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'm OK with this. Even if you're not really opposed to the death penalty in certain situations I think it's still a pretty hard sell to say that we're, as a nation, applying it in anywhere near a reasonable way. Truthfully I'd like to see a moratorium on it nationwide.

Really, since I don't think there's enough evidence it actually acts as a deterrent, it seems like maybe we should just get rid of it totally. It's a very expensive process, it takes so long I think there are some 8th amendment considerations, it seems to be quite difficult from a technical perspective.... there aren't that many great arguments for it in my opinion. I think I'm not wholly opposed to it conceptually, but we don't seem capable of doing it fairly in reality. Maybe the state shouldn't be in the killing people business.

and no, I don't mean we should outsource it, that hasn't worked well for prisons

 Cheesecat wrote:
There is the potential that you could kill an innocent person as well.

Pretty sure that's happened at least once.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Also, an old saying comes to mind...Better 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is punished.

That depends. What do those 100 guilty people do when they are free? How many innocent people are being harmed because of that error? If its greater than one then it is actually morally reprehensible to let them loose.

It always amazes me that you can simultaneously argue against abortion on the basis that it's the taking of an innocent life, but also have repeatedly advocated for the death penalty even if we stipulate sometimes innocent people get executed.

A "lie" seems a little strong imo. I agree the title doesn't match the article but it doesn't seem to be intentionally misleading the way that sometimes happens around these parts, in this case I just think it was just condensed a little too much.

"Florida Death Penalty Process is Unconstitutional" would be accurate.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Escapes happen, and unless you put them in solitary confinement with no contact allowed with the outside world then they can directly influence it. Thats how high end criminals can still run their criminal enterprises from inside prison.

But presumably in the latter example, you're talking about narcotics related criminals, yes? Those aren't sentenced to death now so that doesn't seem relevant.

How many murderers actually escape from prison and then go on to murder someone else - or even just escape and stay escaped, period? Has it even really happened in the last, like, 20 years?

Are you saying that we need the death penalty to deal with drug kingpins, who aren't eligible for it, and to prevent murderers who escape from murdering again, even though that doesn't actually really happen?

Isn't the best remedy for bad speech more speech?

We should execute people for having dangerous ideas?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Chemically executing people is pretty dumb in the first place. Its too complex, expensive, and potentially ineffective. We should go back to bullets, faster and way more effective.

(snip)

Then several .45 rounds into the cranium. Technically, the sedative wouldn't even be necessary for the death to be painless as instant brain obliteration would occur, but its more to keep them calm before hand.

And this is where we actually agree. If I personally was being executed, and I had my choice, I'd go with a large caliber right to the head. It would be instantaneous and humane. I'd certainly prefer that over some weird cocktail made with the chemicals the state bought on the black market in Bulgaria or wherever that well, maybe they'll work, and maybe they'll make the victim feel like their whole body is on fire while it takes an hour to kill them, who knows?

The other reason - less so, but I still feel it - is that it would leave a huge mess behind. It wouldn't be some sanitized piece of pseudo-medical theater where you try to pretend you're somehow being as merciful as possible while you're killing a guy.

If we must execute people as a society, do it for real. I think if you don't have the sack to see the blood and gore and visceral consequences, then you maybe you shouldn't be in the killing people business.