WHY Lethal Injections NEED to be given WITH the Murderer AWAKE!

[Deleted]

Someone killing someone for killing someone, because killing someone is wrong. Wait what?

[Draqson]

killing him in pain... that'll learn him...

[roarzol]

Capital punishment, even done in a humane way, is not justice, it's just revenge.

[Stir]

I agree. If they killed someone, it most likely wasn't humane. So why should we treat these murderers any better then they treated their victims.

...
Possibly because we like to believe we aren't monsters ourselves?

Honestly, if we were to enact such gruesome vengeance, in what way are we any better than the monsters we enact our vengeance upon? Shouldn't we, in turn, also be executed because of our (incredibly dangerous) psychology?

Also: If you're so much in favor of this idea, I'd ask you: Could yóú do it? Probably not... You see, it takes a special kind of person to do something like that... And that special kind of person is the kind we lock up.

[Radoria]

Someone killing someone for killing someone, because killing someone is wrong. Wait what?

LoL that's a bit one dimensional there don't you think? The first guy killed someone and would probably continue killing other people. The second guy was only following orders and did what his job required him to do. With your logic, the guy giving him the lethal injection is guilty of murder too.

[Stir]

LoL that's a bit one dimensional there don't you think? The first guy killed someone and would probably continue killing other people. The second guy was only following orders and did what his job required him to do. With your logic, the guy giving him the lethal injection is guilty of murder too.

No, not at all. That's like saying a soldier is a murderer.
The people doing the murdering aren't the ones who handle the needle... The murderers are the ones who support the 'legality' of the 'punishment.'

Edit: I would like to add that I can indeed see the merit of killing certain individuals... But only after very hefty procedures show that the perpetrator is simply beyond help. That no amount of psychological treatment, rehabilitation and medication is going to change the individual's murderous behaviour/intent. Killing someone like that isn't punishment, and it isn't vengeance, either. It's pragmatic, and ultimately Darwinist.

[Radoria]

...
Possibly because we like to believe we aren't monsters ourselves?

Honestly, if we were to enact such gruesome vengeance, in what way are we any better than the monsters we enact our vengeance upon? Shouldn't we, in turn, also be executed because of our (incredibly dangerous) psychology?

Also: If you're so much in favor of this idea, I'd ask you: Could yóú do it? Probably not... You see, it takes a special kind of person to do something like that... And that special kind of person is the kind we lock up.

I get your point but I don't agree with it at all. If the people committing these horrible crimes knew that they could have the same thing happen to them, it might have stopped them from doing whatever they did. If a guy tortures and kills 30 people, he doesn't deserve the right to die. He should have to go through what he did to his victims. It's not fair to the victims and their families to give the murderer a "near instant, near painless death."

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The smallest crime rate would be the death penalty for any serious crimes. Removes the repeat offenders from the system and makes someone think twice about breaking laws.

Now I wouldn't support that kind of system as there is to much of a chance for abuse of the system, or wrongfully accused being put to death. but it still has its merits.

If a system is abused like that, that itself is a crime. Also, criminals don't generally think they are going to be caught. Extreme punishment only goes so far as a deterrence.

[Stir]

I get your point but I don't agree with it at all. If the people committing these horrible crimes knew that they could have the same thing happen to them, it might have stopped them from doing whatever they did. If a guy tortures and kills 30 people, he doesn't deserve the right to die. He should have to go through what he did to his victims. It's not fair to the victims and their families to give the murderer a "near instant, near painless death."

Someone who would do something like that really isn't in any state of mind to consider the repercussions. Even if that someone has the clarity of mind to realize repercussions would actually exist, that kind of person will generally believe the authorities will never catch them.

[Radoria]

Someone who would do something like that really isn't in any state of mind to consider the repercussions. Even if that someone has the clarity of mind to realize repercussions would actually exist, that kind of person will generally believe the authorities will never catch them.

Which is why that person deserves to be fried! =D Whatever was going on in the murderer's head at the time is completely irrelevant to me. I care only about the victims and their families and friends in situations like this. They need a sense of closure and knowing that the person that ended their loved one's life died a very slow and agonizing death just like the murderer did to their friend is the best sense of closure I can think of. I know it may seem barbaric, but it's justice, damn it.

The murderer doesn't deserve to spend another 7 years of his life appealing trials or locked away in a nuthouse. All they deserve is to die as harshly or even worse than their victims did.

[Mormolyce]

Man is this awful thread still going?

Faith in humanity -10

The smallest crime rate would be the death penalty for any serious crimes. Removes the repeat offenders from the system and makes someone think twice about breaking laws.

Now I wouldn't support that kind of system as there is to much of a chance for abuse of the system, or wrongfully accused being put to death. but it still has its merits.

Like, death penalty for being a jerk to someone on the internet. Imagine how nice forums would be in such a society!

[OrcsRLame]

I lolled , harsher punishments dont lead to a reduction in crime though

That's not actually true. Ever heard of Vlad the Impaler? It was said that during his reign, one could leave a cup of solid gold in the middle of the street and no one would take it.

The reason, every crime was punishable by death. And it was a horribly painful death. Spoiler for the graphics details. He impaled people on spikes. Through the butthole for men, and through the vagina for women.

Not that I approve of such barbarism.

[Stir]

Which is why that person deserves to be fried! =D Whatever was going on in the murderer's head at the time is completely irrelevant to me. I care only about the victims and their families and friends in situations like this. They need a sense of closure and knowing that the person that ended their loved one's life died a very slow and agonizing death just like the murderer did to their friend is the best sense of closure I can think of. I know it may seem barbaric, but it's justice, damn it.

The murderer doesn't deserve to spend another 7 years of his life appealing trials or locked away in a nuthouse. All they deserve is to die as harshly or even worse than their victims did.

Deserve, possibly. But it takes a monster to do that sort of thing.
On another note: It will not grant closure any more than lifelong incarceration. What brings 'closure' is the knowledge that the authorities didn't abandon the victim. But it's not real closure. Actual closure can never, ever be had. So why stoop to the level of monsters in order to merely pretend we're giving people closure?

[cylerco]

Lethal Injection ? screw that let the family of the victim decide how to punish such people and sell that shit on payperview.

Think of the income our prison system could generate while at the same time producing quality television that would increase the chances of our children being fearful of the law thus being less likely to break it.

It's a total win/win

Hell we could totally capitalize on it and do death match versions of all known sports.
We could start off small of course just to give people a taste for it doing something simple like catapulting inmates into a brick wall or running them down with cars.

I just about crapped my pants laughing so hard at this idea i love it and I'm with ya :P

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Deserve, possibly. But it takes a monster to do that sort of thing.
On another note: It will not grant closure any more than lifelong incarceration. What brings 'closure' is the knowledge that the authorities didn't abandon the victim. But it's not real closure. Actual closure can never, ever be had. So why stoop to the level of monsters in order to merely pretend we're giving people closure?

Also, giving the victims closure isn't the purpose. We aren't supposed to deny somebody their rights just to satisfy somebody else.

[Stir]

Also, giving the victims closure isn't the purpose. We aren't supposed to deny somebody their rights just to satisfy somebody else.

Fully agreed on that.

[Radoria]

Deserve, possibly. But it takes a monster to do that sort of thing.
On another note: It will not grant closure any more than lifelong incarceration. What brings 'closure' is the knowledge that the authorities didn't abandon the victim. But it's not real closure. Actual closure can never, ever be had. So why stoop to the level of monsters in order to merely pretend we're giving people closure?

I'll admit that giving the murderer a slow painful death doesn't give complete closure, nothing short of resurrecting the victim will do that, but it's still the next best thing. And I would definitely argue that killing the murderer is a better sense of closure than lifelong incarceration. Having your freedom taken away from you is an awful thing. Having your life taken from you is worse.

[caninepawprints]

To say I'm stunned by soloedalysrazoronwarrior's original post is an understatement. He sounds like a monster akin to the murderer he wants to cause pain to. Some of the convicted murderers are actually innocent of their crimes, so if they're given the death penalty in the manner soloedalysrazoronwarrior describes, we are not only causing torment to an innocent person, we are stooping to the real murderer's level (who is still roaming free). Even if the accused is guilty of the crime, it is wrong to treat them the same way they treated another person. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Laize]

To say I'm stunned by soloedalysrazoronwarrior's original post is an understatement. He sounds like a monster akin to the murderer he wants to cause pain to. Some of the convicted murderers are actually innocent of their crimes, so if they're given the death penalty in the manner soloedalysrazoronwarrior describes, we are not only causing torment to an innocent person, we are stooping to the real murderer's level (who is still roaming free). Even if the accused is guilty of the crime, it is wrong to treat them the same way they treated another person. Two wrongs do not make a right.

That's your opinion.

Retributive justice is a valid form of justice.

[Radoria]

Also, giving the victims closure isn't the purpose. We aren't supposed to deny somebody their rights just to satisfy somebody else.

Do you think the murderer was pondering his victims' rights when he lopped off their heads with a samurai sword? And just how many rights would you like to see a person like this have? A lot of this shit is circumstantial but...in general, when you go around killing innocent people, there's just no need for a big lengthy trial and years of appeals. And what would you say to the family and friends of the victims? "Yeah he's a bad guy, but don't worry, he'll be in prison for 2 years." I want an eye for an eye damn it. You kill someone, you die too. If the victim had no rights while being tortured to death, then you'll have none either.