Ohio 'agonising' execution violates the Eighth Amendment

CJCrawley
reply to post by Diabolical

 

Could be a new Language we haven't learned yet.

It's a kind of English - the kind spoken (and written) in the originator country of the version you use...BBC stylie.

Don't blame us, you changed it all.

Taking the 'u' out of 'humour', etcetera.

Not to go,too far off topic,but don't you find it just a little ironic that you are pontificating about "the originator country" and then go on to muse about the removal of "U" from humour when the second U is a result of French speaking Norman's invading in 1066? When it comes to english it's a mish mash or French, German and Anglo Saxon tongues interwoven with one another due to hundreds of years of cyclical strife in said originator country.

reply to post by peter vlar


That is far too off topic.

But for the record, agonising is spelt by the British, and anyone who learned the language correctly, with an S, and by anyone unfortunate enough to have grown up in a former colony nation, with a Z.

I do not mind if a massive nations worth of humanity wish to spell words incorrectly, but I think it a little crass for anyone to point the finger at a person spelling words the old fashioned way, and then for someone else to defend them when they are put straight. And yes, we keep the U in some words too, and that is because the language is, as you so rightly point out, a hodge podge of European languages, including french, norse, and the thrice cursed Roman Latin, commensurate with periods in history when our island nation was invaded by people from other lands, who are all part of our heritage as a people.

The thing is, some British persons who love their heritage and their language, may hold a certain grudge toward those who ignore their heritage by mispelling things out of sheer stubborness, and a need to insist on a level of originality that their homeland cannot truely profess to, but ordinarily we do not make a "big deal" out of it (to use a familiar vernacular... meeting you half way here!) because most of us realise there are bigger things to talk about.

But, lets face it, at least the death penalty exists in America, which, along with a right to bear arms, are two of a very short list of things that the US has continued to do right, despite the errosion of those things in Britain. Personally speaking, I think the lack of a death penalty for murder in Britain is a shameful thing, because we have had many murderers here who, in my veiw represent such a danger to the public, that to allow them to live, even in maximum security facilities, poses an unnecessary risk to the life of innocent people. I also think it is inappropriate for such persons as these to live on the taxes that we pay to our government.

It is not our responsibility as a people to service the needs of those who shun even the merest trappings of societal norms. Of course, I do not mean that everyone should munch scones and drink tea (although I am partial to both!) at the very same time, wearing the very same clothes, thinking the very same thoughts, because that would be both spooky, and tedious. What I am however saying, is that barring normal and healthy rebellions against tyranny, that mark a healthy society, and indeed a well adjusted individual, when a person who proves that they are intent on wanton murder and destruction of innoncence for its own sake, is convicted of murder, they ought to be terminated as a matter of public safety.

How they come to their deaths is a matter on which there has been significant hand wringing, but my veiw is, the longer the suffering, the fairer in many cases. If it was not fair for the condemned to plant a nine inch knife through a victims aorta, then why should the condemned receive any more consideration than they show? What, to make some sort of point about how much better the executioner is, than the person they despatch into the netherworld beneath this mortal realm? Pish.

Make the bastard scream I say.

reply to post by TrueBrit


True, I was way off topic and I agree your sentiments. If the guy was guilty, I have no pity for him. He did not anesthetize his victim before strangling her so he still got off easier than she did and didn't feel even a tenth of the terror she did. He took 2 lives and only had one to give. He and his surviving family should be thankful the state didn't decide to even the scorecard and take one of his kids with him.

reply to post by peter vlar


anesthetize ✖

anaesthetise ✔

reply to post by CJCrawley


Blame that on spellcheck. I typed it properly and the damned phone changed it on me.

reply to post by peter vlar


I do blame spellcheck.

But you know, you don't have to obey it.

It constantly underlines things I write, but I'm fairly certain I'm right and it's wrong.

reply to post by CJCrawley


In all fairness just because you spell a word one way across the pond does t mean we are beholden to said spelling over here. With all the French, Germanic and Latin roots to modern English, not to mentiom the native tongues, its all been altered multiple times over the past 2 millennia so attempting to maintain a superiority complex based on different phonetic interpretations of the same word which has different accepted spelling over grammar which has fairly
rigid structure to it, to me seems like
splitting hairs on a bald man. But enough digressive segue, let's get back to the
topic at hand, methodology of inmate execution and whether it not its humane and a violation of the 8th amendment.

The price of a bullet in the head seems a reasonable cost to rid us of such a monster.
But you are aware that those who are willing to fight for the freedoms of the masses are treated to the same fate or worse......
are you not?

reply to post by peter vlar

In all fairness just because you spell a word one way across the pond does t mean we are beholden to said spelling over here.

Obviously not, because you don't give a toss about how we spell it - you spell it how you think it should be spelled then the rest of the world has to follow suit. Including Brits.

You can see how that might be a bone of contention in the country from which the language came.

The only reason I'm bringing it up is because an American poster cast aspersions on my spelling and acted like I was writing in Chinese.

Hehe, a bit rich.

However, upwards and onwards...

reply to post by CJCrawley


The people saying he "deserved it" do not understand the difference between what's deserved and justice.

If some dude walked up to him on the street gave in an agonizing death, that would not be an issue but this is our government doing it. That's something that needs to be respected and trusted.

Besides, how many "for sure" cases do we have where they find the prisoner innocent (even when they've confessed)? There's always a little part of me that holds out believing that any person is 100% guilty. Certainly not enough to kill but if we do end that person's life, we better make it pleasant. It's not meant to punish; it's meant to remove that human from our society. What, you think he'll learn a lesson from a painful death?

pstrron
Cruel and unusual punishment? I think not! He should have been drawn and quartered for his crime. He raped and then murdered a pregnant woman and does not deserve any humane treatment. For those that don't think this type of person should be executed, how about making him a lab rat for all manor of experimentation for the rest of his life. I have no sympathy for such as low life and the bleeding hearts talk about his "rights", what about those that he murdered, where were their "rights"?

Such big talk. Okay Mr. Justice but you get to be the one carrying it out. Then we will all get to see what kind of man you really are.