-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Inmate seeks execution by firing squad, says lethal injection too painful
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
I didn't know that Kim Jong-un had a GAF account.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Country needs to get on my state's level and abolish the death penalty all together.
LeroyPantwether
Member
Why?
If I ever get wrongfully convicted of a heinous crime and sentenced to death, let it be known that I choose death by snu snu.
Because murder by the state is barbaric and uncivilized. Oh and innocent people get put to death.
Because murder by the state is barbaric and uncivilized. Oh and innocent people get put to death.
If it's good enough for Tom...
/s
Aside from the morality of state-sanctioned murder, it isn't a deterrent in the least. Knowing that a state government may kill you in 30 years because you shot a few people now isn't stopping anyone. The appeals process and keeping death row inmates separate from the general population also cost a ton more than life without parole.
/s
Aside from the morality of state-sanctioned murder, it isn't a deterrent in the least. Knowing that a state government may kill you in 30 years because you shot a few people now isn't stopping anyone. The appeals process and keeping death row inmates separate from the general population also cost a ton more than life without parole.
LeroyPantwether
Member
Why is it barbaric and uncivilized? What should we do instead?
Coreda
Member
Oklahoma and Alabama have it available as options, though as of 2017 it has yet to be requested. If carried out properly it would be a peaceful way to go.
Monocle
Member
It's nothing but sick state-sponsored revenge.
Tekomandor
Member
You can release someone from prison if you put them there accidentally. Kinda hard to do the sa e if you execute them.
There are also no viable arguments for the death penalty that are backed by evidence.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
You need a why as to not kill human life? Aside from ethical and moral reasons, there's those of wrongful imprisonment.
A better question is what kind of sick gain do you get from killing them? Satisfying some basic need for revenge? The species should have progressed beyond that.
Tekomandor
Member
Hence the descriptor 'barbaric'.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
Death penalty is the one thing where I'll never agree with the political left. And trust me, I am as left as can be on everything else. Flith deserve death. This piece of shit killed his 73 old neighbor and almost decapitated him. DNA evidence and all.
He deserves nothing but pain. Fuck him.
He deserves nothing but pain. Fuck him.
It's only inhumane because of how our prison system is set up. A more long term incarceration inside a proper rehabilitative prison system set up to be such from the second one enters until the second they leave (or die) and the entire conversation would be very different. The savings, the recidivism rate, the improvement to communities and society.
We all just have to give up a bit of our blood lust and desire for eye for an eye revenge, and come to terms with the idea of treating terrible people with dignity. Once we make that leap, providing a humane prison system is easy comparatively. But as you can see with people like F0rneus, it's not about what works, not about anything but sheer, emotional gut checks. The "filth" needs to be punished, facts and statistics be damned. Nevermind that this has been tested and systems without death penalties function a lot better than those with. We need our blood for blood.
Tekomandor
Member
Plenty of innocent people have been executed in the US. Plenty more black people than should have been, statistically, have been executed.
There is no justification whatsoever related to a benefit for society, instead proponents of the death penalty are all about vengance. Is life in prison with no possibility of parole just not good enough for you?
Of course, all indications are that all you'll get out of punitive justice is more criminals, more crimes - but it will make you feel better.
So it's not okay for him to decide someone must die, but it's okay for the government to?
Yes I know it's not that black and white, but it shouldn't be in anyone's hands to decide who is allowed to live and who is not.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Most of the people on death row are mentally ill and/or poor minorities. You can't trust the state to apply the death penalty without bias.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
jus·tice
ˈjəstəs/
noun
noun: justice; plural noun: justices
1.
just behavior or treatment.
Murder doesn't sound like justice to me.
LeroyPantwether
Member
What if prisoner wants the death penalty?
What if the death penalty is the only way to prevent further murders by a given murderer (killing of fellow inmates and/ or guards)?
What if a prisoner escapes?
What if we fixed our court system and could say for certainty that no innocent or ill individuals would be put to death?
All I asked was why you felt that way, relax. I don't "need" anything from you if you're going to behave in such an uncivilized manner.
Fixed that for ya.
farmerboy
Member
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/justice-important-b7a60c04434c1e01
Its not that black and white.
From your link:
Seems pretty black and white to me.
There is no reason to kill another human being unless it is in self defense, or the defense of one's home and family.
Not to mention that if our prison system was more focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment, most of the people on death row could become well behaved citizens. No death required.
Depends on one views of euthanasia, but euthanasia is very much not execution so why is this what if relevant?
If an incarcerated individual keeps killing people, then clearly the prison has screwed up, also since one cannot divine the future it seems a bit weird to kill someone over an uncertain future, also ofc prisons should be protecting inmates so they don't kill each other.
Not to mention with the handy ability of knowing the future we wouldn't really need to worry about killing people to stop them from killing people, we could just stop it from happening.
If the prisoner escapes then it was clearly a mistake on the part of the prison, something that should be remedied, and once again one cannot divine the future since if one could the escape could be prevented, no need to kill prisoners just in the off chance the prison might screw up, especially given the unlikely probability that not only would a murderer be the one to get away, but that he would also get to murder before he got caught.
Fixing the court system would surely be very nice, but as far as I know no one has any idea how one would go about accomplishing certainty of innocence, so until said time in which a perfect system is created, one should probably err on the side of caution and avoid killing people.
this is what crossed my mind as well. we have euthanasia down to a science and it seems to work well for animals so why not do the same for people.
It's because the pharma companies don't want their products to be used for killing, so they won't sell them to prisons for the purpose of killing.
So they end up using a mix of completely untested pharmaceuticals that might or might not give you a painful death.
LeroyPantwether
Member
Can you clarify this point please . I asked , what if we could say for sure the person being executed was guilty and that no innocent or ill people would be executed ? I feel your response did not adequately address that hypothetical. It's important because it helps me deduce whether you're against state sanctioned murder completely , or you are only against it because of our court systems current shortcomings.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
There are entire theories of justice which oppose the death penalty.
And all I did is ask you what reason why there is to sentence someone to death.
Your question was about a what if the system was perfect, my answer was that there is no current known way to make a perfect system (as far as I know), so given that very real constraint, execution is taking an extreme irreversible and unnecessary decision based on uncertainty.
So in the end I find the question to be as relevant as "What if we could bring people from the dead".
But to answer the general idea of if my opposition on the matter of state executions is based on the court system shortcomings, no it is not, it is based on it bringing no real proven benefits to the people living in the states, the court system is only a part of the issue.
LeroyPantwether
Member
Actually you asked me what sick gain I would get from killing them. Which is weird cause I never posited a position one way or the other. All I literally said was "why". I'm sure you meant the royal you/we though , or whatever.
farmerboy
Member
Think it through in a broader sense and you may see where people like me are coming from. Society as a whole can be seen as "one's home" and the metering out of capital punishment the "defense" of that home and everyone in it.
Except the defense of one home entitles as a general rule there being a threat to one home (depending on the law), a properly incarcerated prisoner should not be a threat to one home, so capital punishment for that reason seems like a flawed argument.
Not to mention given the very real costs of executing someone, that person would need to end up murdering a whole lot of people after being incarcerated for it to be worth the expenditure.
LeroyPantwether said:
This is euthanasia. Provided that they go through the proper mental health checks and are given an adequate length of time to decide and back out, as well as the proper guidance then this is simply a health procedure that an individual in the system has been given access to. It's not a penalty therefore, and is humane.
LeroyPantwether said:
What scenario would this be? Can you invent a scenario where a state has someone in their custody, but literally lacks such control over their charge that they can indiscriminately kill fellow inmates and guards? Is no one watching the access they have to tools for such killings? Is no one watching the inmate to jump in and prevent attacks on fellow inmates?
Such a hypothetical is not helpful if it invents new imaginary problems in order to try to come to some conclusion about an old one.
LeroyPantwether said:
Not sure what this has to do with whether death penalty is wrong or not. The only thing I can guess is that it's trying to get people concerned about the very idea of a killer existing, much like people who are worried they are going to get struck by lightning. Both have statistically comically tiny odds of ever happening, and thus we don't decide whether something is morally or ethically appropriate based on such a small chance. That way lies madness.
Based on our current system, it takes an average of fifteen years to have your execution carried out. There is plenty of time for that person to escape anyway. Should we therefore make sure the execution is carried out immediately, so that there is no time for escape?
LeroyPantwether said:
This is a fairy tale hypothetical for which no intellectually honest person can answer in any correct way.
Humankind is not perfect, and therefore there will never be a perfect system that always puts to death the guilty. It simply is not something we will now or ever in the future be capable of. Therefore in a discussion of whether the death penalty is appropriate or not, it has no real function. We are not designing systems for science fiction universes, but reality.
But for the record, even if we could read minds and therefore know beyond a shadow of a doubt a murder was committed by the accused, the answer is no. No we should not put the individual to death. That should absolutely not be the function of any justice system in an enlightened society.
Except killing someone that is no longer a threat to you is pointless, and essentially murder. A prisoner is locked away and no longer a threat to you, therefor killing them is no longer necessary.
Not to mention that if rehabilitated, they wouldn't have a desire to murder anyone, and would feel regret at their past actions.
LeroyPantwether
Member
Super confused now . Hypotheticals are absolutely relevant because they reveal the underlying logic behind your arguments. Moreover , if you are against execution merely do to the fact that it offers no evidence-based benefit to the state, then I guess the courts shortcomings literally have nothing to do with it (ie not part of the issue despite your assertion that it is part of the issue). Correct me if I'm wrong , but it sounds like in the hypothetical scenArio i presented you would still be staunchly against the death penalty. If that's the case why not just say that , this isn't a gotcha type of thing .
And since we're on topic lol , would you be against the death penalty if we could bring people back to life in the event that they were discovered to be innocent posthumously.
Don't answer that
Intheflorsh
Banned
If I had to choose between a bullet to the head or mystery drugs that make your heart explode, I'd def choose the bullet. 
LeroyPantwether
Member
In the US this seems like a fairy tale hypothetical that no intellectually honest person would entertain .
unless the drug puts you to sleep before you die, there's no actual drug that feels amazing as you die despite the myth.
A drug that is in large enough doses to kill you would be acting in such a way that your body is shutting down in one of any number of ways, poisoning itself, etc. It feels terrible to be awake and realize your heart is seizing in your chest or whatever or you are having trouble breathing.
No amount of morphine will fix that
LeroyPantweather said:
Do you hear yourself? My idea about how our prison system should be - in which you use your answer here to sarcastically compare to my answer about your nonsense science fiction hypothetical about whether the death penalty would be OK if you could know whether someone was guilty or not - is not actually science fiction. This is a real approach to justice systems that is in place in many countries, for which hard data not only supports their efficacy but proves it.
You certainly have better points than this I hope, because while you have failed to provide your own stance on this subject, it becomes increasingly clear if this is what we're working with.
Benzychenz
Member
The death penalty still being a thing in the US is fucking absurd.
I believe I already answered the question when I said that I don't because the courts are only part of the problem, the courts to the best of my knowledge only determine the guilt of the person (could be wrong), the all act of enforcement brings other issues too, including costs related to it.
EDITED: Also " if you are against execution merely do to the fact that it offers no evidence-based benefit to the state, then I guess the courts shortcomings literally have nothing to do with it (ie not part of the issue despite your assertion that it is part of the issue). Correct me if I'm wrong" you can't separate court shortcomings from the evidence that exists on execution, so I don't agree with the proposition that court shortcomings are not part of the issue, literally part of the cost of an execution is from court proceedings.
Similar threads
- Locked