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 was going to be amazed at how many people were fine with someone dying in tortured agony here, but then I remembered it was the internet. I used to be strongly in favor of the death penalty, but as time has gone on, I have seen less and less value in it other than for people to get great big revenge and violence boners in a slightly more socially acceptable light. With how screwed up the US penal system is, the only purpose I see to the death penalty now is the most brutal and barbaric satisfaction of the public, not even the victims.

Is there any reason why the US seem so intent to use methods of execution that regularly go wrong, possibly causing excruciating pain in the process, instead of the many tried alternatives that always work?

I'd rather be shot in China, hanged in Thailand or beheaded in Saudi Arabia than killed in a "civilized manner" in the US.

Look at his victims and read what he did then get off your high horse.

Just put chains on and throw him in a river. Plus its Green.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Allod wrote:
Is there any reason why the US seem so intent to use methods of execution that regularly go wrong, possibly causing excruciating pain in the process, instead of the many tried alternatives that always work?

I'd rather be shot in China, hanged in Thailand or beheaded in Saudi Arabia than killed in a "civilized manner" in the US.

We like to tinker.

If not wanting people to die in agony and pain puts me on a high horse, then I gladly take that position.

We're supposed to be better than the criminals.

OK needs to fix their problems. Execute, not torture.

We're supposed to be better than the criminals.

And just to clarify, I am not so 100% against the death penalty now. At the moment, I see very little value in it because of how messed up the justice system is and because right now some methods are more akin to torture. If those could be ironed out, then I'd return to favoring it more, but right now it isn't a good thing.

 Allod wrote:
Is there any reason why the US seem so intent to use methods of execution that regularly go wrong, possibly causing excruciating pain in the process, instead of the many tried alternatives that always work?

I'd rather be shot in China, hanged in Thailand or beheaded in Saudi Arabia than killed in a "civilized manner" in the US.

Sounds like you're SOFT ON CRIME .

 curran12 wrote:
If not wanting people to die in agony and pain puts me on a high horse, then I gladly take that position.

We're supposed to be better than the criminals.

Why?

 Frazzled wrote:


Why?

Well, I'll keep it brief.

I don't like people being tortured. Therefore, I don't approve of something that tortures people then kills them.

curran12 wrote:... I have seen less and less value in it other than for people to get great big revenge and violence boners in a slightly more socially acceptable light....

Interesting. I advocate the death penalty as a matter of pragmatism, not revenge. I don't believe revenge has any purpose in a penal system. The US implementation, with countless appeals, is the only thing wrong with having a death penalty, in my opinion.

I guess you first have to split those convicted of crimes into different categories. 1) Does their crime impact others, or only themselves. Someone shooting up with heroin may be guilty of something, but they're not harming anyone else. 2) Do they show the potential for rehabilitation and reintroduction into society.

Someone who harms others, and has no potential for rehabilitation should be executed. If they're not going to be allowed back into society, why keep them penned up like animals. I think that's far crueler. It's also a large burden on the taxpayers. I'm sure someone will come along and say it costs more to execute someone, but that's only because we do it wrong. I'm sure someone else will raise the possibility that we accidentally kill an innocent person. Well, that's not ideal, but if you give people the opportunity to be rehabilitated, and they find themselves back in the system, you've already got two innocent victims (the innocent victim of their first crime, and the innocent victim that proves that they were not actually rehabilitated). You get mathematically fewer innocent victims by executing repeat offenders.

the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.

It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.

 curran12 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Why?

Well, I'll keep it brief.

I don't like people being tortured. Therefore, I don't approve of something that tortures people then kills them.

You don't like justice?

I imagine we don't do that cause who wants to be the executioner blowing some guys head open XD

 Redbeard wrote:

curran12 wrote:... I have seen less and less value in it other than for people to get great big revenge and violence boners in a slightly more socially acceptable light....

Interesting. I advocate the death penalty as a matter of pragmatism, not revenge.

"The science is settled" ® on this one. There are few if any practical benefits to executions, particularly when a system is taking all reasonable measures for minimum margin of error on convictions. It's pretty conclusive.

Arguing executions from a pragmatism standpoint is a losing proposition. You've really got to stick to moral stances to have any chance at internal consistency to your argument.

 easysauce wrote:
the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.

It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.

Traditionally, its been argued its hard to find executioners. In today's society, I'd bet thats less an issue.

 Redbeard wrote:


Interesting. I advocate the death penalty as a matter of pragmatism, not revenge. I don't believe revenge has any purpose in a penal system. The US implementation, with countless appeals, is the only thing wrong with having a death penalty, in my opinion.

I guess you first have to split those convicted of crimes into different categories. 1) Does their crime impact others, or only themselves. Someone shooting up with heroin may be guilty of something, but they're not harming anyone else. 2) Do they show the potential for rehabilitation and reintroduction into society.

Someone who harms others, and has no potential for rehabilitation should be executed. If they're not going to be allowed back into society, why keep them penned up like animals. I think that's far crueler. It's also a large burden on the taxpayers. I'm sure someone will come along and say it costs more to execute someone, but that's only because we do it wrong. I'm sure someone else will raise the possibility that we accidentally kill an innocent person. Well, that's not ideal, but if you give people the opportunity to be rehabilitated, and they find themselves back in the system, you've already got two innocent victims (the innocent victim of their first crime, and the innocent victim that proves that they were not actually rehabilitated). You get mathematically fewer innocent victims by executing repeat offenders.

You have a valid point about the penning up of criminals in a system of rehabilitation that is not very good at what it does. There's no way I would argue that what we have now is good, because it isn't; the entire system needs an overhaul not just the death penalty.

As far as pragmatism, I think when it comes to execution, pragmatism should not be as strong of a driving force. After all, you can't un-execute someone, so what do you do when your pragmatic quick execution is that of an innocent person? Obviously, this is also a flaw of the system as a whole, and not just the death penalty. Pragmatism should take a back seat to rehabilitation, imo, but I believe that is mostly just differences in view.

However, I will stand by that capital punishment in the US today is way more of a revenge thing than a justice or pragmatic thing. After all, if it was pragmatic, why do we have a little room to watch a person die? Why is a microphone shoved in their faces before they die? None of those serve a pragmatic function, they are purely there for revenge.

 Frazzled wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.

It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.

Traditionally, its been argued its hard to find executioners. In today's society, I'd bet thats less an issue.

Get that guy who owns the clippers. He'd probably love the job.

 Frazzled wrote:


You don't like justice?

<sigh>

Yes that is exactly what I said. Bring back the rack, that is like the Stretch Armstrong of justice.

Chongara wrote:
"The science is settled" ® on this one. There are few if any practical benefits to executions, particularly when a system is taking all reasonable measures for minimum margin of error on convictions. It's pretty conclusive.

Arguing executions from a pragmatism standpoint is a losing proposition. You've really got to stick to moral stances to have any chance at internal consistency to your argument.

The science is settled? Really, that's your response? Not convinced. There are plenty of benefits to executions - you remove the threat to society permanently at the lowest cost. The moral argument is the one that says the state shouldn't execute people, or "oh no, what if we get it wrong".

 Redbeard wrote:


The science is settled? Really, that's your response? Not convinced. Ther are plenty of benefits to executions - you remove the threat to society permanently at the lowest cost.

Sweet black baby Jesus. It's like you've spent all of -1 seconds actually looking into this. The only way you could even put forward this argument is if not only if you haven't spent any time looking into the issue, but you've actively gone out of your way to ignore commonly talked about realities of the procedure - ones discussed earlier in this very thread even.

How about because recent studies from the National Academy of Sciences find that 1 in 25 people on Detah Row are actually innocent.

Oh wait, I think I know the response. Something along the lines of making omelettes and breaking eggs.

 curran12 wrote:

so what do you do when your pragmatic quick execution is that of an innocent person?

You feel bad about it and move on. What do you do when you accidentally imprison someone for 30 years?

Perhaps, more importantly, what do you do when you release someone who is not rehabilitated, and they kill someone else?

 Frazzled wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.

It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.

Traditionally, its been argued its hard to find executioners. In today's society, I'd bet thats less an issue.

just put of a post on dakka


"bolt gun operator needed"


bam, all the SM players will jump in.


also, they can just have a blind hook up to multiple buttons if they want too, just like they used to have with hangings so that none of the "executioners" actually knows who hit the button.

You could also have a computer do it, heck, im pretty sure you could hire someone to "press a button" and not tell them what it is.. though I suppose that solves the guilt problem only to replace it with some wax philisophical problem.

 Easy E wrote:
How about because recent studies from the National Academy of Sciences find that 1 in 25 people on Detah Row are actually innocent.

Oh wait, I think I know the response. Something along the lines of making omelettes and breaking eggs.

Looking at the time stamps, it took about 19 seconds for your prediction to come true. That's excellent, but I think next time you can get it under 15.

 Chongara wrote:


Sweet black baby Jesus. It's like you've spent all of -1 seconds actually looking into this. The only way you could even put forward this argument is if not only if you haven't spent any time looking into the issue, but you've actively gone out of your way to ignore commonly talked about realities of the procedure - ones discussed earlier in this very thread even.

Not at all. I believe that the current system in the US is applied poorly, and removes most of the benefits of having capital punishment. I believe we allow too many appeals, and take too long in executing the sentences. You're saying that the death penalty, as a whole, is wrong based on how the US currently implements it. I'm saying that the death penalty, if applied appropriately, is a good system. You've yet to address any of my points, and simply refer back to the current, flawed system as the basis of your argument. That's not productive.

 Redbeard wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

so what do you do when your pragmatic quick execution is that of an innocent person?

You feel bad about it and move on. What do you do when you accidentally imprison someone for 30 years?

Perhaps, more importantly, what do you do when you release someone who is not rehabilitated, and they kill someone else?

Like I said already, you have a better system in place. And that whole "oh well move on" mindset is not a healthy one. These are not eggs to make an omlette.

 Easy E wrote:
How about because recent studies from the National Academy of Sciences find that 1 in 25 people on Detah Row are actually innocent.

Do you have any stats on what percent of victims of violent crime are innocent? I bet it's higher than 4%.

 Ouze wrote:
That this happened in Oklahoma is utterly unsurprising to me.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like a successful execution to me.

Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.

For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.

Reason you don't get shot is that it requires someone to pull the trigger. Don't you currently have a system where two people push buttons but only one of the buttons actually administers the drugs? So the people don't know who actually killed them? Some attempt to limit the conscience and feelings of guilt.

 curran12 wrote:

Like I said already, you have a better system in place. And that whole "oh well move on" mindset is not a healthy one. These are not eggs to make an omlette.

I never said they were eggs. You guys keep making that analogy. Consider them collateral damage in the war on crime. The goal isn't breakfast, it's to keep society safe from criminals at a low price.

You know who doesn't like the death penalty? It's the for-profit prison system, the so-called "better" system we currently have, that wants to keep as many people as possible locked up for as long as possible, because that's how they make their money. Who foots that bill? We do, the population. You know who lobbies the hardest for repeals to death penalties? It's not the ACLU, it's the prison industry. Follow the money.

We spend far too much on the prison system, because we have too many prisoners. We should focus our attention on rehabilitating those who can be, and get rid of the ones that are hopeless. A system that enforces a death penalty for repeat offenders means you have to be innocent and found guilty at least twice. I'm comfortable with those odds. I'm not comfortable with locking people away for 20+ years on the public dime. Either rehab them, or get rid of them.