Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I saw this on www.Stuff.co.nz

Man can't lose weight for execution
and this "quote" is somehow ironic

‘‘Indeed, given his unique physical and medical condition, there is a substantial risk that any attempt to execute him will result in serious physical and psychological pain to him, as well as an execution involving a torturous and lingering death,’’

there is a substantial risk that any attempt to execute him will result in serious physical and psychological pain to him....

SO... is it inhumane to use another method? maybe something faster easier? like 9 grams of lead behind the left ear?
but in reading the whole story... he cant lose the weight due to severe depression.( or is he milking it? by getting heavy to avoid it?)

I must have a very (black and white) approach to things, drug him up with morphine etc and shoot, job done. How P C the world is becoming that you cant be inhumane when doing a execution.

I'm somewhat in agreement, but I also see the other point of view.

I think that, as you say, an execution is an execution. The person will be dead at the end of it, so why beat around the bush? But I also think that, whatever they did to deserve the execution doesn't mean they can't be treated with basic courtesy. The execution, no matter how well deserved, should allow them to leave with some measure of dignity, and have some last requests granted etc.

Are you able to copy and paste the whole article? What method of execution are they trying to use here, lethal injection? I'm in agreement that, if the execution is warranted, and one method is not viable for whatever reason, another should be chosen rather than delaying it needlessly.

Anyway, my £0.02p

YEAH! I can't believe that things are too PC these days, where we can't even torture someone to death!!!!!! Goddamn quinoa-eating, doped up hippies where are their values?!

Some (in fact, most) would say that execution serves no purpose. That's why it's not practiced in most of the developed world. Heck, even in the USA it's not universal.

EDIT: To be clear, execution always serves a purpose. It is a form of deterrent, although it's efficacy is up for debate, and it is 100% effective at preventing recidivism. I meant that, rather than it serving no purpose, that the purpose it serves can be better served by other means. It's a cost/reward thing.

If he's a chubby SOB I'd suggest a hanging. A quick drop and a sudden stop is only made faster by a big fat

What's the propose of an execution?

To kill violent criminals that pose a threat to society.

They use lethal injection almost exclusively now. You can read about it here.

It kills the person by first putting the person to sleep, and then stopping the breathing and heart in that order.

I believe that should be purpose. With an 'ur.'

And the purpose should be, kind of obvious. Its a mix of punishment, deterrent, and closure for the victim(s).

 kronk wrote:
What's the propose of an execution?

To kill violent criminals that pose a threat to society.

If you can possibly execute someone they're no longer a threat to society, at least not to extent greater than you allow to them to be.

 Chongara wrote:

 kronk wrote:
What's the propose of an execution?

To kill violent criminals that pose a threat to society.

If you can possibly execute someone they're no longer a threat to society, at least not to extent greater than you allow to them to be.

I will not get drawn into this debate, but I respect your opinion.

Wait what?

This guy is too fat to execute?

How is that important, just up the dosage of the drug.


Anyway, I still don't understand why we don't just shoot them instead. A big round at close range to the skull will ensure instant death with no question of pain. So its a little messy and the family can't have an open casket viewing afterwards, who cares?

Upping the Dosage could possibly be worse, I say, if we are dead set on killing them, firing squad.

OD him on heroine. Best death ever.

Lock him in a walmart and the fat feth will eat himself to death with no effort required from the tax-payer.

Open the door 24 hours later and he will be slumped over the cookie aisle dead as a doornail.

 mattyrm wrote:
Lock him in a walmart and the fat feth will eat himself to death with no effort required from the tax-payer.

Open the door 24 hours later and he will be slumped over the cookie aisle dead as a doornail.

You know paying for those cookies is probably cheaper than the cocktail used in lethal injections.

 LordofHats wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Lock him in a walmart and the fat feth will eat himself to death with no effort required from the tax-payer.

Open the door 24 hours later and he will be slumped over the cookie aisle dead as a doornail.

You know paying for those cookies is probably cheaper than the cocktail used in lethal injections.

No... the lethal injection is usually some sedative... then Potassium Chloride (I think).

I thought it was Sodium Fluoride from that thread that was locked earlier in the week...

 kronk wrote:
I thought it was Sodium Fluoride from that thread that was locked earlier in the week...

That might be it.

I know Potassium Chloride would stop the heart. Interesting elements... we all have KCL (every living thing does)... and too much of it is bad.

Psst.

Sodium Fluoride is what they put in drinking water. I was teasing...

 kronk wrote:
Psst.

Sodium Fluoride is what they put in drinking water. I was teasing...

My bad... should've caught that... juggling many things now...

I don't get the value of execution as a whole. It just reduces the executor to the level of the criminal.

Its not about the moral high ground. Otherwise we wouldn't put kidnappers in prisons either.

 LordofHats wrote:
Its not about the moral high ground. Otherwise we wouldn't put kidnappers in prisons either.

From a pure efficiency point of view, a corpse needs neither feeding, a bunk or a yard for exercise. Much cheaper than putting him in stone box and waiting for time to kill him for you.

Morally and ethically, it's much more complicated.

I'm only against execution immediately after trial because of all the people found innocent with new findings or technological advances.

A system that has the capability of putting innocent people to death should not be used unless it is 100% accurate.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
From a pure efficiency point of view, a corpse needs neither feeding, a bunk or a yard for exercise. Much cheaper than putting him in stone box and waiting for time to kill him for you.

Morally and ethically, it's much more complicated.

You might want to look up data, Its cheaper actually to keep them in prison for the remainder of their days, Killing them costs roughly twice as much.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
From a pure efficiency point of view, a corpse needs neither feeding, a bunk or a yard for exercise. Much cheaper than putting him in stone box and waiting for time to kill him for you.

Morally and ethically, it's much more complicated.

You might want to look up data, Its cheaper actually to keep them in prison for the remainder of their days, Killing them costs roughly twice as much.

Although that is only because of all the appeals they're granted.

And you want to make sure that no innocent man doesnt get killed.
Like this
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
TLDR: Basically they killed an innocent man with faulty evidence, even when new evidence came to light, they ignored it.

Death row is only so expensive because people can sit on it for twenty+ years. I.E. We pay the cost of a 20 year prison sentence and then the cost of the execution.

This is a problem for the justice system, because lets face, an inmate should not be allowed to stave off a legally rendered verdict for so long, but a solution for said problem isn't exactly forthcoming.

Arguably we might as well sentence them to prison time anyway, cause that's just what they often times end up serving.

Mattman154 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
From a pure efficiency point of view, a corpse needs neither feeding, a bunk or a yard for exercise. Much cheaper than putting him in stone box and waiting for time to kill him for you.

Morally and ethically, it's much more complicated.

You might want to look up data, Its cheaper actually to keep them in prison for the remainder of their days, Killing them costs roughly twice as much.

Although that is only because of all the appeals they're granted.

Yup, which extends their stay in prison and generates tons of legal fees.



As for the idea that new technology may prove innocence. That was true in the last 20 years or so as the technology just came out.

However, now that same technology is ensuring that we get correct verdicts the first time. So people ruled guilty from this point onwards are almost certaintly guilty. Thus we can save time.



I personally think Appeals should be limited for Death Row inmates. You get 3 Appeals and after that its curtains.

And have a time limit as follows.

After sentencing, you have 6 months till execution, during which time you may file an appeal which will extend the date of execution by another 6 months. You may appeal 3 times. After which no more appeals may be made.


So essentially you have 18 months to prove innocence after the original sentencing before you are executed.


As it is, the Death Sentence is practically no different from Life, except it costs more for the state due to unlimited appeals.

Mattman154 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
From a pure efficiency point of view, a corpse needs neither feeding, a bunk or a yard for exercise. Much cheaper than putting him in stone box and waiting for time to kill him for you.

Morally and ethically, it's much more complicated.

You might want to look up data, Its cheaper actually to keep them in prison for the remainder of their days, Killing them costs roughly twice as much.

Although that is only because of all the appeals they're granted.

Well, never mind then, if the paper work is that much.