Well, they didn't really botch it. They did manage to kill the guy, but it took a half an hour, 13 minutes of which the convict appeared to be suffering. I think we need to get rid of the death penalty, although it's not something I lose sleep over. It's mostly just a circus, anyway, and from what I keep hearing, it doesn't seem to prevent people from committing murder.
At a minimum, they ought to do it efficiently. How hard can it be to kill a guy? My dog was administered a massive dose of barbiturates, and appeared to go from fully conscious to dead in roughly 5 seconds. If we can do that for animals, why do we have to do the complicated 3 cocktail drug thing with a crappy history of getting the job done effectively, and has to be administered by some protocol which seems much too easy for the execution squad to fuck up.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/504952541/alabama-inmate-coughed-heaved-for-about-13-minutes-during-execution
QuoteThe execution took place late Thursday night local time at the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, Ala. Multiple journalists who witnessed the execution, including reporters from The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune and AL.com, reported it took about 34 minutes for Smith to die.
AL.com described Smith's death:
"During 13 minutes of the execution, from about 10:34 to 10:47, Smith appeared to be struggling for breath and heaved and coughed and clenched his left fist after apparently being administered the first drug in the three-drug combination. At times his left eye also appeared to be slightly open.
"A Department of Corrections captain performed two consciousness checks before they proceeded with administering the next two drugs to stop his breathing and heart.
"The consciousness tests consist of the corrections officer calling out Smith's name, brushing his eyebrows back, and pinching him under his left arm.
"Smith continued to heave, gasp and cough after the first test was performed at 10:37 p.m. and again at 10:47 p.m.. After the second one, Smith's right arm and hand moved."
At least it's not the electric-chair anymore. The definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Has to be a more humane way.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 09, 2016, 02:42:12 PM
At least it's not the electric-chair anymore. The definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Has to be a more humane way.
They used to hang convicts, but with the advent of electricity, someone thought, "Hey, this would be a good way to execute convicts. No muss no fuss. Just run a massive electric current through them." This was more humane. Then when that turned out to be ugly as an occasional convict's head would catch fire while he was convulsing, someone thought. Let's just pump deadly chemicals into him, and see how that works.
We just keep getting more and more humane as we concoct new ways to snuff people. We are a civilized society, are we not? What's next?
The problem for the execution industry is that most drug companies don't want their products used for executions. So they have trouble sourcing chemicals of death. This leads to a slim choice of poisons they can use, increasing the chances of botched executions.
I think the death penalty should be completely and utterly abolished. There is no way to kill someone humanely. Killing is inhumane, no matter how it's done.
I said this before and laid out my reasons, but nitrogen or a noble gas. It's cheap, painless, and easy. Against the state having the option of killing people, but if we're gonna do it might as well use the most painless method scientifically possible. People have been accidentally killed by noble gases because they're cause no pain at any concentration and they're odorless, so they never have a chance to move out of the area.
Quote from: Atheon on December 09, 2016, 03:17:01 PMThe problem for the execution industry is that most drug companies don't want their products used for executions. So they have trouble sourcing chemicals of death. This leads to a slim choice of poisons they can use, increasing the chances of botched executions.
They could always try my vegan mother in-law's cooking. :P
QuoteI think the death penalty should be completely and utterly abolished. There is no way to kill someone humanely. Killing is inhumane, no matter how it's done.
Agreed. It'd make for less of a circus, too. And an awfully expensive circus at that.
Wouldn't just shorting him in the back of the head be the most efficient and humane way of doing it? *boom dead*
If you're gonna kill him then kill him quick and efficient not pretty
Electrocution as an execution method, was invented by Thomas Edison and financed by J P Morgan, to try to stop Tesla from promoting AC power to electrify the US. It was Edison's least ethical experience. The first guy, they had to experiment with multiple voltages and currents until they killed them .. the official witnesses vomited at the sight. Nitrogen gas sounds humane.
While I am against the death penalty because of how many innocent people are killed (and how often their race plays a part in that), I am not opposed to confirmed murderers (like Reed or whatever that kid who shot the church in NC to start a race war, Brevik, or war criminals) being uninformed they received the death penalty, walking them down a prison hall into a room with a drain and putting a bullet in the back of their skull before they have a moment to think about it.
We know they did it, they don't suffer and there is no time to think, "Oh, I am about to die.". One of the arguments is, "Oh, if you throw them in prison they will regret what they did!". Like fuck they will, they are monsters who thought what they did was right.
And the reason we don't do bullets is not for the victim, it's for the man who has to shoot thems sake.
Guillotine
Fuck Ronald Bert Smith, Jr. I don't know if I ever met his victim 24 year old Casey Wilson, but this happened in the neighborhood where I grew up. I definitely shopped at the store where the murder took place. It's still there to this day.
Smith shot Wilson, a new father, in the arm then locked him in the bathroom while he tried to open the safe. When he couldn't get it open he went back to the bathroom, and shot Wilson in the head. I'm having a hard time feeling bad for him even though the unconscious POS struggled to breath and twitched a couple of times before he died.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on December 09, 2016, 10:47:40 PM
Fuck Ronald Bert Smith, Jr. I don't know if I ever met his victim 24 year old Casey Wilson, but this happened in the neighborhood where I grew up. I definitely shopped at the store where the murder took place. It's still there to this day.
Smith shot Wilson, a new father, in the arm then locked him in the bathroom while he tried to open the safe. When he couldn't get it open he went back to the bathroom, and shot Wilson in the head. I'm having a hard time feeling bad for him even though the unconscious POS struggled to breath and twitched a couple of times before he died.
I think they definitely get alot better than they deserve, and I think that's the point; that we won't stoop to their level (or stoop at all).
Quote from: Shiranu on December 09, 2016, 11:28:54 PMI think they definitely get alot better than they deserve, and I think that's the point; that we won't stoop to their level (or stoop at all).
QFT. Please spread the word to the retributive justice people. No one gains anything when two people each lose an eye.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 09, 2016, 09:45:59 PM
While I am against the death penalty because of how many innocent people are killed (and how often their race plays a part in that), I am not opposed to [executing] confirmed murderers
Virtually, every innocent convicted of murder is believed to be a confirmed murderer by someone or other, including the jury that convicts him. I don't know how any individual, even one present at the crime, can arbitrarily make that call 100% of the time with 100% accuracy. Saying the death penalty is NOT OK, except when you believe it's OK is exactly what is at stake here. No one is omniscient. Everyone is fallible, even when they are sure they are not. Judges are fallible, as are juries that convict. A jury is not required to confirm a murder. They are presented evidence, and each juror renders an opinion, not absolute knowledge, just an opinion and nothing more. Their opinion is influenced by many factors, not the least of which are personal bias or a sense of indignation or sympathy toward the accused.
And it works in reverse too. Sometimes a rightfully guilty murderer is set free, either by a jury, judge, or technical oversight, and this is received with great jubilation by some, while others seethe with indignation over what they see as a failure of justice. This is not any more or less fair than the previous scenario, where an innocent is executed for a crime he did not commit.
The justice system is either fair or unfair, but never fair or unfair because we personally approve of the outcome. When you approve of an execution, you do so not because you actually know everything about the events you did not witness. Perhaps it provides a sense of someone getting what they deserve, or maybe what his race deserves, or maybe it fulfills some other need, but it never guarantees truth. In the end, sometimes innocent blood is shed, but sometimes it's not. Are we OK with that, or would we be willing to dial it down a notch?
Ä°s there anything that could be done in these situations? Any examples before? Can anyone be prosecuted?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 10, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
QFT. Please spread the word to the retributive justice people. No one gains anything when two people each lose an eye.
I would be happy if everyone got what they deserved ... but my sense of mercy condemns this. They may deserve retribution (if they are an actual guilty party) ... but we can choose to spare them, for lifetime imprisonment (to spare the public safety, but not the public purse). I am not a pacifist, and I do care about society and the victims, but I don't think that I am a saint, winning brownie points by sparing guilty people. That isn't what motivates my mercy ... it is reciprocity ... because I know I am also guilty (not that I am somehow virtuous). So for me, self righteous retribution, or self righteous sanctimoniousness both fail. And I am not claiming original sin, just denying my own innocence. If you think you are innocent, let that be on your head.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 10, 2016, 05:43:28 AM
Ä°s there anything that could be done in these situations? Any examples before? Can anyone be prosecuted?
SJWs would condemn society, not the individual, and execute society.
If I'm ever wrongly convicted, just fucking shoot me. I don't want to spend one day in prison, let alone the rest of my days.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 10, 2016, 05:43:28 AM
Ä°s there anything that could be done in these situations? Any examples before? Can anyone be prosecuted?
Do you mean for executing and innocent or for botching an execution?
Interesting question. I don't know. I can't remember a case where the state even paid restitution to a person wrongly convicted or restitution to a family for a wrongful execution of a family member. While this seems like it should be required, I don't think anyone gets so much as an apology. In a way, the state simply administers the penalty set by other parts of the system. They aren't responsible for a wrongful conviction.
The only people who are held liable would be witnesses who commit perjury, and the penalties for perjury are owed to the state, rather than the victim, who it seems would be most entitled. Of course, anyone can sue anyone for just about anything these days, but I don't recall ever hearing about a trial for wrongful conviction by the justice system.
As for a botched execution, I suppose someone could be accused of botching it on purpose and punished, although I don't think that's ever happened. It would be an interesting trial.
Courts often label cases as "the people vs John Smith." They seemingly deny responsibility for their own involvement in the prosecution by naming "the people", rather than the justice system itself. In this case, "the people" are an undefinable nonentity, and can't be held responsible for anything. They don't exist and can't even be offended, and I would think Baruch's suggestion that society should be executed refers to this kind of nonentity.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on December 09, 2016, 06:04:52 PM
Wouldn't just shorting him in the back of the head be the most efficient and humane way of doing it? *boom dead*
If you're gonna kill him then kill him quick and efficient not pretty
I saw a movie long time ago about Stalin. I'm sure they had a legal system, but when the administration was upset with someone, they didn't even have a trail. The offender was walked into this outdoor atrium with blood still on the stone walls from hundreds of previous executions, and shot in the back of the head, seemingly before the offender could understand what was happening to him. Pretty bare bones efficiency. The movie didn't portray it as retribution for an offense, just a quick and expedient elimination of a problem, so that they could quickly move on to the next order of business.
Apparently, some states do provide compensation for wrongful incarceration. It varies from state to state:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/us/table.wrongful.convictions/
At the top of the alphabetical list is Alabama:
QuoteMinimum of $50,000 for each year of wrongful incarceration.
The wrongfully convicted person can only receive compensation if the Legislature appropriates the funds. A new felony conviction will end the claimant's right to compensation.
Carbon monoxide? A couple down the street and their dog got taken out by a dodgy heater - they were found in the living room, sat down in front of the tv. Sounds like it happened pretty smoothly.... *shrug*
Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 10, 2016, 10:10:04 AM
Carbon monoxide? A couple down the street and their dog got taken out by a dodgy heater - they were found in the living room, sat down in front of the tv. Sounds like it happened pretty smoothly.... *shrug*
Yes, carbon monoxide is odorless. Interior self-heaters can be very dangerous, unless vented. Of course bad furnaces in old houses will do the same thing.
barbaric and disgusting.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 10, 2016, 11:16:42 AM
barbaric and disgusting.
Sad and tragic. Too bad humans are animals.
Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2016, 11:07:19 AM
Yes, carbon monoxide is odorless. Interior self-heaters can be very dangerous, unless vented. Of course bad furnaces in old houses will do the same thing.
CO poisoning happens with tragic frequency in Taiwan, though the situation is getting better as regulations become updated. Most water is heated by small heaters that should be installed outside on the balcony (ubiquitous in Taiwan). Some idiots remodel their houses by putting closeable windows on the exteriors of their balconies. Then when cold weather comes, they die.
Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2016, 06:11:40 AM
SJWs would condemn society, not the individual, and execute society.
I am talking about the OP. Please stop talking from your ass.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 10, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
No one gains anything when two people each lose an eye.
No one except the guy that makes glass eyes.
I'm opposed to the death penalty, but if you're going to do it anyway and make a pretence of being humain about it why not just give them a massive overdose of heroin? Painless, quick and cheap, but OH WAIT! Heroin is illegal! . But the problem is we have a society that really doesn't care how barbaric it is nor how much pain and suffering the condemned has to go through. In fact a good number of people would just as soon make it as painful and slow as possible and put it on TV during prime time.. Look up the comments on just about any 'botched execution' and you'll likely find a good number of people who think the person didn't suffer quite enough or who are disappointed that they didn't get to watch it themselves. I would wager that among democratic voters a good number of people would gladly tune in if Trump were to be executed slowly and painfully on live TV so there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around on both sides. You want ratings? Execute people with a razor blade and make it just as bloody and gory as possible and it would get more viewers than any single event ever on television.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on December 11, 2016, 11:24:05 AM
In fact a good number of people would just as soon make it as painful and slow as possible and put it on TV during prime time..
I actually think this would be a good idea. I think it might even help to end the barbaric process. The whole program could be an hour long, with some background information about the crime and the trial, and clips from an hour before the grand finale showing the prisoner being prepped in his cell and then walked down the hall to the execution room. The execution itself should be done live. Sure it would be a big draw for the ghouls, but it would attract some more civilized types too, some who might have isolated themselves from the issue.
I will admit that I looked up the video of the hanging of Saddam. I had been undecided about the death penalty before that, but watching it I was overwhelmed by the pointlessness of the process, realizing that the world was no better off with or without Saddam living the rest of his life in a cell, even being the notorious asshole that he was. Of course Saddam was not be the typical loser that gets executed by our government and might be a special case. A case might be made for eliminating him from any possible further mischief.
I don't know if others would have the same reaction. I might be in a minority. I often am on many political issues. But I don't think it is unreasonable to expose ourselves to the brutality we ignore or what the government doesn't want us to see. And it's not like I feel a need to protect criminals, but I think we need to be aware, and decide whether we want our society to be what it is. And let's face it, our society is more brutish and thug like than the rest of the western civilized nations, or at least it seems to me that it is.
I realize that my experiment would never be allowed to happen, so just consider this a "what if" type of passing thought. It would never become a real thing.
The Friday night execution of the week brought to you by Smith and Wesson, the Firearms Folks.
Humans are barbaric. You can't get rid of barbarism, without killing off humanity, or at least making us all into Greek or Latin speaking pagans.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 11, 2016, 06:06:25 AM
I am talking about the OP. Please stop talking from your ass.
Maybe Turkey isn't like America. But that is what the Left has been telling us since the 1960s ... as per Rousseau. As a Left person yourself, I am sure that some of Rousseau has rubbed off on you.
Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 12:51:40 PM
I am sure that some of Rousseau has rubbed off on you.
HEY! NO rubbing off on people in the forum goddammit......
:lol: The convo.
Quote from: SGOS on December 11, 2016, 12:20:41 PM
But I don't think it is unreasonable to expose ourselves to the brutality we ignore or what the government doesn't want us to see. And it's not like I feel a need to protect criminals, but I think we need to be aware, and decide whether we want our society to be what it is. And let's face it, our society is more brutish and thug like than the rest of the western civilized nations, or at least it seems to me that it is.
.[/center]
I agree. It can be very instructive to witness what utter shits human beings can be.
How about instead of just sentecing them to death, we have them fight in a sequence of gladiatorial fights and challenges for our amusement; to the death.
Win one hundred challenges, and you go scott free.
If we're gonna be barbarians, we might as well go all out and do it right.
It's getting harder for me to decide how I feel about death penalty. I'm getting more vengeful in my old age. Some people say revenge doesn't do any good but I think it'd make me feel better. At any rate I'm having a hard time thinking that if some one hurt my children I'd have to punish them slowly and painfully is wrong. But I am crazy and see pictures of myself murdering people when I get angry so yeah...
But I agree that we should be far more certain that some one is guilty before just willy nilly killing people. And I also feel that we don't need to be vengeful as a society we are better than that. So no, no painful deaths by the government at least. But putting some one down who contributes nothing to society and has no chance of reformation is a mercy. So I guess it's all your definition of what merciful is.
But that's neither here nor there. The governments version of justice is hardly that. When you take witnesses into account as evidence you take a large risk of misinformation. Scientifically there is evidence that people do not remember events with 100% accuracy. Eye witnesses should not be evidence IMHO. Especially in cases where that is the only evidence. I myself was convicted with no evidence. It was one guys word against mine. But because I was the accused I lost. That is not an efficient form of justice.
But lets face it no one in the justice system actually cares about justice itself. Just as long as the public thinks they are doing a good job they are fine with innocent people being fined, incarcerated or executed. AKA no one cares. So I don't think the government should be in the business of killing people as a form of justice.
But I don't know that putting criminals down in certain circumstances itself is wrong. In some cases it may be the correct procedure.
and if you thought that was confusing you should try being me. I can't decide really.
Quote from: doorknob on December 13, 2016, 07:51:39 AM
When you take witnesses into account as evidence you take a large risk of misinformation. Scientifically there is evidence that people do not remember events with 100% accuracy. Eye witnesses should not be evidence IMHO.
Sorry to go off topic, but I just want to say I'm glad to hear you say that. Especially in regard to a previous discussion in another thread regarding the Mandela effect.
Anyways, if anyone hurt someone I loved, despite me being a fairly non-violent bloke, I imagine under the circumstances I too could be capable of extreme violence against said offender.
But circumstancial sympathy aside, I in no way feel myself drawn to defend something I deem undefendable coming from the state or government.
Anyways, just my two cents.
This issue illustrates one of the major personal battles I've always had. That is emotion vs reason. My reason tells me that the US death penalty process is deeply flawed. And for that reason alone, we should not use it. Anyway, to my way of thinking, life in prison would be worse than death. I would also like to say that a person who got life in prison actually serve their life, not just 20 years.
Emotionally, I know that I could pull the switch or use the needle on someone if they killed some of my family (including furry children). If I were convinced that somebody had done that, then I'd not even lose sleep over it--and would actually gain sleep knowing that that person or persons would never be able to do it again. Child molesters, kidnappers, and rapists fall into that category as well; for they can destroy lives in ways that can never be fixed. And I would not have a problem snuffing the Charles Manson's of the world, either.
I guess that is why I let my reason rule when it comes to voting about this issue.
I agree that the whole "execution" thing is troubling. On general terms though, one of my signs that my maturity was productive, is that my emotions and my reason are no longer in conflict ... because I was able to re-reason outside the group think. My emotions haven't changed much.
I'm completely against the death penalty but seriously just use gas or a bullet to the back of the head. Both are cheaper and more effective.
Hell, you could do one to the back of the head and one in the heart.
One problem ... unless the executioner is psychotic, they feel responsible for the victims death. This is why Hitler never killed serial killers, he put them to work instead.
Quote from: Baruch on December 16, 2016, 06:53:48 PM
One problem ... unless the executioner is psychotic, they feel responsible for the victims death. This is why Hitler never killed serial killers, he put them to work instead.
There was a movie that never made it past Amazon Prime, a very low endorsement, to be sure. I think it may have been called something like The Hangman. It was based on a true story about a hangman, who worked as an executioner for the British government. He was so good at what he did, and carried out his tasks with such professional excellence, that he was hired to execute the Nazis at Nuremburg. The movie itself is quite good, but be warned, you have to have the stomach for it. While the executions are fairly graphic, the most sickening part about it is how well it captures the emotional horror often endured by those sentenced to death, which is magnified by the emotionless professionalism of the hangman, who holds no contempt for the condemned at all. He simply prides himself on clean kills done in record breaking time. But there is a quote made by the hangman at the end of the movie saying he didn't believe capital punishment was effective or necessary.