US Executions Threaten Supply of Anaesthetic Used For Surgical Procedures

ananyo writes "Allen Nicklasson has had a temporary reprieve. Scheduled to be executed by lethal injection in Missouri on 23 October, the convicted killer was given a stay of execution by the state's governor, Jay Nixon, on 11 October — but not because his guilt was in doubt. Nicklasson will live a while longer because one of the drugs that was supposed to be used in his execution — a widely used anesthetic called propofol — is at the center of an international controversy that threatens millions of U.S. patients, and affects the way that U.S. states execute inmates. Propofol, used up to 50 million times a year in U.S. surgical procedures, has never been used in an execution. If the execution had gone ahead, U.S. hospitals could have lost access to the drug because 90% of the U.S. supply is made and exported by a German company subject to European Union regulations that restrict the export of medicines and devices that could be used for capital punishment or torture. This is not the first time that the E.U.'s anti-death-penalty stance has affected the U.S. supply of anesthetics. Since 2011, a popular sedative called sodium thiopental has been unavailable in the United States. 'The European Union is serious,' says David Lubarsky, head of the anesthesiology department at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida. 'They've already shown that with thiopental. If we go down this road with propofol, a lot of good people who need anesthesia are going to be harmed.'"

Comments

Hangings

[JackieBrown]

We should just go back to hangings. It works for killing Nazis and war criminals.

Re:Hangings

[sycodon]

Firing squads are effective too.

For child killers, burning works for me.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could just stop having government thugs murder people.

Re:Hangings

[mrvan]

I think it would be best to have a firing squad composed of the jury that found someone guilty and imposed the death penalty. If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty.

(and yes, I also think that every non-vegetarian should be willing to butcher an animal)

Re:Hangings

[TWiTfan]

A simple gunshot to the head would probably be more humane, if a bit more bloody.

Re:Hangings

[Anon, Not Coward D]

why not gas chambers then? seriously... death penalty is always a baaad idea

Re:Hangings

[durin]

Why not just pull the warning labels off everything they use and let the problem sort itself out?

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely not! Executions are as much a part of America as slave ownership.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

When the term "judge, jury, and executioner" is used, it's usually in a pejorative sense. Merging the latter two positions is a bad idea from a separation of power standpoint.

Re:Hangings

[bhlowe]

Ok, use a different drug. My vet can recommend something.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Butchering is gross. I wouldn't mind snapping its neck and hading it off to someone else to butcher, though.

Being grossed out by something doesn't constitute a moral imperative. I'm pretty grossed out by a woman's period but I still have sex with them.

Re:Hangings

[X0563511]

Nitrogen in a gas chamber is probably the most humane way to do it. You just... lose consciousness. There's no distress since carbon dioxide displacement still happens. This is why working with such gasses in an enclosed space always has those warnings etc.

Re:Hangings

[mjr167]

I think the problem with firing squads was occasionally they would miss and just horribly wound the guy...

But having the jury do it is an interesting proposal.

Re:Hangings

[intermodal]

I concur. and if we insist on sticking with lethal injection, I propose we replace the anesthetic with store-brand diet soft drinks or spoiled milk or something. What we put in these people is entirely arbitrary; put enough of something other than blood in a bloodstream and it will kill someone.

Re:Hangings

[JeffOwl]

Oh sure, then you'll have psychopaths turning up as the only people who can't/won't try to avoid jury duty.

Re:Hangings

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Hangings

And with Europe cutting off rope supplies, this is another good reason to invigorate our domestic hemp production.

Re:Hangings

[GNious]

mount the weapons such that they cannot miss?

Re:Hangings

[TheSpoom]

Pure rationality cannot trample human rights. That leads to... unsavory consequences. History is full of dictators who believe they have "purely rational" reasons for genocide.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd gladly pull the trigger, and I have butchered animals I've killed to eat....no problems here.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pejorative because it implies greatly hastened judicial process, or a complete lack of it. There's nothing implicitly wrong with merging executioner with either of the other two, because the executioner has no judicial power anyway.

Re:Hangings

[dmbasso]

I don't understand why you were modded down.

I'm against capital punishment because of all the innocent people that were (and continue to be) wrongfully sentenced and murdered by the state. But that aside, I can't see any advantage on using chemicals to kill a person, instead of a bullet shot into the head. The cost is ridiculously smaller, and there is no pain involved. Just have a standard designed machine for holding the subject and the gun, with calibration and testing before the actual execution... boom, done.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure, then you'll have psychopaths turning up as the only people who can't/won't try to avoid jury duty.

No, they're too busy "creating jobs".

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

>and yes, I also think that every non-vegetarian should be willing to butcher an animal

I believe that every animal rights nut should be denied any medication or surgical procedure that has been tested on animals...

Re:Hangings

[Joey Vegetables]

Anyone can be trained to hit a target tens of meters away. And there are typically several shooters, not one. I would guess that having several rounds tear through the heart would result in fairly rapid unconsciousness and death. (Disclaimer: I do not believe states should have the power to execute people. That power should belong to victims and their families, and only after something much closer to a fair trial than most people on death row in the U.S. initially receive.)

Re:Hangings

[Firemouth]

I disagree with this because the role of a jury is to determine guilt. If what you propose were the case it may sway someone to vote not guilty even when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty simply because they don't want to execute the sentence. I think that would be a miscarriage of justice. The jury's disposition to the punishment is irrelevant when determining guilt unless they're doing jury nullification, then they're just not following the law but for a different reason.

Besides, isn't it ultimately the Judge who determines the sentence, not the jury? Maybe it varies on the type of case and such but my point is the same.

I don't see any logical reasoning as to why someone who is determining guilt should have to be the one who executes the sentence. It's almost as if you're trying to punish the judge / jury for making a decision of guilty. It wouldn't have any positive impact that I can see and only negative ones.

Re:Hangings

[BSDstef]

Lifetime imprisonment is actually less expensive than the death penalty. California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment. California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

Source: http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
Also see: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Re:Hangings

[Joey Vegetables]

I do not believe you understood the GP. The suffering in suffocation results from buildup of carbon dioxide, not the absence of oxygen. As far as we can tell or reasonably surmise, that would not happen in a room filled with pure nitrogen.

Re:Hangings

[sycodon]

So if you sentence the guy to thirty years, should the jury have to house, feed and guard him?

Re:Hangings

[realityimpaired]

It's essentially allowing said criminals to continue to victimize society by leeching taxpayer dollars that could be spent elsewhere on more deserving causes. Execution is an alternative that is less humane in most cases, but it also permanently ends any further exploitation of society by those who can't be reformed and can't live in said society.

In most countries where capital punishment has been banned, it was done so because there were too many cases where people were later exonerated after their execution. Let's skip the argument over the ethics of executions as they're done in the US, though, because that is a way to a very vitriolic exchange.

The US is a strange case, though. You have an enormous prison population as a proportion of your general population. Money becomes an issue when such a large percentage of the population is incarcerated, but when you have a more reasonable justice system (and a social security net which removes a large percentage of the impetus for crime... insert obligatory link: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/24/breaking-bad-canada-comic-health_n_3984793.html ), the increased cost of keeping somebody alive for the duration of their prison sentence is still reasonable.

Re:Hangings

[Knightman]

It varies, but mostly they load all the weapons with live ammo except one. That way you have the highest chance of a successful execution and the guys shooting still haven't got a clue if they had live or blank ammo.

Re:Hangings

[TWiTfan]

Pure rationality cannot trample human rights.

Every society in the world has established that (at least some) rights can be removed from criminals, with due process. If their right to freedom can be removed, there's no reason their right to life can't be as well (in extreme circumstances at least). It's a moral choice to make, and that's fine. But to argue that executions are some absurdity that have no place in a reasonable society is unfair.

Re:Hangings

[wagnerrp]

Willing? Sure... Capable? Probably not.

I think the only thing I would have trouble with would be lobster. They scream if you do it wrong.

Re:Hangings

[dmbasso]

[...] there is an important place for execution in the criminal justice system.

If the criminal justice system was actually fair, I (perhaps) wouldn't disagree. But when you have bankers that screwed the lives of millions of people going free, while a poor woman gets a life sentence because she was at the wrong place, at the wrong time (during a drug deal), with the wrong people, and said people decide to incriminate her... then I don't think I can trust the life of my fellow earthlings to the system.

Re:Hangings

[Zalbik]

If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty.

Yeah, well Ned Stark thought that too and look were he ended up.

Re:Hangings

[TheLink]

I think a more painless is to use high explosives around the target's head.

You can prove scientifically that the target will not feel pain after the explosive is detonated because it is impossible for the pain impulses to travel faster than the explosion shockwave. Thus the brain would be completely gone before any pain signals arrive.

There will still be mental pain while waiting for the "trigger", but it should be about the same with other execution methods, and given that my proposed method can be scientifically proven to be painless, their mental pain could even be less. In contrast the other common methods or proposed methods are not provably painless and/or may still cause some discomfort for more than a few seconds (suffocation while not that painful is still not that pleasant).

The USA certainly has lots of explosives. There's plenty of technology to contain explosions safely. You could even use it as an opportunity to test some experimental "explosion containment" tech within proven containment devices/structures.

Re:Hangings

[SJHillman]

Until you get people willing to convict someone just for the chance to pull the trigger.

Re:Hangings

[dcollins]

Of course, to you and me that's equivalent to "you might as well just ban executions" (which is exactly why institutions always separate out those functions). But then there's the 1-in-30 sociopath for whom it's "a great opportunity to legally kill a person".

Re:Hangings

[MBGMorden]

So you're going to give a bunch of people who may or may not know how to fire and/or aim a firearm the job of executing someone? When half of them miss and the other half have bad hits its going to be mighty bad when the prisoner is on the ground screaming and dying slowly.

PS I've never understood the vegetarian quip that more people would be vegetarians if they saw and/or participated in the process of butchering. Vegetarianism is a rather new fad, and until relatively recently most people WERE pretty involved in the butchering process and there was no mass avoidance of meat eating.

Personally having been hunting since I was 7 (and killed my first deer at 9) I've been pretty involved with the butchering process and if you grow up with it its no big thing. I still kill a few deer per year (usually between 2 and 4) and skin/gut all of them myself. Still love eating meat. Heck when I see a cow grazing the first thing I think of is steak and get hungry.

Re:Hangings

[mjr167]

The problem is when the firing squad chooses to miss because they don't want to kill him, not because they are bad shots. There were cases where the people doing the shooting choose to not shoot to kill.

Re:Hangings

[coinreturn]

We should just go back to hangings. It works for killing Nazis and war criminals.

Then the EU would block the export of rope.

Re:Hangings

[coinreturn]

Until you get people willing to convict someone just for the chance to pull the trigger.

+5 Insightful, especially in USA.

Re:Hangings

[JeffAtl]

This has nothing to do with "division of labor" - it's about juries having some "skin in the game".

Too many juries convict on very questionable reasons and non-compelling evidence.

Re:Hangings

[pla]

What we put in these people is entirely arbitrary; put enough of something other than blood in a bloodstream and it will kill someone.

Why the fixation on putting something in? Whether drugs, or cyanide gas, or bullets, or a blade, or what-have-you, our methods of killing people all seem to involve the idea of adding something to their body that doesn't belong there.

As an alternative that the EU couldn't realistically deny selling to us, take something out, instead. As in, all their blood. As their last repayment to society, have them "donate" 8-10 pints of blood. Quick, easy, and absolutely 100% effective.

Of course, something like 90% of the death row population has either AIDS or hepatitis (or both), so we probably couldn't really use that blood for anything, but, oh well. No big loss.

Re:Hangings

[wagnerrp]

Your body does not measure a lack of oxygen. It measures an abundance of carbon dioxide. If you hyperventilate, you can hold your breath considerably longer, not because you actually have any more oxygen in your system, but because you flush out any carbon dioxide in your blood stream, and it takes longer for your body to register that it needs to breathe again.

Re:Hangings

[whoever57]

Nitrogen in a gas chamber is probably the most humane way to do it.

Or Carbon Monoxide.

Re:Hangings

[228e2]

I remember hearing about a rule now done away with that allowed Texas inmates on death row choose how they wanted to die.

I think the last inmate who was grandfathered under this obsolete rule chose firing squad.

Re:Hangings

[JeffAtl]

I seem to recall that the jury is responsible only for the verdict, and the judge decides the punishment. But then again, I'm not american.

Like the guilt phase, the jury can also be involved in the penalty phase. A very notable recent example would be the Jodi Arias trail The jury deadlocked in the penalty phase with 8 to 4 in favor of death.

Re:Hangings

[SJHillman]

The execution is only costly because we make a show out of trying to be humane about it. Killing a person is something that can, and often is, done for a few dollars on the streets. Most of the cost of a government execution is for show.

Re:Hangings

[kruach aum]

There is a difference between rationality and thinking you're rational. Rationality is what has given us human rights in the first place.

Re:Hangings

[kellymcdonald78]

Except that due to the number of mandatory appeals, reviews and other efforts by very expensive laywers and judges that go along with the death penalty, it typically costs far more to execute someone than it would be to incarcerate them for the rest of their life

Re:Hangings

[whoever57]

Lifetime imprisonment is the more humane option in most cases, but on a practical level it's also VERY expensive

Because of all the legal proceedings, etc., life imprisonment is more expensive than execution. Furthermore, what about those people who are wrongly executed? You can't being them back to life, while you can release someone to live what remains of their life.

In a purely rational sense, as distasteful or immoral as some find it, there is an important place for execution in the criminal justice system.

As I show above, no, there isn't. Execution brutalizes society and is a flawed and expensive process. Its use is actually irrational and is only supported because people seek revenge.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

if that were the case and i were on the jury i would definitely vote death penalty instead.

Re:Hangings

[jabuzz]

Wrong you need a room that is scrubbed of CO2 and remains scrubbed of CO2. What happens then is that you get an ever decreasing level of O2 in the air and consequently the blood stream.

As control of breathing is regulated by the level of dissolved CO2 in the blood in the absence of CO2 in the air breathed with decreasing levels of O2 you will gradually loose conciousness due to hypoxia but not feel the panicking urge to breath.

This is how drowning works *ONCE* the lungs are filled with water. As water can dissolved large amounts of CO2 (1:20 by volume) you again get inadequate O2 supply without the urge to breath as there is no CO2 buildup in the blood stream.

Simply pushing them into a room filled with N2 will lead to am immediate shortage of breath and panic breathing.

Re:Hangings

[DrXym]

Blank ammo doesn't have the same kick as live ammo (no bullet). You would know if it was you or not unless it was very small calibre.

Anyway I don't see why it should even matter. If someone can be designated to push a button to electrocute someone, or gas them, or to release a trap door, or to administer a lethal injection then I don't see what difference it makes that the switch actually is rigged to a weapon that fires a bullet into someone's heart.

Re:Hangings

[228e2]

Correction, it was in Utah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Lee_Gardner

Re:Hangings

[aliquis]

Executions are ugly.

(Saves a lot of money I suppose but ugly.)

Re:Hangings

[smooth wombat]

I think it would be best to have a firing squad composed of the jury that found someone guilty and imposed the death penalty.

If I were ever on such a jury, I would jump at this chance. Where do I sign up?

Re:Hangings

[intermodal]

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear that my initial agreement was returning to hangings. The part about using arbitrary fluids was simply a suggestion for if we do insist on continuing to use injections. I agree that exsanguination is a much simpler matter from a purely technical standpoint, aside from cleanup and finding someone willing to do it and convincing a court that it doesn't violate the 8th Amendment.

Re:Hangings

[luckymutt]

I would want to know. That's why I'd flaunt the regulation and go for a head shot.

Re:Hangings

[sumdumass]

The problem is that if a person is a psychopAth and willing to kill an innocent or not guilty person, making them pull the trigger will likely only feed into that instead of protect against it.

Considering a sentence should be a separate process from determining guilt when the death penalty or life in prison is on the line. The same jury that says he is guilty should not be the same jury that says he deserves to die.

Re:Hangings

[alexander_686]

They scream if you do it wrong.

Cite please? IIRC lobsters don’t have lungs so they can’t scream. What you are hearing is steam coming out of the lobster shell.

Re:Hangings

[DrXym]

This really doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. i.e. don't have a firing squad, mount the guns on tripods and do a test firing to ensure their aim.

Re:Hangings

[omnichad]

If we're butchering animals, can we eat the meat? If I don't even get the benefit of cannibalism, what's in it for me? I for one wouldn't want an 85 year old grandmother executing nor being stuck in a hung jury.

Re:Hangings

[PRMan]

Just use 10 robot guns that hit from all directions. There's no way they all miss. And they can be synced up to fire at exactly the same time. And then you don't have to worry about European suppliers, since you can just use US guns.

Re:Hangings

[X0563511]

You don't just shove them into the room. While you couldn't do it the way old gas chambers worked (since those didn't need to displace anything, just introduce the chemical(s)) you can certainly cycle the atmosphere like you would in an airlock or decontamination.

Secure the condemned, seal the door, start the circulation, then shunt in the N2. Keep putting in fresh N2 while venting (or reclaiming for scrubbing and re-use) and the CO2 levels will not rise far.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

or just get rid of the anesthetic. those assholes deserve to die a painful death.

Including the ones who were later found to have not actually committed the crimes they were sentenced to death for committing?

I have no problem with the concept of executing someone in certain situations. The problem I have is being absolutely certain that the accused actually DID commit the crime- even one case of wrongful execution is too many.

As for how expensive it is to execute vs. imprison for life: The fact of the matter is that society always has to pay a cost in order to remove someone from society, if they aren't willing to pay the cost then the person shouldn't be removed in the first place. We shouldn't be looking at saving money at the risk of killing people who don't deserve it.

So all in all I DO think we need to get rid of the death penalty entirely, but not because of any moral objection to execution. Yes, it would really suck if you spent 50 years in jail before being exonerated, but at least you still have a chance to pick up some of your life. If you're dead- you're wormfood, and a posthumous apology doesn't do jack shit.

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

Or, you know, join the rest of the civilised world and abolish capital punishment.

Re:Hangings

[EvanED]

Besides, isn't it ultimately the Judge who determines the sentence, not the jury? Maybe it varies on the type of case and such but my point is the same.

Many places in the US require a jury to affirm a capital sentence.

I don't know what the deal is in full with that -- whether that's because it's considered Constitutionally-mandated, whether you need unanimous agreement, how common that is, etc. -- but the death penalty is a special case (and it's also the only case discussed here).

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

Some times people deserve capital punishment. I am not saying in most of the cases that we do it they deserve it, but someone who is an un-remorseful mass murderer should be put to death. The tax payer should not be liable to keep them alive, or let them free to kill again.

Re:Hangings

[interkin3tic]

You can get interesting responses from people who are staunchly pro-death penalty hearing this the first time. The first is an immediate rejection "It couldn't possibly cost that much." Followed by a statement that it shouldn't cost that much to kill someone. "You could just use an empty syringe, that is like $5."

Upon finding out that it's because of the legal fees, you get people saying "Well then they shouldn't be allowed to have as many retrials."

Not saying those immediate responses say anything relevant to the conversation, everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance and few people are open minded. And most people who are pro death penalty aren't really so because they think it's cheaper. Just it's amusing to me that the first suggestions in favor of death penalty as part of the justice system are "Well, I could kill someone pretty cheap" and "How about we give people fewer chances to prove their innocence before we kill them."

Re:Hangings

[MysteriousPreacher]

Every society in the world has established that (at least some) rights can be removed from criminals, with due process. If their right to freedom can be removed, there's no reason their right to life can't be as well (in extreme circumstances at least).

The acceptance of removing rights isn't itself a justification for any particular action. Each proposed action should stand on its own merits. We know that custodial sentences can to some extent be corrected for when a convict is later cleared of the capital crime. One can't give someone back 10 years of life, but efforts can be made to make the remainder of their life as pleasant as it can be under the circumstances. The death penalty is kind of final. It's difficult to appeal the sentence when one would be too dead to show-up in court. Appeals can be made prior to the execution - we know that's pretty common, and certainly some people are reprieved, but once dead there's no going back. The best they can hope for is that a surviving friend or relative will clear their name postmortem. That is a pretty big difference.

It's a moral choice to make, and that's fine. But to argue that executions are some absurdity that have no place in a reasonable society is unfair.

We have to ask ourselves a question: What is capital punishment achieving that a custodial sentence wouldn't?

Is it about protecting the public? If so, how are they any more protected by this death than they would be if the person served their life behind bars? Maybe the protection comes from its deterrent factor? If so, is this worth the risk of executing people who are innocent of the crime for which they've been sentenced to death? Is this a utilitarian argument? Better to have 1 innocent person die if it prevents 100 murders? None of that seems reasonable to me. Are there better ways to reduce crime that won't involve executions?

Is it about vengeance for the wronged? If so, then this is a broken judicial system. The law should never have this in mind.

Re:Hangings

[Hatta]

I disagree with this because the role of a jury is to determine guilt.

No, the role of the jury is to judge both the facts and law. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision⦠you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

If what you propose were the case it may sway someone to vote not guilty even when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty simply because they don't want to execute the sentence

That is exactly the purpose a jury is supposed to serve. If the community, as represented by a jury of peers deems a punishment unconscionable, they not only have the right but the moral obligation to acquit. If the government wants the people to sign off on its punishments, the government must levy punishments that the community can accept. The jury is supposed to be a check on the legal system.

It's almost as if you're trying to punish the judge / jury for making a decision of guilty. It wouldn't have any positive impact that I can see and only negative ones.

The only way this would be punishment for the jury is if they didn't think the punishment actually fit the crime. If that's the case, they damn well should be discouraged. That's a very positive result.

The US injustice system is draconian enough. We are a "free country" that imprisons more people than than any other country in the world. We still use the death penalty despite the lack of any evidence that it makes our country safer. We are in dire need of reigning in the vindictive and authoritarian nature of our injustice system.

Re:Hangings

[Golddess]

I can't see any advantage on using chemicals to kill a person, instead of a bullet shot into the head

Less messy, plus chemicals appear more humane. From the perspective of all but the condemned, it looks like they are just going to sleep.

Personally, I'm wondering why they've never tried nitrogen asphyxiation. It gives the same appearance as lethal injection, with the added benefits of being safer to handle and dispose of, and it is actually humane, since the whole "need to breathe" feeling comes about from a build up of CO2, not a lack of O2. If I were a religious person, I'd even go so far as to suggest that nitrogen asphyxiation is God's preferred method of execution. Why else design us with what appears to be such a serious flaw?

Re:Hangings

[Politburo]

The right to freedom can be removed and restored. The right to life cannot. Seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Re:Hangings

[Ihlosi]

Wrong you need a room that is scrubbed of CO2 and remains scrubbed of CO2.

In any room sized to comfortably hold a at least one person, that person will become unconscious if the room is anoxic long before the CO2 level rises enough for the body to detect it.

By the way, in anoxic conditions, the oxygen saturation doesn't gradually decrease. Instead, it plummets, since oxygen exchange in the lungs is reversed - the blood actually gets deoxygenated. Once the deoxygenated blood arrives in the brain (takes 10-20 seconds) it's lights out almost immediately. The brain doesn't take too well to having no oxygen, even for the briefest amounts of time.

Re:Hangings

[isorox]

Firing squads are effective too.

For child killers, burning works for me.

Oh there's all sorts of ways to kill child killers, Judas Cradle for example

Re:Hangings

[pla]

Ah, thus the subject line. My bad, we agree. :)

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

So property > life? Sometimes people rob to put food on the table for their kids because they have little option.

Re:Hangings

[Bengie]

Something like 10% of people executed are later proven innocent when purposefully hidden evidence surfaces. Those district attorneys really really like to win.

Yes, lets murder innocent people in a cruel way. /sarc

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

Well, I am not saying mass murderers should walk free, obviously. The two strongest arguments against the death penalty, in my opinion, are

-- There will be always be some percentage of cases where the verdict turns out to be wrong, and you have murdered an innocent human being (in many cases exactly the crime you set out to punish)

-- Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment. There's ways you can relieve the burden on society, too.

If you get it wrong there's someone left to apologise to and compensate. If not, they get what they deserve.

Re:Hangings

[interkin3tic]

TFA has a very good point at the very end. An anesthesiologist points out that these procedures need to be foolproof enough for guards with nothing more than a high school education to do. If someone is dosed with anesthetic, pretty much any way of killing them is going to probably be painless, and meets at least some people's definition of humane. And the poison is presumably well tested and super effective.

With nitrogen and no anesthetic, that's a bit more complex than I'd trust a meathead with. Making sure the oxygen is completely replaced in the room, and making sure a person is dead by a monitor rather than just in a coma or nearly dead before you open up the room and let oxygen back in.

Finally, you mean painless. Humane? I don't know. It's going to have to be a sizeable room too, since you don't want prisoners freaking out due to claustrophobia. In addition to that being a cruel way to kill someone, there are security concerns. A prisoner is already going to be on edge when they know they're literally about to die. If they have an irrational fear of suffocation or enclosed spaces, they might try to hurt someone or themselves. That last one might seem like an odd concern, but someone tearing at their throat in their final hysterical minutes shouldn't meet anyone's definition of humane, and if the room is filled with oxygen, no guards can go back in to secure the prisoner. Also, drifting off to sleep seems more humane than suffocating, even if you're not physically in pain.

(Disclaimer: I'm extremely anti-death-penalty.)

Re:Hangings

[gweihir]

Hanging is tricky. And it is very gruesome of you do it wrong, i.e. chocking to death over 10-20 minutes while struggling. Sure, it fits the overall primitivism and brutality of the "punishment" (no, it is not punishment, punishment is something you can eventually walk away from, it is revenge plain and simple), but it might be difficult to find non-psychopath witnesses for such executions after a few have gone wrong.

Re:Hangings

[fustakrakich]

War is real mass murder. When do we get to hang the people who start and sustain them?

Re:Hangings

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given the alternatives, that's probably pretty sensible.

For what appear to be PR reasons, execution methods that are gory looking and freak out the viewers have been largely phased out (a firing squad, say, or a guillotine, will kill you pretty dead, pretty fast; but it'll leave a heck of a mess, and the more competently it's done, the bigger the mess.

The replacements, by contrast, seem to have been picked more for the appearance of cleanliness, rather than actual swiftness or painlessness (I suspect that the 'brain drain' of medical expertise and moderates in general toward the anti-death-penalty camp, combined with the fact that the "I wish we could make them suffer longer! Unfortunately that isn't constitutional..." camp isn't going anywhere, has lead to expertise being harder to come by, and stakeholder interest in pain-minimization simply being less). If the family dog gets sick, pretty much any vet in the country can euthanize them to a standard of humaneness that people demand for a beloved pet. Execution by lethal injection? Odds are surprisingly bad that the prison-flunky doing the job will even be able to find a vein, and the percentage of kills that actually go quickly and cleanly is unimpressive. Why the difference? Similarly, occupational safety/industrial hygiene types can tell you all about how people can suffocate without even noticing because of carbon monoxide exposure, or oxygen-displacing gas leaks (quirk of human physiology: you can detect high levels of CO2, or mechanical impediments to breathing, and you'll freak out; but you can't detect lack of oxygen, so if carbon monoxide binds all your hemoglobin, or you are working in an ill-ventilated basement and end up breathing pure nitrogen because of an LN2 leak nearby, your CO2 levels will remain in the green, and you'll just black out and die...); but we still can't gas people to death properly... Unless the pro-execution camp can get its technique together, I'd stick with old reliable myself, if I had to choose.

Re:Hangings

[gweihir]

Death by torture is something only psychopaths advocate.

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

Are you aware that it costs more to the tax payers to kill prisoners than to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their life?

Re:Hangings

[AlecC]

It has been repeatedly shown that, because of the mandatory appeals process and the cost of lawyers, it costs more to carry out the death sentence than life imprisonment. About three million dollars, last time I read about it. Which pays for a lot of imprisonment.

Re:Hangings

[gweihir]

Simple: US engineering is not up to the task. Or rather the level of "engineering", law enforcement is capable of.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

Incorrect. Judges determine the law and undisputed facts, even in the case of juries. Juries only judge disputed "facts". Juries can go outside of the law and will typically not be held accountable because of the above, but the judge of a case is like the moderator. He will decide what issues go to the jury and what do not based on the law.

Also incorrect. Juries dont typically do sentencing, again the judge does that. In addition in the few cases they do if the feel capital punishment is unconscionable they also can do life in prison instead. They have options other than a moral obligation to acquit.

Re:Hangings

[jklovanc]

-- Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment. There's ways you can relieve the burden on society, too.

Life imprisonment is harsher on anyone who who has to come into contact with lifers. A lifer has no incentive to behave in a reasonable way. If someone says the wrong word a lifer may kill them. The lifer is already subject to the harshest penalty possible. What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?

I lifer is a danger to every guard and inmate they come into contact with. The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

Also, anyone who voted for the party that doesn't win shouldn't be allowed to use any government services.

Re:Hangings

[AlecC]

Simply pushing them into a room filled with N2 will lead to am immediate shortage of breath and panic breathing.

Not true. Jonathan Miller showed it on television: not with a room, but a facemask connected to an N2 cylinder. He simply passed out, and reported no unpleasant sensations at all. No choking will be felt until CO2 builds up, and in a reasonable size room that will take hours. I have also heard of demonstration where a pig had to put its head through a screen into a nitrogen filled area to get food. The pig passed out, fell back through the screen (which was at the top of a ramp), recovered, and went around again, obviously feeling no fear of the screen.

Re:Hangings

[RaceProUK]

Blank ammo doesn't have the same kick as live ammo (no bullet). You would know if it was you or not unless it was very small calibre.

Only if you know what the live-round kick feels like for that particular gun/ammo combo.

Re:Hangings

[swb]

The purpose of having several shooters is that you only supply live ammunition to a couple of them, the rest are firing blanks, so that the men firing the gun don't know if they are firing the killing shot.

Re:Hangings

[modecx]

Just make a mechanism tied to an electronic trigger that fires the guns when the output from a random number generator, generating numbers from 1-100 with five second intervals, matches a predetermined number picked out of a hat by a chicken.

The probability is there will be enough time for dramatic tension to build without making everyone hang around so log to put them sleep, and you don't have to burden the executioner's psyche, because ultimately, the chicken is the executioner. Because, as we all know, chickens just want to watch the world burn anyway.

Re:Hangings

[intermodal]

For molestors of young children, I think we need to build a gigantic salad shooter.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

The extra cost is in typical appeals, which even people without the death penalty can do but tend not to. They can find a away to lower that cost. The cost of the actual execution is a fraction of the cost to keep someone in prison for life.

Re:Hangings

[intermodal]

I have no problem with butchering an animal. What I do have is a lack of appropriate facilities in which to do so, and a lack of expertise in removing the cuts without unnecessary loss, waste, or damage to what is harvested from the beast.

I do, however, have a few of the right knives. My grandfather was a meat cutter by trade, and I inherited some excellent knives as a result.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

I agree with the first, however to me the second is false. Taking my life is a worst penalty, because I will be dead. give me life in prison and I will be at least alive.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

That only applies to countries with bad justice systems based on vengeance, such as US.

In most civilized countries, life sentence means something between 10 and 30 years, long enough to count as severe punishment that completely changes person life without the downsides you mention.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

Deserve? What does deserve have to do with this?

Capital punishment does have defensible justifications. There are some people who are simply too dangerous to release and have no chance of rehabilitation - in which case execution may be a far more efficient use of resources than many decades of expensive prison time at taxpayer expense, especially if they need to be kept in isolation.

But that isn't the reason so many people support the death penalty. The main reason seems to be a sadistic desire to see 'evildoers' suffer, covered up under the polite excuse of 'justice.' Wrong has been done, and only by inflicting equal or greater suffering upon the guilty can the demand for vengence be satisfied.

Re:Hangings

[GrumpyOlBastard]

So as long as the police set up a case against someone well enough they deserve to die? It is not acceptable for any innocents to die because of a failed judicial system. I am in no way condoning the killing of prison guards but they at least made a choice to be there. The wrongly convicted have no choice.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

It's not about the reasoning. It's about the personal pleasure drawn by executioner and those supporting the act from suffering of another.

Basically it's a legalized form of extreme violence.

Re:Hangings

[mjr167]

Or you pump their room with the gas while they are asleep and don't tell them about it...

Re:Hangings

[Vermonter]

Hypoxia is the most humane way to kill someone. It is painless, and actually somewhat euphoric before the person simply passes out, never to wake up. We should switch to that if we are going to continue to support death sentences.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

No, war is mass killing. Killing and murder are not necessarily the same, however I have no problem for killing bush for the war in Iraq currently. The war in Afgan was originally justified, the Iraq was was not.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

This is a US-centric site. Welcome to the reality.

Re:Hangings

[nospam007]

"We should just go back to hangings. It works for killing Nazis and war criminals."

Or just say: 'We have a bottle from the other 10%'

If 10% of the stuff has no problems, what are we talking of?

You can't tell me that the US executes 10% of the number of operated people in the US each year.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

Nitrogen aspixiation is an almost ideal way. It's cheap, very reliable (Survival rate: Zero), needs no people of medical skill, and uses only a commonly available mass-produced gas.

The only problem is that many death penalty proponents consider it insufficiently inhumane. It's actually a pleasant way to die: A period of euphoria, then unconsciousness, then death. So it doesn't do much to satisfy the desire for collective vengence.

Re:Hangings

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As best I can tell, PR reasons make it preferable to use a method (no matter how convoluted) that looks 'clean'.

In US lethal injection protocol, that's where the Pavulon comes in. It's a neuromusclular blocking agent (also used in surgical settings, to avoid spontaneous movements or stimulus responses not suppressed by anesthesia from causing issues for the surgical team). Nice thing is, so long as you use enough, it does exactly what it says on the tin: muscle paralysis (nice, relaxed, paralysis, not that scary, hyper-tensed version you get from tetanus, so it won't scare the audience). It isn't an anaesthetic, so the drug has absolutely no affect on pain perception or consciousness; but you aren't going to spoil anybody's day by flinching, flailing, screaming, suffocating on your own vomit, or other impolite behaviors.

In theory, the other two drugs in the 'cocktail' are actually supposed to do the killing; but paralysis alone, if deep enough, will cause the subject to quietly, flaccidly, and fully consciously, suffocate in reasonably short order. So much less barbaric looking than having brain fragments spattered all over the place, even if that is far faster, and the percentage of prison staff who can put a bullet in your head is likely much higher than the number who can find a vein to put the needle in without treating you like a pincushion(it's very difficult to get people with actual medical backgrounds to participate, so Deputy Bubba's Amateur Phlebotomy Show is a distinct possibility...)

Re:Hangings

[ScentCone]

If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty.

Many convicted killers say they'd rather die (sooner, by execution) than live out their lives in prison. So if we're talking about horrible things to do to people, should the jury that sends a 20-something person away for decades or for life have to be the team of people that guards the convict in prison? How else would a juror really show that the murderer deserves it, right? When someone is locked up for life in a place that's almost certain to drive them somewhat (or very) mad, could quite likely get them raped for decades, and which certainly would make any normal person utterly miserable ... are you letting the juror who helps to make that happen off the hook? No? Yes? Can't have it both ways.

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

There's a whole world of difference between killing/butchering a wild animal and the disgusting process that goes on in modern food production factories. If you were to have a good look around a modern abattoir it would probably convince you to never eat processed meat again.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

Which usually comes pretty close to real reasons for supporting the death penalty.

Re:Hangings

[ScentCone]

Sometimes people rob to put food on the table for their kids because they have little option.

You really think that killing someone else for their food is OK? There are always other options.

Re:Hangings

[Jessified]

Don't jeopardize our supply of rope!

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

It seems you start out disagreeing, but come to the same conclusion I do, so I am not sure the purpose of this. The people who are simply too dangerous to release and have no chance of rehabilitation are the ones I say deserve to be put down.

Re:Hangings

[intermodal]

Sorry for the confusion!

Re:Hangings

[locofungus]

If it were done properly - a room that can do a fairly rapid exchange of air with pure N2 - the person in the room wouldn't realized that they couldn't breathe before they were unconscious (and dead)

Hypothetically, room with constant gas exchange (normal air). Prisoner in room. At some point in time unknown to the prisoner you stop supplying air and start supplying pure N2.

Note that the heart will not beat once it's receiving unoxygenated blood so when breathing pure N2 (or He - people have killed themselves trying to get squeeky voices) unconsciousness occurs within a few seconds with the heart stopping very shortly after due to the reverse action of the lungs deoxygenating the blood.

Even resupplying oxygen after this moment will not cause the heart to restart. Only CPR, long enough to supply oxygenated blood to the heart, has any chance at all of revival and even that is extremely unlikely to work.

Actually, the single biggest danger with this would be someone entering the death chamber before the air was safe to breathe again. Humans in a totally anoxic environment are unconscious before they realize there is a problem and they don't get the "three minutes without air" due to the heart stopping.

Rabbits OTOH (and other burrowing mammals) are sensitive to low O2 and a rabbit will go manic when placed into an anoxic environment (and presumably will hold its breath although I don't know that for a fact)

(I'm also extremely anti-death-penalty)

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

There was a BBC program, 'How To Kill A Human Being,' that examined various methods of execution. The presenter concluded that nitrogen was the ideal way. The idea was presented to the director of a pro-death-penalty campaign group, but he rejected it on the grounds that it was 'inhumane to the victim,' because a pleasant death did not satisfy the demands of justice.

Re:Hangings

[GrumpyOlBastard]

If you really want to kill people legally, just join the military. I work on a base and meet many sociopaths, but its okay because they are just killing the 'enemy'.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

The expense is all in legal proceedings. The appeals and re-appeals and such can easily drag on for many years, consuming a lot of expensive lawyer-time.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

who said killing someone for their food is ok, maybe you should reread the statement before you post? While you are at it read the post I was replying to.

Re:Hangings

[X0563511]

You could use a mask (like what they give oxygen to you in the hospital with) to allow you to have a large room for the purpose. This might actually increase safety for the other staff as well, since they wouldn't need to don breathing apparatus if they need to tighten a restraint or such.

I think they have to have a physician (or at least a nurse) available anyway to declare death - I don't think it would be all that off-the-wall to want them to hook up an EKG to monitor cardiac function - in fact I'd be surprised if they don't do that already.

I should point out that I'm against capital punishment. That said, Just because I don't think it should happen doesn't mean I can't think about making it more humane (or however you want to phrase it) if I can't see it not happen.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

Painless, but also upsetting for the relatives. They like a nice clean corpse.

Re:Hangings

[jklovanc]

That is exactly the purpose a jury is supposed to serve. If the community, as represented by a jury of peers deems a punishment unconscionable, they not only have the right but the moral obligation to acquit. If the government wants the people to sign off on its punishments, the government must levy punishments that the community can accept. The jury is supposed to be a check on the legal system.

The issue with that is a jury decision must be unanimous. If one juror disagrees it is a hung jury. It then becomes rule by minority as 1/12 of the jury can vote for not executing the convicted criminal. What would you define as the community? To me 11/12th of the jury would be a very good representation of what the community can accept.

There are many people who agree with the need to kill but can not bring themselves to do it. Think of all the soldiers with PTSD due to seeing so many people die. How many bus and train drivers are permanently scarred because someone stepped in from of their vehicle even though they could do nothing to stop it. How many people take their animals to vets to be "put to sleep"? We are taught not to kill and it is almost impossible for many people to do it not matter how much they agree with the need.

Re:Hangings

[14erCleaner]

I also think that every non-vegetarian should be willing to butcher an animal

Once per lifetime, or anytime a vegetarian requests it?

Back on topic, I had an allergic reaction to sodium thiopental during a surgery as a kid. I'm kind of happy (in a selfish way) that I won't be given it in the future.

IMO, capital punishment should be banned on grounds of practicality. It has large costs (including the anesthetic shortage) and few benefits (arguably it isn't even a deterrence, as it isn't reliably carried out).

Re:Hangings

[Runaway1956]

Heh - I agree. I'm a meat eater, and I have butchered my own meat. Pork, venison, and beef. Yes, it's eye opening. Everyone should have the experience.

Could I pull the trigger on a guy I had condemned? Yeah. Would I enjoy it? Nope - not one bit. But, yes, I could do it.

Funny thing is - fewer people than ever would be condemned to death, if the people condemning had to perform the execution. Few people are willing, even if they are able, to perform the task.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

Nitrogen is very cheap. Just keep venting it in until the pulse monitor stops beeping, and then give them another ten minutes of it to be safe.

Re:Hangings

[Runaway1956]

Do you have any citations, regarding the number of executioners deriving pleasure from the killing? I've never personally met an executioner, but the reading I've done suggests that few if any enjoy the job.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

Because of the euphoria aspect. People have a sense that they like to call justice and treat as a noble ideal, but really covers for a desire to see those who wrong their society made to suffer. They can settle for a painless execution, but a pleasant one? That just feels wrong.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

We should just go back to hangings. It works for killing Nazis and war criminals.

Firing squads are effective too.

For child killers, burning works for me.

I see your point, but have one question: How should we kill the wrongly convicted?

Re:Hangings

[Chris Mattern]

Besides, isn't it ultimately the Judge who determines the sentence, not the jury?

Under U.S. law, while the final sentencing is done by the judge, the jury must not only find the defendant guilty but also specifically recommend the death penalty for the judge to be able to impose it. This is the only case in which the jury is involved in setting a sentence.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

Did you reply to the wrong post?

Re:Hangings

[ultranova]

In a purely rational sense, as distasteful or immoral as some find it, there is an important place for execution in the criminal justice system.

Rationality means taking the option that has the highest expected utility. Justice system doing something distasteful or immoral has negative utility, since it serves to undermine respect for law, thus making enforcement impossible (see copyright wars for an example). Saving money has positive utility, however it is unlikely to exceed the negative utility of law coming into disrespect. Therefore, it is likely irrational for the justice system to choose saving money through immorality (also known as corruption) over staying respectable.

tl;dr Learn what rationality means before speaking about it.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

My mistake, sorry

Re:Hangings

[pdabbadabba]

Though the practice is not uniform, many (most?) U.S. states require that, if a death sentence is to be imposed, that it be imposed by a jury. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-supreme-court-ring-v-arizona But I agree that this is mostly irrelevant to your point.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to know that I'm free to murder a completely innocent person in a premeditated fashion as long as it saves more lives in the long run.

Re:Hangings

[Khyber]

" If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty."

Looks like you know nothing about the justice system. The jury only makes findings of innocence or guilt. The judge does the condemnation by issuing the sentence.

Re:Hangings

[10101001 10101001]

If what you propose were the case it may sway someone to vote not guilty even when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty simply because they don't want to execute the sentence. I think that would be a miscarriage of justice.

So, it's a miscarriage of justice to let a guilty man go free because the punishment that would be imposed is unjust? Really? And let's not forget that in most States the sentence of death is kept separate from the question of guilt probably for the above reason--that is, the jury votes separately on whether to impose the death penalty and a non-unanimous vote after a guilty verdict results in a non-lethal sentence.

The jury's disposition to the punishment is irrelevant when determining guilt unless they're doing jury nullification, then they're just not following the law but for a different reason.

It'd seem to be for the same reason: justice and the law are not necessarily equivalent and justice is what the jury's job is to seek (so is it the Prosecutor's job, but then they also have a clear motive outside that scope).

Besides, isn't it ultimately the Judge who determines the sentence, not the jury? Maybe it varies on the type of case and such but my point is the same.

As stated above, it depends. And in the specific case, your point doesn't stand precisely because the jury is the one declaring sentence.

I don't see any logical reasoning as to why someone who is determining guilt should have to be the one who executes the sentence. It's almost as if you're trying to punish the judge / jury for making a decision of guilty. It wouldn't have any positive impact that I can see and only negative ones.

It's a question of character. If you believe someone is worthy of death, you should be willing to care through the act to cause their death and not merely through a third party. No, this doesn't mean *every* execution would need to be done this way, but it's like the point stated about butchering animals. We as a society don't do it commonly because it's more efficient to have livestock mass-butchered than to leave it to every home to do--in the past, it was common for most people to do it because most people farmed and grew their own livestock. But an outright unwillingness to butcher an animal ever (for those who eat meat) indicates a willful divorce from the reality of the situation. For animals, you might say it's not such a big deal. But, how is it not a miscarriage of justice when juries are divorced from reality when sentencing a person to death?

Re:Hangings

[X0563511]

True, but helium is expensive and nonrenewable. Probably best to save that for the hospital and labs ;)

It's annoying enough to watch people waste it on irresponsible bullshit like balloons.

Re:Hangings

[ottothecow]

Doesn't that mean that EU chemical suppliers will no longer be allowed to sell us Nitrogen?

It seems kind of silly to refuse to sell something that could be used for capital punishment or torture. Especially when that thing is already restricted to medical professionals. Any drug used by anesthesiologists could probably be used as part an execution...as well as plenty of drugs that are not used by anesthesiologists but would have similar effects in high doses (if they are not going to wake up, you don't much care about side effects or potential wake-up complications). I understand that the EU is trying to take a political stance here (not that different from google refusing to to do certain things in china based on government policies), but this is just dumb.

What would they do if the US just decided to switch to a bottle of vodka and a bottle of aspirin, administered by feeding tube?

Re:Hangings

[poity]

I'm pretty sure juries only decide guilt or non-guilt. Punishments are decided by legislators who write the laws and the governors who enact them. Sentencing is determined by the judge. If anything, the legislators and governor should pull the trigger. Even the entire voting public is collectively more culpable than the jury.

Re:Hangings

[cellocgw]

Butchering is gross. I wouldn't mind snapping its neck and hading it off to someone else to butcher, though.
Being grossed out by something doesn't constitute a moral imperative. I'm pretty grossed out by a woman's period but I still have sex with them.

There are soooo many ways that could go,all of them pretty bad. Which is grosser: sex with a menstruating woman or sex with a butchered carcass?
Almost makes one wish for a calmer, cleaner goatse.

Re:Hangings

[TheLink]

Some would lose heads but I was hoping they could just put on a brave face.

Re:Hangings

[X0563511]

The idea of shipping nitrogen across the Atlantic is hilarious to me. You could manufacture it on site!

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with this because the role of a jury is to determine guilt. If what you propose were the case it may sway someone to vote not guilty even when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty simply because they don't want to execute the sentence.

In the US at least, you can know someone is guilty but still say "non-guilty" as a jury member if you disagree with the law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

The US injustice system is draconian enough. We are a "free country" that imprisons more people than than any other country in the world. We still use the death penalty despite the lack of any evidence that it makes our country safer.

For your consideration: According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 17% of murders are committed by someone with a prior murder conviction or arrest.
Executing all comvicted murderers would drop the murder rate in the US by at least 17%.

I don't know about you, but a 17% drop in the murder rate sounds like 'safer' to me.

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

That doesn't change the fact that if you put more people on death-row that it would cost the tax-payers more.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment.

Life imprisonment gives time for the prison chaplain to help the prisoner find Jesus and thus go to heaven. Capital punishment makes it more likely the person will die a sinner and thus go to hell.

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

Fair enough, different people will weigh these alternatives and come up with different answers. For what it's worth, I think the first argument is in itself strong enough to make the case against the death penalty.

Re:Hangings

[ewieling]

Lifetime imprisonment is the more humane option in most cases [...]

I've never understood statements like the one above. How exactly is locking someone up for 60+ years going to cause less misery than dying? Thinking dying is the worst which can happen shows a lack of imagination.

Re:Hangings

[SJHillman]

I was talking about the execution itself, not the proceedings. Even after all of that is exhausted, we spend a ton of money with just the killing part.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Life imprisonment is harsher on anyone who who has to come into contact with lifers. A lifer has no incentive to behave in a reasonable way. If someone says the wrong word a lifer may kill them. The lifer is already subject to the harshest penalty possible. What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?

There is always worse. That's what long stays in solitary confinement is for. It is practically a form of torture when utilized for lengthy periods of time.

Re:Hangings

[demonlapin]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Simple, cheap, effective.

Re:Hangings

[compro01]

actually somewhat euphoric

Death penalty advocates would never stand for that.

Re:Hangings

[QuasiEvil]

I agree with your comment about pigs. It's really too bad they're so tasty, because they really are damn smart creatures.

That said, butchered many, many things over the years. Grew up on a farm. Doesn't bother me a bit that I'm still a carnivore.

As far as the death penalty, if we want to make it a deterrant, then it needs to be public. I'm all for public hangings. I think if the public wasn't so disconnected from the actual punishment, it a) would act as a deterrant, and b) would provide a catalyst for a discussion about our use of the death penalty. Then again I have a rather interesting view of what punishments are appropriate for what crimes. I'd like to add arson to the list of crimes you can be put to death for (particularly arson against homes, historic structures or artifacts), and I'd like to see prisons turned into work camps rather than just crappy apartments. They have a debt to society for their crimes - I say they should be put to work doing anything they can to provide services back to the general public.

Re:Hangings

[jedidiah]

> life sentence means something between 10 and 30 years,

There is nothing "civilized" about this kind of doublespeak.

Re:Hangings

[Saethan]

One issue I've always had with this... anybody familiar with firing a weapon would notice the significant difference in recoil of a real bullet vs a blank.

Re:Hangings

[JigJag]

reminds me of Ed Stark (Game of Thrones) who holds the sword that decapitated the man he condemned to death.

Re:Hangings

[mcgrew]

Human society needs some method of permanently removing those from society who are clearly a threat to other members of that society

Bullshit. 18 US states have no death penalty, Europe and most of the civilized world have no death penalty, and there's a sure way of keeping murderers off the streets -- it's called life in prison.

Everybody dies. You, me everybody, we're all under a death penalty. Live a decent, honest, peaceful life and you're going to die horribly, from accident or disease, unless you're lucky enough to die in your sleep. And you never know when it's going to happen. The condemned prisoner knows the exact time he'll die, and when he dies he's humanely put to death like a beloved pet being euthanized.

You bleeding heart conservatives make me sick. Let a murderer die a horrible death like you and I will, only after being in a cage for decades. Because death is not a penalty, it's an inevitability.

Re:Hangings

[ShanghaiBill]

The purpose of having several shooters is that you only supply live ammunition to a couple of them, the rest are firing blanks, so that the men firing the gun don't know if they are firing the killing shot.

Yes they do. When you fire a blank, there is no recoil.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that it costs more to the tax payers to kill prisoners than to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their life?

A firing squad costs less than $5. Lethal injection is about $100 per execution, or $800 because the gentler, more painless drugs are unavailable. Electric chair is $75 of electricity.

Life in a High Security prison (where anyone committing a capital crime would go) costs around $200,000 a year. Most life convicts live more than 25 years (the average appeal length of capital punishment), so call it around $5 million.

One of these sets of numbers is smaller than the other. Determing which is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Hangings

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In that, er, vein, the lethal injection protocol typically used on humans is illegal to use for veterinary euthanasia in most of the US(though the HSUS also condemns, albeit without legal force, nitrogen flushing. I'm not sure if that reflects some unacceptably common operator error in the procedure, or if some animals don't react as humans do.)

Re:Hangings

[bluefoxlucid]

Hey, solution: Execute those DAs.

Re:Hangings

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Willing? Sure... Capable? Probably not.

I think the only thing I would have trouble with would be lobster. They scream if you do it wrong.

Years ago I read that some restaurants serve lobsters live. The lobsters die by vivasectionn as the patrons cut them apart and eat the pieces.

Re:Hangings

[Gavagai80]

It's worth noting that the numbers would come out differently in Texas, though. Here in California the death penalty process takes 20 years and lots of appeals. A quicker and less just system is a lot cheaper.

Re:Hangings

[JesseMcDonald]

No, war is mass killing. Killing and murder are not necessarily the same...

You're right, they're not the same. Murder is killing someone who hasn't tried to kill you, or someone you can personally claim to represent (with their knowledge and consent). In other words, most of the killing that happens in war is still murder on a mass scale, with perhaps a few rare cases of self-defense sprinkled in. That's particularly true when you travel half way around the world to kill someone who didn't pose any threat to you until you sought them out.

Re:Hangings

[bluefoxlucid]

Punishment is not something you can eventually walk away from. Two months in jail is going to cause major social and financial impacts; five years could be life destroying; twenty years in jail is an execution, just a more painful one that keeps around the animate shell of a former human being. A good, solid beating creates psychological damage that will never go away--the entire point is so that you won't do that shit ever again because you don't want another beating.

I like capital punishment for severe crimes with high confidence in conviction--if we all saw you walk into a shopping mall with a shotgun and pump 38 shells into the crowd, and we caught you trying to get out the door... you did it, and you're going to die. For petty crimes, I prefer corporal punishment; weeks and months of a man's life have far-reaching and uncontrollable implications, potentially affecting their employment, social life, and so on to unpredictable degrees.

Re:Hangings

[3.5 stripes]

Vegetarians have been around as a movement for over 200 years..

Re:Hangings

[gnasher719]

So, it's a miscarriage of justice to let a guilty man go free because the punishment that would be imposed is unjust? Really? And let's not forget that in most States the sentence of death is kept separate from the question of guilt probably for the above reason--that is, the jury votes separately on whether to impose the death penalty and a non-unanimous vote after a guilty verdict results in a non-lethal sentence.

About the same time as the Simpson murder case, someone killed I think 10 or 11 people on the subway. He went to court, and in most cases he was charged with first degree murder, second degree murder and man slaughter. The jury then had to decide which of the three charges he was guilty of. (He also was proud of getting about twenty "not guilty" verdicts).

It was then explained on TV that sometimes when it was clear that there was a murder, but not clear whether a case was 1st or 2nd degree murder, the prosecutor sometimes only charged the defendant with 1st degree murder to force the jury to the stronger conviction. And sometimes that actually backfired - if the jury is 100% sure that someone committed second degree murder, but not first degree, and the prosecutor only charges 1st degree murder, then the defendant should go free.

Re:Hangings

[Gavagai80]

Ironically, probably the best argument for the death penalty is the extra appeals available when you're on death row. An innocent person has a much better chance of being exonerated from death row than from a life sentence. If I'm innocent, I'd rather be sentenced to death so that my case gets a lot more scrutiny instead of having my case file lost in a closet for the rest of my life.

Re:Hangings

[jedidiah]

There's a lot of history between us and Plato. Their fads don't necessarily have any relationship to our fads.

The idea of vegetarianism as some sort of moral crusade probably at the very least requires a society rich enough to support such a vanity. For everyone else, it's eat what you can get your hands on as you don't have the luxury of being picky.

Re:Hangings

[Penguinisto]

What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?

Nope, but they can impose even harsher penalties. Two that come to mind?

* removal of privileges (bed linens, commissary privileges, rec yard, etc)
* restricted solitary confinement (23 hours a day alone in a cell, one hour to exercise, shower, whatever in an isolated small confinement area)
* loss of communication rights except to legal counsel (no more letters to/from home, etc).

In some states, it could also mean being sent to hard labor for up to 16 hours each day, every day until you behave (e.g. Arkansas, which has prison farms).

Even a 'lifer' has things that he fears.

Re:Hangings

[bluefoxlucid]

Where does this "civilized" assumption come from?

Join the Civilized world of Ancient Greece and include children and the neighbors in your sexual activities!

Re:Hangings

[bluefoxlucid]

Long enough to make their life not worth living anymore anyway.

Re:Hangings

[Xaedalus]

This. There is a significant number of people in our civilization who value vengeance so much that they're willing to expend significant political effort to keep the death penalty in place. The death penalty isn't to deter criminals, although that is the politically correct reason given. It's to assuage the lust for vengeance on the part of those who identify with the victims and believe in an "eye for an eye". If we didn't have the death penalty, we'd have vigilante squads soon enough, roaming around to deal out punishments they feel are appropriate. This group usually tends towards an apocalyptic, Calvinist mindset anyway.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

We don't know that. If execution became semi-routine the long appeals process associated with the small number of death penalties might dry up. The cost of execution is high because USA legal costs are so high.

Re:Hangings

[Penguinisto]

I dunno - what's worse? Getting executed (if you are indeed guilty), or sending the rest of your life stuffed into a hole with only your personal demons for company?

Personally, I oppose executions on moral grounds, but I can see the arguments on both sides...

Re:Hangings

[GrumpySteen]

Don't forget nutraloaf

Re:Hangings

[Sarten-X]

That's partly what taxes are for, yes.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

The trend is moving in that direction due to the drop off in crime: http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/01/1-6-12-1.png . Mainly though the "civilized world" is just a euphemism for Europe. China is certainly civilized. Europe and the USA doesn't agree with Europe about lots of internal policy.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

Bush had congressional approval and public approval for starting the war in Iraq. We may not like his actions but they were not a secret conspiracy. The fault lies with the American people not just Bush. Continuing the war after 2005 you might have a much better case.

Re:Hangings

[ericloewe]

Easy, we refuse to export products that are known to be used in executions - it doesn't matter if we sold the one used for executions in the first place. If there's a chance it'll be used for executions, it goes nowhere.

Re:Hangings

[clay_shooter]

I'm OK with that. I also think that people who eat meat or wear leather and look down on hunters are ... CARRIER LOST.....

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

Are you aware that it costs more to the tax payers to kill prisoners than to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their life?

Clearly I wasn't aware of that, no. I'd be interested to learn more, have any references? I suspect thaylin has a point in that it, supposing you are correct, might be due to the typically long time between verdict and execution.

Computing the effective cost to society seems hard though, come to think of it. Particularly for he US system which, much more than most, seems aimed at extracting revenue off the prison population. Traditionally it is a source of cheap labor. And since privatization there are the big corporations that are contracted to run incarceration facilities.

The theory is that this lowers the cost per prisoner per day, due to the magic of the free market. In practice, well you'd have to compare to other nations who haven't privatized justice. But this unit cost is multiplied by the number of inmates, and the numbers in the US are staggering. Something like a quarter of the world's prisoners are in US jails.

Personally I think it might not be entirely coincidental that the US is pretty much unique in these two respects, that it has outsourced punishment to private sector and it has a vastly larger proportion of its people in jail than pretty much any nation. There is a major lobby which stands to gain much more from a long term sentence than a quick death, that much is hardly controversial.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

Not all the public's approval.

Re:Hangings

[maxwells_deamon]

No the court recently declared that unless waved by the defendant, a jury must be involved in sentences of capital punishment. That does not mean that the judge/prosecution can not prevent the death penalty from being considered.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

When you join an army you represent the group with their knowledge and consent. If a group attacks us than that group has claimed that our life is not worth theirs and we have the right and moral obligation to defend ourselves in war agains that group. Those in the group that disagree with the group have the right leave the group if they wish, but if they stay and fight than it is killing, not murder.

Re:Hangings

[Whorhay]

I wonder how much of that legal cost would actually go away if we outlawed the death penalty. I mean those inmates would move from their special cells to something more like the general population, but would that actually eliminate the cost of their appeals? Regardless I think I'd still support eliminating the death penalty for Justice sake.

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment.

Life imprisonment gives time for the prison chaplain to help the prisoner find Jesus and thus go to heaven. Capital punishment makes it more likely the person will die a sinner and thus go to hell.

Well done, I can't tell if you are arguing in favour or against capital punishment :-)

Re:Hangings

[OneAhead]

Since when does "robbing" imply "killing"? I know a few people who got robbed, and none of them sustained any physical harm in the process.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

So what? He had well over majority approval. Well over majority approval means the congress acted in the public interest as defined by the public.

Re:Hangings

[Joce640k]

You could use remote-control electronic triggers to fire the guns. The guns fire after the last person presses his button (use an Arduino for this...)

That way you could make sure the guns were properly aimed, too.

Re:Hangings

[Joce640k]

Or choose between Hemlock and lifetime solitary confinement.

Re:Hangings

[jklovanc]

I looked up a few countries; France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland. They all have provisions for sentencing convicted murders to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Some allow parole while some do not. According to this 11 countries out of 108 limit life sentences to 30 years or less. Other determinate sentences range as high as 75 years which is effectively life.

long enough to count as severe punishment that completely changes person life

Do you really think that many people who have been in a maximum security prison for 30 years can be released and become responsible citizens? It may happen in a few cases but for most people they will be back in prison very quickly; usually after killing someone else.

Re:Hangings

[schwit1]

May I use a bazooka?

Overkill is underrated.

Re:Hangings

[AmiMoJo]

They usually have three or five buttons to trigger the execution by electrocution/gas/injection, and an equal number of people to push them simultaneously. One or all but one button is non-functional.

Re:Hangings

[UnderCoverPenguin]

I think a more painless is to use high explosives around the target's head.

Too messy. And a lot of preperation of the subject (though less painful than being jabbed with a needle).

Just as messy, but much less preperation for the subject (just strap the subject in to the chair and strap head in to the headrest): Charge a large enough capacitor to a few million Volts, then discharge it through the subject's head. The water content of the subject's brain cells will vaporize within a few milliseconds.

Re:Hangings

[Joce640k]

There's special bullets which don't make a mess...

Re:Hangings

[theedgeofoblivious]

Maybe we shouldn't be sentencing so many people to thirty years?

Re:Hangings

[jklovanc]

All of which can and have been taken to court a "cruel and inhuman punishment". There are also a significant portion of lifers who just don't care/

Re:Hangings

[MightyYar]

It's a good thing Europe never has any wars, or they'd sound almost hilariously hypocritical for condemning the killing of another human being with some kind of legal justification.

Re:Hangings

[AmiMoJo]

It's not PR reasons.

Firing squads don't work. Trained shooters can tell when they are firing a blank or a real bullet because the kick-back is different.

Guillotines, aside from being messy (which someone has to clean up), disfigure the body. Plus, they are associated with France and Americans hate everything French.

If it were simply a PR issue or distaste on the part of the viewers electrocution would have been banned as well. Hanging is pretty nasty too, when the person's neck snaps both visibly and audibly.

Re:Hangings

[Valdrax]

I lifer is a danger to every guard and inmate they come into contact with. The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.

And I of course believe that you have statistics to back this up. Surely the lack of a good link was merely an oversight and not evidence that you were talking completely out of your rear end.

If you don't mind, would you correct this oversight for all the non-believers?

Re:Hangings

[gweihir]

Punishment is _defined_ as something you can walk away from. If you cannot walk away from it it is revenge, not punishment. Punishment has a pedagogic aspect, revenge does not.

Re:Hangings

[Hatta]

Incorrect. Judges say they determine the law and undisputed facts, but nowhere is that power exclusively granted to them. Judges go outside of the law when they issue jury instructions that prohibit juries from judging the law. Judges can and do lie about what juries are supposed to do, in order to get an acceptable verdict. The jury has to act as a check on this kind of judicial abuse.

Re:Hangings

[gweihir]

Well, yes. And since I have read The Authoritarians I also understand why those most religious have the worst moral standards, the lowest empathy and are so often in favor of cruelty, even if their religion forbids it expressively.

Re:Hangings

[gl4ss]

For the guilty it is too easy and for the innocent too cruel. With the track record that USA has in putting innocent people into the death row the whole system should be at least in pause mode.

That being said, I think the best way would be sudden crushing of the head - in 1ms or so to 1mm thickness. Cheap, effective and fast.

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

To my mind, if there were more executions, there'd be more mistakes and probably even more appeals allowed. However, in lieu of more data, the fact is that it costs more to incarcerate for life.

Re:Hangings

[hazem]

The problem with that is you'll end up in a situation where people unwilling to participate in the actual killing of someone will get excluded from the juries. Worse, you may end up with juries with people actually looking forward to getting to pull the trigger and get that head shot. Worse yet, because of this skew in jury composition, you'll probably get more convictions, even when the defendant didn't commit the crime.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

False, he has between 40 and 60 percent depending on which poll you looked at, therefore he had questionable support. Stop trying to rewrite history.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

Yes, while he did not state his source for the information that it costs more to execute, the studies I have seen that support that notion put all the cost on the appeals: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/#.UmqwU1FDuP8 http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

I'd heard that the costs of execution were higher, but can't remember where from, so after a quick google, this seems to be semi-reputable: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ .

The problem with the death penalty is allowing for the mistakes that people always make (police, judges, jury, lawyers, dna labs etc).

Re:Hangings

[MiniMike]

If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty.

It takes the capability to use reason and logic to determine if you have enough evidence to be convinced someone violated a law, not courage. Why should the jury be dragged further into it, and not the prosecutor or the judge? There are plenty of other better methods to chose the executioner. How about:

-Someone from the victims family. Probably wouldn't be hard to find one willing to do it, if not eager. Not a good option if the condemned and the victim are related. Would also introduce a revenge factor, for pro or con.

-The condemned persons parents. This would increase the deterrent factor. Use another authority figure from their lives if the parents aren't available.

-Hold a lottery, proceeds to the victims family. For high profile cases or particularly nasty crimes you could probably sell a lot of tickets.

Now there are four examples of methods to choose the executioner that are worse than the system we have now. Using the jury for the job still seems the poorest choice.

Re:Hangings

[Valdrax]

One of these sets of numbers is smaller than the other. Determing which is left as an exercise for the reader.

One of these sets of numbers is missing a whole host of related costs: i.e. the lengthy appeals process that almost all prisoners subject to the death penalty attempt, staff costs, amortized costs of fixed capital like the electric chair itself.

This is why the last time that someone was killed by firing squad in the US, the execution alone cost $165,000 -- well over the mere $5 you quote. Utah estimates that it costs them $1.6 million more to execute a prisoner than to hold them for life without parole.

Not only do you drastically underestimate the cost of the death penalty, but you also drastically overestimate the cost of life without parole (LWOP). California spends an average of $47,000 per prisoner/year. Texas is even cheaper at about $17,000 per prisoner. Neither is anywhere near $200,000.

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

The cost is most likely due to the lengthy appeals process. Here's a link to calculated costs http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/

Re:Hangings

[JesseMcDonald]

When you join an army you represent the group with their knowledge and consent. If a group attacks us than that group has claimed that our life is not worth theirs and we have the right and moral obligation to defend ourselves in war agains that group.

If someone is foolish enough to seek out and attack the army, given that the army has a right to be there and didn't initiate the fight, I have no problem with the army, as a group, mounting a response in kind against those specific individuals who participated in the attack (with supporting evidence, the same as if this were a court of law). Anyone actively shielding them can be considered complicit in their crime. Beyond that, use of lethal force in retaliation against other members of their "group" who were not complicit in the attack is murder. They have no obligation to leave the group, so long as they stay out of the fight. If you attack them without just cause they retain the right to defend themselves.

Re:Hangings

[bitt3n]

(and yes, I also think that every non-vegetarian should be willing to butcher an animal)

But what if there are extenuating circumstances? Like let's say the animal came from a broken home.

Re:Hangings

[UnderCoverPenguin]

An anesthesiologist points out that these procedures need to be foolproof enough for guards with nothing more than a high school education to do. If someone is dosed with anesthetic, pretty much any way of killing them is going to probably be painless, and meets at least some people's definition of humane. And the poison is presumably well tested and super effective.

The TFA also states that the anesthetic is part of the problem. The implication being, ultimately, that if the US continues to use any anesthetic to put subjects to death, the supply of all of these advanced anesthetics could be cut off.

Even in the face of that possibility, I don't see the US putting an end to the death sentence any time in the next 50 years or os. Therefore, an alternative is needed.

As for simplicity, the most basic heart monitor (3 connections: one to each wrist and one to either ankle - could make the elctrodes part of the straps) is super easy to use and more than good enough to make sure the subject is dead. Then keep the nitrogen flowing and the room closed for another 5 or 10 min after "flat line".

As for the subject ppossibly panicing, don't tell him when you open the nitorgen valve. Just let him keep talking. Maybe even ask him questions to keep him talking.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

The point for length of punishment is to completely disconnect the person from their previous life and then rehabilitate them by rebuilding it. Not making their life not worth living.

It's the difference between justice systems and their goals. US justice system is about revenge, which is a common theme for countries that had their justice system built based on frontier, low resource justice.
Most of the EU justice system is built on rehabilitation, which is more common in countries with long histories and more resources to spend on individuals.

Re:Hangings

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Having had to euthanise some of my pets, I can tell you that vets generally use an overdose of an anesthetic. Larger animals require more and take longer to die, but will die when given enough. The use of a poison is generally to stop the heart sooner than would otherwise happen. In that case, the subject then dies of oxygen deprivation - aka, suffocation.

Re:Hangings

[matfud]

Juries do not decide the sentence. They decide guilt.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

In most cases, these people do not serve the sentence in full, but are in fact allowed out on parole in some form.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

I'm not sure. I've read the bible, and the god as old testament describes it is not really someone I could in any way shape or form relate to Jesus' teachings for example.

It's all about which part of the bible you focus on as the "right one". Same goes for most other major religions such as islam, buddhism, hinduism and so on.

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

It's a good thing Europe never has any wars, or they'd sound almost hilariously hypocritical for condemning the killing of another human being with some kind of legal justification.

Not to trivialise casualties of war, in Europe or anywhere else, but are you saying that because I live on a continent which has suffered some seriously mad regimes and bloody wars as a result, I am therefore disqualified from commenting on the American reluctance to abolish capital punishment?

Okay. It seems to me that you can't actually compare the deaths of war, whether soldiers or civilians, to deaths of convicts in the course of "justice".

Re:Hangings

[gl4ss]

meth? at least that you produce domestically.

Re:Hangings

[davester666]

Something crazy will always happen eventually. Guns will misfire, the ammo will be faulty, the person will hang or fall on the gun, the subject will turnduck/jump.

It happens with every type of execution, just like everything else in life. Nothing is 100% repeatable, 100% of the time. Except maybe failure.

Re:Hangings

[jklovanc]

"Most" is not "all". There are still provisions to hold convinced criminal until they die so you assertion is factually false.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

I think there would be more mistakes obviously and less appeals. It would just be like most of our justice system we try to do a pretty good job and then live with what happened.

Re: Hangings

[iamhassi]

How can a "civilized" country justify releasing a mass murderer after only 20 years? And american prisons are pretty lax, some could call prison fun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSqIxBlleOU&sns=em

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

You are correct, but how many taliban members being killed in afgan are staying out of the fight, and how many are actively initiating the fight with IEDs and suicide bombs or even full on attacks and ambushed? I think you will find a relatively small number of murders compared to killings.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

May 2003 Gallop 79%

Here is a timeline which shows how high it was and how high it stayed: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uayr5i28vkcki2wjl04pxa.gif

Re:Hangings

[Bearhouse]

I think it would be best to have a firing squad composed of the jury that found someone guilty and imposed the death penalty. If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty.

(and yes, I also think that every non-vegetarian should be willing to butcher an animal)

There's a flaw in your argument.
I've shot and prepared animals for food for my family, never for sport.
It's not pleasant, but if you're hungry, you get through it.

I'd be prepared to shoot someone attacking me or my family with deadly intent, or in a wider sense my (imperfect) democratic country.

But this is emphatically not what the situation that jurors are in.
We've thankfully replaced lynch mobs with due process.
Your suggestion would end up with juries being packed with people wanting to legally kill.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

There is also a social cost that is not calculable to allowing them to live, possibly escape and kill again, or just kill again in prison.

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

No, cause very few times will someone who had food robbed form them die. Typically the people being robbed has more than enough to feed them. No where in the argument was it stated that the robber killed the person he robbed. Most robbers dont kill the victim unless he resists.

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

Thanks for the link, I do consider Amnesty reputable. I just mentioned the cost aspect in passing, as a downside of abolishing. Which should be of no consequence because it is trumped, in my estimation, by the mere possibility of getting it wrong in even a tiny fraction of death sentences. So we agree, I suppose, and have now apparently established that the cost aspect is actually another upside/ of abolishing capital punishment. Result.

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

In most civilized countries, life sentence means something between 10 and 30 years, long enough to count as severe punishment that completely changes person life without the downsides you mention.

You're quibbling over definitions. When people say that they should be locking up murderers for life, they mean locking them up for life. If they wanted to lock them up for 10 years, they'd suggest doing that, and then people wouldn't be arguing that such a prisoner has nothing further to lose.

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

Are you aware that it costs more to the tax payers to kill prisoners than to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their life?

That seems like a bogus argument to me. There is no reason that it has to cost more - it just happens to. Change the rules and it will cost less.

I can entirely see the argument in changing the nature of our justice system. I don't really see self-imposed costs like endless appeals as being anything but a distraction.

Besides, I'm all for spending $1M rehabilitating a criminal who was caught doing $10k in damages.

Re:Hangings

[CitizenCain]

In the first place, do you actually think that people selected to be on a firing squad haven't used the gun and ammo type they'll be using? That seems pretty haphazard and ill-thought out, even for government work. (And for the record, the selectees are typically current or former military or law-enforcement.)

In the second place, that's really not true anyway. I'd assert that anyone with a decent amount of experience firing guns would be able to accurately assess whether he fired a blank or a live round, even on an unknown gun/caliber combination, especially with rifles - they generally have more recoil than handguns. I might have trouble telling if I fired a blank from a .22 handgun, but I don't have that problem with an M-16/AR-15 that uses .223 ammo. Like I said above, given that executioners typically come from law enforcement or the military, it seems exceedingly unlikely to me that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Re:Hangings

[Zouden]

[Citation needed]

That doesn't match any descriptions of hypoxia.

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it is what the EU is pushing on its members. In addition to being anti-death penalty, they're also anti-life. The International Criminal Court agrees, where even genocide (think Rwanda, up to a million murders) gets you only 25 years. That's about 2.2 hours of jailtime per murder.

Of course, one of the strongest reasons that the death penalty is so unpopular in Europe is the real ability to sentence to life terms. There's a very large number of people who believe that murderers simply do not belong in society, but most of those people do not believe that goal should be achieved by more killing.

Re:Hangings

[Mike Van Pelt]

Citation needed

Is there any actual case of anyone suggesting nitrogen asphyxiation should not be used as a method of execution because it's "too pleasant"? At all? Ever? Anywhere?

Bonus points if it's someone actually in government at any level, as opposed to finding someone in some trailer out in the sticks somewhere.

I think the actual objection that will come up is from people who are misinformed on the subject, and think it'd be a cruel method, that the criminal would feel suffocated. An interesting angle on nitrogen asphyxiation is that it's actually possible to let the dubious experience it, up to the point of unconsciousness, without a great deal of risk, as long as there's careful medical supervision. Dr. Jonathan Miller demonstrated this on himself in his TV show "The Body In Question" back in the 1970s.

No, I think the real objection will be from those who are adamantly opposed to capital punishment in any form at any time for any reason.

I guess if we went with it, Europe would ban export of nitrogen gas to the U.S.

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

Are you suggesting that we should simply accept throwing people in prison for life and not granting them as many appeals as are afforded to those sentenced to death?

Throwing an innocent person in prison is a travesty of justice - of course they should be given as much opportunity to appeal as those sentenced to death. That being the case, there should be no cost difference.

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

I wasn't really making an argument (although I'm British and don't agree with having a death penalty as part of a justice system), I was pointing out a counter-intuitive fact.

You're right that changing the rules would change the cost, but as I see it, the cheapest way to perform capital punishment would be to allow the police to execute suspects/prisoners. I'm sure there would still be a lot of paperwork, but you'd skip the cost of all those courts and lawyers.

Re:Hangings

[MightyYar]

I am therefore disqualified from commenting on the American reluctance to abolish capital punishment?

No, I'm pointing out that European countries _continue_ to participate in war. I'd love to hear why a convicted murderer deserves to live, but a war can be just despite inevitable innocent civilian casualties. Oh, no, the justice system might have made a mistake! The wrong man might be executed! It's a good point, but saying such a thing while dripping with moral superiority while also supporting the killing of people without a trial is kind of funny. At least, funny in a dark humor kind of way.

I'd say that Americans should be very careful about who they decide to execute, but I'd also put this all in perspective. Cutting off the supply of medicine is probably worse than the remote possibility that a innocent man or two has been executed unjustly. Where is the cutoff in medicine due to drone attacks? The whole issue is absurd.

Re:Hangings

[JeffAtl]

Juries do not decide the sentence. They decide guilt.

Sure they do. If you want a recent example, check out the Jodi Arias trial. Her jury was tasked with deciding if she should get the death penalty - they deadlocked with 8 of the 12 in favor of giving her the death penalty.

Re:Hangings

[balbus000]

We should have the firing squad made up entirely of politicians. Except they should stand in a full circle around the convicted criminal.

Re:Hangings

[Valdrax]

There is also a social cost that is not calculable to allowing them to live, possibly escape and kill again, or just kill again in prison.

Which must also be balanced against the social cost of killing innocent people who were wrongfully convicted.

It's also worth noting that the homicide rate in prison is much lower than in the general populace. The prison murder rate is about 3 in 100,000 per year, and the general population is at about 4.7 in 100,000 per year. You are 20X safer from murder in prison than you are in Flint, Michigan (64.9 per 100,000).

(Numbers in the article from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.)

Re:Hangings

[thaylin]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

This link gives more details on the support. The support that favored it at that time, the majority only favored it with UN approval, which we did not get. If no UN approval the support drops below 50%, meaning that the majority of Americans did not support invasion at that time.

Re:Hangings

[SEE]

Wait, you want to abolish the police?

Re:Hangings

[zidium]

Wow! What idiot came up with that!? At least give 1/2 of them bullets!

Re:Hangings

[FatLittleMonkey]

Most firing squads are just regular soldiers or guards called up. They aren't paid executioners. In the case of soldiers, they might be firing upon a fellow soldier, wearing the same uniform, who just two or three days before was sharing the same trench.

Re:Hangings

[zidium]

Yah! Let's garnish their wages to pay, at least in part, for his/her imprisonment!

Re:Hangings

[zidium]

I just eat Spam instead! Everyone knows it's not really meat!

Re:Hangings

[mdielmann]

So if you sentence the guy to thirty years, should the jury have to house, feed and guard him?

If they pay taxes, they do.

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

Honestly, if it were up to me I'd significantly reform the entire system. I'd rather focus on making criminals into productive members of society, not in punishing them. Capital punishment represents the ultimate failure to rehabilitate, as does life in prison.

For me the answer to "how long a sentence is appropriate?" is "how long does it take?" I probably wouldn't let anybody out until they have a job and have procured a place to live, and have demonstrated their ability to lead a normal life for some period of time. At least not for serious crimes. For less serious crimes I'd probably have a more probation-like system.

Regarding judging guilt though - convicting the innocent is the ultimate miscarriage of justice, and I'm all for anything that helps prevent this regardless of the nature of the crime or proposed punishment. I wouldn't spend money only on those convicted of capital crimes here.

Re:Hangings

[mdielmann]

There was a BBC program, 'How To Kill A Human Being,' that examined various methods of execution. The presenter concluded that nitrogen was the ideal way. The idea was presented to the director of a pro-death-penalty campaign group, but he rejected it on the grounds that it was 'inhumane to the victim,' because a pleasant death did not satisfy the demands of justice.

And this is when you realize that the vast majority of people, even well-educated people, even people well-educated in the law, don't know the difference between justice and vengeance.

Re:Hangings

[FatLittleMonkey]

I'd have the judge execute the prisoner, but only after being required to spend 30 days with them. (Separated only as much as needed for security.) If the judge has second thoughts, he can reverse the jury's verdict, call for a new trial, or commute the sentence. This would serve in place of the entire appeals process.

If the judge still believes the prisoner is guilty, the prisoner is strapped down on a table and the judge stabs him through the heart with a long thin dagger. Quick, clean, ceremonial.

Worse case, it at least saves money. Best case, it summons Cthulhu.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

There is. It's a TV program, BBC, called 'How to kill a human being.' Throughout the program a presenter studies various forms of execution, considering the merits and drawbacks of each one in light of the difficulty of obtaining drugs for the lethal injection and considering the moral debate of execution. Towards the end of the program he interviews the head of a minor pro-death-penalty advocacy group (Though he does appear to live out in the sticks) who rejects nitrogen for the reason I gave.

Nitrogen gas is easily manufactured. The equipment is bulky and power-hungry, but it's a common industrial process. Even liquid nitrogen can be made very cheaply.

Re:Hangings

[c 0xFF]

I would prefer a single weapon with 12 triggers. All jurors have to pull their trigger, or a life sentence is imposed instead.

Re:Hangings

[spitzak]

All of which can and have been taken to court a "cruel and inhuman punishment".

Citation needed. Examples where the plantiff is an life-term inmate and actually won the case, please.

Re:Hangings

[interkin3tic]

The TFA also states that the anesthetic is part of the problem. The implication being, ultimately, that if the US continues to use any anesthetic to put subjects to death, the supply of all of these advanced anesthetics could be cut off. Even in the face of that possibility, I don't see the US putting an end to the death sentence any time in the next 50 years or os. Therefore, an alternative is needed.

Well yes, that's why GGP proposed a method that would be painless and would not require anesthetic. That's the point of the nitrogen idea. I was saying it needs to be painless and simple enough for prison guards, who are not selected for their technical abilities, to carry out reliably, and the nitrogen idea seems like it would run into problems there.

Re:Hangings

[FatLittleMonkey]

You don't need to vent an entire room, just feed the nitrogen into a simple breathing mask, with a bellows to ensure they are getting the nitrogen only.

(Bottle of nitrogen, gas bubbler to warm and humidify the gas, bellows, plastic mask, plastic tubing. Dead in 30 seconds. Bam. Done.)

Re:Hangings

[FatLittleMonkey]

And another thirty to vent the nitrogen [*] before sending in the doctor to confirm the death. Otherwise you'll have another death on your hands. Probably several, before someone realises what's going on.

Seriously, happens when farmers repair leaking metal water tanks. The newly exposed metal insta-rusts, using up the oxygen in the air in the tank, the farmer dies. His son or hand sees him collapse, thinks he's having a heart attack, jumps in and dies too. Happens in ships' ballasts too, for the same reason.

[* Well, reduce it to 78% anyway.]

Re:Hangings

[ScentCone]

Nobody (in this country, the US, which is where we're talking about the death penalty) is executed for stealing some food. Maybe for deciding to kill someone while committing a robbery.

Re:Hangings

[johanw]

Some people, like thre mass-murderers who are current and former US presidents?

Re:Hangings

[johanw]

Most prisons in the EU are more civilized than the "maximum security" torture centers in the US.

Re:Hangings

[johanw]

Breivik will probably be declared a danger for society and have his sentence extended. And some people are mentally ill and get treatment, often resulting in effectively a live sentence.

Re:Hangings

[FatLittleMonkey]

The crazy thing is that the drugs used in lethal injection are about the worst, most Rube Goldberg way to "put someone down". A rare anaesthetic, then a muscle-relaxant, and then a chemical to explode the cells in the heart. If you get the levels of any chemical wrong (most commonly the anaesthetic) you subject the prisoner to the most painful experience any human can possibly have. The stuff vets use (Somulose) is a single injection, works every time. Simple, safer, and widely available.

Re:Hangings

[mdielmann]

And this is when you tell them that 300 people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence, which is a pretty big number when the total death row inmates this year is around 3000 (3146 in 2012). That's right, about 10% who were able to be cleared of guilt using one technique that may not have been around when they were convicted, and who were actually tested through the persistence of their legal advocates. Doubtless more could be exonerated if routine DNA checks were done on people convicted before DNA testing was possible or commonplace. "But what about all the people who were executed," they say. "What about those? Surely that reduces that percentage by some significant amount." Not really. About 1000 have been executed in the last 20 years. (1316 to be exact.) So, worst-case scenario, we're looking at about 6.7% exoneration rates. By one kind of evidence. In a society where the majority don't seem to want to try very hard to exonerate them.

With numbers like those, I'm not too interested in being the one to end a person's life based on their supposed crimes. Even if I could guarantee the person was guilty before execution was an option, I don't think there is any benefit to society.

Of course, I'm also not interested in condoning prison rape and other things that are routine. This probably puts me in the minority - most seem to think it's their just desserts. Personally, I'd love to see a prisoner make a constitutional claim that the government is engaging in cruel and unusual punishment by condoning such acts through the expedient of simply looking the other way. But, again, that doesn't support the sense of vengeance that so many seem to be driven by.

Death Row Inmates by Year

Executions by Year

300th Person Exonerated, approx. Oct. 2012

Re:Hangings

[Idarubicin]

> life sentence means something between 10 and 30 years

There is nothing "civilized" about this kind of doublespeak.

The OP kind of misstated the nature of the criminal sentence, which is why it looks like doublespeak.

In Canadian law, for instance, there is very much a life sentence. Attached to the sentence, however, is a minimum period of time before which a convict can apply for parole; this period of time tops out at 25 years for the most serious offences (things like first-degree murder).

There is no guarantee that parole will be granted. I a convict is paroled, the life sentence remains in effect--they can be monitored more closely than a regular private citizen, and can be returned to prison if they violate the terms of their parole.

What doesn't exist is a life sentence with no opportunity for parole--which is where you get the 'lifers' in the U.S. system who have no motivation not to shiv their fellow prisoners.

Re:Hangings

[Darinbob]

Death by snu snu?

Re:Hangings

[Darinbob]

Life imprisonment is actually cheaper. Though that is mostly due to the expense of the appeals in death penalty cases (and thus some nutjobs actually want to abolish or limit the appeals).

Re:Hangings

[DarkOx]

Personal property rights are the very corner stone of freedom. We are propagandized all the time about how our soldiers die to keep us free, and with slogans like "give me liberty or give me death". So yes as a society we certainly have determined that $PROPERTY > life can be and often is true, its just a question of who's life and how much property.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

Actually it's factually correct, because life sentence does mean the thing I describe.

What you are describing is an exception made to those who are deemed to be still dangerous after having served their time. That has nothing to do with life sentence and can be applied to those serving shorter time as well.

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

Nevertheless, juries do and always have had the ability to acquit if they find the law unjust (which would include the punishment). If you know by your own act or inaction that something will happen, you are morally responsible for that act. The degree may vary with the circumstances, but it doesn't go to zero.

This has been recognized since before there was a United States.

Yes, in cases of capital punishment, the jury can decide to take that option off the table as well. In part, that is done so that juries won't feel morally bound to acquit when they are simply opposed to the death penalty.

Re: Hangings

[Luckyo]

How could it not? What other justification do you have besides "vengeance" if he has reformed himself?

Reminder: civilization is about rising above animalistic instincts. Succumbing to petty vengeance isn't civilized - it's barbaric.

Re:Hangings

[c 0xFF]

For what appear to be PR reasons, execution methods that are gory looking and freak out the viewers have been largely phased out (a firing squad, say, or a guillotine, will kill you pretty dead, pretty fast; but it'll leave a heck of a mess, and the more competently it's done, the bigger the mess.

I have to disagree with you there. During the Reign of Terror, it was quite common for a beheading to turn into public entertainment.

Modern society has apparently developed quite an intolerance to blood and gore. This despite modern video games and how "desensitized" we're supposed to be now.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

People who present danger to society will continue to be incarcerated in those countries, such as Breivik (who didn't murder people in malls by the way). However these are exceptions to the rule. Most people convicted to life in prison present no threat after serving several tens of years.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

No, that's just frontier justice countries like US that base their justice system on concept of vengeance rather than concept of rehabilitation.

Re:Hangings

[DarkOx]

I think the problem with methods like nitrogen asphyxiation is that humans are not dump animals, they have imaginations. If I lock you in the gas chamber while you may not feel anything happening physically that in itself is likely to cause you to self-induce quite a lot of psychological terror.

I think the terror of not knowing what is happening would be pretty great.

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

On the other hand, it's a bit embarrassing when someone who was executed gets exonerated afterward. Life imprisonment is no picnic (and could be argued to be more cruel than death depending on conditions) but it is partially reversible if a mistake is caught.

.

Re:Hangings

[mrvan]

I'd gladly pull the trigger, and I have butchered animals I've killed to eat....no problems here.

Very good!

Did you forget to press the login button?

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

He got that approval by knowingly fabricating reasons for war. So he should also go on trial for fraud.

Re:Hangings

[DarkOx]

Is it about vengeance for the wronged? If so, then this is a broken judicial system. The law should never have this in mind.

I don't have a strong opinion for or against capital punishment. I suppose I would venture toward the against camp in general because I don't think the State should be entrusted with peoples lives.

That said I am not sure that the judicial system should be unconcerned with vengeance. For people that have suffered a great deal of harm at the hands of some criminal and in cases if larger tragedies where communities or even the entire nation is affected there can be a psychological value and sense of closure to know that perpetrator "got what was coming to them" be that a needle in the arm or the certainty of spending the rest of their life in a miserable cage.

Maybe its not the most evolved way of thinking but for many people having a sense vengeance somewhat satisfied is away to get back a sense of order to the world someone else criminal actions have taken from them; and I don't think that is an inappropriate objective for justice.

Re:Hangings

[bluefoxlucid]

You are a fucking retarded asshole and I am going to punch you in the fucking mouth for wasting my time with your stupid drivel. That's not revenge; you'll walk away from it, so it's _defined_ as punishment.

Punishment, n.: the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

Death is a penalty. It's called the "Death Penalty".

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

We could make it really cheap by allowing cops to just go ahead and kill anyone they think needs it, but there are problems with that approach.

Re:Hangings

[bluefoxlucid]

You're 23. You put your dick in a 17 year old girl.

You go to jail for 25 years.

Everyone else who was 23 at the time gets careers. They have savings. They buy cars, rent or buy houses. They have relationships, girlfriends. They get hobbies, they see movies. Some of them learn other languages and explore the world. They have children. Some have grandchildren now.

You, being 48, are dumped back on the street, no money, no car, no house, no property, middle aged. You're dirty and homeless. You're a sex offender because you fucked someone 6 years younger than you. Even if you weren't a dirty street rat, that hot 48 year old that just walked by you won't date you because you fucked a girl 6 years younger than you 25 years ago; she's on her way to meet a 21 year old college guy and cougar the shit out of him.

Welfare won't help you; you'll still be broke and unemployable. And a pedophile. Maybe you can be a drug dealer?

If you do dig yourself out of it, you can either get a girlfriend in the short-term who is probably not a great person... who would date a 48 year old freebird with no career and no money, on welfare? In 3-5 years, when you're 51-53, maybe you'll be stable enough to start dating real women.

If they aren't single and living the cougar life.

Or that could be your thing. Get hard listening to your new wife talk about all these young college studs she's been fucking.

How's rehabilitation working for you?

Re:Hangings

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't think that there is anything to be done about death anxiety per-se, that's Canonical Woes Of The Human Condition stuff (The Epic of Gilgamesh has some surprisingly neat treatment of the subject, and basically every subsequent religion, philosophy, and school of psychology has attempted to chip in).

I was trying to start with the baseline of "doesn't cause severe physical pain(as a botched potassium chloride bolus will), or activate deep-rooted physiological panic mechanisms(in the way that, say, drowning, or strangulation during a botched hanging, does)", since capital punishment as typically practiced hasn't even managed that, despite the tech being widely and trivially available.

What would be interesting to know (if probably wildly unethical to test) is whether death-anxiety is greater when time of death is known (ie. subject knows that they'll be in their cell until date X, then they get marched to the chamber and shot full of enough narcotic anesthetics to kill a water buffalo or rock star) or uncertain (at some point, within 6 months say, of final appeals being exhausted, we'll introduce carbon monoxide into your cell while you sleep, your O2 sat will plummet, and you'll never wake up.)

Would it be scarier to be counting down to day zero, or knowing that 'if I die before I wake' is not a theoretical consideration?

Re:Hangings

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The ones you have to watch out for aren't the ones who don't know the difference; but believe that there isn't one.

Re:Hangings

[erikkemperman]

No, I'm pointing out that European countries _continue_ to participate in war. I'd love to hear why a convicted murderer deserves to live, but a war can be just despite inevitable innocent civilian casualties.

As I started out saying, I think between life or death, life in prison is the harsher sentence. So when you say "deserve to live" I have to do a double take. There are better arguments against capital punishment than declaring murderers, say, inherently "worthy of life". I have not declared any individual fit to live or die -- that was kind of my point: I am arguing that, yes ...

Oh, no, the justice system might have made a mistake! The wrong man might be executed!

... this non-zero probability of mistakes is a pretty strong argument against inflicting final and irreversible punishment. In fact it does happen, so tell it to the family of the wrong man executed.

saying such a thing while dripping with moral superiority while also supporting the killing of people without a trial is kind of funny

Um, what? I am not sure if my moral superiority was that obvious. :-) But seriously, I support the killing of people without a trial? Where did you get that idea? Because that's what all Europeans do? You were the one who came up with the war victim analogy, in an ad stereotypem that failed to address any of my points I might add.

I'd say that Americans should be very careful about who they decide to execute, but I'd also put this all in perspective. Cutting off the supply of
medicine is probably worse than the remote possibility that a innocent man or two has been executed unjustly.

I think I might agree there, because it affects more people (although not nearly to the same degree, obviously). But conversely, supposing that this export restriction remains in place, should the US continue executing prisoners, as a matter of principle or something, despite this harm to large numbers of bystanders?

Where is the cutoff in medicine due to drone attacks? The whole issue is absurd.

I would not support such a cutoff, probably. I agree that using trade bariers for political purposes is absurd. But that isn't an argument in favour of killing alleged capital offenders.

Re:Hangings

[spire3661]

Its a petty distinction. Any man that finds umbrage in that is only fooling himself. Blank or no, they participated in a cold-blooded homicide.

Re:Hangings

[CanadianMacFan]

How about anyone that doesn't vote isn't allowed to use government services instead? At least they participated in the process by voting.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

Well, for starters you won't go to jail for 25 years for that other than in puritanist backwater countries like US and maybe UK.

Re:Hangings

[Cloudy Wheat Beer]

Dude, if you are having sex with a woman's period, you are totally doing it wrong.

Re:Hangings

[shutdown -p now]

So far as I know, the problem is that they use two different drugs - one is the anesthetic, and the other one paralyzes the victim. If the first one wears off prematurely, you have no means of detecting that from observing the victim, but they will die a rather unpleasant death, effectively being asphyxiated while fully conscious and unable to vocalize their distress.

Re:Hangings

[MondoGordo]

"It's a hell of a thing, to kill a man. You take away everything everything he has and everything he's gonna have." - Wm. Munny

Re:Hangings

[Mike Frett]

There are 20 jurisdictions in the United States that allow the condemned to choose from the five methods the USA uses for executions. These methods include: Gas, Hanging, Lethal Injection, Electrocution and Firing Squad. For Firing squad, make sure you commit the crime in Idaho, Oklahoma or Utah. For Hanging, make sure it's either Delaware, New Hampshire or Washington.

Good Luck and choose wisely, you won't get another chance!

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

Actually, that would be kinda cool if you didn't have to pay taxes. Opt-in government!

Re:Hangings

[multi io]

The point for length of punishment is to completely disconnect the person from their previous life and then rehabilitate them by rebuilding it.

Now that's an outlandish and self-serving explanation if I ever heard one. Why are people convicted to prison sentences if they cause deadly car accidents? To disconnect them from their previous life? Why are they allowed to move back to their family after their release then? Prison sentences are always about revenge too. That's just how these things work. The bereaved wouldn't accept anything else. If the whole point of the justice system was to convert criminals into better people, many murderers, especially second-degree murderers, would not be imprisoned at all. There are many murders that happen under special circumstances, where it's highly likely that the offender wouldn't do it again no matter what conviction he receives or doesn't receive. Putting him in prison will, if anything, worsen his prognosis

Re:Hangings

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to do 48 hours of jailtime as a result of a court conviction, and it was exactly as you described, 23 hours alone and 1 hour to shower (they gave me a large book to read, finished it halfway through and they didn't give me another). Thing is, they kept the TV blaring full blast which came through the door completely muffled which is surprisingly way more irritating than you'd imagine. After only 48 hours of that crap I was already going partially insane. I can't imagine what it's like for people there long-term.

Re:Hangings

[gweihir]

Hmm. Strikes me as kind of odd for books that were supposedly directly authored by god and containing only truth. If you drop that fantasy though, your are quite correct of course. So "by which part of the book they focus on thou shalt know them".

I did not specifically comment on the Christian religion. All mainstream religion and a lot of cults are just different examples of the same human perception problem being exploited for behavioral modification and self-perpetuation of said religion/cult. What is certainly true is that quite a few people manage to retain reasonable ethical standards despite being under the influence of religion. But for quite a few others it seems to eradicate morality and rationality and that is a very serious problem.

Re:Hangings

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, no, the Chief Justice doesn't know what he's talking about, but Slashdotter thaylin does. At least that's what the mods think (we're so screwed...).
 

Re:Hangings

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty.

This was Grover Cleveland's position when he was Sheriff in NY State. He didn't much care for the hangings, but he pulled the gallows himself because he didn't think it was right to farm out the job to an executioner, since it would make "justice" too easy to come by.

He was perhaps the finest example of what the ideal President would look like if he embraced the American system.

Re:Hangings

[morie]

what happened to the good old days when uid's were max 6 digits and sex on slashdot was purely hypothetical?

Re:Hangings

[MightyYar]

In fact it does happen, so tell it to the family of the wrong man executed.

I don't really feel moved by that sentiment. The effects on society are far more important than the rare family's devistation. We tolerate 30,000 deaths a year so that we can drive around as we please, but the purely theoretical case of a wrongly executed prisoner should result in sanction? We fire rockets into groups of cars that probably contain this or that terrorist leader, killing civilians pretty much constantly. Again, I appeal to everyone's sense of perspective. The very few prisoners executed in the US every year are simply not that big of a deal, and not really worthy of all the stink... there is very little return on your investment even if you are ultimately successful.

Because that's what all Europeans do?

If you are going to punish the entire US with a drug sanction, then I'm going to hold you responsible for the actions of your leaders as well. If we can back off from ridiculous sanctions which punish even death penalty opponents, then maybe I'll be considerate of the pacifists of the EU.

But that isn't an argument in favour of killing alleged capital offenders.

I certainly can agree with that. I'm not exactly a death penalty advocate; I think it is expensive and ineffective as a deterrent. I also think that in the US it is racially unequal. That said, it does not warrant the kind of passion that it induces in people. As you mentioned, these people would otherwise just rot in jail.

Re:Hangings

[fustakrakich]

Doesn't matter. Enough people supported it to reelect the man, instead of throwing out the lot of them. It's time for the voters to accept responsibility for the people they elect.

Re:Hangings

[shutdown -p now]

Funnily enough, you're very convincing at arguing that Americans in general are responsible for mass killing in the Iraq war and should be punished accordingly. Osama would be proud.

Re:Hangings

[CyprusBlue113]

Nitrogen in a gas chamber is probably the most humane way to do it.

Or Carbon Monoxide.

No, because carbon monoxide is toxic, meaning exposure to it is dangerous, while sufficient nitrogen just dominates the partial pressure to the point where the environment becomes anoxic, so all you have to do is vent the nitrogen when done, while the CO you have to take care to deal with.

Re:Hangings

[shutdown -p now]

In most other cases, when a mistake happens, you can at least fix it later, pay compensation to the person etc. With death penalty, what do you do? Dig out the corpse and say "we're sorry"?

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

No, that's just frontier justice countries like US that base their justice system on concept of vengeance rather than concept of rehabilitation.

What does the idiotic US justice system have to do with the idiotic notion of calling a 10-year sentence a "life sentence?"

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

Exactly.

Re:Hangings

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Well if you're experienced with firearms, you can usually spot the difference between a blank and live round when you're firing it going by both feel and sound (and if its a semi-automatic, the blank round more than likely will not cause the bolt to recoil as a live round would.)

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

Where support was in the hypothetical is different then where it was after we didn't get UN support. The administration won the debate regarding the UN and support rose. You can't assume minds are fixed. There was support for the war before the UN ruled, though people wanted UN support. Once the actual UN process occurred people sided with Bush vs. the French and Russians and decided they didn't like the UN process and didn't weigh it as heavily as they thought they would.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

I'm not sure he knowingly fabricated the reasons. I think he knowingly biased the evidence to support his reasons. That's still fraud. So the "Bush lied" meme is well deserved.

But... the claim originally was the poor innocent American public didn't support the war and rogue George Bush did this by himself. And that's BS.. Even as the evidence of the lies came forward the public support for the war remained rather strong. Knowing about the deceptions did not drastically change people's opinions.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

Governments make mistakes that kill people all the time. Obviously there are war type actions. But for example not knowing the effects of various pollutants they decide it is safe and and it isn't: an extra 1 in 100k chance of death per year x 300m people x 20 years = 60k extra deaths.

You do the best you can. There is no alternative.

Re:Hangings

[shutdown -p now]

In this particular case, "the best you can" is to lock the person up indefinitely, so that you can let them go if you find out that you're wrong. There's simply no reason to prefer killing them. Locking up is a perfectly efficient deterrent, and is a harsh punishment in its own right, especially in more secure prisons, solitary confinement etc.

I mean, we're talking about, what, about 40 people per year. Don't tell me that our society can't afford the extra dough to keep them in prison, and has to kill them for the sake of saving taxpayers' money.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

Well I think the number should be much higher than 40 per year. It isn't a cost thing. And it isn't a deterrent thing. Far more criminals are killed by other criminals than the state will ever kill.

What it is I think is a symbolism thing. It is the society reasserting moral authority in a very powerful way. To pick an example: finding Saddam Hussein in a hole, digging him out, having him stand before his victims now helpless in court and then wrapping a rope around his neck asserted to the Iraqis, especially the Sunni and Kurds that their country was their country not a Sunni colony. It was a moment of human freedom.

Andrew Reid Lackey I think is the latest killing. He mutilated the body of a juvenile he just murdered. That's what got him executed rather than life. Lackey came to repentance and wanted the execution he understood the symbolism that through his death he does the most he can to redeem himself for his acts.

Re:Hangings

[shutdown -p now]

Your argument is equally applicable in reverse, though. Think of the symbolism of a planned, carefully enacted execution of a man who is later found innocent - it's outright disgusting. If you place that much value in the symbolic aspect of it, then you should understand why this is very different from those "extra 1 in 100k chance of death" calculations you've brought up earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that there are crimes for which death penalty is a perfectly appropriate punishment. I just don't believe that any justice system anywhere in the world is even remotely close to be good enough to consider actually applying death penalty, given the chance of mistake and the gravity of it.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

I don't really follow the disgust. Assume there is a .5% error rate, that is someone executed who genuinely doesn't deserve a severe penalty. Assume that because of the extra checks that's much better than the 3% error rate for life imprisonment.

Even if I grant that 20% of the 3% get caught, how is the 2.5% better than the .5%? And why isn't the 2.5% equally disgusting. I don't see how the death penalty does anything other than reduce mistakes.

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

In part because people simply could not believe that the President would actually fabricate evidence for something as serious as a war. They were all too happy to accept any shred of a reason that didn't require them to accept that we were in a war because the president lied.

Of course, that was back when we'd have it all settled and done with in a year max. Bush knew that wasn't true as well, all of his military advisers told him so.

Re:Hangings

[shutdown -p now]

It's exactly as you said - execution carries powerful symbolism with it. It's essentially a drawn out ritual to take out a human life away in a very specific, deliberate manner. As a society, we tend to place the value on human life far higher than most other things (at least, on innocent lives). Consequently, performing such a ritual on someone who's innocent is going to provoke an extreme emotional reaction.

And yes, .5% error rate - one innocent in 200 executed - is way too high. Heck, even .05% is too high. Really, like I said, there's no excuse for not killing anyone and just using life imprisonment instead - even a single innocent human life is too much to pay for all that symbolism bullshit. We're supposed to be a rational society, not barbarians with primitive superstitions. I would only accept death penalty when we have absolutely foolproof means of determining guilt - brain scan or something like that.

Re:Hangings

[mirix]

I was going to suggest a human-sized schrodinger's cat setup, but... chicken works too.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

10 year sentence is about as long effective in terms of prevention as life according to most criminologists. From preventative point of view, as long as you can do an evaluation to keep those few that still pose a threat in prison, the rest should be released.

Vengeance based system views that such risks and assessments are irrelevant, as the goal is not to rehabilitate but to punish.

Re:Hangings

[DrXym]

Do you think it's likely that the firing squad would consist of people who've never fired that kind of weapon / ammo before?

Re:Hangings

[DrXym]

One gun might fire which is why I said guns plural. As for the position of the person, if someone can be strapped to an electric chair, or a gurney, or over a trap door, or whatever, then they can be strapped to something which holds them still enough to be shot. I don't see the reliability being any worse than any other form of execution.

Re:Hangings

[Eunuchswear]

You're Americans. Why don't you use your traditional methods? Move 'em from prison to an office or school and then shoot 'em with AR15's.

Alternatively, drone strikes.

Re:Hangings

[Eunuchswear]

The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.

So, can you tell us what those numbers are?

Or are you just making this shit up?

Re:Hangings

[Redmancometh]

I've watched several videos of hot dogs being made and still eat hot dogs. I highly doubt any other form of processed meat is "created" in a more disguisting manner.

Re:Hangings

[Redmancometh]

It wasn't nitrogen I don't think..I think it was a high or low pressure environment. Either way it was a very very interesting program. The frankness of the guy who pioneered the lethal injection method alone was worth the watch.

"They aren't in agonizing pain...it's not horrific pain, and even if they are who cares?"

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

There's no accounting for taste, I suppose.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

Look at the data in this thread. This support continued well into years 2, and 3. It lasted a long time as the evidence came out. It really wasn't until 2006 until you had even a slim stable majority that believed the Iraq war to be a mistake. The highest it ever got was a touch over 60%, and support for the war has grown by almost 10% during Obama's tenure. I'm assuming from moderates and conservatives that don't like Obama but didn't like the war at the time.

  We now as a country have unequivocal evidence that Bush falsified the information for war. We have unequivocal evidence that the people who came out against him were intimidated and smeared falsely. There is still little reaction to it. There has been no serious call for example to hand them all over to the hague for war crimes trials. The American people supported the war, they supported the war even knowing their were no weapons of mass destruction, they supported the war even knowing that it would be a hard slog. They only stopped supporting the war when there was no end in sight and then just barely.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

You are kinda repeating yourself. You are trying to have it both ways here.

On the one hand you are trying to argue that life in prison for the guilty is roughly equivalent to the death penalty and thus there isn't much gained by execution.
On the other hand you are trying to argue that life in prison for the innocent is wholly different to the death penalty and thus the death penalty can't be used for fear of this additional moral force.

I also disagree we are supposedly a rational society. This isn't the enlightenment where we hold to reason in other areas of policy. I'd say our state policy making is often emotionalism and symbolism run rampant. We are deeply aware of psychology and sociology and how little reason does in fact influence our actions. For example: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Everyone-Else-Hypocrite-Evolution/dp/0691154392 . And ultimately you can't really appeal to reason and then make a purely emotional case that the death penalty is bad because these particular deaths are so much worse than others on emotional grounds.

Whatever justice system we construct will inflict massive injustices on some individuals. The death penalty because it is subject to higher scrutiny substantially reduces those injustices. More innocent people are set free. If the goal is to not punish the innocent then you would want every felony carrying a 20 year sentence of so to be converted to a death penalty case.

Re:Hangings

[zwarte piet]

I thought they were supplied with wooden bullets that blast into a thousand harmless pieces when fired.

Re:Hangings

[zwarte piet]

Carbon monoxide can be unpleasant, headaches, vomiting etc...

Re:Hangings

[Ol Olsoc]

I think it would be best to have a firing squad composed of the jury that found someone guilty and imposed the death penalty. If you have the guts to condemn someone to die, I think you should also have the guts to execute that penalty.

It takes very little intestinal fortitude to decide somoene is going to die. Performing the act might take a lot of it, but there are pathologicals who would enjoy it.

(and yes, I also think that every non-vegetarian should be willing to butcher an animal)

Beware trying to equate capital punishment with eating to survive. Persumably you are vegan. In a world where killing ones own species as punishment, and killing to eat are equivalent, all carnivores are evil, and all herbivores are good.

I do not support capital punishment because it makes no sense outside of revenge, and is circular reasoning at best, and at worst just another example of man's inability to exist without getting a boner over killing himself and other creatures

But killing as a method of survival is no where near the same thing. Except for autotrophs, we all exist by depriving another living thing of it's life. From the Atkins dieter to the most consistent vegan, we have all killed to eat. That plant you and I ate was once a living thing, and all life is precious. But unless we are so cinsistent that we starve ourselves to death refusing to eay any othere life form, we are all killers.

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

Yes, the support went into year 2 and a bit into 3. But then, the end was still claimed to be less than a year. People were willing to accept that it was just taking a little longer than anticipated.

Of course, it's hard to say who actually wanted the war and who 'supported' it because they didn't want to be called un-American. Even more now who have to at least claim to believe the war was justified so they can be loyal Republicans.

And of course there is little reaction to what we now know. What would be the point. Bush and co should be turned over to the Hague but it isn't going to happen. The entire cost should be considered an odious debt and billed to Bush and Co personally, but that won't happen. Or at least that is the perception. meanwhile, many people are mostly just praying they can still feed the kids tomorrow.

The last war that can really be said to be supported by the people is WWII. people went along with Korea mostly due to faith in leaders. people started the same way with Vietnam, but by the end of that even many conservatives (particularly those with sons eligible for the draft) began questioning it.

On reflection, I'll say people generally supported Gulf War I.

The rest is more falling for propaganda than actual support.

Re:Hangings

[Ol Olsoc]

The US injustice system is draconian enough. We are a "free country" that imprisons more people than than any other country in the world. We still use the death penalty despite the lack of any evidence that it makes our country safer.

This got me to thinking. The death penalty might just be what the bad guys want. After all, look at what happens in public shootings these days. Bad guy blows away a bunch of school kids or McDonalds customers, then as a final act kills himself. They don't choose to go hide away for the rest of their lives, they choose the result that they would have gotten from the justice system, only without the jailing, beatings, and appeals process stretching it out for years.

Re:Hangings

[Ihlosi]

Except for autotrophs, we all exist by depriving another living thing of it's life.

You could try to subsist on fruit, milk, honey and carrion.

Re:Hangings

[Ol Olsoc]

Except for autotrophs, we all exist by depriving another living thing of it's life.

You could try to subsist on fruit, milk, honey and carrion.

Interesting, especially in the case of carrion. Since it isn't alive, it didn't give a hoot one way or another whether it was eaten or not, so does that mean carrion is an acceptable food for vegans?

Re:Hangings

[Hamsterdan]

Just make sure they don't live on Elm street

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

He considered the lethal injection too, but rejected it on two grounds:
- Requires drugs that could lead to legal problems with supply.
- Requires medically trained executioners, an improperly performed execution could be highly painful.

Re:Hangings

[romons]

PS I've never understood the vegetarian quip that more people would be vegetarians if they saw and/or participated in the process of butchering. Vegetarianism is a rather new fad, and until relatively recently most people WERE pretty involved in the butchering process and there was no mass avoidance of meat eating.

History of venegarianism

I'm not a vegetarian, but I know there is a long history of vegetarianism in India. However, I did not know about the history in Greece.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

Both.

He tried low pressure first, and concluded it was effective and painless but impractical: The equipment required is expensive and high-maintainance. That lead him towards nitrogen as a way to achieve the same result but without needing to deal with the engineering challenges of keeping a whole room at low pressure.

Re:Hangings

[hardwarefreak]

Or, you know, join the rest of the civilised world and abolish capital punishment.

Like "civilized" Europe you mean? Like Norway? Anders Behring indiscriminantly kills 77 and injures 319-- gets 21 years. Is this a "civilized" sentence?

Violent video games have made me want to go on a rampage and kill dozens of unarmed civilians indiscriminantly with an assault rifle. I think I'll immigrate to Norway, light up a youth retreat, then retire to 3 hots and a cot for two decades, thanks to Norway's "civility". I'll be out in time to move back to the States and collect my Social Secuity and Medicare benefits. Actually, being an entrepreneurial American, I'd setup "Norwegian Safari, LLC" and sell travel and in-country weapon acquisition arrangements to other Americans who'd like to take advantage of the "mass murder loophole" that exists in Europe. We dare not do it here because we'd get executed like Tim McVeigh, or more likely, killed in the act like Charles Whitman. But hay, it's open season in Europe.

Re:Hangings

[romons]

We should just go back to hangings. It works for killing Nazis and war criminals.

Why not try burning at the stake? Why hide the barbarism? We should revel in it, put it on TV, let everybody know what our government is doing on their behalf. History has a few more we could try; why not crucifiction? That would undoubtedly act as a deterrent. Drawing and quartering? The most inventive I've heard of is the Blood Eagle.

Just putting people to sleep, like a beloved pet, seems to obscure the true horror.

The main argument I have against execution, however, is that a certain percentage of the executed are subsequently exonerated. Keeping them in jail for life, rather than on 'death row', is far cheaper (due to the extra expense of defending against the lawsuits, and the added security. Not to mention the use of rare drugs...), and has the added benefit of allowing these people who were wrongly convicted to be released when their innocence is determined. We can also use them as slaves while in jail.

Re:Hangings

[hardwarefreak]

But that isn't the reason so many people support the death penalty. The main reason seems to be a sadistic desire to see 'evildoers' suffer, covered up under the polite excuse of 'justice.' Wrong has been done, and only by inflicting equal or greater suffering upon the guilty can the demand for vengence be satisfied.

I'm going to pay you a visit, bind you, your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, daughter(s), etc. I'm going to bind your head and tape your eyelids open so you see everything. Hear everything. Then I'm going to rape them one by one with a piece of 1" dia x 1' steel rebar in the vagina and anus. Then, while still concious, I will cut off her nipples and then disembowel her with a rusty dull box cutter. Whether she's dead now or still conscious, I'll then slowly saw her head off with a hack saw and place it on a pike in front of you, her dead eyes starinng into yours, her blood dripping on your feet. This, while you and the remaining women are forced to witness the terror in her eyes and her screams before her lights go out. You, struggle helplessly, but are unable to stop it, unable to save them. You are forced to watch me torture, mutilate, and behead all of the women you love. I call the police, and stick a post-it to your forehead with my name, address, etc, and walk out the door, forcing you to survery and relive the carnege before authorities arrive.

Going into my trial, you plead with the prosecutor to spare my life, because the death penalty is wrong, that it's only about a sadistic desire for vengeance...

Re:Hangings

[ahodgson]

After his entire administration and much of the so-called free press claimed weapons of mass destruction and broadly suggested that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Ie. not exactly informed approval.

Re:Hangings

[ahodgson]

I'd vote for that.

Re:Hangings

[ahodgson]

False convictions, especially of poor defendents, is an enormous problem, and people should oppose the death penalty for that reason alone.

I'm as pro-vengeance as the next guy, but I'd like the punishment to go to the right person, especially if it's something you can't take back.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

And tell me then, would your death do anything to reduce their suffering? Sure, it might satisfy my desire for vengence, but that is not the purpose of the justice system. The purpose is to protect the innocent and the rule of law - and also to act as a deterrent, to remove the economic incentive and to rehabilitate offenders where possible, because all of these things act indirectly to further the primary aim of protecting the innocent and the rule of law. Vengence goes not further these aims. It's just a cheap way for politicians to win votes.

Re:Hangings

[davester666]

You need a remarkably accurate shot to kill immediately, and not minutes/hours/days later. So it doesn't appear so gruesome, they typically are told to shoot for the heart instead of the head, then they use a smaller caliber gun to avoid blowing a hole through him [also so it's not so gruesome], which then opens up the possibility that the bullet may not penetrate far enough or ricochet off a rib.

And then you have a injured man screaming in pain for the witnesses to report in the press for the special report.

I don't understand why the US doesn't just manufacture the drugs themselves needed for executions.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

I agree with what you wrote above. But that's support:

They support the war because it will be over in less than a year
They support the war because they support the president
They support the war because they are indifferent
They support the war because they agreed with the arguments put forward for it (the propaganda).

That's how all issues get supported in a democracy. BTW WWII when it was going on there was some opposition as well. For example the Mothers' Movement which was a right wing (isolationist wing of the Republican party) that opposed the war all during the buildup and well into 1944. People just tend to downplay how large the anti-war and pro-Nazi movement was once the holocaust came to light.
 

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

They supported a fictional war that never was. They did not support the actual war being fought.

If I switch the restroom signs causing a man to 'freely' enter the ladies room, that doesn't make him a lady or a creep.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

I don't disagree with the idea that Americans in general are responsible. America, including the American people engaged in the crime of aggression. It is a big deal.

Osama was right on some things. He was a serious politician with serious ideas. He was silly on some ideas, but I don't dismiss him casually.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

That gets very tricky. Clearly the press sucked in the lead up to Iraq. But the press sucks on many issues. We don't discount public opinion because the press was bad.

At the time of the Iraq war there most certainly were good quality counter cases being made and readably available. A person choosing to be informed would easily be exposed to the counter arguments. The evidence for the Intelligence tampering wasn't known prior to Iraq but it certainly was prior to Bush being reelected. For example from July of 2003: What I didn't find in Africa

The public was at least as well informed as they were on most issues. Absolutely there was disinformation as well, but I'm not sure how we can even talk about democratic consent if disinformation in the presence of correct information is seen as nullifying the validity of public opinion.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

How is that different than public opinion on most issues. The public is continually subjected to disinformation / propaganda and has a poor handle on most issues of public policy. This is a democracy we consider public opinion a valid measure despite all that otherwise I'm not sure how we know what the public believes about anything.

Re:Hangings

[AlanS2002]

Some times people deserve capital punishment. I am not saying in most of the cases that we do it they deserve it, but someone who is an un-remorseful mass murderer should be put to death. The tax payer should not be liable to keep them alive, or let them free to kill again.

Whether some people deserve it or not is irrelevant, given that is not demonstrated as the criterion taken into account for people who are sentenced to death. The criterion taken into account, as demonstrated by statistics, is race and socioeconomic background.

Re:Hangings

[X0563511]

This might be covered by using (more or less) something like a bench rifle, such that everyone is aiming at the same spot, and the rifles are secured such that little to no recoil is possible. Couple this with a modest caliber as well - after all, short range, no movement, no armor, and it's a human rather than a bear or moose.

But at this point I think we've ventured far beyond practicalities and into thought exercise territory :)

Re:Hangings

[davydagger]

in capital cases, you need a unanimous verdict to get the death penalty

Re:Hangings

[sjames]

It matters because you can't claim the public supported something when their support was based on a false information knowingly fed to them by their leaders. In a real sense, when a politician lies to the people, he subverts democracy at it's roots. That's what makes it so offensive.

This is a democracy we consider public opinion a valid measure despite all that otherwise I'm not sure how we know what the public believes about anything.

When our representatives are honest with us, this is not a problem. Had Bush stated his real reasons for the war (we may never know for certain what those were) and the real situation and THEN the people approved, they would fairly be said to support the war.

Re:Hangings

[jbolden]

I understand your position. The problem is that the public is generally fed false information from their leadership about every issue. Propaganda is part of our system of government. Moreover in the case of Iraq we know that the information wasn't the issue because the public did become aware of the misinformation and that did not induce huge changes in opinion.

For example when Joe Wilson wrote the "What I didn't find in Africa essay" the general person's opinion became aware that the Bush administration most likely tampered with the intelligence reports that had been fed to Congress. If this was an information then you would have expected huge shifts in opinion. At best Wilson was a statistical blip. There has been a major motion picture about that essay (Fair Game) and still most Americans don't care. Republicans who were involved in the cover up win elections today in 2013.

I would to have a public that shared your attitude that false information subverts democracy and reacted appropriately to that view. But that would require a public whose views on issues mainly depended on information, and we don't have that. In general the public's opinions on a wide range of issues comes from whom they culturally identify with and their opinions. Which BTW is not an unreasonable system. Essentially what they are asserting is they don't have the time to properly weigh the evidence so they are finding people who think like they do and do have the time and just agreeing to defer to them. Since Republicans continued to support the war even after the misinformation became clear I don't excuse the public. Republicans didn't care that they were lied to. I wish they did. But they don't.

Re:Hangings

[captainlavender]

So you also believe that everyone opposed to human experimentation should be denied any treatments resulting from data obtained by Nazi experiments? Or from the Japanese army's use of biological weapons? After all, if lifesaving knowledge was obtained immorally, it would be immoral for us to use it to save lives, eh?

Re:Hangings

[OneAhead]

You might want to go up a few posts in this thread. To the AC who stated "If he ever robbed anyone, yep. I'm okay with capital punishment", got slammed for that, then apparently defended by you (though it now becomes clear you probably were not defending them, you just missed the context of the post you replied on).

Re:Hangings

[lucien86]

Funny that, Bin Laden had said 9/11 was a punishment for 'crimes' America had committed in helping the Israelis to kill Palestinian civilians by supplying them with bombs. Every punishment /revenge we commit against them will sooner or later result in another 9/11- after which we will get revenge against them and they will get revenge again and we.... Two points - 1. Iraq took no part in 9/11 and there was no real reason for the invasion - it made America and the UK hated the world over and now even most of our allies hate us. 2. The invasion of Afghanistan was an equal mistake. We should have hit Al Qaeda's camp with a nuke short and simple. The worst thing we have done is to give the repressed and vulnerable factions there hope when we were never going to stay there to defend them forever. (like secularists, pro-democrats, gays, women, Christians,..)

Re:Hangings

[shutdown -p now]

Minorities in Afghanistan got the short end of the stick from the get go: the new constitution of Afghanistan - adopted in 2004, right after Taliban got kicked out, and with heavy NATO presence in the country providing security for the new regime - explicitly declares the state to be an "Islamic republic", and Sharia to be a supreme source of all legislation, which cannot be contradicted. In practice this means that apostasy is a capital crime, for example, and there have already been convictions.

Re:Hangings

[Hentes]

While I'm normally against capital punishment, I don't think we should judge Americans by our own standards. Different societies require different solutions.

Re:Hangings

[matfud]

Wow. You do have an odd system. I stand corrected. Is that true in all cases facing the death penalty? in all states where the death penalty can apply?

As you may of guessed I am not from the US. In the UK, Germany and France (when they still executed people. The jury was only to determine guilt. It was up to the prosecutor to ask for or legal precedent(the judge) to require that death penalty be applied).

Re:Hangings

[matfud]

If you think the point of the Justice system is for punishment then you must know punishment does not work when it is fatal. There is know lesson learned. Hence it is vengence. Just a dead person who may not actually have committed the crime. Look at history. In the UK at various times you would be executed for theft. Did anyone learn from it? Yep they learned not to get caught under any circumstances

In the 1900's forensic evidence first started being used. And it was used to convict and execute people. As time progressed it was shown that forensic evidence can be falible. Often later techniques would show that the earlier conclusions were incorrect. This really became apparent in the early 80's when many old cases started to be examined for DNA evidence. Oddly criminal forensic analysis started back towards a scientific approach of "This is what the evidence says but it is open to future tecniques that may prove our approach flawed".

If you take that scientific approach then you know that there is a chance the person is innocent (let alone the many other human factors involved in convicting someone).

So
A) just kill them as they are guilty. (forget about it and never reexamine the case when new evidence or techniques come to light)
B) make thier case go all the way to the federal court so they have a chance to show that the are not guilty (up to 20 ish years and very expensive). If not kill them.
C) Put them in prison for life without parole and hope that if they are not guilty they can appeal and you can release them and compensate them for their time and life lost. Even then the prison should allow the person to try different things rather than be locked in a cell 23 hours a day (there are extremes).

As a side note Private prisons are not renowned for trying to help or even encourage their inmates. That costs money. So you end up with a prison system that is supposed to be a punishment rather than a way of keeping the inmates away from society and giving them somethin useful to do (rather than make number plates, or do laundry on the cheap)

Re:Hangings

[lsatenstein]

We should just go back to hangings. It works for killing Nazis and war criminals.

===
Export your murderers. Send them to Afghanistan or Somalia. No matter why the criminal killed someone, be it accidental, rage, or just plain pleasure, just give them a way out. For example, putting them into the military for life would be sufficient reward, and could be better for society.

Anyway, as the extreme Christian proponents die out, and the new generations with their disdain for religion appear, we may see life imprisonment replace the death penalty.

Sooner, than later, the USA joins civilized nations.

 

Re:Hangings

[matfud]

When are you lot going to ask for a tax rebate for the period of time your government was mostly non functional?

Re:Hangings

[matfud]

You missed that many of those are just arrested. Not convicted. Do you wish to kill all people arrested for a murder without being convicted too?

Re:Hangings

[nickserv]

This really doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. i.e. don't have a firing squad, mount the guns on tripods and do a test firing to ensure their aim.

Indeed, it wasn't much of a problem for Walter White to take out a whole gang with one machine gun mounted on a turret. :D

OK, silliness aside, a couple turret mounted guns that are laser aimed at a restrained convict would remove humans nearly completely from the equation. The only one with any guilt to bear would be the one who pushes the button to start the timer and you could have it where only 1 of the 3 buttons gegins the timer to fire the guns.

That aside, I am personally against capital punishment and it's yet another example of a barbaric practice that pretty much the entire rest of the developed, sensible world has moved past.

Capital punishment has, in the past, been practised by most societies.[2] Currently 58 nations actively practise it, 97 countries have abolished it de jure for all crimes, 8 have abolished it for ordinary crimes only (maintain it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 35 have abolished it de facto (have not used it for at least ten years and/or are under moratorium) .[3] Amnesty International considers most countries abolitionist, overall, the organisation considers 140 countries to be abolitionist in law or practice.[3]

As usual, check out the group of fine countries the US is a member of in this practice... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

Re:Hangings

[hawkinspeter]

Well, I'm actually British, but then I reckon our government has been mostly non functional for most of my life. I should definitely ask for a refund.

Re:Hangings

[matfud]

Andrew Reid Lackey killed an 80 year old man in 2005. He asked that his appeals process be terminated and that an execution date be set.

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

And what does any of that have to do with calling a 10 year sentence a life sentence?

Everything you said is probably true, but it doesn't make calling a 10-year sentence a life sentence any less idiotic.

Re:Hangings

[AmiMoJo]

Their argument is that the treatments could have been developed in other ways that didn't harm animals, not that we shouldn't have them.

At least bother to understand the basics of their cause before criticising it, however deserving of criticism they may be.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

I can see that you are too invested in your own beliefs to be swayed by logic and will resort to complaining about what you have learned to associate with words "life sentence" not being the same world wide.

It's quite a bit like US folks calling socialism "universally evil" as they keep actively practicing it. They just don't call it socialism.

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

I can see that you are too invested in your own beliefs to be swayed by logic and will resort to complaining about what you have learned to associate with words "life sentence" not being the same world wide.

That's a bit odd, considering that I'm opposed to a punitive criminal justice system, and that I think that rehabilitating most prisoners shouldn't even take 10 years let alone a lifetime in prison. Perhaps if they have some physical mental defect and cannot be rehabilitated to a non-dangerous state as a result it might be appropriate to institutionalize them indefinitely, but that isn't something that could be determined at the time of sentencing.

Every one of my replies has been to object to calling a 10-year sentence a life sentence. Every one of your replies has talked about the crazy US justice system, which is a non-sequitur.

Re:Hangings

[jwhitener]

As has been pointed out, it is less expensive to keep someone in prison their entire life than it is to keep them on death row for ~10 years with the numerous appeals involved.

Re:Hangings

[Luckyo]

You misunderstand yet again. I'm not talking about your beliefs in terms of what is a correct justice system, but the beliefs of what certain terms mean and your complete intolerance (to the point of insulting) for the fact that in other cultures those terms mean completely different things.

Re:Hangings

[maharvey]

That is a simplistic view. You assume that it could be better, and you assume that people could actually choose to make it that way. The fact is people vote selfishly and foolishly, and no matter how much they are punished by the consequences, they never learn.

If I am given the choice of two evils, and I cast my vote for the what I perceive to be the lesser evil (doing my best to see through the media propaganda) in order to minimize the damage, shall I be held responsible for all that person's actions? Is it better to not vote at all, and let the candidate's cronies cast all the votes and basically run unopposed? If you don't allow me to have good choices, don't hold me accountable for bad ones.

That said, I also agree: people who vote for politicians who promise government handouts and special privileges and war deserve the corrupt government they get. In the end democracy eats itself, and so I cast my vote to delay that, knowing that we haven't really come up with a better system. Better to limp along with corrupt half functional government than embrace revolution (with all the suffering that brings), knowing that the revolution will at best only give us more of the same, and very likely something worse. Humanity is depraved and ruins everything it touches.

Re:Hangings

[SuricouRaven]

It's worse than that. Attempts at rehabilitation are actually politically unpopular. Treat prisoners anything like human beings, and you'll see angry calls accusing someone of being 'soft on crime.' So instead prisons just chuck them all in together and let the prison gangs form.

It doesn't help that the US is in the embarassing position of having one of the highest number of prisoners per capita in the world.

Re:Hangings

[Ihlosi]

The presenter concluded that nitrogen was the ideal way.

Use helium mixed with some nitrous oxide for the most hilarious execution ever.

Re:Hangings

[DrXym]

Every form of execution has the potential to cause pain or be botched. Which is why all due consideration would be made when designing it to possible modes of failure and remedies. e.g. a gun could jam or misfire which is why you would have more than one gun. A person might falter with their aim, so you put the guns rigid, locked stands where the aim is calibrated and set in place. A small calibre bullet might not be fatal, so you use large calibre. And so on.

I really don't see how it is more an issue just because the form of execution is guns aimed at someone's chest any more than the procedure for electrocuting, hanging, gassing or injecting someone. Even highly reliable forms of execution such as the guillotine come under question due to the question of a person's consciousness after the act. Assuming the law requires a form of execution, I don't see a problem with it being death by bullets. It certainly beats having to source highly expensive drugs and dragging medical ethics and international relations into the discussion.

Re:Hangings

[Ihlosi]

Assuming the law requires a form of execution, I don't see a problem with it being death by bullets.

Depending on how it's done, it produces a fairly ugly corpse and destroys potentially usable organs.

Re:Hangings

[Rich0]

You misunderstand yet again. I'm not talking about your beliefs in terms of what is a correct justice system, but the beliefs of what certain terms mean and your complete intolerance (to the point of insulting) for the fact that in other cultures those terms mean completely different things.

Yes, I know that "life sentence" means a 10-20 year sentence in Europe. That was evident in your first post. I think that assigning that definition to that term is unproductive because it then means that there is no way to describe a sentence that lasts until the prisoner dies (what would we call that?). Suppose we define capital punishment as the act of giving presents to kids for Christmas? Does that now mean that Europeans support capital punishment?

You're welcome to disagree. I just think that euphemisms tend to muddle debate by allowing people to sound like they're agreeing when they really disagree. I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but that statement seems odd if you use the definition above. How can you disagree with something when your first step is to redefine it into something you agree with?

Re:Hangings

[tsotha]

We moved away from firing squads because for particularly heinous crimes the executioners were deliberately shooting to wound instead of kill. I support capital punishment, but I think it should be as quick and painless as possible.

Re:Hangings

[Time_Ngler]

What about blindfolding them, tying them up to a pole, attaching some large feathers to their feet (so they land head first), and throwing them off a high perch? Much cheaper and safer then explosives.

Re:Hangings

[Reziac]

HSUS is, bluntly, a money laundry based on the animal rights schtick. Since one of the AR goals is no more pets, making pet deaths as ugly and expensive as possible is seen as one way of reducing pet ownership.

Re:Hangings

[cyn1c77]

-- Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment. There's ways you can relieve the burden on society, too.

Life imprisonment is harsher on anyone who who has to come into contact with lifers. A lifer has no incentive to behave in a reasonable way. If someone says the wrong word a lifer may kill them. The lifer is already subject to the harshest penalty possible. What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?

I lifer is a danger to every guard and inmate they come into contact with. The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.

Sounds great, as long as you aren't the innocent!

Re:Hangings

[fiannaFailMan]

So if you sentence the guy to thirty years, should the jury have to house, feed and guard him?

Maybe. It'd be cheaper than executing him.

lethal injection is for sissies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a country/state that is very proud of (1) their inalienable right to own and wear guns, and (2) insists on killing people found guilty in a very imperfect process, should have the guts to just shoot those people. Executions aren't supposed to be nice, so just get over the squeamishness and just shoot the buggers.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a country/state that is very proud of (1) their inalienable right to own and wear guns, and (2) insists on killing people found guilty in a very imperfect process, should have the guts to just shoot those people. Executions aren't supposed to be nice, so just get over the squeamishness and just shoot the buggers.

The especially weird thing is that a lot of the same people who are big on capital punishment and packing heat also will be the first to bitch about "big government" interfering in their lives with their taxes, healthcare and other "nanny state" regulations. Seems that deliberately, intentionally killing citizens is the most serious form of government intrusion in one's life -- not something to trust to the incompetent, liberal, meddling "gubmint". You know, the terrifying phrase: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[Baloroth]

And that changes things... how? The government still carries out the whole thing.

No, they don't. That's the AC's point: the government doesn't carry out the decision over whether an individual is guilty or not. The jury does that. The actual execution, yes, because you don't want that handed directly to the people (we have a word for that: vigilante justice, and historically it doesn't work out so well).

Most people who yell about "big gubmint" have no problem with a government that follows the rules and limitations established in the respective constitutions (execution is carried out by the state government, not the federal, though of course the execution has to be constitutional under the federal constitution as well, to wit, not cruel). One of the roles of even the smallest government is the enforcement of justice. Everyone I know of who favors small government acknowledges that. "Small" doesn't necessarily mean "non-existent."

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

The state doesn't get to this point lightly or without cause.

Again, what's your point? Read the post you replied to. He basically said that those who claim to want small government probably shouldn't support the death penalty, and for obvious reasons.

And even though you say they don't get to this point lightly or without cause, many innocents have been murdered at the hands of government thugs thanks to the existence of the death penalty.

You do realize that the two subjects are only tied together in your puny little brain?

No. It is still the government carrying out the execution. People who actually want small government don't believe the government should have such a power to begin with, even if they have the 'consent' of the people.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

No, they don't.

Yes, they do. It is an example of big government whether or not they have the consent of the people.

The actual execution, yes, because you don't want that handed directly to the people (we have a word for that: vigilante justice, and historically it doesn't work out so well).

So you even partially admit it, then.

Again, people who claim to want small government and support the death penalty are simply liars.

Most people who yell about "big gubmint" have no problem with a government that follows the rules and limitations established in the respective constitutions

Whether or not they follow the rules, laws, and constitutions has nothing to do with whether it's an example of big government. Laws, rules, and even parts of the constitution can be wrong. I can't think of many better examples of "big government" than the death penalty.

Everyone I know of who favors small government acknowledges that. "Small" doesn't necessarily mean "non-existent."

"Small" also doesn't mean "having the power to murder imprisoned people"; that's "huge."

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[Ed Bugg]

Not weighing on death penalty but the narrow scope of your statement.

The government still carries out the whole thing. If you claim to want small government but support the death penalty, you're nothing but a liar.

Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt. That's the fallacy. There are municipalities (cities, townships, maybe even county) govt, then there's state govt., and finally the federal govt.

When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level. Why would someone want the size of government to be small at the top (federal level)? Because we have the least amount of say at that level, and it has the most reaching effects. The lower you go, the more influence you have. Therefor the thinking is the more power over your lives they should have. Of course conversely, the lower levels of government also effects less and less people.

You might have heard a saying at one point in time, "The states are experiments in democracy." That was supposed to because the people had a fairly good say in what the state did and didn't do (it's a lot easier to petition a government when you need a lot less number of signatures on a petition) and other states can look at it and say "Hey that went pretty well. Maybe I can implement something like that for my people." or "Well that didn't work out very well, guess we won't be going down that road." You have more control (notice I said more, not total control) over what effects you and what works for you (after all the different areas of the country have different needs) and if someone in a different area of the country wants something that ends up being a bad idea, you're not effected.

Death penalty is handled as a state level. The the federal government shouldn't come into play unless they want to take it away from the states to decide for themselves and make it a federal penalty. So yes, you can still believe in a small government at the federal level and still support the death penalty at the state level.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt.

No, it doesn't.

When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level.

Are they, now? They don't distinguish between the two, and frankly, such a distinction is pointless. Big government is big government; it doesn't matter whether it's federal or state government.

So while people who only claim to want a small federal government and nothing else might not be outright hypocrites for supporting the death penalty, they're still completely irrational. Giving that kind of power to government thugs (any of them) does not a small government make.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[gr8_phk]

should have the guts to just shoot those people

Utah had this till 2004 and 3 people who chose it prior to that date may still get it. I looked this up because I recalled someone using it just a while back.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[gweihir]

Indeed. The rest of the world calls this behavior "stupid".

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ScentCone]

The especially weird thing is that a lot of the same people who are big on capital punishment and packing heat also will be the first to bitch about "big government" interfering in their lives with their taxes, healthcare and other "nanny state" regulations.

Oh, come on. Even you know those are completely different issues. The whole point of having some monstrous serial-child-raping-killer put out of everyone's misery is so that such a person is prevented from ever again interfering in people's lives (in either repeating the crime, or still breathing and having breakfast every morning even as the family of a murdered victim gets to wake up, permanently, to the absence of the person killed, and to pay taxes every week to buy that guy his breakfast).

Law enforcement, used to protect people from and to punish the likes of unrepentant violent killers, is exactly in keeping with the expectations of a rationally-sized, constitutionally sound government. Complaining about the hiring of 20,000 new IRS agents who are assigned to track and punish folks like 50-year old couples who don't buy government mandated health insurance that forces them to purchase pre-natal care they'll never use is not irreconcilable with preferring a stone cold killer to be stone cold dead instead of outliving his victims by decades.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[Wookact]

You are the twit to be exact. There have been enough cases where people on death row have been exonerated, that we can determine that the government is not fit to make this decision, no matter how carefully the state gets to that point.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[Anubis IV]

I think most people here can understand that there isn't a massive, logical incongruity in wanting a government to maintain the criminal justice system while also wanting it to stay out of our everyday lives. Generally, people should be free to go about their lives, so long as they aren't harming others. Once they cross that line, very few people actually object to the government (federal, state, or local, as appropriate) stepping in or being available to resolve the dispute (e.g. lawsuit), since at that point you are no longer just dealing with your own life, but also the lives of others.

The whole point of having a government is to help ensure that a group of people are able to work together, and that means that the government will have to tell someone they can't have their way some of the time. Put differently, intrusions are a necessary component of a functioning government. The people clamoring for the government to stay out of their lives are sometimes fanatics who will accept no compromise (i.e. they want their way 100% of the time, which simply isn't feasible, since their way isn't compatible with everyone else's all of the time), but most people are simply of the mindset that the government shouldn't intrude unnecessarily. The nature of government is that it will intrude at some point, but the intrusion should be kept to the minimum amount necessary for accomplishing the task.

As for what tasks make sense...well, that's a separate but related discussion that goes into how large the government should be and what should be handled by it vs. what should be handled by private industry, but we don't need to resolve that issue in order to understand that it makes sense for the government to be able to intrude in some cases but not in others.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[guises]

Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt. That's the fallacy. There are municipalities (cities, townships, maybe even county) govt, then there's state govt., and finally the federal govt.

When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level. Why would someone want the size of government to be small at the top (federal level)? Because we have the least amount of say at that level, and it has the most reaching effects. The lower you go, the more influence you have.

This is a common belief, but local governments, being smaller, are also easier to influence. This was the issue with Montana's challenge to Citizens United: Montana had a history of corruption stemming from mining companies which was severe enough that they had special anti-lobbying laws passed. (Struck down by the supreme court.) The money that a big company has to throw around goes much further when the government that they're trying to influence is smaller and more local.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[Nethemas the Great]

If we're going to go down that route I really don't see what the problem is with just putting a bullet in their head. It's exceptionally effective, comparatively inexpensive, and if you could even attach such a word to it, far more humane due to its immediacy.

That said, I'm at a loss to understand why we bother. The general consensus suggests that a life stay is about half the cost and doesn't carry with it the same "barbarism" issue. Personally I think it's wholly stupid to house prisoners at tax payer expense. Force them to earn their keep by providing labor. For non-lifers it would not only serve to pay for their stay but could provide job training.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ScentCone]

This would seem to be the weirdness referred to. That the government can be trusted to kill but not to heal.

It's a jury of one's peers, not the government, that finds a person guilty of a capital crime. And, complaining about ObamaCare? That's not complaining about the government "healing." It's complaining about a strictly partisan law (rammed through without anything like a proper vote, and with nobody knowing the full consequences) that results in massive new debts, new and higher taxes, huge growth in bureaucracy, new ways to be guilty for doing nothing, hundreds of thousands of people a month getting insurance cancellation letters because the policies they've held for years are suddenly no longer good according to the administration, employers cutting back on full time jobs, doctors refusing to take on new patients and running away from people using existing programs like Medicare, people getting their monthly rates doubled or tripled (ours more than tripled, and we went from a $1000 deductible to a $6000 deductible), and a host of other things that have exactly NOTHING to do with anyone being "healed."

The government is chartered, in the constitution, to provide law enforcement. Not to force post-menopausal women to buy insurance that covers infant care. Not to send the IRS in to garnish your wages if you don't like the plan, or to send the new bill for all the people that will be subsidized along to middle-class and above taxpayers (once those poor people cough up hard cash for their brand new multi-thousand-dollar deductible).

If you think it's suddenly the government's job to make sure that everyone has health insurance (though the estimate is that even if they get all of the sign-ups they're wishing for by young people who at the moment are unable to even get a person on the phone, let alone use total failure of a web site that the administration put together), there will still be thirty million people who won't have insurance.

The complaint is that the entire concept was a deliberate, bald-faced lie. And that every promise made about people being able to keep their insurance, their doctors, their privacy, and more of their money was a purposeful deception. Deliberate falsehood. Fraud. Willful deceit.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[I'm New Around Here]

If we're going to go down that route I really don't see what the problem is with just putting a bullet in their head. It's exceptionally effective, comparatively inexpensive, and if you could even attach such a word to it, far more humane due to its immediacy.

That said, I'm at a loss to understand why we bother. The general consensus suggests that a life stay is about half the cost

A bullet in the head, or even half a dozen in the heart, costs twice a much as feeding and housing a prisoner for several decades? How is that feasible?

and doesn't carry with it the same "barbarism" issue.

It's only an issue if we make it an issue. For those of us who are willing to shoot someone to protect our children, not protecting them is barbarism.

Personally I think it's wholly stupid to house prisoners at tax payer expense. Force them to earn their keep by providing labor. For non-lifers it would not only serve to pay for their stay but could provide job training.

And for the lifers that have no family willing to pay their 'room-n-board', and who refuse to work, would you let them starve to death in a cold damp cell?

Re: lethal injection is for sissies

[Nethemas the Great]

Execution costs are derived from the legal costs associated with mandatory appeals, two defence lawyers instead of the single court appointed, and then of course every thing to match that in the prosecution side. As for the forced labor, I think you'd be surprised at just how effective hunger and privileges can be in motivating obstinate people.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ScentCone]

I tried to read your post, but I just see "Blah, blah, blah, debunked-right-wing-talking points, blah, blah, blah . . .

A sure sign that you have no ability to point out any substance to the contrary. Thanks for pointing out I'm right.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

No. It is still the government carrying out the execution. People who actually want small government don't believe the government should have such a power to begin with, even if they have the 'consent' of the people.

I don't understand why you think that. Some people may, a very small number that probably oppose the death penalty in the first place. Did you take a US Civics class? The Constitution is for limited government. In fact the central government can only do what is in the Constitution. Something that is now way beyond what the original framers intended, clearly. Agencies such as BATF, Education, EPA (Created by Richard Nixon BTW) and a bunch more have no business being in existence.

As for governments - executed people back then too with limited Government. I know, hard to believe but they did. You want a Government to be involved in capital punishment cases. Otherwise you have a mob. Then none of us are safe. No executions and crime goes up. This is clear by looking at political boundaries. For example Baltimore City and Baltimore County. The County has the death penalty and the City doesn't. It's amazing the difference in crime on the sides of that political line. There is no white line to demark it, however they know where the boundary is. Same neighbourhood, same houses, same economic situations, different crime rates. So "it is not a deterrent" is BS.

We need to also hold our government accountable. Make sure it isn't used for murder. Also make sure they are doing their job by not letting murderers go free.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[Anubis IV]

I never said anything about a "massive criminal justice system". I simply said "criminal justice system". See the last paragraph of my previous comment for why I didn't bother addressing those concerns. Your problem is not with the criminal justice system as an idea, but rather with the scope that it currently encompasses. That's a separate issue. I was talking about the idea of a criminal justice system being incongruous with wanting a lack of intrusion in one's life, and was suggesting that the nature of the intrusion is quite different than the type that people complain about, typically.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Some people may, a very small number that probably oppose the death penalty in the first place.

Right, but I'm saying that anyone who claims to want a small government but supports the death penalty doesn't actually want a small government. Killing imprisoned people is no small matter.

Did you take a US Civics class?

Yes, and it was a complete waste of time, like public school in general. You're better off doing your own research than listening to such naive propaganda about how things should work; they don't work that way in reality.

That said, I'm not sure why you asked such a question and then followed up with a statement I was already aware of.

The Constitution is for limited government.

Yes. And? Even the term "limited government" has numerous meanings; it's completely ambiguous. I for one think that the US constitution gave the government too much power.

As for governments - executed people back then too with limited Government.

When I say "small government," I am not referring to whether or not the government violated the constitution. You can have a very large government that follows the constitution to a T. Many people use the terms "small government" and "big government" this way, not in the 'following the constitution' way.

No executions and crime goes up.

In case you weren't aware, plenty of countries have already gotten rid of the death penalty and no such thing has been observed. And actually, even if it has been observed in some cases, correlation != causation.

Plus, freedom is more important than safety. If you believe we should give worthless, incompetent government thugs

For example Baltimore City and Baltimore County. The County has the death penalty and the City doesn't. It's amazing the difference in crime on the sides of that political line.

Confusing correlation with causation, are we? A common error, and also completely unconvincing.

So "it is not a deterrent" is BS.

You know what's really BS? Arguing for something because you think it'll make us safer. That's not the attitude anyone living in a free country should have. I suppose you'd be okay with the TSA if it actually did make us safer? I hope not.

Make sure it isn't used for murder.

This is a naive fantasy; you can't prove that someone is guilty with 100% accuracy. And frankly, even if they could, I still wouldn't want worthless government thugs in the business of murdering prisoners.

It seems your comment is the way it is because you completely misunderstood what I meant. I hope you don't claim to want a small government, because you don't seem to actually want one; people like that make the rest of us who truly do want a small government look bad.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

Right, but I'm saying that anyone who claims to want a small government but supports the death penalty doesn't actually want a small government. Killing imprisoned people is no small matter.

Ok, Perhaps what I should have said is smaller government. Clearly what we have is way too large and I think we agree on that. By small I don't mean say 100 people in Washington or something silly like that. I/ I think people saying that mean smaller as in get rid of EPA, BATF, Education, trim DHS and so on. Just because you have a small government doesn't mean it can't effectively do the job of policing society.

In case you weren't aware, plenty of countries have already gotten rid of the death penalty and no such thing has been observed. And actually, even if it has been observed in some cases, correlation != causation.

Plus, freedom is more important than safety. If you believe we should give worthless, incompetent government thugs

I am aware and that's not the case. This clearly shows me that you haven't done your homework or perhaps you don't know how to do your homework. I run into that a lot, especially with anyone born 1980 and later. I'll admit that they do whatever they can to confuse people so they don't realize what is going on. One data point doesn't prove it, however lots of data points from across the world does. Clearly it is a deterrent and it should be public. The more public the better. I'd be for hanging in front of the Washington Monument. Hang 'em, Hang 'em high! Not in the back room for next to no one to see. Get back to what life really is.

You know what's really BS? Arguing for something because you think it'll make us safer. That's not the attitude anyone living in a free country should have. I suppose you'd be okay with the TSA if it actually did make us safer? I hope not.

Really? Did you really understand what you wrote? It is people like you that make smaller government people like me look bad. So we should NOT arrest bad guys because we think it makes us safer either? You don't want any police or am I getting you wrong? I don't think I'm making a "do it for the children" argument (if you understand what I mean). The alternative is life in prison, usually without parole. So effectively your killing them by the use of time instead of something more expedient. I.e. It's a distinction without a difference (that Europe is too dumb to realize). Unless you are arguing that we shouldn't arrest them at all, you're not for that are you? If you are, please let me know. That'll end this conversation very quickly.

As for TSA, I refer to that as security theater.

This is a naive fantasy; you can't prove that someone is guilty with 100% accuracy. And frankly, even if they could, I still wouldn't want worthless government thugs in the business of murdering prisoners.

It seems your comment is the way it is because you completely misunderstood what I meant. I hope you don't claim to want a small government, because you don't seem to actually want one; people like that make the rest of us who truly do want a small government look bad.

Oh come on. You really think murder can't be proven with 100% accuracy? Don't make off the cuff silly statements like that. Should I point out cases like John Wayne Gacy? Jeff Dahmer? Many, Many others. You're in the naive fantasy if you believe that. Please wake up and smell the coffee. Otherwise, I predict you will be taken advantage of a lot.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Just because you have a small government doesn't mean it can't effectively do the job of policing society.

Right. But policing is quite different from the outright murder of prisoners., which is huge.

Don't tell me that you want worthless, incompetent government thugs to have such a power?

This clearly shows me that you haven't done your homework or perhaps you don't know how to do your homework.

That shows the sort of 'homework' that you do; research that conforms with your own opinion.

however lots of data points from across the world does.

Actually, it still wouldn't. Unless you can accurately pinpoint the exact cause and have taken into account every other explanation, then I'd refrain from trying to claim such things.

And the prime issue is about freedom and not letting the government have too much power, not safety.

Really? Did you really understand what you wrote?

Of course; you're just being pedantic. Why are you being pedantic? Because it is more convenient for you. It is convenient for you to be able to interpret what I said as saying that everything that makes us safer is bad because then you don't have to acknowledge what I actually said.

So effectively your killing them by the use of time instead of something more expedient.

That's not the same as murdering them. When you kill them, they're simply dead and don't have the ability to live any sort of life at all (even one in prison). It is ridiculous to say that there is no difference.

As for TSA, I refer to that as security theater.

So you'd accept it if it actually did make us safer, then?

Oh come on. You really think murder can't be proven with 100% accuracy?

It can't. Study a bit of philosophy and come back to me.

Should I point out cases like John Wayne Gacy? Jeff Dahmer? Many, Many others.

That'd do you no good. Your response was predictable.

You're in the naive fantasy if you believe that

Really? I'm in a naive fantasy for pointing out that proving something with 100% accuracy isn't feasibly possible in cases such as this?

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

is not irreconcilable with preferring a stone cold killer to be stone cold dead instead of outliving his victims by decades.

Preferring it is not the problem.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

Right. But policing is quite different from the outright murder of prisoners., which is huge.

Don't tell me that you want worthless, incompetent government thugs to have such a power?

How is a court of law with many levels to go through before they actually execute someone the same as incompetent government thugs? Indeed, the legal system and execution is the least of my worries. The cop pulling you over (aka a terry stop) is the biggest threat to our lives and freedom.

That shows the sort of 'homework' that you do; research that conforms with your own opinion.

No, that would be you I suspect (amazing how many people accuse others of doing exactly what they do). I went into it originally trying to show that capital punishment didn't work and should be abolished. When I completed what I was doing which took about 2 years it was very clear to me that it does work and shouldn't be abolished. It was a real eye opener.

Actually, it still wouldn't. Unless you can accurately pinpoint the exact cause and have taken into account every other explanation, then I'd refrain from trying to claim such things.

And the prime issue is about freedom and not letting the government have too much power, not safety.

Yes, like all the excuses they have out there - guns, socio-economics, geography, race and so on. I hate to admit it but man is much like a cave man when it comes to this. At least those that murder. If they know they'll be executed they don't do it unless they are really psychopaths. Maybe it would help if you met a few of these people. They can be nice and seem like the guy next door. They also don't think anything of doing things that I deleted in this space because it's just so terrible.

I think the way it is, as long as they have the DP with the process that we have isn't giving them too much power. Giving them the entire health care industry clearly is way too much power on the other hand. That's an entirely different discussion, however.

That's not the same as murdering them. When you kill them, they're simply dead and don't have the ability to live any sort of life at all (even one in prison). It is ridiculous to say that there is no difference.

I run into this every so often and I have never understood the reasoning. Somehow mother nature killing them after the legal system caged them for however many years took is ok? So why let them live? Is there somehow a deterrent in them living in prison because I've never seen anything to suggest that. Why let them continue to live? To me there really would be no difference. Life as I know it is over. Often their attitude becomes that they don't care and nobody is safe in that jail. They have nothing to lose.

So why don't you understand that time can be a killer as well as a bullet? My point is either way we must have processes in place such that if you are innocent you go free. Often it's the case that for life once you're convicted you're screwed. If it's the DP, there are automatic appeals to help you.

(100%, Gacy, Dahmer) That'd do you no good. Your response was predictable.

They admitted it, found the bodies. There is no question they were guilty. Of course my response was predictable. Put nonsense out there, you're going to be called on it. Admit it, there are cases where we are 100% certain and trying to hide behind philosophy won't help. I've been down that road too.

Really? I'm in a naive fantasy for pointing out that proving something with 100% accuracy isn't feasibly possible in cases such as this?

In cases like Gacy and Dahmer that's right. There are cases where we can't be 100%, clearly. In fact the Texas case where they probably executed the wrong man comes to mind. That was by no means a 100% case. That case disturbed me for some time.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

How is a court of law with many levels to go through before they actually execute someone the same as incompetent government thugs?

The same system has allowed many unjust things through it. Court decisions have caused war protestors to be arrested. Blatantly unconstitutional laws have been upheld. Government thugs simply should not be in the business of murdering people who have already been captured.

I'm highly cautious of giving the government any power it doesn't absolutely need, and for good reason.

(amazing how many people accuse others of doing exactly what they do)

I know, right?

I went into it originally trying to show that capital punishment didn't work and should be abolished.

So... you changed your opinion because you believe that capital punishments makes us safer? What a freedom-minded individual you are. Again, I bring up the TSA: Would you agree with its existence if it actually kept us safe?

Yes, like all the excuses they have out there - guns, socio-economics, geography, race and so on.

Some of those aren't merely "excuses." Trying to pinpoint a single cause is almost futile.

But while we're talking about excuses, add 'lack of the death penalty' to the list.

Life as I know it is over.

You really don't see a difference between being dead and being alive? Strange.

So why don't you understand that time can be a killer as well as a bullet?

You really don't see the difference between shooting someone and... not doing anything to them?

Admit it, there are cases where we are 100% certain

I'm not going to admit I agree with something I don't actually agree with.

And it also depends on perception. There have been many cases of people who have thought that someone committed some crime with 100% certainty but were later found out to be wrong. Plenty of checks are already in place, and yet innocent people have been (and will likely continue to be) murdered. There are not many things you can truly be 100% certain about.

and trying to hide behind philosophy won't help.

Hide behind it? No need.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

The same system has allowed many unjust things through it. Court decisions have caused war protestors to be arrested. Blatantly unconstitutional laws have been upheld. Government thugs simply should not be in the business of murdering people who have already been captured.

I'm highly cautious of giving the government any power it doesn't absolutely need, and for good reason.

Judges who are ruling based on their political views instead of the law. Understand, however I don't think many rule that way in the case of someone's life. I certainly hope that's not the case. I don't recall a case where I thought that happened. People being charged who clearly shouldn't have been. A recent case shows that, the Zimmerman case. They didn't bother with the grand jury. Justice department caused enough political racial tension that they went right to an trail and ended up with egg on their face when the inevitable verdict came in.

So... you changed your opinion because you believe that capital punishments makes us safer? What a freedom-minded individual you are. Again, I bring up the TSA: Would you agree with its existence if it actually kept us safe?

A very focused freedom minded guy. I've got to be missing something here. Flew right over my head? What does freedom for society and executing someone who is a murderer have to do with each other? I didn't address TSA because it's not that simple and it's off topic. I try to keep things on topic or it sometimes goes crazy. We need something. We don't necessarily need the TSA as such.

Some of those aren't merely "excuses." Trying to pinpoint a single cause is almost futile.

But while we're talking about excuses, add 'lack of the death penalty' to the list.

Did. The trouble is you want something that is definitive, black and white and there are no questions to be criticized about or feel bad about. We shouldn't feel good about executing someone. Life isn't like that. You take all of those causal relationships and they can be eliminated in different societies and circumstances one by one. What I had left at the end of many days was that the DP works as long as people are aware of it. The more public the better. I bet if I were to take you to Saudi Arabia for say a month stay, you'd be a totally different person. A lot of your doubts would vanish. They deal with even the common thief a whole lot differently than we do.

You really don't see a difference between being dead and being alive? Strange.

Context is important. I don't see much of a difference between being dead and being locked up in a cage like an animal for say 30+ years and then being dead. Of course that is assuming you meet a natural end in prison. Many don't.

You really don't see the difference between shooting someone and... not doing anything to them?

But that's the problem. You're not "not doing anything to them." You're locking them up for in most cases decades. They are able to still communicate with people on the outside, often they even have cell phones. They can still do a lot of harm behind bars. Dead, they tend to not harm anyone.

I'm not going to admit I agree with something I don't actually agree with.

And it also depends on perception. There have been many cases of people who have thought that someone committed some crime with 100% certainty but were later found out to be wrong. Plenty of checks are already in place, and yet innocent people have been (and will likely continue to be) murdered. There are not many things you can truly be 100% certain about.

Many cases they were 100% on and they weren't guilty? Ok, I'm game. Name three. I'm sure you have some or you wouldn't have offered, would you? What happened, where they executed then found to not be guilty or the system worked? I may not be able to respond for a while. I'd have to loo

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Understand, however I don't think many rule that way in the case of someone's life.

Silly. You're talking about humans here, and not perfect angels. "They might abuse their powers in every other case... but they won't in this one!" This is naive. This is the sort of mindset we have to thank for garbage like the TSA.

What does freedom for society and executing someone who is a murderer have to do with each other?

It has to do with whether or not the government should be able to murder people, and the right to life.

I didn't address TSA because it's not that simple and it's off topic.

Not that simple? The question was simple. Assume that the TSA works; do you support it?

I bet if I were to take you to Saudi Arabia for say a month stay, you'd be a totally different person.

What a good country to live in, and a great example. Do you have any actual concrete evidence, or are you just going to keep confusing correlation with causation?

By the way, I'm not actually certain one way or the other. Frankly, even if the death penalty makes us safer, I don't want government thugs to have such a power.

I don't see much of a difference between being dead and being locked up in a cage like an animal for say 30+ years and then being dead.

Well, if you want to kill yourself, go ahead. Just don't make that decision for other people.

You're not "not doing anything to them."

You're not shooting them.

They can still do a lot of harm behind bars.

The terrorists! The terrorists will get us! Give the government more power to stop the terrorists! Safety is what's important! Ooga booga booga!

Such things are rare to begin with. You could use this sort of logic to advocate for the execution of every prisoner (they may want revenge for putting them in prison, after all).

Many cases they were 100% on and they weren't guilty?

Absolutely. Surely you don't think they went through all those appeals and no one felt 100% confident that the person actually committed the crime?

May help if I mention that when I say it's 100%, we're really darn sure.

Yep. They were "really darn sure" plenty of times. The perception was that they were absolutely guilty. Perception sort of gets in the way of the "100%" limitation, and it doesn't matter what you think "100%" means.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ScentCone]

Sigh. Boring right-wing nutjob pretends he's above all this. Precious little cutie pie. You are soooooo adorable.

Hey, look! Another pretentious-sounding adolescent lefty thinking that he's sounding condescending (when he really just comes across like a typical juvenile who mistakes ad hominem for scoring points on substance). You know what would really be persuasive? A comment that in any way actually addresses the matter at hand, which you're too craven to do. What are you, 11?

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

Silly. You're talking about humans here, and not perfect angels. "They might abuse their powers in every other case... but they won't in this one!" This is naive. This is the sort of mindset we have to thank for garbage like the TSA.

You're showing me you really have no clue. Do this and you cross into being a psychopath as a judge and they understand that. No better than the murderer. Now if you raped the only judge for that county's daughter, well you could have a problem.

You've also demonstrated to me that you're not serious and this is a waste of time. I know that stuff didn't just fly over your head.

I'll just conclude this with - Once you've committed a murder you're a criminal. You lose your freedom. Kill just one person and it's really hard to end up with the DP in the USA. I'm sure it can be done if you're a big enough ass in court. You generally have to kill many people and on more than one occasion. Again, except for Texas. Difference between the needle, noose, bullet and time? Just the time really. A sentence of life W/O Parole is still a death sentence. You'll never be free again so don't kid yourself into thinking they didn't get the DP.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

You're showing me you really have no clue.

I think the same, but about you.

You've also demonstrated to me that you're not serious

I'm quite serious.

You'll never be free again so don't kid yourself into thinking they didn't get the DP.

Again, being alive and being dead are two different things. Just because you view being in prison for the rest of your life the same as being dead doesn't mean everyone else feels that way.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

You're showing me you really have no clue.

I think the same, but about you.

That's surprising. I've shown a depth of knowledge having researched the subject, talked to those involved and done the analysis. You on the other hand classify a whole sets of different people, at different levels of government (local, district, federal, SCOTUS) as thugs. You've make clearly off the cuff statements, accused me of mixing up terminology without any basis having looked or even asked about the data, and so on. I believe that describes clueless quite well. It's also very annoying.

I'm quite serious.

Really. I find that hard to believe. If you really are you need to work on that, be less flip.

Again, being alive and being dead are two different things. Just because you view being in prison for the rest of your life the same as being dead doesn't mean everyone else feels that way.

That's because you are being pedantic. You're not thinking about it correctly. I keep telling you and it seems to keep on flying by you. When you see it, I'm sure it will be like a light turning on and you'll think - well yea!

Try it again - you've been accused of murdering 5 people on two separate occasions. We know you did it. You admit it, evidence definitively shows it was you - video tape, eye witnesses, you were arrested at the last scene being caught red handed. You're one bad dude. People are upset at you and want the DP. As a justice I can:
A) Set you free. You're a good guy and I know you couldn't have done that. You must have been rail roaded.
B) Jail you for a period of time - say 10 years. You're a bad dude, but we have to put some other group in jail so we need the space.
C) Jail you for the rest of your life - as I said, you're one bad dude.
D) Execute you. We give you your choice of execution - a) Hanging, b) Firing squad c) Stoning.

End result is C) and D) are really the same thing. You're still dead at the hand of the justice system. Method is different. The system can either use one of those choices in D or C - force you into a cell and use time to kill you. As I pointed out earlier there is a difference for the better in D. You get automatic appeals that you don't get with life. With luck you can show you really didn't do it, if you really didn't do it. If you did, then you should be executed. World is better off without you. No loss, just got rid of another mad dog.

I know, you still don't get it? Think about it.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

You on the other hand classify a whole sets of different people, at different levels of government (local, district, federal, SCOTUS) as thugs.

Maybe you should research a bit of history; it's not hard to reach that conclusion.

I disagree with you, so you think I'm clueless. You disagree with me, so I think you're clueless. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You're not thinking about it correctly.

Really? They'd die whether or not they were put in prison; time kills everyone, and it's not the fault of prison or the government. Equating a death from old age to killing someone is preposterous to begin with.

End result is C) and D) are really the same thing.

I don't think so. In addition to what I said above, there is the fact that the prisoner may die sooner with the death penalty than without.

You get automatic appeals that you don't get with life.

That's an indication that the legal system may need some fixing, not that the death penalty is a good solution.

If you did, then you should be executed.

I also disagree with that.

I know, you still don't get it? Think about it.

I know, you still don't get it? Think about it.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

Maybe you should research a bit of history; it's not hard to reach that conclusion.

I disagree with you, so you think I'm clueless. You disagree with me, so I think you're clueless. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You're still here? I have to move on. I'll pitch one more ball to you, against my better judgement.

It isn't that I disagree with you so you're clueless, it's because you clearly lack background in this area that you are clueless. In fact you even admitted it saying that you haven't decided this yet. Either you're playing dumb or you're clueless. I don't think you're cleaver enough to be playing dumb. I don't know you well enough to definitively say you're not playing dumb.

Really? They'd die whether or not they were put in prison; time kills everyone, and it's not the fault of prison or the government. Equating a death from old age to killing someone is preposterous to begin with.

What's preposterous is you not realizing that either way something is being done to someone. The action will cause their death as it's life without parole which you seem to find acceptable. I just want you to admit it causes their death - because it does and it was something done to them. Therefore as far as a penal code order it's really the same thing. A distinction without a real difference. That's why I said you aren't thinking about it the right way. Don't just think that giving someone life is ok and wash your hands of it. "It's ok, we didn't execute him" and somehow that's right? Maybe you are just totally oblivious to what someone goes through being put into a cage for 30+ years?

Of course someone may read this and say - OMG, we're still giving them the DP and get upset. We're taking this poor murderer and instead of shooting him, we're caging him like an ANIMAL in a violent way for years causing his death. In fact now they don't even want Animals kept in such small areas. It's inhumane...

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

You're still here?

That was my first thought. What an eyesore.

it's because you clearly lack background in this area that you are clueless.

That's what I believe you are.

In fact you even admitted it saying that you haven't decided this yet.

Admitted what?

What's preposterous is you not realizing that either way something is being done to someone.

If I stab someone, that's the same as letting time 'kill' them because they would have died either way. That is your logic. The mere fact that they're locked in prison has nothing to do with their death; the simple fact is, it's time that 'kills' them off, and that would have happened regardless of whether they went to prison or not.

Saying that giving them the death penalty is the same as them dying naturally in prison is simply asinine.

I just want you to admit it causes their death

What? You mean... time? The thing that 'kills' everyone regardless of whether or not they're in prison? It's not prison that kills them, my dear nigoola.

That's why I said you aren't thinking about it the right way.

I don't like what you consider to be "the right way"; I think it's rather illogical.

Maybe you are just totally oblivious to what someone goes through being put into a cage for 30+ years?

Just because you or others would rather die than be in prison doesn't mean that applies to everyone; don't choose for other people.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

If I stab someone, that's the same as letting time 'kill' them because they would have died either way. That is your logic. The mere fact that they're locked in prison has nothing to do with their death; the simple fact is, it's time that 'kills' them off, and that would have happened regardless of whether they went to prison or not.

Saying that giving them the death penalty is the same as them dying naturally in prison is simply asinine.

Not true. You took an action against that other person. If you get about 1.5" of blade in his body area, he's done fairly soon unless he is able to get medical attention. In the old days that was often fatal. Even today that could be fatal. I'm also a fencer and have studied this. Most people would think you caused their demise if they died soon or you shortened their normal life through that action. It was something you did to them. Case in point, suppose you punctured an internal organ and through complications from that they die say 1 year later. An asshole, dumpy 20 year old male mostly drunk smoker (who gave you an atomic wedgy) subject that normally would have died by age 40. They would come after you for his death. Of course if I were on the jury, I'd argue and probably get you off. However others may not see it that way and you could get life or even execution.

They say that if you make it 20 years in jail that's like a lifetime. So you can say incarceration shortens their life. Something done to them just like your stabbing the other fellow.

That's ok. Not everyone understands this. I have a feeling some law courses would help you understand. Even then, some people can't come to terms with it. You may be one of those people and that's ok. They don't want to think they as a society killed someone. Even if the method they chose is a very violent, painful, long method. The only way out is death.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

You took an action against that other person.

Like, say... giving them the death penalty? You're seriously dense to be able to spew forth such ridiculous logic in a serious manner, and then be able to tell me that I'm simply not understanding you.

They say that if you make it 20 years in jail that's like a lifetime.

So the risk of dying in prison is apparently somewhat higher; therefore, the death penalty is the same as letting them die naturally? Perhaps the risk is higher, but not everyone (and by that I mean "most people") randomly dies in prison for reasons that wouldn't have happened otherwise, so your point is rather moot. The death penalty merely ensures their death, and they likely won't live as long than if they were allowed to die naturally. Time doesn't care whether or not you're in prison; it kills everyone either way.

Not everyone understands this.

Just like not everyone understands that 1 + 1 = 3, and they shouldn't; it's nonsense. If you were merely saying that you personally believe the death penalty is ultimately a good thing, that would be one thing; trying to say that murdering someone and letting them die with time are the same is rather insane.

I have a feeling some law courses would help you understand.

I have a feeling that the law has little to do with logic; we have the TSA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, and tons of other garbage that can attest to that.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Oh, and as it turns out, your last ball really wasn't your last.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

Just like not everyone understands that 1 + 1 = 3, and they shouldn't; it's nonsense. If you were merely saying that you personally believe the death penalty is ultimately a good thing, that would be one thing; trying to say that murdering someone and letting them die with time are the same is rather insane.

I did say I believed it was the best thing and offered support, that wasn't good enough for you. Of course allowing them to die in prison isn't the same thing literally. You're too dense or don't want to understand what I'm trying to tell you. Years from now you'll probably remember this and it will finally come to you. I'll be gone by then I bet.

I have a feeling that the law has little to do with logic; we have the TSA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, and tons of other garbage that can attest to that.

If you study law you find out why things are the way they are. I thought I knew the law when I took my first law course decades ago. Then I found out I knew nothing and worse had wrong knowledge. Take a course if you can, any beginning course, it's very useful.

By just throwing out TSA, NSA, Patriot act... you really shouldn't do that without a point. You come across as a nut. NSA dates back many decades and they've done very good work. I grew up knowing many of them in the days before we had personal computers and I've worked with them professionally since. It's so disingenuous how some of these leaders have responded. Mr. Heller of Israel summed it up well when he said it was like the chief of police in the movie Casablanca being surprised gambling was going on in the casino. They knew, they know and the participate. It's necessary.

The patriot act people love to hate on both sides, yet they keep renewing it and even extending it though at times they swore they wouldn't. Turns out for good reason. What I'm getting at is it isn't as simple as people want it to be. Especially with the regime in power right now.

Just hang in there. That's what makes life interesting. You wouldn't want it to be all easy, would you?

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Of course allowing them to die in prison isn't the same thing literally.

Indeed. Not even the result is the same (unless you only factor in "death," which would be odd), as I've pointed out numerous times. Lawyer 'logic' will not help you here. Telling me to study law will not help you, either; if you can't present a proper counterargument here and now, don't even bother spewing forth such garbage. If it wasn't clear, I did not find your 'logic' convincing.

Years from now you'll probably remember this and it will finally come to you.

You'll agree with me at some unspecified point in the future, so hang in there.

If you study law you find out why things are the way they are.

I'm not interested in newspeak, lawyer 'logic', or rationalizations; I'll pass.

By just throwing out TSA, NSA, Patriot act... you really shouldn't do that without a point. You come across as a nut.

A nut? For mentioning awful laws and organizations? You pretend to care about things such as freedom, but that does not seem to be the case.

NSA dates back many decades and they've done very good work.

And they're also filled with human garbage. They may have done a few things in the past that could be considered beneficial. What of it? Do you honestly think I care about that? The NSA is as it is now; I don't care about its past, and I was already well aware of that nonsense.

Turns out for good reason.

What is good to you is not necessarily good to me. The PATRIOT ACT is not good to me.

Or did you forget that, unlike you, I don't consider safety all-important? Don't pretend to care about freedom; you make those of us who actually do look bad.

What I'm getting at is it isn't as simple as people want it to be.

Maybe not the specifics, but greed, power, and control all factor into it.

You wouldn't want it to be all easy, would you?

Of course it's not easy; that's why every government in history has abused their powers in horrendous ways, including the US government. Why anyone would trust these thugs with anything more than the bare essentials is beyond me.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Of course allowing them to die in prison isn't the same thing literally.

"End result is C) and D) are really the same thing. You're still dead at the hand of the justice system. Method is different."

Right, because saying they're the "same thing" means nothing. As I said, even the end result is different; it's only the same when you factor in only those things that are convenient for your argument (i.e. you leave out who killed the person and when they died).

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[ebvwfbw]

Indeed. Not even the result is the same (unless you only factor in "death," which would be odd), as I've pointed out numerous times. Lawyer 'logic' will not help you here. Telling me to study law will not help you, either; if you can't present a proper counterargument here and now, don't even bother spewing forth such garbage. If it wasn't clear, I did not find your 'logic' convincing.

That's because you don't understand the difference at a high level. Not lawyer logic, results logic. I'll try it one more time. You're the judge, here are your choices. You can let them go. You can put them in jail for a period of time or have probation or a combination of these two. The last two result in the same thing - execute them or life in prison. Either way, they're dead as a result of that sentence.

What is good to you is not necessarily good to me. The PATRIOT ACT is not good to me.

Or did you forget that, unlike you, I don't consider safety all-important? Don't pretend to care about freedom; you make those of us who actually do look bad.

Don't alienate people that can help you. Seems like people on our side are quick to pull out a knife and stab one another. We need to hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately. Safety and security are as relevant today as when Ben Franklin talked about it. Should everyone have the "freedom" to shout fire in a crowded movie theater? Of course not. This is why you need a background in law. Understand where a balance is. You won't get everything you want (unless you can make it seem like "no duh captain obvious"), don't piss others off or you may not get anything that you wanted. Please understand that if you get nothing else out of what I've said. You're talking to a guy that has actually worked with legislators, testified before assemblies to curb abuses. What about you? Have you even written a letter to a representative? Local, State, Fed? Do you even vote? Most of my representatives know me by by name. So don't tell me I don't care about freedom. I care and I actually do something about it. We need a few good men, maybe you can be one of them.

Of course it's not easy; that's why every government in history has abused their powers in horrendous ways, including the US government. Why anyone would trust these thugs with anything more than the bare essentials is beyond me.

Road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's where we're at now. This guy sums it up well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3qYHWRIZk . If we can get the central government back to where it should be it would be great. Of course some people don't want that. They want one stop shop legislation than to deal with 50 legislatures. It also means some people would lose a great deal of power. Good luck with that.

Re:lethal injection is for sissies

[sI4shd0rk]

Either way, they're dead as a result of that sentence.

No, in one instance, they're dead as a result of time; in the other, they're dead because the government killed them. Time would have killed them either way; prison had nothing to do with it. With the death penalty, it almost becomes a certainty that they'll die before they otherwise would have. With the death penalty, you're likely killing them before they had a chance to live out their lives. Not even the results are the same.

Should everyone have the "freedom" to shout fire in a crowded movie theater?

I think so, yes. If the owner of the property doesn't like it, they can kick them out. That's the nice thing about private property.

This is why you need a background in law. Understand where a balance is.

I do not compromise on fundamental freedoms, nor will I. The fact that you even put that forth as an option (especially when talking about the PATRIOT ACT) is exactly the sort of reason I said that you don't care about freedom.

Many people 'compromise' their freedoms away without any background in law, anyway.

You won't get everything you want (unless you can make it seem like "no duh captain obvious"), don't piss others off or you may not get anything that you wanted.

Sometimes compromise is not acceptable. To me, compromising away fundamental freedoms is unacceptable; I'd rather not get anything than do that.

Have you even written a letter to a representative? Local, State, Fed? Do you even vote?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

So don't tell me I don't care about freedom.

Since you seem to be so willing to discard (or 'compromise' away) fundamental freedoms, I stand by what I said, regardless of your actions.

Why not hemp rope, made in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't understand why people are obsessed with "humane" executions.

FFS you're killing a guy, and it's supposed to be a punishment.
Let's just go back to a short rope and a tall tree at sunrise.

Re:Why not hemp rope, made in USA

[meerling]

They would have to import the hemp, you can't grow it in the USA. (At least not legally.)

Re:Why not hemp rope, made in USA

[Ellis D. Tripp]

You can in Colorado...

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24259474/colorado-farmer-harvests-first-u-s-commercial-hemp

Re:Why not hemp rope, made in USA

[Ihlosi]

Strangely, the suggestion that executing someone in a painful manner might possibly be the very definition of "cruel" has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

It's okay if it is cruel and usual.

Why can't we make it here?

[tompaulco]

Without taking stand on the death penalty, I have to ask, why can't we make anaesthetics here, instead of buying it from overseas? is there some law that says we have to buy everything from overseas and not allow American workers to earn a living?

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[IamTheRealMike]

RTFA - it says "Federal regulations make propofol difficult to manufacture in the United States". It does not elaborate on what those regulations are.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[Rich0]

Without taking stand on the death penalty, I have to ask, why can't we make anaesthetics here, instead of buying it from overseas? is there some law that says we have to buy everything from overseas and not allow American workers to earn a living?

Indeed, that would happen on its own if the Germans cut off the supply of the drug. Hospitals would still need it, so other suppliers would step in to provide it.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[durin]

I think this has to do with either patents or copyright. Something that the US has a "very serious stance" on...

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

In this particular case, I doubt it.

Propofol isn't a controlled substance under the CSA.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[Too Much Noise]

Apparently a combination of regulations and manufacturing problems. See here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37403276/ns/health-health_care/

Now that is old news (2010) and apparently both Teva and Hospira are going to restart production ... slowly. However, unless and until they get a significant output going (not soon), Fresenius is the sole supplier, more or less. See here:

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Processing/Propofol-Lethal-Injections-Blocked-as-Teva-and-Hospira-Re-Enter-Market

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[IamTheRealMike]

I found an informative article. Summary: It says that essentially the US firm Hospira is unable to proceed due to the FDA not authorizing changes in the manufacturing process. Teva, an Israeli company, exited the business after what sounds like a combination of manufacturing issues and a large number of spurious lawsuits over a hepatitis C outbreak. The drug itself is extremely hard to manufacture, and profits are nearly non-existent so there's little incentive for competitors to enter the market.

Possibly the issue would be resolved if the FDA were to change the regulations, but again, no information on what exactly the problem is were reported.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[X0563511]

Likely precursors or such are schedule 3.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[Spillman]

Even if it were made here, the next argument that will surface will be revealing the identity of the physicians who administer the drugs. Since these are controlled substances, a physician has to prescribe them. I SHIT YOU NOT! So the Missouri Department of Corrections has to pay doctors to be present at executions to load the drugs and push the buttons. As you can imagine, they keep the identities a secret.

There was a shortage o doctors for a while who wanted to do this and the state had to reach out and find some that would. At that time, the defendant was arguing that it was cruel and unusal to have a non-physician administer the drugs.

IANAL but my father is

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[Jaysyn]

Like what happened with sodium thiopental? Except it totally didn't?

The free-market is not a panacea, not matter how badly you want it to be.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[whoever57]

So the Missouri Department of Corrections has to pay doctors to be present at executions to load the drugs and push the buttons.

What is that oath that doctors are supposed to take? IMHO, any doctor who takes an active role in an execution should be struck off.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[omnichad]

The issue would be resolved if Germany were removed from the competition, too. The problem is that it would take a while for a company to come in, get everything approved, and ramp up production before the current supply runs out.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[gstoddart]

I think this has to do with either patents or copyright. Something that the US has a "very serious stance" on...

I get the impression it's more about certain drugs which could be made into certain other drugs. Something which the US has a very serious stance on.

My bet, they can't make the drugs domestically because the ingredients are tightly controlled. Which is why the US relies on foreign suppliers.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[gweihir]

Simple: The US bureaucracy has become so dysfunctional that some essential things cannot be manufactured domestically anymore.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[sumdumass]

That or it would be exported to a safe country first then imported to the us by third parties. Cuba has gotten around some of the US embargo rules that way.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[ScentCone]

I think this has to do with either patents or copyright.

Citation? You won't find one. Because it has to do with federal regulations making it nearly impossible to set up production for it in the US.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[Rich0]

Like what happened with sodium thiopental? Except it totally didn't?

The free-market is not a panacea, not matter how badly you want it to be.

Well, there needs to be a substantial market. I don't know what the relative use of the drugs are. If the US previously imported 200 vials a year of the stuff and it was blockaded, I doubt somebody is going to spin up a plant to make it. However, the summary talks about this stuff being used 50M times/year. That seems like an awfully big market to ignore in a country like the US where you can charge anything you'd like.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[matfud]

Doubt it as both Teva and Hospira have also said that they will not sell to the justice system and will modify contracts to ensure that their distributers do not either. Also note that Teva will not be manufacturing Propofol. They will be subcontracting the manufacture to a company who will make it in Italy.

Re:Why can't we make it here?

[CanadianMacFan]

I'm sure that they use an alcohol swab before giving the needle. It's all done safely!

Home grown.

[grub]

They do make bullets in the USA, right?

Re:Home grown.

[jbeaupre]

Good luck finding 9mm or .22 rounds.

Re:Home grown.

[ducomputergeek]

Actually I've been able to find 9mm again here recently including the Hornaday Critical Duty rounds that I normally carry as my CCW weapon. And I was having trouble finding it this time last year even before the craziness with ammo began. (Have since learned it is due to manufacturing cycles of ammo. They make all the 9mm they plan to sell for a year in one production run, then go to .40, .45, etc.) I picked up 3 boxes of 9mm last time out.

I've not seen anything other than Gemtech Subsonic & Match Grade .22LR imported from England that's $12 a box of 50 since last november. And I used to buy a brick of .22 every couple months as that's what I primarily shot. I own the .22 version of my CCW pistol as well as conversion kit for my AR. .22 was $.04 a shot vs. $.25 - $.40 for .223/5.56.

Other than the brick of 22 every few months, I used to keep at most 4 - 5 boxes of ammo on hand as I'd find it on sale. I was never one of these "must keep 1000's of rounds around for the end of the world" types.

Last time I was at Bass Pro last month they had 1000 round boxes of .223 for $450. I bought one and it's now in the ammo locker. I plan to do the same for 9mm, .40S&W, and .38 Special over the next year.

Made me glad that most of my firearms I got from my Grandfather were all C&R eligible. The 1903 Springfield & M1 Garand both shoot .30-06 which I was able to find on the shelves throughout this whole mess.

Although I probably own enough firearms to be considered a Turrorist these days....

Re:Home grown.

[shutdown -p now]

Yup. They can even use the lead-free ones. You know, for environment's sake.

Buy American!

[FilmedInNoir]

I think it's time that America invent, patent and produce it's own lethal injection drug.
And that we then move that production to China where cheap costs will allow us to execute 100x the number of people.
People that have turned to a life of crime because of losing their jobs to overseas manufacturers.

Re:Buy American!

[ThePhilips]

In other words, privatize the execution industry.

Just think about all the possibilities of the privatized execution!

Re:Buy American!

[Rob the Bold]

Just think about all the possibilities of the privatized execution!

Simpsons already did it.

Re:Buy American!

[omnichad]

And that we then move that production to China where cheap costs will allow us to execute 100x the number of people.

We can't have lead in our lethal injection drugs.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

I don't think you've noticed, but we are a barbaric nation, by-and-large. Less educated, more violent, and more plutocratic than comparable nations. Our barbarism in our justice system isn't a mysterious artifact of unknown origin, it's a reflection of a larger anti-intellectual culture.

We're All Guily

[macromorgan]

How does killing killers make us any better then the killers themselves?

Re:We're All Guily

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they were given a fair trial before.

Re:We're All Guily

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

And how does imprisoning them make us better than kidnappers? Free them all!

Re:We're All Guily

[Immerman]

It doesn't. The justice system has nothing to do with us being "better" than anyone else, it exists to
(1) interrupt the cycle of reprisals that "code of honor" systems create("An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"), by delegating judgement and punishment to a third party held blameless for actions committed in the line of duty.
(2) discourage future crime through a combination of making an example of criminals caught to dissuade others
(3) rehabilitate, imprison, or eliminating those who demonstrated a willingness to break the law to prevent repeat offenses

(1) requires that the punishments inflicted be sufficient to prevent the wronged individuals from taking justice into their own hands. Obviously if the crime is particularly heinous or the wronged often inclined to violence that may set the bar rather high.
(2) requires that punishments be sufficiently unpleasant that people who believe they probably won't get caught still don't think it's worth the risk.
(3) killing someone is the most permanent method to make sure they never commit another crime - the largest problem being that you can't release a falsely convicted person from death.

Re:We're All Guily

[Anonymous Coward]

How does locking kidnappers in a cell make us any better than the kidnappers themselves?

Re:We're All Guily

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they were given a fair trial before.

Are we still talking about the U.S.A.? Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody is given a fair trial there. You have to buy a fair trial at considerable expense, or accept the "plea deal" which basically considers you guilty, or get off worse for the prosecutor throwing the book at you, and without a really expensive lawyer, more will stick than with the deal. If you are really rich or poor, you are not guilty or guilty, respectively. In the middle range, there is some correlation between guilt and verdict, but you'll have to pay heavily to end on the non-guilty side.

"Fair" is something different.

Re:We're All Guily

[cdrudge]

How does imprisoning imprisioners make us any better than the imprisoners themselves? Think about it for a minute.

Re:We're All Guily

[Jiro]

Does locking someone up in jail make us better than kidnappers? Pr fining them any better than thieves?

Re:We're All Guily

[rubycodez]

how does imprisoning a kidnapper who cages people make us any better than the kidnapper himself? no logic in what you are saying, eliminating those who prey on innocents is different than preying on innocents.

Re:We're All Guily

[jergantic]

This is all true. However, the implication that the death penalty will discourage future crime doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Like suicides, almost all of the murders and rapes committed which lead to the death penalty are crimes of passion in which the perpetrator is not rationally weighing risk and reward. The marginal number of would-be criminals put off committing a crime due to capital punishment are more than counter-balanced by those encouraged to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't by the dramatic appeal of a violent end.

Re:We're All Guily

[MozeeToby]

If someone is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison and later found to be innocent you can release them. The punishment can, to some extent, be alleviated. If someone is found guilty and sentenced to death and later found innocent... well too bad, sucks to be you.

Re:We're All Guily

[harvestsun]

You just took what 90% of people think of as a moral argument and decided to view it logically. I think I like you.

Re:We're All Guily

[Wookact]

Define "fair". Is it fair if exonerating evidence is withheld? That happens more then you think it does.

Re:We're All Guily

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you aren't aware that every year, a number of inmates on death row are found to be innocent, and accordingly the death sentence is overturned. It doesn't take a philosopher to realize that this will lead to the execution of innocent men, and probably already has.

The reason why the death penalty should be abolished has nothing to do with ethics, expense, or safety. The reason is that government makes mistakes, and that is more than enough reason. If after all this, you are still in favor of the death penalty, it can only be due to the fact that you don't believe it could ever happen to you. Good luck!

Re:We're All Guily

[Immerman]

Indeed they do in the presence of a justice system, which was my main point. Prior to developing such social institutions justice was limited to what you could take for yourself - The punishment for raping a woman might be being beaten/killed by her family. And her family dares not fail to enforce the punishment in (at least) full measure for fear of being considered an easy target in the future. And then things always have the potential to spiral out of control.

Re:We're All Guily

[Immerman]

It's 100% dissuasive against repeat offenders.

But no, you have a point - in fact IIRC the fear of punishment plateaus as a dissuasive force at a surprising low level. I heard it explained as it doesn't take all that much threat to dissuade most people who believe they may get caught, and the people who believe they won't get caught don't care what the punishment is.

That however doesn't mean that as a society we actually *believe* that, and until that belief takes hold it's going to be a challenge trying to change how we try to mitigate crime rates.

Re:We're All Guily

[brit74]

It seems like this could be an argument against war in general (regardless of the circumstances). I'm not sure that I could buy into the logic of that phrase, since it suggests that the only right way to fight Nazis in WW2 is through a pacifism campaign.

Re:We're All Guily

[mdielmann]

...the largest problem being that you can't release a falsely convicted person from death.

Well, yes, there is that...

Re:We're All Guily

[Stephan Schulz]

It doesn't. The justice system has nothing to do with us being "better" than anyone else, it exists to (1) interrupt the cycle of reprisals that "code of honor" systems create("An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"), by delegating judgement and punishment to a third party held blameless for actions committed in the line of duty. (2) discourage future crime through a combination of making an example of criminals caught to dissuade others [...]

(1) requires that the punishments inflicted be sufficient to prevent the wronged individuals from taking justice into their own hands. Obviously if the crime is particularly heinous or the wronged often inclined to violence that may set the bar rather high. (2) requires that punishments be sufficiently unpleasant that people who believe they probably won't get caught still don't think it's worth the risk.

Of course, nearly all even semi-civilised countries manage (1) to a very high degree without the death penalty. And (2) has been shown to be spurious over and over again. Criminals don't, as a rule, expect to be caught. If you assume that you are caught, even a moderate prison sentence would be enough to dissuade most crimes. Who would steal a car if he expects 5 years in prison in return?

Re:We're All Guily

[RightSaidFred99]

Hyperbolic gibber jabber.

Re:We're All Guily

[Immerman]

> Of course, nearly all even semi-civilised countries manage (1) to a very high degree without the death penalty.
But what does that have to do with a discussion of the US? ;-P

You don't, as a rule, steal a car if you expect to get five years in prison. However any semi-rational or career thief will do at least a basic intuitive probability analysis: say the probability of getting caught is 5%, then the "expected " jail time is only 3 months, which may be a much more reasonable price to pay for the available profit, especially for a risk-prone personality
.

Re:We're All Guily

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

So if a kidnapper releases his victim after a few years, all's good?

I'm not taking issue with the anti-death-penalty stance, I'm taking issue with the simplistic "if we we do it,how are we better?" argument. There are clear differences between killing a mugging victim/hit target/cheating wife, and killing a killer. Arguing they're the same is only going to convince your opponents that you're dumb enough to believe it, and drive them further from your point of view.

Re:We're All Guily

[Stephan Schulz]

You don't, as a rule, steal a car if you expect to get five years in prison. However any semi-rational or career thief will do at least a basic intuitive probability analysis: say the probability of getting caught is 5%, then the "expected " jail time is only 3 months, which may be a much more reasonable price to pay for the available profit, especially for a risk-prone personality.

...which again confirms what studies show: deterrence is not primarily based on draconian punishment, but on a high rate of solved crimes.

I like your signature ;-).

Hegemony

[JayWilmont]

Hegemony is no longer fun when it is Europe doing it to us in the USA.

(However, turnabout is fair play.)

Why are important drugs single source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely disregarding the whole capital punishment debate, history shows that eventually every place on the planet is going to have a natural disaster, trade dispute, regime change, or something else is going to disrupt production or distribution. If you don't have a second source that is completely independent, you are going to have a bad time.

Re:Why are important drugs single source?

[EmagGeek]

In a word: Money.

Re: Why are important drugs single source?

[flimflammer]

Economies of scale. Having this single source is the most economically viable option for this particular cheap but costly to manufacture drug. Building and maintaining the laboratories needed to generate this stuff is not cheap and not worth the cost it would require.

Re:Why are important drugs single source?

[FatLittleMonkey]

Two suppliers (one US and one Israeli) went out of production. The third and last is in Europe and the EU has a ban of exporting drugs for executions.

The real problem (again avoiding the whole capital punishment debate) is that the laws named the specific drugs to be used in lethal injections, without allowing for substitution. A single clause, "or a substitute approved by the office of the Governor" and none of this would be necessary.

Bring back the guillotine.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quick, it doesn't miss, and doesn't need a doctor to operate it.

Re:Bring back the guillotine.

[mjr167]

Actually there were numerous incidents where it did miss or didn't cut all the way through and they had to crank it up again and redrop it or wait for the guy to bleed to death. It wasn't really all as merciful as it was supposed to be...

Re:Bring back the guillotine.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's 21st century now, why can't you have a hydraulic guillotine that would decapitate even a Terminator? Nah, the problem is different; the guillotine is insufficiently painful, just like nitrogen asphyxiation. Pro-death-penalty Americans would never approve of peaceful deaths of those to be executed.

Re:Bring back the guillotine.

[AlecC]

And gives 15-20 seconds of agonising pain, as far as can be judged. State of the art 1780 - a cruel time.

Re:Bring back the guillotine.

[aevan]

How much is the pay? How many work days a year? And do I get to read the crimes of the person?

Blood and entrails isn't a big deal if you've slaughtered and rendered your own meat, and if you get the mindset that it's just a rabid animal being put down, there are those who will be rather blase to the event. You could sign me up happily for putting down violent sex criminals and serial killers - I'd even push the button.

Pentobarbital

[mfh]

They are switching drugs in Missouri, while adding a team of compounding pharmacists, so the drugs will be made on site and therefore not subject to Europe's politics. Also some of the European flexing here is a direct result of NSA wiretapping.

Re:Pentobarbital

[SomeKDEUser]

No. Europe's position is a longstanding one. And as the EU is a larger market than the US, an EU law forbidding a drug company to help with capital punishment carries weight.

The link with the spying thing is that US companies may be faced with the choice of picking either one or the other market, if privacy directives from the EU come into force. And this is terrifying for US companies, because, again, the EU market is larger.

Re:Pentobarbital

[Pinky's Brain]

They can just split up into two companies linked by stock ownership and privacy maintaining firewalls, one incorporated in the US and one in the EU. The US government can't (yet) force stock owners to force their foreign companies to implement spying mechanisms in their technology infrastructure AFAIK.

The companies still fear it because it will cost them money, but they will do it if necessary.

Re:Pentobarbital

[IamTheRealMike]

The amount of drugs used in lethal injections is trivial, not worth going through any efforts to make it possible, especially as - guess what - the executives and scientists at those companies are probably against having their drugs be used in executions as well! They got into pharma to save lives, not end them.

For instance, even the US firm Hospira apparently refuses to sell propofol to prisons and there's no ban against it in the US.

Re:Pentobarbital

[kruach aum]

It is extremely unlikely that NSA wiretapping has had any direct influence on the European decision making process, as as is pointed out in TFA as well as its summary this exact same set of circumstances has occurred before with the drug sodium thiopental, when Europe at large wasn't yet aware of the NSA's activities.

Re:Pentobarbital

[KindMind]

No. Europe's position is a longstanding one. And as the EU is a larger market than the US, an EU law forbidding a drug company to help with capital punishment carries weight.

In theory, I suppose. To me, this is just more legislative silliness. How are they really going to affect anything? There are still guns/ropes/gas chambers/rabid weasels/etc. The only thing this silliness can do it prevent using a more humane method over possibly a less humane one.

Re:Pentobarbital

[KindMind]

Lethal injection is not humane ...

I don't think it's silly at all that the EU does this ...

On the "humane" aspect, I have been under anesthesia for surgery. I can testify I knew nothing, I felt nothing. If it's a question of administrating it properly, hire a anesthesiologist for the job, instead of ol' Tom down in the prison pharmacy.

To clarify my "silliness" comment, I am not mocking the EU for wanting to not have the death penalty. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty in general - some days I'm for it, some days I'm against it.

I was just commenting on the EU expecting it to matter by passing a magic law that will have no result whatsoever. I just find "make me feel good but do nothing practical" laws in general to be silly.

Re:Pentobarbital

[sjames]

Not to mention a drug being used for execution doesn't inspire patient confidence in safety.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[ThePhilips]

Reading disorder??

As the summary says: the drug it imported from Germany. If used for execution even once, the EU ban would kick in, preventing Germany to import it. Import is banned - USA gets no drug, regardless if for executions or treating patients.

As good a time as any

[Captain_Chaos]

Maybe it's time for the US to take the hint and stop this barbaric and medieval practice?

Seriously, why does it not bother more Americans that by having the death penalty they find themselves in the illustrious company of countries such as Libya, Sudan, China, Iran, Iraq and North Korea (the "Axis of Evil") and Syria?

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Vengeance seems to be a top priority for some reason. And as someone else pointed out, it's hypocritical how some who claim to want small government also say that the government should have the power to murder people who've already been imprisoned; I can't think of a much bigger sign of "big government" than that.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

that is barbaric.

Indeed it is. We probably shouldn't become like them. And, well... I really don't want to give incompetent government thugs the power to murder prisoners; something about that just seems wrong.

Re:As good a time as any

[evilviper]

Seriously, why does it not bother more Americans that by having the death penalty they find themselves in the illustrious company of countries such as Libya, Sudan, China, Iran, Iraq and North Korea (the "Axis of Evil") and Syria?

Because we're capable of rational thought, and don't believe in guilt by association, let alone something so tenuous as a similar institution that is used quite differently.

History is filled with examples of the most enlightened and humane jailing practices proving to be quite inhuman later on. I fail to see why peer-pressure is a good argument for or against a given practice.

Re:As good a time as any

[Stormy Dragon]

I'm in favor of the death penalty in theory.

I just don't trust our government enough to administer it properly in practice. Or criminal justice system isn't about actually determining guilty or innocence, it's about railroading people so some DA can pad his resume on the way to becoming a judge or a governor. Hopefully the guy they railroaded actually did it, but if not, meh, they're not gonna lose sleep over the innocent lives they destroyed on their way to the top.

Re:As good a time as any

[gstoddart]

Vengeance seems to be a top priority for some reason.

So, it's angry Christians bent on vengeance then? Because I'm not sure who else is -- god must be so proud, it seems like the bible belt is most keen on executions and vengeance. I thought he'd reserved that for himself.

And as someone else pointed out, it's hypocritical how some who claim to want small government also say that the government should have the power to murder people who've already been imprisoned

They only really want the parts they disagree with smaller. Some of the rest (like military spending and spying) they seem to want to increase.

Re:As good a time as any

[Captain_Chaos]

you are confused on what is barbaric.

Not at all. Human beings have no moral authority to kill other human beings. To do it anyway, premeditated and intentionally, when there is no immediate danger to anyone else, is barbaric. It's what barbarians do. You are lowering yourself to the level of the very people you are punishing.

for example, child molesters and rapists and murderers get out of prison and commit their crimes again.

So lock them up for the rest of their lives. It's cheaper too.

putting down a monster is not barbaric,

They are not monsters, they are human beings. You may be able to lull yourself into acceptance by demonising human beings and pretending that you're in a fairy story, but I don't think that is fair or productive.

it is the merciful thing to do

You are confused on what is merciful.

In addition, you are ignoring the fact that many of these "monsters" of yours turn out to have been perfectly innocent. Fuck you for being perfectly OK with calling them monsters and taking away their lives after years of psychological torture, destroying the lives of their friends and family in the process. And fuck the US for doing it.

Re:As good a time as any

[dcollins]

America is fundamentally punitive and violent. Same reason gun massacres every couple weeks make no impact, the highest proportion of people in prison for any country in the world makes no impact, military expenditures equal to the rest of the world combined makes no impact. Perhaps all empires come to be like that.

Re:As good a time as any

[Captain_Chaos]

We don't kill people for the same reasons as those countries.

That's hardly relevant. The point is that you kill people, not what your rationalisations are for killing people.

The death penalty is up to the states.

No, the death penalty is up to the American people. Apparently most of them are fine with it. In addition, it doesn't have to be up to the states. The federal government could outlaw it (even if it takes changing the constitution). Apparently they are fine with it too.

The reason capital punishment is outlawed in Europe is because all of the countries together (through various European institutions such as the European Union) decided that it was against basic human rights and should not be allowed. If Europe could do it, then so can the US.

Re:As good a time as any

[omnichad]

In practice, not having the death penalty would be another check and balance to our legal system. Better to let a bad man live than let an innocent man die.

Re:As good a time as any

[khallow]

Vengeance seems to be a top priority for some reason.

Because if it isn't, then people start taking matters into their own hands. If criminals singly or as a whole are generally considered to have "gotten off easy", that is punished inadequately for the crimes they committed, then members of society and the original people harmed by the crime will start taking it upon themselves to punish the criminals and friends and relatives who may be easier to reach than the criminal.

That is, if society doesn't punish people in a way that is mostly considered at minimum appropriate to the severity of the crime, then you get eye for an eye punishment. This is how feuds often start IMHO.

Re:As good a time as any

[MiniMike]

We don't have room in the prisons for murderers because they're already filled with non-violent offenders.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Because if it isn't, then people start taking matters into their own hands.

Therefore... we should appease them? That sounds nice. You could try to justify the government committing any injustice by saying that angry mobs will form if they don't.

Not an argument for the death penalty.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

And... plenty of countries have already banned the death penalty. If you are to be believed, they should be filled with vigilantes, but they're not. So, in addition to being a very poor reason to allow the government to do something, it doesn't even seem to be true in reality.

Re:As good a time as any

[Captain_Chaos]

Do those of you arguing so ardently against the death penalty apply the same logic to abortion?

Why don't you explain how you think they are the same, so I can demolish your argument.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

the only reason you should be objecting to execution is the very real possibility that the person executed was not actually guilty of the crime.

I actually believe the death penalty would be wrong even if we could be 100% certain that someone is guilty.

Re:As good a time as any

[rubycodez]

some human beings are monsters; you must have lived sheltered life.

your invoking the "found to be innocent" no longer applies, those were cases of DNA and advanced forensics being used on past cases. now we have those tools to use to verify guilt

Re:As good a time as any

[rubycodez]

the victims of released murderers and child molesters would disagree, and there are tens of thousands of them

Re:As good a time as any

[Captain_Chaos]

some human beings are monsters; you must have lived sheltered life.

No, no human beings are monsters. Monsters are fairytale creatures which don't really exist. I know it's a very popular metaphor to use, but that doesn't make it true, and that kind of thinking is irresponsible and extremely dangerous when lives are at stake.

your invoking the "found to be innocent" no longer applies, those were cases of DNA and advanced forensics being used on past cases. now we have those tools to use to verify guilt

Wow. If you truly believe that you are spectacularly, staggeringly naive... There is no way to make a justice system 100% fool proof. Simple maths and physics will tell you that.

Re:As good a time as any

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure you can think at all. The argument against big government isn't government does nothing. It is that government sticks to their constitutional roles and the bulk of the power needs to be concentrated with the state and local governments where they are more responsive to the people. Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying.

Re:As good a time as any

[omnichad]

I didn't say they should be released without being exonerated. That's a separate problem.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

The argument against big government isn't government does nothing.

I didn't say it was, but I can't think of a bigger sign of "big government" than having that same incompetent government murder people.

It is that government sticks to their constitutional roles and the bulk of the power needs to be concentrated with the state and local governments where they are more responsive to the people.

Big government is big government whether or not it's at the local, state, or federal level.

Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying.

Maybe if you're irrational, but it is indeed big government.

Re:As good a time as any

[khallow]

Therefore... we should appease them?

I suppose if you tolerate a high level of revenge killing and feuding, you don't really care. But if you do, then either the state performs what the public considers to be justice or the public starts taking matters into its own hands.

Not an argument for the death penalty.

I didn't say it was. You were speaking of "vengeance". I merely pointed out why that needs to be a part of the process.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

I suppose if you tolerate a high level of revenge killing and feuding, you don't really care.

Again, "People will do bad things if we don't do unjust thing X." is not a very good reason to do something unjust, or at least to me.

But if you do, then either the state performs what the public considers to be justice or the public starts taking matters into its own hands.

Will it? Because people are already fed up with governments in many ways, yet they don't do anything. I seriously doubt this is true; most people are apathetic imbeciles to begin with.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

the victims of released murderers and child molesters would disagree

The victims of released murderers and child molesters can think whatever they want; it is crucial that we do not allow our government to become the criminal.

Re:As good a time as any

[tippen]

The usual arguments against the death penalty are something along the lines of:

1) The justice system is imperfect, so we shouldn't take the slightest risk of executing an innocent person.

This is the argument that I'm most sympathetic towards. I agree that extraordinary punishment should require extraordinary proof. Of course, that doesn't address the issues around biased judges, juries or prosecutors.

Because I do believe that there are heinous crimes that death is an appropriate punishment for, I tend to look to fix issues with the justice system in other ways. In particular, you throw the book at corrupt prosecutors, judges, etc. Punish what they did wrong rather than just saying "well, the system can't be perfect so we won't punish anyone".

And yes, I believe that prison is for punishment, not as a time-out from society. Does that mean I think prisoners should be abused? Nope, not at all. But it also doesn't mean that I think we need to be providing cable TV or other luxuries while they are serving their time.

2) The method of execution is cruel.
I don't buy this argument vs. lethal injection

3) Even if the method isn't painful, it is cruel/barbaric to execute someone "regardless" (no matter what they did).
I can respect this argument even if I don't agree with it. I don't share that view, but I can understand it. Unfortunately, most folks I've talked to that make this argument don't seem to apply it as a fundamental value or principle.

4) Execution as a form of punishment is no different than murder
Sorry, but this argument is fundamentally flawed and childish.

5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution.
I don't doubt that it is given the processes and appeals involved with the death penalty. I'm ok with that. It's a practical financial argument, but doesn't really address whether the death penalty is morally right or wrong.

I'm willing to spend more to ensure someone that commits heinous crimes doesn't have a chance to do it again. "Life without parole" isn't a guarantee of that. "Life" doesn't really mean the accused will die in prison. "without parole" doesn't mean that the rules don't change down the road.

If you want to reduce money spent in the penal system, get rid of the war on drugs and you'll flush out an awful lot of the prison population.

How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.

The only way to try to get around it is to play the "not really a human until it is born" game. That's about as intellectually dishonest as it gets, IMO.

Are you really trying to protect the innocent in all cases? Or are your principles "flexible" and convenient?

Re:As good a time as any

[FunPika]

On most news sites where this argument pops up, one of the more common arguments is sadly enough "Why should my tax dollars be used to keep this guy alive in prison for decades with a life without parole sentence when we can just kill him now for far cheaper?"

Re:As good a time as any

[Captain_Chaos]

On most news sites where this argument pops up, one of the more common arguments is sadly enough "Why should my tax dollars be used to keep this guy alive in prison for decades with a life without parole sentence when we can just kill him now for far cheaper?"

Of course those people don't realise that prosecuting and executing a death penalty costs way more than locking someone up for life. So if minimising the amount of tax dollars spent is the goal that actually argues against the death penalty...

Re:As good a time as any

[khallow]

Again, "People will do bad things if we don't do unjust thing X." is not a very good reason to do something unjust, or at least to me.

Well, those people didn't think it was just.

Will it? Because people are already fed up with governments in many ways, yet they don't do anything. I seriously doubt this is true; most people are apathetic imbeciles to begin with.

Actually, they often do.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

"well, the system can't be perfect so we won't punish anyone".

No one makes that argument. Some mistakes can be fixed. Some mistakes can't be fixed, but the victims of the mistakes can at least lead a happy life afterwards. Not only can the death penalty not be fixed, but people who are forced to undergo it are simply dead; no chance of recovery and no chance of living any life afterwards.

Me? I just don't want government thugs in the business of killing prisoners.

5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution.

Usually a response to someone arguing that we should use the death penalty to save money.

How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.

Abortion is unique in the sense that the woman is carrying the child in her body. You can basically either support the woman's right to do what she wants with her body, or say that the child's life is more important than the woman's right to choose.

Either way, it has nothing to do with the government killing prisoners, as they aren't even involved at all. Trying to equate abortion with the death penalty is unbelievably silly.

Are you really trying to protect the innocent in all cases?

If the prisoners were basically invaders in someone else's body, then I'd fully support someone's right to get rid of them (exercising control over their own body) in those cases.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Well, those people didn't think it was just.

Irrelevant to me, and irrelevant to my point.

Actually, they [wikipedia.org] often [wikipedia.org] do [wikipedia.org].

Often? You point to a few cases and conclude that it happens often? That's not going to work.

Re:As good a time as any

[OneAhead]

Oh yeah, because all the other civilized countries that punish almost any given crime much lighter than the US are full of feuds and mob justice?

Pray tell, is there anything that can make you take your eyes off your navel?

Re:As good a time as any

[Nethemas the Great]

Are those like in South America? I had Chinese the other night, it was soooo good. Really, you've got to try their General Tso's. And like, OMG! did you see Miley's latest Tweet!?! You could like totally see her cervix or something!

Re:As good a time as any

[Captain_Chaos]

1) The justice system is imperfect, so we shouldn't take the slightest risk of executing an innocent person. This is the argument that I'm most sympathetic towards. I agree that extraordinary punishment should require extraordinary proof. Of course, that doesn't address the issues around biased judges, juries or prosecutors.

I'd say it's the definitive argument. You can't get around it. It is fundamentally impossible to make the justice system 100% fool proof, and unacceptable to run even the slightest risk of killing an innocent person, when there are alternatives with no downsides relative to capital punishment (such as life without parole, which is cheaper, and not less of a deterrent).

Because I do believe that there are heinous crimes that death is an appropriate punishment for, I tend to look to fix issues with the justice system in other ways. In particular, you throw the book at corrupt prosecutors, judges, etc.

So how many innocent lives are you prepared to sacrifice while you tweak and fine tune the system, ignoring for the moment the fact that it is impossible to make it perfect?

And yes, I believe that prison is for punishment, not as a time-out from society. Does that mean I think prisoners should be abused? Nope, not at all. But it also doesn't mean that I think we need to be providing cable TV or other luxuries while they are serving their time.

What does that have to do with anything?

2) The method of execution is cruel. I don't buy this argument vs. lethal injection

The very article from this post states that some alternative sedatives that states have been using their death row inmates as lab rats for have caused them to still be moving and blinking minutes after getting the injection. I'd say there's a very good chance that that was cruel.

3) Even if the method isn't painful, it is cruel/barbaric to execute someone "regardless" (no matter what they did). I can respect this argument even if I don't agree with it. I don't share that view, but I can understand it. Unfortunately, most folks I've talked to that make this argument don't seem to apply it as a fundamental value or principle.

The fact that you don't share it makes you a very creepy person in my book. I don't get this bloodlust, this insistence on killing people even in the face of all the doubts which even you admit to above, and given the valid (and superior) alternatives.

4) Execution as a form of punishment is no different than murder Sorry, but this argument is fundamentally flawed and childish.

I agree. Luckily I didn't make it. Another straw man...

5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution. I don't doubt that it is given the processes and appeals involved with the death penalty. I'm ok with that. It's a practical financial argument, but doesn't really address whether the death penalty is morally right or wrong.

Nevertheless it is a valid argument, which you only seem too happy to blithely ignore.

How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.

All those argument, and none of them relevant in the least to your central point... You just assume that abortion is exactly the same as capital punishment and that every argument I make against capital punishment should also be valid against abortion, otherwise I'm full of it. Which is ludicrous even on the face of it, let alone if you spend a few minutes to think about it.

The only way to try to get around it is to play the "not really a hu

Re:As good a time as any

[Crosshair84]

Why don't you explain how you think they are the same, so I can demolish your argument.

If you think capital punishment is wrong because killing humans is wrong then you should be against abortion for the same reason. Lets go through the reasoning and see in what way you can "demolish" it without resorting to logical fallacies.

Once an egg has been fertilized into a zygote the only thing that separates that zygote from a fully grown human is food, water, oxygen, and time.

No matter how much food, water, oxygen, and time you throw at an egg or sperm, neither one will form a human on their own, thus fertilization is clearly the point at which a human individual is biologically created.

Biologically, the only difference between you and a zygote is the stage of the human life cycle that each is currently at.

Biologically, a zygote/fetus is a distinct organism from the mother, that is why there is a placenta, without it the mothers immune system would destroy the fetus.

If it is wrong for a mother to kill her child outside her womb, then it must be wrong for a mother to kill her child inside her womb. If it is OK for a mother to kill her child inside her womb, then it must be OK for a mother to kill her child outside her womb. If it is OK for a mother to kill her child inside her womb, then why should it be wrong if someone else should kill that child inside or outside her womb?

Note that at no point in my argument did I appeal to religion of any kind. Someone could be an Atheist and agree with what I have said.

The Pro-abortion crown always deflect the question into an issue about "Women's rights" because they can't answer the questions I, and many others, have raised. Those of us against abortion would agree that a women has the right to do what she wants with her body, the problem is that a fetus is not part of her body. As I said before, that is why there is a placenta. If a fetus was part of her body than a placenta would be unnecessary.

http://albosauce.com/images/NotYourBody.gif

I wonder how you will respond.

Re:As good a time as any

[rollingcalf]

"Maybe it's time for the US to take the hint and stop this barbaric and medieval practice?"

Maybe it's time for the US to take the hint and start manufacturing their own propofol and other drugs of major importance.

Re:As good a time as any

[sumdumass]

I didn't say it was, but I can't think of a bigger sign of "big government" than having that same incompetent government murder people.

But you implied it by stating that being against big government was counter to government punishing those who broke the law. Again, the Argument against big government is not that government doesn't do anything, it is that they are limited to constitutional roles and enforcing punishment given by due process for violations of those laws is definitely constitutional.

Big government is big government whether or not it's at the local, state, or federal level.

No, not in the way people who are against big government define their position. You can close your eyes and insist it is some other way all you want but it will not make you correct. For instance, if the federal government came into your neighborhood and opened up a fire department, we would be against it because its big government. If your city or township, or even county government did the same, we would more then welcome it. It is a matter of taking everything you think a government should do, appropriating parts to the government who is constitutionally appropriated with the duties of, and then keeping the majority of everything else as close to home as possible where you, the citizen, have the most say. That is what people who are against big government intend regardless of what you want to impose as your reality.

Maybe if you're irrational, but it is indeed big government.

Most certainly not. Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying. Big government is a top down all encompassing approach. Those against it want a small top and larger bottom approach which the bulk of government being controlled in the communities they live. Now, despite your misconceptions, the federal government has very few death penalty cases by the President of the United States is constitutionally charged with seeing that the laws of the land are enforced and followed. If someone is afforded due process and they committed and was convicted of a crime which the penalty imposed by congress is death, then the federal government putting that person to death is explicit within the constitution and the powers it imposes or bestows on the federal government. That does not create an all encompassing central government nor does it create any situation in which anyone who is against big government would have to be against also.

This also is negated by the fact that the entity refereed to in the article is a state government in which an entirely different constitution primarily provides their authority and role in governing. If the state is constitutionally allowed to execute someone, they it would be within their constitutional prevue and still not against the complaints about big government.

Face it, you are wrong in this. the big government you are wanting to talk about is something completely different then the big government people are against.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

But you implied it

Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.

Again, the Argument against big government is not that government doesn't do anything, it is that they are limited to constitutional roles and enforcing punishment given by due process for violations of those laws is definitely constitutional.

Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.

But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.

No, not in the way people who are against big government define their position.

Again, it's not one group. There might be a few people who, for some reason, focus mainly on the federal government (I call them irrational, but not hypocrites or liars), but that is not who I am referring to here.

Face it, you are wrong in this.

No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.

But I believe that the people who focus almost solely on the federal government when saying they oppose "big government" are irrational. Moral abuse of power is very serious no matter if it's the local, state, or federal government doing it, and that applies even if it's legal/constitutional. I think they need to get with the program and start opposing all big government.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

If it is wrong for a mother to kill her child outside her womb, then it must be wrong for a mother to kill her child inside her womb.

Not if you believe women's rights are more important than the lives of unwanted 'invaders.'

The Pro-abortion crown always deflect the question into an issue about "Women's rights" because they can't answer the questions I, and many others, have raised.

Wait... huh? You say that people bring up women's rights because they can't answer your questions? I could just as easily say the same about you, but I won't, because it's just nonsense.

the problem is that a fetus is not part of her body.

But it is inside their body, and apparently, some people don't want that, so they get abortions.

I wonder how you will respond.

Looks like it was already done, more or less.

Re:As good a time as any

[sumdumass]

Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.

And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.

Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.

I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government. It doesn't have to be one group, but you will be hard pressed to find a group with a deviation from how I explained it.

But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.

Big government is a term used by people who object to the government's approach on freedoms and deviation from constitutional roles. I mean lets look the term up and see what it is..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big+government
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/big-government
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/big-government
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/big-government

Those all with a few different wordings state the big government is a derogatory term used to describe an over reaching government outside it's constitutional roles. But Wikipedia has a more detailed description of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_government

the first paragraph on the page says "Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices. The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation."

The reality of it is when the term is used, it is assumed those who hear it either understand the meaning or have the wherewithal to open a dictionary or do a Google search or at minimum ask someone to explain it to them. Perhaps it is a fault of those who use it in that we automatically assume the people on the other end already understand the concept. The term is not just two words Big and Government put together, but one phrase with two words that mean a specific thing or subject of things.

No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.

No, I'm confident you were not referring to any group who uses the term big government and instead were combining the definition of

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.

Once again, no. Putting people to death is not the same as punishment in general; it is one of, if not the most, extreme forms of punishment.

I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government.

This is garbage. "Big government" is a term often used to refer to government overreact in general, and doesn't necessarily have to do with violations of constitutions.

"Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector.[...]"

Thanks for making my point for me. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Notice how the definitions are loaded with subjective language. There are many uses of this term, and pretending that groups that understand the term differently from you don't exist is simply asinine; it happens whether or not you acknowledge it.

to creates something entirely different then how the term is normally and customarily used.

No need for me to do that.

The problem which I do not think you are seeing here is that the US constitution specifically says the powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution is left to the states and to the people respectively and they cannot use the powers to take the rights of the people away.

What am I not seeing here? You're misconstruing what I say. I say these anti-"big government" people who don't oppose egregious of large government such as the death penalty are irrational, and you come back with all this unnecessary, irrelevant garbage about the constitution, which, while I generally agree, has little to do with this.

Re:As good a time as any

[Valdrax]

for example, child molesters and rapists and murderers get out of prison and commit their crimes again. thousands of times.

Do you have statistics to back that up, or are you just consulting your gut on that one?

putting down a monster is not barbaric, it is the merciful thing to do

The ability to consider another human being as less than yourself is the first step in being willing to commit violence or any other number of crimes against them. You thirst for the blood of those you consider evil is little different from that of the very people you condemn.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

And what are you, some sort of fuckin' fucker cheeks patty? What is this absolute eyesore of a comment you've constructed!? Begone, I say!

Re:As good a time as any

[RightSaidFred99]

Bullshit. I'm an atheist and I'm all for appropriate application of the death penalty.

The only problem is our bar is too low. You should require a normal conviction with an death penalty rider, then another jury should have to affirm the death penalty, and finally a panel of like 5 judges. It should go beyond reasonable doubt to "only magic could explain how this guy isn't guilty."

The Aurora shooter, for example - they should have tried him and then gut shot him and thrown him in a garbage dump somewhere never to be discussed again.

Re:As good a time as any

[sumdumass]

Once again, no. Putting people to death is not the same as punishment in general; it is one of, if not the most, extreme forms of punishment.

But it is punishment and a constitutional role of government.

This is garbage. "Big government" is a term often used to refer to government overreact in general, and doesn't necessarily have to do with violations of constitutions.

did you not read my comments about the 9th and 10th amendments? All overreach by government is unconstitutional. The only reason why the US does not say yes master when the government over reaches is because the US constitution limits the federal government and their abilities. Otherwise we would be just like England and accept cameras watching everyone the moment they leave the house, government putting camera into homes to watch the habits and parenting of children and so on.

Thanks for making my point for me. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Notice how the definitions are loaded with subjective language. There are many uses of this term, and pretending that groups that understand the term differently from you don't exist is simply asinine; it happens whether or not you acknowledge it.

What exactly do you think the term excessive means in the context of government? Could it be above and beyond the scope and power of government? Does corrupt and inefficient conjure up images of government doing what it is supposed to be doing but doing it wrong or government doing what it is not supposed to be doing? How would you define inappropriately in the phrase "inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector"? Would it be defined as the government doing what it is supposed to be doing or the government doing what it isn't supposed to be doing? Or do you think it only modified what it is doing like if the government gave our cheese and it would be inappropriate for them to give out that cheese because it went bad?

What am I not seeing here? You're misconstruing what I say. I say these anti-"big government" people who don't oppose egregious of large government such as the death penalty are irrational, and you come back with all this unnecessary, irrelevant garbage about the constitution, which, while I generally agree, has little to do with this.

The only way you can construe capitol punishment as big government is to indicate that the government has no role in punishment for the violations of crimes. The only limits on government involved in punishment is whether due process has been served and whether or not the punishment is cruel and unusual. Baring that, it simply is not big government.

You are the one being irrational here. You are attempting to equate all of one thing with something you appear to not understand, and claim something that is in fact different from reality. Government making laws and enforcing them along with the punishment is specifically part of the function of government. As long as those laws do not intrude on the constitution (be it state or federal) and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, it cannot be big government as it is specifically what government was intended to do.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

But it is punishment and a constitutional role of government.

But we're fuckin' talking about a specific punishment: the death penalty. Stop bringing up irrelevant garbage.

All overreach by government is unconstitutional.

False. If someone has a certain opinion, they could believe that the government should not do certain things even if it is technically authorized to do them, and describe these things as overreaches.

What exactly do you think the term excessive means in the context of government?

It's 100% subjective, and depends on individual opinions. Just because you want this all to have One True Meaning doesn't mean it does; it doesn't.

The only way you can construe capitol punishment as big government is to indicate that the government has no role in punishment for the violations of crimes.

False. You can be okay with certain types of punishments but be against the death penalty, which is the most extreme punishment the government can hand out, and you can describe the death penalty as an example of big government. Your problem is that you believe only your interpretation of the term "big government" is correct, so you spew forth garbage such as that.

You are attempting to equate all of one thing with something you appear to not understand, and claim something that is in fact different from reality.

And you're attempting to convince me that only your interpretations of these loaded, subjective terms are correct and relevant.

it cannot be big government

It can.

Re:As good a time as any

[sumdumass]

But we're fuckin' talking about a specific punishment: the death penalty. Stop bringing up irrelevant garbage.

It is not irrelevant, it is punishment dealt by the government that has been given by the government since it's existence and before. How can that be big government if it has always been that way since the beginning of the country? In all those definitions, even in the warped definitions you seem to insist on maintaining about big government, how is doing something the government has done from the start of the nation construed to be big government? It is not unconstitutional, it is not over reaching seeing how it clearly was happening when the government was created. How...

False. If someone has a certain opinion, they could believe that the government should not do certain things even if it is technically authorized to do them, and describe these things as overreaches.

If the government is authorized to do something, then it cannot be overreaching as it is the purview of the government to do so. Maybe intrusive is the word you are looking for. I can agree with intrusive but overreaching by definition would be reaching past what they are allowed to do.

It's 100% subjective, and depends on individual opinions. Just because you want this all to have One True Meaning doesn't mean it does; it doesn't.

And here lays you problem. It is not subjective. Excessive means more then should be in terms of big government. It does not mean your lunch had a lot of vegetables on it at the commissary. That could be excessive vegetables but not excessive big government. Likewise, all the other descriptions point to a specific place.

False. You can be okay with certain types of punishments but be against the death penalty, which is the most extreme punishment the government can hand out, and you can describe the death penalty as an example of big government. Your problem is that you believe only your interpretation of the term "big government" is correct, so you spew forth garbage such as that.

You are part right. I have no problem with you being against the death penalty, I have no problem with you describing it as the most extreme punishment the government can give out. However, when you describe the death penalty as big government, you completely miss the mark and are either intentionally trying to confuse the situation or improperly using the term big government. If the government was set up and able to do something, and that government had been doing that something since the beginning of its creation and before, absolutely none of the terms used to define big government could apply to it. It would be neither, excessive, corrupts, inefficient, or inappropriately involved with capitol punishment.

And you're attempting to convince me that only your interpretations of these loaded, subjective terms are correct and relevant.

That would be correct, and that would be because I am correct in doing so. Capitol punishment no matter how you analyze it, if it doesn't violate the Constitution in its application, it is not big government.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Well, since you can't seem to comprehend that other people use the term differently than you, and you refuse to accept the existence of opinions that differ from yours, I'll simply pretend that you don't exist. You bore me.

And here lays you problem. It is not subjective.

It is.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Bullshit. I'm an atheist and I'm all for appropriate application of the death penalty.

There is no appropriate application of it.

It should go beyond reasonable doubt to "only magic could explain how this guy isn't guilty."

You can never be 100% certain. Allowing the government to imprison people is already bad enough. Killing them ensures they'll never be able to live any sort of life even if they're innocent, and frankly, shouldn't be done even if they are 100% guilty.

Re:As good a time as any

[evilviper]

I'm in favor of the death penalty in theory. I just don't trust our government enough to administer it properly in practice

If that's the case, an innocent man locked-up for his entire life really isn't much better than the death penalty. If the lack of the death penalty allows you to sleep soundly with an inequitable justice system, than keeping the death penalty is the better option to generate public support to get the real problems fixed.

Or criminal justice system isn't about actually determining guilty or innocence, it's about railroading people so some DA can pad his resume on the way to becoming a judge or a governor.

In fact the US has a much lower conviction rate than most comparable countries. Our system seems to err way over on the side of acquitting guilty men, instead of allowing "some DA [to] pad his resume" by convicting an innocent one.

Re:As good a time as any

[evilviper]

But it is inside their body, and apparently, some people don't want that, so they get abortions.

With conjoined twins... How do you decide which one gets to murder the other?

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

That isn't really a case of one being "inside" the other, and it isn't as if one of them suddenly sprouted on the other out of the blue, so it's not like the body belongs to one or the other.

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Wow! Such a thing!

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

I honestly can't believe it...

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Heher heh!

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

I never thought it possible...

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

What is this... secret power!?

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

Somethin' just licked its bare chops, and it wasn't ser Timothy Scrump!

Re:As good a time as any

[sI4shd0rk]

I can't even believe my snap...! What do you say we get this done...?

Re:As good a time as any

[hammyhew]

I see, so things are objective whenever it helps your argument for them to be so.

Re:As good a time as any

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

This post, and its parent, show such a poor grasp of how to use statistics and modeling that I cannot even begin to discuss the merits of the statements ...

Re:Numbers don't add up

[JackieBrown]

The threat is that Germany would stop exporting the drug to the US as a whole. Then the US hospitals would no longer be able to resupply it.

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[__aarzwb9394]

I have wondered that myself.
Is there some sort of medical/hippocratic oath objection to using what is a medicine to deliberately cause death?

Well, it is Germany, after all...

[RedCharlie]

If I had to excuse any one country for being squeamish about how its chemical products are used, it would be Germany. (But maybe Gov Nixon could ask them if they had any leftover Zyklon B hanging around...I bet that stuff doesn't go bad...)

Re:Well, it is Germany, after all...

[fiannaFailMan]

If I had to excuse any one country for being squeamish about how its chemical products are used, it would be Germany.
(But maybe Gov Nixon could ask them if they had any leftover Zyklon B hanging around...I bet that stuff doesn't go bad...)

If only the only country in the world to have targeted civilians with nuclear weapons were as squeamish about holding on to them.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

Capital punishment is barbaric. Leave it back in ye olde days. Or maybe it just appeals to your blood lust?

Agree completely. I must point out (again) that the automatic appeals process costs taxpayers at least $2 million dollars, therefore life in prison/no parole is economically cheaper for taxpayers. And if the convicted prisoner wants to have any perks of prison life (TV/Radio/ better food/extra time out of cell, etc), those perks need to be earned by paying off their debt to society and the victim's families. But killing for the sake of a sense of revenge puts us at the same level of the criminal's mindset when they killed their victims. It doesn't make us any better. (posting AC due to moderating comments here)

IDEA!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Use all that heroin\crack\cocaine that gets seized for this purpose.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[sureshot007]

It does look like I missed the point of the article, but I was talking about the idea that a "shortage" of the traditional stock is becoming a problem, when you are only talking about a few dozen cases annually. You mean to tell me that you can't find something else to use that doesn't "threaten millions of patients"?

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[__aarzwb9394]

Reply to my own message, presumably (as per the summary, derp) imports of diamorphine would be more difficult if it was used in executions.

Re:Hint

[CanHasDIY]

no, barbaric is letting monsters live who committ their hideous crimes again and again. Murder, rape, child molesting, kidnapping there are hundreds of cases of repeat offenders. don't believe the urban legend lie, putting one of those kinds of crimminals to death saves lives.

Right, because as we all know, there's no such thing as a life sentence without parole.

Re:Hint

[IamTheRealMike]

They're already in prison anyway. Unless your country routinely experiences prison breaks, it shouldn't make any difference.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you've noticed, but we are a barbaric nation, by-and-large. Less educated, more violent, and more plutocratic than comparable nations. Our barbarism in our justice system isn't a mysterious artifact of unknown origin, it's a reflection of a larger anti-intellectual culture.

This--^.

.. but also, I wouldn't ascribe it all to anti-intellectualism. Our hyperviolent media culture has, on one hand, desensitized the population to warlike levels of violence, while also reinforcing and amplifying the belief in absolute good vs. evil. Of course, the meme goes, in the pursuit of "justice"(tm), all manner of questionable deeds (see also: warlike levels of violence) are suddenly the one true and right way.

Now there is a rise of gun-ready vigilantism because of "rampant violent crime". Nobody is safe from the criminal element anymore!!!! Statistically, society has become less violent over the years, but... criminals!!!

Re:Hint

[imatter]

I guess yo'u're right, paying for them to live in prison and not have to contribute is the best solution!

Re:Hint

[clickety6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States

Best to make sure you actually have the criminal...

Only if you fund your system...

[CohibaVancouver]

I could *perhaps* be convinced of the death penalty if the USA was willing to truly fund its justice system to ensure that trials were fair - And I mean fund to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. You're never going to convince me of state-sanctioned killing while rich white guys are getting away with murder and poor black guys are being executed.

Re:Only if you fund your system...

[CohibaVancouver]

You mean like O J Simpson?

Yep. The only thing not rich and white about OJ was the colour of his skin.

Re:Only if you fund your system...

[jratcliffe]

In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "OJ didn't get off because he was black, he got off because he was rich. If he had been poor, he'd be 'Orenthal the Murdering Bus Driver.'"

Re:Only if you fund your system...

[jratcliffe]

In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "OJ didn't get off because he was black, he got off because he was rich. If he had been poor, he'd be 'Orenthal the Murdering Bus Driver.'"

Got the quote wrong (and I believe that quote marks should actually mean direct quotes!): "That shit wasn't about race... that shit was about fame. If O.J. wasn't famous he'd be in jail right now. If O.J. drove a bus, he wouldn't even be O.J. He'd be Orenthal the bus driving murderer."

Nitrogen narcosis?

[wonkey_monkey]

How costly would it be to flood the chamber with nitrogen?

On the downside, in some people's opinion, it's apparently not an unpleasant way to go*.

*because they've tried it on people in slightly less-than-lethal concentrations, before some wiseguy asks.

Re:Nitrogen narcosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the law is all about lethal injection and that is the sentence that the judges have handed out. The prisons don't have the power to use any other method and any change by the legislature will be subject to decades of legal challenges. Changing the formula of the injection will also face legal challenges but some of them have already been settled. That's why every state used to use the cockamamie three drug cocktail. Not because it was good or ideal or whatever but because that's what other states were doing and had already survived some legal challenges.

Re:Nitrogen narcosis?

[Joey Vegetables]

Very. It's a highly rare substance. It's not like air was made up of 78% of it or anything ridiculous like that.

Re:Nitrogen narcosis?

[Applehu Akbar]

This would be a great means of execution, being easy to do and satisfying the Eighth Amendment, but the EU would immediately demand that its nitrogen be kept separate from the nitrogen that the US, China, Iran, et. al. uses. No problem: it would just impose more taxes on its sheeple to build a dome over itself, Stephen King style. The advantage for us is that we would no longer have to breathe all that new German coal smoke.

Re:Nitrogen narcosis?

[wonkey_monkey]

I meant as a general method of execution (I also meant hypoxia, not narcosis), not for this specific case.

Sounds counter-productive...

[evilviper]

Europe doesn't have magic fairy dust that lets them manufacture drugs nobody else can.

If they are going to cut-off the US market, that opens up a HUGE opportunity for any other manufacturer to step in and produce it, without ANY competition in the US.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[IamTheRealMike]

If you read some background articles, it appears that you're wrong - the only manufacturers of propofol at the moment are in the EU. It's very hard to make, and historically it was made by a company in the USA, a couple of companies in the EU and one in Israel. The Israeli company made it in a factory in the USA until their production runs started killing people due to bacterial infection. Both the US and Israeli company stopped. Now they're bringing it back, slowly, except not really - the Israeli firm outsourced to a company in Italy. Hospira (the US firm) meanwhile also has a policy of forbidding its drugs from being used in lethal injections.

The market for lethal injection is tiny, and the complexity of making the drug is extremely high. So there's no huge opportunity.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[evilviper]

The market for lethal injection is tiny, and the complexity of making the drug is extremely high. So there's no huge opportunity.

We're not talking about the "lethal injection" market, we're talking about the entire US market. A short delay while US manufacturers get up to speed, and allow hospitals to stockpile the drug might be in order. But then go ahead with it, and watch the EU firms cut off a big chunk of their revenue for the drug, possibly going out of business, then the EU having to import it from the US.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[Razalhague]

Europe doesn't have magic fairy dust that lets them manufacture drugs nobody else can.

Yes they do. It's called "patents".

Re: Sounds counter-productive...

[evilviper]

Propofol is well over 20 years old, so patents are not in-force. And furthermore, patents are national, so the US government can step in and dissolve them if they feel it is important.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[Interfacer]

A short delay? You've obviously never worked in the pharma industry.
It takes about 7 to 9 years between building your installation and FDA market approval.
There is a huge amount of testing and red tape to prevent 'oopsies' like the softenon fuckup.

If a big pharma company decided -today- to retrofit one of their plants for making this product, you'd be a decade further before it would become available. Even with a known drug that would not require additional research. And that is assuming there are no legal hurdles like patents or other things that can slow things down even further. I work in a pharma plant. I started there during the engineering phase so I do have a good idea of what is involved in bringing a drug to market.

Re: Sounds counter-productive...

[Razalhague]

Hmph. Stupid facts always ruining my jokes :(.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[compro01]

No one. Propofol was invented in the 70s, so any patents on it are lone gone.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[OneAhead]

+1 Insightful, pretty please? This single comment (in addition to the one by IamTheRealMike two more posts up) is what it all boils down to.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[Wookact]

The drug has a very small profit margin, There is a reason they stopped making it in the US.

Re: Sounds counter-productive...

[kyrsjo]

In this case its not patented, but if it where, just declaring the patents invalid would be a bad idea. If they did that, european nations may also look at which patents are annoying AND held by US companies, and declare some of them invalid as well.

Basically, this isn't worth risking a trade war over, and it isn't worth starting up a production line because of it. Alternatives exsist. The EU also knows that it isn't worth the risk for the US - that's why they do it.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[matfud]

Yes, the manufacturer fucked up and faced hudreds of millions of dollars in fines and legal suits.

Re: Sounds counter-productive...

[evilviper]

The EU could be running afoul of illegal restraint of trade with their actions on this law as well, so they're certainly playing a game of brinkmanship, and I think it's only fair that it costs them. They aren't going to jump in and violate some US-held patents, because the US had ample justification, while the EU will be seen as the villain, and probably have to answer to the WTO.

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[evilviper]

It takes about 7 to 9 years between building your installation and FDA market approval.

So call it a "compounding" facility, and run it with less government oversight than a fast-food stand... </sarcasm>

Re:Sounds counter-productive...

[evilviper]

All products have a small profit margin when there's lots of competition. With no competition, you can set the price astronomically high, and people will pay it.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the day that you are sitting on death row, wrongfully accused. Then it's barbaric and completely wrong again.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because as we all know, there's no such thing as a life sentence without parole.

Technically... execution is life in prison with out parole...

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[TWiTfan]

Overdoses aren't reliable enough. You need something that it consistent and predictable with every person. You don't want to use a drug that requires wildly different doses for different people (such as former heroin addicts, for example, who may have a high tolerance).

Nitrogen

[GrahamCox]

I do not support the death penalty, but if you have to have it, why make it complicated? Just slip on a mask and feed in pure nitrogen. Painless, panic free, lose consciousness in under 10 seconds, death in 2 minutes.

Re:Nitrogen

[ShooterNeo]

The breathing rate from hypoxic drive is slow.

Re:Nitrogen

[CanadianMacFan]

Because the death penalty is really about retaliation and revenge. Such a peaceful death is too good for the people that are executed. I watched a show by Louis Theroux about the death penalty and it was scary how some people wanted the prisoners to suffer.

Interesting

[n2hightech]

If we could just figure out how to execute murderers humanely using imported water, beer and wine we could fix our balance of trade without any tariffs. http://pierstransportation.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/top-u-s-imports-exports-with-europe/ Car parts would work too but its hard to figure out how we could do that humanely.

Re:Interesting

[alexander_686]

At one point during the 80's airbags were considered. Put them behind a prisoner’s neck then activate it to snap the neck.

Re:Interesting

[femtobyte]

Sounds somewhat like Edison's stunts using alternating current to execute prisoners and large mammals; primarily propaganda to present Tesla's AC power distribution systems as especially dangerous. In the '80's, this was FUD against "oh noes, big gubmint is forcing cars to have airbags, that'll kill us all!," not the cutting edge of humane execution methods (of which there is no shortage; the general difficulty is shortage of humanity that might stem execution rates in the first place).

Re:Interesting

[alexander_686]

That was my gut feeling at the time. I will point out that Edison and Tesla did succeed in killing a lot of things with both AC and DC power. So neither case is completely smoke and mirrors.

Side Note - On the other hand I have always wondered why America chose AC cycle that was most likely to kill. I know a reason was that it is easy to sync to a clock but other countries avoided that issue.

the entire process is ridiculous.

[nimbius]

the idea that somehow by murdering prisoners we make society a better place is as ridiculous as having a doctor whos taken the hippocratic oath commit the execution. To kill a prisoner is to at best wash the states hands of their responsibility to do anything more constructructive, like engage in corrective efforts that beget the name "correctional institution" in the first place. At worst, its incredibly condescending to assume intelligent americans would be comforted with this pittance of "biblical retribution" we call execution.
And it is. Capital punishment is derived from, and entirely indistinguishable in the 21st century from, biblical retribution. The idea that killing the killer will somehow make everything OK is nothing more than a laughably exotic attempt by the state to appease constituents clammouring for a reduction in violent crime.

and there has been a reduction in violent crime in america since the 1970's. its not lauded however. Peace and low crime rates dont win elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

so we gin up the voters with "suburban warzone" rhetoric and the voters insist on ever more stringent "tough on crime" criminal charges. We shuffle ever closer to a police state because we're told to. in turn our elected officials in contestable elections are morally reprehensible when facing a pink slip, so they fuel these flames for their own professional gain. our religious leaders sit idly by, as the notion of murdering the guilty is business as usual to them.

killing prisoners detracts from the big problem. low employment for unskilled labour combined with a gutted public education system and a criminal code designed to ensure everyone can be convicted if necessary is packing prisons to bursting. the 'wars' on drugs and the 3 strikes laws are nothing more than throwing sawdust on vomit. that if somehow we can contrive a repository for anyone not willing to live the life of a subservient peasant working 3 minimum wage part time jobs and living in squalor, then american is OK, freedom is preserved, and that pepperidge farm dream of the olden times punctuated by dean martin and bing crosby can go on unabated in the suburbs. the real problem is as a society, we have not accepted the fact that we cannot just ignore poor people. to do so created a culture, and class of individual that inevitably becomes determined with absolutely nothing to lose, and that person when they emerge will be as remorseless and callous as the hand of the free market under which they toiled.

Re:the entire process is ridiculous.

[mdielmann]

Capital punishment is derived from, and entirely indistinguishable in the 21st century from, biblical retribution. The idea that killing the killer will somehow make everything OK is nothing more than a laughably exotic attempt by the state to appease constituents clammouring for a reduction in violent crime.

While I've defended the Bible before, and I do believe it is defensible in many cases, I can't condone capital punishment, and I haven't been able to for years. But I'll ask you this. Which alternative would you suggest for dealing with a murderer 3500 years ago? And how much worse was the biblical standard compared to the contemporaries? The good news is, we have far more options now. Some of them could be considered better.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

That's why I said "culture" and not "people". The two aren't separable, per se, but they are distinct.

Re:Good for the EU.

[TheCarp]

I wish I could be so hopeful. In the end this is unlikely. However, equally unlikely is that this makes it profitable enough to start up new production facilities for drugs, since its such a niche use. In time, they will figure something out.

No Moral Standing Here

[gryf]

So Germany will stop selling medicines to the the US because of our nation's democratic choice to continue capital punishment. Meanwhile, they happily sell medicines to Iran which has a oligarchically imposed practice of capital punishment for such crimes as being raped and being homosexual.

If the EU position were a principled one, they would not be sending the same drugs to Iran. In fact, the policy remains popular among citizens in Europe.

Re:No Moral Standing Here

[Ihlosi]

o Germany will stop selling medicines to the the US because of our nation's democratic choice to continue capital punishment. Meanwhile, they happily sell medicines to Iran which has a oligarchically imposed practice of capital punishment for such crimes as being raped and being homosexual.

They're probably not selling rope to Iran.

Re:No Moral Standing Here

[Zironic]

The policy is against selling drugs that will be used to kill people. The policy is not against selling drugs to regimes that kill people.

Re:No Moral Standing Here

[kyrsjo]

But is Iran using these drugs for executions? Because that's what the threathened export ban to the US is about. I doubt we're selling high-speed centrifuges (for isotope separation / nuclear weapons programs) etc. to Iran either.

Re:No Moral Standing Here

[JCCyC]

Germany isn't selling to Iran THE specific medicines they use in their executions. (They don't use any, by the way; they hang people.) Also, Germany is still selling to the US all medicines, save the specific ones used for execution. The supposed double standard doesn't exist. But you knew that already. Yes, I'm saying you were misleading deliberately, and I'm 99% sure I'm correct.

Re: No Moral Standing Here

[NeutronCowboy]

Iran doesn't use those drugs in capital punishment. As a result, selling those drugs to Iran doesn't help with their capital punishment regime. If anything, it diverts funds to the EU that could otherwise be used for capital punishment.

Re:Hint

[Cutriss]

No, "barbaric" is the way we treat people with mental illness and ailments that point to it. Rather than fix the problem, it's easier to take a puritanical view and pretend it's that individual's personal failings that caused the problem instead of society's failing to treat it. When this inevitably results in recidivism, it's just easier for society to hit the guy with a brick and make the problem go away.

We make the monsters and then claim that the monsters have to be killed because they can't be unmade.

Why can't we manufacture this stuff here?

[ZorinLynx]

Outsource, outsource, outsource everything!

We should be making the stuff we need here in the US. It's not like we don't have the manpower (what's the unemployment at again?) or the skills (so many college-educated people out of work). I'm tired of depending on others for our essential materials and being subject to their political whims.

Re:Why can't we manufacture this stuff here?

[RockDoctor]

Outsource, outsource, outsource everything!

We should be making the stuff we need here in the US.

What makes you think that you've got the right to do that?

Remember those things called patent laws, which the US government is so keen on forcing the rest of the world to obey? Well, according to those laws, if a company owns the rights to produce a particular product, then they have the right to produce that product and prevent anyone else from producing it. And as long as it's not a monopoly product (which anaesthetics generally are not ; there are lots of different ones), they're not even compelled to license the rights to other companies.

They're the laws which your government has been fighting for for decades. This is the bed that your legislators have been making for you for decades ; enjoy laying in it.

Re:Hint

[Mysticalfruit]

While I'm all for squishing child molesters feet first using a steam roller in the lowest gear the issue is this...

It's confirmed that we've executed innocent people. Wrong place, wrong time, bad lawyers, biased juries. It's happened. People on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence so often that a couple years ago the Governor of Illinois mass commuted everybody on death row to life without parole.

While it's bad if a guilty man goes free, it's far worse if an innocent man is killed.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

Yep, reality doesn't contain any mental illness. Genius.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

"you speak of theory that only works between your ears. in practice, thousands of times the monsters are out again and do their crimes again."

We're really gonna need to see actual numbers for recidivism by people convicted of death-penalty-eligible crimes -- in the thousands -- to be convinced by that statement. No, I will not google it for you.

Re:Hint

[OzPeter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States

Best to make sure you actually have the criminal...

Probably a better link is Wrongful Execution:United States where they sure as hell didn't have the criminal, but went ahead and executed them anyway.

Because killing people....

[Lumpy]

Is always the right answer. Honestly, why cant we have a running man island where they all have to fight to the death? WE try and act as if we are civilized but in reality we are so far from it. And you know that the ratings on a TV show where inmates kill each other would be higher than the NFL has ever had.

It would fit perfectly with the completely corrupted and screwed up legal system we have, so why not just make the jump and go all the way? It would be highly profitable!

Re:Hint

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

You do know that only treason, murder, and (in a few states) child rape are punishable by the death penalty in the United States, right? Keeping these people locked up for life is also an excellent way to prevent re-offending. In fact, it's cheaper to keep them locked up than it is to execute them in most cases.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

If they get released because they're mentally ill, they'd also get released from death row. Unless of course you execute them quickly before they get a chance to appeal, and then you're going to execute innocent people.

Really, people sentenced to life in prison without parole don't get released unless they get pardoned, have their sentence commuted, or have a retrial. And all of those things can and do happen to people sentenced to death.

Re:Hint

[stenvar]

I suggest you actually look at the pro-intellectual cultures in Europe. Those cultures have been responsible for the most barbarous genocides, wars, racism, and mass murders in human history, complete with the most erudite justifications for them.

Yes, we're anti-intellectual to some degree, and that's a good thing.

Lethal injection?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Why are you guys in the U.S. using lethal injections? Did you run out of stones? Can't sharpen an axe?

Re:Hint

[CanHasDIY]

you speak of theory that only works between your ears. in practice, thousands of times the monsters are out again and do their crimes again.

[citation needed]

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

We have capital punishment because we just don't know what to do with the monsters you describe. Letting them out isn't an option, and keeping them locked up consumes a lot of resources (and keeps the door open that they some day get out), and is borderline cruel. In that sense, putting them down makes the most sense, and could almost be considered a compassionate solution (and yes, I specifically use the language we would use to talk about our solution to rapid animals).

BUT, if we get it wrong just _once_; if one innocent person, or even more likely, one guilty person (guilty of the listed crimes or just guilty of something) who is not an irredeemable monster, is put to death, the blood is on our hands. _That_ would be barbaric. I don't know about you, but I am not comfortable with that, and I certainly don't have enough faith in our system of justice (and the associated elected officials) to believe that we will never get it wrong.

Re:Hint

[dr_dank]

Agree completely. I must point out (again) that the automatic appeals process costs taxpayers at least $2 million dollars, therefore life in prison/no parole is economically cheaper for taxpayers.

I fear that this would be fixed by getting rid of the appeals instead of doing away with capital punishment entirely.

If we're going to execute them...

[argStyopa]

....and assuming the point is not to punish them with the sort of pain and fear that they inflicted on their victims, why don't we just use that cow-killing boltgun thingy?

I mean, if we seriously believe that's "humane" why not?

Re:If we're going to execute them...

[jergantic]

It doesn't always hit the target the first time, and it's violent. Hypoxia through an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon is the most humane and sensible method of execution. See the BBC Horizon documentary on this exact question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRFul216LM. Even animals for slaughter are often rendered unconscious through such gas before application of the bolt gun.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

What possible metric of justice, opportunity, and education could you possibly be using?

Number of people jailed, amount of wealth accumulated by the wealthiest, and amount spent on tuition? Because we do top out those categories, quite nicely.

But if you want say...
Low crime rates, social mobility, and objective skills testing for those metrics, the US has fallen behind basically every other first world country.

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[mrchaotica]

Why, are you trying to be stingy with it or something? All you have to do is just give everybody the highest possible dose.

Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement

[markian]

Even the very wise cannot see all ends

Misleading

[sacrilicious]

US Executions Threaten Supply of Anaesthetic Used For Surgical Procedures

HIGHLY misleading headline. I read the headline and thought, "wow, so many executions are occurring in the US that there's not enough of this drug for non-execution purposes"... which is a much more straightforward interpretation than what the article eventually gets into, which is that the use of the drug in a single execution would make an EU regulation kick in.

BOOOOOOO, slashdot editor. Boooo.

Re:Misleading

[swb]

It's misleading the way the story reads, but I have read of shortages of propofol and other drugs due to limited manufacturing facilities -- demand outstrips supply, a fuckup in manufacturing requiring the output to be slowed or stopped, etc.

I also have read that there were a whole bunch of drugs from the late 1960s or 1970s that never went through a "modern" FDA approval process. They were all out of patent and widely made as cheap generics. The FDA decided these needed re-approval (despite decades of widespread generally safe use) and forced them off the market, granting whoever would do the approval for them monopoly status.

The drugs then became impossible to find and when they returned to market, the supply was constrained and suddenly they were priced like new, brand-name drugs to boot.

I'm not sure of popofol was one of these re-eval drugs or not.

Re:Misleading

[jratcliffe]

US Executions Threaten Supply of Anaesthetic Used For Surgical Procedures

Headline looks entirely accurate to me. If the executions move forward, the drug won't be available for surgical procedures.

Re:Misleading

[fd10801]

Agreed

Re:Misleading

[sacrilicious]

Sure, technically the headline's accurate, but that's not incompatible with being misleading.

Far less misleading (while being *at least* as "accurate" as the existing headline) would have been something like, "Execution use would lead to ban on drug's importation".

Re:Misleading

[fiannaFailMan]

US Executions Threaten Supply of Anaesthetic Used For Surgical Procedures

HIGHLY misleading headline. I read the headline and thought, "wow, so many executions are occurring in the US that there's not enough of this drug for non-execution purposes"... which is a much more straightforward interpretation than what the article eventually gets into, which is that the use of the drug in a single execution would make an EU regulation kick in.

BOOOOOOO, slashdot editor. Boooo.

Yeah. How dare he make you read the whole summary.

Fuck the Anaesthetic

[coinreturn]

If you're going to be barbaric enough to use the death penalty, you might as well go all the way and withold the anaesthetic.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

Hmm, if we're not excusing historical behavior...
I seem to recall that the United States had a large indigenous population prior to the founding of the US government. What happened to them? Oh yeah, genocide.

And wasn't one of the most barbaric forms of slavery practiced in modern history done in the U.S? Why yes it was!

And didn't we have institutionalized racism, with official laws enforcing it until the 19-fucking-70s? Oh, we sure did!

And didn't the Nazis ride in on an anti-intellectualist platform? Why, yes they did.

Come on man, there's never been an intellectual justification for pretty violence, and you know it.

Re:Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy?

[pe1rxq]

We can't stop you from killing......
We simply don't want to have any part in it.

"chain of hypothetical fallacy" strikes again

[peter303]

"If this hypothetic event hapens" and "taht hypothetic event happens" [repeat several times} then we are in deep trouble! There are mroe important things in the world to worry about.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

Oh no! You've found my weakness! Because I suggest improvement of my environment, I must be personally perfect and literally a deity, and being human, that's impossible. There's no way a flawed individual could ever find a flaw in anything! Progress is literally impossible!

Get on with it already

[sl4shd0rk]

There's little point in bickering about the method when the decision has already been made that the criminal is too dangerous/incorrigibly evil to live in society.

Wacky America

[Hoi Polloi]

Welcome to America where killing our citizens is more important than saving their lives.

Re:Wacky America

[lxs]

And somehow they manage to blame the EU.

Re:letting monsters live

[DocSavage64109]

The problem with your argument is that there are a number of people sentenced to death that are completely innocent. It also costs more to sentence someone to death in the US than life imprisonment.

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[Applehu Akbar]

That's why no doctor can perform an execution. They use prison staff who are trained in that specific procedure.

firing squads have one blank.

[schneidafunk]

An interesting fact about firing squads is one person has a blank.

"One of the sharpshooters is secretly armed with a blank round, which means that each shooter can rest comfortably in the knowledge that there is a 20% chance that she never shot the prisoner."
Firing Squad History

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Applekid]

An interesting fact about firing squads is one person has a blank.

"One of the sharpshooters is secretly armed with a blank round, which means that each shooter can rest comfortably in the knowledge that there is a 20% chance that she never shot the prisoner."
Firing Squad History

Strange how much effort we put into trying to relieve the guilt of those carrying out the murderous orders of the state.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[thaylin]

Well most non-sociopaths dont want to kill people, therefore we either find sociopaths who have not illegally killed people to do it and hope it does not trigger it a murder binge or we get normal people to do it and try to minimize the trauma to them.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[ultranova]

Well most non-sociopaths dont want to kill people, therefore we either find sociopaths who have not illegally killed people to do it and hope it does not trigger it a murder binge or we get normal people to do it and try to minimize the trauma to them.

Or you could just let murderers rot in jail, thus avoiding both trauma and the rather unfortunate idea that life is a privilege that is subject to revocation by the state at its will. It's not like death penalty serves any practical purpose anyway, besides keeping the idea that violence is justice alive and kicking.

Coming to think of it, I wonder if this is one of the reasons why the US has constant problems with mass shootings and serial killers: if it's okay for the state to do it...

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[thaylin]

Life is a right, however even rights can be taken away in specific situations. Your rights to life end when you take another life unjustifiably. No one says they can be revoked at will.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Bardez]

Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.

I do not pretend to weigh in on the morality or acceptability of capital punishment in this post, just the above economic view.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[JesseMcDonald]

Life is a right, however even rights can be taken away in specific situations. Your rights to life end when you take another life unjustifiably.

It's not so much that the right is taken away, as that by taking the life of another (who did not first try to kill you) you have effectively argued, through your actions, that the right does not exist. Actions speak louder than words; if you don't believe the right exists, who are we to disagree? If you want to claim the protection of a right, you must show others the same consideration. (See also the legal principle of "estoppel".)

It's important that the conditions under which a right does not apply are carefully delineated. Rights cannot be nullified based on some nebulous theory of overriding "social good"; that would render them meaningless. Your claim to a right is forfeit only when you violate the same right yourself.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Joce640k]

I thought it was so that when you pulled the trigger you could imagine you had the blank.

I'm sure you'll know the truth after you pull the trigger - real bullets have recoil.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[thaylin]

Thank you, that is what I was trying to say, just not as well.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Hognoxious]

I thought this was an urban myth. I'd have thought an experienced rifleman would notice the difference in feel.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Bearhouse]

Bullshit.
When you fire a gun - especially a rifle - the kick tells you if there's a projective being pushed or not.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[nephilimsd]

This is a great point. The economic benefit of killing humans should definitely outweigh the right to life. Oh, except that it costs quite a bit more for us to kill people than to simply incarcerate them with no chance of parole. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty " Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[tchdab1]

>>perhaps even risking parole....

But definitely not risking reversal once the convict has been executed. There's been a pretty high rate (significantly > 0!) of wrongly convicted people on death row. I guess the solution to this problem is to kill them more quickly - ?

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Solandri]

Interesting. I was taught the opposite - that the blanks are used so the executioners can't be justifiably lynched if capital punishment ever goes out of style and people get the idea of retroactively punishing the executioners for murder. If you know for certain that one executioner didn't fire a live bullet but you don't know which one, you can't convict any of them for murder. Similar to the can't convict an identical twin for a crime based on DNA evidence meme.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[krakrjak]

Except, at least in the US, it is not necessarily cheaper to execute someone that to imprison them for life. Life without parole (LWOP) cases can cost more depending on how long the individual is imprisoned. However, it's really hard to know the true cost of either as there are different knock on costs from each type.

In the LWOP cases if the person receiving the sentence is really young then it will likely cost roughly between $1-$3 million to imprison that person for the rest of their lives. However, in California's recent past it was determined that executions cost about $3 million per execution. Some might argue that California wasn't very efficient at execution, unlike Texas, but the price for executions in Texas is comparable.

It's actually quite difficult to figure out the actual cost, but we do know a few details to help reason through the costs. Due to the legal system in the US we allow those sentenced to death to exhaust all legal appeal options before the execution. This means many more days in court than the LWOP (roughly 5-6 times as many court appearances).

A quick googling shows some stats (some with deeper links to actual studies):
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[mrvan]

In China and Iran, this is probably true.

In the USA, it is provably false: the entire process of a death sentence is more expensive than life imprisonment due to a more complicated process and more (mandatory?) appeals. The average time between sentencing and execution is now 15 years, so you are feeding, housing, and guarding them for probably around a third of their natural time left anyway.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[loshwomp]

Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.

Your statement confirms that Americans care only about one thing - money.

Actually, it also confirms that the GP is wrong about the financial arguments, since it's exceedingly well documented that executing prisoners costs about an order of magnitude more than the alternative.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[farble1670]

at best, that's a matter of opinion,
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I'm fairly sure that a lynch mob intent on doing away with people who had acted as executioners would not be particularly interested in discussing a 20% probability of whether that person was using a rifle loaded with a blank.

And if it ever did get as far as a courtroom, someone would surely bring up the obvious point that they were, after all, willing to pull the trigger in the full knowledge that they had an 80% chance of having a live round. Someone who is prepared to bring in an ex post facto law would probably also have few qualms about ensuring that not having achieved what you set out to do through sheer dumb luck would not count as a defence.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[painandgreed]

Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.

Things I've seen say the opposite. Compared to the legal costs involved in mandated procedure for Capitol Crimes, life in prison is cheaper. Furthermore, people up for the death penalty aren't ones capable of being paroled. There is however the chance that the person found guilty could be proven innocent, and if they are still in jail and have not been executed, there is a chance they can be released.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Valdrax]

Strange how much effort we put into trying to relieve the guilt of those carrying out the murderous orders of the state.

(Note: I am anti-death penalty. The following is not support for the death penalty.)

We, as a society, have decided that the death penalty serves an important societal purpose -- that is it a just act. Why would we choose to punish the people who are carrying out what we, as a society, have decided is justice?

Law enforcement is made up of people too, and if the burden of taking a life in a justified manner can be lightened, it should. To do otherwise is to promote PTSD and a life of misery among people who are just trying to protect the public. This is true of executioners, just as it is true of soldiers and of police thrust into dangerous situations.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[antdude]

I like that idea, but where will we put these murderers? We have room in the jails!

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[bsa3]

In practice, death sentences in the US tend to be more expensive, and that's leaving aside the far-too-high rate of improper convictions. Perhaps an alternate universe with substantially less judicial process would be cheaper, but that option isn't on the menu.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[swalve]

Not as the practice is currently done.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[bluegutang]

Or you could just let murderers rot in jail, thus avoiding both trauma and the rather unfortunate idea that life is a privilege that is subject to revocation by the state at its will

What about the unfortunate idea that freedom is a privilege subject to revocation by the state at its will?

Capital punishment is an infringement on a right possessed by non-criminals, but so is imprisonment...

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[nickserv]

Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.

Considering the lengthy and mandatory appeals process that death row inmates typically go through and, given that it takes about 10-15 years to complete the process, while all this time the person is locked up on death row which are likely the most expensive cells in prison, I question whether there really is much cost benefit at all.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[Vrtigo1]

I always found this statement odd because there's theoretically no way to prove it wasn't just something "made up" to make the executioners feel better. Assuming one rifle is loaded with a blank, I would guess they don't allow the executioners to check to see if their rifle has the blank prior to shooting because then the rest of the executioners would know they didn't have a blank and it would negate the desired effect on them. So, if you can't check your rifle to see if it has a blank, who's to say any of them do? Sure the guy that put it there could attest to one rifle having a blank, but that brings us back to how the executioners themselves know he isn't lying.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[jonbryce]

It's not. Life imprisonment is cheaper.

Re:firing squads have one blank.

[St.Creed]

I've heard that with all the trials, appeals and lawyers the cost of the whole process up to an execution is actually higher than having someone spend a life sentence in jail.

And "risking parole"... you mean, risking the fact they were innocent to begin with? Because in several cases that's basically what happened. The issue with the death penalty is that it's both highly discriminatory towards poor people, and also makes it impossible to undo judicial errors. Good reasons to avoid it.

And if the USA didn't put such a large part of its population in prison, it wouldn't be so expensive either.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

that argument no longer holds water, now that we have the DNA testing and other advanced forensics that set those people free.

Those techiques are only as reliable as the people who do them, which is to say that they can, and do, go wrong.

Re:Hint

[MozeeToby]

No one we put to death now would be released tomorrow if the death penalty were abolished.

Why not use veterinary euthanasia drugs?

[JDG1980]

I don't understand why they would be screwing around with anesthetics like Propofol. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to the local vet or dog pound and get the same kind of drugs that are used to euthanize pets? We know these work effectively, and they shouldn't cause unnecessary suffering because they are specifically designed not to. I was in the room a couple of years ago when our family's elderly Basset hound (who could barely walk any more) was put to sleep; she was gone before the vet even finished pushing the plunger.

For what it's worth, I oppose the death penalty, largely on pragmatic grounds. (If we could limit it to only the Ted Bundys and Timothy McVeighs of the world, I'd be fine with it, but in practice we're more likely to execute some poor bastard who committed a robbery gone wrong and couldn't afford a good lawyer. Or, worse, someone who had the misfortune to be a poor African-American in the wrong place at the wrong time.) But if we're going to do it, I don't know why it has to be so complicated.

Re:Why not use veterinary euthanasia drugs?

[clay_shooter]

Wish I had mod points. I've always wondered this also.

It's very cheap to make propofol...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

when you have a captive audience and quality control is not exactly an important issue.

Re:Hint

[jareth-0205]

you speak of theory that only works between your ears. in practice, thousands of times the monsters are out again and do their crimes again.

Huh...? What is this 'technically' bollocks? If you want to amend a system with life-without-parole to replace a capital sentence then you can do that.

Use Nitrogen Gas

[NReitzel]

If we are bound and determined to execute people, and a criterion is that it be done "humanely", then we can use asphixiation by nitrogen gas.

Many nitrogen accidents have occurred in the past, including a fairly recent one at NASA where people have entered spaces filled with nitrogen and just passed out and died without any awareness of the danger, or any indication that bad things were about to happen. Aviators used to be required to experience anoxia (lackof oxygen) due to altitude, and as one who has experienced this, I can state from personal experience there is no discomfort whatsoever.

As a method, this is akin to a gas chamber except that no poisons are used. The chamber is flooded with nitrogen gas, which does not support life. As the oxygen content of the subject's blood falls, they experience a short period (seconds) of tunnel vision, then lose consciousness, and shortly thereafter, die. There is no choking or strangling sensation, no feeling of not being able to catch one's breath. So if you want to talk about "humane" in the same sentence as "execute" this is the way to go. it's cheap, doesn't require any toxic drugs and doesn't have any disposal problems.

Re:Use Nitrogen Gas

[jergantic]

Just to support this: The BBC Horizon documentary "How to Kill a Human Being" (available in full on YouTube) asks what the most humane form of execution is and comes to the same conclusion. It seems that it shouldn't even be necessary to build a chamber, but rather that a snug mask would work.

Re:Use Nitrogen Gas

[Ihlosi]

The BBC Horizon documentary "How to Kill a Human Being" (available in full on YouTube) asks what the most humane form of execution is and comes to the same conclusion.

The problem is that the condemned can delay the execution for a few minutes just by holding their breath. You usually don't want execution methods where the condemned has that much control over the whole process.

A better way

[jandersen]

I am not quite sure whether I am entirely against death penalty for certain crimes, but what I am against is dragging it out indefinitely and then finally doing it with so much meaningless, but complicated ritual. It you have made a decision like that, then you should just go and get it done.

As to the method, we know that electrocution, shooting, hanging, garroting, gas and lethal injection as it is usually carried out are all likely to cause an amount of suffering, and if you deliberately cause suffering in another living being, what are you? In my view not much better than the person that you are executing. There is however a simple and cheap way: asphyxiation with 100% nitrogen. You basically pass out feeling extremely euphoric, so no suffering.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[alexander_686]

Economies of scale. To simplify, the most efficient method of producing this chemical only requires one plant for the entire world.

We could set up a table top production facility to produce it but that table top production facility would have to approved and regulated by the FDA which is a expensive process. After all we would not want to execute prisoners with substandard drugs. (And maybe not. If it were not the right strength then the execution would be botched.)

Re:Hint

[jareth-0205]

that argument no longer holds water, now that we have the DNA testing and other advanced forensics that set those people free.

...and still the sometimes racist, sometimes biased, potentially corrupt people around running the system. Putting your faith in DNA as the panacea is phenomenally dangerous. You know how easily your (and everyone's) DNA gets spread around?

Tit for tat

[redelm]

I am delighted to see the RoW (EU) pay the US back in the same coin. For 200+ years, the US has exercised export restrictions (IMHO unconstitutional). Mostly, these restrictions have been strategic (oil against Japan in 1941, crude oil currently) but sometimes a matter of taste ("horses by sea").

Diplomacy works a lot like the "Prisoners Dilemma" where tit-for-tat appears to be the optimal strategy.

Or outsource them

[unixisc]

Send those on death row to countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran that still have beheadings, and pay them to execute these prisoners

Nitrous oxide

[cmholm]

Fine, go with a heavy nitrous mix, then. Although it would do the job, I'm sure there would be right wing whinging that the condemned aren't supposed to go *too* easy.

Re:Nitrous oxide

[Golddess]

If said right winger believes we were designed, just pose this question to them.

"Then why did God design us this way?"

they would miss and just horribly wound the guy.

[MondoGordo]

I think you meant "miss hitting anything vital" ... because if they "missed" then he wouldn't be "horribly wounded" . pardon me for being pedantic ... it's a curse :(

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[gweihir]

Simple: If bought legally you run into exactly the same problem. If not bought legally, then it would be a violation of the prisoner's rights to be executed by a "proper" method.

Re:Hint

[realityimpaired]

There's people on that list who were convicted in the 2000's. We've had commercially available DNA testing since the 1980's.

Why do you put such faith in a technology that *still* didn't correctly exonerate people during their trial 20 years after it became available? Have you never heard of a biased jury or police tunnel vision?

"Doc, it hurts when I do this."

[Cajun Hell]

Who bought the law that says we have to use some exotic chemical? Execute that person with whatever supply remains. Then repeal the ridiculous policy, hire any halfway-competent administrator and tell them "You have a $10 budget. Kill." A hundred years ago, people were able to get executions competently done, without exotic expensive tech.

And let's remember: it's basically the practical definition of technological progress, that it makes things cheaper and easier, giving you more for less. When you see yourself moving toward something that is harder and costs more, that's your signal that you need a reality check.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[AlecC]

Because it would cost quite a lot of money to set up a production line and prove the quality to medical standards, for a market restricted to the US.

The shooters aren't supposed to notice the recoil?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

presumably, the shooters have all fires rifles previously, and would surely notice the difference in recoil between a bullet and a blank round.

Re:Mod whole thread -99, Flamebait

[lxs]

What about those of us who think that death is too good for them? I gladly pay to let the fuckers suffer for the next 50 or so miserable years of their lives.
But if you insist on state sanctioned murder, don't pussyfoot around the nasty business by medicalising the problem and go for shooting or beheading.

Re:Good for the EU.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I never bought the idea of execution as a deterrence but fully subscribe to the idea of execution as punishment.

Could be used???

[meerling]

Really? A large percentage of the drugs and medical devices COULD be used for torture or execution. That's a pretty flimsy stance there people. (Though as just a company, it has to follow the law or get severely screwed, at least in other countries.)

Michael Jackson ...

[PPH]

... used it all up.

Yeah, losing Propofol would be a disaster

[sirwired]

Propofol is, by far, the most-used anesthetic induction agent; it has almost entirely replaced induction-by-mask, which is now largely confined to kids who don't take well to getting an IV while awake. For non-gas procedures, it's also the most common (only?) anesthetic used for continuous infusion.

A large hospital can easily go through literally gallons of the stuff a day.

Re:Hint

[rubycodez]

you're confused, genius.

if a person does those evil things, doesn't matter the condition of the mind, not relevant whether sane nor insane. be guilty of crimes of a monster, get eliminated like one

So let me get this straight...

[kaatochacha]

A German company is thinking of banning a drug for helping the sick, on the basis of an extremely small percentage of it's total import being used in executions, and justifying it as a human rights issue?
Yes, denying drugs to the sick=human rights.
I think my head just exploded.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[sumdumass]

Patent and copyright laws have a provision in the internstional treaties that allow countries to declare a nation emergency or something similar then declare a certain set of copyrights or patents needed to alieviate that emrrgency. This allows them to ignore those specific patents or copyright without destroying the treaties and causing a breakdown in honoring them.

The situation you described used that specific clause. Canada did the same on some drugs right after 9/11 when the anthrax scares were running through the us government. The public health exception was first built into the berne conventions in the 1800's if i remember right. It is basically an affirmative defense more than a right or ability when used.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

Congratulations, now you're a monster too! Problems actually solved: 0.

Re:The shooters aren't supposed to notice the reco

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they use kids, they don't know better.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

How would that look, with the US being by far the biggest push for "strong IP laws"?

Or...

[FuzzNugget]

You could decide *not* to be a nation of barbarians that actually murders people under official auspices.

Re:Good for the EU.

[RivenAleem]

Thanks, the way the summary described it really irked me.

"This is not the first time that the E.U.'s anti-death-penalty stance has affected the U.S. supply of anesthetics"

I'm sorry US, it's your stance on killing your citizens that has affected your supply of anaesthetics.

Re:Hint

[rubycodez]

you are wrong. murderers get released for various reasons (sentenced "commuted" for example), some of those kill again

You know

[Arancaytar]

if you want to poison people so badly, why not make your own poison instead of buying medicine from people who don't want you to use their medicine as a poison.

Re:ROFL

[TheLink]

They just need to be more open minded.

Re:Hint

[aevan]

Wait... they've executed prisoners who then went on to re-offend?

I can see the Death Penalty being considered not a deterrent...but I'm pretty sure it's the definitive preventative measure to recidivism, outside of a Hollywood horror film.

Re:Hint

[jklovanc]

Except that anyone who comes in contact with a lifer (guards, staff, other inmates) is in danger. What are we going to do if a lifer kills someone else? Throw them in jail?

Agree

[mynameiskhan]

That is right. What can EU do then? Ban rope export?

Re:Use something else then

[sumdumass]

You should equate expensive with humane in this context. Tons of money have been spent over the years to maintain the we are better than the killers being executed mantra.

Now i'm not against the death penalty but i am against intentionally inflicting pain and suffering outside what would be present in confining someone. I hold that same belief about animals charged in out keep too . My view has nothing to do with not being them or better or anything, it stems from my exeriences hunting and seeing the difference between a kill shot and wounding first hand. Anyways, i still hunt and fish, i just choose my shots better and practice enough to be proficient in landing kill shots. The government, no matter how their justify the position should be doing the same when taking a human life regardless of how terrible the person was.

Re:Hint

[Wookact]

Maybe you should make it so the monsters are not released. Too often those "monsters" are innocent and have been railroaded. Until you can prove, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but prove beyond reproach that someone has committed a heinous crime will I agree that a death sentence is warranted. By beyond reproach I mean something along the lines of video evidence. Not someones word, not DNA (it can be planted), not a coerced confession. And if any prosecutor or police officer withholds exonerating evidence then they should be tried for murder.

But not with German rope!

[wijnands]

And there's some good hemp rope being made in Europe.

Re:Hint

[sumdumass]

It is worsr then that. A man in ohio recently found out that the state considered him to be dead for tje last ten years or so. He sued to have this corrected and his lawsuit was thrown out because the law only allows three years to fix records errors and that had already passed.

So, because proceedure seemd more important than reality, we have people incarcerated or executed for crimes others have commited and live people who are legally dead despite telling a judge personally he was alive.

CO2

[jbolden]

Just to add to your excellent comment. What causes discomfort in holding your breath is the buildup of C02 not the lack of O2.

Re:Hint

[thoromyr]

too bad DNA testing (and other "advanced forensics") 1) isn't used in every case due to cost and 2) isn't always possible (you have to have something at the scene to get DNA from, for example)

You also might want to look into the basis of DNA testing and how that matters to its various uses (paternal testing, personal identification) and the implication that non-coding (sometimes called "junk") DNA is increasingly found to not be "junk", merely that its utility was not initially apparent.

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[Golddess]

Your state requires a doctor to flip the figurative/literal switch? I thought in all states that had the death penalty, the doctor was only present to certify that the person was, in fact, dead, and that it was a non-doctor performing the actual execution.

Re:Good for the EU.

[bluefoxlucid]

May it cause the powers that be to rethink ending a person's life out of some misguided and ultimately incorrect notion of "deterrence".

Deterrence is not proven. It's been shown that an area without the death penalty over here has lower murder rates than an area with the death penalty over there, in the US, 1000 miles away. That's great, but lots of lurking variables to cast doubt on the "deterrent" theory. On the other hand, there are states which abolished the death penalty, then re-instated it 2 years later because of a quadruple in the murder rate--potentially coincidental, but it does cast doubt on the "not a deterrent" theory. Then there's of course the reverse of the first issue, where we see states that have the death penalty and also have the lowest murder rates in the country (Texas has one of the lowest, but also open carry and the highest justifiable homicide rate; VA also has execution and open carry).

Imagine if the US holds strong and executes the 3 or 4 people it does each year anyway. Then the EU makes good on its threats. Then the millions who need life saving surgery every year can't get the anesthetics they need. Then hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents die to save 3 or 4 murderers.

That's how civilized societies work.

Re:Hint

[thoromyr]

at least it is *possible* for them to consider your case and benefit you by release. Its kinda hard to release someone from an already executed death sentence.

And there is even greater reluctance to consider such cases due to the bad press it generates for state authorized killing and the prosecution that achieved it. This was an actual argument used in a case: "a prosecuting attorney argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution] [http://www.truthinjustice.org/DNA-DP.htm]

Some people don't want to look the truth in the face.

Re:Good for the EU.

[JesseMcDonald]

Execution is a deterrence in that the same person won't be murdering anyone else.

That said, while I do believe it is the victim's right to respond in kind against their murderer—through a representative, obviously—I don't think that's necessarily the best choice, particularly in cases where recurrence is unlikely. Life-long restitution is generally a better option, the specific form to be determined by the victim's representative. The offender would naturally be free to opt for the capital punishment they deserve should the idea of restitution prove unappealing.

Re:Hint

[Wookact]

You are assuming that they would get the same number of appeals, you are of course wrong.

Re:Hint

[Joce640k]

On the other hand, some people *are* caught red-handed, with dozens of witnesses.

When there's absolutely no doubt that somebody willfully did something terrible, break out the wood chipper/steamroller.

Re:Why do they use fancy drugs?

[Joce640k]

Overdoses aren't reliable enough. You need something that it consistent and predictable with every person. You don't want to use a drug that requires wildly different doses for different people (such as former heroin addicts, for example, who may have a high tolerance).

That's why you don't measure out a 'dosage', you just keep on pumping it in and don't stop until they're dead...

OTOH, why should it be humane? The idea is to send a message. You won't see Mexican drug dealers killing each other humanely, You'll see them using chainsaws and breadknives.

Re:Good for the EU.

[TheSpoom]

Deterrence is not proven.

My point exactly. Most evidence I've seen suggests otherwise, that countries which don't have a death penalty typically have a lower murder rate per capita.

Imagine if the US holds strong and executes the 3 or 4 people it does each year anyway. Then the EU makes good on its threats. Then the millions who need life saving surgery every year can't get the anesthetics they need. Then hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents die to save 3 or 4 murderers.

You mean "to execute 3 or 4 murderers", which is ridiculous and savage.

Re:Hint

[stenvar]

Yes, slavery and genocide of the American Indians were the result of European colonialism and European religious and social ideologies. Most of the history of the US as a separate nation has been occupied with dealing with the aftermath of those European crimes. Europeans, of course, continued to commit genocide in Africa and Europe well into the 20th century.

We did have institutionalized racism; so did Europe and Asia (and they still do, extensively).

Nazi ideologies were based in scientific racism and social Darwinism; Nazi popular success was based on psychology, mass communications, and sociology; even the language of the Nazis frequently used technological terminology for social policies and Nazi concepts in an attempt to make it sound more scientific. Communism and the mass murders it committed were likewise based on and supported by the work of prominent European intellectuals.

Furthermore, anti-intellectualism isn't an opposition to truth, rationality, or reason, it is an opposition to intellectualism; that is, an opposition to people who single-mindedly follow intellectual pursuits. Intellectuals frequently are neither truthful nor rational.

Maybe try not killing them?

[nickrjsmith]

The USA could always try not lowering themselves to the hideous and depraved moral standards of those they execute... and just not kill them.

Re:Hint

[loshwomp]

While I'm all for squishing child molesters feet first using a steam roller in the lowest gear [...]

Pedophiles are mentally ill, and while it's common to equate mental illness with criminality, I don't understand it. Pedophiles find children attractive, and they need to be stopped, but this is a social problem and not a criminal one.

The rest of us who don't "molest" children don't refrain because we're simply in better control of our urges, it's that we don't find children sexually attractive.

Re:Hint

[stenvar]

One thing people keep getting wrong is that they compare the US as a whole to the best individual European countries, but you need to compare either US states to European nations, or the US as a whole to Europe as a whole.

Furthermore, many of the statistics are just wrong or misleading. Crime rates in Europe aren't low. Social mobility, poverty, and educational achievement often compare different populations or use relative outcomes. Many unpleasant statistics in Europe (e.g., racism, hate crimes, poverty) are manipulated or simply not even collected.

The obvious answers...

[jonwil]

1.Find another drug that can be used for the lethal injections (or the operations), if such a chemical exists.
2.Get a company not located in the EU to start making this particular drug as a source (for the lethal injections, for the operations or both). Would work good assuming the EU company doesn't have any patent on the drug in the US or the country where it would be made.
3.End capital punishment and lock people in jail for life instead
or 4.Find an alternative to lethal injection for killing people (as others in this thread have said)

The Monster Within

[SuperKendall]

I've never understood why people like you ever think there's guilt involved in removing someone from the gene pool that would kill children⦠you and your poem proclaim killing a killer is the same as killing an innocent child who has done nothing. Killing someone means removing from the future everything they might ever do and if you can't see why it's better to remove the possible future paths of a child killer than a child with a blank slate and unknown potential...

It's why you posted AC I imagine, because deep inside you realize what a monster you are.

Re: they would miss and just horribly wound the gu

[matfud]

In most military executions there would be 6 shooters. Five would be the execution squad (one firing a blank). The sixth would fire from close range if the victim didn't die immediately.

In three US states the condemened can still choose death by firing squad. It last happened in 1998.

You are both right

[dutchwhizzman]

It's the peoples law. If the people want a law to exist, they should be willing to deal with it's consequences. If the people want a certain punishment, they should be willing to be the person to administer it, on behalf of all the others. This is how a "free country" is supposed to work.

The USA chose to divide these tasks and responsibilities, so there could be people that specialise in only a small part of this whole process and power wouldn't be too concentrated within a few people. Having a jury to determine guilt is a legacy of a system that was supposed to prevent corruption, just like a lot of the other divisions of tasks are. One of the problems of juries is that people tend to be incredibly presumptuous, unskilled and emotional about the whole thing. Prosecutors are professionals that are skilled and trained in influencing jurors, while jurors get no training or experience to deal with that. The net result is that a lot of people get either very high legal bills to defend themselves, or get screwed by the jury system and get either convicted while innocent, or get a much higher penalty than they would have gotten with proper defence.

The current legal system in the USA obviously has some serious flaws in it that could be improved by some major changes. Those changes won't make the system perfect, but the amount of people ending up in jail and having the rest of their lives ruined for something they didn't do, or that's hardly worth prosecuting will be a lot less. The cost to the society is just too damn high if you have so much people in prison or out of a job. The prison industry (because that is what it is, it's a commercial industry) will hurt if you change the system, but you may actually get the economy going again if you get these people working on infrastructure like bridges and roads, instead of playing crook and guard all day long.

Re: they would miss and just horribly wound the gu

[MondoGordo]

in the military most firing squads are made up of people who are qualified rifle marksmen, one would suppose. Presumably soldier #6 was insurance and very rarely needed to shoot.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

Basically none of what you just said is true.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

Yeah, you just totally destroyed that argument I didn't make. You sure showed hypothetical alternate universe me there!

Running Man!

[DarthVain]

But only if they have a Sub Zero!

Besides I think the US could use some bread and circuses about now.

yeah, but

[daninaustin]

It's different when you are a vegetarian my choice rather than having to be one due to bad hunting skills :)

Simple solution.

[arthurpaliden]

Drop them naked on the tundra during the spring and let the files have them. Use a drone and televise it. Sell advertizing.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[gl4ss]

apparently it's not really patents that are in the way. it's that you don't know how to make it combined with that you don't know how to make so that you would follow regulations in the usa.

double funny is that we from eu sell weapons to usa, used for killing every day(or at least weekly). but anyways, we are against the death penalty. you want to buy our exotic shit? well shit we might have some policies attached to them.

usa has plenty of export restrictions themselves - and you made the choice to use the exotic drug for executions(very expensively, too).

if there's something that portrays the american legal system is that it's slow and expensive on purpose. it's a business. and people have so little faith in the outcomes that death penalties cost more than life in prison even then... due to the legal costs, due to having so little faith in the system that has been proven to not work multiple times.

Re:Hint

[Maow]

(posting AC due to moderating comments here)

I am pretty sure that even if you post as AC, your moderations get undone.

I gave the lone mod point to a post, then responded as AC later in the thread for the same reason you have.

When I checked the score on the post I moderated, it was back to default.

Silly Europeans

[tchdab1]

Don't they know that boycotts don't work?
Somebody please tell them, so we can go back to killing our convicts with propofol instead of just impunity.

Re:Mod whole thread -99, Flamebait

[JCCyC]

You, and everybody else in the army of lunatics who are like you, have serious issues.

Re:Hint

[stenvar]

I have family in Europe. I've spent several years in Europe. And if you want to check the facts, Wikipedia is a few clicks away. Or just open a f*cking newspaper for once and look at what's going on in Spain, Greece, France, etc. But, hey, don't let facts and experience get in the way of your ideology.

Re:Hint

[codegen]

that argument no longer holds water, now that we have the DNA testing and other advanced forensics that set those people free.

except that in some cases, such new evidence is not allowed. The courts have a set of procedures, and if the evidence comes to light after such procedures are followed, you are stuck. There was a recent protest walk about access courts when further evidence is found.

Re:Hint

[Mysticalfruit]

That's actually a valid point. s/child molesters/child murders/g;

When someone turns out to be murderer, it's profoundly unlucky.
They didn't pick their parents, or their genes. Nor do they pick the circumstances of their childhood or the disposition of their personality that culminates in them being a murderer.
If someone gets a brain tumor in just the right spot and it causes them to become a murderer we treat them as a victim as well.
Couldn't it just be argued that being a murderer is a form of mental illness?

Note: this argument has been made by Sam Harris, credit to him, not me.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

Look, you don't need to convince me that former soviet countries aren't doing well. That's obivous, and the history behind it is equally obvious. You need to convince me, the UK, Sweden, France, Luxembourg, or other first world(look up the term) countries are doing empirically worse on one of those three concepts with concrete metrics compared to the US.

The UK, which has official classes has greater social mobility than the US, for example.

Re:The shooters aren't supposed to notice the reco

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, unless the load is different, you won't notice a difference. Recoil has nothing to do with the projectile being fired and everything to do with the exhaust gases escaping the end of the barrel.

The bullet will only change the timing of the process ever so slightly, so imperceptible that you'd have no way to tell without a high speed camera.

Have you ever fired a 'blank'? You know they aren't actually devoid of a projectile right? They are just capped with a paper was that disintegrates fairly quickly after exiting the barrel.

Re:The shooters aren't supposed to notice the reco

[dunkelfalke]

Or maybe because you have used blank rounds with a blank adapter which functions as a recoil amplifier?

Quantitative analysis needed

[GPS Pilot]

While it's bad if a guilty man goes free, it's far worse if an innocent man is killed.

This is a platitude -- and I wholly agree with this platitude. But what's really needed is unbiased, quantitative estimates of how often each of these negative outcomes occur. Without that, we can't even begin to make informed decisions about whether the cost of one outweighs the cost of the other.

Re:Hint

[rubycodez]

no, that 1980s tech was not reliable and was extremely rare.

I've heard of police gunning down people just for the adrenaline high, they do that every day

Interesting choice of pronoun.

[GPS Pilot]

that there is a 20% chance that she never shot the prisoner

Interesting choice of pronoun. I'd guess that throughout history, there's a 99.8% chance that a given firing squad member is not female.

Re:Interesting choice of pronoun.

[sydneyfong]

Think of the young women and girls!! You don't want to dissuade them from pursuing a career in carrying out legalized killings!

Re:Interesting choice of pronoun.

[qwak23]

After reading the article, there are 2 pronouns used. The shooters are referred to with a female pronoun, the prisoners with a male pronoun. Though I doubt there was any specific intent in choice of pronouns on the author's part, it's still interesting.

Re:Numbers don't add up

[FatLittleMonkey]

Apparently the specific chemical is defined in the death penalty laws. You can't legally use a substitute.

The only solution is to change the law, but unless you have a solid block majority of every chamber, plus an unbeatable lead in the polls, chances are no politician wants to touch that.

Re:Hint

[stenvar]

You need to convince me, the UK, Sweden, France, Luxembourg, or other first world(look up the term) countries are doing empirically worse on one of those three concepts with concrete metrics compared to the US.

Which part of this don't you understand?

One thing people keep getting wrong is that they compare the US as a whole to the best individual European countries, but you need to compare either US states to European nations, or the US as a whole to Europe as a whole.

(And by "Europe", obviously I mean the EU, because that's the entity that's analogous to the US.)

The UK, which has official classes has greater social mobility than the US, for example.

Which part of this did you not understand?

Social mobility, poverty, and educational achievement often compare different populations or use relative outcomes.

I don't need to "convince" you of anything. You need to do some reading. Perhaps some traveling too.

Re:Hint

[i kan reed]

The EU is not analogous, because half of it was under a completely distinct economic system as little as 20 years ago.

Re:Hint

[tippen]

I don't know about thousands of times, but Kenneth Allen McDuff's case certainly shows that there are people where anything short of execution isn't safe for society.

Re:Good for the EU.

[bluefoxlucid]

No, I mean "to save 3 or 4 murderers". EU withholds the drug we use to kill them, so we don't kill them. On the other hand, we also don't perform millions of surgeries, many of which are life-saving; some people end up with crippling permanent damage "if only we had done something 6 months ago" style, and others just end up dead.

It's like if the US withheld rice from Iran. Shipping 40 million pounds of rice to a company with an evil dictator who beheads homosexuals? Let's starve the dictator and the 1000 people who serve his rule and go around chopping heads off women and queers. Sure, 20 million innocents will starve, too, but who cares? We're not going to feed that evil dick Amajinedad!

See Kenneth Allen McDuff

[tippen]

Kenneth Allen McDuff

Re:Hint

[CanHasDIY]

I don't know about thousands of times, but Kenneth Allen McDuff's case certainly shows that there are people where anything short of execution isn't safe for society.

From reading the article there, he was released due to overcrowding; more than likely a result of increased enforcement of draconian drug laws. The real question is, why the fuck, in an overcrowding situation, would you release a goddamn serial killer on parole?!?! Surely there were some non-violent offenders that could have been let out to make room instead.

Put simply, the case of Kenneth McDuff does not show necessity for state sponsored executions, but rather that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at why we put non-violent offenders like drug users in prisons with murderers and rapists.

Re:Hint

[CanHasDIY]

I don't know about thousands of times, but Kenneth Allen McDuff's case certainly shows that there are people where anything short of execution isn't safe for society.

From reading the article there, he was released due to overcrowding; more than likely a result of increased enforcement of draconian drug laws. The real question is, why the fuck, in an overcrowding situation, would you release a goddamn serial killer on parole?!?! Surely there were some non-violent offenders that could have been let out to make room instead.

Put simply, the case of Kenneth McDuff does not show necessity for state sponsored executions, but rather that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at why we put non-violent offenders like drug users in prisons with murderers and rapists.

Correction: having just finished reading the entire page, I find that the issue at hand in this case would be the utter idiocy and incompetence of the Texas government and prison system, circa the 1980's. Jeebus, what a clusterfuck!

Re:Hint

[realityimpaired]

no, that 1980s tech was not reliable and was extremely rare.

How about 2002? One of the names on that list was convicted in 2002, only to have his conviction overturned in 2009. The technology had been around for 20 years by that time... is that enough time for it to mature?

I've heard of police gunning down people just for the adrenaline high, they do that every day

That's a truly stellar argument for trusting in the legal system....

That is, essentially, what you need in order to support the death penalty, btw: the utter confidence in the legal system's ability to never make a mistake. If you cannot look me in the eyes and tell me with utter conviction that the legal system/police *never* make a mistake, then you look rather pathological when you tell me in the same breath that you support the death penalty.

Re:Hint

[sjames]

But if we can't pick some random black guy and fry him, how can we maintain the illusion of doing something about the problem?

Re:Hint

[sjames]

We still have to deal with logic fails.

His DNA was there, he HAS to be guilty!

It couldn't POSSIBLY be that he was there the day before or that he bumped into the victim on the sidewalk earlier that day because that would be devastating to the prosecution!

Re:Numbers don't add up

[Stephan Schulz]

Well sense we know the fucking formula, why in hell don't we simply invalidate the EU patent in the US and make it ourselves. Then it's not imported and there is no shortage. Hell that's what Taiwan did in regards to the Tamiflu (avian flu epidemic) when the Patent Holder refused to license it. They invalidated the patent for the public health and made it themselves. Got sued in world court and the court agreed with Taiwan. Public health trumped the damn patent law.

Because killing people, even likely criminals, is not a public health issue, and hence does not trigger the exemption clauses in national patent law and international intellectual property treaties.

Re:Hint

[stenvar]

The EU is not analogous, because half of it was under a completely distinct economic system as little as 20 years ago.

Half of it? Are you crazy? There are a bunch of smallish population new states, and they are not the ones that are failing.

You said that the US is "less educated, more violent, and more plutocratic than comparable nations". What nations are "comparable"? Where is the data supporting your statement? You compare the entire US to Luxembourg?

Stop making such stupid statements and learn something about the rest of the world.

Re:Hint

[stenvar]

By the way, the entire EU is under a "different economic system" from the US; after all, their poor economic performance must come from somewhere.

Juat manufacture in the US

[tsotha]

Or start withholding the latest cancer drugs from Germany.

Great Society.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The US is a strange case, though. You have an enormous prison population as a proportion of your general population. Money becomes an issue when such a large percentage of the population is incarcerated, but when you have a more reasonable justice system (and a social security net which removes a large percentage of the impetus for crime...

The US' enormous prison population is largely a result of the details of the way the social security net was implemented. (Here we call it the "social safety net", and the subset in question "welfare programs", because "Social Security" is reserved for a particular government-operated retirement benefit.)

The primary culprit is LBJ's "Great Society" push, which created and/or increased welfare programs, especially those related to child support. Starting in that period they included rules that ended the benefits if an adult male was living in the house with, or married to, a mother raising children. (It was presumed that the male in question was, or was acting as, husband/lover and father, and should be providing the support for the family.) The rules also reduced benefits if the mother got a job. The reduction was dollar-for-dollar (or worse), with no allowance for costs of working (such as transport, uniforms, or babysitting).

Though blacks were only about half the welfare receiving population, they were a far smaller portion of the general population - especially as the benefits were selectively extended to them in the wake of the Civil Rights movement and the related riots. So the effects of these programs was greater on the black population than the rest of the citizenry.

The results of these rules were, for the poor blacks, the destruction of the (formerly notoriously strong) black family - removing any productive male role model from the household of any welfare recipient- and the conversion of welfare programs from a temporary emergency measure to a way of life. Children of long-term welfare families tended to see living off welfare as how resources are obtained and have no experience with alternatives - resulting in their going on welfare (and recruiting others) for generation after generation. Welfare mothers tend to have more children than those in families supporting themselves. Others are recruited to this lifestyle, and once in it find themselves trapped. Thus the fraction of single-mother families with no male role model rises. At this point about 72% of US (non-Hispanic) blacks are born to unmarried mothers, versus 30% for (non-Hispanic) whites and about half that for asians.

One of the problems with single-mother families is that single mother is usually unable to socialize an adolescent male child. (The differences in violent crime rates between ethnic groups in the US completely disappear if you adjust for the illegitimacy rate.)

So the social safety net seems to be the entire cause of the rise in violent crime. Like government in general, these social programs seem to be a disease masquerading as its own cure.

Re: they would miss and just horribly wound the gu

[matfud]

Yep.The sixth was there in case it went horribly wrong.

no mercy

[renegade600]

and did he have mercy for his victims???? hang him, use a firing squad, use a guillotine or just stone him. let the victims family chose the means of death. Hopefully it would be a long and painful death. That would be true punishment and it would be a better deterrent

the quantum cat box method

[almechist]

I've always liked the quantum cat box method of execution, myself. This is something I've encountered in various SF novels. The idea is a variation on Schrodinger's Cat, where the condemned criminal is placed in a sealed box in which the release of poison gas or some other lethal mechanism is to be triggered by an extremely likely to the point of near-certainty quantum event, such as the radioactive decay of an unstable atom. Theoretically, as long as no one looks in the box, the condemned person within cannot be said to be truly dead, no matter how much time has elapsed. Like the proverbial cat, the criminal is both dead and alive at once, in a superposition of states, until the box is opened, which it won't ever be. So everyone involved can pat themselves on the back and know that they haven't technically killed anyone. That's the theory, anyway. I don't know enough physics to say for sure that the concept will ever be both effective and practical, but it sure is a neat way around the problem of nobody wanting to know for sure that they're the executioner. There is no executioner, because the actual state of the body inside the box is indeterminate.

No offense, but I do believe...

[denzacar]

There are also a significant portion of lifers who just don't care/

...that you are SIGNIFICANTLY pulling that statistic from your ass.

Re:No offense, but I do believe...

[jklovanc]

You're right. I'm wrong. I screwed up. Guess I am watching too many TV shows. Sorry (serves me right for not checking facts)

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

[manu0601]

Thins kid of regulation are to be challenged with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. I fear that European bureaucrats are more fond of free market than human rights.

Nonsense.

[denzacar]

It's not so much that the right is taken away, as that by taking the life of another (who did not first try to kill you) you have effectively argued, through your actions, that the right does not exist.

If it's a successful argument then where is the crime? There is no right to be trampled - ergo, it is not a crime.
Killing someone just became akin to secretly taking an item from someone else's shopping basket and putting it back on the shelve.

Your claim to a right is forfeit only when you violate the same right yourself.

By that logic, as long as a democratic society takes lives of its criminals and/or prisoners - everyone in the society forfeits their own right to live.
Cause it is their democratic representatives that are doing the killing. You know... like hired killers.

Now... a king on the other hand may do as he pleases. It's good to be a king.

U.S. Threatened by other countries values!

[Xzing_Quippo]

Oh my! How dare other countries threaten our values and beliefs that we can have state and federally sanctioned killings! Who do these other people think they are from the...EU...wherever that is, imparting their beliefs on us? We are the United States of America and we say how it is not the other way around. If they actually carry this through we may have to compromise...we may have to revisit our own values. Dear God we may have to sit and think for a minute about the fact that we live in a pluralist society and that things cant always be black and white and exactly the way we want it....and dear God they may not let us just simply ignore their wishes this time..........nah.

What we do

[Tannasgh]

American penalizes other nations this way for human rights violations without a second thought. It is hypocritical for we Americans to believe that we should be immune to our own law. It is also an interesting side effect of the separation of state and federal power as not all 50 states have capital punishment laws, but stand to suffer because of the 32 that do.

Re:Hint

[rubycodez]

what bullshit you spew. "if you can't look me in the eye and say automobiles will always protect a person completely in a crash, we must outlaw automobiles". you have no common sense or ability to deal with realities of the real world.

the death penalty will rid the earth of evil people, 99.9999% of the time. good enough.

Who the heck is the EU?

[fd10801]

... and why are we listening to them? Find some other way to execute people who are supposed to be executed, and stop using the anaesthetic supply as a phony excuse to delay the inevitable. If the law calls a crime a capital crime, then that's what it is. If the death penalty is appropriate, and it often is, then execute the person! Throw them into a volcano; toss them off a cliff; force feed them mercury - just kill 'em, and cut the crap! Do we have to have a debate over capital punishment every time someone gets sentenced to death. If you cold bloodely kill someone, the community decides if you should be put to death. That's that.

Re:Hint

[fd10801]

Have you any idea how many released prisoners kill people every year? Would you like to change that formula to "It is better that a guilty man stay in jail, than more iinocent people are killed"? Don't be so anxious to set people free, chum. The next one could end up in your neighborhood.

Re:Hint

[fd10801]

It's only cheaper because they spend an average of 11 years in jail before they are executed. If they were executed after one appeal, a few months after sentencing, the numbers would change radically. By the way, people in prison do occasionally kill other people, including Correction Officers.

BC AD Terrorists know nothing about inheritance.

[Ruralhack]

www.ruby-lang.org will automate walking because of the late binding of inheritance but children will never know because the adults violate inheritance by the way they live.

Goddam krauts

[Hognoxious]

First Pearl Harbor, now this!

Now we know why they bought so many guillotines

[Gallomimia]

Either that or the drug thing is to push public opinion towards being in favor of beheadings once again.

Re:Hint

[Grumbleduke]

Actually there isn't such a thing in most of Europe any more (in theory). In July the ECtHR ruled that life-long prison sentence must be reducible or it amounts to inhumane/degrading treatment (contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR). The case was Vinter v UK, you can find the full judgment here and a summary here. The best tl;dr is probably this quote from the latter:

There were a number of reasons why, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3, there had to be both a prospect of release and a possibility of review. Firstly, it was axiomatic that a prisoner could not be detained unless there were legitimate penological grounds for that detention. The balance between the justifications for detention was not necessarily static and could shift in the course of the sentence. It was only by carrying out a review at an appropriate point in the sentence that these factors or shifts could be properly evaluated. Secondly, incarceration without any prospect of release or review carried the risk that the prisoner would never be able to atone for his offence, whatever he did in prison and however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation. Thirdly, it would be incompatible with human dignity for the State forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without at least providing him with the chance to someday regain that freedom. Moreover, there was now clear support in European and international law for the principle that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, should be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if rehabilitation was achieved.

But that has been seen by some as classic European, human-rights, wishy-washy liberalism at its finest. It doesn't that people can't be locked up for life, but if they are, there has to be some review process and some way (more than merely theoretical) that they can "earn" their release.

Re:Dead Wrong

[AlanS2002]

That's dead wrong!!!!!!!!!!

fp ftw

Dead wrong for a country to take a moral stance that affects others overseas? Do you mean like the US government having as a condition of funding aid agencies in Africa, that they not educate about the use of condoms in Africa?

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

A few false positives is perfectly acceptable.

I volunteer you for this acceptable practice.

Re:The shooters aren't supposed to notice the reco

[Vrtigo1]

That's not really accurate. For one thing, you'd have to shoot a lot to be able to reliably tell the difference between a live round and a blank. Secondly, every rifle recoils differently. It comes down to physics...every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When the propellant burns and the bullet is propelled forward, the rifle is also propelled backwards creating recoil. The amount of recoil is determined by how much resistance there is to movement, so a heavier rifle is harder to move than a lighter rifle and will therefore exhibit less recoil. That is to say that even if someone had a rifle and shot it frequently enough to be able to tell the difference between a live round and a blank, if they fired a single shot with a different rifle they would likely have no idea if it was a live round or not because the recoil profile would be totally different.

Of course it can survive

[DrXym]

If Nintendo found itself losing a hardware war (and it's hard to see how the Wii U will sustain it) then it could just pull a Sega and exit the hardware completely. Look how Sonic has appeared in numerous (mostly crappy) games over the last 10 years. I'm sure Nintendo could do something similar.

Cars

[tsotha]

What we should do is execute people by running them over with expensive German luxury cars. Enough with the cheap grace - let's find out if Germany is willing to pay a non-inconsequential price for its principles.

Re:The shooters aren't supposed to notice the reco

[elsuperjefe]

i think it is a cork stuffed in the end of barrel that pops out and is leashed to the gun by a string. i'm not sure anyone would know the difference regardless of their "expertise"