Cyanide Pill

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't know why there's any pain associated with executions at all. People are routinely sedated for surgery and even dental procedures. I had wisdom teeth extracted while "asleep" and I didn't feel a thing. A little nighty-night pentothal followed by a lethal injection should be painless, effective, non-messy and inexpensive.

The 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"; it does not require that the punishment be 1OO% free of pain.
Remember, we r avenging the victim here.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

we r avenging the victim here

Keeping him lock in a small cell 23 out of 24 hours with a death sentence hanging over his head for years and watching one after another of his death row cell mates being taken away to be kill before it come his turn seems off hand a fairly good level of punishment with no need to add a little physical pain at the very end of the process.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

we r avenging the victim here

BillRM wrote:

Keeping him lock in a small cell 23 out of 24 hours with a death sentence hanging over his head for years and watching one after another of his death row cell mates being taken away to be kill before it come his turn seems off hand a fairly good level of punishment with no need to add a little physical pain at the very end of the process.

Accepting your theory on this, for the moment,
tho there be no "NEED" it is an improvement
to add the pain, from the perspective of the victim.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Remember, we r avenging the victim here.

The victim, or surrogates thereof, have taken vengeance by the conviction. The state is (or should be) an unemotional executioner charged with carrying out a process. I don't believe the state should be (or was ever intended to be) charged with applying subjective amounts of pain to an individual to try to assuage the emotional pain of the victim. Otherwise we're going to be seeing people burned at the stake and skinned alive. And I don't think our society is prepared for that.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Remember, we r avenging the victim here.

rosborne979 wrote:

The victim, or surrogates thereof, have taken vengeance by the conviction. The state is (or should be) an unemotional executioner charged with carrying out a process. I don't believe the state should be (or was ever intended to be) charged with applying subjective amounts of pain to an individual to try to assuage the emotional pain of the victim. Otherwise we're going to be seeing people burned at the stake and skinned alive. And I don't think our society is prepared for that.

That woud be morally appropriate, IF such were the means
whereby the convicted offense was executed.

I wish that the Founders had explicitly set forth in the 8th Amendment
that (insofar as is reasonably practicable) the victim be avenged
the same way that the convict transgressed upon him.

There is NO reason to believe
that thay intended to require that victims be avenged
in PAINLESS ways; especially not if the victims were subjected to pain.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

There is NO reason to believe
that thay intended to require that victims be avenged
in PAINLESS ways; especially not if the victims were subjected to pain.

And there is no reason to believe otherwise either.

So the selection falls to the society as it exists presently. Personally, I prefer a clinical execution of the process and the criminal. I don't believe the State should ever behave in an emotional manner, lest it move from being an arm of the people to being the mind of the people.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

There is NO reason to believe
that thay intended to require that victims be avenged
in PAINLESS ways; especially not if the victims were subjected to pain.

rosborne979 wrote:

And there is no reason to believe otherwise either.

That 's incorrect, Rosborne; we know the zeitgeist of 1791, its temper of the times.
That is not a mystery. The Founders were willing to express their views in writings that survive them.

rosborne979 wrote:

So the selection falls to the society as it exists presently.

Because your premise is false,
your conclusion is in question.

rosborne979 wrote:

Personally, I prefer a clinical execution of the process and the criminal.

I'll take your word for what u prefer.

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't believe the State should ever behave in an emotional manner,
lest it move from being an arm of the people to being the mind of the people.

I see no need for the State to be emotional, but it shoud DO the job of avenging the victim.
If it defaults in this contractual responsibility, then the moral right
to vengeance reverts.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That 's incorrect, Rosborne; we know the zeitgeist of 1791, its temper of the times.

Nice try, but all we really know is your interpretation of the zeitgeist of 1791. And since my premise is not necessarily false, neither is my conclusion.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That 's incorrect, Rosborne; we know the zeitgeist of 1791, its temper of the times.

rosborne979 wrote:

Nice try, but all we really know is your interpretation of the zeitgeist of 1791.
And since my premise is not necessarily false, neither is my conclusion.

The facts remain whatever thay r, regardless of the quality of my tries.
We KNOW their views because thay told us.
However, I have nothing on this point conveniently at hand
and I 'm not inclined to exert myself to prove the point.
( I 'm not a good researcher, anyway.)

David

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know