Hey, it's me again. This is not exactly a well-put together question, but what do you think is the difference between someone executed by death penalty, and get beaten to death? Sorry, the question seemed non-relevant, but I really don't quite grasp the difference.
Some context would probably help, but ultimately there isn't a difference. They are both dead. The body of the later probably shows more obvious signs of how they died, and chances are they felt more physical pain before dying.
Sad fact is, there are people in this world who deserve to be either beaten to death or given the death penalty. There isn't anyone who won't at some point in their lives wish someone they hate would just die by these methods, and there really are just some disgusting farces of humanity walking around who deserve it.
like my ex-manager :)
You obviously have your own opinion, so asking others to explain it to you would be rather obtuse. As Popeye notes, context is important. Why do you ask when the differences in execution can so easily be enumerated and observed? Saying you can't grasp the difference is hardly believable, unless you are a cyber bot.
Death penalty is state mandated, but it is still murder.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 23, 2018, 07:46:51 AM
Death penalty is state mandated, but it is still murder.
Technically a state-sanctioned execution is not murder. By definition, murder is an unlawful killing. Like it or not the death penalty is lawful under US federal and many state laws if applied correctly. It is homicide, but it isn't murder.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 23, 2018, 07:52:31 AM
Technically a state-sanctioned execution is not murder. By definition, murder is an unlawful killing. Like it or not the death penalty is lawful under US federal and many state laws if applied correctly. It is homicide, but it isn't murder.
That comes off as hair-splitting and defining out what the state mandates via law.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 23, 2018, 08:03:33 AM
That comes off as hair-splitting and defining out what the state mandates via law.
He does have a point. Murder isn't just when one person kills another person. Self-defense isn't murder, and neither is killing in war (provided the soldier isn't performing war crimes). I don't like the death penalty either, but as long as it's law, it's not murder.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 23, 2018, 07:46:51 AM
Death penalty is state mandated, but it is still murder.
Are you assuming the authority of the state to execute, is illegitimate? Some would say so.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 23, 2018, 07:08:43 AM
Some context would probably help, but ultimately there isn't a difference. They are both dead. The body of the later probably shows more obvious signs of how they died, and chances are they felt more physical pain before dying.
Execution in civilized societies is supposed to be humane. People however want vengeance, and the state wants intimidation ... and perhaps sadism. Here in the US we can't even manage a humane drug induced killing.
The fundamental difference is that in principle someone receiving the death penalty has gone through a legal process to determine that they have committed a crime that is already defined as having a penalty of capital punishment, or has pleaded guilty to such a crime, and that no mitigating factors were found that would warrant a less severe punishment, and that the jurisdiction has defined a state-sanctioned means of execution.
Whatever the actual merits or demerits of capital punishment, it is a defined process applicable only to certain crimes, and to the extent that the criminal actually committed a capital crime, bears responsibility for making themselves liable to that penalty. You can scatter a few more "in principle"s there, because I know that as applied it's a flawed process. I'm speaking in the abstract, and in the abstract, and separate from arguments about its appropriateness or deterrent efficiency, capital punishment is the statement by the state (or by society as represented by the state) that this set of crimes warrant this punishment and not a random act of individual violence.
The victim of being beaten to death, none of that applies, particularly making themselves liable to capital punishment by an act of their own commissionâ€"extenuating circumstances were not stated, so they are not being assumed. As stated, the victim of the beating is not being put forth as having in any way 'earned' the beating.
To the two individuals, of course, there's no practical difference: both are dead.
I have no problem executing someone who kills another person. However I have a problem executing someone who killed my dog...for them I want to slice off their testicles, acid their eyes to remove their sight..destroy the ear drum and anvil to remove hearing....burn the nostrils to remove smell....put a ice pick 5-6 vertebrae to engage paralysis, in simpler terms to render them healthy but in a dark quite box ....but hey..thats just me...don't fuck with my dog.
Quote from: aitm on February 23, 2018, 09:10:40 PM
I have no problem executing someone who kills another person. However I have a problem executing someone who killed my dog...for them I want to slice off their testicles, acid their eyes to remove their sight..destroy the ear drum and anvil to remove hearing....burn the nostrils to remove smell....put a ice pick 5-6 vertebrae to engage paralysis, in simpler terms to render them healthy but in a dark quite box ....but hey..thats just me...don't fuck with my dog.
Same with my cats.
Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2018, 02:16:11 PM
The fundamental difference is that in principle someone receiving the death penalty has gone through a legal process to determine that they have committed a crime that is already defined as having a penalty of capital punishment, or has pleaded guilty to such a crime, and that no mitigating factors were found that would warrant a less severe punishment, and that the jurisdiction has defined a state-sanctioned means of execution.
Whatever the actual merits or demerits of capital punishment, it is a defined process applicable only to certain crimes, and to the extent that the criminal actually committed a capital crime, bears responsibility for making themselves liable to that penalty. You can scatter a few more "in principle"s there, because I know that as applied it's a flawed process. I'm speaking in the abstract, and in the abstract, and separate from arguments about its appropriateness or deterrent efficiency, capital punishment is the statement by the state (or by society as represented by the state) that this set of crimes warrant this punishment and not a random act of individual violence.
The victim of being beaten to death, none of that applies, particularly making themselves liable to capital punishment by an act of their own commissionâ€"extenuating circumstances were not stated, so they are not being assumed. As stated, the victim of the beating is not being put forth as having in any way 'earned' the beating.
To the two individuals, of course, there's no practical difference: both are dead.
I agree. Executing a person after long involved legal procedures and thoughtful jury conclusions and as painlessly as possible is not the same as beating a person to death. I kind of think intravenous vodka to "pass out" level (however much it takes) and a small plastic bag over the head. Taped around the neck.
I have always been quietly amused at mankind's attempt to make state sanctioned executions more humane. The Old West strung them up and with a snap of the neck they were gone, or at least seemed like it, because I don't know if their minds experienced hideous after images and pain after their feet stop twitching.
The firing squad seemed a little weird. Ten riflemen at near point blank range, with one shooting a dummy blank. Not a great improvement over hanging as far as I could tell, and kind of bloody, but the advantage is that it is technologically superior, as a rifle is more technologically advanced than a piece of rope.
But in my youth with the help of Thomas Edison, the electric chair was hailed as the most humane, even though electrocution is assumed to be quite painful as the condemned convulses and smoke pours out of his ears, and he continues to breath for 30 minutes after getting fried. Clearly, it's more humane, right?
Then the gas chamber came into vogue. Strap a guy in a chair and put him in a chamber where he chokes to death. The chamber has windows so you can watch to see when he looks like he's dead, so you don't have to interrupt the killing process unnecessarily.
Something new was needed, and we've settled on the lethal injection of assorted poisons that few prison guards are competent enough to deliver in the right order. While their hearts are in the right place, they continually manage to fuck it up.
There apparently is no way to kill a guy without making him suffer, and making the process more complicated doesn't seem to help at all.
Quote from: SGOS on February 25, 2018, 06:23:54 AM
I have always been quietly amused at mankind's attempt to make state sanctioned executions more humane. The Old West strung them up and with a snap of the neck they were gone, or at least seemed like it, because I don't know if their minds experienced hideous after images and pain after their feet stop twitching.
The firing squad seemed a little weird. Ten riflemen at near point blank range, with one shooting a dummy blank. Not a great improvement over hanging as far as I could tell, and kind of bloody, but the advantage is that it is technologically superior, as a rifle is more technologically advanced than a piece of rope.
But in my youth with the help of Thomas Edison, the electric chair was hailed as the most humane, even though electrocution is assumed to be quite painful as the condemned convulses and smoke pours out of his ears, and he continues to breath for 30 minutes after getting fried. Clearly, it's more humane, right?
Then the gas chamber came into vogue. Strap a guy in a chair and put him in a chamber where he chokes to death. The chamber has windows so you can watch to see when he looks like he's dead, so you don't have to interrupt the killing process unnecessarily.
Something new was needed, and we've settled on the lethal injection of assorted poisons that few prison guards are competent enough to deliver in the right order. While their hearts are in the right place, they continually manage to fuck it up.
There apparently is no way to kill a guy without making him suffer, and making the process more complicated doesn't seem to help at all.
Note that I didn't suggest any of the executions you mentioned... I do know that when I was given some sedatives for my appendix operation, there were a couple hours they pretty much could have killed me in multiple ways and I would simply have never woken up.
there are drugs one could slip into ones dinner and voila they wake up dead. No fuss, no muss, and nobody even knew the time cept for the pill dropper. I am for that one.
Quote from: aitm on February 25, 2018, 08:31:18 AM
there are drugs one could slip into ones dinner and voila they wake up dead. No fuss, no muss, and nobody even knew the time cept for the pill dropper. I am for that one.
And States can't buy them? I reluctantly agree that in extreme cases beyond a shadow of doubt, some people just can't function in a society. And an unaware "out" may be required. In such cases, I consider it wrong not to do so. I would rather die easily than live locked up for decades...
It's so weird that we can euthanize pets so humanely, but firing squad and electrocution are still currently on the books.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 25, 2018, 11:11:58 AM
It's so weird that we can euthanize pets so humanely, but firing squad and electrocution are still currently on the books.
I've had a dear pet die in my arms from injection. It was calm and peacable. Much harder on me than him. If we can do that for our pets, we should be able to do that as well for those few sad people whom we cannot live with safely.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 25, 2018, 10:00:36 AM
And States can't buy them? I reluctantly agree that in extreme cases beyond a shadow of doubt, some people just can't function in a society. And an unaware "out" may be required. In such cases, I consider it wrong not to do so. I would rather die easily than live locked up for decades...
The execution drug business is as corrupt as anything else the government touches, and as incompetent. What is remarkable is when something isn't corrupt, or something is competent. Follow the money ... it is pure rot. Corruption only stops when the money stops. And less corruption, means that people who know what they are doing are more likely to be in positions to do what they do best, rather than someone's nephew.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 25, 2018, 11:11:58 AM
It's so weird that we can euthanize pets so humanely, but firing squad and electrocution are still currently on the books.
If it is odd, then there is something bad behind it. Pets get a gas chamber .. why can't we use that too? We used to. The electric chair isn't painless, it is quite spectacularly cruel, as Edison demonstrated at the behest of J P Morgan.
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
The execution drug business is as corrupt as anything else the government touches, and as incompetent. What is remarkable is when something isn't corrupt, or something is competent. Follow the money ... it is pure rot. Corruption only stops when the money stops. And less corruption, means that people who know what they are doing are more likely to be in positions to do what they do best, rather than someone's nephew.
Pet euthansia works. Skeeter looked at me, purring, received the one shot, and fell asleep. While asleep, he died. Not so much as a twitch... Neither you or I would be allowed to die so peacefully. Because society is insane about human life, fearing to end it because of religious claptrap. I won't abide by that.
It isn't corruption that stops us from ending some lives painlessly; it is the humancrrated fear of punishment after death. Can't we t least forgive each other our errors in life to allow a peaceful death? We have the means. We lack the compassion.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 25, 2018, 11:11:58 AM
It's so weird that we can euthanize pets so humanely, but firing squad and electrocution are still currently on the books.
When my old dog was put away, it was simple but what the vet called a massive overdose of barbiturates. I held my dog's head in my hands and told him what a good friend he had been, and scant seconds after the shot he just collapsed and let out a huge breath. I looked at the vet who simply said, "He's gone now." There were no convulsions or twitches. It was still heartbreaking, but he didn't suffer.
Quote from: SGOS on February 25, 2018, 12:26:42 PM
When my old dog was put away, it was simple but what the vet called a massive overdose of barbiturates. I held my dog's head in my hands and told him what a good friend he had been, and scant seconds after the shot he just collapsed and let out a huge breath. I looked at the vet who simply said, "He's gone now." There were no convulsions or twitches. It was still heartbreaking, but he didn't suffer.
We (and many I expect) share that same experience. All humans should have the same right. What stops us?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 25, 2018, 12:33:34 PM
We (and many I expect) share that same experience. All humans should have the same right. What stops us?
My first thought was, "Religion," but it's probably more complicated than that. We seem to want people to die naturally, even if it often involves suffering. Perhaps people are thinking, "We know this guy is going to die, but there's a chance that a miraculous change might occur, so we should do nothing."
Quote from: Cavebear on February 25, 2018, 12:33:34 PM
We (and many I expect) share that same experience. All humans should have the same right. What stops us?
Pets can't vote. People can. But Hospice is not unlike euthanasia. But your caregiver has to qualify you, you can't qualify yourself.
Quote from: SGOS on February 25, 2018, 12:39:44 PM
My first thought was, "Religion," but it's probably more complicated than that. We seem to want people to die naturally, even if it often involves suffering. Perhaps people are thinking, "We know this guy is going to die, but there's a chance that a miraculous change might occur, so we should do nothing."
BECAUSE we have the idea that death is for animals but not for humans... We need to get over that. We all die. And it is forever.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 25, 2018, 01:09:05 PM
BECAUSE we have the idea that death is for animals but not for humans... We need to get over that. We all die. And it is forever.
Well, if you want life-death decisions made by individuals on their own recognizance, then the NRA is for you ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2018, 12:53:10 PM
Pets can't vote. People can. But Hospice is not unlike euthanasia. But your caregiver has to qualify you, you can't qualify yourself.
Skeeter didn't vote to be killed. But he was so worn out and forlorn he could barely walk leaning against the hallway wall. The Vet wouldn't do the euthaansia until then. I have advised the vet that it will NEVER come to that again, BTW.
But *I* chose his time ultimately. As I demand the right to choose my own time.
Quote from: aitm on February 23, 2018, 09:10:40 PM
I have no problem executing someone who kills another person. However I have a problem executing someone who killed my dog...for them I want to slice off their testicles, acid their eyes to remove their sight..destroy the ear drum and anvil to remove hearing....burn the nostrils to remove smell....put a ice pick 5-6 vertebrae to engage paralysis, in simpler terms to render them healthy but in a dark quite box ....but hey..thats just me...don't fuck with my dog.
I like the way you think!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2018, 01:28:23 PM
I like the way you think!!
Ditto. Anyone kills a cat of mine...
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2018, 12:58:59 PM
Are you assuming the authority of the state to execute, is illegitimate? Some would say so.
Yes.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 25, 2018, 06:31:09 PM
Yes.
I think the authority exists, but the practice of it could be more limited. We find more and more innocent people convicted falsely these days. DNA evidence keeps proving some prisoners innocent.