lethal injection gone wrong

[Kyl3]

Death penalty is justified, however it does need reform.

 

I firmly believe in an eye for an eye though the current method is a slow, wasteful, broken mess. A 9mm bullet costs somewhere around $0.50 a piece and is quick, efficient and painless.

[DIV1D3]

Well if the convicted person was truly guilty and that person would have to spend 30+ years in prison/jail than imo death would be a more human. There have been a lot of people that have been found guilty when in fact they were innocent and were killed. Really living and dying in jail would be more of a punishment than the death penalty. + If the person has committed a horrendous crime (killed their children, repetitive rapes, severe harmings and massacres/serial killings) than that person shouldn't be allowed to get out, and as I just said it'd be more human to have the death penalty than a life of jail. 

[MooseParade]

YOU'RE KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING FOR NO REASON

 

Uhm, killing them for no reason? So you believe that people shouldn't be incarcerated for "no reason"? Commit a crime (if it's serious enough) and sit in prison. Kill a person and you shall die. Enough said. 

 

Edit: I'm in Law Enforcement and have been for the last 8 years, there's nothing you can say to sway my thoughts or to even validate your point. 

[LAwLz]

Uhm, killing them for no reason? So you believe that people shouldn't be incarcerated for "no reason"? Commit a crime (if it's serious enough) and sit in prison. Kill a person and you shall die. Enough said. 

 

Edit: I'm in Law Enforcement and have been for the last 8 years, there's nothing you can say to sway my thoughts or to even validate your point. 

The killing part is for no reason since there are other alternatives which are better. The idea that they should be punished is not without reason.

Punishing someone for a crime = has a reason

Killing someone for a crime = no reason

That's what I meant.

[geforceftw]

I'm okay with the death penalty only if the person dying deserves the crime and if it was he/she that commuted it. I think 5% of people on death row are innocent. I saw that number a few weeks ago in an article

[OfficialNapalm]

So, we should just not let them try to prove their innocence?

Well, I guess it depends on the crime. Obviously you would have a trial...the lynching crisis in the 1850s was crazy.

[ErickS89]

why? if an individual truly is dangerous and can never be put back into society as a working individual it would be a waste of resources to keep him fed and sheltered until he finally dies having had an empty unfulfilled life.

 

 

why? if an individual truly is dangerous and can never be put back into society as a working individual it would be a waste of resources to keep him fed and sheltered until he finally dies having had an empty unfulfilled life.

I'm actually for the death penalty, if you get life you might as well and save us on tax dollars.   Life in prison is a waste of space, time, and money.

[Guest]

Why isn't "under certain circumstances " on the poll? Other wise yes I'm pro death penalty. You take away someones right to live I feel the compliment should be re-payed.

[Admire]

Well, I guess it depends on the crime. Obviously you would have a trial...the lynching crisis in the 1850s was crazy.

 

So if you are accused of a severely enough crime, they should not be allowed to prove their innosense? Its worse to be accused of something that you didn't do when the crime is that much worse.

 

You should really study all the many cases of false confessions. There are countless cases of people admitting to the worst of worst of crimes. Many of them only being proven innocent after they have served their term like the The Central Park Five.

[ConfusedDolphin]

I do not think a truly moral society would declare killing wrong and then institutionalise killing, to me it is inconsistent and therefore not a logical system. 

[Lyons]

Sorry nay-sayers, but innocent people being executed is a problem with the legal system and process, not the death penalty.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that it is more expensive to house a person for 70 years than execute them, but oh well... If somebody killed my girlfriend or my parents or my sisters, they do not deserve to live in my opinion. They are not for this society or this world; they need to be removed. How could anyone feel differently?

[Admire]

Sorry nay-sayers, but innocent people being executed is a problem with the legal system and process, not the death penalty.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that it is more expensive to house a person for 70 years than execute them, but oh well... If somebody killed my girlfriend or my parents or my sisters, they do not deserve to live in my opinion. They are not for this society or this world; they need to be removed. How could anyone feel differently?

 

Doesn't matter what you think because its a fact.

 

And the death penalty is used in the legal system so when the legal system allows this, then we can't allow the death penalty.

[Lyons]

Doesn't matter what you think because its a fact.

And the death penalty is used in the legal system so when the legal system allows this, then we can't allow the death penalty.

Not a word of that made sense to me... Want to rephrase?

[Admire]

Not a word of that made sense to me... Want to rephrase?

 

Okay.  Legal system used death penalty as punishment - Legal system has a lot of people who are convicted despite being innocent = Using death penalty while having such a legal system is insane.

[OfficialNapalm]

The killing part is for no reason since there are other alternatives which are better. The idea that they should be punished is not without reason.

Punishing someone for a crime = has a reason

Killing someone for a crime = no reason

That's what I meant.

You ever heard of "eye for an eye"?

[Admire]

You ever heard of "eye for an eye"?

 

Yes, but not in any law books.

 

Also, missing the damned point.

[teschidererste]

why? if an individual truly is dangerous and can never be put back into society as a working individual it would be a waste of resources to keep him fed and sheltered until he finally dies having had an empty unfulfilled life.

Keeping a human alive is never a waste of ressources. I thought americans were so religious and it's said in the bible that you shouldn't kill and that you should absolve everybody from his sins. For Ex.: "scribo vobis filioli quoniam remittuntur vobis peccata propter nomen eius" John 1 2,12 I'm really glad that I live in Germany and we got rid of that stupid death penality years ago.

[Shakaza]

Keeping a human alive is never a waste of ressources. I thought americans were so religious and it's said in the bible that you shouldn't kill and that you should absolve everybody from his sins. For Ex.: "scribo vobis filioli quoniam remittuntur vobis peccata propter nomen eius" John 1 2,12 I'm really glad that I live in Germany and we got rid of that stupid death penality years ago.

This isn't about religion. This is about how our system works. If a person kills someone, how can you know that he won't do it again? If you cannot predict or discover whether it is safe to let a person back into society, then it is stupid to take a risk like that and potentially put more people at risk of death or incredible suffering at the hands of a person like that. And if they go to prison, is their life worth anything? It becomes useless, totally pointless to continue an existence that may never recover mentally after doing such a crime. A death penalty could be a relief to them, something to end the suffering they have to endure for the rest of their lives. I don't give a crap what the Bible says; it's stupid.

[LAwLz]

This isn't about religion. This is about how our system works. If a person kills someone, how can you know that he won't do it again? If you cannot predict or discover whether it is safe to let a person back into society, then it is stupid to take a risk like that and potentially put more people at risk of death or incredible suffering at the hands of a person like that.

It's easy. They can't kill another person if they are locked up in a secure prison. There is absolutely no reason to kill someone because "they might do it again" since locking them up gives the same result in practice (but is cheaper,far more humane and also reduces the risk of innocent people getting irrevocable punishments).

Also, you can't kill someone just because "they might be dangerous later in their lives". That's an absolutely insane logic with more holes than a mosquito net.

 

 

 

It becomes useless, totally pointless to continue an existence that may never recover mentally after doing such a crime. A death penalty could be a relief to them, something to end the suffering they have to endure for the rest of their lives. I don't give a crap what the Bible says; it's stupid.

Yeah I am sure the 100+ people who were innocent and put on death row totally agrees with you. I also think all the people who were executed and then found to be innocent (sometimes less than a year after they were executed) would totally agree with you as well.

Saying yes to the death penalty is not only saying "yes, I totally think it is morally right to kill another human being" but also "I think it is okay to kill completely innocent people if it means we also kill some bad guys".

Also, I am pretty sure a lot of people would prefer life in prison over being slowly tortured to death.

[Shakaza]

-snip-

Perhaps I worded it badly. I mean that if a person is proven, not proven in a court of law, but actually proven to have killed someone else, then why should they be allowed to live? They are dangerous, and obviously so, so why would it make sense to put them in a prison? What does it accomplish? If a person has at least a life sentence after being proven of committing murder, then what are you going to achieve by putting them in prison for the rest of their lives? It just takes money to feed them, ensure that they don't escape, etc. You said it costs less to put a person in prison for a lifetime than it does to kill them in the most moral way possible? If that is the case, why couldn't we pursue more economical ways of killing murderers if that really is the right way to go.

Of course, our legal system has flaws in it if multitudes of people who were convicted of murder are innocent, but I can't say anything because I don't know how to fix them. I didn't say it was fair or right to kill a person outright after a court convicts them, especially if they didn't commit it, but I still think it should be considered. Letting a person rot in prison until absolute, concrete evidence is found one way or the other seems like the way to go, but even that is imperfect.

Ah, I really don't know. I know it isn't moral to just murder someone, but putting him/her in prison for a lifetime doesn't seem to be the right way to go either, and we can't let them to out into the world safely, so what can you do?

As a side note, where did you get the torture notion from? I meant that the suffering was being in prison, not being tortured to death. I'd prefer to be locked up rather than endure intense pain for the rest of my life, but I'd also prefer to die than to be locked up for the rest of my life too.

[LAwLz]

Perhaps I worded it badly. I mean that if a person is proven, not proven in a court of law, but actually proven to have killed someone else, then why should they be allowed to live?

First of all, how do you prove that someone is undeniably guilty? Evidence is forged all the time. Hell, in many cases the prosecutor is the real criminal (the search for the real criminal stops as soon as an innocent person is convicted). Oh and yes, I think they should be allowed to live. No crime is horrible enough to deserve to be killed for. Absolutely none. Why? Because killing people is wrong. Don't you see the hypocrisy? "He killed someone so therefore we should kill him, that will show people that killing is wrong!". You are doing the exact same thing as the person you are killing, but somehow it is justified to kill certain people?

I do not think it is necessary to kill anyone, ever. Don't want to risk the convicted person killing ever again? Lock him up in prison. Killing is wrong, end of story. It does not matter if you dislike the person, thou shalt not kill.

 

 

They are dangerous, and obviously so, so why would it make sense to put them in a prison? What does it accomplish? If a person has at least a life sentence after being proven of committing murder, then what are you going to achieve by putting them in prison for the rest of their lives? It just takes money to feed them, ensure that they don't escape, etc. You said it costs less to put a person in prison for a lifetime than it does to kill them in the most moral way possible? If that is the case, why couldn't we pursue more economical ways of killing murderers if that really is the right way to go.

They are NOT dangerous if they are behind bars in a maximum security prison. It makes sense to put them in prison because it makes sense to not kill people. I don't get how this is so hard for people to understand. KILLING SOMEONE IS WRONG, YOU SHOULD NOT DO IT. I am pretty sick of this double standard where people think it's alright to kill some people, but not others. You should not kill anyone, period. It also makes sense to put them in prison because it costs less.

It costs LESS (i.e., not as much, a smaller amount, not as great of a quantity) to put someone in prison for life than it does to execute someone. It is not the execution (which is incredibly inhumane and it is illegal to kill animals in the same way) that costs money. It is all the additional crap that increases the cost of the entire trial process in a case where the death sentence is involved. Oh and before you say that we should cut down the cost on that, please bear in mind that saying that we should cut down on those fees also implies that we should cut down on the chance of saving innocent people from being executed. The less spent on the trial, the higher risk of brutally murdering an innocent person. So watch your wards really carefully if you're thinking of replying to this post, because you might end up saying we should murder more innocent people to save a bit of tax money.

Do you want to save money? Then stop trying to justify why people should be brutally executed.

 

 

Of course, our legal system has flaws in it if multitudes of people who were convicted of murder are innocent, but I can't say anything because I don't know how to fix them. I didn't say it was fair or right to kill a person outright after a court convicts them, especially if they didn't commit it, but I still think it should be considered. Letting a person rot in prison until absolute, concrete evidence is found one way or the other seems like the way to go, but even that is imperfect.

There is no such things as "absolute, concrete evidence". Evidence is forged and/or hidden all the time. People lie in court, innocent people can be forced to admit to crimes they did not commit.

 

 

Ah, I really don't know. I know it isn't moral to just murder someone, but putting him/her in prison for a lifetime doesn't seem to be the right way to go either, and we can't let them to out into the world safely, so what can you do?

Why is putting the person in prison not the right way to go? I don't really see any problem with releasing certain murderers in certain situations either by the way. Of course it would probably be really rare but I don't think that all murderers should be kept in jail forever, if they are deemed safe (again, probably very rare but I don't think it is impossible).

 

 

As a side note, where did you get the torture notion from? I meant that the suffering was being in prison, not being tortured to death. I'd prefer to be locked up rather than endure intense pain for the rest of my life, but I'd also prefer to die than to be locked up for the rest of my life too.

Depends on the kind of prison. The reason I call it torture is because of reason 3 in this post.

Being conscious while your lungs gets paralyzed and your blood circulation is stopped is what I'd called one of the most horrible ways to die.

[TechSage]

why? if an individual truly is dangerous and can never be put back into society as a working individual it would be a waste of resources to keep him fed and sheltered until he finally dies having had an empty unfulfilled life.

In Texas, it costs $2.3 million to execute someone. That's taxpayer money, it's cheaper to keep them in prison for their than to execute them. Some innocent people go to prison because of corrupt police officers burying evidence or the fact that they were just framed. It's not right to take another human's life, not under any circumstances, that's not your decision to make, EVERYONE has the right to live. 

[Recon-UK]

The justice system is not free of corruption, so how can a death penalty be correct, when justice is not correct.

 

I say get rid of it.

[Shakaza]

-snip-

First of all, how do you prove that someone is undeniably innocent? Evidence is forged all the time. It cuts both ways.

But, seriously, there is no point in continuing this argument. What I believe is that a person should be killed for committing a heinous crime to protect society, and to alleviate the criminal's own burden of a life sentence. And, if an innocent person were found guilty, what if no further evidence was found to support his case? Would he/she rather rot for a life in prison or die? Either way, their life will not continue. Sure, it isn't fair for truly innocent people to be unjustly killed like that, but neither is being murdered by a madman. Life isn't fair, and this is just, sadly, another consequence of life. I hate to admit it, because I believe that people should be as fair as possible to others, but it doesn't seem like it's going to change.

On the other hand, you vote that prisons should be used over the death sentence. It's cheaper, works almost effectively as the death sentence, but prisons probably cost a lot to construct. You want to use this on the basis that killing, no matter for what reason, is immoral. Following the Ten Commandments with that "Thou shalt not kill" stuff? Yeah, I get it, but what I DON'T get is why you would prefer to have them suffer a life in prison, slowly dying away, over dying quickly through the so-called "humane" methods we use now? Why isn't that immoral? Why is killing a person quickly more immoral than forcing them to die in a dank, musty cell? I don't get that at all.

As a final note, you may reply to this and my other posts as much as you want, but since I feel that there is nothing to be gained for either party in continuing this, I will not give any further responses to you. Thank you.

[Art Vandelay]

In Texas, it costs $2.3 million to execute someone. That's taxpayer money, it's cheaper to keep them in prison for their than to execute them. Some innocent people go to prison because of corrupt police officers burying evidence or the fact that they were just framed. It's not right to take another human's life, not under any circumstances, that's not your decision to make, EVERYONE has the right to live. 

The first point is really a problem with the system more than the penalty itself. The only problems I really have are with the system.

 

The second point is debatable. If you kill someone for a completely unjust reason, have you really not given up your right to live?