Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Some states look at reviving firing squads amid shortage of execution drugs

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I totally agree with you - we don't understand things enough to 'prevent' psychopathy - so all we can do is 'treat it' (or try) at this point. But, as I said, I am against the death penalty.

OTOH, there are people alive, walking around, who are dangers to society. As boymonkey said, they are often politicans, business leaders, etc. Not all become killers/rapists. Our justice system is hugely problematic when one can "buy on'es way" out of trouble - for instance, the big banks. Specifically Jamie Dimon. That man deserves to live in poverty without assistance for the rest of his life.

Being allowed continued freedom to rob people blind, both coming and going (did you know JPMorgan is the 'contractor' that provides "food assistance" - and makes TONS of money by being that 'contractor' - ??? They don't want the 'assisted' people to get off food assistance, because, well, then their shareholders won't make as much money OFF OF THE POOR), and are simply given "fines" and allowed on their merry way.

I don't know the answers - but we do have a concept of "mercy killing" - perhaps the difference is that "mercy killing" is considered too 'merciful' for use on these most vile of perpetrators?

But, again, I agree that the human race is pretty savage, and needs to 'mature' for probably another 100 generations before we have a truly pacifist, enlightened, egalitarian society.

Primary intervention would be DELETING THE CAUSE of psychopathy. Secondary is treatment of the psychopath once identified. I consider "punishment" to be more of a tertiary intervention.

If you have people floating down a raging river, you can do several things. First: Nothing - let them drown. Passive-aggressive lack of action. But let's consider 'actions'":

Drag them out and send them on their way (tertiary);

drag them out, dry them off, give them something to eat, and TEACH THEM TO SWIM (secondary) before sending them on their way;

or (primary intervention) find the a-hats throwing them off the bridge in the first place. Round them up, keep them away from others, and get rid of the bridge. Possibly 're-educate' or 'cure' them of their psychopathy - but we aren't there yet.




posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


The Death Penalty needs to be removed....You should never become a monster to fight a monster...




posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

purplemer
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


The Death Penalty needs to be removed....You should never become a monster to fight a monster...



Or to kill someone who you were led to believe was a monster and turned out not to be.

The fact that this discussion is happening on ATS makes me sick. A bunch of weirdos on this thread foaming at the mouth as they concoct new ways to kill people out of spite and keep it legal -- acting like it's a huge laugh riot. Totally pathetic social behaviour for 2014. Animals.

Yes, folks, chime endlessly that you're against big government but make sure you demand that they kill us if we don't obey their rules. Always keeping it consistent.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

zeroBelief
I think that if a jury finds you guilty of certain crimes (murder, rape, etc)


Yes, okay.

Rape is bad and all but if you actually think that killing someone is less serious than rape then you, my friend, make me very uncomfortable to be in the same hemisphere as.

I'd hang out with a convicted rapist over someone this enthusiastic about killing people any day.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Cold blooded murder and child rape are the only two crimes that deserve capital punishment. Perhaps high treason in a time of war if it can be proven that the act resulted in deaths is a crime that warrants execution. In the US 'capital' drug trafficking can also be punished by death, this I completely disagree with too many reasons to list in this thread. Besides being an unethical reason to execute someone, the next biggest issue is drug trafficking is selectively enforced and at times the traffickers even have the support of certain government agencies.

That said, firing squads are not always effective, there have been cases where someone will survive dozens of gun shots. Rope is cheaper and reusable, why not just bring back the noose?



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

jrod
Cold blooded murder and child rape are the only two crimes that deserve capital punishment.


Until we have a completely infallible legal system with zero possibility of false convinctions then the death penalty is an increibly juvenile and unintelligent option to a developed society, not to mention the nihilism it reflects even if the convinction is accurate.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


I don't think it's juvenile. I think it's an attempt at justice where other options are almost completely unethical. The death penalty is often the least unethical possibility for someone convicted of an offense severe enough to warrant it.

Society convicts a murderer. The solution is to separate the individual from society so they no longer have any influence or presence in it whatsoever. Our people and laws demand it.

You can't just dump your problems on another society through deportation. It's unethical, no country in their right mind would accept the asylum of a convicted murderer (although I'm beginning to wonder), and the possibility of re-immigration still exists.

You can't merely imprison them for the rest of their lives passing the cost of such an act on to the very citizenry who through due process has declared that their society wants nothing to do with the murderer anymore, this ought to include paying for what amounts to a relatively comfortable living. It's unethical to plop the burden on the citizenry like that.

I think the death penalty is very much so warranted. It's society saying, "you took one of our lives unlawfully, unfairly, and unilaterally, so we will take yours lawfully, collectively, and as fairly as possible." Juvenile? I disagree. In many cases it's taking the high road.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Galvatron
reply to post by TheRegal
 


I don't think it's juvenile. I think it's an attempt at justice where other options are almost completely unethical. The death penalty is often the least unethical possibility for someone convicted of an offense severe enough to warrant it.

Society convicts a murderer. The solution is to separate the individual from society so they no longer have any influence or presence in it whatsoever. Our people and laws demand it.

You can't just dump your problems on another society through deportation. It's unethical, no country in their right mind would accept the asylum of a convicted murderer (although I'm beginning to wonder), and the possibility of re-immigration still exists.

You can't merely imprison them for the rest of their lives passing the cost of such an act on to the very citizenry who through due process has declared that their society wants nothing to do with the murderer anymore, this ought to include paying for what amounts to a relatively comfortable living. It's unethical to plop the burden on the citizenry like that.

I think the death penalty is very much so warranted. It's society saying, "you took one of our lives unlawfully, unfairly, and unilaterally, so we will take yours lawfully, collectively, and as fairly as possible." Juvenile? I disagree. In many cases it's taking the high road.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


Your reading comprehension skills reflect my point very well on my claim of "juvenile".

You can't be 100% accurate on a conviction, so you can't kill them. It's that simple. Only an infant wouldn't understand this, or a brainwashed political mouthpiece. It's not about your knee-jerk reaction to a story you heard about someone who did something, it's about the fact that this is going to happen to innocent people -- guaranteed -- and that's not acceptable at all.

How do you apologize when you get it wrong? "Oh I'm sorry we killed your son after his three daughters burned to death and we didn't have the scientific knowlege to see the reasonable doubt and/or the evidence to rule out arson completely -- really sorry about that! Have a nice day; no hard feelings."

^ This exact case

Then of course we have your ill-researched (rather juvenile) argument that we can't afford to keep them in prison. Well, here in reality -- this planet and time period -- a person on death row costs more than a person serving a life sentence. So that's not much of an argument.



The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.

If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole*, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health services, and services for crime victims and their families.

More than 3500 men and women have received this sentence in California since 1978 and NOT ONE has been released, except those few individuals who were able to prove their innocence.

California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.



Source

Now, go ahead and tell me that it's not nihilism to kill someone because they killed someone and then act like it's no big deal that you just killed someone yourself.

All of the pro-death penalty arguments are null, void, and pathetic. Sorry. Time to let them go, along with whatever political faction you subscribe to that likely convinced you that it's essential, practical, humane, or intelligent. It's not. It's bronze-aged idiocy and barbarism. Nothing else.

Ever wonder why other developed countries got rid of the death penalty decades ago and did just fine? It's because you're wrong and your arguments are awful. Accept it.
edit on 20-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack suggesting that I can't read and insinuating that I am infantile and pathetic. There is absolutely no need for that. Based on your condescending tone, I expect you think you know what's good for other people.

What you're describing requires perfect justice, and like you I don't think it exists. I think however, that you are focusing merely on the money and not the ethics. Yes it is more expensive... but why is it more expensive? Appeals. Much of the time a death row inmate spends on death row is because his case is going through some stage of appeals. Nearly a third of death penalties are reversed. I am happy to pay for someone to exhaust their due process right. I think its an ethical expendature of my tax dollars, as I hope if I were ever in such a terrible scenario in my life that I would try to exercise my right to due process to its utmost.

Cheaper it may be, but is it ethical to pay for someone to live life in prison? www.aclunc.org...

Let me add my own personal ad hominem in kind, knowing that in the eyes of the readers of this thread it may more or less nullify the credibility of my point like yours. Your approach to just looking at the numbers and not the why behind them and saying because of the cost, the death penalty is logically only nihilistic and is death for death's sake is to me the same as a recent MBA presenting his first analysis to an officer of the company. Only the whats... trust me, the whys are almost always the drivers and more important.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

crazyewok
I dont get the lethal injection. It seems a elaborate and expensive way to off someone.

Why not just give them a Morphine OD? Or a General anaesthesia then whatever.


Exactly. General anesthesia without a vent and they'll drift off to sleep. Essentially, that's what they do with the barbiturate and the pavulon. Those are anesthesia drugs. The potassium overdose is what stops the heart. So they whine and cry about more than one IV stick. Difficult IV starts happen in hospital every day.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

TheRegal

.

Ever wonder why other developed countries got rid of the death penalty decades ago and did just fine? It's because you're wrong and your arguments are awful. Accept it.
edit on 20-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)


That's not entirely true. violent crime is up in all western countries.


I think the death penalty, from a conceptual standpoint can be moral and just given the circumstances. The real question is, do we trust the state with such power?



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


How else do you think we combat them girl? Do you think we wander into war and fight our own emotions for FUN?
Show me ANY nice guy before and after he has to take down one of these doozies and you may see a slight change of character.


Unless of course you are in occupied zones.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Yes. Very much so. Better the devil you know. It changes everyone when they need (emphasis on need) to become a monster to defeat one. How an individual deals with that after the fact is the real test in my opinion. An uncompromising monster cannot be killed with kindness because that would require compromise.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

TheRegal


I'd hang out with a convicted rapist over someone this enthusiastic about killing people any day.


There are many women who would find the above a very disgusting thought.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


Its practically SOP.We shoot ourselves if WE constitute a threat or believe we no longer serve a purpose.
Sad but there it is.
Guilt is amplified by NOT opening up about it and getting help,then you get existentially pissed off at mankind's ignorance of war ,you see the libs jumping you with THEIR ignorance of logic ABOUT war and it is a vicious circle.
The ones who haven't got a strong will(and some who do ) BANG!



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Galvatron
reply to post by TheRegal
 


I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack suggesting that I can't read and insinuating that I am infantile and pathetic.[


It seems like the most common problem factor is the proliferation of such accusations within yourself. The comments I made were of a general group-think, it only was directed at you when you provided evidence of such. My entire leading argument was that the death penalty kills innocent people; you've now completely ignored that twice.


I expect you think you know what's good for other people.


And I acknowlege that you ignore it to continue parrotting your unoriginal, primal-based ideology.


What you're describing requires perfect justice, and like you I don't think it exists. I think however, that you are focusing merely on the money and not the ethics.


My entire argument is about the ethics, I only got into monetary value when YOU said that it was cheaper to just kill them, and YOU were incredibly W-R-O-N-G.



Cheaper it may be, but is it ethical to pay for someone to live life in prison? www.aclunc.org...


Did you read this article or did you just google something that you thought would fit the topic and paste it expecting me not to read it? I'm not sure what you think "ethics" are when it comes to penalizing criminals, but your article hits it square in the nose.

Your source:



Victims' families prefer LWOP

Because death is different and mistakes cannot be corrected, a death sentence results in years of mandatory appeals that often result in reversal. In a sample of 350 death sentences, 118, or nearly one-third, were reversed in part or in whole. Further, nearly 60 percent of the cases in this sample were still in various stages of appeals as of 2002. For each of the last three executions in California, more than 25 years had been spent in appeals before the executions finally occurred. The current average for appeals is 17 years—and getting longer every day.

Unlike death penalty cases, however, LWOP sentences receive no special consideration on appeal, which limits the possibility they will be reduced or reversed. A person sentenced to die in prison receives only one automatic appeal, not several, and is not provided any court-appointed attorneys after this appeal is complete, usually within two years of the initial sentence.

California has the largest death row in the country with more than 660 prisoners. But more than four times as many prisoners have died of other causes while awaiting execution than have actually been executed. In contrast, when prisoners are sentenced to prison until death, they begin serving their sentence immediately. LWOP allows victims’ survivors to move on, rather than keeping them trapped in decades of court hearings and waiting for an execution to occur.

For these reason, the survivors of murder victims often feel that the death penalty system only prolongs their pain and does not provide the resolution they need, while the finality of LWOP sentences allows them to move on, knowing justice is being served.




More on these "ethics" you seem to think you know about:



However in practice the death penalty regularly violates many other human rights:
• The death penalty disproportionately affects the poor
• The death penalty disproportionately affects visible minorities and other marginalised groups
• Death sentences in many parts of the world routinely result from evidence extracted through torture
• Innocent people have been executed and nothing short of abolition can guarantee that no innocent person will be executed
• Capital punishment is often used for crimes or circumstances which international law or standards say should not have a death penalty such as against those who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offence, following an unfair trial and for non-lethal crimes such as drug trafficking or political offences.

Furthermore, study after study has shown the death penalty is:
• Ineffective at deterring crime
• Extremely costly, draining resources that could more effectively be used to solve and prevent crime


Source

Anyways, back to my initial point that you've failed to either adress or understand:

Give me one reason which trumps killing innocent people in your argument of ethics. One. What fluffy feelings, monetary regulation, or political rhetoric trumps killing even one innocent person by the State. Name it. One benefit of the death penalty over life without parole that is more ethically compelling than the obvious attrocity government killing an innocent person (likely after they have endured an overwhelming tragedy already). Just one; all I need from you. Go ahead.
edit on 20-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

TheRegal

purplemer
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


The Death Penalty needs to be removed....You should never become a monster to fight a monster...



Or to kill someone who you were led to believe was a monster and turned out not to be.



Innocent people have been executed. If there is any doubt then a person should not have to face capital punishment. That is not always how it happened.

We are a savage species. At the turn of the 1900's there were still tribes of cannibals throughout the world. Civilization has made a big leap forward in short amount of time. I agree that we need to mature as a species.

Capital punishment is meant to be a deterrent to heinous crimes. People want justice.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
you know one reason why the 'lethal injection drugs' might not be available... to the market


the FDA charges a fee for companies to produce drugs...
one example is the drug that combats 'Valley Fever' see this link on the low down on Valley-Fever @

www.newyorker.com...


...amphotericin B... costs a prohibitive $600,000.00 per year licence fee

( i paraphrased the text as my TWC ISP feed is really friggin up today)


but read the indepth article & you will find the outrageous fees the FDA charges for a pharmaceutical to be able to produce & market any drug...(affordable care/ health care reform in action !!!)

States are in such a pinch... that bullets seem cost-efficient Now..... but how about the DHS buying up billions of rounds of several types of ammo...
will the States afford the federal government monopoly on firing-squad ammo in the future ???



corporation Amerika in action



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


You're obviously very passionate about this. I get that. The name calling makes it obvious. I still state it's unnecessary. The section you highlighted form the ACLU website really reveals your sense of justice. You would have a victim's family's grief assuaged in return for the criminals ability to appeal under due process. LWOP means one appeal without the state's assistance. You consider this justice? LWOP and the death penalty, from a practical standpoint are identical, the difference is LWOP doesn't allow for adequate appeal and therefore justice if the person was indeed unjustly convicted, while the other does. Hence why 1/3 of death penalties get reversed. Lawyers even push for LWOP over the death penalty because of the reduced likelihood of a successful appeal as well as saving the state money.

I brought up the cost, not because of how much it is, but I will repeat in that it is associated for what basically allows a person to live in prison for the rest of their life. I'm an animal lover, and if my dog mauled a toddler, perish the thought, I would rather the dog be put down than live the rest of its life meagerly in some blasted wasteland of a kennel for the next 10 years.

To summarize how you look from a logic standpoint. You say Death1 is better than Death2 because Death1 (LWOP) is justified because victim's families FEEL as though justice is done whether or not it is, and because it restricts the convict's ability to escape death than Death2.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Galvatron
reply to post by TheRegal
 


The section you highlighted form the ACLU website really reveals your sense of justice.



I didn't quote anything from the ACLU and the fact that you would immediately discredit anything that does only shows your sense of partisan sheepdom.


You would have a victim's family's grief assuaged in return for the criminals ability to appeal under due process. LWOP means one appeal without the state's assistance. You consider this justice? LWOP and the death penalty, from a practical standpoint are identical, the difference is LWOP doesn't allow for adequate appeal and therefore justice if the person was indeed unjustly convicted, while the other does. Hence why 1/3 of death penalties get reversed. Lawyers even push for LWOP over the death penalty because of the reduced likelihood of a successful appeal as well as saving the state money.


This is the exact problem with talking politics in this country. You're arguing from a conclusion and then concocting arguments around it to make it try to make sense. Two posts ago you said the death penalty was better because it costed less money. You were wrong. Now you've switched to a bastarized stance on ethics that contradicts your earlier argument of monetary concern. You wanted the death penalty because you thought it was cheaper, but now that you know its not cheaper you say that life without parole is harsher because it DOESNT PROVIDE THE THINGS TO MAKE IT COST AS MUCH MONEY AS THE DEATH PENALTY. Then, if we allowe the same appeal priveleges asthe death penalty, you would switch back to your former argument and say "IT'S CHEAPER
!!".

Just stop. If you want to have an opinion on something, start with the reasons and end with the conclusion. Don't start with your stance and then tiptoe around the issue scrambling for any semblance of an argument to back it up. This is not how we do things past the confines of elementary grade essay structures.


I'm an animal lover, and if my dog mauled a toddler, perish the thought, I would rather the dog be put down than live the rest of its life meagerly in some blasted wasteland of a kennel for the next 10 years.


That's ridiculous. People are tried in court and the court system isn't perfect. Until it's perfect, putting people to death on sentence by law is absolutely immoral and leaves an open door for the government to legally execute innocent citizens. You fail to address this problem consistently.


To summarize how you look from a logic standpoint. You say Death1 is better than Death2 because Death1 (LWOP) is justified because victim's families FEEL as though justice is done whether or not it is, and because it restricts the convict's ability to escape death than Death2.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


It's like talking...

..to a wall.



That's not even my tertiary point. That's the point in your article that you suggested me to read -- an article which compeltely disagrees with you based on their studies. LWOP is better not only because of the families involved suffering less grief, but because it's cheaper, it leaves more room for evidence to come forward in their defense and more scientific progress to be made to obtain such evidence, and you aren't indulging in the same immoral acts that you're condemning. Do you seriously not see that the death penalty consistently loses across the board?

Still waiting on that one thing that life without parole offers that is as heinous as the government killing innocent people which the death penalty offers. Geeze, you'd think after this many posts you could come up with one thing and stop dodging around a simple question.
edit on 20-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join