The Death Penalty -What's The Most Humane Approach

Originally posted by agent violet
if i had too determine the most human way it would be for the prisoner to choose which method (out of a designated selection) he/she wants.

Sort of like a DP pick'n'mix - but without the mix

Originally posted by budski
But these are people, not animals - lock them away by all means, but why come down to their level?

Some people look at others as livestock - and it shouldn't be that way, so why lower ourselves to that?

I understand where you're coming from but are they not predators? Thus animals? "Some people look at others as livestock..." I think that says it all. Do they have a conscience? Animals don't, they just do what they do. Same thing imo.

Would you keep a rabid animal in your house? I sure wouldn't. I would have an animal put down if it attacked one of my family. Or neighbor, or stranger that just happened to be passing by.

I've got to go, the ball game's on but I look forward to rejoining this discussion tomorrow.

Originally posted by budski

But these are people, not animals - lock them away by all means, but why come down to their level?

i get what your trying to say, but imo if they act like animals they should be treated as such. Locking them away does nothing, deters nothings and solves nothing, these people languish in a life of luxery in prison, gaining notoriety through the deeds they have commited, writing books and selling their stories for big screen movies, whilst their victims family go through untold heartache and pain knowing that the person who killed their loved one is sitting in jail watching movies, shooting pool and basically getting away with murder.

Concerning the lethal injection, I don't think it's as civilized as many people think. I thought there was recently one convict whose execution took 45 minutes using lethal injection. I could be wrong.

Personally, I believe capital punishment does have a place in our society, but should be used very sparingly. Only for the very worst offenders whose guilt is unquestioned. People like child rapist/murderers, multiple repeat murderers, etc.

I think the most humane, painless way to go would be heroin overdose.

Originally posted by budski
..... and a man who doesn't mind killing in cold blood - how do you advertise a job like that.
More importantly, why would someone take a job like that?

You just advertise it. Watch how many applicants you'd get.
You could employ some serial-killer type who otherwise would be out killing innocent people, thereby even reducing crime.

I agree that when there is no doubt, take them out back and shoot them. Now.
The system must be designed ,however, so there is no doubt

I am a conspiricy theorist. I do not trust my government with my life and I won't trust them with your's or anyone else's.

The police will lie, the prosecutors will lie and the witness' will lie if it is in their own best interest or if they just feel that you are guilty, even if they can't prove it.

The death penalty is WRONG!

The argument has been put forth that it costs 300 dollars a day plus medical to house an inmate. Have you considered the cost of killing someone? Millions upon millions spent in appeals to try and make sure that we are not killing someone who is innocent. It cost's far more to implement the death penalty than it does to put them in a cage for the rest of their lives.

Killing another human being is wrong. I don't care if it's a psycho or the state, killing another human being is wrong.

I'm not soft on crime. If someone is duly convicted, jack up the jail and throw them under it. You don't have the right to kill them though.

Life is a gift from the creator of all things and not mans to take, under any circumstances.

I am a conspiricy theorist. I do not trust the state with the life of anyone. I barely trust those bastards with my tax dollars.

The state cannot give life, it should not have the right to take it.

There are things in this world that are sacred, things the government and state cannot be trusted with. Life is one of them.

wupy

Originally posted by mrwupy
all the above post

A thoroughly good argument against DP.

I have a hard time refuting this, because I feel the same way.

[edit on 28/7/2007 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

Lethal Injection: Civilized

Thats kinda funny, I guess.

Might as well throw my opinion around.
The most civilized method is no death penalty at all.
How the heck can you make killing humane?

Some things have to be said before I can answer the original question.

For the death penalty to be effective it has to be used on those who are truly guilty. There are some instances where there is enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person is guilty of a crime. If the crime is serious enough (murder, rape, and so on) then the person should be put to death. This is not an escape for the guilty party. When you kill a person they cease to be. Think about that. They are gone, they can't feel anything forever, end of story. I also think that such people should be destroyed so as to make them a non-threat to all those law abiding citizens. In many cases these people are worse then animals because they know what they are doing is wrong, but they still choose to engage in their harmful actions.

Once we have proven guilt, we must then get rid of the person as cheaply and quickly as possible. Remember no cruel and unusually punishment though. I think the lethal injection is just a pseudo-medical performance used to make society feel better about killing. Lets make no mistakes here, execution is the state sponsored killing of a dangerous individual who has committed a crime against the public at large. I think that the ideal way to kill a man is to put a "9mm pill" in the back of his head. Quick and painless. This should be done by a human and not a machine. I just don't like the idea of a machine killing people. I only hope that we can find enough brave souls out there to pull the trigger.

In the end killing is wrong, but you have to examine the path that got the death row inmate to where he is today. Often he did not grant his victims the mercy that many of you who responded here would grant him.

Originally posted by budski
To get the ball rolling, here's what I think about the recently used methods of execution:

Hanging: quick and sure

Electric Chair: Barbaric

Lethal Injection: Civilized

But I also think that the mental anguish of a condemned prisoner should be taken into account.

Why, who gives a damn about their mental anguish, the condemned one has forgiven his/her rights. They didnt think about the mental anguish of the person/persons they offended or the relatives of the person/persons they offended. This is the typical bleating of a do-gooder type of person. This planet would be better off if it want for the do gooders trying to tell us the condemed have rights.*SNIP*

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Furthermore if I ever raped or murdered someone in cold blood I would whole heartedly expect to be executed. In fact I would disappointed if the opposite was true. Why should I get to live if I have ruined the lives of so many innocent people?

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Furthermore if I ever raped or murdered someone in cold blood I would whole heartedly expect to be executed. In fact I would disappointed if the opposite was true. Why should I get to live if I have ruined the lives of so many innocent people?

Because you should have to live for the rest of your days with what you did. You should have to sit in a cage and spend the rest of your life with the knowledge that you have harmed another. You should be allowed to read and grow spiritually, so that you may understand the harm that you have done.

To kill you is to allow you a free ride on the the atrocities you have committed.

If you truly want to punish a monster, make them live in solitude with the horror they have caused.

Yes provide me room and board on the tax payer's dollar. Allow me to sell drugs and murder people on the inside while I carry out my sentence. And also allow me the opportunity to someday escape (or even be set free by the bleeding hearts of this nation, after I have "reformed") so that I may continue to commit crimes against innocent people. What a wonderful world.

There are a number of schools of thought on this subject. I will disclose my hand up front and state that I am totally opposed to the death penalty.

My reasons for this are.

There have been far too many innocent people put to death over the years. Whilst the comment regards DNA etc etc is a valid one it is also about trusting those who are compiling evidence against you. I rest my case on this one.

Everyone has a purpose in life and despite the fact that some people are totally abhorrent we have no right under the law to ask ‘others’ to commit murder which is what the death sentence is – murder regardless of how we try and justify it.

To bring ourselves down to the level of those who have committed murder, rape, torture etc in taking their life (or even demanding their life be taken) diminishes us as enlightened human beings.

To forgive is one of the greatest gifts of mankind. I was totally humbled some years back to hear the parents of a woman who was tortured and killed in the most horrific of circumstances (in Australia) when they came out and said they did not hate those who had committed the crime. The parents said they would not allow themselves to be consumed by hate (they forgave those who took their daughter away from them) and they have gone on to contribute so much in assisting others who have been impacted by such events. I am aware of some of the facts of this crime as a friends husband was one of the investigating officers. The full story was never released to the public it was so horrendous and yet the parents forgave, what truly remarkable people.

No form of approach is humane.

I don't typically post here, but I had a conversation yesterday regarding this issue and it caught my eye. Before I add my opinion to the pot, I'd like to say that I adhere to a personal philosophy in which my respect for a person does not wax or wane based on their views, and I never think ill of those who do not share my own. None of us knows everything, and none of us is capable of absolute, unflawed objectivity. It is my belief that we must always be humble enough to accept that we may be wrong, and even, in fact, that we may all be incapable of collectively knowing what is "right" or "wrong," or whether such a thing even truly exists. I choose to believe it does, but that does not make it so. I have my own views regarding this issue and others, but my views are not necessarily the wisest. They are only my opinions, born out, more of than not, of emotion and perception. I am saying this because, as others have stated, this is a decidedly delicate and vehemently contested matter. I want anyone reading this to know that I profoundly respect your views, I respect you as a fellow member, and I respect you as a fellow human being, irrespective of your stance. That will not change based on what I read here or your feelings regarding my opinion.

There are several common justifications for the death penalty. The most commonly mentioned ones seem to be vengeance, deterrence, and the protection of innocent members of society.

I personally feel that vengeance is an unwise path, and one that harms those that walk it as much as those it is implemented against. For that reason, I do not support the death penalty as a means of vengeance.

I also personally feel that as human beings, and ostensibly "free" human beings at that, we should be capable of acting in a conscientious, humane, compassionate, and civil fashion toward our fellow beings, not out of fear of punishment, but because we seek to coexist wisely and productively with others. For that reason, I do not support the death penalty as a means of justice, because it motivates behavior through fear and deterrence rather than instilling people with the desire to refrain from causing harm out of an impulse toward altruism.

Once we remove vengeance and deterrence as justifications for the death penalty, what remains? The remaining potential justification is, in my opinion, the protection of innocent members of society against violent criminals and/or sexual predators. If the remaining justification for the death penalty is the existence of individuals who lack conscience, cannot control their predatory urges, and who are incapable of refraining from harmful behavior, then we are not, in my opinion, talking about people who are choosing to do harm; we are talking about people who are sick. There is, in my opinion, a difference between an animal and a sick human being. The crux of that difference is, in my view, the capacity inherent in human beings to override pure instinct and act based solely on choice. If indeed that capacity is somehow "broken" in these individuals, then I feel we should isolate them from society, and work toward finding the means by which to "fix" it.

This is probably where many will disagree with me, and I understand people's reasons for this and respect them immensely. My dilemma is that I do not, and cannot, regard the life of one person, however depraved and destructive, as less worthy of existence than another life, or even multiple lives. For that reason, in addition to the other reasons for which I oppose the death penalty, I cannot justify someone's death by the monetary cost to society of sustaining their life and searching for a means by which to cure their psychological or neurological illness and/or impairment.

I will, however, concede that the means to help these individuals without causing some degree of burden or even harm to society does not yet exist. For that reason, despite everything I have stated previous to the following, I prefer to limit my opposition to the death penalty to this lone statement: there may be times when it is necessary to take a human life, however there is not a scenario of which I can conceive in which I would feel justified in doing so myself, and I would never knowingly be the one to advocate or implement another human being's death.

Here is my 10 cents.

Out of respect to the author of this thread I wont make my stance on the death penalty an issue. Now to the answer the author question .
My answer is an firing squad that is manned by sharp shooters or robots who never miss unless there is a malfunction.

Originally posted by xpert11
Here is my 10 cents.

Out of respect to the author of this thread I wont make my stance on the death penalty an issue.

please state your views if you would like to, and if you think it would advance the discussion.

One of the reasons I wrote this thread was because I recently watched a film about Derek Bentley. After watching the film I did a bit of research, and whilst the evidence against the conviction was not as cut and dried as the film made it seem, there was strong evidence to suggest that he didn't deserve to die.

OK, this was a long time ago, but one of the things that struck me was how the DP brutalizes society as a whole.

The more we become used to violent death (in any form), the more we become desensitized to violence, the more this demeans and harms us as a society.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Have a look at the map, it's very interesting how most of europe, parts of africa and south america no longer routinely use the DP.

Most Executions carried out in 2006

* 1. China (at least 1,010 but sources suggest the real tally is between 7,500 and 8,000[citation needed])
* 2. Iran (177)
* 3. Pakistan (82)
* 4. Iraq (at least 65)
* 5. Sudan (at least 65)
* 6. United States (53)
en.wikipedia.org...

This, to me, speaks volumes.
Another question is, does the US really want to seen in this light?
Lagging behind even russia in this issue.

I am not for the death penalty, unless there is one hundred percent proof that X did Y. And is often the case: there isn't 100% proof. Weapon of choice would have to be a high calibre rifle to the back of the head. Man or machine, When needs must.

But I strongly believe that anyone given life should also loose their "right" to reproduce, that goes for men and women.

Their reproductive organs should be surgically removed. And if they "touched" a child it should be done with a couple of house bricks and not a hint of a pain killer.

MonKey

I am pro death penalty providing it is used sparingly and only after guilt has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That being said the most humane method would be to go to the condemned person and tell them all has been forgiven and they are free; then as they turn to walk away shot them in the back of the head. Quick and painless without the psychological pain of waiting; their last thought being that they are free.

Honestly I'd also say that the most humane (or inhumane depending on how you view it) thing to do is NOT to kill folks.

However, if your state chooses to, when push comes to shove there isn't really any difference between lethal injection and a single bullet in the brain housing group.

People like to over-dramatize this discussion, but honestly a bullet to the brain is probably the best/easiest way to get the meat off the table and into the ground, so to speak. Flowery words and sophistry are really what you get in discussions of humanity in the method of murder, because it is what it is.

If you must do it, do the tax payers a favor and make it the cheapest method possible.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by KrazyJethro]