Slashdot Mirror
Controversial Execution In Ohio Uses New Lethal Drug Combination
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "CNN reports that Ohio inmate Dennis McGuire appeared to gasp and convulse for roughly 10 minutes before he finally died during his execution by lethal injection using a new combination of drugs. The new drugs were used because European-based manufacturers banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions — among them, Danish-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital. The state used a combination of the drugs midazolam, a sedative, and the painkiller hydromorphone, the state corrections department told CNN. In an opinion piece written for CNN earlier this week, a law professor noted that McGuire's attorneys argued he would 'suffocate to death in agony and terror.' 'The state disagrees. But the truth is that no one knows exactly how McGuire will die, how long it will take or what he will experience in the process,' wrote Elisabeth A. Semel, clinic professor of law and director of the Death Penalty Clinic at U.C. Berkeley School of Law. According to a pool report from journalists who witnessed the execution, the whole process took more than 15 minutes, during which McGuire made 'several loud snorting or snoring sounds.' Allen Bohnert, a public defender who lead McGuire's appeal to stop his execution in federal court on the grounds that the drugs would cause undue agony and terror, called the execution process a 'failed experiment' and said his office will look into what happened. 'The people of the state of Ohio should be appalled by what took place here today in their name.'"
I don't know what is then.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Let's ask Joy Stewart what she thinks about the undue agony and terror. Oh, she and her unborn child are both unavailable for comment.
How about we save executions for only people who break laws and participated in enforcing or making laws.
So ignoring for a minute all the ethical questions etc, just thinking about the process. I do not have medical training, but I have always wondered why they can't just use the drugs used for general anesthetic in general surgeries? Put someone under with those, then you can stop their heart painlessly when they're unconscious. Certainly there is a large supply of those drugs around.
Hasn't this been a solved problem for a hundred years or so?
'several loud snorting or snoring sounds' doesn't really sound like "cruel and unusual," sorry.
Compared to what he did, I'm not terribly sorry for him. A few minutes of "snorting or snoring" (during most of which he was probably not fully conscious) doesn't seem like a big deal.
I guess I should be appalled, but.. the dude slaughtered a pregnant girl; I don't care how he died exactly at all. In fact, I'm going to consider this a successful QA test and move on.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If we want the death penalty to be a deterrent against crime, potential criminals should have to face a death that's scary, and not expect a painless injection that lets them quietly pass away.
Though I question the value of any death penalty as a deterrent since it's so rarely applied and the criminal either thinks he's going to get away with it or isn't worried about the consequences no matter what the consequences are -- 5 years in prison and then death might be even more attractive to some than a lifetime in prison.
How hard can it be to do this? Start with standard general anesthesia. One the person is out, then administer cyanide or whatever.
Or use the same thing we use for animals.
Or look at how they do assisted suicide. There are plenty of solutions there.
$0.34/round for quality stuff.
Generally instant and humane death is achievable with the first shot when your target isn't moving but if not, it's easy enough to use a 2nd or even 3rd round.
9 grams of lead, administered into the brain stem
Cheap and effective.
We have complete understanding of how to knock someone so far out that you can cut into them for hours in an operating room, even to the point of removing their heart for a transplant. Why the heck to people have to go from fully conscious to dead in a single shot? Knock them out completely painlessly, and then kill them while they can feel nothing. I've never understood lethal injections at all!
I don't get this. I hate capital punishment and would like to see it end. However, if we're going to do this and want to be as humane as possible (seems rather contradictory to me) why not give them something that many people voluntarily do because it's given to be so pleasurable? First, give them the regular does of heroin, then gradually move it up to OD. I've heard that heavy doses of the stuff cause you to "nod off". Then the OD just stops your breathing. What a way to go.
Really though, just stop CP. It's not befitting a modern country. It's irrevocable, and it puts too much power in the hands of the state.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I thought testing drugs on humans -- without their informed consent and successful prior testing -- was banned long ago.
It doesn't matter that the person is a prisoner; in fact the standards are higher for them, because they are much less able to refuse consent. It also doesn't matter that they will die soon; terminally ill patients also must give informed consent.
What kind of sick society experiments on helpless prisoners?
That puzzles me too. I'm told that in general anesthesia, they have to monitor your signs very closely, because there's quite a narrow band between not enough anesthetic and too much...seems that a little twist on the valve would accomplish the objective.
Given that, I have to doubt the motivation.
Since innocent people end up on death-row and are frequently exonnerated by DNA or new evidence, then how can it be logical to maintain a death penalty? If you're going to say "well, maybe .1% of the time an innocent person is put to death but it's for the greater good", then how about you line up to be the next .1%?
I think it was a notification of opinion dismissal only - clearly not a notification of opinion importance and/or acknowledgement.
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
Screw morphine. I've wondered why we don't just use nitrogen to suffocate them. There is no suffocation reflex, because the body's suffocation reflex is based on overabundance of CO2, not underabundance of O2. It's completely painless - they pass out within a minute and never wake up. In the oil and shipping industries we have "Nitrogen: The Silent Killer" posters plastered everywhere in enclosed at-risk spaces. I never understood why we deal with expensive drug cocktails when we have tanks of simple N2 ready to be used.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
5-4-3-2-1.
Barely made it to 3.
I guess it depends on whether the European companies consider that the same as "using the drugs to kill", and forbid exports.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
If I am not mistaken that is generally what has been done for a long time. Most of those drugs though are imported from other countries, typically in the EU. The EU just recently passed a law forbidding export of those drugs if they will be used for the purpose of killing people. Which is the whole reason that they tried this new drug mix in Ohio.
What amazes me is why they don't just use a massive heroin overdose or something like that. I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of that stuff locally whether or not other countries decide not to import it.
moonbats?
why dont they go back to shooting range or beheading? honestly, a shot in the head. it's been shown that a bullet tears through the brain far faster than any signal of pain from the neurons. I know about these things.
You are not allowed to kill, but it okay for us to kill you.
I won't get into the fiscal debate as to whether it is cheaper to lock away someone for life or to execute with multiple appeals and proceedings. It shouldn't matter. If it is wrong to take a life, then it is wrong to take it in any circumstance. End of story. Then when you factor in the fact that we are constantly finding innocent people convicted (if not for death penalty offenses). Often due to poor representation, over zealous prosecutors, or shoddy politically or financially motivated police and forensic work, it would seem to me that the ethical cost of killing one innocent person would outweigh all of it. Even if our judicial system was perfect, humans make errors.
However, as with so much else in our society, our desire for vicarious retribution, our poor ability to truly judge relative risk, and the fear peddled by those in power to keep you caged keep winning.
Silence is a state of mime.
I agree, THIS was cruel and unusual. There are many more common sense ways to get this done.
Use the drugs we use in surgery to put the guy out then in order of how I'd want to go...
Morphine OD
Heroine OD
Cyanide
Guillotine
Firing Squad
Electric Chair
Heck, with the first two we don't have to sedate first... We just sedate them to death.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
We can just add this to the LONG list of retarded illogical things that we do as a society. Makes no sense to me either...
Yes, we value criminal lives far more then innocents, just like Muslim countries
Exactly this. I'm only a second year med student and even I could tell you that trying to kill someone with the mixture of drugs in the summary would be a really ugly process. I'm pretty sure we can't use propofol for the same reason we can't use the pentobarbital mentioned in the summary, but honestly a regular dose of propofol to knock someone unconscious plus a pneumatic piston like we use to humanely kill food animals would be the obvious option. Sure it makes a bigger mess, but it's WAY more humane for the person being executed, the one who were trying to protect from unnecessary cruelty and suffering. Propofol plus guillotine works well too. As it turns out medical science knows a lot more about reliably making people unconscious with drugs than about reliably killing them with drugs. Given that, if the killing is to happen, it should be done with something we know works reliably and quickly.
later adjusted to 25 after the observers called bullshit...
*personally* I'm against the death penalty, but if you're going to do it, just make yourself a Guillotine. "Lethal injection" is quite distasteful as it dresses up a killing as some pseudo-medical procedure. Scewing this up quite so magnificently is just jaw-dropping - although I suspect you don't send your brightest off to work in the penal system.
What really shocks me though is the response of a significant number of people here, that the suffering he endured was justified as it was 'deserved'. I've tried in vain to think of how to get my point across, but can't think of any common ground to even start my pitch that the deliberate infliction of suffering upon another is simply wrong.
I'm a great big atheist - but generally feel I've got a lot in common with those of faith, at least in my views if not the underlying reason. My biblical knowledge is rusty to say the least, but I'm reasonably sure when Jesus killed sinners, he at least did it mercifully.
Dennis Mcguire raped and murdered Joy Stewart, 22, in 1989. He was convicted of kidnap, rape and murder in 1994.
I found myself mulling over a discussion in our class in History and Moral Philosophy. Mr. Dubois was talking about the disorders that preceded the breakup of the North American republic, back in the XXth century. According to him, there was a time just before they went down the drain when such crimes as Dillinger's were as common as dogfights. The Terror had not been just in North America -- Russia and the British Isles had it, too, as well as other places. But it reached its peak in North America shortly before things went to pieces.
"Law-abiding people," Dubois had told us, "hardly dared go into a public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children, armed with chains, knives, homemade guns, bludgeons . . . to be hurt at least, robbed most certainly, injured for life probably -- or even killed. This went on for years, right up to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. Murder, drug addiction, larceny, assault, and vandalism were commonplace. Nor were parks the only places -- these things happened also on the streets in daylight, on school grounds, even inside school buildings. But parks were so notoriously unsafe that honest people stayed clear of them after dark."
I had tried to imagine such things happening in our schools. I simply couldn't. Nor in our parks. A park was a place for fun, not for getting hurt. As for getting killed in one -- "Mr. Dubois, didn't they have police? Or courts?"
"They had many more police than we have. And more courts. All overworked."
"I guess I don't get it." If a boy in our city had done anything half that bad . . . well, he and his father would have been flogged side by side. But such things just didn't happen.
Mr. Dubois then demanded of me, "Define a `juvenile delinquent.' "
"Uh, one of those kids -- the ones who used to beat up people."
"Wrong."
"Huh? But the book said -- "
"My apologies. Your textbook does so state. But calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit `Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms, one which gives a clue to their problem and their failure to solve it. Have you ever raised a puppy?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you housebreak him?"
"Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.
"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"
"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy.
"What did you do?"
"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."
"Surely he could not understand your words?"
"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"
"But you just said that you were not angry."
Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up. "No, but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"
"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you indicted pain. Justify yourself! Or are you a sadist?"
I didn't then know what a sadist was -- but I knew pups. "Mr. Dubois, you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again -- and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."
"Many. I'm raising a dachshund now -- by your methods. Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class . . . and they often started their lawless careers
I've had the same thought. Or surgery. I've been under so they could cut me open a few times, and it doesn't hurt when you are under. So what's the "pain" if they put them under anesthesia, then remove your heart, and hand it to the parent of the person you killed while you were still alive, then unplug you? That level of retribution is what I see called for here.
Learn to love Alaska
Only in the sense that you're responsible if someone says "hey you, give me a spiked club so I can bash kittens to death," and you refuse --- so they rip kittens apart with their bare hands, instead. Most philosophical systems would impute guilt to the kitten-ripper, not the person who refused to abet them. But, I guess your "blame anyone but me" principle takes precedence.
...Like another wrong!
Go for it, America, show us how it's done. You lead the world.
Stick Men
Convict gets a rush of euphoria, and shuffles off the mortal coil.
Side benefit is that it stigmatizes heroin.
Another side benefit is that all of the judicial mistakes get at least one good rush before they are wrongfully executed.
Think it doesn't happen?
It must have happened at least once -- and that is too many.
Well, the tank could leak or something, and kill someone other than intended. just as in the industries you cite.
Make it public, so society can see and experience what happens to the worst of the worst.
Madoff types should be up first along with those that physically assaulted the defenseless.
The prisons could be cleaned out by reforming the drug laws and putting down the most violent.
*cough*Technology export rules*cough*
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Can't they just mix cyanide in his water & serve him during one of the many occasions that they would do, and let any moment after his final sentencing be his last? Why would that be such a bad thing?
Are those anesthesics manufactured in USA? If they are manufactured in the EU, it's not a good idea to start using them for executions unless you want to stop surgeries too...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
That's how you took that? Really?
I'm against the death penalty. I also don't give a rat's ass what Europeans think about my country.
The people of the state of Ohio should be appalled by what took place here today in their name.
But not because they killed a guy.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I, for one, do not believe the state has a right to take any life, regardless. Besides, if our society wasn't hell-bent on spending billions of dollars to incarcerate non-violent offenders, there would be plenty of cash in the coffers to put every sociopath away for several lifetimes, with money left over.
That's really all I have to say about this.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And yet, there are no laws forcing a company to sell stuff...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
I agree with you. In my opinion the most humane form of execution is to stop the brain in a short time, which in the past was a guillotine and today would be a fast-moving smashing of his head, perhaps with a shotgun blast or a fast-moving hydraulic press. We could certainly splatter brains faster than the brain would realize what was happening. If pain is what we are trying to avoid, then that would be zero pain.
Done. Next question.
(I'm not opposed to the death penalty but I think America should use it less. Murder isn't enough. I think mass-murder is where the death penalty should begin to be considered.)
The US has elaborate regulations when it comes to arms exports, we don't sell nuclear weapons to Iran, nor do we allow the sale of M4s to the Lord's Resistance Army. These regulations are based on the principle that such transactions are contrary to US national interest, international norms and moral decency.
To allow such sales, with full knowledge of the recipients, when we have the power to stop them, would implicate us in their use. I suspect the EU feels the same way in general, they just have a different moral attitude towards capital punishment than us.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
is because
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
You're not far off the mark. For short OR procedures, fentanyl is preferred because the onset is faster and the duration is shorter, but hydromorphone can be used. Midazolam is used in conjunction for it's sedative and amnetic properties. This is also still a common combination when patients are mechanically vented. Patients lose complete orientation to what's happening to them before they lose consciousness. The observers' perception that he "suffered" is very unlikely to be the case.
... we should just go back to hanging. rope is much cheaper than all these drugs.
Yes, but the standard is "cruel and unusual" not "cruel or unusual". If a death method is cruel but common, that's fine. If the method is not cruel, but novel, that's also fine. The whole point is to stop executioners from thinking up new ways to torture people to death.
We have an entire population of drug addicts that have been able to peacefully and apparently blissfully put themselves down for over a century. The account of the death of Socrates seems to indicate that he went quietly although with somewhat more displeasure than most OD'ers. You could hit the streets of any decent sized town and get more expert opinion on lethal injection than seems to be available to the state governments. They have been killing people on the operating table for about the same length of time; I'm sure the attending people would be able to describe how they put their charges under for good. This whole business is looking a bit silly.
I once saw a TV documentary, I think it was "The Body In Question", Jonathan Miller was definitely the guy demonstrating. He put some sort of breathing equipment on his face, so that he kept breathing the same air over and over, except there was something to absorb the carbon dioxide. So he never felt bad. He tried doing arithmetic and stuff, and gradually lost the ability, finally, just before he passed out, helpers came and took it off and started giving him extra oxygen.
That looked like the cleanest, most painless, method of execution I could imagine, and I don't know why it's never been tried.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
That depends, is it a reasonable demand? Do we agree with it? If so, then yes we do that.
In this case, I'm on the side of crucifixion. Fuck that guy. We couldn't even think of things bad enough to do to that guy.
That's correct. We don't execute criminals to save money. We execute criminal because it's WORTH IT.
Damn USAian barbarians just love their death penalty. Backward ould fools..
I posted this above, but...
A colorant or odorant could be easily added for operant safety, but it's not any more dangerous for the operator than, say, dental gasses.
Bring the bottle on site just before the execution.
Or maybe use liquid nitrogen, Then heat it up for use. (Not sure if this would work.)
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
If we can me completely certain that there never will be an error in a capitol crime sentencing, I would advocate immediately dropping the killer in a wood chipper head first. However, being as there is always going to be some error in the legal system the question we should be asking is, "How many innocent people are we willing to murder in the name of revenge/justice?"
Because, until you get to that 100%, and never make an error, that is what you are doing. You are murdering people because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, are the wrong skin color, or cannot afford a good lawyer. At least if you screw up a life in prison sentence, you can let the person out in a decade or two when the truth comes to light.
There is a great bullshit test I came up with to give to someone who advocates capitol punishment. Ask them if our court system is 100% perfect in convicting the guilty. Then ask them if that means that means that we are murdering at least a few of the wrong people with capitol punishment. Then ask them if they would still feel that capitol punishment was fair and just if they were one of those people that was selected to die. Then ask them if they still support capitol punishment. If they say still yes, they are lying.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Sounds like Cheyne-Stokes breathing to me. (URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyne%E2%80%93Stokes_respiration) There is no suffering involved in this. Just the human system shutting down (snort...gasp).
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
Justice is essentially an emotional exercise so is it a fallacy to appeal to emotion when seeking justice?
Here in Denmark, Lundbeck has been under fire for their drug being used to kill people. They've tried to defend themselves in various ways, e.g. by casting it as misuse as their drug. But in the end in Denmark the American executions are viewed upon in the same light as the stories you hear of amputations and stoning people to death in the middle east. So the reaction has been as if a company sold convenient stones to be used for said stonings.
It is sad to see that the outcome is more suffering.
If you think a little harder you'll realize that's wrong. Many laws are specific to people in specific jobs.
Ohio was killing a man. Sometimes death will cause some slight discomfort. By no means should the state try to make a death painful, but a sedated, pumped full of pain-killers inmate having to gasp for his last breaths is hardly the height of human cruelty.
You know this article has been posted on multiple news sites, and it continues to amaze me that it gets the amount of negative reaction that it does.
Breaking down this instance, and throwing out wrongful prosecution & 'they got the wrong guy' (in the case they had DNA evidence as well as admission), this is a person that raped a woman, then slit her throat and left her in the street. She was also pregnant at the time. I have zero sympathy for him. I would rather we shot him up with a sedative & od'd him on painkillers than the other options which are essentially (2):
Let him sit in prison sponging off taxpayers for the rest of his natural life
or
Let him out because `can't you all understand that he just had a lapse in judgement and made a mistake? surely he needs another chance!`
honestly, to all the people crying about the barbarism of this situation, suppose the woman was someone that you knew, spouse, sister, mother etc. How would you feel about the situation then? How would you react to someone killing your wife and unborn child? What would you want to happen to that person?
Maybe we should offer all of the vocal proponents of this situation an option:
Adopt a death row inmate.
You can take a guy on death row home, we'll put a tag bracelet on his foot. You can care for him out of your own pocket, with no reimbursed expenses (no dependant tax write off either) and be responsible for him. If he leaves your house, you pay a fine, if he manages to damage anyone else's property, you're responsible. Any futher crime he commits, you're the liable party.
How about that, keeps the anti-death penalty people happy, keeps scumbags from sponging tax money...
01:36AM up 426 days, 2:46, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.11, 0.05
First, he didn't suffer. He was out. So this is much ado about nothing, or about the discomfort of those witnessing it.
Second, if they want painless the guillotine (modified, to bisect the brain and not sever the head) or a high pressure hydraulic hammer smashing the head within 20 milliseconds would do the job. No pain possible.
Hal: Okay, boys, okay. Now, what in the hell happened?
Paul: An execution. A successful one.
Hal: How in the name of Christ can you call that a success?
Paul: Eduard Delacroix is dead. [looks at Percy] Isn't he?
Maybe because living in constant fear of imminent death (not just potential execution at a set date, but literally ANY MINUTE NOW!) counts as cruel and psychological torture?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I don't think the admonishment should have been "one commandment you should abide by", rather it should have been "a moral you yourself obviously abide by".
You could attack the commenter's stance just by pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding murder in return for murder. Either murder's wrong, or it's not.
I think the situation is muddy enough, thanks, without the interjections of the religious.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
At Fermilab we had ODH areas, Oxygen Deprivation Hazard. This was due primarily to Nitrogen, although in some, it could be Helium or other inert gas.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I was wondering that, too. Just give a big ol' dose of morphine or chloroform or whatever, enough to put them under permanently. Wouldn't that be painless, and quite possibly a good deal cheaper than their fancy death drug cocktails?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Because the E.U. is going to intentionally prevent people from getting proper medical care just to make an ethical point about *a different country's* capital punishment? That seems particularly unconscionable to me.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
The parent post says "Congratulations, America". They are addressing America.
Who sets the timer(s)?
I am personally not in favor of a the Death Penalty, but I can understand why it exists and the arguments for having it.
I would say that if your going to have Capital punishment, then the means of execution should be mechanical, and performed in such a way as to minimize suffering. To that end, I agree with the idea of a dropping a sufficiently large mass on the skull of the condemned man, sufficient enough to crush a skull like a grape.
Lethal injection primarily exists to make executions more palatable by making them less gruesome. I disagree with this. Even if justified, ending a human life should not be an easy thing for those who must decide that it must happen.
END COMMUNICATION
Because they can't see the vials of injection going down during the procedure? Umm...
1) The prisoner must not be aware that he is in the process of being killed.
2) The prisoner is definitely aware that he has been sentenced to death.
3) He's been brought to some viewing area and strapped down.
4) They've already done the "last words" bits, etc.
5) The prisoner must logically know he's about to be killed.
It seems like the only way we can say 1) and 5) aren't contradictory is if we start getting into arguments about Aristotle's Hare or whatever about the divisibility of discrete units of time.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I'm in an odd position of believing in the death penalty, but willing to see it go.
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat. As it stands, there are so few executions in most of the states that we are getting very, very little deterrence out of it. Criminals know that it doesn't happen often. If they are convicted, they don't believe they'll be given the death penalty. Their chances are statistically 0.
Further, I don't believe vengeance is a sufficient motive for the death penalty, or indeed any state punishment. If it doesn't prevent further crime in some way, the state has no business there. Incarceration physically prevents further crime... while giving prisoners a reason not to come back*... and theoretically rehabilitating them**. Possible escape and the ordering of crimes from within prison are the only other two reasons I can see for a death penalty, but these seem rather weak. High risk criminals should be in maximum security already.
*(Prison should be unpleasant. It shouldn't be as awful and dangerous as it typically is, but it shouldn't be pleasant.) **(We should offer rehabilitation, not that we do.)
The Paradox:
It is commonly said that it costs more to execute a man than to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his natural life. I don't know if this is true or not, but it does highlight unfairness in the system.
Imagine two murderers in a death penalty state. The first is convicted with special circumstances, and is sentenced to die. The prosecutor can prove the guilt of the second prisoner, but can't quite prove special circumstances. He is convicted for life. The first is given appeal after appeal. The second can ask for an appeal, but may be denied.
Note that the state has taken the lives of both of these people. The second one is just killed slower. Either, we give death penalty cases too many appeals, or we don't give life sentence cases enough. Something is out of balance here.
(Addendum: Why don't we let death row prisoners choose? There are some interesting theories out there about humane execution. So long as the method chosen results in death, is acceptably inexpensive, can be accomplished from within the prison, and is not dangerous to others, it would be the most ethical way to kill someone. Not that it is ethical, that is still open for debate... but it would be the most ethical.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
How come no one cares about the way the victims died in the hands of the murderers in the first place ?
Or are you telling us that when those assholes murdering their victims they treat them with " respect " and " tenderness ", and the whole thing is within your realm of " reason " ?
Sorry, I give up.
I can never understand how bleeding heart libtards think.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Was this before or after all those big battles with the orcs?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
No, it seems like an effective way to apply pressure. If you're going to use our drugs to murder people, we won't sell them to you, even if you also use them for good purposes. All you need to do is to agree not to murder people.
So basically, it's blackmail. Or, if you like a slightly less inflammatory term, coercion. And these are probably the same people who complain about the U.S. sticking their noses where they don't belong.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Google it. Seems like the obvious solution if you really want to execute people cheaply and reliably. Not saying I'm in favor of executing anyone, tho people like Paul Bernardo I wouldn't lose sleep over.
Yeah, that was the whole point of why they had to change the drugs:
The new drugs were used because European-based manufacturers banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions — among them, Danish-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital (pentobarbital being the "general anesthetic in general surgeries").
An old post on that exact topic was even referenced in TFA, but to provide it again
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/25/1223203/us-executions-threaten-supply-of-anaesthetic-used-for-surgical-procedures
Honestly, I don't see why they just don't go back to the good ol' guillotine. Certainly much quicker and more humane than 10 minutes of gasping. And if it's not "perfectly humane"? Well, neither was the rape and murder of a 22 year old woman.
Thousands of people are put under every day for surgery. Why not use the same tried and proven method of doing that to put the condemned out like a light? Then when he's totally out of it, cut his head off. We still know how to make guillotines, don't we? And when the French were using those to kill people, the ones being killed were wide awake.
An added benefit is that it might just get the attention of some politicians.
Not at all. Blackmail is where you threaten to reveal something that the victim doesn't want to be known. The USA is quite open about the fact that it executes people.
This is more like shunning. You're doing something I don't like, so I won't deal with you.
Every story I read about this execution seems to have a different amount of time quoted. I've seen 10, 15, 20, and finally 25 minutes quoted from the New York Daily News. Do I hear 30 minutes?
It's hard to get all rattled up about this without some verifiable facts.
I don't see why there is a technical problem with capital punishment. Twice I had open heart surgery, Twice I was put under anesthesia. Neither time did I feel any pain or discomfort. While I was under they could has turned me off without me being aware.
I am against capital punishment. Like nuclear power it requires a level of perfection that we do not have. Still, if you must do it, it seems we have the means to do it humanely.
It's truly amazing the lengths people will go to for the chance to legally kill someone. In Texas, the dept of correction has resorted to forging prescriptions and fraud in order to keep killing. In Ohio, apparently they're hiring incompetents to (fail to) find a quick and lethal drug combination. They can't possibly believe they have the support of society at large given that their choices are limited due to corporations refusing to sell to them (WOW, you have to be REALLY vile for that to happen!).
They can't get real doctors to help because they'd get kicked out of the profession by their peers, so the best they can do is someone who was already disgraced (AKA mob doctors). Surely that should send a message.
The US should ban ALL imports from Danish companies, and add a huge tariff to any goods ending up there. Dictating what your customers do with the products they buy from you seems well, unenforceable and ignorant.
Right. Start a trade war with the European Union over your country's shoddy human rights records. You're a real fucking genius aren't you? You should run for office, you'd probably win a GOP primary easily with that level of stupidity.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Why is no one manufacturing pentobarbital in the United States?
Just use normal ventilation. Nitrogen isn't poisonous, it only kills if it displaces enough oxygen. The leak has to completely replace the air in the room (well, more than half anyway.). Unlike, say, carbon monoxide, which only needs to reach 50-100 parts per million or so.
[The industrial danger is when there's gas bottles stored in a sealed room, for example, which is entered after a long period. "Imma get me some gas bottle". Thud. "Ohnoes bob collapse, me go help". Thud. "Ohnoes bill and bob collapse, me go help." Thud. "Ohnoes, everyone collapse, much poison gas, me leave them to die and evacuate building instead of just calling for help and taking turns holding breath to drag them into fresh air..."]
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
"...remove your heart, and hand it to the parent of the person you killed..."
Ugh. Channeling a bit of CJ Cherryh?
"Our congratulations for the damage inflicted on your enemies and may you eat their hearts." -- From Chanur's Legacy, by CJ Cherryh
If I had to guess I'd say the death penalty is used more often as a bargaining chip to get confessions out of folks. Now whether that counts as getting a confession under duress or not is a good question, but generally speaking, the US use of the death penalty doesn't seem to prevent the crime itself. It might satisfy our lust for revenge, but it is clearly wrong to let the state be in the business of killing its citizens.
or we could use that tool we use to slaughter cows. It is "claimed" to be painless.
then remove your heart, and hand it to the parent of the person you killed
What the fuck is wrong with you people?!
on how far out he was. Twilight can leave a person fully aware but unable to move at times.
Generic drugs are often manufactured in countries where labor is much cheaper. Because they sell for much less than still patented drugs. With the (thankfully) low volume use for executions, it wouldn't be worth it to make here.
It would end them in some states, but others might see a dramatic rise. There are a few states still in the Union where a governor might score political points for being willing to shoot murders in the head.
So basically, it's blackmail. Or, if you like a slightly less inflammatory term, coercion.
Actually, it's closer to extortion. As a general rule of thumb, if the threat takes the form "do/pay X or we will reveal/tell Y", it's blackmail; if it's more along the lines of "do/pay X or we will do/not do Y" it's extortion.
In this instance, it's merely politics.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Exactly this. I'm only a second year med student and even I could tell you that trying to kill someone with the mixture of drugs in the summary would be a really ugly process. ..., but it's WAY more humane for the person being executed, the one who were trying to protect from unnecessary cruelty and suffering. ... if the killing is to happen, it should be done with something we know works reliably and quickly.
Hmmm, I wonder how quickly and humanely Joy Stewart died?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Because when you do that, the "patient" often twitches spasmodically during death. This doesn't bother them of course, since they're completely unconcious, but it might disturb the audience, and we would want people who were actually excited for the chance to see someone die to fell unhappy about their bloodlust, would we?
the one who were trying to protect from unnecessary cruelty and suffering.
Us. The ones we're trying to protect from unnecessary cruelty and suffering is us. That's why people oppose the death penalty, it hurts us; and why advocates keep switching to more "humane" methods as one-by-one the previous ones fail to live up to their promise, and to society's standards.
We used to draw and quarter. "Quarter" is a literal thing, ie, tear into four parts. With horses. And in public, to cheering crowds. Then nooses, to "humanely" strangle them. Then nooses and trap-doors to "humanely" break their necks. Then non-public executions, because we're civilised, see. Then most of us banned it completely, but the US continued trying to find "humane" methods. Cyanide, electrocution, drug cocktails...
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
She was tortured and killed. Those are bad things. Torturing and killing are bad.
Which is why civilised people don't torture and kill.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
How did it fail? He died, didn't he? And, I'm assuming, that was the intended outcome? If I could be bothered, I'd find out why he was sentenced to death, but I'm really not that interested. I'd assume that it was a murder (sorry, Mericans: "homicide") in which case I'm sure the comfort of his victim during the death process wasn't a top priority for him. Easy answer: shoot the fucker. Way quicker, and cheaper. (Personally, I'd go for a gutshot - a slower and more painful death, I believe?) Isn't the death sentence supposed to be a punishment? Why the fuck SHOULD it be as painless as possible???
So what's the "pain" if they put them under anesthesia, then remove your heart, and hand it to the parent of the person you killed while you were still alive, then unplug you? That level of retribution is what I see called for here.
If you mean simply death-by-vivisection, even the US considers that far too barbaric. If you mean harvesting organs, doctors competent to do that won't do that unless the donor is brain dead. But there's a catch. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the mentally incompetent cannot be executed. If the convict is brain dead, then he is no longer mentally competent, so must then be kept alive until he does of natural causes. Therefore, execution must take the form of stopping the heart, first. But the chemicals used to do that make also make the other organs useless. While it would be possible to anesthetize the convict then use a defib machine to stop the heart, it requires a qualified doctor (an anesthetist) to do that correctly, so again, not going to happen.
No doubt there are unethical doctors who would be willing to do this, but using them would open yet another legal/political minefield. I think Ohio politicians who allowed this execution are going to have far more than enough trouble walking the one they just created.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
Or just closing the room vents. Putting a mask on the convict would likely make him panic.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
That depends, is it a reasonable demand? Do we agree with it? If so, then yes we do that.
In this case, I'm on the side of crucifixion. Fuck that guy. We couldn't even think of things bad enough to do to that guy.
Go live in Saudi Arabia then. I hear they chop heads off in public. A sick, twisted psycho like you would love it there.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I read somewhere that cyanide gas was used. I suspect that if nitrogen was ever considered, the peopled involved assumed it would result in painful suffocation.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
I've always been confused about why we use drugs to begin with. Nitrogen asphyxiation works painlessly, there is no suffocation, the person just falls asleep and a few minutes later is brain dead. The room doesn't even need to be pressurized, just well sealed. Lead the person in, sit them down and secure them, then leave and turn on the nitrogen. Few minutes later, during which he is free to say his last words, he falls asleep and dies a few minutes later.
What if OS companies ran the capital punishment system?
[insert obvious geek jokes here]
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
How many people's lives do you wish to use up in tax payments, keeping alive a mass murderer?
Your argument is based on the false assumption that it is cheap to kill someone and expensive to throw them in a cement box for 80 years. It is in fact, many times more expensive to put someone to death than it is to lock them up, because the stakes are so much higher. Also, I really like how you subtly colored your question by calling the convict a mass murder, suggesting that there is no question that the convict isn't actually innocent.
This isn't Soviet Russian, comrade. We don't haul the accused behind the coal shed, and shoot them in the back of the head with a Luger to save time and expense. (You like how I subtily mixed my metaphors, by describing a soviet style political execution with a pistol from Nazi Germany? I made the reader think of two types of immoral criminal governments and associated them with capitol punishment. I like this game....its more fun that using pure logic to debate!)
Every decision in life is based on incomplete information. That doesn't mean we should be frozen into inaction until all data is certain.
It sure as hell does when you are considering end someone's life. This isn't a trivial decision like, 'It's icy out today, I wonder if I should drive to the store to get some milk?".
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Your scenario sounds much more like a toxic/knockout gas of some sort than nitrogen, unless people are *really* careless. How exactly would holding your breathe help if the problem is just that you're not getting any more oxygen when you breathe? All you're doing is making your body scream to breathe as CO2 builds up in your lungs. I suppose the unused oxygen you would have exhaled might buy you a couple breaths worth of extra time, but you've got at least a couple minutes anyway, and probably several more before you actually lose consciousness though your thinking may be getting pretty badly impaired. Heck the Guinness world record for breath holding is 22 minutes without losing consciousness!
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The Nazis used to do that to kill handicapped people. They used a dose of morphine to put them out, and then a dose of potassium chloride to stop their heart.
They had to stop because it was too unpopular with the German people. Especially with the Christian clergy.
I've witnessed an execution in the State of Ohio. At the Lucasville facility, there is a gallery of seats where the victims and inmates families and journalists sit/stand. There is a large window into the execution room that all the seats face. They pull the curtains after administering the drug and don't pull them back until the inmate is pronounced dead. Either they changed the procedure or these journalists are only reporting what those inside the room saw...
Karma: Bad
If we can me completely certain that there never will be an error in a capitol crime sentencing, I would advocate immediately dropping the killer in a wood chipper head first. However, being as there is always going to be some error in the legal system the question we should be asking is, "How many innocent people are we willing to murder in the name of revenge/justice?"
I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning; however, by logical extension you must also be against any sort of punishment for criminals at all. For while death is a permanent, irrevocable punishment, so is any form of wrongful incarceration. You can't undo the loss of a portion of a life wrongly spent in prison (and no, monetary compensation isn't equivalent).
Ultimately, the answer is yes, some small level of error must be acceptable in the criminal justice system, or we must otherwise let all the accused go free. I am willing to accept this in the death penalty as well.
And if you're asking me whether I, as an innocent person, would prefer an overdose of opiod narcotics and tranquilizers (i.e. what this admitted criminal received) vs a lifetime spent incarcerated, then yes I would. Just like I would be willing to risk death by terrorist rather than have this country sacrifice all our ideals (as we unfortunately did instead, during the past 12 years).
FYI: the term is "capital punishment", unless you are using a synecdoche to refer to penalizing Congress (and who doesn't dream of that?)
You are correct, the time lost in incarceration is irrevocable. but unlike death, incarceration can be ended when and error is discovered. Your reasoning is sort of an all or nothing fallacy. "If the accused is losing some of their life that cannot be recovered, isn't it just as bad as losing all of their life?". If you really were in favor of ending murder, wouldn't the logical course of action be to exterminate the whole human race? Sure, billions would die, but if we exist long enough, the number of people murdered will vastly exceed this horrendous death toll. Of course this is a silly suggestion, and I think that it illustrates that there is middle ground. Losing a decade of life due to an error might be acceptable, while complete loss of life might not.
You seem to bravely step forward into the role of the victim, but I suspect that if you were being really dragged down the hall to the gas chamber, that you would not be nearly as composed or as staunch in your belief. Who is actually willing to die forty years too soon because a deputy sheriff didn't seal an evidence bag properly? I have a number of things I would die for, but that sure ain't one of them.
I also find it very ironic that you think that life incarceration is much worse of a punishment than the death penalty. By that logic, wouldn't that support my argument against the death penalty, since incarceration is a 'worse' penalty, and therefore a better deterrent?
'capital punishment': clever, but nobody likes a spelling Nazi.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I wonder if he suffered as much as the pregnant Joy Stewart did when he raped and murdered her? How about her family, loved-ones?
And no I don't really understand why we need to humanely kill humans who have done animalistic things.
-Styopa
Who are you referring to with "you"? The U.S. government? My whole point is that the U.S. *can't* lie in its bed because of E.U. cantankerousness.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Your scenario sounds much more like a toxic/knockout gas of some sort than nitrogen, unless people are *really* careless
People have died from this. Not just from nitrogen leaks, but also from metal tanks (or ship's ballasts) rusting enough when water is drained to reduce the oxygen levels in the trapped air. There have apparently been cases of entire work-crews (or families on farms) dying one after another as they attempt to rescue the others. Usually followed by poison-gas panic when the next group of people see the piles of dead bodies.
How exactly would holding your breathe help if the problem is just that you're not getting any more oxygen when you breathe?
When you breath un-oxygenated air, your body removes oxygen from the blood. Hence it takes much less time to pass out (and die) from breathing nitrogen, then from holding your breath.
And oxygen deprivation gives no warnings. (Actually it does, but a symptom is that you aren't aware enough to notice.) Whereas holding your breath gives you a clear sense of how long you've been holding your breath. When you can't take it, you run out of the room into fresh air, ideally while someone else takes over.
It would be better if you had a simple portable oxygen bottle, but beggars choice. Wait for the authorities and the people inside are dead. Risk your life intelligently, and they might be recovered into fresh air before they die.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Injected into the veins, everclear will be every bit as lethal as these drug cocktails. And, the deceased gets one last buzz on their way out.
Well, this is almost accurate. As it so happens, I've intravenously injected this particular combination on multiple occasions. Midazolam and hydromorphone was perhaps the worst possible benzo/opiate combination possible to choose. When given all at once in large amounts intravenously, they both produce a very strong rush (midazolam in high doses being one the the very few benzos that do this, and hydromorphone being one of the most intense rushes among the opiates). I can promise you first hand that anyone receiving an intravenous overdose of these drugs will be in extreme discomfort for a minute or two before they lose consciousness; since I strongly suspect that's what they did, rather than how the OR uses these drugs, which is entirely different and used in conjunction with propofol or a barbituate- without which it would be nearly impossible to administer lethal amounts without discomfort- and it's clear from TFA (timeframe, 24 minutes total) that they didn't even try.
whats a tough, is that like hair.
super-rich liberals to hurl their money at the cases...
Your word betray your loyalties sir. Shouldn't you be off angrily watching Bill O' Riley? Or perhaps masturbating to Ann Coulter taking about shooting 'gay liberal Jewish media types'?
Lets ignore the very warped worldview you seem to have, and just look at the 'super-liberal' comment: Where do you think that the vast majority of the money the defense spends comes from? Do you think that there are wealthy, left leaning millionaires swooping in to donate vast sums of money to accused murderers in order to get them acquitted? If only they would butt out, the prosecution could have this killer convicted by noon, and the bailiff could shoot them behind the courthouse before lunch. Your vast ignorance of, well, everything is strangely enthralling....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Ah but we want a "civilized" execution. The last meal is the buy the prisoners cooperation with the process.
The prisoner may or may not have accepted his fate, but you don't want that "oh shit, its finally happening" moment and for him to suddenly fight and struggle, it would ruin the show for the "civilized audience". The prisoner may know logically, knows he is going to die at some point in the near future, but survival instincts can be very powerful.
A lot of factual mistakes in that snippet. We do actually know that a man is, indeed, born with a "moral instinct" of sorts - ethologists have devised and implemented the corresponding experiments ages ago, and found that concepts such as altruism, fairness and justice are, to a large extent, hardwired. And, of course, the idea that the crimes are at some sort of a peak relative to the quiet periods of the past where punishments were harsher is always popular, but is not supported by any evidence - we are at historically low levels of crime, especially violent crime, and they keep going down.
It's actually Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce, and the translation is normally held to be "Thou shalt not kill" on the basis that is what the KJV translates it as. Other more modern translations use "kill" rather than "murder". Nice selective translation, though.
No, the translation is not "normally" held to be "... kill." Especially not because of the KJV. The modern English translations, including the most popular ones, translate the word as "murder". See, for example, the New International Version, the New American Standard, the Amplified Bible, even the New King James Version. Also, an old, but literal translation, the aptly-named Young's Literal Translation, translates it as "Thou dost not murder." Take a look at the other translations on that site and note how the vast majority translate the word as "murder." Pretty much the only modern, widely-used, translation that uses "kill" is the New Jerusalem Bible.
And FYI, the "Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce" can be romanized as "rasah", a term that while hard to pin down the exact meaning of, scholars generally agree means more than simply "kill". This site has some discussion of it.
It's also notable that the Bible explicitly mentions the death penalty as acceptable: "Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." -- Numbers 35:30. So perhaps that will refresh the memory of the AC a few posts up who "[didn't] recall any exceptions for "Oh but if the other guy killed someone else that's O.K, you know?"
I'm not against all of the additional costs, mind you, in this day and age we ought to be damn sure we're executing the right person.
well spoken. In fact you touched on another reason to do away with the death penalty: Suppose you convict and execute the wrong guy. You have just committed a double error in that an innocent is dead, and the real criminal will likely never be found and caught. Has there ever been a case where the wrong person has been executed, and then the real criminal is caught and successfully prosecuted? IANAL, but I don't think I have ever heard of such a thing....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again
Just for the record, this is not a recommended method of house-training puppies.
If the puppy starts to urinate inside, you immediately pick him up (this should make him stop) and take him outside to a spot in the yard where you want him to urinate, then put him down. Ideally he will finish. If so, you praise him, pat him, and let him back inside if he wants. If not, you pour a little water on the ground and let him sniff it. After a few times, he will associate urinating with going outside, specifically to that spot. Then he will start to want to go outside, in order to urinate.
[This reverse-association method also works for teaching them to sit/etc. You can say the word you want associated with the action after the puppy spontaneously does it, (ie, the puppy sits down, you quickly say, "Sit! Good boy!") and he will soon associate the word with the action, even when you start saying the word first.]
If you don't notice immediately, you do nothing . (Well, clean it up, thanks.) The puppy isn't able to associate the delayed punishment with the "crime". (At best, you associate fear/punishment with urinating. Ie, if you smack or scold him, he pisses.) That's probably what took the protagonist so long - " "Did you housebreak him?" "Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house."
Simply picking up the puppy when he pisses (or craps) is sufficient negative reinforcement. When followed with the positive reinforcement at the appropriate piss-site, you get an extremely quick association developed. Much much faster than the old smack-him-and-rub-his-nose-in-it, and with fewer unintended behavioural side-effects.
There's probably a deeper lesson here about juvenile delinquents too. But honestly, you're starting so far behind, let's just stick to puppies for now.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
The reason why is because then we wouldn't be able to use them for medical use.
As for why that is, it goes back to the EU, which has strict export laws in place regarding drugs. More or less, any country that uses a drug for executions will have that drug barred from being exported to it. If the US was to use a common anesthetic in a lethal injection, the EU would bar the US from ever receiving that drug from them again, which means we basically wouldn't be able to use it in common medical practice. As a result, we end up with oddball concoctions like what they tried in this case.
There was actually an execution a few months back that had an emergency stay issued at the 11th hour, due to the fact that they were about to use a drug that's in widespread medical use in the US. Had they done so, we would have had to have kissed that drug goodbye.
Carbon monoxide. You never experience the panic of suffocation, which is brought about by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. You start to feel kind of loopy, experience a state of euphoria, then go to sleep and never wake up.
We don't use this method because supporters of the death penalty want the condemned to suffer.
Well, that's what I gleaned from this BBC documentary on the death penalty, "How to Kill a Human Being."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BY3Trq5qOk
Interesting, I had never heard that oxygen was actually flushed from your blood stream when breathing a low-oxygen atmosphere, but Wikipedia's page on inert gas asphyxiation makes brief mention of it as well. It also mentions that even oxygen concentrations of 4-6% (presumably at 1atm) will cause unconsciousness in 40 seconds and death within a few minutes, and that at 3.6% flight crews become unable to perform their duties efficiently in as little as 9-12 seconds. That's F'ing scary, I had no idea. I'm suddenly very, very glad that my time doing superconductor research in college didn't end up killing me - we boiled off great tanks of liquid nitrogen and helium into engineering labs with no special ventilation, and no warning of just how fast and insidiously hypoxia can strike.
So I'm now officially a member of the holding-my-breath club. Should I ever be in a position to haul people out of a low-oxygen environment you just saved multiple lives.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Check this out on youtube. Six parts, but very well done with a good answer.
http://youtu.be/R18yDjc2lKE
If we're to execute people for violent crime, why not a violent (but quick) death? A bullet, a rope (no short drops), even a guillotine. There's no need for an execution to be so clinical.
Should I ever be in a position to haul people out of a low-oxygen environment you just saved multiple lives.
Wow. I hope that makes up somewhat for my own inevitable cowardice.
OBTW, don't hyperventilate before you go in. If you flush your lungs of CO2, some people can pass out before they realise they need to breathe. And if you pass out in the Bad Room, you're back to square one.
I'm suddenly very, very glad that my time doing superconductor research in college didn't end up killing me - we boiled off great tanks of liquid nitrogen and helium into engineering labs with no special ventilation,
Yeah, using N2 (or LN) is not really that dangerous, you have to have a really high flow of gas (and/or small room) to displace enough normal air. There's a bunch of PPM-gases that are much more dangerous, CO2/CO/etc. But it's kind of insidious and unexpected when it does happen.
[Side note: There was a sharp drop in suicides when countries switched from "coal-gas" ovens to fairly pure natural gas. The CO in coal gas was toxic at PPMs, whereas methane has to physically displace the air. Made it harder to kill yourself, so a bunch of people couldn't be bothered.]
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
The standard surgical anesthetic that could be a logical replacement as an execution drug has been off patent for years, so there is no reason why we can't make our own supply. As an alternative, I'm sure we could extract our own supply of fire ant venom. Hey, it's natural.
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat
Let's say that for the sake of the argument the only ones deserving the death penalty are those who kill other people.
And let's discard those who have done so by accident. We just want the people who have done that on purpose.
Who kills another person on purpose? As a civilian, not employed by the government, in peace time, in self defense, not trying to prevent someone else to commit murder...
Who are the premeditated murderers?
You got two groups. Mentally deranged people and criminals.
Now... Mentally deranged people are mentally ill. THAT is the reason they commit murders.
Giving them the death penalty is basically killing people for being sick.
Also, do you really believe that the insane person will take heed of the threat of death penalty?
Either being with a long history of mental illness or just cracking and loosing it for a moment under the influence of stress, drugs or whatnot.
Some of them even believe that they are doing god's work and that there are really good things waiting for them if they martyr themselves.
So, we're left with the other group - criminals.
The kind of people who's "job description" involves "every day you may be shot and killed by police, your friends, your competition, family members and many other people not listed above".
So, you're threatening the people who are already living each day expecting to be killed - with killing them unless they are killed first by almost everything and everyone in their life.
Where's the deterrence factor then? Who is being deterred?
As for prisons being unpleasant... there is no need nor value from that.
I'd much rather have the criminals be reformed and taught to control their impulses while being taught how to get out of the life of crime than being trained to be "harder".
As for giving the prisoner the choice, you can't have that on account that the death penalty is punishment.
You can't have the prisoner making the choice cause that would be like letting him/her commit suicide.
And suicide, in the mentally deranged world where the death penalty is the remnant from the time when it was viewed as sending someone to be judged by a "higher power" than earthly laws (which is why they get priests and whatnot) - is both a sin AND the prisoner escaping prescribed punishment.
In the world that forgoes on the "sending them to god to be judged" bit, it's simply escaping the prescribed punishment.
I.e. Red tape. It has to be done by the book.
Not just to kill the prisoner but to make sure that he/she is really dead or some may try to game the system.
And that's without going into the whole "cruel and unusual" thing.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
McGuire was convicted in 1994 of the rape and murder of 22-year-old Joy Stewart, who was seven months pregnant.
You know what, there is a very easy way to avoid being executed in the US, for a start, and it is just a f*cking suggestion: DON'T RAPE AND MURDER A 22YO PREGNANT WOMAN.
"Which is why civilised people don't torture and kill."
1. Tell it to the US military and every US voter, congressman etc.. (Abu Graib, Guantanamo etc..)
2. It is a very civilised thing to torture and kill the rapist and murderer of a 22yo pregnant woman, it would be INSANE not to.
From the standpoint of avoiding this c*nt from suffering and all that other liberal BS, would he suffer less if he was just shot through the head?
Also would it be better to do it immediately after his conviction to avoid prolonging his anguish?
Well, I don't know how much bravery I'd credit myself with, but short-term "just don't do anything stupid" situations don't worry me overmuch. I can maintain extreme mindfulness for a few minutes at a stretch at least.
I'll admit it's been a while since I regularly saw just how long I could sit on the bottom of the pool (hyperventilating was a must there), but I'm not too terribly worried about accidentally passing out while holding my breath. I'm curious what the mechanism would be though - passing out would presumably be caused by oxygen deprivation, and if anything hyper-oxygenating your system would seem like it would cause a lot more CO2 to build up before oxygen levels reached a dangerous point. I suppose the CO2 itself could be the issue, building up to anesthetic levels. I'll admit though that I don't quite get how that works - it sounds like breathing a CO2 rich atmosphere can stun you fairly quickly, but it seems like your body should start screaming that it's suffocating almost immediately as CO2 levels in the blood climb. I suppose if there's enough lag in the detection mechanism though that would do it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You should stay away from Slashdot. You understand neither sarcasm nor satire.
Learn to love Alaska
You need some vocabulary help...
This is actually the issue. They need to be allowed and effective for general anesthetic of humans. Otherwise they could just use lethal injection drugs for animals. But the US does to not make any of those anymore, they are all imported and the manufacturers said they would stop selling to the US if their product keeps getting misused for executions. That would mean no surgeries anymore in the US.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No, it is ethics. There is no blackmail if you refuse to sell your product to the morally corrupt.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
What amazes me is why they don't just use a massive heroin overdose or something like that. I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of that stuff locally whether or not other countries decide not to import it.
Not FDA approved for human application. Basically the lethal injection is putting them to sleep as if for surgery, but then do not apply life-support. For some reason the legal and medical niceties have to be observed right before that, like FDA approved drugs intended for putting people to sleep. As this is fundamentally a barbarian and primitive act, I do not really get this squeamishness. Probably those doing and ordering the executions somehow convince themselves that they are not murderers in the moral sense and this an effect of the pretext they use to lie to themselves.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Indeed. Revenge just puts you on the same level. It is fascinating how many people do not get that and believe circumstances can make it right. Most humans are still animals at heart.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It takes a surprisingly long time to wash a cabinet out with inert gas. I have an instrument which has to work in an anoxic environment, its only about 2.5 cubic feet, but it takes a good 20 minutes to clear down. A box big enough for a man ?
I don't have the time to read every post, so sorry if someone has pointed it out already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQTHqg_8_UA
Note the reaction of the american dude when he learns that not only nitrogen is painless but you even get a bit high before the end...have you seen so much spite and hatred......the problem is people confusing retribution with justice...
Anecdote time.
I for one got attacked, ringed, and beaten by three guys while walking home at night. It gave me PTSD. Seriously, every time I walked past someone who looked remotely similar to my attackers, I wanted to have a gun, pull it out, and shoot them in the face. At all OTHER times, I desperately wanted to be sure I'd never have a gun, for I could see I'd kill an innocent person. This got worse and worse, until in prayer I got back that I had to give up all thought of defending myself or even my family with violence. When I offered that up, the PTSD evaporated.
Fast forward to six years later, in Lithuania. My wife looked out her window and screamed. I came running, and she pointed to a guy down in the parking lot who was kicking a woman to death. She was unconscious; He'd pull back his leg for a good, full-swing kick, let loose, and her head would go up about a foot, and the ragdoll would flop to the ground again. Well, the Bible says you shall not let an innocent person be put to death, so I had to go running out there. I was terrified, because this guy was nuts with violence, and I couldn't use violence. I especially didn't want my wife, who was watching, to see me fall in that thing.
So I went out, and tried to reason with him, and he started explaining why she really needed a good beating to death, and I responded that you still can't do that... so she started coming to. He turned around, saw it, and went to say, come on, let's go. I thought, "he's going to take her away somewhere private and finish the job", so I interposed my hands between him and her. He turned on me with a viciouse harvester to my temple, knocked me back. I made the sign of the cross with my arms, and a it absorbed a roundhouse kick that threw me back about eight feet. At this point, I thought that the cross with the arms was too martial or anti-vampire-like, so I changed it to a hand-wave sign of the cross blessing, and said God bless you. He shook himself, looked around, and saw that the girl's sister was leading her away. He followed them at 100 feet; I followed him at 100'; and after a bit I realized a police van was following ME at 100'. we went a quarter of a mile, and the sister turned to the guy, told him to run away, get outta there, pointed to the police van. He left.Then they pulled up next to me, said that they had seen everything, and would pick him up later. They knew who he was and where he lived.
In a way, it was all very comical.
But it also points out two things: yes Christians really are supposed to take Jesus seriously, and no, He doesn't leave them defenseless. Just, his defenses are other than you would expect, and where war is the result of the ultimate of clumsiness, Jesus' defenses for His people are anything but clumsy.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
That is exactly what they were doing. The problem they're having is that the companies manufacturing these general anesthetics don't like having their drugs used for executions, or, in the case of European manufacturers, are prohibited from selling their drugs for use in executions by the EU.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
A bucket of liquid nitrogen in an enclosed space would be extremely effective - both cheap and painless.
The issue is that the USA criminal system revolves around retribution, not justice, plus it has provably convicted the wrong person on so many occasions that it has to be cited as unreliable.
You have the highest incareration rate (both percentages and absolute numbers) in the world. Something is fundamentally broken in the american system.
I think you are still suffering from PTSD and would benefit enormously from seeking help.
and our response should be fine, no more intel for you, no more money for you etc.
Frankly I want to go back to a time where we are non interventionist. Let other countries worry about themselves. If you dont want to sell me a product I want/need, Then I will no longer provide you with the intel that you want/need
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Executing a prisoner is not difficult. We have 4 commonly used drugs to cause unconsciousness: thiopental, propofol, etomidate, and ketamine. Any of those will do. Of the 4, ketamine also produces intense analgesia. So, a reasonable drug combination would be midazolam, fentanyl, and ketamine, followed by potassium chloride. A single drug that might also be adequate for execution is bupivacaine IV. It causes analgesia and, when given in large enough doses (2.5 mg/kg or more), causes seizures, unconsciouness, and ventricular fibrillation, leading quickly to death. Of course, most executions add a paralytic agent, mainly so that the spectators aren't disturbed by the agonal movements of the dying prisoner. Unfortunately, the American Society of Anesthesiologists prohibits it's members from participating in executions, even though anesthesiologists would be the persons most likely to be able to administer a pain-free execution. The ASA and ABA will in fact revoke a physicians board certification for participating in an execution.
...Valliium, tank of helium, and an "Exit Bag" ....problem solved.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
So, why is it so frowned upon to have utter contempt for the animals that commit heinous crimes such as murder? My sympathy lies with the victims, those that are left behind/still alive and those that have died. I have -no- sympathy for the vast majority of murderers, and the only ones I have any sympathy for are the ones that kill someone because they were brutally tortured by their victim, or if said murderer killed a pedophile. You accuse people of being sociopaths for approving of the death penalty, and/or corporal punishment, yet it's -you- people that either want these guys to have the chance to commit similar acts in the future, or become drains on the system by giving them life imprisonment. It's sickening that you would show mercy to someone who deliberately killed someone else for no particular reason, or a reason that's flimsy at best. Let's see if you believe the same thing if someone near and dead to you is taken, tortured, then killed.
Frankly I want to go back to a time where we are non interventionist. Let other countries worry about themselves. If you dont want to sell me a product I want/need, Then I will no longer provide you with the intel that you want/need
Frankly, everybody wants the US to become non interventionist again.
this sig is useless
And because of your "right" to call them morally corrupt, maybe people will get executed in more pain, or innocent people with medical conditions may suffer or die.
But I hope you feel all morally justified and whatnot. Good for you.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Your argument is deeply flawed. The ones responsible for the pain and suffering are those inflicting the pain and suffering.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1) The current execution process has apparently been found relatively painless, and medical patients in need of anesthesia were getting treated as usual.
2) The E.U. decides to stop selling the drugs.
3) Now they're testing an execution cocktail that may *not* be painless, and we're using our reserves of anesthesia for medical patients.
I stand by my previous statements. If the U.S. wants to execute people, I don't see why it's the business of other countries to force them to change their policy when said coercion will affect normal anesthesia procedures of people completely unrelated to capital punishment. A more reasonable response, in my mind, that would solve *everyone's* problems, would be for the E.U. to just raise the prices on the drugs. Hell, they can raise them a bit more every month for all I care. That way, it offers and incentive to find some other solution as well.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
and you just feel compelled to take a swipe
Sorry, feel a bit bad for that.
feel less alone. Thank you.
Ridicule is quite powerful, just make sure you're not staring down the wrong end of it before it's about to go off.
Please enlighten me. Was Jesus against the killing of sinners, or did he just not get the chance to kill any himself?
I find the bible confusing, and hope you can help me.
I had a quick re-read through the New Testament and couldn't find any mentions of where he'd wanted to kill anybody - but know I must have missed something, as I've been told by his followers that it's OK.
Not sure why this is so hard. Ether can easily kill you. Used to be used to anesthesia years ago. My father and Mother both had it done to them. You would wake up with one big head ache. Keep the cloth with ether over their mouth and they'll be gone soon.
There are dozens of old anesthesia methods that could be used. Again, this is not hard. Not novel.
Are we enraged killers? Do we think killing someone repairs something else?
If we kill out out anger or if we kill according to the irrational calculus that one death offsets another, then we share a common indulgence or a common delusion with angry and vengeful murderers.
The death penalty is nothing more than a political appeasement and an opportunistic exercise of our worst impulses.
Ah, but does killing a murderer prevent future deaths? Is the death penalty just a prophylactic extermination, a cost-effective way to save lives? If so, let's put it somewhere on that list of cost-effective ways to save lives by killing a few people -- the one that starts with Attorneys for Tobacco Companies.
I would guess that when you were under for the surgery, you were administered an anaesthetic such as pentobarbital or sodium thiopental. Those are the drugs which are no longer available, hence the soul searching in TFA.
If you had sufficient anaesthetics to put someone under adequately to operate on them, then execution by poison injection would be possible too (and the much simpler of the two options).
Also- heart surgery is difficult and gruesome; no self-respecting doctor would allow themselves to take part in such a horrible spectacle. And I dread to think what a mess we would be in if we let "enthusiastic amateurs" do it.
(Forewarning, posting while tired. I'm likely overlooking something, and may not be as coherent as I'd like.)
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat
Let's say that for the sake of the argument the only ones deserving the death penalty are those who kill other people.
Oversimplified, but I see no need to debate the point.
And let's discard those who have done so by accident. We just want the people who have done that on purpose.
Who kills another person on purpose? As a civilian, not employed by the government, in peace time, in self defense, not trying to prevent someone else to commit murder... Who are the premeditated murderers?
You got two groups. Mentally deranged people and criminals.
Those are excessively large and diverse groups. Considering how "criminal" tends to be defined, it may be a tautology to split them this way, but I'll accept it for the time being.
Now... Mentally deranged people are mentally ill. THAT is the reason they commit murders. Giving them the death penalty is basically killing people for being sick.
For those who kill only because they are mentally deranged. The distinction is a hard one to make, and I don't think it can be made in most cases. Let's say the severely mentally ill don't qualify, and move on.
Also, do you really believe that the insane person will take heed of the threat of death penalty?
Insanity isn't boolean. It isn't all or nothing. It is a continuum (in the very least). It depends on the degree of insanity. Some of them will, yes. Even if mental illness is off the table, the knowledge that death penalty is practiced on murderers will deter some of the insane. Remember, they've got a screw loose. Most of them don't want to admit that they're crazy, and the insanity defense won't always occur to them during pre-meditation. To premeditate the insanity defense, you would need to admit to yourself that you're cuckoo.
Either being with a long history of mental illness or just cracking and loosing it for a moment under the influence of stress, drugs or whatnot.
Drugs are not a good excuse. I'd need more information before I'm willing to decide if they are an excuse at all.
Snapping under stress? "Jim made me stressful, but I killed him. Now that he's gone, I'm all better. Honest!" Right... Now, there are cases of longstanding, undiagnosed mental illness. Add an unreasonable stressor, and things sometimes go from potentially dangerous, to deadly. These are two very different things. We need to be really careful about anybody we permit to take the insanity defense. It should be quite hard to get out of the psych ward after killing someone.
But again, remember, crazy isn't an absolute. We need to make an honest assessment of potential for premeditation and potential for self-restraint. Only when one of those is at an exceptionally low level (extreme clinical) should we just accept that they couldn't help themselves.
Some of them even believe that they are doing god's work and that there are really good things waiting for them if they martyr themselves.
That group is exceptionally scary. They will either attempt suicide, or they will be especially motivated to try to seem cured, to get back outside and kill again.
So, we're left with the other group - criminals.
A wide and varied group.
The kind of people who's "job description" involves "every day you may be shot and killed by police, your friends, your competition, family members and many other people not listed above".
For some of them, it's a job. For most of them, it's a hobby, or a lifestyle. Most criminals aren't "career" criminals
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
That IS what's going on, in the case of TFA. Traditional execution drugs like pentobarbital and sodium thiopental are both manufactured in the EU. They are both used in general medical practice in hospitals. The companies that make the drugs have said that if their drugs are used in executions, they will have to stop importing the drug to the US full stop (under EU law). Which would be A Bad Thing.
If you want to execute someone, you now have to use only drugs that are made in the US or another country that carries out executions- no-one else will consent to import them.
Every tool-maker has a responsibility to monitor what is being done with the tools. And to withhold them if the use is incompatible with their ethics. Otherwise, selling weapons to, say, Iran would be perfectly acceptable.
I stand by my statement: Your argument is deeply flawed. It does not even fulfill basic rationality standards.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Indeed. Revenge just puts you on the same level. It is fascinating how many people do not get that and believe circumstances can make it right. Most humans are still animals at heart.
I wonder how you'd feel if your daughter was in Joy Stewart's place? How would you feel if you fought to release him and then he goes off and murders a few more women.... Social animals have always excised the rabid and anti-community oriented among themselves. It's survival of society and unless and until a clockwork orange style reprogramming happens and you think that's better, there isn't much else you can do.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Export. The U.S. wants to import the drugs, but the E.U. won't export them to the U.S.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
And I think that just because you disagree with my viewpoint does not give you the excuse to say it "does not even fulfill basic rationality standards." This is the same exact argument that Libertarians make--"stay the fuck out of my business," so obviously a significant number of people find that it "fulfills basic rationality standards."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Glad that democrat criminal suffered considering what they did!!!! This country needs more executions and less litigation from bleeding heart democrats (who seem to love their criminals) trying to 'save' these violent offenders!! We are tired of the current democrat administrations (monarchy?) love of all things and criminals islamic!!! The United states was created by Christian men. We need to move back to a Christ centered United States! If I Were the Devil - (BEST VERSION) by PAUL HARVEY audio recording. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Az0okaHig
That is not the reason, but your argument is so obviously bogus and contrived, that I can confidently state that you do not understand basic rationality.
Also, the discussion about rationality is not a democratic vote. Most people do not understand rationality, and you are obviously one of them. The difference is that many people know they are limited there, you do not. Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect sometime. You are on the far left side of the graph.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Don't be a pedant. "Import to" or "import into" is a valid linguistic phrase:
http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/import
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/publications/trade/iius.ctt/iius.pdf
http://www.bund.de/EN/Economy-And-Trade/Importing-to-Germany/Importing-to-Germany_node.html
Although I will admit that I would have used "export" if I had been thinking about it properly.
I modded this thread but wanted to respond anyways: maybe it's $-driven. N2 is dirt cheap, almost free while all the "high-tech" drug cocktails used for lethal injection cost $$$$$$$$ to acquire and administer. Since there is a profit incentive hidden somewhere, it might be that the ones profiting from it are actively preventing switching to cheaper methods.
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
Citing examples of a phrase being used in public isn't what I'd call proof; however, it appears these sites are actually commerce-related, so there's that. If I had a nickel every time somebody used "everyday" as an adverb on a billboard...
http://grammarist.com/usage/everyday-every-day/
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Citing a German website for English language rules seems a bit suspect, though.
"Importing into" seems redundant, while "importing to" says that the act of importing is occurring toward the direct object, which seems by definition false, as the importer is the subject. It sounds to me like saying, "I drove the car forward backward."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Wow, that doesn't sound arrogant at all. Good day, sir.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
So in the event of an innocent person being put to death I would at the least hope that there [sic] last few minutes of life are not spent in agonizing pain.
Why is it that we hope that? Is it a misapplication of empathy? After all, dead is dead. It's not like this guy is now thinking to himself "Wow, that was a really painful way to die! It still hurts! The memory itself is accompanied by pain!"
After one dies, there is no further opportunity to reflect on or otherwise experience past pain. Once this criminal's brain function ceased, so too did any subjective experience of pain. So, what did it matter?
People often say they hope for a quick and painless death, suggesting that a slow and agonizing death is undesirable. People are generally appalled when they hear me say that I'd like to burn to death, preferably with the aid of drugs that help me retain full awareness for as long as possible. If you think about it, though, there is no better time to experience extraordinary, unimaginable pain than immediately prior to death. The pain is guaranteed to be totally gone when you die. No lingering soreness, no resulting chronic condition to worry about, no PTSD. Also, why not? I mean, after you're dead, you won't have any preference anyway. You'll be too dead to think "Wow, that really was more unpleasant and less interesting than I had expected, and perhaps it really would have been better to die in my sleep". In a sense, it won't matter at all how you died, at least not to you. Finally, I offer up the suggestion to think of death as an opportunity to do something that you can't otherwise do. There are countless experiences and activities that people rarely engage in due to the fact that they result in death. Not just feeling your flesh melt from your body, in which people may not see much novelty, but a wide spectrum of other things as well. One might skydive naked, or openly assassinate a monarch, or become a martyr. Of course, one will not have the opportunity to relish the uniqueness of these experiences any longer than one can regret having died, since in either case subjective experience hinges upon the continued life of the observer. In this way, death is a terrible thing to waste.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
So if China was using Ford cars to run people over in the streets, you'd expect Ford to keep selling them, as other people use Fords too?? Your logic is bizarre. The US is practising a behaviour not seen, and indeed illegal, in the EU. The EU doesn't want to encourage this behaviour, so it stop selling the drugs to the US. What happens after that is the US's problem - they decide to kill (possibly innocent) people, so the blood is on their hands.
Which part is illegal in the E.U.? Capital punishment? The U.S. is not in the E.U., the reverse of which we are so fond of (accurately) pointing out here on Slashdot.
I would have much less objection to the whole affair if it didn't mean they were withholding the standard anesthetic from completely unrelated and non-complicit people. If North Korea was actually giving their food subsidies to the people,* would you stop the food subsidies if they also fed their soldiers with them? That's basically punishing the people who have no say in their government for the actions of said government. Skinning the face to hurt the nose, to abuse another analogy ;)
* I hear that this is not really the case, so it's admittedly not a perfect analogy.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Insanity isn't boolean.
Grasping of reality IS though.
Insane people don't have it. By definition. We're not talking defense here - we're talking there being nothing wrong about killing.
As for the rest of your reply... That's a finest example of cherry picking I've seen yet.
Really... Forget the core arguments, go for the sentences. And individual words.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
And thus, you are missing the point entirely. Also, you _are_ wrong, as you were basically requesting this statement, and hence it is not arrogant.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Insanity isn't boolean.
Grasping of reality IS though.
No, it's not. Thankfully I haven't had anybody in my family go through Alzheimer yet, or slip gradually into severe dementia. There are many people out there who would find that statement offensive.
Insane people don't have it. By definition.
Hmm, looking up the medical definition of "insane":
a legal term for mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts. Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007
1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement. Not in scientific use.
2. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
3. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning considered to be sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed. The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007
So... It's not a medical term, but a legal one. We seem to have found another tautology.
We're not talking defense here - we're talking there being nothing wrong about killing.
We're talking about whether the practice of capital punishment can dissuade someone who does not have a sound grasp of reality from killing. It won't dissuade all of them; it won't dissuade all sane people either. But will it dissuade some of them? I contend that it can.
As for the rest of your reply... That's a finest example of cherry picking I've seen yet. Really... Forget the core arguments, go for the sentences. And individual words.
I picked your argument apart piece by piece. I may have missed things (it's likely, in fact), but I didn't skip anything intentionally. And I didn't skip the core arguments by going for individual ideas. That's not how arguments work. You had premises; you connected them; you tried to show how this lead to conclusions. Fine. I showed which premises I thought were faulty, and why others didn't lead to the conclusions you thought they did. I didn't just stand up and declare you wrong, but I showed you why. Piece by piece.
What did I cherry pick?
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
If anyone wants to avoid such "anguish" then the remedy is extremely simple: DO NOT KILL, DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.
more importantly, don't be convicted of such things
or even more importantly, don't be wrongly convicted of such things
Care to point out the bit in the New Testament that says it's O.K to kill someone
try the bit where it points to the Old Testament
oh, I get it now, your one of those nutcases who never leaves his house and listens to radio all day long, and litterally think that poor people, minorities, and women are out to get you?
Who said EU, only the bloated country of Danes who seem to think that they can dictate what you do with purchased goods. As for a FSCK'n genius, wow, you've placed yourself high on that pedestal by your illuminating response. As for human rights violations let's look at history and see which country has a longer, bloody and much worse human rights history. Some of the traditional executions carried out by your so-called enlightened country would make a mass murderer queasy.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I would too, but only if I, you know, actually did it. Otherwise, I'd rather stay in prison, in the hopes that something like the Innocence Project comes along, finds the guy who actually did do whatever I was thrown in jail for having supposedly done, and gets me out. That would matter a lot less if I were dead.
But I do agree otherwise.