Chelle-82 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Ending someone's life should be punishment enough, as a supposed civilised nation you would expect the US not to be torturing people to death. jb Disagree, I truly don't believe there is a punishment good enough to fit the crime of child rapists and murderers.. My opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Disagree, I truly don't believe there is a punishment good enough to fit the crime of child rapists and murderers.. My opinion Would that be on the condition you had nothing to do with the punishment directly, or are you happy for your pleasure to be carried out by another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 The drugs used in executions in the USA are common anaesthetic drugs. A sedative is administered, then a drug is given to paralyse the body which also stops the breathing, they then administer potassium (which is commonly used to treat hypokalaemia which can cause cardiac arrhythmia) to stop the heart. The problem with this sort of execution in the USA is that a doctor is not allowed to carry it out due to the lack of treatment and harm being caused the person being executed. So in effect a general anaesthetic is being administered by a inexperienced and unqualified person. So things like a tissued vein, which would be likely in a prisoner due to potential intravenous drug abuse, may well get missed. That is assuming that the intravenous cannula would be correctly inserted in the first place. Due to the drugs previously given, the prisoner may well be conscious and in pain but also paralysed so unable to move until the potassium takes effect giving them a heart attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Very good point, and well made. Until you add the term "collateral damage"...we must never ignore the need to excuse ourselves of any injustices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattythefish Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 a bullet to the head would be pretty fail safe and a damn sight cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I do believe in fair trials, i believe that if someone is found to be guilty with evidence of the most awful of crimes and the punishment is the death penalty and someone of the law who carries out the executions 'botches' the procedure it does not play on my conscience that someone who has already caused devestation by their own actions suffers... It is the least they deserve. Im not an out and out evil person! in an ideal world the original crimes would never happen in the first place. Don't get me wrong, i don't believe that it's OK to just start going around randomly jabbing all criminal with the lethal injection! ---------- Post added 30-04-2014 at 12:05 ---------- You would think so but people survive being shot in the head quite frequently. It does to some degree depend on the type of gun/bullet used and the enter/exit points so maybe a bludderbluss loaded with 2lbs of nails would be the best bet... or just gas 'em with nitrogen, far less mess to clean up afterwards. Just as well really... this is a debate forum though so I wonder why you bother posting if you're not up for debating your stance. jb Is it? I also thought it was for advertising, interest groups, business groups and basically anything anyone wants to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 If we accept that there will be 'collateral damage' should we at not least try and minimise it? i.e. why torture potentially innocent people to death when they can be killed humanely? jb I don't accept that we should accept collateral damage as an excuse to excuse ourselves. Whatever the outcome we have to accept the consequences of our actions, not sugar-coat them. Killing humanely is an ethical cop-out, it panders to our false sense of care. If we embrace the doctrine of "killing humanely" we've lost any reasoning ethically or morally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 If they deserve it then why not just do it anyway? Why not make it as painful as possible? You should have either the moral turpitude to stand up and say they should all die in hideous pain and or just sit back and sullenly accept that a humane method is better. If, however, you think ending their life is enough and that they don't deserve to be tortured to death then why not make it humane and with no chance of 'botching' the procedure? Just evil enough to think murderers deserve to die in excruciating pain? That's OK. I didn't think you were. This is the General Discussion section... it's for discussing stuff. jb I am discussing stuff!! i just keep leaving the computer to do stuff and everytime i get back your down me throat!! give me chance be-jesus man... What im saying is this, i don't expect anyone to die painfully, i dont wish the world was so bad that people have to find themselves in that situation in the first place, im not evil.... However, IF something goes wrong during the lethal injection and the criminal (who has been placed there for a reason, this is not a good innocent human being is it) suffers then i won't feel pity for that person.. Do you think the family of the people he murdered feel pity? or do you feel they may feel some sort of justice as this person has taken away the people they cared and loved and who themselves may have suffered before the end. Dont forget that many victims are truly innocent and at the time of their deaths many of them felt excrutiating pain and fear and didnt deserve what happened to them.... Life is unfair and bad things happen to good people so why shouldnt it happen to the bad people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Disagree, I truly don't believe there is a punishment good enough to fit the crime of child rapists and murderers.. My opinion Solitary confinement for the rest of their life, no human contact. ---------- Post added 30-04-2014 at 12:37 ---------- Whether or not you agree with the death penalty surely the days of botched executions should be over? Oklahoma refused to reveal the name of the drugs used or the manufacturer on the grounds it needs to "protect the suppliers from legal action and harassment." They should be subject to legal action and harassment in this case! I've always wondered why they use this method (if any) in the first place. Surely they should be put to sleep first or stunned like cattle before before using a captive penetrating bolt or something?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 There is no such thing as a 'humane execution' and it is disingenuous to pretend there is. Unless you are going to surprise the condemned person and kill them very quickly when they are least expecting it, all penal executions involve distress and mental torture at the least. This may be repeated several times for a condemnee who is reprieved at the 11th hour, only to be brought back and taken through the whole process again. You wouldn't do it to a dog. Animals can be killed humanely because they do not understand what is about to happen to them. That is not true of humans. You might not care that the humans suffer in the weeks and hours leading up to the point where they are injected/electrocuted or whatever but do not excuse it by saying it is 'humane'. It isn't. All this is quite apart from the moral degradation of those who carry out the process. It's simply indefensible, whatever the criminal has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.