Oklahoma Says It Will Now Use Nitrogen Gas As Its Backup Method of Execution

schwit1 writes Yesterday, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin signed into law a bill that approves the use of nitrogen gas for executions in the state. The method, which would effectively asphyxiate death row inmates by forcing them to breathe pure nitrogen through a gas mask, is meant to be the primary alternative to lethal injection, the Washington Post reports.

Fallin and other supporters of the procedure say it's pain-free and effective, noting that the nitrogen would render inmates unconscious within ten seconds and kill them in minutes. It's also cheap: state representatives say the method only requires a nitrogen tank and a gas mask, but financial analysts say its impossible to give precise figures, the Post reports.

Oklahoma's primary execution method is still lethal injection, but the state's procedure is currently under review by the Supreme Court. Earlier this week, Tennessee suspended executions statewide following challenges to its own lethal injection protocol.

Comments

Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

We kill people because they kill people. So who kills the people who kill people because they killed people when we find out they didn't actually kill anyone?

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we have a legal system with appeals you twit. Does anyone doubt that the Tsarneavs were responsible for killing and maiming dozens? Timothy Mcveigh?

Re: Idiotic

[Loki_1929]

Murder is against the law; killing absent unlawful motive or negligence is not. Hence, the state can lawfully kill someone once their guilt is determined, their due process rights respected, and the penalty determined to be reasonable given the crimes committed. An individual whose life is at risk by the actions of another individual can also kill, legally. Justifiable homicides happen all the time. If I break into your home to try and murder you, you can kill me and the state has no interest in prosecuting your causing my death.

Capital punishment doesn't bring anyone back to life and if we're honest with ourselves, it likely has little deterrence effect on other criminals. However, the benefit is that it stops an individual who is so dangerous and destructive that society cannot afford to risk their continued existence. Locking them in prison subjects other prisoners, guards, staff, and even other members of society to varying levels of risk from that individual. When an individual is found to exhibit a certain level of danger and destructiveness, society's best option may just be to end that individual's existence in a fair and lawful process.

Re:Idiotic

[pete6677]

Use liquid nitrogen and freeze their skull from the inside out, then smash it with a hammer and watch it shatter. Put it on Pay-per-view and make enough money to solve all municipal budget shortages for the foreseeable future.

Re: Idiotic

[DigiShaman]

Killing terrorists isn't so much as judgement as it is a confirmed method of neutralizing a threat that poses a clear a present danger. Otherwise, we wouldn't be incarcerating them in the first place. I'm sure many soldiers would be better off not capturing them in the first place as it puts their own lives in danger to do so.

Re: Idiotic

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Not to mention that the killer that gets sentenced for imprisonment may decide to turn himself in, with the hope of seeing liberty at some point in their lives.
Whereas the killer who knows he will be killed by the law has literally nothing left to lose and might keep on killing trying to save himself.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

It is also illegal to kidnap people and hold them against their will.

So what do you do to someone that kidnapped people and held them against their will?

Throw them in prison where you'll forcibly imprison them in a place they don't want to be.

Your citation of hypocrisy makes no logical sense. Wouldn't taxation be stealing under your logic? After all, you are compelled by force to give money you don't want to give them in many cases.

So on and so forth.

Executions are not murder. Why? There was a trial. Same reason imprisonment isn't kidnapping. There was a trial.

If you conflate an execution with a murder then you are suggesting that the trial had no meaning and if it trials have no meaning then every official government action through the courts is no different from when anyone just grabs someone and does the same thing to them.

Either you admit your error or you're effectively advocating anarchy. At which point there is no law. We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.

Re: Idiotic

[arth1]

Too strong sentences can indeed lead to more criminals on the loose, as well as more murders. If you've already killed once, there's then no incentive to stop killing. If the cops are after you, you increase your chance of survival by shooting them. If a witness sees you, you might as well kill the witness too.

And then there's a lessened risk of being turned in. Take family situations, for example. Few are willing to turn in a relative if it means life without parole or a death sentence for the relative. That means losing the relative forever.

Too harsh sentencing and especially harsh minimum sentencing because the foam-at-the-mouth public wants revenge, not justice, is particularly a problem with rape sentencing. There, the perpetrator quite often is a family member or loved one. Who goes free because the sentencing is so harsh that the victims won't turn them in.

Yet there are proponents for the death sentence not only for murder, but for rape. Which is truly stupid - that means that a rapist will increase his chances of survival by killing the only witness - the victim.

Re:Idiotic

[arth1]

If you conflate an execution with a murder then you are suggesting that the trial had no meaning

No, that does not follow. The verdict can have meaning even if the sentencing doesn't.

Re: Idiotic

[tompaulco]

I say let the sit in prison.

And on their dime too.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

My immune system kills harmful agents. Why shouldn't societies?

Re:Idiotic

[arth1]

However, execution lets the convicted person off the hook the easy way compared to a lifetime of incarceration.

That's irrelevant, as the justice system is not to be a method for taking revenge, but to make society a better place to live in, with less crime.

The death sentence is flawed for other reasons. Almost all murders happen either in affect, or in a situation where the perpetrator thinks he can get away with it. In either case, having the death penalty will have no effect on whether a murder will happen or not. And it might lead to more murders, because if there's a death penalty in place, the perpetrator has nothing to lose by killing witnesses, cops, or anyone else who might get them arrested, now or in the future. The rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders.

Also, the costs of a death row inmate by far exceeds the costs of a long term imprisonment. (This is particularly true in the states that allow prison slave labor - which has a high correlation to the states that allow capital punishment). The many rounds of appeals that a death sentence automatically trigger cost a heck of a lot more than the room and board.

Then there are the cases of people who have been wrongly executed. One case is one too many. And a peer-reviewed study shows that as many as 4% of people convicted to die are likely innocent.
Unless there's a way to bring people back to life again, that in itself should be enough to put a stop to it.
But the unwashed masses want panem et circenses, and revenge, not justice. So the show goes on. And innocent people die.

Re:Idiotic

[epyT-R]

Not necessarily. Due process is still important. There are cases where people admit to crimes they didn't actually commit, sometimes because of pressure from interrogation, and other times due to conditioning from others.

The appeals system is there to be damned sure before ending someone's life, and that still isn't enough. 0 innocents should die this way, period, even if it means guilty ones go free sometimes.

Re: Idiotic

[epyT-R]

How do you propose a person with a life sentence pay for his incarceration without employment? Put him in jail until he pays??

Re:Idiotic

[killkillkill]

If you can get an appeal. If the evidence against you wasn't fabricated or "overstated".

I can confidently say that there are crimes so horrible that the death penalty is appropriate for. The problem is you can't undo the punishment if the criminal justice system is found to have made a mistake. How do you objectively measure the level of perceived doubt of guilt between McVeigh and the innocent individuals who have likely been executed? Until we can prosecute with 100% certainty, I can't support executing a convicted criminal.

Re:Idiotic

[demonlapin]

Well written, and you even put your Latin in the accusative case.

Re: Idiotic

[demonlapin]

I agree, but I don't trust the state enough to give them that power.

Re:Idiotic

[Gizan]

Lets say he lives for the next 30 years, the figures from last year state about $35k/year to keep someone in jail. thats over $1m of wasted tax dollars..

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

What makes one imprisonment and the other kidnapping is a TRIAL.

The standards of evidence in a death penality murder trial are higher than in ANY OTHER TRIAL. The burden of proof and evidence is significantly HIGHER.

Now here you're going to say "but I have evidence of them screwing up such trials"... yes of course... and there is evidence of them doing that with any other type of trial. What is more, you are MORE likely to find errors in a trial with higher standards. It is very common for someone to be prosecuted with an intention of executing and it not being possible to get enough evidence to support more than imprisonment.

Did you just process that? If the state LACKS evidence, they resort to imprisonment next.

In any case, I'd love to hear why executions are illegitimate in any kind of logical or rational sense. The only position that is going to argue against an execution is going to be an ideological one. Which is just your opinion. I have opinions too. You can't slap me down with anything short of logic and reason. And I am struggling to see how that is even logically possible.

But I have an open mind. Lay our logic on me. I am listening. I will keep an open mind about whatever you say.

*steeples fingers*

Hit me.

Re:Idiotic

[arth1]

There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

Except that one of them is irreversible.
A -> B vs A -> B, X? B-> A

By your comprehension of logic, there is no logical difference between my beating you and my beating you to death either.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Executions are not murder. Why? There was a trial.

Nice strawman, but GP said killing, not murder.

But more to the point, if you consider execution as an illegitimate form of justice, then you could reasonably consider it unlawful killing (ie murder) even through the law book says otherwise.

Re:Idiotic

[catchblue22]

Best post I've seen here and its score is zero. It gives actual arguments. The moderators are being rather jingoistic I think.

Re: Idiotic

[garyisabusyguy]

The death sentence for rape would only seem to be truly effective if you are intentionally prosecuting the wrong person

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

The same happens with situations like Michael Brown where media narrative and hysteria prior to any due process convict everybody in the public square.

Re:Idiotic

[theshowmecanuck]

Your argument is OK as far as it goes. But I believe the OP did make a point, while kind of vague, about asking who executes who if you execute an innocent man? It has happened more than once in the past. And we constantly see people exonerated who were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death after a trial. So who do we execute if the trial finds that an innocent person should be executed and it happens? Do we execute the jury? The judge? The police? The prosecutor? The defense? Any of them? None of them? Why?

For what it's worth, I don't have too much of a problem doing away with someone for murder when it is absolutely for certain that they caught the real bad guy. But I don't like it dragging on for years, and I don't like it done humanely behind walls. Make it horrible and in public. That way everyone sees what's up. Out of sight out of mind need not apply here. And for me, if an innocent person is executed, find out why and execute the people responsible... but at least one of them has to be an official... even if it includes jury members. That would have made trials of blacks by all white juries in the south more entertaining. Let them wear their uniforms while swinging. It would look like putting out the bed sheets on the line.

Re:Idiotic

[linearZ]

We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.

Following your logic to a reasonable conclusion - if criminals held a trial first and then kill someone, it wouldn't be an "execution" rather than "murder".

Your overly technical logic assumes that the government and justice system couldn't have possibly been infiltrated by criminals. One could invoke Goodwin....

Execution becomes murder when the official government, who facilitated the trial and performed the "execution", loses the moral authority. The problem in the US is that moral authority has been chipped away with every execution of an innocent person. We should at least acknowledge that wrongful executions occur, and that perhaps we can't trust our government to properly facility trials that lead to execution/murder/whatever you want to call someone losing their life at the hands of another.

But, hey, at least the government is introducing some efficiencies. They could have gone with helium....

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not much time and resources to carry due process amid a battle.

Some terrorists (like in the present case) are captured by the Police/SWAT in an urban setting.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

He equated the killing by a murderer with killing by the state after a trial.

I did not strawman him.

Re:Idiotic

[penguinoid]

Imprisonment is irreversible too. Go ahead and see if you can give someone the years of their life back, the skills they lost, their previous psychological state, their job, their wife and friends they may have lost.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy! Just use "Prison Labor", aka indentured servitude, aka slavery. In fact we already do this so we don't have to do much but ramp it up so everyone has to work.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the US is the one washing exploratory wars of conquest, I'd say terrorism is not a threat, but a defensive region by people whose lands we invade, bomb and generally interfere with.

Re:Idiotic

[Strangely Familiar]

I'm not so convinced. I didn't mod the post, but I don't think I would have used points on it either way.

That's irrelevant, as the justice system is not to be a method for taking revenge, but to make society a better place to live in, with less crime.

This is just a bald assertion of the purpose of the justice system, with no source or explanation. Some people do see the justice system as a method for taking revenge, which is better than having the victims of crime and their families take revenge. I know I feel a need for revenge when someone wrongs my family members. Everyone knows where that leads.

The rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders.

This might be true, but taking the death penalty off the table will not make this problem go away. If the maximum penalty is life in prison, and a person has already committed crimes to warrant a life sentence, isn't the "rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders."? So this was a flawed argument.

Unless there's a way to bring people back to life again, that in itself should be enough to put a stop to it.

Again, changing the punishment to life incarceration doesn't make the problem go away. If you put someone in jail for life, and then at the end of his life, find out he wasn't guilty, what do you do then? Press the reset button? No, the person's life is just as wasted, and there isn't much anyone can do. And if no one ever determines that the innocent person is innocent, then their life is completely wasted in prison, in my opinion. So, because we might punish the innocent, do we stop handing out long sentences? There is no perfect system, period. If we want to punish anyone, we have to accept a level of mistakes. Is 4% to high? I don't know. What about .4%? All of that said, I do agree with arth1 that executing one innocent person is too many, just not for the reasons arth1 gives.

Re: Idiotic

[rseuhs]

And what if your "slave" turns out to be (like most criminals) lazy, stupid and pretty useless in general? What then?

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Let me answer your question because it is pretty easy to answer:

Who imprisons who when the government imprisons an innocent man? There are people that have spend their lives in prison on false charges... just as many as ever were killed on false charges.

And really what is the difference to the man? You lock me in a cage, you take me from my family, from my work, from love, from my life, from children I might already have or would have had if you had not stolen my life.

You lock me in a box and you think that is somehow morally superior to killing me? How? You force me to live the rest of my days in the company of people I hate, with no agency, ruled over by thugs with badges, not able to decide what I eat, or what I do with myself every day. You do this to me and think that is better then just killing me?

Remember that fellow that had the women in his rape dungeon... would he have been more of a scumbag if he had killed those women outright instead? Not really. They survived I guess but the crime he committed was no less more excusable.

So who goes to jail when you imprison someone on charges that ultimately turn out to be false?

And consider any of a million other things a court can find... they can levy a fine against you, take your property away, they can do any of a million miscarriages of justice. And who pays when that happens. How do you make me whole when you fail to judge QUICKLY and correctly. Because as we know justice delayed is justice denied. You have to not only be accurate but speedy within the context of the issue.

Errors are inevitable because we are not gods. I am not omnipotent. I can't be right every time no matter how hard I try. So does that mean we shouldn't have courts? Think about it.

At some level, you have to accept that mistakes will be made. You have to do your best to avoid them but understand it is going to happen. And when the worst happens, you can make what restitution is possible and logically practical. But that does not extend to godlike power.

If the state is unsuited to perform an execution then that same state is unsuited to judge high crimes PERIOD. No more murder trials. Nothing that involves sending anyone to jail for more than a couple years at most. Anything beyond that you're saying you can't judge because the punishments are so stiff that if you're wrong you will be unable to make restitution. You can't give someone back ten or twenty years of their life.

If you throw me in jail when I'm 20 and you hold me until I am 60... there is no amount of money that will make up for that. You destroyed my life. I get to what... have some spending money in the last few years before I die... no family... no career... no friends... tortured for years by living in a hostile community of maladjusted idiots (aka the prison population). You can't make up for that.

So you're going to have to take responsibility for the fact that you're going to misjudge people on occasion. And it will be terrible. And you will feel very bad about it. And you will use that feeling to do your best to see that you make such mistakes as infrequently as possible. You do not solve this problem by abdicating authority. That is no solution. That is moral cowardice.

As to your idea of executing members of the court if it turns out they made an honest mistake... no problem. Just apply that to every other judgement a court can make. So any time a court levies a fine against someone that turns out to be wrong, you need to fine the judge or the police officer or whatever to pay for it.

Same thing with any kind of imprisonment.

The result of your idea will be that the justice system will shut down almost entirely leading to anarchy.

Why would I take the risk of giving a guilty verdict EVER if I expose myself personally to risk in doing it?

What risk is there in your system if I let someone go incorrectly? Lets say someone is guilty but I rule they're innocent. And later on it is proven that they were guilty. What happens to

Re:Idiotic

[Fire_Wraith]

And how much do you think it costs us right now to keep someone on death row while all the various appeals processes are carried out? I've read sources that cite the figure for executing someone is actually higher. Now, obviously those may be partisan figures, and the cost is certainly going to vary from case to case, but it's certainly arguable at present.

Now, I suppose you could propose curtailing appeals and hurrying on to the imposition of the death sentence - but are we really comfortable with that given all the instances where the Justice system has clearly failed, and sometimes spectacularly? It doesn't seem like a week goes by before we hear of another story of some egregious action on the part of law enforcement. This past week was the news that the FBI had been presenting hair sample analysis overstated the evidence in 95% of the trials that had been reviewed, which included 32 death penalty cases.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

In regards to my logic, yes... that would be an execution. The question would be the legitimacy of the court. But assuming that wasn't in question... sure. That would be an execution.

Would you band of criminals have some body of law and grant the accused due process?

If so, then I would find that far more palatable than random spree killing or something.

If you are saying that the criminals would have some sort of kangeroo court then you're really just conflating a proper court of law with a kangeroo court. Which is obviously invalid.

Also with conventional courts they use a body of law that was largely approved of by the public and is well understood... and the public in our society generally understands that the government has authority to do that.

your band of criminals by definition wouldn't have that because they would be criminals. A criminal is a breaker of laws.

So... you're getting closer to making sense but you're conflating some things that you can't do with any kind of integrity.

As to criminals infiltrating the government and using government power to execute rivals etc... Sure. How does this stop us from the max max conclusion though? Because if that were the status quo you'd have chaos because no one would regard the government as legitimate. Why are you going to follow laws if it is just bullshit? Why pay taxes? Why get licenses? Why get approval from one committee or another for whatever it is you want to do?

By your logic the only thing holding society together is naked force. Aka we do these things because otherwise the government will beat the shit out of you until you do it.

And you can run a government that way but it is very unstable and chaotic. What is more, we clearly don't run our society that way because people mostly obey the law because they view it as reasonable and ethical to do it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My technical logic as you refer to it has some advantages... amongst them is not talking utter nonsense. While you apparently don't have a lot of respect for the concept of logic or reason, it would do you well to have it. You're not making any sense.

As to executions becoming murder when the person doing it loses moral authority, technically it is when the killing was ruled murder. Murder is a legal/ethical concept and not a moral one.

As to the US losing the moral authority to kill someone because they've executed the wrong people on occasion, then what about their moral authority to imprison someone? They do that falsely with if anything greater frequency. So can they not imprison people?

And what about fines? They have false fines all the time. What about the IRS ceasing property that they didn't actually have any right to because they made a mistake? Does that mean the government doesn't have a right to levy taxes?

You're proving my point. Taken to its logical conclusion you'd legitimize the right of the government to do ANYTHING. And that would obviously lead to anarchy.

So... good work. You proved my point.

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

Either you admit your error or you're effectively advocating anarchy. At which point there is no law. We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.

That is a great example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. So in your view, if we (i.e., our society) were to reject the death penalty because we decide it is immoral and hypocritical, then the only logically consistent position is to reject all law entirely, which will lead to the inevitable consequence of a lawless, anarchic society.

In case the absurdity of that is not obvious, consider this: The European Union summarily rejects capital punishment as "cruel and inhuman". In other words, as an instrument of justice, it is immoral and cannot ever be justified, no matter how heinous an offender's crimes. Guided by this premise, many EU states have banned capital punishment for decades. Yet, in no case has this led to a subsequent total rejection of the rule of law, and it doesn't appear that any of these countries are on the brink of anarchy.

Your entire argument rests squarely on the unstated assumption that the purpose of the criminal justice system is tit for tat revenge. You might see it that way, but many of us do not. Take away that assumption, and there is no logical conflict at all with rejecting the death penalty because it is inhumane and hypocritical while also supporting a functional justice system with the power to enforce laws and impose penalties.

Sure, a simple statement like "killing people is illegal, ergo the state is hypocritical if it kills people" is not very insightful. But if one accepts the notion that state-sanctioned execution is "cruel and inhuman", then it is perfectly reasonable to wish for a government that does not try to protect its citizens by threatening them with cruel and inhuman punishment.

Finally, since you like slippery slopes, why not take your own reasoning to its "logical conclusion"? Your arguments lead to the conclusion that any sort of punishment is acceptable as long as it is preceded by a trial. Do you really believe that? Or do you believe that certain kinds of punishment are never appropriate, even if their use would not be "hypocritical" (by your criteria) for certain kinds of crime?

Re:Idiotic

[Ichijo]

Executions are not murder. Why? There was a trial.

So executions are not unethical when they are approved by a government. I would be very, very careful with that line of reasoning.

Re:Idiotic

[itzly]

How many prison sentences have been reversed after the last appeal was over ?

Re:Idiotic

[linearZ]

If you are saying that the criminals would have some sort of kangeroo court then you're really just conflating a proper court of law with a kangeroo court.

Did I say "Kagaroo"? No. I'm talking about the moral authority of government to kill and you are dreaming about kangaroos. You are full of crap. Government trusting, non-critical thinking, pseudo argumentative crap.

The fact that you devolve into some ivory tower slippery slope argument on tax collection - as if losing money were equatable to losing ones life - just shows how afraid you are to even question what "authority" might be doing wrong. Keep that tower alive, I'm sure those theories of yours are working well in every daily life...

Re:Idiotic

[arth1]

How many prison sentences have been reversed after the last appeal was over ?

Quite a few. Like when new exculpatory evidence comes to light, like someone else confessing, or recanting the testimony that led to the conviction, or new or improved technologies can determine innocence.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, from 1973 until today, 152 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death. Unfortunately, many of them were executed before being exonerated.
Without the death sentence, many more innocents would be alive.

Re:Idiotic

[goose-incarnated]

There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

Except that one of them is irreversible.

You think imprisonment is reversible?
Anyway, regardless of one's stance, everyone should really read this before forming their opinion on death sentences...

Re:Idiotic

[Kiuas]

There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

Okay, but if one is of the opinion (as I am) that murder is always wrong, then saying "well we held this trail so now this is legal" does not change the moral argument one bit.

I do not believe any state anywhere should be i the business of killing its citizenry except in cases where it's absolutely required to protect others from harm. It's as simple as that.

If the state LACKS evidence, they resort to imprisonment next.

So? How does this justify the use of death penalty again? Sure, the state can imprison people more easily than it can execute them, but this doesn't make executions reasonable or acceptable.

In any case, I'd love to hear why executions are illegitimate in any kind of logical or rational sense. The only position that is going to argue against an execution is going to be an ideological one.

This is absolute bullshit. There are several rational reasons to be opposed to the capital punishment:
a) It doesn't work in reducing crime
b) In the cases where wrongful convictions occur (as they will) the sentences are irrevocable, leading to the cruel fact that the State will sooner or later kill an innocent person (and it already has)
c) Ir costs more than a life in prison, while achieving no added benefits to the society at large, in fact it only has downsides

Really the only purpose death penalty achieves is to quench the thirst for revenge that people have, and the basis of any justice system should not be revenge, but rather sensible laws and punishments which help reduce crime and keep the society safe. But even if you disagree with most of this for some reason, b alone should be enough to make any rational human being realize why capital punishment has been abandoned in most countries in the world: even if the margin of error is extremely small, as long as it is greater than 0 (and it is, according to some studies quoted here it's as high as 4 %), it means that sooner or later the state will execute an innocent person. Now, that is something that should never happen. Yes, wrongful prison convictions happen too, but even if one spends 20 years in jail for a crime one did not commit, it is superior to being dead..

So yes, you do have opinions too, but your opinions are based on faulty reasoning and a very twisted notion of what the justice system should do (hint: the answer should never be "kill innocent people by accident)..

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Well that's a valid criticism however you haven't limited your statements.

Why is this only relevant in executions but not anywhere else? Why can't I apply your argument to everything else?

The problem is that you may be trying to eat your cake and have it too. That is the core of my actual argument. Not a slippery slope argument. I am instead accusing you of hypocrisy. Because you're applying this logic on one specific context and no where else.

That makes no sense unless you justify your exclusive use of that argument in only one place.

Can you do that?

As to you saying that I assume the justice system is about tit for tat revenge... nope. And I don't need to elaborate on that unless you elaborate your claim further.

Next, why must I accept that state sanctioned killing is either cruel or inhumane? What is your basis for that? And I'll repeat that police officers are empowered to kill people if they feel it is necessary to protect public safety or bring a dangerous criminal in. Hell, the criminal doesn't even need to be dangerous.

Lets say I steel bananas. That's all do. I steel about 2000 bananas a day and I eat some and toss the rest all over the place. Because this is a silly criminal. No one is really hurt but bananas are destroyed at a prodigious rate and there is a consistent mess. Let us say for the sake of argument that you could not stop me unless you were willing to kill me. I don't know... Let us just say magic as the reason. You can stop me but you have to kill me.

What are you going to do? Are you going to let me destroy bananas forever and make a silly mess? Or are you going to put a police officer out there that will give me an ultimatum to stop... and when I fail to stop, he will shoot me in the face?

Don't answer that, because we both know that the banana villian would eat a bullet to the face because eventually it would be too annoying. And people would salve their guilt by saying "well we warned him" and "isn't it tragic" and after all the police officer was TRYING to arrest the banana fiend. But the thing is society at some level makes the choice that its laws are non-negotiable. And if someone says "make me", society has two choices... it can either say "oh really?" and make him... or it can puss out and have its laws mean nothing.

That isn't a slippery slope by the way. That instantly happens. It isn't one thing leading to another that leads to another. That is instant fucking cause and effect.

So what does that mean? It means you're either assuming the right to make laws and judge people or you're not.

Which is it? Are you prepared to make life and death choices or not?

Choose now. Because if you're not willing to assume that authority then someone else or no one else has it. Either way you're just abdicating responsibility to something else that will pick up the slack.

Here is why I'm okay with executions:

1. What is the point of any punishment or sentence by a court?
1a. It is part an incentive either to the individual being sentenced or to the public at large to not break that law again.
1b. It is to address the central problem of the crime such that justice has been served. Such as returning stolen property to its rightful owner, or seeing that damages to the plaintiff have been made sufficient to recompense them.
1c. It has to logistically serve the interests of the society and the state. You can't have trials for parking tickets span decades. Or have the state and society ultimately be unduly inconvenienced by the various needs of criminals.
1d. Ultimately the point of any justice system is to see the consequences of their behavior land on their own shoulders. That does not mean eye for an eye or revenge. It means that the damage that a person does is paid as much as possible by the guilty.

Wow... I was thinking about doing a three parter or something but I'm just going to stick with this one issue because honestly I'll write a book.

As to 1a, criminals don't like to be execu

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Life imprisonment arguably meets the goals as well as the death penalty as a deterrant. Some will prefer life if they get caught, while some others might as soon die than spend life in prison. I don't really see a criminals behavior changing if there isn't a death penalty, and the argument that you could still make a mistake and imprison someone for life is ridiculous on face value. For instance, suppose it takes 5 years to get someone one death row killed, versus say 40 years for them to die of natural causes. That 40 years givens another 35 years to make sure no mistake was made and at least give the odd innocent some of their live back. Of course resources might have to be spent triple and quadruple checking things, but then again, there should be many checks against long term imprisonment. We imprison far too many people in this country. Whatever happened to the idea of prisons being correctional facilities? Sure some are unsalvagable, but a lot are salvageable, except once they have a prison record it becomes very difficult to make anything of their lives. Heck we even permanently brand anyone with a felony to insure they can have no voice in their government ever, regardless of what the felony was, or whether or not they seriously regretted their actions.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

First off, a kangaroo court is a slang term for a fixed/unfair/illegitimate/unethical court.
Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

As to the rest, I'm going to let you recalculate your position now that you understand what I was talking about.

Read my previous post this time understanding what a kangaroo court means. :D

Re:Idiotic

[gl4ss]

death penalty:

for the innocent it's too cruel and for the guilty it's too easy.

it's just a revenge fest really. it used to be a public show and it still is to some extent.

Re:Idiotic

[dave420]

You are saying it's fine to kill someone in your custody, who is already incapable of ever committing another crime against the general public. It's not first world childishness, it's being a logical, compassionate human being. Your argument boils down to one of hatred and fear, and it is not becoming.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Washing wars? That's a new concept. Will conflict laundering lead to cleaner ones?

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

The State already has that power on you, whether you like it or not. It is called "monopoly on violence". If the State wants you dead, you're dead. Simple as that.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Too easy. Shove the tube up his ass and inflate him slowly with nitrogen until his bowels rupture. Let him deflate for a while then do it again.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

The death sentence is flawed for other reasons. Almost all murders happen either in affect, or in a situation where the perpetrator thinks he can get away with it. In either case, having the death penalty will have no effect on whether a murder will happen or not. And it might lead to more murders, because if there's a death penalty in place, the perpetrator has nothing to lose by killing witnesses, cops, or anyone else who might get them arrested, now or in the future. The rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders.

You are forgetting one thing - if a murderer should be released or escape from prison, he is far more likely to kill again than the first time around. By executing him (and this needs to be done much sooner than today where people can sit on death row for decades) we are effectively protecting society against these guaranteed killers.

Also, the costs of a death row inmate by far exceeds the costs of a long term imprisonment. (This is particularly true in the states that allow prison slave labor - which has a high correlation to the states that allow capital punishment). The many rounds of appeals that a death sentence automatically trigger cost a heck of a lot more than the room and board.

That is because we treat them the way we do. They are going to die. They need no re-socialization and no long term comforts. Just drop them in a deep dark hole and throw food and water down there. Maybe they die before they're executed. That can't cost much at all.

Yes, there are innocent people that get convicted of murder and get the death penalty, like for any other crime. This should not be fixed by the correctional system but by the legal system. The process at the courts should be flexible enough to handle last minute evidence. Far too often people get convicted because that piece of evidence that effectively will exclude them as a possible perpetrator came too late or was rejected because of some technicality. Or witnesses that aren't heard etc.. The trial might take much longer but the system must work to all but absolutely guarantee that nobody get convicted unless every single stone is turned and all possible shadows of a doubt is eliminated.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to your religious views on executions, that's super but I don't care any more for that then I do about some other religious person's views on homosexuality.

Your religious or ideological views are fine. They're just opinions. I am under not obligation to take your opinions seriously or act upon them in law unless you can win the vote. Absent that, your ideological views are just that. If you want to talk about ideology we can do that. I am very happy to argue against your position on moral and ethical grounds if you like.

Furthermore, you used the word "murder" being wrong... murder by definition is always wrong. That's literally what murder means. It literally means bad or illegal or immoral killing.

The unloaded term is "killing" not murder. Is all killing wrong? I can't see how that makes any sense. Society wouldn't be possible without a ritualized system of killing.

First, we have various law breakers that have to be killed to be brought down. You can't even arrest them. So you don't try. You kill them.

Second, you have the various pissing contests between nations. Any society that thinks killing is wrong is going to find a slave collar slapped around their necks sooner or later.

Third, we have our executions. Imprisonment is nearly as good. You basically just disappear someone into concrete bunker forever. They might as well be dead.

As to believing that killing their citizenry is wrong even if they're mass murdering psychopaths that were given due process and convicted in a court of law.

That is your business. The courts either have the power to judge life and death or they don't. You appear to be more comfortable with what seems like hypocrisy to me. The courts officiate over life and death all the time with or without a death penalty. IF you're saying they are unsuitable to make such judgements then I question why they're doing it all the time.

You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?

You say you can reverse an imprisonment... can you now? How do you give me back my 50 years? I'd like to see you do that.

As to how I justify killing someone... again... justify imprisoning someone for 50 years? Your position reads to me like childish squeamishness. I don't say that to offend you. Honestly. I am just telling you what you position looks like to me. That is full disclosure. I'm letting you peak inside my brain. That is what I see. You know how small children react around raw chicken? They say "ewww, its all pink and slimy!"... But they sure do like it when it is properly cooked and seasoned don't they?

So much of our society has become privileged and divorced from the real world. We have these unreasonable expectations and unreasonable aspirations that anyone that lives outside our bubble can only LAUGH at. Ask any culture outside of our privileged bubble what they think of this issue and they're going to come down the on the side of executions. And that isn't about revenge. It is about not needing half measures. You don't like cutting someone's throat. I get it. But that is squeamishness. You get over it. And then when the stars align... yeah, you run that knife from ear to ear. Same way you ring a chicken's neck. Same way you drive a bolt into cow's brain. Same way you drop cluster bombs on an enemy formation that is advancing on your position. You just do it or you sit down and let the adults handle it.

Here you're furious with me. I regret that. I don't know how else to express myself without putting your argument in those terms. That is what it looks like to me. Please contradict me if you think I got you wrong and know that I'm not mad at you or hate you or anything like that. I just think your position is naive and childish. Again... this isn't an insult. I'm just honestly explaining my position so we can bridge a mental divide here. :)

See, smiley emoticon.

As to absolute bullshit,

a). I don't understand how killin

Re: Idiotic

[Pseudonym]

Precisely what problem does execution solve that "life without possibility" doesn't?

It's certainly not cost; executing someone costs far more than life does.

If it's prison overcrowding that's the issue, we have better ways to manage that, like not incarcerating so many non-violent offenders.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Not at all, Dave. Let me ask you a question. Why are you feeding a convicted murderer that you will NEVER let out into the general public again?

See, you don't understand executions.

I don't understand life in prison. I don't get the point. If they're just going to sit in a cell for the rest of their natural lives, then why can't I put them down?

We're even giving them medical treatment to extend their lives for no reason. Some of these guys get organ transplants and expensive heart medication, etc. Why am I doing that?

I'm happy to give them first aid but for people in on a life sentence... why would I give them more than first aid? Why would I even give them food. I don't understand. The whole concept is baffling to me.

You people think I'm full of anger or want revenge or something. Nothing of the kind. I've no interest in their lives. They're done. Why am I paying to guard them or house them or do anything.

I could possibly accept exile for them if that were practical. Given modern transport it really isn't though. They could be back in whatever country almost immediately no matter how far you sent them away.

Did you ever see that movie "No Escape"... I'd accept that as a compromise. It has the virtue of not killing them and me not having to feed them.

Are you familiar with the movie? Great action movie if you haven't seen it. The concept is that there is a remote island in the future where they keep all the worst criminals. They just drop them off by helicopter and leave them. The island has gone all lord of the flies with cannibalistic psychopaths ruling the majority of the island.

There is some justice in psychopaths being forced to live a community of psychopaths without any sane moderation to contain their homicidal natures. The island in that movie was hell. Life was short, brutal, and miserable.

All of which is fine... I don't really care. My primary concern is that I don't have to worry about them. They go there, they eat each other, and I get to ignore them.

Re:Idiotic

[Pseudonym]

I don't really see a criminals behavior changing if there isn't a death penalty [...]

Well, there's always the broken windows theory. If we live in a society where it's normal to believe that some people don't deserve to live, this could (in theory) result in more homicide.

Re:Idiotic

[Pseudonym]

if a murderer should be released or escape from prison

I've never understood this argument. If a murderer is legally released, that should mean that on our best evidence, we believe the offender is unlikely to reoffend, or that we didn't have sufficient evidence to incarcerate them in the first place. In either case, having executed them first is an abomination.

As for the escape argument, saying that we should kill people because the prison system sucks at its primary job isn't exactly the most persuasive line of thinking I've ever heard. (Or is the argument that we should pre-punish inmates for escaping before they do?) That's quite apart from the fact that almost exactly nobody escapes from correctional institutions these days; they're pretty much all from work release or work camps.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done

Re:Idiotic

[Pseudonym]

It raises a good point, though. Once upon a time, executions took place in public where citizens could observe what their government does in their name.

Compared to the shame with which the US kills people, you almost have to admire Saudi Arabia's public beheadings. At least it's honest, and actually provides some deterrent value. Good old-fashioned barbarism has its advantages.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

No, they're just not murder. Whether or not anything is ethical or not is very complicated. When the police officer pulled me over at his speed trap to give me a ticket for 300 dollars for not noticing a sign came out of no where to drop the speed limit by 20 miles per hour... and for no reason... was that ethical or legitimate? I'm pretty sure I have to pay that ticket.

If you have a problem with the court system, then argue for judicial reform. However, that has NOTHING to do with the sentence. The sentence is valid if the court process was valid. If it isn't then the least of your worries are the handful of people we execute every year. You'd instead have to explain why EVERYTHING else the court system does is not also invalid?

Why is the court only wrong when it executes but not any other time? Your objection smacks of ideology and not reason.

Re:Idiotic

[Ihlosi]

You think imprisonment is reversible?

Less irreversible than execution. Also, it's easier for a person to sue for tons of money for wrongful incarceration than for the estate of a person to sue for tons of money due to wrongful execution.

And suing for lots of money is necessary to motivate the voters/taxpayers to keep the rate of wrongful convictions down. If wrongful convictions aren't freakishly expensive, there's no motivation.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Hmm... exactly do you make that argument?

I don't see your logic. Explain it please in detail... you've made an error there. Lay your thinking out so that we can find it and correct it.

We were talking about the effect of a trial on the context of an act.

You're not changing the subject to something else. You need to substantiate your argument more clearly.

Re:Idiotic

[Kiuas]

First, we have various law breakers that have to be killed to be brought down. You can't even arrest them. So you don't try. You kill them.

This is a different situation and I addressed it already. Yes, there are cases when lethal force is required to neutralize someone wo is a threat to others, nobody is denying that. My argument was and is that executions are needless killings, as nothing beneficial is achieved via them as compared to life imprisonment for reasons I have already listed.

The courts officiate over life and death all the time with or without a death penalty. IF you're saying they are unsuitable to make such judgements then I question why they're doing it all the time.

No, I'm not saying they're unsuitable to make such judgements but I'm saying that because the system makes mistakes, it's better if those mistakes (that are inevitable) lead to innocent people being incarcerated rather than killed, I think I was fairly clear on this. I'm also saying that since data shows that executing people costs more and doesn't help keep the crime rate down any more than life imprisonment does, it doesn't benefit the society at all.

You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?

No, I don't have the right to do any of those things. But if you do something which proves you to be a danger to me and other people around you, then we have to make sure that danger is controlled. Incarceration is least harmful to the individual in question, and most people would rather be alive and incarcerated rather than dead. Hence most nations have opted to discard the capital punishment. If you argue that you'd rather be dead than incarcerated for life, that's alright, you're within your rights to self-terminate and I think people serving a life sentence should be given that option.

As to how I justify killing someone... again... justify imprisoning someone for 50 years

See above.

That is full disclosure. I'm letting you peak inside my brain. That is what I see

And why that is I do not knoq, because it should be obvious to anyone that killing someone and imprisoning them are not equivocal things, nor should any rational person treat them as such.

Ask any culture outside of our privileged bubble what they think of this issue and they're going to come down the on the side of executions

Except they won't. The countries and cultures employing capital punishment have long since been in the minority in the world. The vast majority of people globally oppose capital punishment.

I don't understand how killing a dude is going to make him less likely to unsavory things.

That is not what I said. I said that the capital punsihment doesn't work in reducing crime. I meant it overall. Areas with capital punishment have higher rates of violent crime than areas without it. It doesn't work a sa deterrent. Again, surely it prevents the individual from doing more crimes, but so does life imprisonment and again, with zero risk of killing innocent people by accident.

But if that's the case then why not kill them? They're clearly damaged beyond all recovery and can't be allowed to remain in society. Why am I feeding this person?

It's cheaper to you to feed and clothe said prisoenr for the rest of his life in prison than it is to go through the trouble of executing him, so the 'why am I feeding thisd person' argument makes no logical sense. You're achieving no enefit in killing them other than exacting vengeance; you're spending more of society's resources just for the sake of fulfilling a sense of revenge, which to me is outright stupid, no matter how 'beyond repair' this indicidual is,

A

Re:Idiotic

[RabidReindeer]

... And if no one ever determines that the innocent person is innocent, then their life is completely wasted in prison, in my opinion.

Quite a few great works of literature were penned in prison.

Prison - by definition - limits what you can do, but whether you waste your life or not is up to you.

Re:Idiotic

[RabidReindeer]

Why not just drown them like kittens?

Re:Idiotic

[RabidReindeer]

At least it's honest, and actually provides some deterrent^Wentertainment value. Good old-fashioned barbarism has its advantages.

The reason that we don't still do public executions is that they don't provide deterrent value.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do you do to someone that kidnapped people and held them against their will?

In the USA, we execute them. Lindberg Law.

Re:Idiotic

[RabidReindeer]

A trial is not a punishment. A trial is a determination of guilt and hence, the need for punishment.

The nature of punishment is another matter.

For the case in point, you can execute the offender, thereby instantly making him a 72-virgin martyr.

Or you can put him in stir for the rest of his natural life. He becomes, at best, a poster boy, at worst, yet another forgotten prisoner. But in the mean time, he might also recant, thereby negating the alleged justification of the crime. And if his crime wasn't justified, it makes it that much harder for the next would-be terrorist to justify himself. But dead people can't recant.

Re:Idiotic

[Ichijo]

If you use the broader definition that "murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse," and if you recognize that not everything that's legal is also ethically justified, then a government-sanctioned execution can be murder.

Re:Idiotic

[towermac]

We don't kill people for killing. We kill people for murder. Big difference.

Re: Idiotic

[towermac]

That's not true. It's 20 years of legal appeals that cost so much.

Which you do on purpose, so that you can come back here and say it costs too much.

Re:Idiotic

[towermac]

You have balanced the value of life in your equations of costs to society. That's your mistake: Life is priceless. Therefore, murder in the first degree is unacceptable.

But you accept murder in society, and apparently work it out to be slightly worse than car theft and bank robbery, given that you would apply the same deterrent, albeit for a somewhat longer duration.

(Although I agree that the death penalty should never be given on circumstantial evidence.)

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to nothing beneficial being achieved by killing someone... what is beneficial about keeping them alive?

As to your statement that you're comfortable with the courts making life and death choices... okay. Then we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. The courts are competent to execute. Next issue.

As to incarceration being less harmful, actually exile is less harmful. That was a very common punishment up to the city state period. I'm quite partial to it myself because it involves no long term responsibility for the criminal. You just walk him to the city gates and then tell him that if he is ever found again he will be killed on the spot. If he leaves the city and doesn't come back then that is that. Far less harmful than incarceration.

As to life time imprisonment versus killing... You imprison me and you steal my life. It is a bigger deal than I think you realize. If you're not comfortable making nasty choices then you have no business throwing people in jail for years on end either.

There is no way to do this without hurting people. There is no lesser evil. You either accept what you're doing or step down and let someone else take the responsibility.

You want me to do that for you? I'm happy to do that. You can hate me and say I'm evil if that helps you sleep. It means nothing to me. Some things have to be done. There is no good served by keeping a mass murderer alive in a jail cell, spending perhaps millions of dollars on his medical bills or whatever else. He isn't entitled to it.

here you say "but what if he is innocent"... I don't think you appreciate what the term "shadow of a doubt" means. When a court has determined that there is not a shadow of a doubt, then that is how I proceed. He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. If that later turns out to be false we'll look into that. But I'm not assuming that every person convicted might actually be innocent. If I felt that way I wouldn't put them in jail in the first place.

I'm just going to underscore that point. If I felt there was a chance a given individual was not guilty... I would not punish them at all.

Choose. I don't feel comfortable putting them in jail if they're not guilty. If they are guilty though, then I'm going to treat them that way.

This is binary. Guilty or not guilty. Which is it?

As to reasons why I'd execute someone besides revenge? How about because keeping them alive serves no purpose? That's one of my primary reasons. I don't see the point. He's never getting out. He's guilty. All he's doing is wasting oxygen.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

... not within the context of the law or the society that does the execution.

You can externally question the ethics but internally within the society an execution is by definition not a murder.

For example, if I am a dictator and I decide to execute all my rivals. Those are not murders within the context of my society because as the ruling authority they were sanctioned by me.

However, as an external agency you can make your own judgements on the matter. They are not of course binding within that dictatorship.

Now if you wish to impose the supremacy of your ethical system on the US government in contravention of law, jurisprudence, democracy, the republic, etc... then understand that your attitude is inherently invalid in the context of that society. You are speaking as an outsider or alien with a perspective that is not especially germane to that society.

That said, if you'd like to advocate for such a position... let me hear it. I have heard no argument in favor of banning executions that wasn't some tautology about how killing is wrong because killing is wrong because killing is wrong.

This is irrational by definition. Killing is not only not inherently wrong but often much celebrated by every culture in the right circumstances. The only thing that changes from one culture to the next is who is killed and how they are killed. Different societies of course want their various enemies to die and they tend to have certain taboos about how someone is killed.

But all of that is arbitrary and various cultures each have their own views on the matter. To presume that your view is superior to all others sans some kind of logic... it is cultural imperialism on your part at the very least. This belief that everyone has to share your view on execution or they're bad... never mind that you can't articulate why it is bad in the first place.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

I didn't say a trial was a punishment or a sentence.

As to your notion that I could give someone what they want by killing them... I can't speak to the sad delusions of maniacs.

Here is another way to think about executions... and it is largely how I think about them.

It is taking out the trash. It isn't about making them suffer. This new execution method for example is quite painless. The point of an execution is to not waste further energy on human trash. You kill them, throw out the corpse... move on. Here some fool will say "but they're human beings"... they were convicted in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed crimes worthy of execution. None but human garbage get that sentence. It is a disposal.

I am not going to hold on to various wastes of oxygen like some hoarder of psychopaths. We don't need arkham asylum.

Riddle me this... you have the Joker as a thought experiment. Batman has brought him in after he has yet again escaped to kill a few hundred people. He's sitting there giggling to himself and generally being creepy. Do you really want to put him back into a mental health cell? Because in the real world... in the US... We'd kill the Joker. He'd get a trial and then be executed... if he made it that far. There's a good chance he'd be killed resisting arrest whether he surrendered or not. And is that a bad thing?

People seem to have a hard time accepting moral responsibility for extreme acts.

I find this attitude sad. There were men that were capable of dropping atomic bombs for the right reasons and sleeping like babies when they went home. The reality is that you have to do nasty things on occasion. Sometimes the toliet needs to be cleaned. Sometimes you have to deal with a lot of raw meat that is sort of slimy. Sometimes you need to fire an employee that is of no use to the company. Sometimes you need to put a psychopath down.

Sure, we're a big rich country... we could keep all the various psychopaths in little glass jars like some child collecting beetles. But why? They were convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt. You either take that as valid or the entire justice system is undermined.

And if it is valid, then you throw the switch that has that fellow riding the lightning without a second thought. If the system is flawed, then fix the system. Do not talk to me about the sentence if your real issue is that we're convicting innocent men.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Who imprisons who when the government imprisons an innocent man? There are people that have spend their lives in prison on false charges... just as many as ever were killed on false charges.

When someone is imprisoned, and it turns out he is innocent, we set him free. It's not perfect, but it is the very least we need to do.

When we start reviving those innocent people killed, we can compare the two. Until then, killing an innocent person is killing an innocent person, no matter which legal term (execution or murder) it falls under. Legal terms are for the lawyers to argue about, they to not influence the morality of killing an innocent person.

Re:Idiotic

[phayes]

Thanks for this & your other posts which spell out how I feel as well.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, a kangaroo court is a slang term for a fixed/unfair/illegitimate/unethical court.

Are there any others?

In what country?

Ok, if you say Norway, I might accept that.

Re:Idiotic

[Kiuas]

As to nothing beneficial being achieved by killing someone... what is beneficial about keeping them alive?

The possibility of them being released if they turn out to be innocent of the crime they were sentenced of. This is the huge issue which you have been consistently neglecting because you choose to place higher value on killing convicted criminals than the collateral damage in the form of innocent people losing their life at the hands of the justice system, for whatever illogical reason. Also really, if there is no need to kill them to prevent them from doing harm - as there isn't in a situation in which you already have them detained - then there really is no good reason to kill them.

As to your statement that you're comfortable with the courts making life and death choices... okay. Then we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. The courts are competent to execute. Next issue.

Okay here's where I got to correct myself a bit, as I explained it badly in my previous response. I come from a country which has neither the death penalty nor the concept of "life without the possibility of parole", so I am not, indeed, fine with courts making life and death choices. What I meant to convey is that I recognize that the courts have the authority to incarcerate people they deem guilty to safeguard the society from crime, but also to try and rehabilitate the individual if and when possible. If not possible, then I recognize that there are cases in which the person may have to remain incarcerated for the rest of his/her life, but that is not something that I think the court has the power to decide once and for all, ie. the person will always be given a chance to seek freedom.

If he leaves the city and doesn't come back then that is that. Far less harmful than incarceration.

We've come a long way since the time just dumping our criminals to our neighbors was considered acceptable.

If you're not comfortable making nasty choices then you have no business throwing people in jail for years on end either.

I never said nor implied I'm uncomfortable making nasty choices, but for the millionth time killing someone who's already detained is not the same choice as imprisoning them, and I believing the latter is sometimes necessary for the safety of people in general, while the former
is not. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

There is no way to do this without hurting people. There is no lesser evil

Yes there is Again, in a hypothetical situation where I'd be wrongly accused of a major crime, I'd very much prefer being incarcerated to being killed. A more clear cut example of a a "lesser evil" is hard to imagine.

There is no good served by keeping a mass murderer alive in a jail cell, spending perhaps millions of dollars on his medical bills or whatever else.

Again, as said before it's cheaper to keep him alive, and making capital punishment less expensive would make it even more likely to take innocent lives, so this is really a non-argument.

He isn't entitled to it.

Again, this is your opinion. I believe everyone's right to life is irrevocable. That is to say, the only context in which someone can justifiably be killed by the state is if they cannot be captured. Once they're captured, the state can limit their freedom to keep the rest of us safe, but they cannot, however, take their life.

He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. If that later turns out to be false we'll look into that.

You're sidestepping my entire argument. The point is precisely that once you execute someone, you cannot 'look into that' later and then release them, whereas with life imprisonment, if 'beyond shadow of a doubt' fails and the guy is indeed innoc

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

... not within the context of the law or the society that does the execution.

Within the context of the law, no government ever committed a crime. Not Saddam, not The Kims, not Stalin, not Pol Pot, not the German who shall not be named.

Because they f**king wrote the law.

Re: Idiotic

[phayes]

Snort! Sure it would...
By your logic offering puppies would also be a valid incentive to getting criminals to turn themselves in.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

It is always nice to know I'm not alone. I get dog piled by ideologues and trolls with some consistency.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to the least you can do, the least you can do is have a justice system worth a damn.

Given your perspective, I don't see how you can convict anyone of anything. If I held your view, I'd have so little faith in the system that I'd just say we shouldn't have the trials at all. How can we trust them if they're constantly convicting innocent people and doubtless letting guilty people go all the time?

Either you have faith in the legal system or you don't.

Guilty or innocent is a BINARY solution set. There is no "maybe" option in it.

If you can't commit to that then the whole process if bullshit. We might as well just let all the doubtless innocent people out of jail right now, fire all the lawyers, fire all the judges, I'm not sure what the point of police are since they probably only exist to shoot random black people for no reason. And let the chips fall where they may.

Here you'll say I'm making an absurd argument. I'm not though... this is what we have left if the justice system falls apart.

Here is my core problem with your point. You're making what appears to me to be a dishonest argument.

You are saying that because the justice system is bullshit we can't give it the power to execute people. Then in every other situation you seem to be just fine with the bullshit nature of the justice system.

Stop right there. No. If it is not trust worthy to execute someone then I don't trust them to imprison someone either. If you're too incompetent to run a murder trial with execution as a sentence then you're too incompetent to run a murder trial with life in prison as a sentence.

It is a package deal. You can't say the justice system is JUST incompetent enough that they can't execute but totally competent to do the rest. That makes no fucking sense. If you can't be trusted to manage "no shadow of doubt" then you can't be trusted to do the rest.

The most disappointing aspect of this discussion is that I'm almost positive you're just using this "what about innocent people" argument as a ploy. I don't think you really are that worried about the integrity of the justice system. IF you were you'd be more inclined to rail against it in general rather than specifically on executions. I think you're using it as a ploy to argue against executions. And that's sad because I'd like to hear and contend with an honest argument rather than one cloaked in misinformation and half truths.

I am being completely straight with you. I feel we should execute people that have committed unforgivable crimes because they can't be permitted back into society and keeping them warehoused somewhere is a waste of resources.

That is literally why I feel the way I do. I also am utterly unburdened by your moral qualms about putting psychopaths down. I have no problem with it.

Imagine for the sake of argument that you felt the way I did... that you felt it was a waste of resources and you didn't especially feel any moral or ethical guilt at putting the a convicted murderer down.

Then imagine someone comes at you and hand wrings about how it is wrong to execute people.

This sounds very much like the vegan anti eating animals arguments. I'm going to eat bacon. It is going to happen. I'm also going to vote in favor of putting murderers down.

Not for revenge. I love that some of you think I want these people to suffer... If I had that intention then I'd be advocating torturing them. Do you people honestly think this is as nasty and wicked as I'm capable of being? The horrors I could unleash on someone under my power would probably cause you to lose your lunch.

I point that all out to make clear that I am NOT taking any revenge in putting them down. This is impersonal, clinical, cold. If I stroked my inner sadist then you'd know it. I can't decide if I'd go old fashioned with general dismemberment for shock and horror... or if I'd load the fellow up with psychotropics and break him and then turn him into something else just for the lolz.

Anyway... yeah... I'm not taking revenge. You would know it if I were. I'd either get medieval on the fellow or possibly Lewis Carroll on him.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong
In Iran it sure does, so does whipping in Singapore.
Put it on Netflix or HBO and the money will rush in

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Precisely. And if any of us have the right to question and ignore the law because we don't like it then what validity does the law have in any country?

Your point while valid is not relevant within the context of the host society. You need to make an argument that is relevant within our society and not presume to rewrite or nullify our laws from without.

Unless you have a big army you want to conquer us with over this issue... I mean, that was how we dealt with Saddam.

We said "hey saddam we don't like what you're doing" and he said "well its my country so I can do what I want"... and we said "oh really?"...

So... do you have a great big army to make me give a shit or not?

Because lets face it, you don't. And as you don't you're going to need to make an argument that has some relevance from WITHIN my society and not presume to judge me from without. I don't see why I need to care what you think. Your values and beliefs are just that... YOURS. They're not mine or everyone's or my society's. We don't really care what you think just because YOU think it.

How narcissistic are you that you think that just because you believe something every country on earth has to fall in line? Get over yourself.

Re: Idiotic

[DigiShaman]

It's certainly not cost; executing someone costs far more than life does.

Ok, morality and ethics aside for a moment...BULLSHIT! As the other poster pointed out, the cost of legal proceedings, food, shelter, and correctional facility staff get expensive. However, the cost of the actual materials involved in execution and cremation (burial and funeral paid by family if they wish) is far less.

Me? If members of ISIS are going to continue down a path of heinous activities then I vote we drop them where they stand. In fact, there's no honor in killing. Lets me honest about this. No, just drone strike them from above. The idea of a moral high-ground is a bunch of feel-good BS. If they remain a threat, just eliminate said threat.

Judge me how you wish, but I'm all about results. And if I had my druthers, you would get solid results! Just know full well you wouldn't agree with how I could achieve them.

War is hell, and we're all hypocrites. So be it.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Hardly anyone is undeserving of the opportunity to exit prison before the end of their lives. Even murderers - who are often people who got into a fight which went wrong, not the cold psychopaths you see on TV - are mostly as likely to murder again as, say, you.

2. Those locked up can still have a life - just one in prison. Those in prison and can eat, socialise, study, and labour. The same things people out of prison do, but instead of being confined to a planet, they've confined to a building on a planet. On a large enough scale, we're all geographically restricted, but we still find a way to get by.

3. "I don't understand" is not a justification for anything. You've just confessed to ignorance. So, stop speaking and educate yourself before spouting an uninformed rant.

4. Capital punishment is not a deterrent. Anything with no point that also causes suffering is pure sadism. And ideological angles like "An eye for an eye!" are merely sadism justified with religious handwaving.

5. There is a much lower chance of remedying incorrect capital punishment than any other. All systems are implemented in reality, so only an idiot ignores reality.

6. All life has potential. Extinguishing life is therefore a gratuitous waste.

7. You could be the next person found guilty of something you didn't do - like around 1 in 11 on death row. Fortunately, there are people more compassionate than you who will make sure you are less likely to die than you would want.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to keeping someone alive simply on the off chance that there was a shadow of a doubt... again, I'm not imprisoning people at all unless I have confidence in the system.

At all.

As to your belief that you're not comfortable with courts making life and death choices... long term imprisonment is a life and death choice. You're taking their life away and putting them in a cage.

If you don't have confidence that you were correct in convicting that person then you're an uncaring monster.

You either have confidence in the system or you don't.

There is no "maybe" option in a court of law. Not in the US and not in whatever country you're from. There is innocence and there is guilt.

That's it. End. Done. Period.

You convict or you don't.

If you convict, then you need to own it. If you don't then let him go.

As to you not liking the idea of exile... hey, you don't want me to kill the guy... I'm giving you the opportunity to have fun with him instead. You can put him in a prison cell if you want and feed him. Give him to me and if he did terrible things then there is a good chance I'm going to put him down. So... do you care about this precious human life enough to save it? Or just enough to attempt to make me feel badly about putting down a murderer. Because I won't feel bad. I don't value his life. He's a waste of resources.

As to it not being required to kill them... neither is it required to keep them alive.

As to capital punishment being too expensive, not really. It only expensive because the cases have about a million appeals and people on death row draw it out endlessly even if they're guilty as sin because it means they stay alive longer.

If you haven't figured it out in 12 months then you're doing it wrong. One year after the initial trial is concluded... and the execution happens. I'll wait 12 months AFTER conviction. That is generous and patient. I am agreeing to hold a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt for 12 months on the chance that some new evidence will come up. If you haven't found it in 12 months then its time for your last meal. The existing system is so expensive because sometimes these guys are in appeals for 10 years after conviction. That is fucking retarded. 10 years of appeals? Give me a fucking break.

As to the right to life being irrevocable... okay then where is the right for me to feed this person or shelter them? Or give them medical care? See, my response to your notion that I can't kill him because his life is sacred is that I'm going to put him on a plane and send him to your country. You can take care of him.

He will not eat my food. I could starve him death in a cell if you want... seems crueler than the other options but I'm not feeding him. He gets nothing from me. You say he is entitled to live... the problem is that he is not entitled to live in my society and I am not obligated to feed him. So how does he live when he can't be in my society and I don't have to feed him? Are mass murderers entitled to my food as well? Why do I have to help them live? These people killed people. You wish to permit them to become a further burden on our society? No. If you want them we could probably ship them to your country by the thousand. Have fun with them. There are more than a few of these people.

And of course if you doubt the accuracy of our justice system and think we convicted a bunch of innocent people then put them on your streets. Your funeral. ;-D Within 24 hours a few of them will be wearing some of your citizens skin for clothing... raping and murdering their way across the country.

And when you've come upon yet another child with its head cut off and jammed onto a spike... you might realize why I'm so comfortable putting these people down.

Contrary to what you hear from the media this is not something we do lightly in the US. We put people down that are monsters. Is the system perfect? Nothing is perfect. The vast overwhelming majority of them are monsters. I thin

Re:Idiotic

[houghi]

4%? Holy fuck! It should not be unreasonable that this number is higher with others (because it is even scarier to think that it would be higher with people who are in death row), but let us assume that this is the average:
2,266,800 in Incarceration in the US. That means 90.672 people innocently in prison.

That is a LOT of inncocent people. That means also a LOT of innocent bystanders, like wifes and children.

Re:Idiotic

[danbert8]

To be fair, you can't really undo life in prison either...

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying... are you saying all courts throughout the world are illegitimate... besides Norway for some reason?

Fine... then you say the legal process is invalid and... anarchy.

See, I was right the first time... you people are so ideologically blinkered that you'll support a line of logic that undermines the entire government and society and civilization simply to attack capital punishment.

It is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face... or possibly your penis... something unpleasant. You can't attack capital punishment and JUST capital punishment by saying the courts suck. That undermines the courts in general.

Come on... Logic. Think it through.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

> That's not true. It's 20 years of legal appeals that cost so much. Which you do on purpose, so that you can come back here and say it costs too much.

Well, let's end the appeals then.

Wait, that was claimed to be necessary by someone. Surely this Queen of Hearts "off with his head" attitude will make you a lot more respected in the international scene.

BTW, thank you all for modding my posts -1. I resorted to searching for the string "-1" and lo! All posts with "-1" are great posts (at least, most, there may be exceptions as a proper moderation -- but I learned that is somewhat improbable).

Re:Idiotic

[zeddgara]

You're statement that the death penalty "will have no effect on whether a murder will happen or not" is flawed when your only example is the person who committed murder despite the death penalty. How about those who didn't kill because there is a death penalty attached to that action? Is it unreasonable to believe that someone would cease actions towards murder after contemplation of the consequences? Have innocent people been put to death? Probably, the statistics alone assume there are going to be those, but also it is easily believed that the threat of a death penalty has saved lives as well, a grim balance perhaps.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

1. We don't imprison someone for life over a bar fight that went wrong. Your statement displays a painful amount of ignorance as to how the law works. I do not mean that as an insult... I am merely expressing my frustration with your own unawareness with how little you know.

For example we have many tiers of murder:

First you have manslaughter:
Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C..[1]

The definition of manslaughter differs from place of jurisdiction. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind, or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors). Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all jurisdictions.[2]

In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada, and some Australian states, "adequate provocation" is a partial defense to a charge of murder, which, if accepted by the jury, would convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. In Australia, specifically New South Wales, manslaughter is a common law offence as it is not defined in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) under section 18(1)(b). [3]

Then you have third degree murder

Third degree is a murder that happens while you attempting to hurt someone but not actually kill them. Your bar fight would be a third degree murder or the very weakest possible kind.

Then you have second degree murder

Second degree tends to include crimes of passion. Getting really mad and in the spur of the moment killing someone on purpose. The husband or wife that walks in on their significant other cheating on them and attacks with intent to kill would be second degree.

Then you have first degree murder

First degree is premeditated cold methodical murder. This is where someone thought about it, did some planning, or did some seriously fucked up shit along the way that causes the courts to label the murders "aggravated" because they were especially nasty.

Of these FOUR types of killing only the last one is going to get you even considered for a death penalty. And even then, it tends to require that the incident be especially ruthless or horrible.

So no... no one is going to the gas chamber because of a bar fight unless the judge was a real piece of shit. Which is possible. But that is not how it typically works.

Re:Idiotic

[sls1j]

No that's not right you should say: we kill people who murder people. There is a big difference. We don't have the death penalty for accidental killings, or usually even deaths from negligence. Murder is punished by death because those that purposely disregard the sanctity of life of their fellow citizens are dangerous and deemed unfit for society and perhaps even deemed unhuman thus they are put to death (yes killed).

Re:Idiotic

[LWATCDR]

"Okay, but if one is of the opinion (as I am) that murder is always wrong, then saying "well we held this trail so now this is legal" does not change the moral argument one bit."
So if a someone has taken hostages and has killed a few of them an officer shooting the gunman is immoral?

I am actually anti death penalty but it is just as black and white as you make it.
It can be argued that some people are to dangerous to risk ever letting out of the prison system or ever risk them escaping.

Re:Idiotic

[swillden]

You either have confidence in the system or you don't.

I'm largely in agreement with your arguments, but this claim is nonsense. Confidence isn't boolean, it's a continuum. It makes perfect sense to talk about degree of confidence, and one can have enough confidence to imprison but not to execute.

FWIW, my opinion is that I have no moral problem with execution following a proper trial with an appropriate standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt is good), but I'm opposed to capital punishment because it's a waste of money. It ought to be cheaper than life imprisonment, but because execution is final we add a raft of additional legal processes, with the idea that they help to raise our confidence in the correctness of the conviction enough that we're okay with taking this irreversible step. There are two problems with that: First, the additional processes still don't actually increase our confidence enough and second, they actually cost more than caring for the accused for the remainder of his or her natural life.

That second point is, IMO, fatal to the concept of capital punishment. If it's cheaper and easier to just lock them up until they die then the only possible justification for the death penalty is the theoretical deterrent effect, but no one has ever shown any compelling evidence that the effect is significant.

Re:Idiotic

[sh00z]

But you can appeal it if new evidence comes to light.

Re:Idiotic

[Eunuchswear]

The "Boston Marathon Bomber" admitted to his acts. There was no doubt from that moment onward.

Untrue. The accused is at least as unreliable as any other witness.

Luckily in this case there is more evidence that just a confession.

Absent a freely-given, non-coerced confession there is always reasonable doubt.

How do you know a confession is "freely-given" and "non-coerced"? And even if it is, how do you know it's true?

Also, do you realise that you are claiming that there should be no convictions without a confession? A jury cannot convict if there is "reasonable doubt".

Re:Idiotic

[Kiuas]

As to keeping someone alive simply on the off chance that there was a shadow of a doubt... again, I'm not imprisoning people at all unless I have confidence in the system.

At all.

Having confidence in the system is one thing, of course there needs to be confidence in the justice system. However, no model or system of justice is perfect. We know people get wrongly convicted. That's just a fact of being human, errors happen.

This is not something one can get rid of, so it needs to be taken into consideration when setting up the system. We know a certain percentage of people who end up in jail or in death row are innocent, and we have to account for this possibility somehow.

Now as I said, the only way to make absolutely sure no innocents ever get executed by the state is to not have executions at all. This is why it has become the norm of justice in the most of the rest of the world outside the US.

You either have confidence in the system or you don't.

Having confidence in the system does not mean one has to at the same time believe/assume and act as if the system is flawless and makes no erroneous judgements ever.

If you convict, then you need to own it. If you don't then let him go.

Yes, and if you later find out you've convicted wrongly, you need to equally own up to it and let him go. If you execute and execute wrongly, you've just killed an innocent man and there's no recourse you can offer him/her whatsoever.

Give him to me and if he did terrible things then there is a good chance I'm going to put him down. So... do you care about this precious human life enough to save it?

No I won't and yes I do. Which is precisely why we do not extradite people to states and nations in which they might face the capital punishment, and neither do most other countries in the European Union.

As to capital punishment being too expensive, not really. It only expensive because the cases have about a million appeals and people on death row draw it out endlessly even if they're guilty as sin because it means they stay alive longer.

How come then, even as a result of this massive process you have people who are innocent being released from death row? Clearly the system is dysfucntional in that even with the 'million appeals' it is not successful in rooting out all of the innocent people, and you want to make it simpler? Remember, all of these people have been convicted originally 'beyond reasonable doubt', and all of them were 'guilty as sin' before it was discovered that they actually weren't.

I'll wait 12 months AFTER conviction. That is generous and patient. I am agreeing to hold a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt for 12 months on the chance that some new evidence will come up

Most of the people who have been released as innocent have been released far, far after 12 months in death row, so clearly drawing a line at 12 months will only serve to increase the amount of people being wrongfully executed and make the issue worse.

See, my response to your notion that I can't kill him because his life is sacred is that I'm going to put him on a plane and send him to your country. You can take care of him.

You can kill him, it's your country and your laws. I'm saying that I do not agree with those laws, and would not turn over a man to be executed. If you can somehow convince the US authorities to ship the people on death row to Europe because your sense of humanity is at the level of a bronze aged tribesmen sure I'll take 'em. Won't be holding my breath though.

And to conclude, you have not convinced me that you have a legal system that is capable of not imprisoning innocent people. If you can't keep yourself from imprisoning innocent people then you really shouldn't be

Re: Idiotic

[DrLang21]

Our politicians would certainly like you to think so.

Re:Idiotic

[Eunuchswear]

I have arthritis.

I.E. my immune system is killing innocents.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Where on a continuum is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

As to capital punishment being too expensive, that is because they can appeal for ten million years. Have the execution one year after conviction unless enough evidence comes forward to call the initial trail into question.

Do that and the cost of execution will fall far below life in prison.

If you're in for life without parol you don't get all these appeals which is why it is cheaper. it is the LEGAL costs of the execution and not the execution itself.

What is more, the costs are only so high because the people opposed to it are basically trolling us by setting unreasonable standards to get the exact response from you that you are giving them.

They want to control your actions by trolling you. You don't stop trolls by giving them what they want. They're like fucking terrorists that instead of killing you annoy you. The worst thing you can do is give them what they want.

If these people want to have an HONEST debate about the issue in the houses of congress then we can do that. If they want to play a bunch of fucking games to try and get their way without actually carrying the argument then they can go fuck themselves with a rake.

Re:Idiotic

[Kiuas]

So if a someone has taken hostages and has killed a few of them an officer shooting the gunman is immoral?

I was talking specifically about trials and the capital punishment. If you read my next response to him you'll note that I agree there are situations wherein use of lethal force is justified to neutralize someone who's an immediate threat to others around him.

This is an entirely different issue because we're talking about what to do with the people who have been caught and detained.

It can be argued that some people are to dangerous to risk ever letting out of the prison system or ever risk them escaping.

Yes, both of those thing can be argued, and the first one is most assuredly true in some cases. However, the main argument I've been making the whole time is that the existence of capital punishment creates a situation in which sooner or later innocent people will die at the hands of the state, because evn the lengthy appeals process is not perfect by any means.

To me, this alone is enough to keep the death penalty banned forever. I'll take the risk of a murderer escaping prison over the state accidentally killing someone who's done nothing wrong.

Re:Idiotic

[snsh]

That's irrelevant, as the justice system is not to be a method for taking revenge, but to make society a better place to live in, with less crime.

Reality is never that simple. Justice systems have multiple inputs and must serve a variety of needs. Some of those are political, and some of them are providing revenge.

Re:Idiotic

[LWATCDR]

" However, the main argument I've been making the whole time is that the existence of capital punishment creates a situation in which sooner or later innocent people will die at the hands of the state, because evn the lengthy appeals process is not perfect by any means."
So in cases where their is no doubt you feel it is okay?
Take the Boston Bomber for example.

As I said I am anti death penalty myself for the very reason you give but that argument could be changed to raise the requirement for the death penalty as well. As I was trying to say arguments can be made for both sides.
I never take joy in any death but I can see the need at times for such an event to happen.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis held many trials, in fact they were very efficient in officially processing and adjudicating against enemies of the state before they were executed. It is not uncommon for innocent people to be sentenced to death by juries in the US. A trial doesn't make murder moral, just legal.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

I am either confident enough to put someone down or I'm not confident enough to even lock them up.

You can't undermine the justice system without undermining the justice system. You're saying it is only shit in one situation and that is unsupportable. It is either shit in general or it isn't.

As to you saying you care, then we can ship our convicts to your country? Please say yes because we can start filling jumbo jets right now.

If not, then this is our affair thank you very much. I'm not feeding convicted mass murderers. They can ride the lightning.

As to your claim that 12 months is not enough time. That's all I'm giving you. Take it or leave it. You can't wait longer than that.

Guess I'm just going to have to live with you being outraged... Oh well.

As to you not turning over a man to be executed... whatever. If my country needs something from yours we have more than enough leverage to get what we need. I mean... if you want to play the who has a bigger dick game? I'm not especially interested in it. But you seem to think you have leverage on me because you keep saying "I won't extradite people". Well, fine. In most cases we won't care. In the event where we do, we'll have a private conversation with your people and work out an equitable compromise.

Generally the only thing we'd want that would rise to the level of a diplomatic incident would be information. So, we might bargain for the information which we can pay for by providing our own information about various things. Beyond that... you want to hold on to a murderer? Have fun with him. You can put him in charge of your kindergarteners for all I care.

As to what is and is not immoral... that is your opinion. I am already on record with the opinion that your moral stance is hypocritical and naive. It doesn't make sense. You're attempting to claim the system is unfair in one context that would naturally effect everything. If the justice system is unreliable then why are you imprisoning people falsely? You say it isn't the same thing but that is only your opinion. If you are falsely imprisoning me, falsely fining me, and falsely doing everything... the occasional false execution is a drop in the bucket when the vast majority of what you do is not an execution and equally likely if not more likely to be false.

For every person falsely executed how many people are falsely imprisoned? And how do you equate the value of one executed person with how ever many imprisoned people?

The ratio in the US between imprisoned to executed is thousands to one.

What percentage of people do you think are falsely executed? I'll let you cite a number. I'm going to then multiply that number by the ratio of imprisoned to executed people... and then I'm going to assume the numbers are higher with the imprisoned because the legal rigor is lower.

The number is going to be big enough that you're going to have a hard time justifying it.

But at the same time you're going to know you have no choice. It has to be done. You have to accept the system.

When OJ Simpson was acquitted you had three groups of people that had opinions about it.

Group one said he was innocent because he was black and the white man has it out for black people.

Group two said he was guilty because he had a load of circomstancial evidence on him and he ran from the scene and was acting crazy.

Group three said the jury did not find him guilty therefore he is not guilty.

Which of those groups do you think I fell into? ...

Group Three.

And that sword cuts both ways. Just as I will despite my better judgment say a man is innocent because a jury of his peers found him to be innocent, I will likewise hold a man as guilty if found guilty. If the jury votes for the death penalty, then not only am I willing to have the axe drop... the axe MUST drop. Justice must be done. The court has ruled. Execute the sentence.

As to life in prison being a lesser sentence that death... of course... that is why only the worst criminals get sentenced to death. Obviously. These are people that are beyond redemption. That is the point. A person that didn't go away for a capital crime might be redeemable. A capital offender though? There's no point.

Re:Idiotic

[Kiuas]

So in cases where their is no doubt you feel it is okay?
Take the Boston Bomber for example.

No, I'm not, as like I said I do not believe the justice system should hold the power to kill anyone, as I believe even criminals have the right to be alive if they're successfully captured.

As I was trying to say arguments can be made for both sides.

Certainly they can, I just do not agree with the argumentation of the other side.

I never take joy in any death but I can see the need at times for such an event to happen.

As I said, in the form of the police having to use deadly force, certainly. Whereas the justice system, not so much.

Re:Idiotic

[arth1]

You're statement that the death penalty "will have no effect on whether a murder will happen or not" is flawed when your only example is the person who committed murder despite the death penalty.

What part of "Almost all murders happen either in affect, or in a situation where the perpetrator thinks he can get away with it" did you fail to understand? Those two types of murders is not impacted by whether there's a death penalty or not.

A couple of less common murder types are also not affected:
- Those who seek martyrdom. Actually, I think many of those would prefer there being a death penalty.
- Those who seek to go out in a blaze of glory, i.e. never be tried and sentenced.

So what murders, exactly, are affected? Who are those who will kill if there's a life sentence, but not if there's a death penalty? Statistics don't show lessened murder rates for states with capital punishment, so who are those people?

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Well technically it makes it not a murder either. It makes it an execution.

Now you want to equate executions in the US with the Nazi gas chambers?

Really? *laughs*

Whatever, by this same logic all imprisonments are also invalid... there were a lot of people in concentration camps as well, remember? Your stupid nazi references would invalidate any state action. I mean, the nazis also arrested people and fined people. Are all arrests and fines fascistic?

Obviously not... neither are all executions. Give me a flying fucking break.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. People can escape from prison and commit crimes. It happens quite a bit. In addition they can commit crimes, even murder, in a prison against other inmates or employees. But I guess they don't matter much?

Re:Idiotic

[petermgreen]

You can't undo prison time already served but assuming the screwup comes to light before the person dies you can at least release them to live out the rest of the life as a free person. You could also compensate them financially though I don't know if any country actually does that.

Afaict the main reason the USA still has the death penalty is to bully people into plea bargins for life imprisonment (and no I don't think this is a good thing, I think the whole plea bargin system is abhorrent).

Re: Idiotic

[stdarg]

There are always worse things. Loss of privileges or even full isolation seem pretty effective even for people already in prison.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Treat it like every other case: if a group of people conspire to murder someone, they are all guilty. By that logic, every person involved in the guilty conviction of an innocent person would have to be executed. This would include the judge, jury, and prosecutor at the very, very least. It is possibly the only way to make the death penalty just.

Re:Idiotic

[RabidReindeer]

Another word for prison is Penitentary. As in penitence.

The idea - and this long predates the Political Correctness of the 20th/21st Centuries is that it's a place for people to reflect upon their crimes. And ideally, repent. Something that doesn't happen often, granted, but it does happen.

A religious person (Judaeo/Christian/Muslim) who promotes executions is doing exactly what religious people condemn in suicides - usurping God's right to determine how long a person has to repent or otherwise be useful before they're called to account. And the Bible indicates in no uncertain terms that a person doesn't have to be a model citizen to be useful for God.

A non-religious person is on firmer ground, but in practical terms, a lot of people would have been glad to see Hirohito executed for the atrocities committed in his name during WWII. As an emperor, he may not have provided the best moral compass, but he did provide noted contributions to the field of Marine Biology after the war. Nelson Mandela was up for the death penalty, but having been spared, he and Botha later did what was almost inconceivable - converting South Africa to black majority rule without major bloodshed or revenge-seeking.

It's all well to summarily declare that convicted felons are a "waste of oxygen". In many cases they are, but that's hardly justification to dispose of the manure before picking out the diamonds.

Plus, even if we don't want to harvest such slim pickings, there's the final practical bean-counter consideration. In the USA, the appeals process is extensive and expensive. More so than merely warehousing "oxygen-wasters" for a few decades. We could, of course, reduce or eliminate appeals. Hell, we could simply tear them apart in the streets Pakistani-style. But once upon a time, we had concepts like "assumed innocent until proven guilty" and "better 1000 guilty go free than 1 innocent be punished" and despite vigorous efforts over the last 20 years or so, there are still shreds of this attitude in the US justice system. And it costts money and we still end up executing a few innocent people every year.

There are countries that the USA likes to consider itself morally superior to that do not support a death penalty. Conversely, most of the countries that still do are not on the whole a crowd to brag about hanging around with.

Re: Idiotic

[kilfarsnar]

I approve of the death penalty for those who commit premeditated murder. I don't care if it is a deterrent or not. It is just. People who deliberately murder others don't deserve to continue living.

Good, good. Let the hate flow through you.

Re:Idiotic

[kilfarsnar]

My immune system kills harmful agents. Why shouldn't societies?

I'm going to go with, because humans are not bacteria.

Re:Idiotic

[man_the_king]

Here's a thought: Why not give someone who is convicted of such major crimes the choice between life imprisonment or death?

Re:Idiotic

[putaro]

Imprisonment is irreversible as well - you can't get your time back.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

In regards to religious people, prisons predate Christianity. And for the record I'm agnostic.

As to picking diamonds out of the shit, that is the point of the court trial.

If we don't have kangaroo courts then the sentences are valid. If we do then all sentences are suspect.

Choose one.

As to execution trials being expensive, I have addressed this repeatedly. That is an artifact of the anti execution lobby. They've effectively tried to ban executions by making them prohibitively expensive. It is basically legislative trolling. Limit the appeals process to one year after the trial. If you can't find enough evidence to call the initial verdict into question by that point... carry out the sentence.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

That argument cuts both ways. Not just against people seeking redress of grievances but also against those owed their final rewards.

Justice is not just about you getting stuff. Think upon the blind lady. Note that she carries her scales in one hand and her double edged sword in the other. It is a miscarriage of justice to not execute a just sentence as much as it is to execute a false one.

Have the case. See that due process is done. Log the sentence, follow a reasonable process afterwards if you want some appeals to be in place. But the sentence must be carried out in a timely manner. A year of delay is quite generous. More than that is procrastination.

If the appeal process stops at one year because the guilty party is dead... then the costs associated with the process become quite reasonable.

Re: Idiotic

[jfengel]

It's certainly not cost; executing someone costs far more than life does.

Only because the standard of proof is so high. We have a lot of protections in place for those who stand accused of a capital crime, precisely because it's so final.

And that's good, but that says less about capital punishment than it says about the difficulty of proof. How many people are put in prison for decades, sometimes to die there, because their cases don't attract as much attention and aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny? Prison is still punishment, made worse in many places (including the US) by subjecting the prisoners to each other. Last year 82 prisoners in UK prisons killed themselves, more than twice the 35 people who were executed in the US (with a vastly larger prison population). (I'm sorry; I couldn't find data on US prison suicides but I suspect it's at least comparably high.)

I wish we could provide all of the accused with the level of scrutiny that they deserve. It would save a great many lives from being ruined, a fate I find at least as horrifying as execution.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this as a false moral equivalence.
There's a huge gulf of a difference between legal execution and some sick bastard who kills **innocent** people without any provocation. If you cannot grasp this basic truth, you are conflating two very different things. Take the life of an innocent person or persons, deliberately, and just maybe yours should be forfeit.
Consider someone who took innocent human lives - not even necessarily someone who killed in a crime of passion, but more particularly and especially those "special" monsters who are serial murderers (Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer, etc) , or who commit particularly heinous crimes like invade a home, tie up an entire family, rape the wife repeatedly making everyone else watch, then kill the children while the parents watch in horror, then kill the wife, then finally the father (it's happened)... there is no comparing that kind of inhuman monster to a State which removes that kind of monster from among us, permanently. Why do we need monsters like that among us, even sitting in a jail getting 3 squares a day, a roof over their head, climate control, television, gym access, etc. The kind of monster I'm referring to will not feel remorse, he will not rehabilitate, he will only lament getting caught. He may even be able to spread his sick world view onto others. What is the benefit of leaving such a monster alive with a chance of a prison breakout, or parole due to a clerical error, or the ability to inspire other inmates who are released?
That said, the death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst, and the evidence must be irrefutable; DNA evidence should perhaps be mandatory.

Re:Idiotic

[RabidReindeer]

You base your final judgement on what the person is now and what they were.

Execution leaves no room for what they might become. Diamonds, after all started out as coal.

To paraphrase a well-known Catholic writer, "If you can't bring them back to life, don't be so hasty to put them to death". Even Gollum served a higher purpose in the end.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Yep. That's how sentencing works. Same as with putting people in prison. I don't put someone in prison for what they will be but what they were and are. Same thing.

What if I told you that putting a young man in prison would hurt his career opportunities? That he might have been a famous poet or painter or scientist or politician. But you put him jail for knifing someone and now none of that is going to happen because he's going to spend the better part of his life in jail.

How sorry do you feel about that? That is precisely how sorry I feel about throwing the switch.

You commit multiple first degree murders... you're not a diamond. You're shit. Case closed. Stick your head in this noose and walk off that plank.

Next issue.

Re:Idiotic

[operagost]

Also, the costs of a death row inmate by far exceeds the costs of a long term imprisonment. (This is particularly true in the states that allow prison slave labor - which has a high correlation to the states that allow capital punishment). The many rounds of appeals that a death sentence automatically trigger cost a heck of a lot more than the room and board.

That's a dangerous argument in this case because a lot of death penalty proponents would simply reply that the appeal process is too lengthy, and that is not an inherent difficulty with the death penalty.

Re:Idiotic

[master_kaos]

Sad part is he is probably right. Put any execution on PPV and I bet it would make a "killing"

Re:Idiotic

[topology]

No, but you can get some semblance of your freedom back. (modulo any trauma endured during incarceration which alters your personality and decision making.)

Re:Idiotic

[Jiro]

Having a chance X of reversibility per year for a life sentence is the same as having a different chance Y of reversibility as long as they are on death row and having a zero chance of reversibility after the execution. If there are values for X you accept, there must be values for Y you would accept.

Re:Idiotic

[Kjella]

And if no one ever determines that the innocent person is innocent, then their life is completely wasted in prison, in my opinion.

New technology like DNA, deathbed confessions, evidence found or witness statements withdrawn years or decades later can show a ruling, no matter how correct it seemed at the time to be wrong and without there being any active investigation. Sure if I've been ensnared by unfortunate circumstances or framed I'd rather you find the truth straight away, but I'd rather be wrongfully imprisoned than wrongfully executed. As long as there's life there's hope that I'll be a free man again and you can't conclusively say it won't happen until I'm dead.

Sure, it almost certainly won't happen but proponents of the death sentence is using the likely outcome to justify the means. It's like basing a warrant on the assumption that you'll find something to justify the search. Yes you've lost the presumption of innocence, but when humans make decisions on worldly evidence and testimony there'll always be a smidgen of doubt left. Posthumously clearing a name might not matter much to the dead, but it matters to friends and family and helps prove the system isn't perfect. And though it can't get better it won't be perfect and we can't turn back time, but we can give the innocent every chance they can get. And that ought to be enough.

Re:Idiotic

[rubycodez]

Nonsense, with the forensics available now we have very little chance of killing innocents, unlike the past.

Very logical to eliminate the dangerous and the monsters

Re:Idiotic

[rubycodez]

You have proof of that often touted urban legend?

Re:Idiotic

[StikyPad]

But I believe the OP did make a point, while kind of vague, about asking who executes who if you execute an innocent man?

Only if you think people should be executed for acting in good faith in accordance with the law, which seems a bit absurd, especially if you're against capital punishment.

Re:Idiotic

[rubycodez]

Now that we have the new technology, we can be sure of killing the guilty.
Time to take out the trash

Re:Idiotic

[StikyPad]

Capital punishment is a legal argument, not a moral one. The two are only tangentially related, at best, otherwise name-calling and being a bad parent would be illegal. In a democracy, law is about how many people support an idea, or don't care enough to oppose it, not how moral it is.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the state does kill people, without trial. Just take a look at what we commonly refer to as collateral damage. To be clear, that term refers to the incidental killing of often innocent (and sometimes guilty) bystanders who are not the primary target of a military strike, often under the guise of combating terrorism, using drones, flying over foreign soil.

Those who die from collateral damage were killed by the state, without justification. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time in the presence of the wrong people does not justify the wanton slaughter of otherwise innocent people.

And don't claim that we didn't know they were there. As has been often documented, the presence of innocents before ordering the strike has been known, and the strike is ordered anyway. If that isn't murder by the state, I really don't know what would be.

Yes, execution and murder are different. But don't pretend that the state doesn't murder as well.

Re: Idiotic

[xaxa]

Last year 82 prisoners in UK prisons killed themselves, more than twice the 35 people who were executed in the US (with a vastly larger prison population).

Suicides: for England and Wales it's 82 (0.10%), for the USA it's 520, about 0.02%.

and 0 vs 35 executions.

Re:Idiotic

[michael_cain]

Indeed. I used to be a budget analyst for the state legislature in my state, and the cost for the various procedures that are followed in the event the prosecutor is asking for a death sentence runs about a million dollars. The extra costs cover a very thorough audit of the process, from initial investigation through final sentencing, and the costs of the appeals up through several levels of courts. State prison costs run about $35K per year per inmate, so that million dollars would cover almost 30 years of incarceration. The entire legal process from beginning to end typically takes ten years, so the state will pay for 10 years incarceration in addition to the million.

The death sentence is seldom sought. We do have one case in progress now where the prosecutor is seeking the death sentence; the accused killed 12 and injured 70 in a mass shooting. I can fairly safely say that the accused did it, as he offered, through his attorney, to plead guilty if the sentence was life without parole. After almost three years, the case has reached jury selection. The trial will be a travesty of dueling experts arguing over whether the accused was insane at the time or not. I figure there's a fair chance the verdict will be not guilty by reason of insanity, and he'll still get life without parole despite all the bills the prosecutor is racking up.

Re: Idiotic

[pixelpusher220]

If they remain a threat, just eliminate said threat.

Worked well when fighting the mythical Lernaean Hydra...unless of course you've discovered the modern equivalent of torching the stumps after every each head is cut off; we seem to be missing that part of the story currently.

Drone strikes make MORE terrorists not less.

Re:Idiotic

[chilenexus]

Nail, meet head.

"It doesn't work in reducing crime"
There's been studies done that show that harsher sentences actually make crime worse. After all, if someone has done something that is very likely to result in a death sentence or life in prison, what possible incentive would they have to stop committing any further crime or atrocity? The rate that we rack up the years to keep someone in prison just means that alleged criminals take less time to reach the point where they see it as an impossibility for their situation to get any worse, and they might as well go for the largest payoff they can.

The Scandinavian countries, Norway in particular, have much more reasonable sentences and have geared their prisons towards preparing the inmates to rejoin society, as opposed to the US' system of vindictive punishment and destruction of the criminal as a human being. As a result, Norway has the lowest recidivism rate in the world (20%), and a similarly low crime rate. Comparatively, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and a recidivism rate that hovers around 67% from year to year.(75% - source: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?t... )

The numbers would seem to indicate that "harsh on crime" policies ought to be considered "harsh on everyone", since they mean that we spend more money per prisoner and that we have more prisoners than the next dozen countries combined. One in five prisoners in the world are in US prisons. Our imprisonment addiction is almost as bad and destructive as our military spending addiction (since we spend more on defense than the next 14 largest defense-spending countries combined). In it's entire history there have been only 21 years where the US hasn't participated in a war. (source: http://www.informationclearing... )

Re:Idiotic

[pixelpusher220]

Some people do see the justice system as a method for taking revenge

How people see it is likewise irrelevant. It's put in place expressly to prevent 'revenge' from being the method of retribution.

Again, changing the punishment to life incarceration doesn't make the problem go away.

Given that we've just found out that the FBI has screwed up 1000s of cases including 30+ who are now dead and perhaps wouldn't be...life is infinitely better.

No, the person's life is just as wasted

That tells us plenty about your opinion...I'd wager most people on death row would see it slightly differently. And 100% of those now dead would see it differently. Being 'free' for even an hour is still probably worth, quite seriously, millions of dollars to those people (and the local populace who gets to pay it)

Re:Idiotic

[jafac]

I remember when the Death Penalty was reinstated in the US.

The proponents, in the popular media, said that it was necessary for the drug war - and would only be used in extreme cases, for Drug Kingpins, and Serial Killers, where there was no doubt about guilt, because there was overwhelming evidence, and full confession.

As it turns out - this was absolutely not the case.

Re:Idiotic

[chilenexus]

"sooner or later innocent people will die at the hands of the state"

A recent study put their admittedly very conservative figure for US wrongful executions at 4.1% So it would seem to be a more regular occurrence than eventuality.
Source: http://time.com/79572/more-inn...

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

>Either you admit your error or you're effectively advocating anarchy.

I'm the one who posted it, and actually, I *am* an anarchist. However, others have pointed out that you don't have to be an anarchist to believe it.

>At which point there is no law.

True

>We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.

False. I believe you were probably told this fairy tale by your school, weren't you? A vast majority of anarchists strongly support the non-aggression principle, which would create the opposite of a mad-max hell hole. Being as the philosophy has never been tried, you're free to believe as you wish, of course, as neither of us has hard facts to prove either outcome.

Re: Idiotic

[jfengel]

I find it kind of remarkable that it's so low in the US. I wonder why that is. I can't imagine that conditions are any better. Or are UK prisons that much worse?

Could we be taking stronger steps to prevent it? (Surely not.) Could it be something about our pro-imprisonment culture that makes for a different mind-set among prisoners? Perhaps the record keeping is different?

I'm not any kind of expert, so this is the rankest speculation. The factor-of-five difference is very striking.

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

Well that's a valid criticism however you haven't limited your statements. Why is this only relevant in executions but not anywhere else? Why can't I apply your argument to everything else? The problem is that you may be trying to eat your cake and have it too. That is the core of my actual argument. Not a slippery slope argument. I am instead accusing you of hypocrisy. Because you're applying this logic on one specific context and no where else.

I already answered that. Many people and countries consider execution to be "cruel and unusual" punishment that can never be justified. It is widely accepted (including in the U.S. Constitution) that a government should never try to keep its people safe by threatening them with cruel and unusual punishment. That is the standard that "limits my statements."

So you argue that anyone who says on the one hand that the state is not justified in executing people, yet on the other says that the state is allowed to imprison people, is logically inconsistent. E.g., "There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping." And, "you'll support a line of logic that undermines the entire government and society and civilization simply to attack capital punishment." And, "You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?" Etc. You literally argue that anyone who says the state doesn't have the right to execute people is really an anarchist, because they must therefore reject the legal system and the rule of law entirely.

In other words, you believe that if a government has legitimate authority to imprison its citizens, then by default, it must also have legitimate authority to execute its citizens.

Now, let's be clear: you are most definitely not "limiting your statements", either. I'll repeat what I said in my previous post, to which you did not respond at all: "Why not take your own reasoning to its "logical conclusion"? Your arguments lead to the conclusion that any sort of punishment is acceptable as long as it is preceded by a trial. Do you really believe that? Or do you believe that certain kinds of punishment are never appropriate, even if their use would not be "hypocritical" (by your criteria) for certain kinds of crime?"

If your answer to that last question is "yes" (i.e., you think some kinds of punishment are never justifiable), then I could just as easily accuse you of "applying [your] logic on one specific context and no where else." I am guessing (hoping) that even you think that some kinds of punishment are "cruel and unusual" and off limits to any modern system of justice. So where do you draw the line? If you believe that a government with the right to imprison its citizens automatically also has the right to execute them, why not substitute any more extreme form of punishment for the word "execute"?

Nearly all of us accept that some kinds of punishment are "cruel and unusual", and that provides one standard for deciding what a government can and cannot do to its citizens. If you accept that, then you also must accept that there are situations to which your simplistic argument about government power and authority does not apply. Get it? The only difference here is that you do not think capital punishment is "cruel and unusual", but many other people do. The argument that opposing capital punishment makes one an anarchist is nonsense.

Of course, as others have pointed out, there are more objective reasons to oppose the death penalty, too. Since others have already covered these in some detail, I won't do so here. But I do want to briefly cover one topic. In your previous post, you claim that capital punishment is "a pretty effective deterrent. You should see how these hard core multiple murderers break down and cry like babies when they think the axe is going to land on their own necks."

If this is an attempt to justify the death penalty, it is extremely

Re:Idiotic

[siliconsmiley]

I think your sarcasm meter is broken.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely what problem does execution solve that "life without possibility" doesn't?

Execution is more merciful than locking up an individual in a small cage and throwing a way the key.

Re:Idiotic

[danlip]

4% is just for death row. The percentage of innocent people in the prison population as a whole is probably much higher.

Re:Idiotic

[chilenexus]

How you treat someone in prison says a lot more about you than it does about the person in prison. They likely committed their acts in the heat of the moment, while we sit back and deliberate over how to make them suffer over a period of decades. You're fine with them living in savage conditions where they spend years dealing with constant attempts on their lives, much worse than they go through in our prisons today.

Why feed someone for life when you have no intention of ever letting them out? Because you might not intend to let them out, but you better change your mind if that person turns out to be innocent and there's proof to support it. We have one study telling us that the floor value for wrongful executions is 4.1% (source: http://time.com/79572/more-inn...) and another telling us that the US sends 10,000 innocent people to prison each year (source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/ar...). Putting your suggestions into practice would multiply our problems significantly. Sending a few hundred innocent people a year to Absalom island would make society a worse offender than the criminals. After all, how would you go about getting an innocent person off that island when a witness admits they lied in their testimony or the cops get found out *again* planting evidence?

All of your talk about "not caring" sounds a lot more like a psychopath than the actual people in prison - you should get that checked out.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a great example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. So in your view, if we (i.e., our society) were to reject the death penalty because we decide it is immoral and hypocritical, then the only logically consistent position is to reject all law entirely, which will lead to the inevitable consequence of a lawless, anarchic society.

This is an example of false dichotomy, where you present a fallacy and then present two illogical conclusions as if they are the only choices.

Causing harm and deprivity benefits no one. It doesn't matter whether we all vote to harm someone, or if one person decides to harm another. The result is the same net loss. The 'law' does not exist to bend to the will of the majority, it exists to protect the minority.

Re:Idiotic

[linearZ]

I' Logic. Think it through.

Your logic is the logic of an automaton. Only a fool would have logic this simplistic.

You strike me as the kind of person that likes being told what to do by authority, and then attacks anyone who doesn't obey. You'd make a great cop - if you aren't one already.

Re: Idiotic

[xaxa]

Possibly because in the US there are so many more prisoners held on minor offences (drug possession, etc), who wouldn't even come close to considering suicide?

Per million population, the numbers become 1.43 in E&W and 1.63 in the US.

(NB, just England and Wales. Justice is controlled by the Scottish Parliament in Scotland, under a different legal system, so the figures are separate: 13 suicides (~0.16%!), 4.19 per M population. Small country bias, or is Scotland a particularly grim place to be imprisoned?

Northern Ireland: no suicides since 2010 [5 in the last decade], prison population 1465, country population 1.8M).

Re:Idiotic

[Strangely Familiar]

I am glad you can communicate with dead people, but a few of the living actually have stated a preference for the death penalty. For the rest on death row, because it is so awful and final, the death penalty does spur active opposition and advocacy on the side of the convicted person to do everything possible to prevent their execution, including finding evidence to clear their names. With a life sentence, the need for immediate action is not so compelling. Lifers don't get the same focused attention. I do not believe in the death penalty, but that doesn't mean I can't evaluate the actual practices the penalty incites.

Re: Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Otherwise, we wouldn't be incarcerating them in the first place."

It is that belief which enables the incarceration of people who have nothing to do with terrorism or commited any crime that the US holds any jurisdiction over whatsoever. I am saddened greatly by how easily you brush the issue of ending the life of a person aside.

Maybe your soldiers would be better off not being soldiers?

http://popehat.com/2015/04/19/safe-spaces-and-the-mote-in-americas-eye/

It is indeed "tedious" wise captcha god.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Don't assume you know me. You're can't read my mind right in front me much less through the internet.

As to my logic being robotic... in what way? I could say with the same authority that your logic is fish like because it is slimy and stupid. :D

Make a falsifiable argument so that we can evaluate the value of other people's words.

As to your stab in the dark that I like being ordered around, to the contrary... I have been cited by many people as something of a rebel. I don't like doing what other people tell me to do and I even take some pleasure in doing what I want even if it does break the rules.

I'm a clever person. I'm very good at following the letter of the law but not the spirit when that suits me. Or following the spirit but not the letter when I feel the letter is bullshit. I also am quite good at simply not getting caught.

I'd be someone you'd not want to go evil. Because I'd probably get away with it. Take murder. I am always amazed at how bad so many murderers are in the news. I see what they did and how they got caught and I think "wow, what a bunch of incompetent boobs." I then go over the facts in my head for fun and find out the earliest mistake they appear to have made and rewrite the narrative not get caught.

Do I so much as hurt kittens? No. They're too adorable. I'm a nice guy. I just like a little independence.

Now why did you think someone like me was a big supporter of authoritarian governments? Because I explained what "murder" means which is a mostly legal concept which means the government defines what is and is no murder. It is a fact they define such things. I don't have to take it seriously but hat is what governments do.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to people committing acts in the heat of the moment, then they are second degree murderers and not subject to execution.

We have tiers of murder.

1. Manslaughter:
This is where you didn't intend to kill someone and you didn't even intend to hurt them. You just made a mistake. Like killing a pedestrian with your car. Ooops. Manslaughter.

2. Third degree murder:
This is where you intend to hurt someone but not kill them. You get into a bar fight and punch some guy... only he dies unexpectedly.

3. Second Degree murder:
Here you get caught up in the moment and in a fit of passion try to kill someone on the spot without thinking about it. Say you come in on your wife or husband cheating on you and you decide to kill one of them on the spot.

4. First Degree Murder:
Here you methodically and deliberately plan someone else's death. This often involves poison, ambushing people, killing them in their sleep, etc.

Then you have aggravated murders which takes whatever degree the murder was and amps it up a bit. Think of it like a First Degree PLUS murder or a Second Degree PLUS murder. Anyway, this means the murder was especially nasty in some way. Maybe you cut the guy's head off, put it on a spike, and then danced around town with it? Something gross typically.

The people that get executed are the sorts that committed multiple first degree murders and often multiple first degree aggravated murders.

They are not misunderstood snowflakes. They will chew your face off just to hear you scream.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

The US founders executed people quite freely so saying the constitution forbids it is a little rich. No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general.

So that's just bunk.

As to your notion that you're not a hypocrite because you ideology thinks executions are icky and have cooties, that isn't a defense against a hypocrisy charge. You need to cite some logic here. Saying "but I have beliefs and opinions!" is no defense.

As to limiting my statement, justice systems often don't have limits as to what they can do or rule upon. They limit themselves perhaps within their jurisdiction. But even then sometimes they presume to rule the whole world. It is the nature of justice that it is defined by the power and ambition of the people that wield it.

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

The US founders executed people quite freely so saying the constitution forbids it is a little rich.

I never said that. Let me remind you: "Many people and countries consider execution to be "cruel and unusual" punishment that can never be justified. It is widely accepted (including in the U.S. Constitution) that a government should never try to keep its people safe by threatening them with cruel and unusual punishment." If you actually bothered to read the rest of my post, you would see I am very clear about this -- the point of contention is whether or not the death penalty is considered "cruel and unusual", not that the Constitution literally forbids capital punishment.

No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general.

So that's just bunk.

Your claim that "No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general" actually is total bunk, unless you honestly believe that the written opinions of justices on the US Supreme Court doesn't count as "official interpretation".

As to your notion that you're not a hypocrite because you ideology thinks executions are icky and have cooties, that isn't a defense against a hypocrisy charge. You need to cite some logic here. Saying "but I have beliefs and opinions!" is no defense.

Huh? You are totally ignoring the substance of my rebuttal. Did you even read it?

As to limiting my statement, justice systems often don't have limits as to what they can do or rule upon. They limit themselves perhaps within their jurisdiction. But even then sometimes they presume to rule the whole world. It is the nature of justice that it is defined by the power and ambition of the people that wield it.

Again, what? Are you actually rejecting the prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment in the Constitution? You really believe that no form of punishment is or should be off limits to a government?

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

Yes, poor Karmashock, always having to defend himself/herself from the ruthless "ideologues".

The amusing thing about your persecution complex is that your perspective on this matter is driven entirely by ideology. As has already been pointed out, there is no robust evidence that capital punishment deters crime to any meaningful extent, and it is a much more expensive proposition than the alternative of imprisonment. In other words, in the United States, we know that capital punishment does not make us any safer than does imprisonment, and that it costs a lot more. So based on this objective reality, there is no rational reason to persist with executions, at least in the United States.

The only reasons left to support executions are ideological. E.g., "they deserve to die", or some notion of justice as revenge. Whatever your reason for supporting state-sanctioned executions, make no mistake that you are motivated by ideology. Those who oppose the death penalty for ideological reasons also happen to have convincing, objective evidence on their side -- you do not.

Re:Idiotic

[swillden]

Where on a continuum is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

I don't know, but it's certainly higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard for legal conviction.

With that said, if you want to establish "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as the standard for capital punishment, I'm good with it in theory. In practice it'll be even more expensive than what we do now, and odds are you'll never execute anyone because the standard is impossible to meet. Which I guess may make it inexpensive, because no one will bother trying. But I don't think abolishing capital punishment is what you actually want.

As to capital punishment being too expensive, that is because they can appeal for ten million years. Have the execution one year after conviction unless enough evidence comes forward to call the initial trail into question.

So you're recommending that we solve the problem that the standard of proof is uncomfortably low for taking irreversible action by lowering the standard of proof. Keep in mind that the standard includes not just the stated standard for the one trial, but also the structure of the system of appeals, etc., which is in place to ensure that that trial was conducted correctly, and the appellate process also deals in shades of gray.

Lowering the standard as a way to solve the cost problem is fine for you, since you apparently have no doubts about the possibility of convicting innocent people, but it will inevitably increase the percentage of the population that opposes capital punishment, because they do have doubts. Again, I think that's not what you want.

They want to control your actions by trolling you.

Bah. I form my own opinions, and my opinion is that the current process with all of the appeals in place is fairly good but very expensive. It's still not perfect, mind you, as evidenced by the number of death row convictions that have been overturned (often MUCH more than one year after the conviction), but I don't believe perfection is possible, and I don't believe that we should do nothing just because we can't do it perfectly. So, if cost is irrelevant, then I don't object overmuch to the system we have, and I also wouldn't object to your "beyond a shadow of a doubt" system, assuming you could build one that works.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

technically, you're usually kidnapped before the trial

Re:Idiotic

[david_thornley]

It costs more than life in prison because of the necessary appeals and legal safeguards against putting an innocent person to death (not that that works nearly as well as it should). Does this mean that an innocent sentenced to life imprisonment is much more likely to serve the entire sentence than a person sentenced to death?

Re:Idiotic

[david_thornley]

I'd think that due legal process is a valid excuse, so by that criterion execution isn't murder. It may not be ethical, but that isn't the issue here. Murder is not defined as unethical killing of another.

If there is no due process, and there's not always due process in these cases, then I'll go along with murder. (One prisoner wanted to save a piece of pecan pie for after the execution; despite the state law against executing someone who can't understand what execution is, they fried him anyway.)

Re:Idiotic

[david_thornley]

Relatively how likely is that? If you've been wrongly convicted of first-degree murder, are you better off with a death sentence or with a life imprisonment sentence, since people are going to work harder to get you exonerated if you're on death row?

Re:Idiotic

[david_thornley]

If life is priceless, then each moment must be priceless, and so if I'm left in a bad position because somebody steals my car I'm wasting priceless moments of life, and so car theft is as bad as murder? You can't make a society function on the principle that life is priceless. It has to be very highly rated, but not infinitely.

Re: Idiotic

[linearZ]

Don't assume that I should know you.

On /. , you are defined by your posts.

If you think I'm slimy because I question the capbility of the state to properly facilitate trials with life and death consequences, that is you choice.

But don't think I would think any different of you from what you post here, simply because I don't know you.

I've formed my opinions of you from your rigid and unenlightened views expressed here in writing. If you are now saying you've somehow been disingenuous - that I would have different "if I only knew you" - well then, I'm not sure my opinion of you would not change for the better.

Re: Idiotic

[linearZ]

Yea, I know the idiom. But I didn't write kangaroo, I wrote "Godwin". As in the potential for tyranny in the government you unquestionably trust.

You stated that I wrote something I didn't, then beat the strawman like a good troll.

Re: Idiotic

[Karmashock]

I didn't say anything about authoritarianism. That is your argument. I'm talking about proper legal due process.

Did the Nazis give the Jews they killed fair trials? Yes or no?

Am I an advocate of fair trials? Yes or no?

Okay... so kindly don't suggest I'm a Nazi like some fucking 12 year old that is having their FIRST argument on the internet and doesn't know that Godwin's law is actually a cautionary reminder that comparing people you disagree with to Hitler or nazis is a fucking ignorant and counter productive and childish thing to do.

Now... Try again... this time without suggesting that I'm a nazi just for saying that due process is a relevant factor.

Address MY argument about proper courts. The Nazis for example if they tried jews at all were using an unfair court system or a kangaroo court to convict the jews. If they had used a fair court system and only executed people that were convicted... it is not very likely they would have been able to genocide anyone.

Think about it.

If you have a problem with the US court system, then that is an important issue. Lets talk about that. But that discussion has NOTHING to do with executions. Once your issue with the court system is addressed, I expect that line of argument to be concluded. I also expect whatever standards you want applied to executions to be applied more broadly to the rest of the legal system. If your rules don't cause systemic collapse of the court system through inefficiency then possibly it is sustainable. If it does then obviously your standards are not practical.

Re:Idiotic

[towermac]

You're the one that said each moment = life. I did not say that.

Having said that, your car can conceivably can be replaced, and the value of your time could be made up. Those things have prices.

A life, once taken, cannot be replaced or restored in any way. Thus, it is priceless.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

"One case is too many" is a logical fallacy AND YOU KNOW IT.

Re:Idiotic

[ebvwfbw]

Almost all murders happen either in affect, or in a situation where the perpetrator thinks he can get away with it.

True. Understand that criminals think they can always get away with it. Doesn't seem to matter if they've been caught a couple of dozen times doing exactly the same thing. Even really dumb things like writing bad checks. They get out and - write another bad check! Even though in one case I observed the judge said she'd get a 10 year sentence. Back before the judge - 10 year sentence. I should check up on her. She should be out by now, probably already back in again.

In either case, having the death penalty will have no effect on whether a murder will happen or not.

This is the key thing and is fought over a lot. It does have an effect and it's clearly demonstrable. There are places like Baltimore County - has DP and Baltimore City - no DP. Literally same people, just on different sides of a political line. They know that line and it's like magic. But don't take my word for it, look it up. From murder to other crimes. If you do, you'll never make that statement again because you'll know it's wrong.

IMHO, I think the executions should be public. No nitrogen, go for a hanging. This drives the point home for those of us that are really slow.

Need to also fix the justice system. Get people to understand what jury nullification is (bad law) and just because someone is brought before them, that doesn't mean they're guilty. They need to do their job.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

no, he appears to recognize the new boss of idiocracy (same as the old boss)

Re: Idiotic

[DigiShaman]

You're fixated on a method of warfare as though it's the cause. In reality, groups like ISIS are founded and spread via religious ideology. They rape and pillage the local with zeal. They don't protest and cry about a bunch of drones saying to the effect "no fair, bad America is not letting us voice our relative morality"

I say fuck um and use napalm, nukes, robots, and guidance missiles. I'm sure all those could be powered by a cheap smartphone to boot. Oh, and spider mines!. And tech that seeks and blows up is nifty!

I DO NOT CARE!

Re: Idiotic

[epyT-R]

I think we need to fix the legal system first, then worry about how we're going to punish people.

Re: Idiotic

[Pseudonym]

If members of ISIS are going to continue down a path of heinous activities [...]

If ISIS ever makes it as far as Oklahoma, we all have bigger problems than execution methods.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Poe's law. ;)

Neither one of us can read sarcasm through the internet, sport.

Re: Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to your statement that you can know my mind from a few posts... comical. I am real person. I am complex. I am neither lying to you nor contradicting myself nor the monster you would presume me.

Your view of me is simplistic, naive, arrogant, and childish. I am not some cartoon. I am a real person. And you're not going to understand my being from a few posts, you absurd insect.

As to me calling you slimy, I was pointing out that baseless judgements are baseless. I don't think you're slimy or a fish.. I was attempting to explain the absurdity of your attempt to judge something you lack the information to judge.

What is more your pathetic attempt to paper over your weak argument with ad hominem is also disappointing. You seek to label me evil as a means to win your argument rather than simply arguing the point itself. Pathetic.

Try again. This time with SOME integrity... as opposed to none what so ever.

Re: Idiotic

[pixelpusher220]

Congrats, you're a hammer and, amazingly, to you the world looks like nails.

Re: Idiotic

[DigiShaman]

See bad guy rape women and children. Pick up rock. Bash bad guy with rock. Other guys now know not to be a bad guy.

And so the club was invented, and spear, and bow, and gun... But hey, hammers work too.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

The Watchmen?

Re: Idiotic

[pixelpusher220]

and bad guy's 14 children now hate you and join ISIS. Now what?

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Again with the stupid arguments.
Taxation is -not- theft by force.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, youre free to not pay whatever taxes you don't want to.
But that means you don't get to the buy the food my tax dollar inspected.
You don't get to drive the roads my tax dollars built.
You don't get to obtain the education my tax dollars provided.
You don't get any of the advancements of modern society.

What you get is to live on a rock in the middle of the ocean, free to fend completely for yourself.

The rest of us will pay our taxes because its how we fund the things we provide each other in a civilized society with a government of the people.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no point in arguing with Karmashock.

He's a fool.
He usually makes bad arguments.
And on the rare occasion he makes a good one, he somehow manages to draw the opposite and illogical conclusion than that logic or reason would seem to dictate.

Re:Idiotic

[siliconsmiley]

I'm not your sport guy. That's why I prefaced it with "I think".

Re: Idiotic

[towermac]

what? I mod every blue moon, if that. I just let 14 expire yesterday. it was not I modding your posts.

Also, is there nowhere between no appeals, and unlimited appeals?

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

I didn't say taxation was theft. I said if a trial and due process can't legitimize an execution then due process cannot legitimize you taking my money.

Your authority to demand such things is your power as the government. You cannot undermine the system without undermining the system.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

What you support isn't really important. What you'd create ultimately is what concerns me. Take communists. They tend to INTEND to create some classless utopia. In reality what they actually create tends to be a rather run of the mill authoritarian dictatorship.

You say you're an anarchist? Cool. I am a libertarian. We share some similarities and I even like some aspects of your way of thinking.

Where we differ is that absent government control I am worried about two things that you seem to take for granted.

1. The break down of social order. I don't think social order will maintain itself without organization or some authority able to come in and force out of control people to behave themselves.

2. Invasions, warlords, wars, slavers, and various organized thugs that will just come in and overwhelm any society without an organized defense. I believe we need a government primarily for things like that.

Those are the two things the government does that I support. Internal order in the society and protection from outward aggression of any kind.

Absent those two issues I'd prefer if the government had no role in society at all. Nothing beyond police, judges, some body of law, and soldiers. That's it. Everything else left to private concerns or collectives of people to determine on their own.

I'm not an authoritarian and I didn't learn about anarchism from school. I learned it by being a thoughtful person and investigating its nature on my own.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to your not especially widely held religious beliefs, I don't see why I need to care. The vast majority of the human race accepts killing other people as a normal part of life. What is more, the state has an implicit right to do this sort of thing. They could not keep authority if they did not.

If you go through a proper court proceeding and find the fellow guilty of a capital crime... then what is the beef here?

As to your repeated citation of the US constitution... you're butchering the logic so badly on that point... and doing so with so little regard for any intellectual integrity that I don't have to respond to that bullshit anymore. I responded once. That point is at best laughable.

As to an invalid court case that was largely regarded at the time to be bullshit... from your own citation:
"Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William H. Rehnquist, each appointed by President Richard Nixon, dissented. They argued that capital punishment had always been regarded as appropriate under the Anglo-American legal tradition for serious crimes and that the text of the Constitution implicitly authorized United States death penalty laws because of the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to the taking of "life.""

They're referencing the "due process" clause which refers to the government not taking LIFE, liberty, or property without due cause.

If the government is not permitted to take life regardless then why does this clause says that it can't do so without due process?

And a proper trial is due process. You're wrong.

As to me ignoring your argument, I did read it. I just don't share your little religion. So when you start spouting dogma, I cite it as such and take it for the OPINION it is... and nothing more.

As to rejecting cruel and unusual punishment, of course not. I simply define such differently than you.

What if I define cruel and usual punishment as any kind of imprisonment and then called you a monster for putting people in jail? Sound reasonable? That is how you sound to me. Your attempt to paper over your lack of an argument with feigned outrage merely bores me.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Skipping past the baseless personal attacks. :)

As to no robust evidence that capital punishment deters crime, I know the murderers don't want to be executed. That is meaningful. I also don't see the point in keeping them alive.

You keep using this argument that "if X doesn't work we must do Y which also doesn't work". Is there any robust evidence that life sentences deter crime?

If not then your standards are not equal.

You're saying we must do life sentences because executions don't stop them. Well, do life sentences stop them? If not, then your point is moot.

As to executions being more expensive, as I have said repeatedly that is an artifact of the anti execution lobby. They've attempted to ban executions by making the process so painful and ass backwards that it becomes artificially expensive.

That's one of the things that is nice about this execution method. It is cheap and you can't stop it by fucking with the supply chain. The anti execution lobby has been fucking with the execution drug supply chain as a backhanded way of stopping it. Well, here is your result. We'll not use drugs at all do it. Try to frustrate our supply of nitrogen. :D

*yawn*

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

As to lowering the standard, not at all. The initial trial is the standard. The year for appeals is a concession made for the sake of argument. I'd be quite happy with terminating them on the following morning after the trial.

I give you 12 months show the initial trial was invalid. I'm not waiting for 10 thousand years or the end of the universe. Requiring infinite appeals is not reasonable.

As I said, anything more than a year is procrastination. You sentenced the fellow. He had a year. It didn't happen.

Execute one year after sentence and the costs are quite reasonable. It is when they span ten years AFTER the conviction with the sentence of DEATH that things get silly.

One year. And that is a gift. A moment beyond that without cause is bullshit.

As to forming your own opinions - nonsense. You're saying you think it is expensive and it is only expensive because they trolled you. You're doing precisely what they want. How is that having your own mind?

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

Skipping past the baseless personal attacks. :)

Fair enough. My apologies for that -- it was unwarranted.

As to no robust evidence that capital punishment deters crime, I know the murderers don't want to be executed. That is meaningful. I also don't see the point in keeping them alive.

In the face of actual data and evidence that capital punishment does not deter crime, you respond with "I know the murderers don't want to be executed. That is meaningful." And, "I also don't see the point in keeping them alive." So, as I said, your view on capital punishment is driven entirely by ideology. You have no evidence, no data, nothing at all except "I know" and "I don't see the point".

You keep using this argument that "if X doesn't work we must do Y which also doesn't work". Is there any robust evidence that life sentences deter crime?

Let my try again to explain the data to you. The comparison is not X versus Y. The comparison is (X + Y) versus X, where X = imprisonment and Y = the death penalty. That is the only comparison we can make with extant data. In other words, we can ask if adding the threat of execution to an existing threat of imprisonment has an increased deterrent effect. And, in general, the best evidence so far suggests there is no meaningful difference (e.g., read the link I gave you in an earlier post as a starting point). Get it? It substantially refutes your claim that the death penalty is a "pretty effective deterrent".

As to executions being more expensive, as I have said repeatedly that is an artifact of the anti execution lobby.

Once again, something you apparently "just know" with no objective data presented to support it. Saying something "repeatedly" does not make it so.

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

As to your not especially widely held religious beliefs, I don't see why I need to care.

Are you responding to my comments or someone else's? At no point have I ever made any reference to my "religious beliefs", which you know nothing about. I truly have no idea what you're talking about.

As to your repeated citation of the US constitution... you're butchering the logic so badly on that point... and doing so with so little regard for any intellectual integrity that I don't have to respond to that bullshit anymore.

You really don't understand this? Then I'll explain it for a third time. The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. Some people think capital punishment is cruel and unusual (including some Supreme Court justices; see below), which is why they think the government should not have the right to execute people. I have never claimed anything more than that. How is that "butchering the logic"? In this context, accusing me of lacking "intellectual integrity" is nothing more than a cheap insult.

As to an invalid court case that was largely regarded at the time to be bullshit... from your own citation: "Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William H. Rehnquist ... argued that capital punishment had always been regarded as appropriate under the Anglo-American legal tradition for serious crimes and that the text of the Constitution implicitly authorized United States death penalty laws..."

Well, thanks for at least reading part of the article. Had you read the rest of it, you would have also seen, "Justices Brennan and Marshall concluded that the death penalty was in itself "cruel and unusual punishment", and incompatible with the evolving standards of decency of a contemporary society." So, as I said, U.S. Supreme Court justices have, in written opinions, interpreted the "cruel and unusual" clause to exclude capital punishment. So no, I wasn't wrong. On the other hand, your original claim? You said, "No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general." Unless you think the written opinions of Supreme Court justices don't count as "official interpretation", you are definitely wrong.

As to rejecting cruel and unusual punishment, of course not. I simply define such differently than you.

Excellent. Thank you for answering my question. So, let's review your earlier argument. According to you, if someone believes that the state doesn't have the right to execute people, but also believes that the state can impose other penalties, they are a hypocrite and an anarchist (an anarchist because they must believe the state doesn't have the right to do anything). Do you finally see why that doesn't work? You have just acknowledged that you also believe the state doesn't have the right to impose certain punishments, which, by your simplistic logic, must also make you a hypocrite and an anarchist.

In another variation of this argument, you claim that anyone who believes that the government can imprison, but not execute, is logically inconsistent. E.g., "You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?" If it really is that simple, then why not substitute any other sort of punishment for the phrase "to shoot me"? Again, you've acknowledged that you do believe some punishments are off limits, so your criticism applies just as well to your beliefs.

I think you've finally come around to the point I've been trying to make for some time. Nearly all of us believe that a government does not have the right to impose cruel and unusual punishments upon its citizens. As you observed, you and many death penalty opponents simply draw the line for "cruel and unusual" at different places. Beyond that, there is no substantive difference. Opposition to the death penalty does not make someone a "hypocrite" or an "anarchist", any more than your opposition to a punishment that you believe to be cruel and unusual makes you a hypocrite or an anarchist.

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

One other thing I meant to include in my last comment.

The vast majority of the human race accepts killing other people as a normal part of life. What is more, the state has an implicit right to do this sort of thing. They could not keep authority if they did not.

Yes, you keep saying that sort of thing: The state must have the right to execute its citizens; if not, then the state loses all authority. But can you provide any coherent explanation as to why this must be true, or provide any evidence to support it? Of course you cannot. The fact that nearly all modern democracies have abolished capital punishment, yet remain able to enforce their laws and prosecute criminals, amounts to a wealth of counterexamples that easily disproves your claim.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

There is no government that does not assume this authority. Your government... which ever one it is... they are all the same in this... will absolutely kill you if it feels it has "cause" to do so. Maybe you're throwing babies into a bonfire? Maybe you're running around with explosives tied to your body...

You do certain things and your government checks certain boxes on a list. When you've checked the correct number of boxes, they will kill you.

Every government does that.

Our disagreement is not about whether governments have a right to kill their own citizens. Everyone agrees that they do.

The disagreement is rather what are and are not valid reasons to kill your own citizens.

I personally believe that if you've been convicted of multiple first degree murders, than there's no reason to not kill you.

You think its okay for the government to kill you if you walk around with a knife down the middle of the street and shake it at people.

Yet apparently I'm a terrible person and you're a paragon of virtue.

Neither is the case. You're just not a very clever person. You're not a thinker. And this is a complicated issue beyond your reach. Nothing more.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Your feelings on this issue are ideologically based if not religiously based. A religion is just an ideology with some supernatural component.

Cite the part of the constitution that says executions are either cruel or unusual.

They executed people all the time in the years immediately after the constitution was signed. THat means the framers of the constitution did not regard execution as either cruel or unusual.

It refers to torture more than anything... not execution.

End of issue. If you bring up the constitution again, I'm going to ignore you because you're full of shit on that issue.

As to your out of context quotes... you're either terrible at reading or you're intentionally misrepresenting me. I'm assuming the former.

I was making fun of your argument and showing that if I applied your hand wringing logic to everything the entire justice system would fall apart.

Look, if you have a problem with the justice system, that has NOTHING to do with whether a sentence CAN be valid. You're just saying that the justice department often doesn't do its job very well.

OKAY, so advocate for judicial reform. I will be right there with you.

If however you only argue judicial reform as a proxy for the prohibition of execution and you don't actually care about judicial reform... you're a fucking liar that is only bringing up judicial reform as a ploy.

And that is why I made those other comments about imprisonment etc to highlight how disingenuous your position was in the first place.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

No, you can't argue in favor X simply because X+Y isn't shown to be more effective. I could as easily respond with removing X and just having Y... Right?

Think about it... as cruel as it would be, on the issue of deterrance alone imagine if all long term prison terms were just replaced with execution. I'm not advocating that, I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic. If you executed anyone that would get a sentence of 30 years or more... would that not be as likely to deter people as simple imprisonment? You wouldn't claim that people would be less afraid of execution than imprisonment?

Because we know for a fact that the criminals are a lot of more afraid of execution. Listen to the guys on death row. These are murderers... shitting themselves. They WANT to be left in their cell with their cable TV, porno mags, and full medical care.

I'm okay with imprisoning someone that I'm going to let out of jail before they're collecting social security checks. But if you did something so vile that society feels they need to lock you away for 50 years... then that is just a waste 50 years of room and board. Let him giggle on nitrogen. I'm done with him.

The thing is the most violent criminals are not deterred by anything. They're often crazy or of a certain psychological profile that derives pleasure from other people's pain. Sadists etc. Previous generations called such people "evil" or "bad". We're not comfortable with those terms so we wrap the concepts in pseudo academic jargon until we've convinced ourselves that we're saying something that our ancestors didn't say 2000 years ago.

You can't argue against execution on the basis that it doesn't deter without addressing that imprisonment doesn't deter either.

I don't know what I'd have to do to deter sadists. I imagine I might get a statistical drop if I publicly tortured them in the most horrifying manner possible. But that's a further injustice to society and a further injustice to which ever poor bastard is tasked with scooping out the sadist's eyes with a spoon. So not practical.

As to your statement that I just "know" executions are cheaper without the endless appeals. Anyone knows that.

One of the old virtues of execution for governments back in the day was that they were cheaper than imprisonment. You don't have to feed them or shelter them for years on end. You make them dance on air, then put them in the ground. Where is the expense?

In the modern context the cost comes from the trials. And the reason a non-execution trial is more expensive than an execution trial is that appeals that go on for years and years and years.

Cap the appeals at one year and the cost of execution will fall far below the cost of life time imprisonment. It is mathematically impossible for it to do anything else especially when we're providing for the medical care of convicts as they grow old. That includes organ replacements and I think gender reassignment surgery... not sure on that last one. But suffice to say that keeping convicts healthy especially when they're inclined to stab each other is expensive. And if you don't have to pay for it by virtue of the fellow being ash in a cardboard box... then that is a cost savings.

Logic. Logic is terrifying for some people. It is heartless, ruthless, merciless, and pitiless.

And for better or worse, I worship logic. It is my religion... my ideology.

I rub the emotional, the sentimental, the politically correct, and various other heretics against logic the wrong way. It isn't intentional.... usually. Logic is an argument what a freight train is to a game of chicken. The freight train runs along its tracks and anything standing in the way of that train is getting pulverized and dismembered. And the train will neither stop nor slow nor notice nor care.

This is not an internet taunt. I am trying to share with you a bit of how my mind works. I am not the freight train. I just know where the tracks are and respect the train enough to get the fuck out of the way.

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

For some time now, it has not been clear to me whether your comments were sincere, honest attempts at meaningful dialogue, or if you were merely trying to incite anger or frustration. I assumed the former and tried to take you as seriously as I could until my patience has finally run out. Judging from some of your exchanges with other slashdotters, I seem to have hung in there a lot longer than most.

In any case, you consistently use the tactic of filling your posts with a variety of common logical fallacies. The effect is that you force your opponents to have to expend effort trying to keep a discussion on topic, defend themselves from straw man attacks, restate points made earlier, and so on. It appears that other slashdotters often either become hostile and angry, which makes them easy for you to attack, or they simply get exhausted with spinning their wheels and give up.

I am well aware that this might all be deliberate on your part, and you are merely trying to bait people into getting upset or angry. In the interest of giving you the benefit of the doubt, though, I will take a detailed look at several of your recent posts so you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

First, we have this comment, in which you make the following logical fallacies, among others.

Moving the goalposts:

If you executed anyone that would get a sentence of 30 years or more... would that not be as likely to deter people as simple imprisonment? You wouldn't claim that people would be less afraid of execution than imprisonment?

You previously claimed that execution is "a pretty effective deterrent". I provided objective evidence that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent (and not only in the United States). Instead of providing any comparable contrary evidence or acknowledging that you were wrong, you now expect me to prove my point by arguing against an unrealistic hypothetical scenario.

Statement of fact with no evidence:

Because we know for a fact that the criminals are a lot of more afraid of execution. Listen to the guys on death row. These are murderers... shitting themselves.

You've repeatedly made statements like this, without ever providing any supporting evidence.

Statement of fact with no evidence, contradictory position (sometimes called the "kettle logic" fallacy):

The thing is the most violent criminals are not deterred by anything.

Just a few paragraphs ago, you were arguing that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. And in an earlier comment, you said, "It is a pretty effective deterrent. You should see how these hard core multiple murderers break down and cry like babies when they think the axe is going to land on their own necks". Now, to make a different point, you are claiming that nothing is an effective deterrent to "the most violent criminals". (Of course, how you define "the most violent" is also not clear, but I am guessing it at least includes "hard core multiple murderers").

Moving the goalposts, shifting the burden of proof:

You can't argue against execution on the basis that it doesn't deter without addressing that imprisonment doesn't deter either.

Of course one can argue against the efficacy of capital punishment without simultaneously defending other forms of punishment. After having refuted your claim that capital punishment is "a pretty effective deterrent", you now claim that I must also provide an analysis of the efficacy of imprisonment. Furthermore, you claim that "imprisonment doesn't deter", give no objective evidence to support this claim, then expect me to refute it.

Misrepresentation, straw man, argumentum ad populum:

As to your statement that I just "know" executions are cheaper without the endless a

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

I had to put the post into postbin for no reason. Sorry about that. You can click the link to see my response. Slashdot vetoes posts arbitrarily sometimes.
http://pastebin.com/rDYHwssm

Re:Idiotic

[binarstu]

If Slashdot was blocking your posts, then how were you able to post the comment with the link? The content itself was being blocked? Sorry, but I'm not interested in jumping to other websites to try to follow you on this thread. If you want me to see your reply, then please post it on this forum. It's up to you -- you've seen my last message (which I hope you found to be respectful and considerate) and I now really have nothing more to say on this matter. But I will give you the courtesy of reading your response if you want me to. As I said, totally up to you. In any case, take care and have a good weekend.

Re:Idiotic

[Karmashock]

Oh, there's something call the "lameness" filter. It triggers if you use the same character over and over. If I just put 20000 hyphens in there or something it would trigger. It also triggers if you post the exact same post twice.

The problem with it is that it has a lot more triggers for it than that and I don't know them all. Every so often it doesn't like a post and I have no idea what its problem is with it. So when that happens, I just post it to postbin and then put the URL in the comment.

If the lameness filter were specific about what it was responding to, then I'd correct it. But often as not, I have no clue what it doesn't like and really can't be bothered to figure it out if the site operators can't be bothered to explain themselves.

As to you not feeling safe on postbin, that is possibly the dumbest fucking thing I've heard all day. Postbin is not some random fucking site. It is a commonly used repository for bits of text like that.

Your comment makes about as much sense as you saying you think Wikipedia is going to hack you or something.

Whatever. Do what you want. You don't want to read my comment. Don't do it. But your bullshit excuse for not reading it was flagged as bullshit.

Re:Idiotic

[RyoShin]

for the guilty it's too easy

While I agree with you that it's all about revenge, I don't like that quoted line. Saying it's "too easy" means that the person should do "hard time", aka revenge. Our justice system should be about correction, rehabilitation, and protection:
- If someone judged guilty can somehow repay for their crimes, they should (i.e. you smash into a brick wall and destroy it with your car, you are required to help rebuild it with no or little pay)
- If someone judged guilty can be helped or rehabilitated to lead a life where they do not harm others, they should (drug addicts who commit crimes are a prime candidate for this)
- If someone judged guilty cannot be rehabilitated, they are kept in prison not as punishment for the guilt but as protection for society

In that third case, whatever the imprisoned does shouldn't matter. Give them a solitary confinement room with a shower and a TV and a decent bed and keep them there for the rest of their life; society is still safe. If there is some way to make them give back to society as a whole, such as rote work that isn't in high demand but still useful (for instance, having to sort through garbage to find recyclables), they should do that to keep what little pleasures they have (such as the TV).

Re:Idiotic

[jwhitener]

That's irrelevant, as the justice system is not to be a method for taking revenge,

There are many recognized 'goods' that we attempt to reach with a justice system. Justice for the victims (the victims may consider this revenge), mitigating future crime, rehabilitation, social control, protection of society, etc..

That is why a lot of people who oppose the death penalty sometimes hesitate to answer if they would be pro or con if the victim was a close family member. A lot of the voting public, and politicians, support death penalty specifically as a means of revenge for the family or as revenge for their future selfs if they are ever victims. Whether the justice system words things as 'revenge' or as 'justice' is irrelevant, since so many people view the 'justice' as 'revenge'.

Stupid

[Whiteox]

FFS! What is the accepted definition of execution? Does it involve pain or discomfort?
What's wrong with anesthesia?

Re:Stupid

[smooth wombat]

Anesthesia is essentially what is being done, only on a larger scale. The problem is the companies who make the drugs do not allow them to be used for executions.

As to pain and discomfort, the Constitution forbids it so no, you can't use a chainsaw.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem States are having is that companies refuse to sell the drugs to the States because of sanctions imposed on them by the EU. You can get nitrogen anywhere.

Re:Stupid

[MrKevvy]

The problem with using anesthesia is that organizations (the largest of which is the EU) forbids selling anything used in executions. So states that use anesthetics to execute the condemned will find they may be then unable to purchase the same anesthetics for use in hospitals. Nitrogen, being ~80% of the atmosphere, can't possibly be restricted.

FWIW I am completely against capital punishment, and for why one need look no further than the recent admission by the FBI that they were biased to decide a match in forensic hair analysis, which may have led to up to 14 wrongful executions. However some barbaric states are just going to continue to do it anyways, so they may as well do is as humanely as possible.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitrogen really is a good method. I learned about its use in this area when I read about 2 NASA(?) engineers who died right after a fuel tank was flushed with nitrogen. One walked into the middle of it for whatever reason and then collapsed, then the second went in to see what was wrong and he collapsed. They say it brings a bit of euphoria and then eternal sleep.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does it involve pain or discomfort?

It must not be cruel and unusual punishment.

> What's wrong with anesthesia?

As I understand it, laws+regulations state such drugs must be dispensed (and possibly also administered, I don't know) by physicians. Physicians have this thing they do, which you might have heard of, where they have to take an oath never to hurt anybody and only ever heal people.

Look, don't execute me, okay, I'm only the messenger on this deal. I cannot make this shit up if I tried.

Meanwhile, you can definitely tell the death penalty works as a deterrent. You can tell it works so well because all of the crime has completely stopped in the states that have the death penalty as punishment. Right? So I guess it's all worth it, somehow.

And finally, because you idiotic internet freaks have lost the ability to discern it, the above statement is known as SARCASM.

LOL vword == "punitive"

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The anesthesia drugs are made in countries where it is illegal to sell them for execution. No drug company in the USA wants to get FDA approval to make the drugs for execution since that would be bad PR. Nitrogen is pain-free. The body doesn't think it's suffocating since the reactions to suffocation come from too much CO2. If a nitrogen bottle was to be released in your bathroom while you where on the crapper. The only thing you would notice was light headiness and blurry vision before you passed out completely into blankness. This could happen as fast as one to two breaths.

Here is some info on avoiding Nitrogen accidents in industry.

Re:Stupid

[alzoron]

Speaking of cruel and unusual most people like to focus on the cruel part but at what point will enough of the world forbid capital punishment will it become an "unusual" way of dealing with crime?

Re:Stupid

[BitterOak]

The problem with using anesthesia is that organizations (the largest of which is the EU) forbids selling anything used in executions. So states that use anesthetics to execute the condemned will find they may be then unable to purchase the same anesthetics for use in hospitals.

Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?

Re:Stupid

[Mr D from 63]

So, we can painlessly euthanize animals, but not people. PETA can't complain about that.

Re:Stupid

[Culture20]

As to pain and discomfort, the Constitution forbids it

It actually forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Being shot by a firing squad or hung are likely painful albeit very temporarily so. The French Guillotine was invented to be a humane execution device. People these days are looking for the perfect mix of humane and sanitary.

Re:Stupid

[i.r.id10t]

Patents/trademarks/copyright, the WIPO saying the US won't break 'em, and the cost it takes to setup a production line.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

In a way I think this is a good idea. I don't think one should be allowed to sentence someone to death and then be allowed to get away from the mess.
Even better if the one calling for death penalty had do die too. Then people wouldn't call for it unless there was a criminal that society really had to be protected from and prison weren't enough.

Re:Stupid

[AchilleTalon]

Anesthesia doesn't equate no pain at all. It is subject to research at Stanford to help anesthesists to determine if the patient under anesthesia actually suffer or not when he/she is unable to communicate. You can administer drugs to create short term amnesia, hence, someone may have actually suffer under anesthesia, but because he was under such drugs, no memory of this episode can come to his/her mind. Here is the article: http://journals.plos.org/ploso...

Re: Stupid

[Frosty Piss]

PETA themselves euthanize plenty of animals: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry...

Re:Stupid

[niftymitch]

FFS! What is the accepted definition of execution? Does it involve pain or discomfort?
What's wrong with anesthesia?

Those that make the drugs of choice in this case are international and they refuse to
supply to this purpose and end.

A pure suffocating gas like nitrogen (but not CO2) will do the job.
Noble gasses like He, Ar, Ne might also work. He has
national security issues. It is also best extracted from natural
gas flows in Texas and Ok... other flows are fracking intensive
and He low so the anti fracking folk could help or hinder helium
as a choice. Helium would also be too funny for Saturday Night
Live to ignore.

Re:Stupid

[niftymitch]

The problem with using anesthesia is that organizations (the largest of which is the EU) forbids selling anything used in executions. ....

FWIW I am completely against capital punishment, .....

Capital punishment is the choice of the poor.
When society is starving for resources quick execution makes sense to me.
When society is wasting 1/3 of its food execution makes little sense (same for the waste).

As for cruel -- the decades on death row is nasty.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The justice system is not perfect. Someone that's found guilty of murder, might not be a murderer. It's not right to murder people, just because they might be murderers. Any state that executes people, is a state that excepts collateral murder in the name of justice.

That in mind. How the fuck does an America come up with all these execution methods, that don't involve just shooting them in the back of the head? If it doesn't kill them straight away, you just use a bigger round. It can't be that expensive. One gun, which you may already have, and a round of ammo. How expensive is .45 ACP? Or you could hit them in the back of the head with a hammer, that's got to be even cheaper.

Re:Stupid

[compro01]

Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?

Sure they could, but there's basically no market for it.

The established European companies have the legitimate-medical-uses market sown up, so that just leaves the killing-people market, which is really damn small, so they'd never even make back their investment, much less make a profit on it.

It would be possible to whomp up a government-owned corporation or government division to do it and not care about the cost, but the free market mania that the Republicans running the states that still do executions subscribe to probably wouldn't allow that or even have it occur to them.

Re:Stupid

[ShanghaiBill]

People these days are looking for the perfect mix of humane and sanitary.

I don't think anyone cares about "humane and sanitary". The people that want it abolished, want it abolished completely. The people in favor, tend to think shooting or hanging are fine. So we have "humane and sanitary" as a compromise that nobody really wants.

Re:Stupid

[ShanghaiBill]

Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics?

Sure, but it is cheaper to just import them. There is no good reason for each country to make all of their own anesthetics.

At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?

The execution market is miniscule, is going to bring in nearly zero revenue, has the possibility of lawsuits, and plenty of bad publicity. Why would any pharmaceutical company want to get involved? There is no upside.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU forbids selling bullets and rope then?

I think what they forbid is the selling of anything used exclusively for executions. Not things like nitrogen or anaesthetics which have mundane uses and could possibly also be used to kill someone.

Re:Stupid

[ShanghaiBill]

at what point will enough of the world forbid capital punishment will it become an "unusual" way of dealing with crime?

It is already unusual. There are only three main groups that still execute people:
1. Muslims
2. East Asians.
3. Americans.
This page has a map.

Re: Stupid

[Citizen of Earth]

It's also not right to kidnap and forcibly confine people. Therefore, all prisoners must be set free...

Re: Stupid

[CodeArtisan]

The live ones can be set free if it turns out to be a wrongful conviction. The dead ones...not so much.

Re: Stupid

[penix1]

The problem States are having is that companies refuse to sell the drugs to the States because of sanctions imposed on them by the EU.

Oh come on now. That isn't even bullshit. It is horse shit.

The drug companies that produce the drugs used for execution realized that their drugs, which were originally designed to save lives, was being used to take lives. Every statement made by those companies state that. In other words, they made a moral judgement that they didn't want to be seen as providing death on one hand and life on the other. Sure, the EU pharmacies were the first to refuse but your statement doesn't take into account the American companies refusals.

Re:Stupid

[budgenator]

I would think that Bayer's patent on Heroin ran out a long time ago, Heroin overdose is supposedly a gentle pleasant way to die.

Re:Stupid

[Qzukk]

a compromise that nobody really wants.

The problem is that something like nitrogen is too humane and sanitary. The people who want executions banned will be unable to show some guy twitching and flailing about to rally people to their cause, and the people who want firing squads and guillotines won't have some guy twitching and flailing about to appease their bloodlust.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics?

But that's COMMUNISM! Clearly it's better to just let the murderers run around than to have the US Government produce anything of use.

Re:Stupid

[jordanjay29]

18% is not unusual, it's a minority.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, people used the dead from abortion to justify illegal immigration too. Imagine that.

Re: Stupid

[Loki_1929]

Oh please; they just realized how the drugs were being used? Decades of repeated, public use and some executive finally picked up a newspaper? Give me a break. What actually happened is that they periodically reevaluated the amount of money they made off sales versus the PR hit they took for making those sales and eventually the numbers tipped in a new direction.

Re:Stupid

[Loki_1929]

The US Constitution doesn't give a damn about the rest of the world. Frankly, the rest of the world has such a sordid history (and present) that we should be thankful for that.

Capital punishment is long-established in the US. Taking the "cruel and unusual" approach won't get anywhere. Now if someone comes up with a particular method that's different enough (e.g. giant catapult, throwing people out of an airplane, letting alligators eat them, etc), you can attack the methods.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU forbids selling bullets and rope then?

Shhhh.

Don't give them any ideas.

Re:Stupid

[davidwr]

The people in favor, tend to think shooting or hanging are fine.

This isn't entirely correct.

1) Hangings and firing squads aren't error-proof and that bothers some who favor the death penalty.

2) There is something to be said for sanitary: The condemned prisoner's family didn't do anything wrong. Denying them a decent-looking body to bury is something that the state should avoid if possible. However, if the only legal (as determined by the SCOTUS) methods of execution result in a body that needs a lot of cleanup by the undertaker, that's tough cookies for the family.

Having said all of this, I'm generally against the death penalty as it is applied in the United States:

* Too many US states allow people to be condemned under the "law of parties," "murder during the commission of another felony," and for murders by people with no previous convictions for crimes that could have gotten them long prison terms. In almost all if not all of these cases, life-without-parole is a much more civilized punishment than death.

* Too many US states also don't disallow the death penalty if there were mitigating circumstances like an IQ only slightly higher than that of a mentally retarded person, a person who is young or immature but legally an adult, a person who is under the undue influence of someone else, mild- to-moderate mental impairments that would clearly benefit from the help of a mental health professional but which do not rise to the level of legal insanity, and the like.

When a jury condemns someone to die, they are basically saying "we give up on you as a human being." I'm almost never willing to do this. In the few cases where I am, it says that I am less civilized than I would like to be.

Assuming the guilty person has no extenuating circumstances, I am willing to recognize my lack of civility and recommend a death sentence for the principal actors (i.e. ringleader, top-lieutenants, and if they were truly free agents, the trigger-men) for things like large-scale "crimes against humanity" (dare I invoke Godwin's Law?) and for premeditated murder for the purpose of corrupting justice, such as to kill or intimidate a witness in a criminal case or intimidate other police (the ones who weren't killed) into resigning or looking the other way. I can also see it for people who commit (or arrange for) a murder while serving a life-without-parole sentence or while "on the run" after escaping prison while they are serving a life-without-parole sentence, on the grounds that without the threat of the death penalty they would be "free" to murder under the theory that "if you are willing to do the time, you are free to do the crime."

Re: Stupid

[alvinrod]

The same drug companies that brought us things like Oxycontin, etc. that have turned out to be as bad (if not worse) than what they were supposed to replace?

They don't give a damn if someone dies, it's all about the publicity and the public relations. And the money. Let's not forget about that.

Re:Stupid

[Akaihiryuu]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with euthanizing people, if they have a terminal/incurable illness and are in pain to the point where living at all is misery to them. People in these situations often *want* to die, but the law won't let the doctors do it for them, and a lot of them end up doing it themselves.

Re: Stupid

[penix1]

PR or not, that is the reason they give which is why I say "Every statement they made says that". The point I was making was it isn't the EU stopping American drug companies from distributing them as the GP proclaimed.

Re:Stupid

[KiloByte]

You forgot the majority of the world. In fact, among 10 most populous countries, only one limits it to military only (Brazil) and one has a temporary moratorium (Russia), the rest retains death penalty in active use. These countries hold more than half of world's population.

Re: Stupid

[no-body]

The problem States are having is that companies refuse to sell the drugs to the States because of sanctions imposed on them by the EU. ...

Not to worry, TTIP will fix that.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's because only the Christian god is allowed to kill people.

Re:Stupid

[MoaDweeb]

That is 'hanged'.

People are 'hanged', meat is 'hung'.

They may be meat by then but they were people.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. Eminent domain the patent. The US definitely has this power within its own territory. It wouldn't work if the EU manufactures were willing to sell it, but if they sell it in the US they can't stop it from being resold, and if they don't sell at all then we eminent domain the patent for all in-US use.

I don't think it will come to it because we could use one of the old ones like Chloroform for executions.

Re:Stupid

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Nitrogen really is a good method. I learned about its use in this area when I read about 2 NASA(?) engineers who died right after a fuel tank was flushed with nitrogen. One walked into the middle of it for whatever reason and then collapsed, then the second went in to see what was wrong and he collapsed. They say it brings a bit of euphoria and then eternal sleep.

CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch (though worrying about the aesthetics of how you kill someone is, um, just fucking weird). CO also works just fine - no hand flapping or straining to breath, but it also has aesthetic "issues".

Note: I don't support state sanctioned murder - if for no other reason than the abysmal record the US has for justice - even when the condemned was actually guilty of the crime, the crime was arguably that of the state, not the condemned (homeowner shoots unarmed petty thief, petty thief that is not shot dead is convicted). I doubt there are many people outside the US that don't believe there is something extremely wrong with the self-appointed moral guardian of the world (life imprisonment for a joint, fines for giving out food, secret trade agreements that breach US sponsored International Human rights, etc, etc).

If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty. And yes, there really are a large number of US 'citizens' that'd like (Facebook style) the F100 method (sadly it's not unique to the US), just look at the comments on /. from people cheering the idea of prison rape, or the human hemorrhoid that gets all excited at the idea of using liquid nitrogen and a hammer for state executions. On second thought - maybe state execution is the answer, just not for the people you put inside the cells of your prisons with the world's highest percentage of incarceration[*1].

Disclaimer: I spent part of my youth in Missouri (pronounced "misery") within sight of Monsanto - it's not Denmark that reeks of something seriously rotten.

[*1] I know.. (sigh), those that deny their ugly blood lust will point to statistically insignificant data from countries with populations of less than 100K, and simultaneously justify their own countries imprisonment rate, and their "right" to armed self-defense - whilst remaining blind to all the inherent contradictions. i.e. if your prison and justice system worked your 'citizens' wouldn't need guns, and you'd have the safest nation on earth. Roll on the triumph of optimism over experience like the Sherman tank of freedom, and whenever you lose a hand - double up.

Re: Stupid

[arth1]

That in mind. How the fuck does an America come up with all these execution methods, that don't involve just shooting them in the back of the head? If it doesn't kill them straight away, you just use a bigger round. It can't be that expensive. One gun, which you may already have, and a round of ammo.

I think that the death penalty should be personally executed by the governor of the state that allows it, under a law that makes it murder subject to capital punishment if he or she ever executes an innocent. Since the governor has the authority to pardon a death penalty, he or she cannot claim coercion.
Would Charlie Baker pull the trigger on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Possibly.
But would Greg Abbott pull the trigger on hundreds of people in Texas, knowing that 4 out of 100 people sentenced to death are statistically innocent? Very doubtful.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

They could also go with an altitude chamber I've been in one and it's awesome. You drift more and more losing the ability to do simple task. Lethal injection is excruciatingly painful and if they didn't paralyze the person we'd get to see just how much.
Our justice system is now one of revenge instead of rehabilitation like it was meant to be. We have prosecutors that care about only one thing conviction ratio so throw people in the grinder and they come out worse.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The deal the European groups had going was that it didn't matter how they obtained it - if it was *used* in executions, then they would not sell it to that region again. At least members of that consortium. Thus, there's no sense in them making it themselves, if they use it at all they can't buy it from the European consortium for the hospitals.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

About 10% of people killed on death row are later proven innocent, after they're dead of course. One of the biggest issues is that eye witnesses are horrible, one of the worse forms of evidence. If you're for killing innocent people, I'm not sure how to react other than GTFO.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

People are 'hanged', meat is 'hung'.

I'm a person. Are you saying I'm not well hung?

Re: Stupid

[DaHat]

It's because while we have a long history of using the death penalty, just enough are squeamish about it that there are efforts to take it out of the public conscious & try to maintain an almost medical like image.

While there are countries today where you can attend a execution in a public square, in the US we have long relegated them to happen at midnight behind tall walls and in a confined room with a limited number of witnesses... including a alcohol swab on the condemns arm to prevent infection just in case they get a last minute reprieve from the needle to be put into their arm.

Re:Stupid

[Jack Griffin]

Anesthesia has to be applied an anesthetist, ie a professionally trained medical practitioner ethically bound to save lives. The Gas Chamber, Electric Chair, Firing squad etc can all be performed by a regular run of the mill prison guard with no such ethics.

Re:Stupid

[Jack Griffin]

That's at least half the population of the known universe, so wouldn't it be more accurate so say that capital punishment is usual?

Re:Stupid

[IronChef]

> recent admission by the FBI that they were biased to decide a match in forensic hair analysis, which may have led to up to 14 wrongful executions.

Interesting, do you have a link?

Re:Stupid

[rtb61]

The two problems with the method, which is incidentally why it was not brought up, it is a very accessible means of suicide and that state is now promoting it and of course an effective murder method, again which the state is now advertising. Quite the blunder, just so it can keep killing people.

Re:Stupid

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't think anyone cares about "humane and sanitary". The people that want it abolished, want it abolished completely.

That's redundant.

The people in favor, tend to think shooting or hanging are fine.

That's because you think of people who are in favor of the death penalty as some kind of vindictive savages. Like most people, I don't feel very strongly about the death penalty. I think there are crimes that certainly deserve it, although I also feel somewhat uneasy giving that power to government. I think most people who want to abolish the death penalty just do it because their political tribe tells them to, not because they have done any particularly serious philosophical analysis. Like abortion and gay marriage, the death penalty in the US is a non-issue from a real-world point of view.

So, although I don't really care strongly either way, I think there should be plenty of safeguards before people are subjected to the death penalty (we have those in the US), and when the death penalty is applied, I believe it should be quick, reliable, and painless. I don't care about sanitary. So, firing squad and nitrogen are fine with me. Most other forms of execution fail that test.

Re: Stupid

[sjames]

I imagine part of it is a new public skepticism in the wake of vioxx and co. Nobody wants the public joking about their drugs being proven deadly by the state.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Muslims
2. East Asians.
3. Americans.

A religion, a geographical location, and a country? Your list is of three different things. Also, you seem to mean south Asia, not east Asia.

Finally, from your map, it is interesting that all of these countries are basically centered around the equator (though I realize the projection and distribution of countries tends to enhance this), so I am reminded of a rather random thing from The West Wing:

Ellie had a teacher named Mr. Pordy, who had no interest in nuance. He asked the class why there's always been conflict in the Middle East and Ellie raised her hand and said, "It's a centuries old religious conflict involving land and suspicions and culture and..." "Wrong." Mr. Pordy said, "It's because it's incredible hot and there's no water."

Re:Stupid

[Darinbob]

I say start with a big dose of nitrous oxide, you can get that without going through a pharmaceutical company. After that does use the nitrogen, CO2, etc.

The other alternative is just to stop executions. It's not like everyone in the state will turn into hippies over night if this happens. Also highly unlikely for the crime rate to rise, as the death penalty does not seem to be working at all as a deterrent, so it's only being kept around as a political tool.

Re:Stupid

[jklovanc]

If you mean this map you might notice that the percentages are based on number of countries and not population. By population the statistics are very different.

Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where executions take place, such as China, India, the United States and Indonesia, the four most-populous countries in the world, which continue to apply the death penalty

Re:Stupid

[techno-vampire]

I would be very surprised to find that the patent on Zyklon B hadn't run out yet, and it's known to be very, very effective for this application.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So, your point is that the worst countries have the most people? Or that it's ok to kill as long as the population is high?

Re:Stupid

[baegucb]

A previous Slashdot story was about this. But not to worry, you can read about it again in a day or two.

Re:Stupid

[Applehu Akbar]

"What's wrong with anesthesia?"

That was supposed to be the whole point of lethal injection using propofol, the most common surgical anesthetic. Everybody knows what propofol feels like (I had three procedures under it in 2014 alone), so execution with an overdose of it satisfies the Eighth Amendment test.

But apparently our whole supply of it is made by one company in Germany, which hasdthreatened to withhold the entire US supply if it keeps being used for executions. This is what prompted the use of a variety of different anesthetic mixtures, some of them little tested for sensory effect (Eighth Amendment fitness) and today's host of lawsuits.

Should we invoke the TRIPS agreement to bust patent and make our own propofol? Nitrogen satisfies the same "everybody knows wha it does" test without being in any way proprietary or endangering lucrative trade with the EU.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the WIPO Troll when you need him? Oh, wait, he's dead. A pity.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Many of the people who signed that prohibition served in the earliest Congresses and voted for some punishments that shock us today. Things like branding convicts, requiring prisoners to perform hard labor, putting people in stocks in the town square, and public beatings were all allowed at some point, which implies they weren't considered cruel or unusual.

Modern courts haven't completely agreed on what falls under cruel and unusual. They all seem to agree that there can't be gratuitous or unnecessary pain, but they can't agree if the requirement is more strict than that.

Historically, hanging and shooting have been acceptable execution methods even though they may not be entirely pain free.

The interesting thing about nitrogen is that apparently the pain involved in not breathing is caused by increased CO2 gas. There are several industrial accidents each year involving nitrogen gas ( http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/SB-Nitrogen-6-11-031.pdf ), and as far as we can tell, people will asphyxiate without realizing it and without pain because a lack of oxygen doesn't necessarily mean that CO2 will build up in your bloodstream. As long as you're air -- even air without oxygen -- CO2 won't build up.

Re:Stupid

[rseuhs]

The condemned prisoner's family didn't do anything wrong.

That is funny because I have been personally held responsible for all these:

• Slavery
• Colonialism
• The Holocaust
• The Crusades

I am supposedly guilty of all these because somebody guilty is possibly is related to me (probably a dozen or so steps removed because I don't know anybody in my immediate family guilty of any of that). I am supposed to feel guilty about that - and if not I am evil, evil, evil and deserve to die (yes, the very same people who are against the death penalty often call for a lynching if they run out of arguments - and they do so proudly).

Then, when I switch on the TV, I see some murderer's mother crying "My boy didn't do no wrong" - why isn't she supposed to feel guilty? How is it that normal, law-abiding people are guilty for things that happened centuries before their birth while "The condemned prisoner's family didn't do anything wrong."? How so? Why this double-standard?

Any rational person has to admit that (in most cases) of course the condemned prisoner's family did a lot wrong, they raised him the way they did, they likely watched him go deeper and deeper into crime and quite often they also covered for him and obstructed justice. And in any case they are a lot closer to a criminal than I am.

Why is every criminal innocent until proven guilty while every law-abiding person is guilty without any chance of appeal?

Re:Stupid

[oobayly]

CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch

I'm pretty sure that the increased respiration attempts aren't enjoyable to endure either - the body senses heightened levels of CO2 as a sign of suffocation. Whereas CO simply attaches to red blood cells instead of O2, meaning there's no sense of suffocation.

Re:Stupid

[umghhh]

It seems US have no quarrels in sending drones to kill random people across the world and without a court ordering so. Why not extend the procedure to local death market? That goes over the need for all the gas chambers, restricted drugs etc and if you televise the proceedings you may just as well make some good buck on it - it is win-win!

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Melodramatic, much? If you were personally held responsible for those things you are either a ghost or posting from jail.

I see some murderer's mother crying "My boy didn't do no wrong" - why isn't she supposed to feel guilty?

Who says she isn't supposed to? Who says she doesn't?

Any rational person has to admit that (in most cases) of course the condemned prisoner's family did a lot wrong, they raised him the way they did, they likely watched him go deeper and deeper into crime and quite often they also covered for him and obstructed justice. And in any case they are a lot closer to a criminal than I am.

In the case of many world leaders and politicians, including several people who actually did have a hand in things like slavery and colonialism, their families had the power to obstruct justice enough to not even get condemned or go to prison. In recent times, upper level figures in finance and banking are also prime examples of this.

Re:Stupid

[dave420]

Well, until a criminal is found guilty he is presumed innocent, just as every law-abiding person. That means your last sentence is a contradiction in itself. You might want to work on your outrage, as it's clouding your logic.

Re:Stupid

[Dr_Barnowl]

No, there is documentary evidence that the incumbent members of the justice administration consider it too humane.

How to kill a human being is a documentary where a prominent British politician investigates the commonly used methods of execution.

He concludes that the nitrogen method, used in abattoirs to kill pigs humanely, is ideal for human execution too. All the other methods have drawbacks. In particular, lethal injection is noted to be quite painful. In a country who's constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, this seems odd.

Several members of the incumbent correctional organizations express the opinion that nitrogen asphyxiation isn't cruel enough because asphyxia induces a brief, mild, state of euphoria before the victim loses consciousness. They also seem of the opinion that the execution should make the target suffer before death to provide a sense of justice to the family of their victim.

If the killers ... go out with a euphoric high, that is not justice [1]

(and it's rumoured that Oklahoma is actually taking up nitrogen as an execution method after seeing this documentary).

Re:Stupid

[rseuhs]

I see some murderer's mother crying "My boy didn't do no wrong" - why isn't she supposed to feel guilty?

Who says she isn't supposed to? Who says she doesn't?

Read my post again, I quoted it: "The condemned prisoner's family didn't do anything wrong."

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with euthanizing people, if they have a terminal/incurable illness and are in pain to the point where living at all is misery to them. People in these situations often *want* to die, but the law won't let the doctors do it for them, and a lot of them end up doing it themselves.

There's the fear that people who are not yet at the point where living at all is misery to them will be pressurized into euthanasia because the people doing the pressuring think that they are too much of a burden.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

This would never work. The next governor in office would just pardon the previous one, because if he doesn't and it's later discovered that the former governor was innocent after all (i.e., everyone he executed was actually guilty), then he'd be the one on death row. The third governor would then be faced with essentially the same choice, so essentially either all governors get pardoned, or it's governors on death row all the way down.

Re:Stupid

[serviscope_minor]

But apparently our whole supply of it is made by one company in Germany, which hasdthreatened to withhold the entire US supply if it keeps being used for executions.

It's not just that they threatened to: it's flat out illegal for them under EU (and therefore German---since they ratified the treaty) law. They risk criminal sanctions for doing so.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only"? That's most of the world, by population.

Re:Stupid

[DarkTempes]

If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Even if you're against capital punishment you can still recognize the reality of the current situation and desire a better form of execution.

It's quite simple, if you yourself were to be executed which method would you think is more humane? CO2 buildup is an extremely painful way to die, not just merely "aesthetics." CO poisoning is as well.
In studies (google for them), nitrogen (or another inert gas) has been shown to be one of the most humane ways to kill any mammal.

I, in fact, hope this sets a precedent and that states move to nitrogen gas as the primary method of execution. At least then the innocent people we kill wouldn't have to suffer while it's done.

Re:Stupid

[cmdr_tofu]

What's nice about a guillotine is that the hero can always throw a knife/sword/arrow or something to stop the guillotine from killing an innocent at exactly the last second creating good dramatic tension.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they just realized that EU had imposed a ban on exporting such drugs to countries which allowed death penalty.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the EU companies involved was in the news a lot around here (local company). Several campaigns to stop them supplying the drugs used for executions. Every time their answer was "yes, we know, not our problem".

At some point, they were told "look, we have this law"... Since then, they have been among the companies refusing to supply those drugs.

This was likely not the only company. Companies generally have a stance of profit over morality. Besides, that law was not written just for one minor company. They could have been boycotted out of existence, if they were the only one.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The former governor would only be innocent if every execution he did was of the correct person. And he would only be on trial after at least one executed person is exonerated.

Apart from that, if they did what you suggest, it would quickly start smell a lot like governors being a privileged class that can get away with anything. Just like back when the US was under the British Crown. How long do you think they would happily accept that accusation?

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 works fine too

Actually, no, it doesn't.

See, broadly speaking, the breathing reflex in humans is triggered by the presence of carbon dioxide, and not the absence of oxygen. So you can breathe in a gas mix that includes helium, neon, argon, methane, nitrogen, sulphur hexafluoride, and/or any other physiologically inert gases - but no oxygen - and hold your breath, and you'll feel fine, right up until you black out, and then die (the brainstem dies after about seven minutes, according to Wikipedia). But throw enough carbon dioxide into the mix, and your body will demand that you keep breathing; you'll feel like you're suffocating.

So if you're after a humane method of execution, carbon dioxide most definitely is not it.

Re:Stupid

[Eunuchswear]

There is something to be said for sanitary: The condemned prisoner's family didn't do anything wrong. Denying them a decent-looking body to bury is something that the state should avoid if possible.

In the British tradition the familly didn't get the body. After an execution the body was buried inside the prison.

"Life means life", pah. "Death means Eternity".

Re:Stupid

[Eunuchswear]

Frankly, the rest of the world has such a sordid history (and present) that we should be thankful for that.

Where as the genocidal, slave owning, warmongering USA is a shining city upon a hill.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So capitalism then? I thought we Americans had boners for capitalism, especially when another country followed its tenets.

Re: Stupid

[RenegadeTempest]

Actually the drugs are made by a single company in Italy is barred by EU regulations from selling it. You'd have to find equivalent drugs in the US. The problem is that SCOTUS blessed this cocktail in Baze v. Rees (2008) and all the states raced to switch to that process to reduce appeals. Now that part of that cocktail is unavailable, states are back to square one. Has nothing to do with PR or marketing.

Re:Stupid

[kilfarsnar]

Like abortion and gay marriage, the death penalty in the US is a non-issue from a real-world point of view.

I would say that greatly depends on one's circumstance.

Re:Stupid

[kilfarsnar]

I think it's because only the Christian god is allowed to kill people.

And the state, apparently. Plenty of Christians are a-okay with the death penalty.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

However some barbaric states are just going to continue to do it anyways, so they may as well do is as humanely as possible.

Disagree; it should be done as awfully as it could be. It's this sanitary, medical-ized approach that allows the public to deny that it's doing what it really is doing -- killing another human being.

Re: Stupid

[kilfarsnar]

About 10% of people killed on death row are later proven innocent, after they're dead of course. One of the biggest issues is that eye witnesses are horrible, one of the worse forms of evidence. If you're for killing innocent people, I'm not sure how to react other than GTFO.

IMO, anyone who is in favor of the death penalty is okay with killing a few innocent people. In a real-world application, you can't separate the two.

Re:Stupid

[cyberchondriac]

Meanwhile, you can definitely tell the death penalty works as a deterrent. You can tell it works so well because all of the crime has completely stopped in the states that have the death penalty as punishment. Right? So I guess it's all worth it, somehow.

Well, prison and jail terms obviously aren't working either then, by that standard, so why not just do away with prisons? Hell, let's get rid of cops while we're at it. Crime is going to happen anyway, right?

Re:Stupid

[shilly]

Michael Portillo has been much better out of office than he ever was when he held power.

Re:Stupid

[shilly]

Isn't the very essence of life-without-parole saying: "we give up on you as a human being"? The whole point of no parole is to say "you are not redeemable", surely? In that sense, I can't see it really being materially different from the death penalty, tbh. It is certainly spectacularly effective as a method of damaging mental health compared with even the remotest possibility of parole.

Re:Stupid

[rubycodez]

Wrong, you make up things according to agenda and bias. Execution by hanging or firing squad was perfectly fine by the framers of the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment".

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitrogen satisfies the same "everybody knows wha it does" test

Does it? Yes, our atmosphere is something like 70% nitrogen, but who among us has actually tried to breath 100% nitrogen to see what it is like? I mean, oxygen is supposed to work differently at higher-than-atmospheric concentrations (or something), maybe nitrogen does too?

For the record, I do believe that Nitrogen Asphyxiation is a painless way to go. I just disagree with the notion that "everybody knows what it does".

Re:Stupid

[rhazz]

Context. Do you know what that is? GP made a perfectly valid argument about using the word "unusual" when applied to something practiced by the governments of 60% of the world's population. No attempt to justify the practice was made.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hanged

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

If methane works, then I propose that we bottle cop farts and kill them with that.

Re:Stupid

[John.Banister]

The problem is the companies who make the drugs do not allow them to be used for executions.

Here's something I haven't understood about that. It's my understanding that the most common death for people's pets in the USA is now euthanasia. Someone is making a drug that causes mammals to die an easy death and is allowing large quantities of it to be used for that purpose. Since the objective is death, who cares if the drug hasn't passed the regulatory hurdles that would allow it to be used to treat humans? I'm opposed to the death penalty, but as a practical matter, being unable to figure out how to humanely kill people in 2015 seems idiotic.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it's not an executive decision. As far as we can tell, the company only changed their business when the EU politicians told them to quit selling to the US (state) governments.

As for EU politicians, it's hard to buy them in bulk since you need to buy too many representatives from too many countries. The exception is when you're trying to sabotage the decision process, because that's doable with a fairly small minority. That does lead us to the conclusion though, that the German company didn't try to bribe itself out of this ban.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Breathing in a large amount of CO2 also results in acidification of the respiratory tract and is extremely painful. Try breathing in the air over dry ice sometime. It hurts like hell. Killing someone with 100% CO2 would certainly be cruel.

Re:Stupid

[mrclevesque]

http://news.nationalpost.com/n...

Re:Stupid

[rtb61]

As it is, I am opposed to the whole idea of execution, it seems such a waste. Whilst the individual has lost their rights that have not lost their value. Contained within them is the genetics, the motivations and very likely the information to help prevent crimes by others. Also the potential for a cure, a bit tough as it would be on the experimental side but again there is benefit community wide in find cures and applying before terrible consequences occur. So kept as comfortable as reasonable, in a very good health state and used for appropriate reasonable medical experimentation, with strong emphasis on 'appropriate' and 'reasonable'. As an individual they might well have lost their value as a human being they have not and most definitely never to be spare parts (that is simply way to dangerous, DNA matching and wealthy scum able to manipulate the courts, nobody wants to be set up and framed for their body parts, no thank you). Never forget, we are talking government and lawyers as well, so a chance always remains to repair a legal mistake or a fraudulent prosecution.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that greatly depends on one's circumstance.

No, I made a statement about numbers and politics: comparatively few people are harmed by whatever decisions we make on those issues; there are many issues receiving less attention where decisions harm a much larger number of people.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but we aren't trying to turn them into Jews, we're trying to kill them.

Re:Stupid

[ebvwfbw]

Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?

I know, this is so stupid. It's easy to kill with good 'ol 1940's technology. Chloroform, Ether, etc.. They had to be careful or they could kill the patient. So easy I could do it. Face mask, pour the ether over it... Nighty-night! Dozens of off the shelf ways they could use.

Could go back 100 years - Get a rope! Hang 'em. Hang 'em high!

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

if they murder me for a crime I didnt commit I want it to be brutal. witnesses can't eat for a week afterward: brutal. then, when you find out I didnt do it...

Re:Stupid

[Loki_1929]

Having fun with your straw man arguments?

Never stated nor implied that the US has a perfect history (or present); merely that most of the rest of the world is hardly a model.

Re:Stupid

[Eunuchswear]

merely that most of the rest of the world is hardly a model.

Busy moving the goalposts I see.

Re:Stupid

[Loki_1929]

Now you're just picking up any little thing to criticize because I called you out on the strawman argument you made. You aren't looking to have any sort of substantive discussion - that much is obvious - so good day to you.

Re:Stupid

[Demonoid-Penguin]

If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment.

And I support your right to hold the opinion your deserve - even when it's wrong.

Even if you're against capital punishment you can still recognize the reality of the current situation and desire a better form of execution.

No - I can't. Your logic is flawed. Executions don't prevent crimes, slapping a political approval on murder doesn't change the reality. Hence the lipstick on a pig metaphor. Making it "nice" is just butter for those without bread.

It's quite simple, if you yourself were to be executed which method would you think is more humane?

Again your logic is flawed (how's that confirmation bias working out?). It's akin to asking me for a defense plan against an invasion of Martians (or whether I want to be punched or kicked in the balls).

At least then the innocent people we kill wouldn't have to suffer while it's done.

Wow! You really are one sick fucker.

If you're going to embrace state sanctioned murder you should realize that the pain and embarrassment of the method of execution are irrelevant to the person being executed at the time. It's the audience, and those twisted blood lusting promoters of execution that worry about the ironic "humanity" of the method. The dead get over it pretty quick.

Re:Stupid

[Demonoid-Penguin]

CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch

I'm pretty sure that the increased respiration attempts aren't enjoyable to endure either - the body senses heightened levels of CO2 as a sign of suffocation. Whereas CO simply attaches to red blood cells instead of O2, meaning there's no sense of suffocation.

I never said it was fun. Don't kid yourself that nitrogen being "painless" makes the experience any less unpleasant the person being executed. Heroin overdoses are very pleasant (I know that first-hand from a misspent youth). But only the deluded or those sick of life would willingly submit the experience - no matter how "pain free" the process. All your "humanity" is nothing more than the moral high ground of someone out of touch with reality. Knowing you are going to die real soon by any means makes the situation real. Very few take that awareness gracefully - and all those that do, that I've known, gain a greater respect for all life as a consequence - all others theorize from the safety of denial. Knowing you will die someday is not the same. You'll know the difference when it happens - I hope you never have to be that aware.

Re:Stupid

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Killing someone with 100% CO2 would certainly be cruel.

And killing someone by any means when they don't want to die is not cruel? Do you prefer a particular shade of lipstick on your pig?

Exit bag

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty good method to die (not that I'm a huge fan of capital punishment). Wikipedia says Right-to-die groups recommend this form of suicide as certain, fast, and painless, according to a 2007 study.

Re:Exit bag

[ebvwfbw]

Don't need no stinkin' exit bag! Just go to your favorite computer store, get a computer duster in a can. Look at the can. Don't inhale, could cause death. Well, inhale it!

Should use liquid

[Anonymous Coward]

They should use liquid nitrogen (and a hammer). It would be faster and much more spectacular.

Re: Should use liquid

[Anonymous Coward]

I've burned myself with liquid nitrogen. Tried to freeze and snap off part of my shirt. It hurt like hell. Fun though. Playing with liquid nitrogen is like playing with fire for the first time. Instantly turns you into an idiot who forgets to use common sense. I highly recommend it. I would suggest wearing goggles lest you suffer irreversible damage before snapping back to reality.

Re: Should use liquid

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro tip: Don't pour it down your pants.

Re: Should use liquid

[master_kaos]

hey it could help someone with erectile dysfunction!

Re: Should use liquid

[danlip]

Fabric plus liquid nitrogen is a bad combination. You can safely dip you hand in liquid nitrogen (briefly) (assuming no rings, gloves, or other items on you hands) because it has low specific heat and your body heat quickly evaporates it to form a layer of air around your hand. Spill a little on your clothes and you will instantly get frost bite.

Maybe use helium

[BarbaraHudson]

Helium, for the giggles. Plus, if there's a leak, you'll know it because people will sound like Donald Duck, whereas the first sign of a nitrogen leak is people passing out.

Re:Maybe use helium

[Anonymous Coward]

A helium leak is almost as dangerous as a nitrogen leak in an enclosed space. The only benefit is that it is lighter than air and thus will be at the ceiling instead of on floor where you breath it.

When a gas displaces the oxygen you tend to go unconscious really fast (can be in seconds), it is not like holding your breath. Due to the very low O2 concentration in the lungs oxygen actually goes from the blood through the lungs into the air, making blood O2 levels drop very low.

Re:Maybe use helium

[Fear the Clam]

Yes, that would be very noble.

Re:Maybe use helium

[foreverdisillusioned]

A helium leak is almost as dangerous as a nitrogen leak in an enclosed space. The only benefit is that it is lighter than air and thus will be at the ceiling instead of on floor where you breath it.

As the parent noted, it's not as dangerous (in the sense of being undetectable) if people in the room are talking. Argon would be just as dangerous.

Re:Maybe use helium

[Akaihiryuu]

Any gas or gas mixture that doesn't contain oxygen of at least 1/5 of 1 atmosphere by partial pressure will do the same thing. I suppose mitrogen has the advantage to the government of being VERY cheap, because the air around us is already 78% nitrogen. Much more common than say, helium, or argon.

Re:Maybe use helium

[foreverdisillusioned]

If you are talking, it is rather easy to notice a serious helium leak. If I were working in an area where helium asphyxiation was a risk, I would make it a point to sing out loud while I was doing it.

This technique doesn't work so well with argon or nitrogen. That was the only point I was trying to make there.

Re:Maybe use helium

[Translation Error]

It would also make any last moment threats of vengeance from beyond the grave seem much less scary.

the Bends song

[turkeydance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Phrasing:

[Hartree]

"Does anyone doubt that the Tsarneavs were responsible for killing and maiming dozens? Timothy Mcveigh?"

It's a little hard to ask him what he thinks about the Tsarneavs these days.

Re:Phrasing:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does anyone doubt that the Tsarneavs were responsible for killing and maiming dozens? Timothy Mcveigh?"

It's a little hard to ask him what he thinks about the Tsarneavs these days.

Even harder to get an answer.

Re:Phrasing:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all hard to ask. Asking does not imply logically that the askee can hear the asking.

Execute the fastest way possible

[smooth wombat]

Guillotine. Make sure the guides are sufficiently greased and the blade exquisitely sharp, it will be over in a second or so.

If there's a question about the instance of pain as the blade slices through the neck, rub a numbing solution on the skin.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[oodaloop]

But the blood in your brain will keep you alive another 5-7 seconds of agonizing pain as you watch your headless body slump to the floor. Not exactly humane.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[CaptainLard]

I remember reading about reports from the middle ages about severed heads moving mouths, eyes, etc. well over a minute after decapitation. Surely some of it was involuntary twitches but on the other hand heart attacks usually don't kill instantly and most people can hold their breath somewhere around a minute. In any case its tough to ask how it feels.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[wbr1]

I am an opponent of the death penalty, but one minute of holding breath is not the same. When you are holding breath, you have stored oxygen in your blood. After decapitation there is no more blood flowing.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually would be the worse way given there's a possibility that the brain remains conscious a few seconds after decapitation.
Decapitation in Rats: Latency to Unconsciousness and the ‘Wave of Death’

Two conclusions were drawn from this experiment. It is likely that consciousness vanishes within seconds after decapitation, implying that decapitation is a quick and not an inhumane method of euthanasia [for rats]. It seems that the massive wave which can be recorded approximately one minute after decapitation reflects the ultimate border between life and death. This observation might have implications in the discussions on the appropriate time for organ donation.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[foreverdisillusioned]

It's weird how many people bring up the guillotine as the gold standard, given we're pretty sure that the head will remain conscious for some seconds afterwards.

Shooting in the head with a shotgun would be much more humane, but as others have noted there has always been an intentional conflation of "humane" and "comfort level of the spectators."

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Cytotoxic]

The egg industry uses little chipper/shredder machines to grind up the unwanted male chicks in less than a second. Although grotesque, it is so quick that they probably experience no pain from the killing itself.

A giant chipper/shredder for humans would do the job humanely, if horrifically. Perhaps this is the best solution - push for a truly humane death penalty that is spectacularly unpalatable. Putting someone under with valium and dropping them into a giant machine that reduces their body to hamburger in less than a second would certainly be "humane".

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[ganjadude]

or pretty awesome being able to watch that. you also forgot about shock, i highly doubt there would be time for pain to kick in

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

The fastest most painless execution method is to adhere some plastic explosives in a ring around the condemned's head. Put his head in a hole lined with plate steel. Picture an MRI machine sort of set up.

Now detonate. The person will go from having a head to complete absence of head in about .25 seconds.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[spire3661]

The problem is, once they are dead, you should have no more claim over their body. The House has been paid.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting someone under with valium and dropping them into a giant machine that reduces their body to hamburger in less than a second would certainly be "humane".

Hmmm.. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you could make a nice summer sausage and hand that over to the family...

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Dutchmaan]

I am an opponent of the death penalty, but one minute of holding breath is not the same. When you are holding breath, you have stored oxygen in your blood. After decapitation there is no more blood flowing.

...but there is oxygen rich blood already in the brain....

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the massive drop in blood pressure due to all the blood vessels in the head suddenly being open at one end, you'd be unconscious almost instantly.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the drop in blood pressure render you unconscious instantly?

Re: Execute the fastest way possible

[DigiShaman]

Without the pumping of a beating heart, that oxygen is quickly depleted by the neurons closest to the red blood cells.

A full heart attack (not partial, but zero pumping action) will quickly drop someone.

Re: Execute the fastest way possible

[DigiShaman]

And if they have titanium implants that could jam the machine?? No, bad idea all around.

Re: Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Which immediately runs out of the gaping hole in your neck.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Jack Griffin]

It'd be a pretty surreal 5-7 seconds though

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you've committed to executing someone, it's hard to believe that you're still deeply concerned with the humanity you extend to that person. Of course, if you are two faced, perhaps you offer sham humanity in exchange for your not feeling badly about what you are going to do.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[EvilSS]

But the blood in your brain will keep you alive another 5-7 seconds of agonizing pain as you watch your headless body slump to the floor. Not exactly humane.

As far as I'm aware no one has ever mentioned any pain from being guillotined.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[sjames]

I recommend a tree chipper.

I also suggest that a jury that recommends the death penalty should have to be the ones to feed the machine. Let them show us the courage of their convictions.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

How much?

The answer is "not enough".

I do know that some research on slaughterhouse techniques indicated that due to blood pressure drop (from a typical slaughterhouse throat cutting), a sheep was insensitive to any and all stimuli in under two seconds, generally much faster. Pre-slaughter electrical stunning is just a precaution.

I doubt humans are much different. I wish I could find the paper, but it was a long time ago and the research institute wasn't a public organisation.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[houghi]

The Guillotine was an improvent in the way executions were done. It was the most humane one at that moment.

It was quick, reusable af few times in a row and relitive painless compared to what was used before.

However now what is needed is different and science is different. We do not need to have a method where many need to be execusted in a row.
What is humane is shiftes as is what has been done before.

My guess is that people point to the guillotine, because they do not want it to be humane as the deathrow is seen not so much a punishment but as a revenge. It is painfull enough to give in to the revenge feeling, yet humane enough to pretend that they care.

What the most humane way would be is obvious for almost all countries in the world.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[AmiMoJo]

States prefer not to mutilate the body because when they get sued for killing the wrong person it tends to multiply the damages somewhat.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Tom]

Whilte it originally was introduced in order to execute painlessly, following basically your logic, it has since turned out that this is not true and the Guillotine is actually a fairly cruel execution method.

It is great for market-square entertainment, though. Maybe that's what you're really after?

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only the blood, but also in the lungs. Usually we like the breathe a long time before all the oxygen is used up.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[Anonymous Coward]

LaVoisier would disagree about the second or so.

Re:Execute the fastest way possible

[jafac]

There is some debate on this, supported by observations.

http://science.howstuffworks.c...

im sure the argument is riveting

[nimbius]

supreme court: guise the combination of drain-o and bug spray you used to kill someone is...unorthodox...we're going to need to review it so until then you might suspend executions.
Oklahoma: never fear! we've found that firing squads are extremely effective! executions can continue!
supreme court: jesus guys...no..thats not the point. the point is, you know, you at least make an attempt to reflect on the nature of capital punishment and the repercussions morally and financially of a system in ...
Oklahoma:Nitrogen gas! shall be used in a highly controlled and technological manner in order to...
supreme court: FFS guys....youre going to off people with the gas that car dealerships use to mark up lemons?
Oklahoma: The gun from Star Trek Into Darkness will henceforeth be legally permitted in the administration of justice! for this we will...
supreme court: ok...that one doesnt even exist...

Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Nitrous oxide, aka. NO2 or Laughing gas, would let the bastards go out laughing their asses off. Then there would be no debate about the cruelty of the death penalty method.

Actually, it doesn't make you laugh, but you space out a bit. If you want to try it, just buy a can of whipped cream at your local supermarket. DO NOT shake the can. Hold it the can upright, stick it in your mouth, press on the dispenser thing, and inhale. DO NOT exhale immediately. The effects will last about 30 seconds, during which you will have all sorts of dreamy thoughts about how huge the universe is.

If a death penalty candidate is given a steady flow of this, he will be asphyxiate, because he will be some deep in his dreams, that he will forget to breathe.

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it always gives an instant erection. We can't have inmates dying with a "homo" erection, can we?!

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[arielCo]

Instructions unclear - accidentally ate the whole thing. Having dreamy thoughts about how big I am getting.

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[RDW]

The effects will last about 30 seconds, during which you will have all sorts of dreamy thoughts about how huge the universe is.

...and hopefully not die:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[Akaihiryuu]

Um, you've got your nitrogen compounds mixed up there. Nitrous oxide is N2O, NOT NO2. NO2 (aka nitrogen dioxide) is reddish brown, very toxic, and has a very sharp biting odor. NO2 would not be pleasant at all.

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO2 is nitrogen dioxide, a poison. Exposure to this is not pleasant.

The nitrous oxide you are thinking of N2O. Big difference.

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[sjames]

You're not going to die from the can of whipped cream. The link you provided is deaths from larger cylinders of gas that don't require the user to hold the valve open.

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

I cracked the fuck up when I tried it; it was a hilarious 30 seconds. My vision also faded out a bit. Maybe you need to up the dose?

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[danlip]

Yes, those death were not from N2O but from lack of oxygen (as the abstract clearly states). It turns out not breathing oxygen is really bad for you. I don't think anyone has ever died directly from N2O, unless a cylinder fell on them. (but to address the original comment, N2O should be just as effective as N2 for killing people, as would helium or any other inert gas, because it is the lack of oxygen that kills)

Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead?

[sjames]

And the whipped cream can isn't going to cause that because as soon as you loose consciousness you will drop the can and start breathing oxygen again. The large cylinders just keep displacing oxygen after you pass out.

Martians

[MightyYar]

If they survive the nitrogen chamber, they must be Martians.

It's funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other pieces of news like this, there was one conclusion:

Humanity is dumb as hell, use nitrogen it's a much more humane way of execution or suicide. And now, here we are, discussing how stupid the idea of using nitrogen is.

Why complex injection drugs in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the first place? We have been aware of nitogren effects for how long? All I know about it is in diving. This method actually sounds pretty good simple and quick.

Re:Why complex injection drugs in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that one of the problems with it is the prisoner dies happy, and the prudes don't like the idea of that.

Re:Why complex injection drugs in the first place?

[quenda]

Why in the first place? We have been aware of nitogren effects for how long? All I know about it is in diving.

No, nitrogen at normal pressure does not produce narcosis. This is simple asphyxiation.

I've heard that one of the problems with it is the prisoner dies happy, and the prudes don't like the idea of that.

You are thinking of auto-erotic asphyxiation. That has never been used as a method of execution, to my knowledge.

Bullet to the head

[carou]

Some people think that every problem can be fixed by adding more guns. Why not this one?

Re:Bullet to the head

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think that every problem can be fixed by adding more guns. Why not this one?

Because a bullet to the head is exactly how China perform their executions, and footage of those (not surprising showing a lot of blood) had been used time and again on TV to paint them as a brutal dictatorship.

The last thing some people would want is to have American execution footage places side-by-side with those China-evil propaganda, THAT would boost the support for giving up death penalty altogether.

Re:Bullet to the head

[quenda]

Some people think that every problem can be fixed by adding more guns. Why not this one?

Don't be so uncivilised. A cattle gun is well-tested and less messy.

Did they get the idea from this?

[gumper23]

BBC Documentary - How to Kill a Human Being:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Did they get the idea from this?

[Dr_Barnowl]

UK news says yes

An alternative to the death penalty

[ClickOnThis]

Put them in jail instead.

It's cheaper and a wrongful conviction can be reversed.

The majority of countries no longer have the death penalty.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Cytotoxic]

Yeah, this is pretty macabre. How about we just avoid killing people?

And no, it isn't because they don't deserve it (although we inevitably execute and imprison innocent people). Most deserve worse than they get. How about let's just go with the simple idea that killing is wrong and strive to avoid it whenever possible? Killing people diminishes us - even if they were evil scumbags who deserved worse. I don't need to look to other cultures for examples and counter-examples of executing people. I don't need a popularity contest about how many other people don't like the death penalty (or the converse). Let's just go with "no killing" because it is right and be done with it.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Cytotoxic]

Atheism and absence of morality are not synonymous. One need not invoke a deity to have a moral compass. Most publicly vocal atheists in the west are also opposed to the death penalty. At the same time, at least a couple of history's greatest mass murderers were also avowed atheists. It doesn't seem that atheism and opposition to killing are at all correlated, just as belief in any of the major religions is not a good predictor of one's stance on the death penalty.

Troll rejected: erroneous premise.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[ClickOnThis]

Killing people diminishes us - even if they were evil scumbags who deserved worse. I don't need to look to other cultures for examples and counter-examples of executing people. I don't need a popularity contest about how many other people don't like the death penalty (or the converse). Let's just go with "no killing" because it is right and be done with it.

I agree completely. I just thought I'd start the thread with the pragmatic reasons, because they tend to make proponents less defensive. And that reminds me of another one: the lack of evidence that it is an effective deterrent compared to incarceration:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Put them in jail instead.

I would agree on condition that the confinement be permanent, solitary, and with minimal human contact for 23 hours per day with one hour in a larger exercise area attached to the cell with no visitors and no possibility of parole and all of it underground so that inmates never again see the natural light of day. It should be like the conditions at ADX Florence, the supermax prison in Colorado. Anyone entering that facility as a prisoner should be effectively dead to the world.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Cytotoxic]

Diminishing the power of the state over life and death is not the leftist position. Quite the opposite.

Second troll rejected: Erroneous premise.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

If the only option to not killing a killer is to let them kill the innocent, then it's right to kill them.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

"morality"? whose morality? usually whoever has the biggest army. history is filled with religions using armies to enforce their false "morality". animals kill, humans are animals, stop trying to think humans should be different.

of course, some atheists oppose the death penalty. so what? everyone can have their own ideas. don't ever think your ideas are better than someone else. from a logical and scientific point of view, "morality" is a cultural viewpoint that changes through history and geography. the killing,raping,destruction being done by ISIS fits within their "morality".

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

are YOU going to pay to keep these people we never want out in public locked up forever?

I don't wanna pay for that. Too expensive to kill them?
Bullshit. Bullet to the head and throw them in a hole.

It's strange that everyone who says it's 'too expensive' to exceute criminals are all the people who make money keeping them locked up forever...

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll, troll. What you're describing is moral nihilism, not atheism. But forgive me, I know those words are too big for your brain.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, that's why the biggest beheaders are religious-derived moralities.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[misexistentialist]

Sealing people in dungeons is somehow nicer? Strange that as opposition to the death penalty hardens, euthanasia is becoming accepted. If capital punishment is entirely eliminated I expect after-birth abortion will be legalized.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Every execution is a 100% successful deterrent - the executed criminal will never again commit a crime. Beat that.
Any deterrence beyond that is a "nice to have", but not required.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

How long *is* a fairy's tail anyways? And what does that have to do with anything?

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Capsaicin]

As an atheist, there is nothing wrong with killing.

Quite the opposite. As an atheist one ought to appreciate the permanence of death; that human life is brief enough already; and that each and every human consciousness provides a valuable, unique, never to be repeated perspective on the universe. It's different if one believes that this life is but nothing to the one that follows, but atheists especially have the opportunity of grasping the gravity of extinguishing a human consciousness prematurely. This is an opportunity, apparently, you have still to take.

There is no right, there is no wrong. Don't try to push your warped sense of morality on others.

If there were no right nor wrong, then executing a murderer (who in your view has done no wrong) must be the ultimate form of pushing one's morality on others! If there are no ethical concerns in your mind is there at least the flicker of logical consistency (such as would require you, upon the basis you have enunciated, to oppose capital punishment)?

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[davidwr]

If the only option to not killing a killer is to let them kill the innocent, then it's right to kill them.

I can think of several alternatives, the most obvious one being to incarcerate them (with special administrative segregation so they can't order hits from behind bars and special in-prison segregation so they can't kill guards or fellow inmates) until such time as their risk of killing others is zero. This may mean keeping them locked up this way until they die of natural causes.

Oh, if you are referring to the innocent person they killed that earned them the death penalty in the first place, even being executed won't be able to bring that person back, and the deterrent effect of the death penalty vs. life-in-prison-without-parole isn't strong enough in the US at least to justify the death penalty all by itself.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Loki_1929]

It's only cheaper because our capital punishment process is so badly broken. It should not take decades to complete the process; that's just dumb. On the other hand, there are flaw in how it's applied currently (moving to the second part of your issue with it), so those also need to be fixed. I support the death penalty, but with some pretty major reforms. And as a strong advocate of it, I would be open to suspending it until said reform has changed the process to one which is much faster, cheaper, more humane, more fair, more evidence-based, and more regulated. For starters, take all the stuff the Innocence Project is doing and integrate it directly into the process and provide wide open access to all information going into the process to any third-party groups wishing to provide sunshine/oversight.

Some individuals are so dangerous and destructive that all members of society (including prison guards, staff, and other prisoners) deserve permanent protection from them. I have no issue with extinguishing the existence of those who are so fundamentally broken that we can't contain their violence. However, we need to bend over backwards to ensure the process to do that is applied fairly, reasonably, and is designed to make it as close to impossible to execute an innocent person as we can reasonably make it.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[davidwr]

I expect after-birth abortion will be legalized.

Do you mean "re-legalized"? Leaving deformed infants or just-plain-unwanted-children in the wilderness "for the Gods to take care of" or something similar has been legally acceptable at times during human history.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Capsaicin]

If the only option to not killing a killer is to let them kill the innocent, then it's right to kill them.

And it's upon that basis, --i.e. that one ought to act to minimise the number of premature human deaths, --that a strong argument against capital punishment turns. For a prisoner already held safely in the custody of the state will not usually by their execution reduce the number of deaths. Quite the opposite: executing such prisoner generally acts to inflate the toll.

Now there may be a special case when a prisoner has confederates, out of custody, who would kidnap and murder in an attempt to free the prisoner. In that case putting the prisoner to death may well, by removing the motivation for these new crimes, reduce the total number of premature deaths. However, such a scenario must be rare, and how many of the people murdered* by the state actually fall into it?

*[Yes, I do appreciate that 'murder' implies an unlawful taking of human life.]

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Capsaicin]

Sealing people in dungeons is somehow nicer?

Well let's not seal them in dungeons then! Absolutely let's house them in secure facilities. But let's also give them whatever assistance we can reasonably afford, to allow them to live their lives in the most meaningful way possible, while still conforming to the imperative of keeping them locked safely away from the rest of us.

Some might even create some socially useful output to repay our kindness. Who knows, even Hans Reiser may still have some useful contribution left in him?

Strange that as opposition to the death penalty hardens, euthanasia is becoming accepted.

This is just rampant individualism isn't it? I mean imagine allowing people themselves the right to decide when (and when not) to die? Thank goodness I'll be able to sleep soundly at night know that you, at least, are left to argue for the rights of the state to make our life and death decisions for us!

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[ClickOnThis]

Every execution is a 100% successful deterrent - the executed criminal will never again commit a crime. Beat that.

That argument is defeated easily. If a criminal convicts a crime for which the sentence is death, then obviously the sentence was not a deterrent.

Any deterrence beyond that is a "nice to have", but not required.

On the contrary. The purpose of a deterrent is to discourage someone from committing a crime in the first place. That is fundamental, not "nice to have."

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[davidwr]

t's strange that everyone who says it's 'too expensive' to exceute criminals are all the people who make money keeping them locked up forever...

The high cost of the death penalty in the United States is largely due the high cost of making sure we don't execute an innocent person. Assuming that the cost of executing an innocent person is "infinite" then even spending $1M in legal cost prosecuting (and defending - the state typically pays for expensive defense lawyers at trial and appeal) death penalty cases and keeping the condemned person locked up for the typically 5-15 years (sometimes more, sometimes less) in a maximum-or-supermax-level prison during that time is the expensive part.

If prosecutors choose to go for "life without parole" the trial is cheaper, the appeal is not necessarily automatic (it might be in some states), and the state may not be on the hook for the appellate defense lawyer. After the condemned prisoner spends a few years in a maximum-security prison he will likely "mellow out"/"become institutionalized" and he can be moved to a cheaper lower-security facility.

If you want to execute people on the cheap, remove some of the due process and accept that you will occasionally condemn and execute an innocent man.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[arth1]

*[Yes, I do appreciate that 'murder' implies an unlawful taking of human life.]

And I appreciate that you used appreciate correctly in the lesser known meaning of the word.

Anyhow, there is a case for capital punishment inflating the death toll even when not counting the capital punishment itself. If you face a likely death penalty, there is no incentive for you to not kill others. Killing others, like witnesses, can then be rationalized by it reducing the risk of getting caught, and thus die.
I have a strong suspicion that many mafia murders were done for that exact reason.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

If we jailed people, then we might have to come to grips with the fact that they're not going anywhere. Perhaps then we'll consider attempting rehabilitation.

Well, at least it is nice to dream.

I'd wager that the prison library gets more funding from donated books than is spent on rehabilitation.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Jack Griffin]

Put them in jail instead.

It's cheaper

I had a quick read but couldn't find anywhere where it concluded it was cheaper. Trials were cheaper, and incarceration costs cheaper, I accept that, but I couldn't see the most important part where a quick execution means decades fewer incarceration costs? I also missed the part where the person by remaining alive re-offends. What is the cost of that? (not all lifers stay inside for life)
I agree we need to improve the standard for getting it right, although this seems to be a problem with the US judicial system than anywhere else.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Jack Griffin]

How about let's just go with the simple idea that killing is wrong and strive to avoid it whenever possible?

Because most people disagree with this. You kill bacteria, and insects, maybe even small mammals, and are responsible for the deaths of many large ones through your choice of appetite, clothes or furniture. Killing is not wrong, killing is right when applied correctly. The only argument is to define the boundary between correct or not.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Christian, I congratulate you on not being a hypocrite. If atheism is correct then you are 100% correct, there are no morals, no rights or wrongs, no point to existence. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die - Everything "moral" is just a human invention with no basis of truth behind it. There is just simply survive then die.

I'd rather have a bunch of atheists who speak like you do than the others who try to plaster up their world view with a religion called atheism and try to borrow morals and ethics from other religions because that will make them feel better.

I don't think you are right in that I do believe there is meaning to life but I most certainly respect someone who wants to tell it like he or she sees it, even if the message sucks. Because frankly if there is nothing then this existence does indeed fucking suck and has utterly no point. Morals? Pfffft. No reason for those.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

This mistakes (atheism == no morality) comes from the old philosophical argument that all Good comes from God. Therefore, kind acts are Godly, and thus moral, and without God morality is not present, meaning atheism is immoral.

Of course, this comes from a religion that believed building huge catherdreals and fighting / funding Crusades would be good ways to pay one's way into Heaven. They also condone bothering people who don't care about them (in the name of missions and outreach) with messages of how those people are damned if they don't buy into their superstition. Finally, they have a God that's so omniscient that apparently he was surprised to wake up one day to find the world was wicked (Noah story) and thus he needed to kill everyone with the exception of Noah's close kin, despite promising that Cain's family wouldn't be wiped off the face of the Earth.

In short, anyone who's critically looked at these loons will realize that the desert doesn't rain bread (manna in the Exodus), that Jesus can't deliver the same sermon on a mountain and in a valley at the same time (the sermon on the mount), That by God's on finger he declared "Thou shall not kill", yet only a few books later his gospel include "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live". In short, belief in this religion, as it is written, is an exercise in selective listening, temporary amnesia of other parts of doctrine, or just plain being too stupid to realize that inconsistencies are not mysteries, and a perfect creator actually could put together a gospel that wasn't self-conflicting.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Required Snark]

There are no atheists in ISIS.

What was that again about an absence of religion leading to evil behavior?

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Rixel]

I have managed to consolidate capital punishment and the possible flaws by the following requirements:

1. Convicted of a crime that qualifies for capital punishment
2. Found guilty unanimously by a jury.
3. Sentenced as such
4. The accused is examined and found to be mentally fit.
5. The accused agrees with and signs off on the punishment (after all appeals are completed or waived)

I believe these conditions would allow for capital punishment, while ensuring a minimum of wrongful convictions.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Capsaicin]

[T]here is a case for capital punishment inflating the death toll even when not counting the capital punishment itself. If you face a likely death penalty, there is no incentive for you to not kill others. Killing others, like witnesses, can then be rationalized by it reducing the risk of getting caught, and thus die.

This resembles the argument that were we to make rape, for example, a capital crime, we should only be aiding the rapist to reach the decision whether "merely" to rape his victim, or to kill her into the bargain. (The gendered language I here employ, if it be 'sexist,' is by no means casual.)

You may well be correct especially in the case of criminal organisations inclined towards rational, albeit ruthless, calculation. Generally however, arguments based upon deterrent and incentive, as they pertain to the ordinary felon one imagines inhabiting death row, need IMO, to be approached with some caution.

In the first place, there being little to prefer in a life-long custodial sentence, capital punishment per se may not add too great a store of incentive to deal mercilessly with those whose knowledge might betray the original crime. Instead this problem may be one born of draconian punishment generally. Where there exists no chance of redemption, one will not be motivated to redeem oneself.

Secondly, --and this applies more properly to those arguments which, in ignorance to the insight you provide, regard the threat execution as providing a greater disincentive, --I think it an error to imagine that ordinary felon as a rational maximiser of utility. Choosing between two situations, one in which murderers instinctively covers their tracks by the commission of further crimes; and one in which they calmly determine the scale of their offending in consideration the probable sentencing outcomes, I find the former by far the more likely.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this is pretty macabre. How about we just avoid killing people?

Very good advice for the criminal...

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[dave420]

Your read really was quick if you didn't get to figure this out! Appeals cost money, the increased security of death row costs money. And lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money. The nonsense about re-offending is just that - nonsense. A whole-life sentence can more easily be created than a morally-justifiable death penalty, so to argue in favor of the latter by dismissing the former isn't particularly honest.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[dunkelfalke]

Stalin was an orthodox (as Georgians usually are) seminarian before going to politics. Hitler, as most Austrians of that time, was catholic.
Just saying.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Just bury them alive. There is no cleaner method and we can save on the digging costs by letting them dig their own holes and the next one can fill in the hole of the previous one...

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[umghhh]

...

If you want to execute people on the cheap, remove some of the due process and accept that you will occasionally condemn and execute an innocent man.

You assume then that there are no innocent people on death row in US? Hmm there are reports of some being released from time to time which surely tells us this is not true? What about badly done DNA checks as was reported lately? What about few other 'little' shortcomings of US justice systems where it is sometimes better to accept a 'deal' putting one in prison for life than fight an uphill battle with a chance of ending on death row.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

The key to why a criminal convicts a crime where the penalty is death is simple, they didn't expect to be caught. This has been proven by extensive interviews with criminals of all races, walks of life, and intelligence. If this is the criminal's dominant view on how the justice system will work, no punishment is a deterrent, as the punishment will never be received.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

The leftist position is typically to increase the power of the state over economic activity, and decrease the power of the state over social activity. (The rightist position is typically the reverse of this.) Whether a convicted murderer living and breathing is economic or social activity is, to me, not entirely clear.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[davidwr]

Of course there may be innocent people on death row from time to time. If we could magically know for certain that everyone on death row was guilty of a capital offense and that there were no mitigating circumstances that would make the death penalty unjust, we could clear out death row in a matter of weeks (assuming the drugs/bullets/nitrogen gas/whatever was available).

The key to getting the death penalty "right" (setting aside arguments that it is inherently unjust) is to make sure that only people who deserve to die are actually executed and to make the execution process itself as quick, painless, and clean as possible.

By the way, there are people in prison for non-death-penalty crimes who are innocent, and there are people who have been released or who never went to jail who have criminal records they didn't earn. Our justice system is far from perfect and I doubt it will ever be perfect. I'm willing to live with the small chance that I will be falsely arrested and locked up for life in exchange for having a functioning justice system, but I'm not willing to be arrested, tried, condemned, and executed for a crime I never committed. If this means throwing out the death penalty for even the most heinous of criminals in favor of life-without-parole, I can live with that.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

If a criminal convicts a crime for which the sentence is death, then obviously the sentence was not a deterrent.

Then there is no such thing as a "deterrent" and we should retire the word, because people make bad decisions involving everything. Fuck. Let's get rid of jails, tickets, fines, and spankings because there are still assholes who are stupid enough to do things that get them sent to jail while screaming things like "I ain't goin' back to jail!" For those that lack a functional moral compass, "goin' to jail" is an excellent way to scare them out of behaving like the rest of us for the majority of their lives.

Immediate Death is a deterrent to anyone that doesn't want to die. It worked on all but 35 people in the US last year. It worked on all but 39 people the year before that. A few dozen were killed as consequence for actions of which they were convicted. Compare that to roughly 300,000 people, per year, that died as a result of their obesity -- people that ate themselves to death because there's no legal repercussions for becoming a disgusting fat slobs. The end results were the same, but one had a big, flashing red sign on it that said "Immediate!!! Punishment!!!" while the other tasted like chocolate, grease, and sugar.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? How is the left for freedom in social activity? Hate crime laws? Gun control? Drug laws (think the war on drugs is only on the right? Ha! )....

What of the left's position on freedom of association? How long since the left has been a true defender of free speech?

What of the left-feminist positions on pornography, prostitution (the voluntary kind)....

Lest we leave the right thinking they are somehow above it.... where is the right on the right of contract - say gay marriage.?Or on earning a living - as a prostitute? Or selling recreational drugs? How are the right on no-bid contracts to military contractors?

I think maybe you underestimate the ability of those who seek power to find excuses to exercise it.

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, somebody modded this insightful? Holy crap!

First we are in a discussion about the death penalty, not some discussion of vegan "speciesism" morality. Second, the sentence you quote includes the huge loophole of a modifier "whenever possible".
Third, the part you didn't quote, on the very first line, says "How about we avoid killing people".

So only people are on the table. Stupidly interjecting "what about bacteria!??" is not an argument. It is juvenile prattling.

Within the confines of the discussion, we are talking about when it is right to kill people who are captured and no longer pose a direct threat. Expanding to the entire scope implied by "avoid killing people" might wander off into discussions about self defense or pre-emptive war, but the "whenever possible" modifier clearly allows for these possibilities.

I really hope you are in high school, because that would be the only excuse for making this sort of sophomoric argument. And for the moderator..... jeeez dude!

Re:An alternative to the death penalty

[Jack Griffin]

Appeals and security are all part of trial and incarceration costs. For re-offending, people do get sometimes get out of life sentences, even if you choose not to believe it. They are also able to offend while in prison against other inmates, guards and regular people via comms with the outside world (see any mafia story for details how this works). In same cases they continue to taunt their victim's family's from inside. All avoidable with a bullet to the head now.
A real world example for you. Chancey Luna shot and killed an innocent bystander in cold blood purely for laughs. He was convicted and sentence to life. In my country it costs $100k/year to keep someone in jail. For an 18 year old like Chancey, assuming he lives to the average age of 80 then were looking at $6Mil. Take inflation into account and that will easily turn into 20 or 30 Mil in 2072 dollars. Execute him now and you'll get out for under $1Mil in 2015 dollars.
The only reason a life sentence is cheaper is if your legal system extremely inefficient. I'd love to see the same calculations based on Indonesia or Singapore where they are little more efficient at this game.

Wow what a problem

[future assassin]

figuring out to to execute people instead of solving real issues.

Re:Wow what a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible says "Do not kill".
Anyone arguing for death penalty is against God and will go to hell.

Re:Wow what a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You believe in good and evil? How do you even know how to use the internet? Do you have someone to help you post?

Re:Wow what a problem

[future assassin]

What ever you posted above sounds like a personal problem.

Re:Wow what a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the point where the libtard expresses the need to steal more of your money at the point of the gun; the government's gun.

Re:Wow what a problem

[lister king of smeg]

The Bible says "Do not kill".
Anyone arguing for death penalty is against God and will go to hell.

actually it says murder not kill in the original language.

Re:Wow what a problem

[davidwr]

The Bible says "Do not kill".
Anyone arguing for death penalty is against God and will go to hell.

You really should read the Bible. In many places in the Old Testament where God himself tells the Israelites (and their predecessors) to kill people who are guilty of certain crimes, including but not limited to murder, rape, and certain idolatry-related practices.

Also, you should read your New Testament. According to the Bible, whether we go to hell or not is a function of God's grace, not our actions or inactions other than the action of accepting or rejecting that grace.

Re:Wow what a problem

[amxcoder]

It say's "Thou shalt not Murder". Murder and killing are two different terms with different meanings. You can kill in self defense and that is not murder. Murder is doing it willfully and on purpose.

Re:Wow what a problem

[dave420]

It's rather easy to argue that killing someone you have complete control over is murder, as there is simply no reason to do it apart from blood lust.

Re:Wow what a problem

[SuiteSisterMary]

Also, he should read a correct translation. The commandment is 'do not murder,' not 'do not kill.' The Bible is perfectly clear that there's a time and a place for killing. Both Testaments are pretty clear on that.

Lets not forget, Christianity is, above all, an apocalyptic religion.

Re:just hang them

[Anonymous Coward]

Hanging doesn't always ensure a clean, relatively pain-free death. Why not use the guillotine? There should be a lot of them in service once the poor rise up against the oligarchy...

Ten seconds?

[foreverdisillusioned]

noting that the nitrogen would render inmates unconscious within ten seconds and kill them in minutes.

Um, what? How the hell does that work? When I was a kid I tried to sing an entire song while doing multiple helium inhales in a row, not stopping for air. It was over a minute before the room suddenly went a little dark and spin-y.

It wasn't at all painful. I didn't notice anything different at all until seconds before I was (presumably) going to pass out. If it were deemed uncomfortable, the condemned could be given an oral or gaseous anesthetic first.

The death penalty is wrong and stupid in many ways, but I hope we can at least put aside the quibbling over method now. It has been a ridiculous distraction from the real issues.

Re:Ten seconds?

[rjh]

You weren't breathing pure helium. You were breathing "balloon gas," which is a mixture of helium and normal, breathable room air. The oxygen in the mixture was keeping you conscious.

Helium is an expensive substance and you don't need pure helium in a balloon to give it lift. By cutting the helium with air, the balloon outfit is able to make their expensive resource last much longer.

Re:Ten seconds?

[Wheels17]

I have had two friends overcome by nitrogen on two different occasions in industrial situations. Fortunately there were people to pull them out of the atmosphere and get them breathing again. In both cases there first words were along the lines of "What am I doing on the floor?"

Re:Ten seconds?

[foreverdisillusioned]

Still, we used to hold our breath for sport as kids, sometimes mixing up it by requiring a complete exhalation first. Try it yourself; you should be able to hit 30 seconds even if you're out of shape. I'm not understanding how "less than ten seconds" (i.e. ten seconds as a maximum time, not a minimum) is realistic, especially given a convict who is consciously trying to conserve his oxygen supply.

Re: Ten seconds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not at all like holding your breath. If you are exhaling carbon dioxide you will not notice any discomfort if the atmosphere has no oxygen. People regularly die of hypoxia cleaning out rail tank cars because they don't realize that they have been flushed with nitrogen.

Re:Ten seconds?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're in a low oxygen environment, oxygen actually starts going out of your blood into the "air" in your lungs. It's not the same as just holding your breath. If you knew it was going to happen, you might could hold your breath before the air changed, but one lungful of air with no oxygen and you're going to go unconscious very quickly. And low atmospheric pressure makes it worse. Above about 35000 feet altitude, 100% oxygen isn't enough, you need a positive pressure mask like you see fighter pilots wear.

Re:Ten seconds?

[foreverdisillusioned]

That's still limited by the amount of blood in contact with your lung tissues. 10 seconds (given as a maxmium!) is a really short amount of time. How can all of your blood deoxygenate so quickly?

I know from experience that it takes at least 4-5 seconds or so to choke someone out (this has nothing to do with breathing--this means cutting off the blood flow to the head by applying pressure to the sides of the neck.) Hell, supposedly it takes 5+ seconds for a guillotined head to lose consciousness. In the absence of hard and detailed data, I have a very hard time believing anoxia from inert gas would be only twice as long as near-instantaneous hypovolemic anoxia. I don't think our cardiopulmonary system is so efficient at expelling O2.

Re: Ten seconds?

[foreverdisillusioned]

Yes, I've already made that point. My question isn't about discomfort; it's about how the onset could be so fast. The only explanation I've seen so far is that your body actively expels O2 from your bloodstream while breathing an inert gas (vs. simply exhaling the contents of your lungs and then not inhaling), but I still have an extremely hard time seeing how this could lead to 10 seconds of consciousness *maximum* as TFS says.

Re:Ten seconds?

[shadowrat]

for some reason this isn't written up a lot. most information about how your lungs work imply that they are taking just oxygen out of the air you breathe. My understanding is your blood will just soak up nitrogen to match the content in the air you are breathing. it's why scuba divers get the bends, and i guess, if you breathe a 100% nitrogen mixture, your blood basically gives up all oxygen to match the nitrogen ratio.

Re:Ten seconds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't ten seconds from the moment pure nitrogen touches your face, it's ten seconds from when you breathe it. You can't hold your breath forever - the accumulating CO2 in your blood *will* trigger your brain stem to force you to breathe eventually.

And the moment you do, a few panicked breaths with a rapidly beating heart will totally deoxygenate the majority of your blood (If the oxygen partial pressure is below about 100mbar, breathing actively removes oxygen from your blood). A few heartbeats later, oxygen-free blood it hits your brain and it's your curtain call.

Re:Ten seconds?

[ImprovOmega]

I used to work around welding and cutting torches, transporting tanks of acetylene and nitrogen around. One day a fresh nitrogen tank sprung a leak in the back of my truck. When I dropped the tailgate I felt a whoosh of cold and I got extremely light-headed in the few seconds in took to get clear of the invisible cloud. And that was in a well-ventilated open air area. Any kind of enclosed space and I would have passed out in seconds for sure. It wasn't even remotely painful though, almost purely euphoric.

As far as ways to die go, you could do much worse. The only group of people who would be distressed by it would probably be fighter pilots since they're trained to recognize and work around low oxygen situations.

Re: Ten seconds?

[david_thornley]

AIUI, the lungs provide a way of exchanging gases between blood and whatever's in the lungs, so it's quite possible that breathing the nitrogen would tend to suck oxygen out of the bloodstream.

Like on airplanes!

[MPBoulton]

Is nitrogen used because it is cheaper than oxygen?

Re:Like on airplanes!

[Akaihiryuu]

I know that statement was made as a joke, but in all seriousness nitrogen is the least expensive non-toxic asphyxiating gas (meaning something that isn't toxic but doesn't contain oxygen) there is, due to it already being 78% of the air. Breathing pure helium would do exactly the same thing, but helium is a lot more scarce, and thus more expensive.

Re:Like on airplanes!

[Cytotoxic]

Is nitrogen used because it is cheaper than oxygen?

This is not exactly a joke, at least not directly. It is a reference to a blogger called The Food Babe who has offered up some laughable ideas - in this case opining on the health effects of airline travel. She famously complains that : "The air you are breathing on an airplane is recycled from directly outside of your window. That means you are breathing everything that the airplanes gives off and is flying through it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%"

For those who don't get the laugh-out-loud moment, it isn't the bit about how the cabin pressurization works, or even the bit about mixing the air with nitrogen.... yes, those are crazy goofy, but if you still are in the dark, give a quick google for the percentage of nitrogen in the atmosphere around you.

Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical

[queazocotal]

It doesn't work the same as holding your breath.
When you breath a gas containing no oxygen, oxygen streams out of your blood, as it is lower oxygen than the blood, and that is how the blood 'knows' to dump oxygen.
This means that what's coming out of the lungs is largely deoxygenated blood, not oxygenated.
This rapidly causes unconsciousness - much faster than just holding your breath.
It's a not uncommon industrial accident.
You don't really notice it - there is no shortness of breath, you simply feel a bit woozy one breath, and then are unconscious the next, and the next breath may not happen.

Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not drain the blood from the person? I remember donating blood one time and passing out from it. It was quick (though a bit weird), painless, and had nothing stopped the drainage (which wouldn't have happened, but for the sake of argument), would have likely killed me in relatively short order - and I would have been unconscious. This seems most humane to me, instead of putting stuff in, just take the blood out.

Let's do it like other civilized nations

[paiute]

In Communist China, they kill you with nitrogen gas and bill your family for the demurrage.

Re:Let's do it like other civilized nations

[davidwr]

Odd, I thought they put a bullet through your brain stem. Did they change it recently or was the bullet thing just for drug dealers?

Less humane to keep them alive.

[SuperKendall]

I'm not sure why it's considering more humane to keep someone locked up forever than simply to kill them and end what is essentially torture...

The more you allow contact with other prisoners, the more you are punishing others by allowing contact with someone who has no reason or incentive to avoid harm to others.

The more you keep someone locked away the more it is essentially torture.

The death penalty should not be about expense, but exists because some people simply cannot live without harming others, and have no place in the world.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[Sique]

The death penalty solely exists because people want a "just" excuse to kill people. And to tell themselves, that it is justified, they dehumanize the to-be-killed as much as possible.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[SuperKendall]

What you overlook is that some people have truly lost the right to be considered human any more, through causing enough pain and suffering in others. Again, you overlook that keeping someone alive for many years may bring about a lot more pain and suffering to others, including guards and other prisoners.

You wouldn't advocate to keep a live landmine hidden randomly inside a prison, yet you are arguing for exactly the same effect. How is that more humane? Even to the guy to be killed it's not more humane to keep them locked up forever.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[Citizen of Earth]

I suspect it's because people don't want to keep spending $100,000 per year for 50 years to lock dirtbags who will never see the outside again -- or worse, will.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget to mention that, while we're paying $100,000 per prisoner per year to lock up people in small buildings and open cells for their entire remaining life, these same prisoners will be raped, tortured, and even murdered by other prisoners.

Why it is considered more humane to sentence someone to 50-100 years of fear, torture, and pain instead of killing them makes no sense to me.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[davidwr]

What you overlook is that some people have truly lost the right to be considered human any more,

This may be true under the legal codes of some countries and it may be true under your moral code and perhaps even the moral code of a majority of Americans, but it is not true under the United States Constitution. All human beings who could ever be convicted of a crime are considered "persons" under the law, and being convicted and condemned does not and, barring a constitutional amendment, cannot change that status.

Furthermore, it's almost impossible for a person who is born a US citizen to involuntarily lose their citizenship under the US Constitution, particularly if they never leave the country, never indicate any allegiance to any foreign power, and never act on behalf of another country against the interest of the United States (and even then, it is probably impossible). For naturalized citizens whose naturalization did not involve any fraud and who never do any of the other things listed above, it's also almost impossible to strip them of their citizenship.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[davidwr]

$100,000???? Where do you get that number from?

The average cost of incarcerating an inmate in America is on the order of $30-$40K/year, not $100K/year. Those who need to be in SuperMax or equivalent (including "death row" inmates in most states) and those who are medically fragile cost more. I would expect most "lifers" would require Maximum- or higher-level security during the first few years and during those years the cost could be $100K or more, but I would also expect that your average "lifer" who has adjusted to prison life and given up on trying to maintain contact with the outside would have an average- or below-average incarceration cost until he got old and his medical condition deteriorated. In other words, your 20-year-old murderer would be relatively expensive during the first and last 5 years of his incarceration and relatively cheap for the middle decades.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[SuperKendall]

This may be true under the legal codes of some countries

Sorry, but after that statement I really cannot see you as anything but a monster.

You think only of yourself and what makes you feel good, not what is good for humanity or even the prisoner himself...

Under the constitution treason is punishable by death, so it's obvious the crutch you re falling back on cannot stand.

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[dave420]

Wait a minute - you are calling for those who cause enough pain and suffering in others to die, but you know that some of those who die will be innocent, which implies you have no problem condemning yourself to death. Either that or you are a hypocrite...

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[umghhh]

Maybe US should do something about conditions in the prisons. Regular occurrence of rape and other forms of violence is indication of the cruel punishment that US constitution seems to dislike for some reason (not shared by most US citizens obviously).

Re:Less humane to keep them alive.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the monster (but you don't see it and will deny it); you support a system where innocents are regularly and provably executed, and presumably consider it 'a price worth paying'.

WW2

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use whatever the Nazis used in labor camps!

Re:WW2

[Megol]

They used hydrogen cyanide (in the form of Zyklon B) and carbon monoxide (from engine exhaust) in their extermination camps. The labor camps didn't try to kill people efficiently.

Re:WW2

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they... Did they really.... Carbon monoxide? You're sure of that?
They ALLEGEDLY used diesel exhaust, but diesel exhaust doesn't contain a high enough concentration of carbon monoxide to kill people, whereas PRODUCER GAS (which you've never heard of, of course, being a brainwashed cretin who believes everything the Jew media tells him) kills in seconds, and was in common use on millions of vehicles in Germany during the war - precisely because Germany was AT WAR and couldn't spare any petrol nor diesel for such things.

There was no 'holocaust', you have been lied to.

Don't believe me, try researching it for yourself. (But then, that's probably asking too much...)

The Last Days of the Big Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GgRWuXcO8

www.nazigassings.com
www.codoh.com

Not really a distraction

[rsilvergun]

it's been the only way anti-death penalty folks could make even the slightest bit of progress in the States. The problem is how our politics work, which is all about getting people to vote and vote for you. The pro crowd will vote against you if they think you're against the death penalty. They'll see you as "soft" on crime. For the most part the anti-death penalty crowd doesn't care. They've got other issues that matter more than how they perceive your stance on crime.

Re:Not really a distraction

[rgmoore]

it's been the only way anti-death penalty folks could make even the slightest bit of progress in the States.

This is simply untrue. It's certainly true that there are large portions of the country where capital punishment remains popular, and judicial challenges have been the only effective way of challenging it there. But there have been several states that have recently abolished capital punishment through the normal legislative process, most recently Maryland in 2013. Notably, few states that have abolished the death penalty legislatively have any real prospect of bringing it back.

Execute new Google Maps staff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we send all of those responsible for forcing the New Google Maps to Oaklahoma to be gassed with nitrogen?

Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical

[mikeabbott420]

the breathing reflex is based on CO2 . Breathing pure nitrogen would reduce CO2 so as to satisfy that mechanism , but not providing the O2 survival requires. O2 in the blood is used up quickly, that is why we need to breathe constantly.

What?

[hcs_$reboot]

A great country, America, is still executing people? In 2015??

Re:What?

[Loki_1929]

Sure, why not? There comes a point where an individual is so dangerous and destructive that a society cannot contain the violence they unleash at every opportunity. Life in prison merely changes the population exposed to that individual. Prison guards, staff, and other prisoners deserve protection from such uncontrollably violent people just as much as anyone else. Capital punishment reduces recidivism rates to zero. No one who has been executed has ever been found to continue committing crimes.

Re:What?

[binarylarry]

Yeah.. unfortunately people have been found to have not committed crimes before their execution after the sentence was carried out.

I wonder if we'd still have capital punishment if the state/fed congress had to rotate one of the body to execute the state's condemned with a pistol at close range every few months.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

> No one who has been executed has ever been found to continue committing crimes.

I wonder if this challenge may inspire some cyber-criminals for even more evil deeds?

Let's say hacker kills N people by causing a rail collision, etc. Gets condemned to death but says: oops, I hid another X pieces of malicious code around the net and if I don't tell you a new code sentence every week, to be printed in the online edition of BBC/CNN/NBC, the malcodes will start to go off one by one, in 6 months time and cause other mass deaths.

If he gets executed and the threat is credible, is he literally committing crimes post-grave? The other alternative is totrture the hacker until he divulges the secret or dies of duress (best done on live national TV, so that shame of secrecy won't inspire conspiracy theories.)

Re: just hang them

[DeathElk]

As a society, the majority strive to better themselves, intellectually, physically and socially. To advocate state sanctioned revenge killing of murderers and rapists is regressing to their level.

I Will Never Understand

[wisnoskij]

Why would anyone ever try to improve on the good old bullet to the head. The only decent method of execution to have ever been used.

Re:I Will Never Understand

[Loki_1929]

Probably because of the psychological damage to the individual(s) pulling the trigger.

Re:I Will Never Understand

[manwargi]

One must wonder. There's certainly no shortage of individuals who think it's a great idea.

Re:I Will Never Understand

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the firing squad for this.

Re:I Will Never Understand

[Ihlosi]

Why would anyone ever try to improve on the good old bullet to the head

Now let's see:

a) The method requires some skill on the executioner's side.

b) It's messy and doesn't leave a pretty corpse.

c) In some cultural contexts, death by bullet is considered too honorable for criminals.

d) It's quite destructive. If person-to-be-executed wants to donate their body to science, science gets a body with a hole in it and parts missing.

Well, which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In Virginia, for example, inmates are allowed to select the electric chair over the death penalty, something that last happened in 2013."

Re:just hang them

[Anonymous Coward]

A guy in San Diego fell out of the tree he was trimming right into a shredder, it was over in seconds. They had to scrape the kibble out of the truck, it took days.

This is progress

[penguinoid]

It's a breath of fresh air to a dying industry.

The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[Anonymous Coward]

The gold standard for fast, painless executions is to have the brain destroyed faster than the pain signals can reach the brain. Being at the center of a nuclear explosion or large-enough antimatter/matter explosion would do the trick.

Since this isn't yet practical we have to settle for second-best.

If done right, hanging like some countries still do, decapitation like some countries in the Middle East do, and a bullet to the back of the head like China does are all cheap, practical, and, when done right, result in unconsciousness and loss of ability to sense pain within a few seconds or even less than a second.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[cfalcon]

The Nitrogen (or any asphyxiation that doesn't involve the buildup of Carbon Dioxide) method involves turning off the brain's ability to feel pain as prelude to death.

Given the terrible fuckups that we see in executions recently, it's reasonable to assume that almost anything that can be screwed up, will be screwed up, and this one seems a lot simpler than some three needle solution using drugs you can't get made by anonymous compounding pharmacists you can't find with quality you can't test for administered by doctors that aren't trained. No, none of those things HAVE to happen, but they seem to keep happening.

This sort of execution method sidesteps those problems. But, why do we suspect it is painless? Mostly because people who recover from accidental exposure to Nitrogen generally report being utterly surprised.

In practice, it may be more humane to administer a sedative or even anesthesia beforehand. But acquiring those seems to be the problem in the first place: still, more options would likely be available than in the classic "three drug combination" of lethal injection, where an anesthetic (hopefully) dulls the pain, while a paralytic agent stops breathing (which causes pain) and a heart stopping agent stops the heart (which causes pain).

If they don't go this route, you'll likely see a condemned man struggling to hold his breath as long as he can, trying to avoid death, and eventually losing consciousness, inhaling, regaining consciousness for a moment to flail, and then dying. One thing that's missing from all the real life accounts is that almost everyone who gets into trouble with nitrogen or another oxygen displacing agent doesn't realize that they are in danger until it is too late or almost so, and as such the reports of painlessness are definitely flavored by that fact.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: MORPHINE (or other opiate)

All the effects of the three drug cocktail (anesthetic, followed shortly by unconsciousness, followed by respiratory/cardiac arrest), with none of the problems.

With the added bonus of it being very, very easy to make and essentially impossible to restrict.

If its deemed suitable for people to use to commit assisted suicide, should be plenty fine for a humane execution.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[Anonymous Coward]

You can assume they will flow plain air to the mask for a while then switch to pure nitrogen. The condemned will not know to hold his breath until it is too late.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[fnj]

Entirely right about nitrogen asphyxia. There is nothing magic about nitrogen; you could as well use any other colorless, odorless inert gas, but nitrogen is the cheapest.

One correction, though. "Stopping the heart" per se is most definitely not painful. Ask anyone who has undergone true sudden complete cardiac arrest. You immediately feel a surreal calm as all that commotion in your chest you never really noticed until that moment, and the rush of blood through your head, stops. Within single digit seconds you feel crazy high. In 10-20 seconds you are out like a light. It may take 10 minutes for clinical irreversible death to eventuate, but after 10-20 seconds you are a sack of meat. We know from those whose heart spontaneously restarts, or are resuscitated before complete death or brain damage, that the experience after 10-20 seconds is nothing more than unconsciousness.

It's not so much that CO2, or cardiac arrest, "turns off" pain. It entirely sidesteps the strangling sensation caused by buildup of CO2. As others have noted, there is no physiologic sensation from lack of oxygen, but there is an almighty agony from CO2 buildup.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[Anonymous Coward]

The likelihood of some condemned people trying to hold their breath is an excellent point that should be considered (and that's true whether you favor an aesthetic that indicates discomfort or not, for whatever reason, I'm trying to focus this post on the mechanics of the method, rather than the surrounding politics which are very important questions, but for a different topic).

Presumably, the nitrogen wouldn't be turned on at first - the mask would initially supplied with normal air. At some point (much longer than a person can hold their breath), the nitrogen would be turned on. But you'd still get people serially holding their breath from the moment the mask was applied, breathing in big gulps possibly with intermittent periods of unconsciousness, before one of the gulps inhaled nitrogen.

Whether or not to sedate the condemned person to some level of compliance should definitely be considered.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[jjhall]

How about removing the ability for the condemned man in your example from knowing exactly when the execution will take place? By this I mean have the gas mask placed on at some point before the appointed time. The mask would be providing a mixture of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, basically equivalent to standard atmosphere. This would be akin to having the IVs placed a short time before the execution now, with a saline solution running through to keep them open. At the appointed time, with no immediate warning to the condemned, the O2 mixture is reduced (without changing the flow volume of the mixture in general so that there is no change perceived) to 0%, bringing the mixture to the lethal 100% nitrogen. This would give him no warning and no time to hold his breath or make himself a spectacle, as he'd go from one breath as "normal" to the next having no oxygen. Before he had time to think about it he'd be out of oxygen. He wouldn't have time to hold his breath, and if he did there would be seconds before his brain would be unconscious anyway. There would be no gasping for air as once he is unconscious, the subconscious portions of the brain that *may* still be acting for a few more seconds wouldn't have the buildup of CO2 in the system to trigger the suffocating/gasping response.

Leaving aside any debates as to the morality of executions themselves, I think this is probably the best way to go given the options. I do believe that if I were wrongfully convicted of something and had exhausted all of my appeals, knowing there was no way I could avoid being put to death, this is the way I'd want to go.

Actually I'd hope to be put under general anesthetic, have all of my viable organs harvested and given to those that desperately need them. Obviously after the heart and lungs are gone it wouldn't take but 30 seconds and my brain would be gone. I can see how this could be considered an issue though, especially when there is doubt about the commission of a crime to begin with. "They just executed him to harvest his organs." That is a doubt you don't want cast. Despite the execution process being ultimately wasteful, it is probably necessary to keep it that way so there is no doubt.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[jjhall]

How is this any different than a prisoner fighting the guards and straining against their restraints the entire time until the drugs are administered? I've not done any research, but it seems like you'd hear of this happening all of the time, and being cited on every anti-death-penalty comment. I think most of the time that the condemned has come to terms with it by the time their day comes, and realize fighting it is only going to make them look weak in the eyes of what few friends and family members may still be there for them. Obviously I'm sure they're not happy it is happening, but without evidence to suggest this is an issue in any but the rarest of cases, I don't think it is much of a concern in the long run.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[ImprovOmega]

I had partial nitrogen exposure due to a leak that had happened in an industrial nitrogen tank I was transporting. I did pass out, but I can tell you there was zero pain involved. It actually felt completely euphoric. I wasn't gasping for air or anything like that (though I did realize what had happened and I got the hell out as quick as possible, so I never went under), but even realizing what had happened didn't give me a sense of panic, and afterwards there were no lingering effects. I really think this should be the preferred method of execution. It's simple and demonstrably painless. If I had to die suddenly, I would prefer that to practically any other method.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[ImprovOmega]

Ack, did NOT pass out. Stupid no edit button.

Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions

[mdielmann]

If they don't go this route, you'll likely see a condemned man struggling to hold his breath as long as he can, trying to avoid death, and eventually losing consciousness, inhaling, regaining consciousness for a moment to flail, and then dying.

I would assume that, in your scenario, the person wouldn't regain consciousness when they start breathing. They would start breathing because they had lost control sufficiently to pass out, would exhale, would inhale a quantity of oxygen-free air, and so would not improve their oxygen levels. They would continue down the path to suffocation. Continuing breathing isn't going to improve their physical state, although it will be less uncomfortable than holding their breath.

mixed blessing

[Anonymous Coward]

as an engineer, using n2 seems the right solution.
neat, painless, hard to get wrong as long as they wait a while

as a human, perhaps this works a bit too well
a firing squad is just as quick and humane, but it is a bit more painful for the witnesses
perhaps that is better

taking human life should not be done lightly,
making in painless seems contrary to this mandate

i still thing it should be done,
    we just need to be careful not to do it in a manner which diminishes the significane of what we do

Re:mixed blessing

[Anonymous Coward]

"a firing squad is just as quick and humane,"

Firing squads aim for the heart, if there is no successful shot then they are in a spot of bother.

Re: just hang them

[ravenshrike]

Because between 5 and 10% of convicted felons are actually innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Given the current state of laws in the US, saying they are wholly innocent of any lawbreaking is insane. In any case, that means that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 of people killed by the state should not have been, which is wholly unacceptable.

Translation of "more humane".

[SuperKendall]

When someone says something is "more humane" it almost always means it's far worse for the subject, but makes the person claim it's more humane feel better and helps avoid hard truths.

Re:Translation of "more humane".

[dave420]

No it doesn't. In your head it might, but out here it doesn't. Not even close. I guess you'd have to claim it does, though, lest you have to admit you are arguing a morally-untenable position. You are the one avoiding hard truths by calling for the killing of people in custody (some of whom are innocent) for some fucked up reason.

Re: just hang them

[Loki_1929]

Capital punishment certainly can be "revenge killing", but it is not necessarily so. Personally, I think that if it's fairly applied and handled reasonably, it can be as simple as a society determining that an individual is simply too dangerous and destructive to be allowed to continue existing. I have no problem with that. Prison guards, staff, and indeed other prisoners are people too and they have a right to be protected from particularly destructive and dangerous individuals. At some point, it's fair to admit that you cannot adequately control the violence unleashed at every opportunity by someone who is fundamentally broken in a way we cannot fix.

Re: just hang them

[Anonymous Coward]

and also innocent people that were just in the wrong place, got set up, or had a grudge against them.

Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical

[Akaihiryuu]

Yeah, this is something that's often overlooked. The "omg I can't hold my breath any longer" reflex has nothing to do with oxygen, it is solely based on CO2 buildup. Someone breathing pure nitrogen wouldn't even realize anything was wrong until right before they lose consciousness (which would happen in seconds anyway).

No More Executions

[tquasar]

Stop killing people.

hanging, short drop method

[p51d007]

Rope, minimal cost Gallows, minimal cost Short drop method, neck snapped, person DEAD. A lot more efficient and cheaper than all of this other crap. It makes no sense to swab a persons arm before inserting a needle to execute them. You afraid of them catching a germ? Drugs have to be approved by the FDA, you have to have sterile conditions, doctors, nurses, hospital gurney and the like. Just let them walk up the steps to a gallows, put a bag over their head, attach a rope around their neck, pull the handle, let them drop, problem solved.

SuperMax-for-life

[davidwr]

Anyone entering that facility as a prisoner should be effectively dead to the world.

I assume you would give them the same access to lawyers and religious counselors that condemned prisoners routinely have today (at least in some countries).

10 seconds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible for someone to hold his or her breath for 10 seconds. No one dies while stopping breathing for 10 seconds.

Re:10 seconds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible for someone to hold his or her breath for 10 seconds. No one dies while stopping breathing for 10 seconds.

Don't let Science - the only reliable methodology we possess to prove fact and disprove fiction - interrupt your speculation now will you?

Re: just hang them

[Anonymous Coward]

Capital punishment certainly can be "revenge killing", but it is not necessarily so. Personally, I think that if it's fairly applied and handled reasonably, it can be as simple as a society determining that an individual is simply too dangerous and destructive to be allowed to continue existing. I have no problem with that. Prison guards, staff, and indeed other prisoners are people too and they have a right to be protected from particularly destructive and dangerous individuals. At some point, it's fair to admit that you cannot adequately control the violence unleashed at every opportunity by someone who is fundamentally broken in a way we cannot fix.

Capital punishment is evidence the society is lawless and moral-less despite proclaiming to be a lawful and justice-seeking society. A prison like Alcatraz to house the truly violent and those for whom rehabilitation has failed is sufficient to protect society yet remain above the barbarism of executions.

manure pit

[goombah99]

Death by nitrogen is the ideal way to die. It's so effective it's one of the dangers in nitrogen inerted buildings. You don't know you are dieing you just pass out. SOmeone comes along sees you down in the room and tries to rescue you and bang they keel over too. It's the classic farmer manure pit death.

the key here is that your urgent need to breath oddly enough is not triggered by lack of oxygen but by build up of CO2. when you remove the O2 from your air then you don't notice it because your alarm system isn't triggered. You are still getting rid of the CO2 in your blood.

Why nature rigged it like that I have no idea but it is easy to see that under almost any normal condition the two are linked making having separate sensors of O2 and CO2 not needed so why evolve one.

Re:manure pit

[Anonymous Coward]

It is cheaper for an alarm to go off due to the excessive presence of something rather than constantly check to see if there is enough of something.

Re:manure pit

[Anonymous Coward]

Rabbits have a direct O2 sensor and *know* when exposed to deoxygenated air. This also occurs in other burrowing animals.

Re:manure pit

[Dr_Barnowl]

We do have the O2 reflex, it's just not the primary one and not active in most humans.

In individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the O2 reflex takes over - which makes it dangerous to give them high flow oxygen, because they will build up an excess of CO2 (because they don't breathe enough to expel it all). This reveals why CO2 is the usual trigger - normal air has enough oxygen in it, and our lungs are normally very efficient at absorbing it.

Re:manure pit

[Anonymous Coward]

Because C02 build up is more dangerous than oxygen deprivation due to acidosis created by the build up of carbonic acid in the blood. The small increase is survival offered by the one mechanism over the other early on is what explains its prevelance today.

Re:manure pit

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume testing the acidity of blood is easier than letting Oxygen bond. In order to test the amount of Oxygen, you need it to react, which then leaves you with a lot of oxidized stuff that must get replaced because good luck unbonding the Oxygen.

Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical

[Just Some Guy]

...unless you're a smoker and have highly depressed CO2 overload sensations due to your constant saturation.

Most commenters in this thread ...

[Mephistro]

... seem to have forgotten about that study in the nineties that applied the then recently developed DNA sequencing techniques to old cases. Said study proved conclusively that about a 20% of the executed were innocent. It can be logically inferred that nowadays the % of false convictions is close to that, excluding (most) cases where DNA evidence is used.

And the problem with the appeals is that every official involved in the case has an interest, a set of perverse incentives, in upholding the death sentences. No policeman, attorney or judge wants the public to know that they helped to sentence an innocent to death. The result: the appeals process is an uphill battle against the establishment, and most people lack the resources (money) to carry out a successful appeal.

Other studies prove that witnesses are far less reliable than generally assumed, that often the cops and district attorneys put too much pressure on witnesses and suspects, or directly manipulate or hide evidence that could set the suspect free.

Is the American legal system perfect and free of errors and corruption? Can you resurrect a wrongly executed person? If you can't answer affirmatively to at least one of these questions, death penalty is just another crime.

To further clarify my point, most of the convicts in the death row probably deserve to be executed, but the rest of the population doesn't deserve to live in a country that has that kind of power over its citizens, because that power will be -and has been- abused.

Let the downvotes begin... . Anyway this needed to be said.

Re:Most commenters in this thread ...

[rubycodez]

Wrong, now that we have DNA sequencing techniques which are applied normally, we can be sure of guilt

If the fed, state or local government wants you dead they will kill you and don't need a trial

Re:Most commenters in this thread ...

[Mephistro]

Wrong, now that we have DNA sequencing techniques which are applied normally, we can be sure of guilt

That's true only for those cases where DNA evidence is relevant or even exists, and in those cases where irrelevant DNA evidence is not abused by the DA to fool the jurors. Perhaps now it's not a 20%, just a 17 % or even a 15%. My point stands, though.

If the fed, state or local government wants you dead they will kill you and don't need a trial

Sad, but probably true.

Finally. I've been advocating this for years

[Karmashock]

Let me just first clear out all the people that just don't like executions... lets just take for the sake of argument that executions are going to happen. I know you don't like them... but they're here to stay. Assuming that point, this method of execution is quite a good one. It doesn't inflict pain on people, it doesn't outwardly damage the body, it is very reliable, etc. It has everything going for it so long as you accept that executions are going to happen.

Now I know you don't want to accept that and I am not forcing you to... I don't have that power. I am simply asking to separate the discussion about executions in general from this specific type of execution. I don't really want to have a long conversation about capital punishment.

If you reply to me, talk to me about THIS method of execution. That is what interests me.

On topic, I am really happy they finally did this... the previous methods had too many problems with them. This method is ideal.

Re:Finally. I've been advocating this for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not put you in a shredder?

Re:Finally. I've been advocating this for years

[Karmashock]

I was wondering when you'd show up. Did you get lonely when I crushed you in the last thread and stopped responding to you... again?

Well, darling... it is just marvelous knowing you're still following me about.

*kisses*

Re:Finally. I've been advocating this for years

[ebvwfbw]

Not hard. Just look up hypoxia. That's what you're really doing. You'll get stupid and won't even realize it. Then you're done.

I think you totally misunderstand me

[davidwr]

This may be true under the legal codes of some countries

Sorry, but after that statement I really cannot see you as anything but a monster.

When I said "[Your previous comment "that some people have truly lost the right to be considered human any more"] may be true under the legal codes of some countries" I was conceding to you that I do not know the laws of every country and it is conceivable that at least one country's laws may say that people are no longer people in the eyes of the law if they commit certain criminal acts. Or maybe no country does. I simply do not know.

I don't see how admitting my ignorance of foreign law makes me a monster.

I also don't see how the fact that, for now at least (until/unless the Supreme Court says otherwise), Treason is a death-penalty offense in America is related to any of the comments I made in this post.

Complete Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a 100% full proof way of killing someone with a minimum of pain and discomfort for all involved using readily available and impossible to restrict drugs:

Insert IV, inject lethal dose of morphine.

(you know, the same way people are typically voluntarily euthanized)

The problem is, people who really want the death penalty don't want a minimum of pain and discomfort. They don't want justice. They want VENGEANCE -- as much as they can muster.

Nice article

[hangnd18]

A useful product http://dinhvigps.vn/

Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical

[Anonymous Coward]

The gentlemen above have detailed very nicely that N2 asphyxiation is disconnected from the CO2 breathing response.

It just needed to be said again, because in a fit of attempting to posture as an outside the box thinker, you've only managed to show a complete disregard for listening to their message.

If you're a heavy smoker and have a depressed CO2 overload response, you'll still die just as quickly, as this has nothing to do with healthy or unhealthy CO2 sensing, .

Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical

[Just Some Guy]

You're correct, and also irrelevant to the fact that this thread was talking about CO2 buildup causing the urge to breathe, even if the article is about what you bring up.

Make It Liquid

[JimSadler]

I'll bet that pouring liquid nitrogen down an inmates throat would be even quicker. Or we could just toss the inmate into a barrel filled with liquid nitrogen. Or we could use a barrel of Liquid oxygen and after the inmate is frozen solid the barrel and inmate could be lit on fire to provide cremation on the spot. No mess, no fuss and nice clean ashes to sweep up a bit as a bonus. Then we could powder the bones just as funeral homes do and use the bone in concrete to make more death chambers. i'm a fun guy!

Just shoot them already

[Show me I'm wrong]

Why are legislators sugar coating executions? Take the death row inmates out back and shoot them. It's cheaper. If you have a problem with them being shot, then you will probably have to have a problem with executions in general. Hire a robot to do the shooting. That way no one will be forced to deal with "it".

Truck load of C4 or semtex?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just surround the condemned with a huge pile of C4 or semtex and detonate it. Pay per view would make a fortune.

If it were me...

[cyn1c77]

...I'd want a high-velocity bullet in the head, from a single person, at close range.

All of these other methods, like lethal injections and nitrogen, are absolutely grotesque, overly dramatic and not "humane" at all.

With a bullet, there is nothing to debate over. The rounds are cheap and easily available. There is no horrifically botched execution in the case of a misfire. And the hydrostatic shock destroys your brain instantly, so there is no pain.

Re:If it were me...

[exaptation]

Plenty of people have survived bullets and other kinds of high velocity objects through the brain, including an iron bar propelled by gunpowder. For more certainty, I'd suggest an explosive collar.

Re:If it were me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that suicides by gun are not 100% successful, people would screw up execution by shooting someone in the head.

Re:If it were me...

[jez9999]

I'm struggling to see how having your brains splattered on the wall is less grotesque than dying quickly from pure nitrogen inhalation.

Re:If it were me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who aren't either psychopaths or desensitized to the point of effectively being psychopaths (c.f. Stanford Experiment) will suffer lasting emotional aftereffects when told to calmly point a gun at someone's head and pull the trigger.

Re:If it were me...

[ImprovOmega]

Pure nitrogen inhalation is quick and painless. I've been in a situation where nitrogen was displacing normal air and the feeling right before you would pass out is one of euphoria. There's no pain at all and unconsciousness comes *very* quickly.

Added bonus, nitrogen gas is super cheap.

Re:If it were me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Firing squads are usually 4 gunmen with bullets and one gunman with a blank. This is a voluntary task. You can always assure yourself that yours was the blank. Some convicts have actually requested the firing squad because the organs can be donated (they can do more good in death than in life, and all that) -- whereas lethal injection does not allow such luxuries.

It's much less dramatic than a soldier killing another soldier. That guy might have been a good provider, father, teacher in his culture that was pulled from his life and dropped into temporary ranks.

Ain't Nothing Gonna Stop Us!

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK YEAH! MURRICA!

Ain't nothin' gonna stop us from killing our own people, just so we can get our rocks off with some vengeance porn! I don't care if we have to start executing them by beating them to death with broom sticks - ain't nothin' gonna stop us! WHOO! AMERICA! NUMBER FUCKING ONE! SUCK IT!

Because police are so honest

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a better form of execution because we can trust the police, prosecutors, and forensics labs to be honest.

Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, the CO2 reflex doesn't kick in soon enough before there is a lack of oxygen.

That's why kids who hyperventilate beforehand to hold their breath longer underwater might lose consciousness and drown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_water_blackout

This just in from Brussells:

[Anonymous Coward]

In reaction to the Oklahoma announcement, the EU has announced it is banning westward winds from leaving its shores! This will prevent any exports of nitrogen to the United States.

Barbaric

[Damouze]

No country or society can call itself truly civilized until it has abolished capital punishment completely. Capital punishment is barbaric and should have no place in a modern society.

The end result is the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing someone with injection, electricity,rope, big axe,stone or sword have the same end result. There is nothing less painfull in the killing a human being. And the motive is fundamentaly the same; revenge. As it was thousands years ago when laws where upholded in a different way.

There is a method of execution that is perfect,

[Cafe Alpha]

time.

If this is such a humane thing why did they wait?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the use of Nitrogen is feasible and humane, then why has America insisted on using such previous methods for killing people in the past?

America has hung, shot, electrocuted, gassed and poisoned its prisoners for longer than living memory - and now someone has had the idea of using a freely occurring gas that supposed to be humane and effective?

Will they be calling it...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Zyklon N?

Why Nitrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

Any gas or gas mixture that doesn't contain oxygen of at least 1/5 of 1 atmosphere by partial pressure will do the same thing. I suppose mitrogen has the advantage to the government of being VERY cheap, because the air around us is already 78% nitrogen. Much more common than say, helium, or argon.

No, the advantage is that breathing pure Nitrogen doesn't cause the asphyxiation feeling and reaction in your body like a build up of CO2 does. Thus the person doesn't feel like they are asphyxiating so they won't thrash about. It is also the single most human way of performing euthanasia as well as the cheapest, which makes me wonder why they don't all just automatically use it as their first method, especially since it is guaranteed to work every time and they won't ever need a "second" method...

Wisdom, pay attention!

[Anonymous Coward]

Executions must be in kind:

Firearms killers -> musketry
Cold steel murderers -> beheading
Strangulators -> gallows
Capital arsonists -> burning at the stake
Poisoners -> posion
Dismemberers -> attached to horses and pulled apart
Cannibals -> damnation to the beasts' pit
Bombers -> roped to cannon muzzle and fired

Those are neither cruel or unusual punishment, because if the same method of execution was cruel, the murderer wouldn't have done that to the victim(s) in the first place. The same method of execution is also not unusual, since the perpertrator has already done that to the victim(s). QED

Why not use general anaesthetic?

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the bleeding heart liberal SCUM on here, who actually care more about the murderers than their INNOCENT victims (you might want to look up what 'innocent' means), why are they going to this ridiculous extent? Why not just use a general anaesthetic, and increase the dose? Totally painless, and guaranteed to work. Hell, millions of people's pets are put to sleep every year by this very method, a simple, painless injection.

Of course, it sickens me that these evil monsters are even being given any consideration whatsoever, thanks to the JEW taking over your country, and making sure that nobody suffers 'cruel and unusual punishment' - which in other words means "When our 'cattle' finally get pissed off enough with us JEWS and take back their country again, we want it to be illegal to execute us. Oh, and we made sure your baby boys were sexually mutilated so that we can more easily hide among you when it comes time to round us parasites up and exile us..."

Bring back hangings and firing squads

[moeinvt]

"IF" states in this country are still going to use the death penalty, they should at least give the condemned a choice. The degree to which governments have gone to sanitize execution bespeaks the embarrassing nature of the whole operation. Rather than doing it quickly, loudly and publicly, they do it in some dark secluded basement with an injection as if they're trying to obscure the fact that they are killing someone.

I don't anticipate being in this position, but I'd definitely take a firing squad to being poisoned and/or asphyxiated.
If the government is willing to execute people and call it "justice", then they should do it out in the open and/or broadcast it on TV for all the world to see. Poisons and gases are, IMO, much more barbaric to the condemned than the old methods. Those methods are not more "humane", they merely spare the authorities from having to clean up the mess associated with their deeds.

See, it isn't that hard

[slashmydots]

The media acted like a European import ban in killer chemicals for lethal injection was the end of the world. It's not that damn hard to kill someone. In fact, they could just give him too much of basically any depressant and too much of almost any anesthetic.

Death penalty is humane.

[GargamelSpaceman]

I support the death penalty for humanitarian reasons. Life in prison is the most protracted method of torture to death possible. Any other method is more humane, even Medieval ones.

Nitrogen asphyxiation is probably ok. It'll be over in less than a day for sure.

I think the world record for holding your breath is like 17 minutes?

That's why I don't buy the 'loses consiousness in 10 seconds'

They ought to use CO instead. Still. whatever. A firing squad or hanging, or a gullotine would be fine. Breaking on the wheel, being hung drawn and quartered, even the brazen bull, would be better than life in prison. Life in prison vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Now that's a hell of a choice...

Re:Death penalty is humane.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the world record for holding your breath is like 17 minutes?

That's why I don't buy the 'loses consiousness in 10 seconds'

That's like looking at Micheal Phelps, and saying "I disbelieve that the average person cannot do what he can do". You're taking an extreme and using it to dismiss an average.

Re: just hang them

[cyberchondriac]

It's not revenge, it's permanently disabling very, very, dangerous people, and being confined to prison is not a guarantee of disabling them.

Re: just hang them

[kilfarsnar]

These are murderers, rapists, and other scumbags. We do we care if their deaths are painless? Their victims' deaths certainly weren't...

Ah, the old letting someone else's lack of morality justify your own, eh? I would think we care because we are not murderers, rapists or scumbags. But I guess it's easier to act like the people you condemn when you use their behavior as a benchmark for your own.

I can speak from experience . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I was overcome by nitrogen once. We had a delivery of four cylinders that my buddy was unloading. One of the tanks slipped out of its cradle and whacked me on the head. Knocked me out cold.

NOPE

[Anonymous Coward]

Starving the brain of oxygen, but the person is still awake. Nitrogen narcosis may cause a person to act strange, but it does not mean they feel no pain. This could still be viewed as pain and suffering.

Embarrassed citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

is embarrassed to be a citizen of a country where capital punishment is still practiced. #noupside

Not insightful at all-BAD MODS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Life without possibility" isn't what the judgments state. Finish your sentences. It usually ends "without parole". So to answer your question, what does the death penalty solve that life imprisonment doesn't? Life without possibility of ESCAPE.

Re:Not insightful at all-BAD MODS

[Pseudonym]

Be serious. Escape from prison in the US is so rare that it's basically statistical noise.

cowards

[Anonymous Coward]

That just sounds like passing the buck to me. Last time I checked, Germany is the unofficial head of the EU. Where they lead, others follow.

My Take

[weweedmaniii]

I am not in favor of capitol punishment and here are my reasons which have taken a good part of my adult life to figure out: 1. The state can & will make mistakes. Someone once said let 100 guilty men go free, instead of killing 1 innocent man. 2. If the person is innocent of the crime, they have the rest of their natural lives to exonerate themselves. If they can show malice in the trial or sentencing then they may have recourse against the state or the individual who sent them to prison. 3. If they are guilty, they have to wake up every day and knowing the person looking back at them in the mirror is guilty. That may be worse than the release of death.... 4. Life without parole is a perfectly acceptable sentence, they will no longer be a menace in society. 5. I do not have a citation, but in my home state according to a newspaper article, since 1972 we have put to death 4 people. In that time 15 I believe have died on death row before they faced the chair or the needle, so effectively they had life without parole. 6. No need to comment, I have spent over 3 decades thinking on and reading about capitol punishment. I now simply state my point and walk away, feel free to take it, leave it or dismiss it.

nutters gonna nut

[Anonymous Coward]

You jack off your weapons so much that you want to die by one, too. You guns nuts aren't even trying anymore....

Where is the impact?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure where I stands on execution, but one thing I am sure of - if it is going to be of any effect as a deterrent then "painless" should be taken off the table.

Many murderers are not afraid of death, some even try to take their own lives at the end of their despicable act; others commit suicide in jail. Perhaps some would think twice about doing it if they knew they would suffer as much if not more than their victims before dying.

Re:Where is the impact?

[Ihlosi]

Perhaps some would think twice about doing it if they knew they would suffer as much if not more than their victims before dying.

Experience shows that this effect does not occur to the desired extent.

They shoot horses don't they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I am somewhat less than enthused at a death penalty as there have been more than an occasional miscarriage of,justice, it seems that all this palaver about this or that methodology seems misplaced...just shoot the fucker...works ever time, costs pennies. If people feel to um..uncomfortable with pulling the trigger, do as the do or at least used to do in Thailand with a mechanical contrivance which several people trigger but only one of the half dozen switches actually forces the guns..everyone can be unsure of they did or did not deliver the goods..all of it so primate nonsense of course but you Americans like vengeance...from where I reside it is primitive..I think mierders should work their debts to,society especially for the families of the victims in a speciallace where the actually pay their own way until they die of old age..never to walk as free persons again.

Why not use Zyklon B

[MoarSauce123]

The Nazis found that to be very effective. State sponsored murder is about the same.