If the death penalty is to be used

[Gumboy]

I think they really, really need to come up with a better way of doing it. I don't want to get into pro or anti- death penalty as that topic has been roundly discussed here, but if it will be going on (And for the time being, we have to admit that it will continue) why is it still being done the way it is?

Their have been several cases of failed/botched executions with the drugs they are attempting to use. Just yesterday, the first execution in oklahoma since a botched one in spring, their was another supposed case of a botched injection"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6483040.html


Relevant parts:

"When asked before the execution began if he had any final words, Warner responded: "Before I give my final statement, I'll tell you they poked me five times. It hurt. It feels like acid.""

"In an execution Thursday that lasted 18 minutes, Oklahoma inmate Charles Frederick Warner showed no physical signs of distress after the lethal drugs were administered, although he did say, "My body is on fire." He was declared dead at 7:28 p.m. CST."

"Warner's attorney, Madeline Cohen, who witnessed the execution, said in a statement there was no way to know if Warner suffered because the second drug, a paralytic, would have prevented him from moving."

""Petitioners have committed horrific crimes, and should be punished," Sotomayor wrote. "But the Eighth Amendment guarantees that no one should be subjected to an execution that causes searing, unnecessary pain before death.""


I agree with that last part. IF the death penalty is to be used, it should not be a method that is causing undue pain. An execution is not designed to hurt someone, it is to end that persons life. This is not whether you agree with the death penalty or not, but what method should be used. (And the death penalty is going to continue for the forseeable future, so finding a more humane way could matter quite a bit)

Personally, if I were going to be executed, I'd probably prefer a beheading (With proper, fast equipment) to something like this. If I had to go out by lethal injection, at least give me some funky painkillers along with the sedative so I'm out of my damn mind and don't know/care whats happening.

[Deleted]

I don't like the death penalty at all, but if you're going to do it, can't they just gas you with carbon monoxide or something?

[Deleted]

I do not agree with the death penalty but if they are going to do it then why not just overdose them on morphine?

[Rukentuts]

It shouldn't be used. The entire process costs more than life incarceration, and these costs cannot be cut without compromising the integrity of a system that already has innocent people fall through the cracks. This needs to be the case where SCOTUS declares it cruel and unusual and we can finally join [most of?] the rest of the developed world.

[Deleted]

I am betting we do not get to page 3 before some edgy kid comes up with a cruel and sadistic alternative, probably offering to administer it themself.

[Deleted]

I've got a strange notion, how about....abolish the death penalty. My work here is done, goodbye thread.

[Gumboy]

I've got a strange notion, how about....abolish the death penalty. My work here is done, goodbye thread.

We all know that is not going to happen in certain areas/states. At least not anytime soon. We can want it to, wish it to, or whatever, but the fact remains it will continue on, but the method MUST be changed if it is to be used.

[Hraklea]

Why not just shoot them in the head?

[satanicway]

I think they really, really need to come up with a better way of doing it. I don't want to get into pro or anti- death penalty as that topic has been roundly discussed here, but if it will be going on (And for the time being, we have to admit that it will continue) why is it still being done the way it is?

Their have been several cases of failed/botched executions with the drugs they are attempting to use. Just yesterday, the first execution in oklahoma since a botched one in spring, their was another supposed case of a botched injection"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6483040.html


Relevant parts:

"When asked before the execution began if he had any final words, Warner responded: "Before I give my final statement, I'll tell you they poked me five times. It hurt. It feels like acid.""

"In an execution Thursday that lasted 18 minutes, Oklahoma inmate Charles Frederick Warner showed no physical signs of distress after the lethal drugs were administered, although he did say, "My body is on fire." He was declared dead at 7:28 p.m. CST."

"Warner's attorney, Madeline Cohen, who witnessed the execution, said in a statement there was no way to know if Warner suffered because the second drug, a paralytic, would have prevented him from moving."

""Petitioners have committed horrific crimes, and should be punished," Sotomayor wrote. "But the Eighth Amendment guarantees that no one should be subjected to an execution that causes searing, unnecessary pain before death.""


I agree with that last part. IF the death penalty is to be used, it should not be a method that is causing undue pain. An execution is not designed to hurt someone, it is to end that persons life. This is not whether you agree with the death penalty or not, but what method should be used. (And the death penalty is going to continue for the forseeable future, so finding a more humane way could matter quite a bit)

Personally, if I were going to be executed, I'd probably prefer a beheading (With proper, fast equipment) to something like this. If I had to go out by lethal injection, at least give me some funky painkillers along with the sedative so I'm out of my damn mind and don't know/care whats happening.

Painkillers, sleeping indulcing drugs, 2 bullets to the head imo.

But this is pointless since any sane society should never EVER kill someone as law punishment, as it banalizes human life.
But i will not enter this discussion since you asked not to.

What i'd like to point is that the same idea from where we derivate the sense of not causing needless suffering, is the same one that tells us that killing is no justice.
Since people are ignoring it to do kill for revenge, they will most certanly want to to be a painful experience, and with low cost.

They do not really care for the life or the suffering of the human being being executed, since they are executing him.
Sometimes they SAY that they are good persons and dont want needless suffering, but its just to calm down people that fight for human rights.
Either that or they are hypocritical.

[Rukentuts]

We all know that is not going to happen in certain areas/states. At least not anytime soon. We can want it to, wish it to, or whatever, but the fact remains it will continue on, but the method MUST be changed if it is to be used.

It will if the high court finally throws it out. Of course we both know they'll leave a loophole on methodology, because we can't ever have true progress with the Roberts court.

[Stormdash]

It shouldn't be used. The entire process costs more than life incarceration, and these costs cannot be cut without compromising the integrity of a system that already has innocent people fall through the cracks. This needs to be the case where SCOTUS declares it cruel and unusual and we can finally join [most of?] the rest of the developed world.

The fact that it isn't a violation of the 8th Amendment have any bearing? The 8th Amendment surely can't include all capital punishment when the concurrent 5th Amendment explicitly assumes capital punishment to be a part of the criminal justice system. Which is not to say some methods of execution couldn't be cruel or unusual, but obviously the 8th Amendment can't be read to ban capital punishment altogether.

To rule out all capital punishment at the federal level would be difficult if not impossible without a constitutional amendment. I'm personally against the death penalty; to me, lethal force is reserved for preventing imminent danger, and a prisoner is not an imminent danger to society. But "not liking it" does not justify trying to shoehorn it into places where it doesn't fit, such as the 8th Amendment.

[Rukentuts]

The fact that it isn't a violation of the 8th Amendment have any bearing? The 8th Amendment surely can't include all capital punishment when the concurrent 5th Amendment explicitly assumes capital punishment to be a part of the criminal justice system. Which is not to say some methods of execution couldn't be cruel or unusual, but obviously the 8th Amendment can't be read to ban capital punishment altogether.

Present your evidence.

[Deleted]

The fact that it isn't a violation of the 8th Amendment have any bearing? The 8th Amendment surely can't include all capital punishment when the concurrent 5th Amendment explicitly assumes capital punishment to be a part of the criminal justice system. Which is not to say some methods of execution couldn't be cruel or unusual, but obviously the 8th Amendment can't be read to ban capital punishment altogether.

To rule out all capital punishment at the federal level would be difficult if not impossible without a constitutional amendment. I'm personally against the death penalty; to me, lethal force is reserved for preventing imminent danger, and a prisoner is not an imminent danger to society. But "not liking it" does not justify trying to shoehorn it into places where it doesn't fit, such as the 8th Amendment.

Why can't the constitution just be changed? It's not the word of god. If it sucks, just edit it.

[RH92]

Is there anything to discuss? I mean we can all agree it should be painless, right? Well, unless you are crazy of course.

Althogh I think there shouldn't be capital punishment by default, I think it should be available to those who have life sentence and wish to die.

[Reg]

I blame Denmark.

[Rukentuts]

Why can't the constitution just be changed? It's not the word of god. If it sucks, just edit it.

There's this group of states called the Bible Belt. They have a hard on for killing prisoners.

[Deleted]

They should just make them overdose on weed.

[Stormdash]

It will if the high court finally throws it out. Of course we both know they'll leave a loophole on methodology, because we can't ever have true progress with the Roberts court.

What's the 'progress' in a judiciary that blatantly ignores the law it's meant to interpret and apply? The 8th Amendment is not in any rational interpretation of law or history, a categorical prohibition of the death penalty. The "living constitution" allows the body politic to amend the constitution if they'd like a categorical prohibition of the death penalty in the supreme law of the land. It doesn't allow judges to just make shit up about the law as written.

[Rukentuts]

What's the 'progress' in a judiciary that blatantly ignores the law it's meant to interpret and apply? The 8th Amendment is not in any rational interpretation of law or history, a categorical prohibition of the death penalty. The "living constitution" allows the body politic to amend the constitution if they'd like a categorical prohibition of the death penalty in the supreme law of the land. It doesn't allow judges to just make shit up about the law as written.

I don't see how people aren't lazy as to write paragraphs while being so lazy as to not find evidence to their arguments in the form of a link.

[Deleted]

I blame Denmark.

What did we do this time?