The government should never be allowed to put its own citizens to death. The government is not infallible. The government has put innocent people to death.
The same government can’t even be trusted to reliably fix a pothole.
Boomer humor. Government did something imperfect or not to MY personal standards therefore the whole thing is shit. Hahahahhahahahahaha aren’t I funny?
/s
Nah, boomers love the death penalty. Which seems paradoxical, considering how they hate government.
Because conservatives view government as a cudgel rather than a social net
No, the whole thing really is shit.
Okay, then just go ahead and whip out a better system. I’m waiting lol
Do not execute people.
Wow that was easy.
Just don’t live near Robert Bedella or Jeffery Dharma! Simple!
Or Jimmy Savile…
…or Jack the Ripper. Or any number of people who are lifetime murderers, rapists, torturers, criminals.
Simple!
Yeah because we’ve only two forms of punishment: slap on the wrists or execution. There’s nothing in between.
Feel free to go live off the grid and no longer enjoy all the everyday qualities of life that are a result of government that you take for granted.
If your spouse or child were imperfect would you also toss them in the trash?
this is such a fucking strawman holy shit
Edit: just looked through your comment history, honestly you should probably live off the grid you are a net negative to society
Imagine wasting your life reading other peoples post history on a site that doesn’t matter.
How’s it feel to me the old man screeching about the way elvis moves his hips.
Subjecting human beings to inhumane torture by consistently failing to kill them is so far below anybody’s standards for a death sentence that the mere action itself should be illegal.
Cruelty is the point for conservatives
Yeah, I’m pretty sure* they took a method that was supposed to give a clean painless death and deliberately implemented it in a way that would cause agony.
Edit: after further reading about this, there are other possible mechanisms that could have lead to that first one being in agony, so it is possible that the nitrogen asphyxiation method was approached and implemented in good faith while still causing agony. Though I’d say continuing to use it despite how the first one went does bring that good faith into question plus the possibility of good faith doesn’t imply it wasn’t in bad faith, but I no longer stand by that “pretty sure” I originally stated above.
Barbaric
Cruel and unusual. Unconstitutional.
If you survive one execution I don’t think they should be allowed a do over, let him live in his cell, he earned it.
I’ve heard (don’t know if it’s true) that in the old days if you survived a hanging then you were allowed to live
I’d always heard the sentence ‘hung by the neck until dead’ was taken literally: If you survived the drop, you’re just gonna be hanging there longer. The result is the same.
I’m gonna be pedantic for a second, hanged* not “hung”
I reject your pedantry, you’ve learnt a different localized lexicon and your defence of the specifics of the English language ain’t gonna hold up.
Regardless of the method of execution, imagine knowing the exact date and time of your death and knowing nothing you could do would stop it. That is torture, plain and simple. It should be in violation of the eighth amendment.
Consider Japan, who does it differently. Death row inmates in Japan are not told their execution dates, as they had issues with people committing suicide before they could be executed. So now they only find out with just a few hours of notice when they’re going to be executed. You could be sitting in your cell, ten years into your sentence, enjoying an otherwise ordinary, quiet day in prison, only to be told that it’s time to die, whether you’re ready for it or not, the equipment and staff are already prepared and there’s no time left to argue your case.
Honestly, I don’t know which one is “better”. They’re both cruel in their own ways.
But also, apparently all of the available methods of execution barely work at all because of gross incompetence of the people who create the systems. That’s the more important issue, here, imo. The state clearly isn’t capable of serving a death sentence, nor do I expect they ever will be, so they shouldn’t even have the right.
I don’t think they should have the right if they are capable. The power of life and death over its citizenry is not a power a state should ever have.
I’m a consequentialist with aversion to suffering, so I think there are some very rare cases where it would be warranted if reform were considered truly impossible or would cause more suffering than it is worth, such as older or insane accused with very solid evidence convictions by a jury of peers.
Hard choices exist in this world, people sometimes have to choose what they can protect.
I’m really not understanding your argument. What does this ‘suffering’ have to be worth? And if an elderly or mentally ill person suffers in prison, that sounds like we should make prison a less horrible place, not euthanize people we feel deserve it.
I’m operating in the very real world assumptions that the restrictions of freedom of a large class of people will never so easily be made “a less horrible place.” This is far moreso true for chronic mental illness care. I don’t have a plan for any of that, and it doesn’t appear as though you do, either, so instead a simple solution is to only give a death sentence under very specific and hard to establish conditions agreed upon by a majority of people.
The plan is caring for mentally ill people with psychiatric supervision, possibly medication and/or therapy, something our prison system doesn’t offer, not killing them. You’re doing the “I shot the dog because he was untrainable and killed chickens” Kristi Noem defense, except for killing people.
Psychiatric Supervision, Medication, and Therapy don’t necessarily eliminate all suffering, and certainly have no guarantee of reform or a cure. Kristi Noem had a perfectly fine young animal capable of training by qualified owners of which many were likely available in her area, she instead chose to kill her dog. This is a great example of how outcomes with excess suffering are always worse and that many people are too mentally incompetent to weigh their options. If her dog were judged by a jury, it would have been acquitted.
I feel like if they fuck it up your sentence it should be commuted. They shouldn’t get a do-over.
It’s not the case here, but fuckups tend to happen when the person is morbidly obese and therefore a vein can’t be found.
Not making a point one way or another, just sharing a bit of information. This is a problem in the medical field as well.
This attempt had nothing to do with the failures of lethal injection. They tried to fill a room with 0% oxygen and it failed spectacularly causing suffering and trauma, but not death.
That’s why I started with “not the case here”.
That’s fair.
