292 replies to this topic

[MercenaryChef]

Holafernando Torres, on 18 June 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Capital punishment in America is all about the capital. If you have it, then you generally don't get the punishment. Only 1% of all murder trials in the US end with the death penalty. Of those, the vast majority are people who are at or below the poverty level.

So while you sit and discuss how "humanely" you can put these people down, I have to just say that discussing this without discussing the ethics behind doing this is asinine.

makes me think of  this song!

[Reposado]

Holafernando Torres, on 18 June 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Capital punishment in America is all about the capital. If you have it, then you generally don't get the punishment. Only 1% of all murder trials in the US end with the death penalty. Of those, the vast majority are people who are at or below the poverty level.

So while you sit and discuss how "humanely" you can put these people down, I have to just say that discussing this without discussing the ethics behind doing this is asinine.

but noone wanted to discuss. how to umanely execute people in the the US in the year 2012.

i don't mean to single you out cause lots are guilty of this in this thread. but a ton of people have used this thread as a soap box to make a stand against the death penalty.

when it is really not relevant. the original question was interesting as were many of the early posts about various methods of execution(no reason why they could not also be used for assisted suicide.)

all of the posts either opposing the use of the death penalty or defending have been a chore to wade through. does anyone think they are treading new ground?

[Ser Robin Hill]

Stubby,

So, you think society is better served having 10 murderers go free than one innocent person executed.  Do you think it likely that none of those 10 will ever murder again?  Because, if only one of them commits another murder, that tenet is flawed.  If more than one person is murdered as a result of those 10 guilty-gone-free, it is not only flawed, but is counterproductive.

[Khal Pono]

Lanza Rota, on 18 June 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

but noone wanted to discuss. how to umanely execute people in the the US in the year 2012.

i don't mean to single you out cause lots are guilty of this in this thread. but a ton of people have used this thread as a soap box to make a stand against the death penalty.

when it is really not relevant. the original question was interesting as were many of the early posts about various methods of execution(no reason why they could not also be used for assisted suicide.)

all of the posts either opposing the use of the death penalty or defending have been a chore to wade through. does anyone think they are treading new ground?

Glad someone else thinks so

Edited by Khal Pono, 18 June 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[MinDonner]

Deathwalker, on 18 June 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Stubby,

So, you think society is better served having 10 murderers go free than one innocent person executed.  Do you think it likely that none of those 10 will ever murder again?  Because, if only one of them commits another murder, that tenet is flawed.  If more than one person is murdered as a result of those 10 guilty-gone-free, it is not only flawed, but is counterproductive.

"Set free" and "killed" are not the only two options available, you know.

[Stubby]

Deathwalker, on 18 June 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Stubby,

So, you think society is better served having 10 murderers go free than one innocent person executed.  Do you think it likely that none of those 10 will ever murder again?  Because, if only one of them commits another murder, that tenet is flawed.  If more than one person is murdered as a result of those 10 guilty-gone-free, it is not only flawed, but is counterproductive.

As min said, those are not the only two options.  Issue a sentence of 50 years if you like, but do not execute.

The day your justice system says it is ok to kill an innocent in the name of justice, then that system has no justice at all.

[Ser Robin Hill]

ΜινΝτόννερ, on 18 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

"Set free" and "killed" are not the only two options available, you know.

Whatever happened to letting the punishment fit the crime?

There's no point in beating this issue to death.  I've made my point.  If you don't agree, that is your right.  So, I'll find something else to do and maybe Khal Pono can get his thread back, though I doubt the anti-death penalty crowd will allow that to happen.

[Stubby]

Deathwalker, on 18 June 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

Whatever happened to letting the punishment fit the crime?

There's no point in beating this issue to death.  I've made my point.  If you don't agree, that is your right.  So, I'll find something else to do and maybe Khal Pono can get his thread back, though I doubt the anti-death penalty crowd will allow that to happen.

The ethics of the death penalty are an intrinsic part of whether it is 'humane'.  The use of that word in the OP is what made the ethics of the penalty part of the topic. The discussion is very much on topic.

[Ser Robin Hill]

So, if the OP changes humane to painless, you'd be at a loss for words?

[Nukelavee]

Seriously - that's your ace?  "Are you ok with executing an innocent?".

It has nothing to do with the actual concept, which is executing those guilty of a horrible crime.

It's a hypothetical, so, the parameters are set so that this imaginary killer IS guilty.  Bringing up "but what if he isn't guilty?" is totally ignoring the point that, hey, Manson is guilty, killing him wouldn't involve killing an innocent (because, hey, he already killed the innocent, remember?).

It's a bullshit argument, unless you are discussing the flaws in teh legal system, which , we aren't.

But, let's go further... the real problem is that the legal system is based upon handing out punishments, not rehabilitation.  So, we still have the innocent being screwed, and even if the guy "only" got life, he's still lost 10, 20, 40 years of his life.  Bet those guys spend the rest of their lives feeding the birds at peace with things.

of course, then we have those guilty who ASK for the death penalty.  What about how they feel about it?

[The Warmth of Winter]

Would it not be necessary to distinguish "humane" from "humane". I would agree that, fundamentally, no kind of execution is humane, no matter the form, but that's not really what the word "humane" means in the context of "humane ways of killing". The term is widely used when addressing the slaughtering of animals and what way is the most "humane" one, while I'd say that no form of killing what so ever is humane. Still, the semantics must be taken into consideration.

[MinDonner]

Manson wasn't convicted of a special "DEFINITELY a murderer" crime, so any punishment applied to him would also be applicable to anyone with the same verdict. What's the point of just having the "does Charles Manson deserve to live y/n?" debate? IMO, he probably doesn't. But I can't support a system that would execute him, because of what it could and would mean for those less unambiguously guilty. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.

[Reposado]

Warmth of Winning le Éire, on 18 June 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Would it not be necessary to distinguish "humane" from "humane". I would agree that, fundamentally, no kind of execution is humane, no matter the form, but that's not really what the word "humane" means in the context of "humane ways of killing". The term is widely used when addressing the slaughtering of animals and what way is the most "humane" one, while I'd say that no form of killing what so ever is humane. Still, the semantics must be taken into consideration.

yes, if something is the least inhumane method, it is more humane. regardless of whether it meets the definition of humane or not, it can still be more humane than something else.

so yes, whether the death penalty is humane is related to the OP, but it is not interesting

[Derfel Cadarn]

Surely the best way to keep to the integrity of the original post is just to not reply to those trying to derail it?  The pro's/cons of the death penalty can be debated ad nauseum on its own thread until it exceeds 20  or so pages, the mods' have carpal tunnel syndrome and no one's viewpoint has changed since page one.

(against death penalty).

Guillotene would be one of my preferences if I was to be executed, but there is the sticky issue of whether the brain remains 'active' for a few seconds.  The ideal method would seem to be anaesthetic overdose.  The current US methods seem barbaric.

[Nukelavee]

ΜινΝτόννερ, on 18 June 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Manson wasn't convicted of a special "DEFINITELY a murderer" crime, so any punishment applied to him would also be applicable to anyone with the same verdict. What's the point of just having the "does Charles Manson deserve to live y/n?" debate? IMO, he probably doesn't. But I can't support a system that would execute him, because of what it could and would mean for those less unambiguously guilty. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.

Again, more deliberate muddling of the point.  Manson was guilty.  We know that.  It's been proven.  It's been proven he wasn't innocent.

Make teh effort to actually follow thru on what you've said, and read.  You agree, Manson likely does deserve it.  I've already stated my issue with capital punishment is the chance of the innocent being executed...

I don't see why you can't remember things you just wrote or read.



But the chance of a miscarriage of justice isn't actually part of what I gave you as a scenario.

[Tears of Lys]

I personally prefer death by chocolate.

[MinDonner]

Nukelavee, on 18 June 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

But the chance of a miscarriage of justice isn't actually part of what I gave you as a scenario.

And that is why your scenario is bollocks. We might as well be debating how humane it is to use the Avada Kedavra spell for execution purposes.

[Grey Stark]

Tears of Lys, on 18 June 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

I personally prefer death by chocolate.

We have a winner!

[Newsun]

The people who can't reply to a thread about a hypothetical situation without bringing in irrelevant things either need to lighten up or stay away. Maybe the topic is in bad taste. Who gives a fuck. Let it be and start your own thread. And yes, the potential killing of innocents in a system of law IS irrelevant when it's a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WHERE WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE LEAST PAINFUL WAY TO KILL A GUILTY PERSON.

On topic, I believe some sort of opiod overdose, maybe mixed with an anesthetic if necessary (I must confess to not knowing how said overdose would work, and if an anesthetic would be necessary) would be the least painful/most humane method of execution.

[Marie August]

I would think there would exist some sort of quick/painless/deadly poisons out there. That would obviously be the most humane way to go.

I'm sure the guillotine is quick as well. I figure that it's no longer used because it seems more violent to a viewer than lethal injection. Not because it's actually less painful.