orpheus wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Wait 'til their asleep, then pump carbon monoxide into their room. They'll simply not wake up. I think we should trial it on pro-death penalty politicians, just to be sure.

Also agreed (with last sentence).





edited: clarity

orpheus wrote:

Jumbo wrote:
Lethal injection had issues that some of the drugs merely paralysed rather than actually sedating so the process was not painless. It also had the issue that to maintain a high rate of success regarding dosages etc a medically trained person might be needed with all of the ethical implications for them that would entail.

The necessity for a medically trained person is a red herring. It's not so complicated, really. Plenty of people who have done assisted suicide are an example. See the method used at Dignitas, the assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. Their insistence on doctors has nothing to do with making sure the process works. It has to do with making sure the person is making a reasoned choice.

Perhaps even better examples are the many, many loving family members who have helped loved ones to die. When it is clear that's what the ill person wants, and what the family members want, and all that's preventing it are stupid laws, doctors or nurses will often give a sort of coded message. Especially in a home-care situation. The message is along the lines of "I have to go now, but I'll be back tomorrow. Here's their pain medication. Remember, the maximum safe dose is X. Anything above that could be deadly." Message received. Curiously enough, by the next day the patient has passed away.

Documentary evidence of this is impossible to find, for obvious reasons. But it's well-known within the medical community that this is a rather common practice. Indeed, many doctors were angry with Jack Kervorkian - not because they disagreed with assisted suicide, but because they knew that doctors had for years been helping people to die behind the scenes, so to speak, and Kevorkian's crusade might bring legal attention to the long-standing practice, making it harder to help people.

Anyway, I don't mean to turn this thread toward the issue of assisted suicide. I bring it up only to point out that there are extremely easy and painless ways to end one's own life or that of another. That this eludes death-penalty advocates and "experts" says little about their intelligence, or their compassion, or their ethics, or all three.

NamelessFaceless wrote:How do they keep the victim from panicking and fighting back? I would think just knowing you are about to die would cause most people to take whatever action they possibly could to prevent it. That panic alone makes it seem like an inhumane form of torture to me.

Gallstones wrote:

orpheus wrote:
Anyway, I don't mean to turn this thread toward the issue of assisted suicide. I bring it up only to point out that there are extremely easy and painless ways to end one's own life or that of another. That this eludes death-penalty advocates and "experts" says little about their intelligence, or their compassion, or their ethics, or all three.

Indeed, holding an opinion, regardless of what that opinion is, says little about the holder's intelligence. It might give clues to their level of compassion, but not definitively. And it might actually support a high ethical sense even though certain others find the opinion personally disagreeable.

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote:... A mor humane way would be if the exectutee chose the method.

chairman bill wrote:

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote:... A mor humane way would be if the exectutee chose the method.

I'd go with that. I'd choose a thermonuclear explosion, with all death penalty supporters in close proximity as witnesses.

monkeyboy wrote:Saw the documentary when it first aired a few years ago. I also clearly remember the guy towards the end when asked what he thought about this painless method virtually said,'what's the point of that?' For me that said everything. He saw the death penalty as a tool of vengeance rather than justice. Torture rather than simple expedient execution. It's been said already, what if you get the wrong one? Killing the wrong guy is murder. Painfully killing the wrong guy is murder with the added unnecessary twist of intentional torture. That is no better than the very perpetrators these people want to "punish" in the first place.
Maybe Bill has it right. People who want this barbaric practice to continue put their lives on the line. Any time an innocent person is found to have been executed, someone off the list of supporters gets picked at random to be killed in the same manner and their worldly goods given to the innocent party's family in compensation.
There's no reason to avoid signing up for it surely, the death penalty is never served on the innocent right?

chairman bill wrote:

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote:... A mor humane way would be if the exectutee chose the method.

I'd go with that. I'd choose a thermonuclear explosion, with all death penalty supporters in close proximity as witnesses.

chairman bill wrote:

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote:... A mor humane way would be if the exectutee chose the method.

I'd go with that. I'd choose a thermonuclear explosion, with all death penalty supporters in close proximity as witnesses.

Gallstones wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Saw the documentary when it first aired a few years ago. I also clearly remember the guy towards the end when asked what he thought about this painless method virtually said,'what's the point of that?' For me that said everything. He saw the death penalty as a tool of vengeance rather than justice. Torture rather than simple expedient execution. It's been said already, what if you get the wrong one? Killing the wrong guy is murder. Painfully killing the wrong guy is murder with the added unnecessary twist of intentional torture. That is no better than the very perpetrators these people want to "punish" in the first place.
Maybe Bill has it right. People who want this barbaric practice to continue put their lives on the line. Any time an innocent person is found to have been executed, someone off the list of supporters gets picked at random to be killed in the same manner and their worldly goods given to the innocent party's family in compensation.
There's no reason to avoid signing up for it surely, the death penalty is never served on the innocent right?

There must be something wrong with my reading comprehension but your solution to the execution of an "innocent" person reads just like vengeance and pay back.

monkeyboy wrote:

Gallstones wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Saw the documentary when it first aired a few years ago. I also clearly remember the guy towards the end when asked what he thought about this painless method virtually said,'what's the point of that?' For me that said everything. He saw the death penalty as a tool of vengeance rather than justice. Torture rather than simple expedient execution. It's been said already, what if you get the wrong one? Killing the wrong guy is murder. Painfully killing the wrong guy is murder with the added unnecessary twist of intentional torture. That is no better than the very perpetrators these people want to "punish" in the first place.
Maybe Bill has it right. People who want this barbaric practice to continue put their lives on the line. Any time an innocent person is found to have been executed, someone off the list of supporters gets picked at random to be killed in the same manner and their worldly goods given to the innocent party's family in compensation.
There's no reason to avoid signing up for it surely, the death penalty is never served on the innocent right?

There must be something wrong with my reading comprehension but your solution to the execution of an "innocent" person reads just like vengeance and pay back.

No, nothing wrong with your comprehension at all. The moot difference though, is the advocates of the entire death penalty system are the ones who get to experience their own system should it be found to be at fault. Maybe as the lottery machine winds up after the first miscarriage of justice is exposed and the first compensatory victim is selected, some of them might stop to consider what a fucked up system of "justice" they have been supporting.
Of course, I couldn't advocate this idea beyond a hypothetical exercise for the very reasons I don't condone the death penalty in the first place but maybe if this sort of idea was suggested as a means of making people think a little more about what it might mean to have one of their family executed due to a "mistake", there might be some merit to it.

Gallstones wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote:... A mor humane way would be if the exectutee chose the method.

I'd go with that. I'd choose a thermonuclear explosion, with all death penalty supporters in close proximity as witnesses.

Another wish for torture and vengeance on people just because they hold a certain POV that the author doesn't like.
Wow, what superior morals on display today.

chairman bill wrote:

Gallstones wrote:

chairman bill wrote:
I'd go with that. I'd choose a thermonuclear explosion, with all death penalty supporters in close proximity as witnesses.

Another wish for torture and vengeance on people just because they hold a certain POV that the author doesn't like.
Wow, what superior morals on display today.

Oh fuck off. Your terminal sense of humour failure is getting tiresome.

Gallstones wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Gallstones wrote:

There must be something wrong with my reading comprehension but your solution to the execution of an "innocent" person reads just like vengeance and pay back.

No, nothing wrong with your comprehension at all. The moot difference though, is the advocates of the entire death penalty system are the ones who get to experience their own system should it be found to be at fault. Maybe as the lottery machine winds up after the first miscarriage of justice is exposed and the first compensatory victim is selected, some of them might stop to consider what a fucked up system of "justice" they have been supporting.
Of course, I couldn't advocate this idea beyond a hypothetical exercise for the very reasons I don't condone the death penalty in the first place but maybe if this sort of idea was suggested as a means of making people think a little more about what it might mean to have one of their family executed due to a "mistake", there might be some merit to it.

And when there is no mistake?