done or how many resources we devote to the problem, prisoners keep committing murders. So we might as well kill them first. Truly, in response to such a position, I am left with no recourse but to roll my eyes



Look! Look at them roll!



Hypnotic, ain't it?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Hate the death penalty? I'm the only one who truly believes in it, unlike posers such as yourself.

That was a demented joke 5 years ago and remains so. It is also nonresponsive... probably because the truth is so patently obvious.

It's not nonresponsive. Your statement assumed that I hate the death penalty. That is question-begging. My response was appropriate to that type of remark.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Really Joe? That's what you're going with? Pretty pathetic.

Really, this is getting quite comical. I am actually laughing out loud -- at YOU! Here, allow me to give you an example:



Wait ... wait ... wait ...



There, I literally split my side laughing.

Seriously, you now have been given any number of chances to explain why you don't favor executing speeders and jaywalkers, and the best you can come up with is to say: "For the purpose of this argument, my use of the term recidivism is meant to apply to murderers and other heinous criminals." Or, to put it another way: "when I say that I favor capital punishment as a means of preventing recidivism, what I'm actually saying is that I favor capital punishment for murderers so that they don't commit more murders. As for speeders and jaywalkers, though, I'm baffled. I can't quite figure out why they shouldn't be executed. But I sure don't like murderers." Really, it is to laugh.



There, I split my other side. Happy?

Montana... take a closer look at your own reasoning and you'll see some stark contradictions. If you truly believe as you say, that Life imprisonment is an equal or greater punishment than death: then you also have to consider the injustice of an innocent man facing that fate as just as great. Hence; the cost of appeals argument serves mostly to demonstrate how unfairly biased the current system is to people facing the equal or greater punishment of life without parole. Now if you then choose to advocate using equal diligence in separating the innocent from the guilty in all death penalty/life sentence cases; the cost of administering the death penalty is clearly WAY less than that of the life sentence.

Further; the bias studies that show death penalties as more expensive tend to omit the cost of geriatric care and seldom, if ever, address the fact that the threat of the death penalty results in a multitude of guilty plea bargains for life sentences, saving the tax-payer countless millions. Those hyper-bias studies are bogus... and put out for the sole purpose of fortifying a preconceived, false, conclusion. In any honest comparison; the cost of determining guilt should be considered completely irrelevant. Cases of innocent people serving life-till-death are no less worthy of scrutiny.

The Death Penalty Clinic I work with here at UC Berkeley has gotten 3 wrongly convicted men off of death row, and two released from jail completely, in the last 5 years.

Imagine being wrongfully convicted, Bill - or your brother or sister or son or daughter - and tell me that the death penalty is a fantastic tool for our society to be using to deal with our problems.

I'm not for outlawing it completely, but it should be exceedingly rarely used.

Montana... take a closer look at your own reasoning and you'll see some stark contradictions. If you truly believe as you say, that Life imprisonment is an equal or greater punishment than death: then you also have to consider the injustice of an innocent man facing that fate as just as great. Hence; the cost of appeals argument serves mostly to demonstrate how unfairly biased the current system is to people facing the equal or greater punishment of life without parole. Now if you then choose to advocate using equal diligence in separating the innocent from the guilty in all death penalty/life sentence cases; the cost of administering the death penalty is clearly WAY less than that of the life sentence.

Further; the bias studies that show death penalties as more expensive tend to omit the cost of geriatric care and seldom, if ever, address the fact that the threat of the death penalty results in a multitude of guilty plea bargains for life sentences, saving the tax-payer countless millions. Those hyper-bias studies are bogus... and put out for the sole purpose of fortifying a preconceived, false, conclusion. In any honest comparison; the cost of determining guilt should be considered completely irrelevant. Cases of innocent people serving life-till-death are no less worthy of scrutiny.

I wouldn't agree with rarely, at all; but I'm right there with you if you want to maximize the certainty of guilt to qualify for it's application.

If there's a kid at school hacking other kids to death with pick axes; he needs to be removed from school permanently. Not doing well in school is in no way analogous to murder.

Hell yes she was a serious risk! The woman hacked an innocent woman to death with a pick axe while she was hiding under bed covers, Joe. Does that sound like someone you'd want to share a cell with? This level of depraved indifference is well beyond what most human beings are capable of. Anyone capable of such a heinous act against an innocent presents a clear and present danger to everyone around them.

Where is your compassion for the victim, Deborah Thornton, who was hacked to death by the deranged psychopath?

Some people can rationalize away faulty reasoning by stating that killing Tucker didn’t bring Thornton back… right? But that's the faulty reasoning that was used to determine killing McDuff wouldn't bring back Louise Sullivan.

And while true: Executing McDuff on schedule would have saved the innocent life of Melissa Ann Northrup.

Why doesn't she matter, Joe? What makes the life of the demented pick axe wielding maniac more compelling than the life of her next victim?

Interesting display of smoke and mirrors. But the simple fact remains; I offered no opinion as to what I would or wouldn't pay for. Further; there are limits to what you can accomplish with your best intentions. The best doctor in the world cannot guarantee disease prevention.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, while you duck the point: The permanent nature of capital punishment is what makes it the only proven guarantee against repeat murder.

Any improvements you might make to the law or prison system can be undone just as easily. McDuff exemplifies this point irrefutably, since he went from condemned mass murderer to mass murderer serving life to released mass murderer to mass murdering again.

Thankfully, the SC had pulled their collective head out of it’s collective ass by then and allowed Texas to implement the only guaranteed method of preventing that mass murdering monster from mass murdering again… while do-gooders like you wept.

That idiotic display is beneath you.

If you have a point to make about Jay walking; make it. No portion of my argument rests on anything so idiotic or irrelavent and you've given me no reason to follow you down such a silly path…

That last part about people waking up during surgery…
or being awake and not able to tell anyone…sent chills down my spine.

What a horrible experience that must be!

Quote:

I wouldn't agree with rarely, at all; but I'm right there with you if you want to maximize the certainty of guilt to qualify for it's application.

Considering there's no going back on our decisions, shouldn't we be doing exactly this? DNA evidence alone has released dozens from death row over the last decade or so...

Many of the death row cases we deal with are located in the deep south and are clearly white judges and prosecutors wanting to look 'tough' for their Republican constituents, and the vast majority of those on death row in those states are black. To me, the situation is not one where the balance of justice is the concern of those in charge of administering said justice, but instead a tool for the advancement of their own careers and the imposition of prior racial biases held by the majority in those states. That alone should be a warning sign that this punishment is not one which is handed out evenly.

Cycloptichorn

Look, it's very simple: your argument about using capital punishment to prevent recidivism can be applied equally to jaywalking as it can to murder. You haven't made any cogent argument that distinguishes the two. As far as I can tell, you have no real basis for saying that we should execute murderers but spare jaywalkers -- and that's after five years of thinking about this! Until you can come up with a reason for distinguishing the two, you can't be said to understand your own position, nor can you expect me to take your argument seriously.

Well now, if we release a jaywalker back into society, what's the worst we can expect; he might jaywalk again. It really is different.