California Lethal Injection questioned

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yeah...what's your point?

Our court system is in place to dispense justice, not vengance.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Isn't the death panalty about vengence? Rotting in jail (being removed from society) is justice. The death penalty is about giving back to the person what they gave society: murder.

To me it's more about removing someone so they can no longer be a drain on the world.

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I honestly have no problem with the death penalty except that it takes too long for indubiously guilty criminals to get to the dying part. If there is any doubt though, they shouldn't be sent to die, they should be able to go through their appeals process and everything.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Our court system is in place to dispense justice, not vengance.

if you kill someone by hitting them 11 times with a hammer and your sentence is death by beating 11 times with a hammer, how is that not justice? And if that justice is also vengeance, what's the problem?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

if you kill someone by hitting them 11 times with a hammer and your sentence is death by beating 11 times with a hammer, how is that not justice? And if that justice is also vengeance, what's the problem?

But they aren't returning it in kind, they are humanely killing them. It doesn't matter if the criminal tortured 25 people to death, they get a humane death.

I dunno man, the way I see it, who are the ones asking for the death penalty? It's "The People," but mostly it's the people directly affected by the crime. They want revenge for what happened to their loved ones; they want the person put to death.

And to scrum: killing them so they are no longer a drain to society would make more sense if it didn't cost MORE to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison until they die.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But they aren't returning it in kind, they are humanely killing them. It doesn't matter if the criminal tortured 25 people to death, they get a humane death.

That's what I'm saying is a problem. IMO they only reason they get a "humane" death is because if they boiled someone to death then the executioner would have to boil the condemned, and that would fuck with his head. IMO "humane death" is as much to protect the executioner as it is to pretend we're civilized.

I dunno man, the way I see it, who are the ones asking for the death penalty? It's "The People," but mostly it's the people directly affected by the crime. They want revenge for what happened to their loved ones; they want the person put to death.

So? If you kill (and we know it beyond any doubt) and you're put to death the same way, why is that a problem?

And to scrum: killing them so they are no longer a drain to society would make more sense if it didn't cost MORE to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison until they die.

Obviously that needs to change.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And to scrum: killing them so they are no longer a drain to society would make more sense if it didn't cost MORE to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison until they die.

I was speaking more in terms of an emotional, spiritual and basic taking up space sense than monetary.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I was speaking more in terms of an emotional, spiritual and basic taking up space sense than monetary.

I can see that I guess, but if a guy kills some lady's husband whom she loved, he doesn't get put to death. He's there in jail for however long possibly tormenting her thoughts (not on purpose, she just has to live with that). He kills 5 people and it's somehow different? I guess he is taking up MORE emotional and spiritual space, but since that can't really be quantified, you can't really say how much "emotional space" he is taking up (unless you just want to rate it on how many people who are affected, but I'd rather see someone punished more for killing a husband who is really loved than 5 husbands who were cheating on their wives, if you catch my meaning).

The cost is really the only quantifiable thing about the death penalty: is it better for society to spend this extra money so that they can know that the person who killed their loved ones is no longer alive... so that their loved ones can be avenged?

I mean, that's just how I see it. The death penalty is one of those things that everyone is going to see differently. Why you want it or don't want it is a personal matter, I'm just speaking my opinion

[Kytro]

Revenge is petty and has no place in civilized society. Executing someone based on emotional reasoning only perpetuates tribe mentality.

Almost all other reasoning put forward by proponents of capital punishment boils back down to revenge.

When people commit some crimes it can cause damage to society if left unchecked. They should be required to help society in return for the harm caused, if they want to or not.

[Diamond Cross]

A civilized society is all about revenge. Why do you think there's so many frivolous lawsuits? Since anger and violence are looked down upon, the law is the only thing tthat people can turn to.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

A civilized society is all about revenge. Why do you think there's so many frivolous lawsuits? Since anger and violence are looked down upon, the law is the only thing tthat people can turn to.

The law should be there to help society function not justify personal revenge. The fact there are many frivolous lawsuits merely shows a weakness in the legal system.

The law should be there to provide a framework and to resolve disputes where reason fails. It should not be there as a weapon or for personal vendettas.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Pretty sure they don't have someone standing by who's only job is to stab someone with a needle.

I know a MD has to supervise the thing, not sure who actually injects the needle, but I'd be willing to bet they have to be certified..

Doctors don't want to do it. They cannot be forced to do it. I don't blame them and I don't see it as a medical right. My good friend put down a family dog a few years ago. I was there through it all. I didn't see any sign of pain. It was just a animal clinic nurse who used some drug combination in an IV. I don't see why this can't work for humans? Even humans that are worth less than a dog?

[DosEquis]

I kind of have this dual feeling on it. I think some times death for them is the easy way out and doing them a favor. Some of them I would rather they sit in a 4x6 cell where they never see day light again. Maybe in a maximum security basement. Their food is plain chicken, oatmeal, maybe some frozen veggies. No salt, butter, pepper, whatever. Their activity for the day would be walking a chained line around the cell block for 10 minutes, twice a day. There is no tv. They get to read books if they are lucky.

Though like others, i am for a death penalty as long as it is killing the right guy.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The law should be there to help society function not justify personal revenge. The fact there are many frivolous lawsuits merely shows a weakness in the legal system.

The law should be there to provide a framework and to resolve disputes where reason fails. It should not be there as a weapon or for personal vendettas.

I agree 100% with this.. Too often, the law is used as a weapon of revenge in petty and not so petty arguments instead of truth-finding.

Demanding eye-for-eye places the state (and by extension the people it represents) on the same moral plain as the convicted... Shouldn't the state/people then be held responsible for murder as well? After all, the death penalty simply adds to the death toll, it doesn't bring the victim back, nor does it offer any honest closure for others involved.. I find a conflict between what I think the purpose of retributive acts is and capital punishment... Do I want the murderer to pay for his crime? Definitely. Do I want him to die? No. Why? because that won't teach him why what he did was wrong. Only when he learns that will he feel true remorse for what he has done. As a result, every time I hear about someone dying this way, I wonder if that makes me a murderer by proxy.

I won't even get into the investigative issues that lead to false convictions and death.. Those place those overzealous detectives/prosecutors at the same level as a bona fide criminal because they aren't looking for the truth, they're looking for that conviction because that's how they're rewarded.. Of course, we expect the defense to manipulate data whenever possible to show innocence, but the detectives and prosecutors should be focused on the objective truths of the case, not winning i-got-more-convictions-than-you-did-last-year fragfests. If the truth's on their side, it will be self-evident to the jury, especially in capital murder cases. If tricks are needed, then maybe the case shouldn't be won after all..

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Revenge is petty and has no place in civilized society.

The only difference between revenge and justice is who gets to push the button. If it's a family member of a murdered man then it's "revenge" and not ok, but if it's some anonymous executioner with no emotional ties to the condemned then it's justice and it's fine.

That doesn't make sense to me. IMO the dead person's family should have the option of being the ones to push the button....... and I'd push it nice and slow so the next guy who thought about murdering someone would know he's going to suffer.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

The only difference between revenge and justice is who gets to push the button. If it's a family member of a murdered man then it's "revenge" and not ok, but if it's some anonymous executioner with no emotional ties to the condemned then it's justice and it's fine.

I disagree with both. No one should be killing people as a retaliation. The state or individuals.

Originally Posted by 7960

That doesn't make sense to me. IMO the dead person's family should have the option of being the ones to push the button....... and I'd push it nice and slow so the next guy who thought about murdering someone would know he's going to suffer.

Which will do nothing. You can't deter people with the death penalty. There is no good purpose for it but to satisfy an emotional response. This insufficient to justify throwing away rational process.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I disagree with both. No one should be killing people as a retaliation. The state or individuals.

Then you're totally opposed to the death penalty on all levels for any reason? Because that's all it is.

Which will do nothing. You can't deter people with the death penalty. There is no good purpose for it but to satisfy an emotional response. This insufficient to justify throwing away rational process.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent because it takes 15-20 years to actually execute someone. If the death penalty happened within a year (picking a number out of my ass) then IMO it would be a deterrent. If I don't care about jail it's hard for me to think about what's going to happen in 20 years. But IMO most people care about their lives and if they knew they'd be dead in a year if they kill then fewer would.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Then you're totally opposed to the death penalty on all levels for any reason? Because that's all it is.

I am totally opposed without good reason. Emotional reactions are not a good reason. If it could be shown that it does more good than harm then there is something to consider.

Originally Posted by 7960

The death penalty isn't a deterrent because it takes 15-20 years to actually execute someone. If the death penalty happened within a year (picking a number out of my ass) then IMO it would be a deterrent. If I don't care about jail it's hard for me to think about what's going to happen in 20 years. But IMO most people care about their lives and if they knew they'd be dead in a year if they kill then fewer would.

People do not commit crimes intending to get caught. The idea that one would weigh sitting in jail for you entire life waiting to die to be significantly worse than being killed in a year or two after being caught seems a stretch.

Certainly if the penalty was significantly lighter some people may consider it a worthwhile trade.

Also consider the people likely to commit the crimes:

Hired Killer: Will not be affected by penalties. They already take a huge risk and probably consider they will not be caught

Mentally unstable: Obviously not affected by penalties

Crimes of passion: Unlikely to thinking clearly

Crimes of opportunity: Not really the brightest of people, unlikely to consider the consequences.

The problem is many law-abiding citizens think because it deters them, it therefore deters others.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

People do not commit crimes intending to get caught.

I remember watching a police-type show in a place that basically gave up all serious prosecution to the feds. Local cops would arrest but the feds tried most of the cases. Because the feds have extremely strict gun laws criminals were pretty much surrendering to police and saying "I did it (robbed, beat, stole, etc) BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A GUN!" Knowing that the penalty was extremely harsh sure did change their behavior.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

I remember watching a police-type show in a place that basically gave up all serious prosecution to the feds. Local cops would arrest but the feds tried most of the cases. Because the feds have extremely strict gun laws criminals were pretty much surrendering to police and saying "I did it (robbed, beat, stole, etc) BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A GUN!" Knowing that the penalty was extremely harsh sure did change their behavior.

I'm sure that many of the people featured on the show would want to make sure the police realized they didn't use a gun - once they had been caught.

I don't see how it shows a change in behavior though - is there any evidence to indicate that they would have otherwise used weapons?

The evidence is anecdotal at best.