Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lethal injection should be accomplished by means of barbiturates or opiates. Barbiturates are used to initially knock the prisoner out. I'm also curious why other means haven't been considered, though.  KCl will certainly kill you in a high enough concentration, but surely there are better ways of incapacitating prisoners beforehand. I would still favor "narcotics + smashed head" to absolutely kill 100% of the time without pain. I imagine a couple syringes of concentrated heroin or a suitable application of fentanyl would render the condemned dead rather effectively. I don't believe it is right to inflict suffering on defenseless people in any circumstance. I believe in the death penalty, but that is should be as painless and humane as is possible, something the current injection regime is not. Opiates or excessive barbiturates are ideal. Even a combination of them. Ask their victims about inflicting suffering. Two wrongs don't make a right. You know I was reading this thread and chanting 'I-am-in-favor-of-the-death-penalty' when you dropped this logic bomb on me. How come I never thought of this before?!  Two wrongs don't make a right!  Duhh!

I am also in favor of the death penalty. I don't think you read everything you ought to have, or alternatively, understood what you read.

ETA Page 3 claimed for Truth (about deterrence) Justice (imposing the death penalty on those who deserve it) Liberty (the constitutional ban on cruel punishment) and the American Way (doing what is right in spite of strong emotions)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I believe in the death penalty, but that is should be as painless and humane as is possible, something the current injection regime is not. I hope lethal injection hurts like hell. An excruciating, burning, stabbing, suffocating pain, just like the pain the assholes inflicted on their victims, on the victims' families, and on society in general that had to pay the costs of incarcerating their worthless asses for how many years until justice could be served. They should consider any pain they experience in their execution as society saying "FUCK YOU" one last time as they begin their journey to hell for all eternity. Are their other constitutional amendments that you feel we should trample and ignore because of your strong emotions, or just this one? And how is it that death penalty can be humane? Really, how is killing someone humane? BTW--It's called the DEATH PENALTY for a reason. It's not the death sweepstakes or the death lottery or the death jackpot. Nowhere does the 8th Amendment say it's supposed to be painless.

Killing someone is humane if you minimize the pain involved in actually killing them.

We have an extremely simple, cheap, painless and effective way of killing the condemned called "barbiturate overdose" and "opiate overdose."

There is no motivation besides inflicting suffering for using a more complicated, expensive and painful method. Doing something for the sake of hurting someone is cruelty, and the constitution forbids cruel punishment.

Strong emotions might make you want to hurt people who do bad things, but the proper role of the government is to take their lives, not to torment them needlessly while they are defenseless.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Surely you can understand that the death penalty does not deter criminals who don't think they'll be caught, or else haven't thought through the ramifications of being caught. The hell it's not a deterent... Scumbag will NEVER cause problems in prison..or murder while in prison....Scumbag will NEVER get out of prison and go back to a life of crime...because he is ....wait for it....DEAD Besides, we don't have to spend money feeding and clothing scumbag for 20-30 years...or even the rest of his life. Don't give me the argument about legal fees and court costs...if we streamlined the execution process...we wouldn't have to worry about that nonsense. You seem to be confused about what "deterrent' means, and also about what I wrote. I never gave you that argument. What are you talking about and purporting to respond to? The death penalty deters offenders from re-offending... Simply because the offenders are not available to re-offend.

No, the death penalty prevents offenders from re-offending. We are talking about a different idea though, the idea of deterrence, which means something different from what you're saying.

Although what you said is cute, it isn't precise or true, and is nothing more than a cop-out in an argument about whether the death penalty deters crime.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lethal injection should be accomplished by means of barbiturates or opiates. Barbiturates are used to initially knock the prisoner out. I'm also curious why other means haven't been considered, though.  KCl will certainly kill you in a high enough concentration, but surely there are better ways of incapacitating prisoners beforehand. I would still favor "narcotics + smashed head" to absolutely kill 100% of the time without pain. I imagine a couple syringes of concentrated heroin or a suitable application of fentanyl would render the condemned dead rather effectively. I don't believe it is right to inflict suffering on defenseless people in any circumstance. I believe in the death penalty, but that is should be as painless and humane as is possible, something the current injection regime is not. Opiates or excessive barbiturates are ideal. Even a combination of them. If it's "painless and humane" it loses its usefulness as a deterrent. When bastards knew they'd end up dancing on air for a murder conviction, there were far fewer murderers. A short drop and quick stop is also ecologically sound. That isn't true. Surely you can understand that the death penalty does not deter criminals who don't think they'll be caught, or else haven't thought through the ramifications of being caught. For all the things capital punishment is (such as just and right) it is *not* a deterrent for crimes like murder and that argument is doomed to failure.

How do you explain lower violent crime rates than the US has, in countries who's justice system is harsher than ours, then??? You're flat out wrong - but don't want to admit it...



 - georgestrings

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lethal injection should be accomplished by means of barbiturates or opiates. Barbiturates are used to initially knock the prisoner out. I'm also curious why other means haven't been considered, though.  KCl will certainly kill you in a high enough concentration, but surely there are better ways of incapacitating prisoners beforehand. I would still favor "narcotics + smashed head" to absolutely kill 100% of the time without pain. I imagine a couple syringes of concentrated heroin or a suitable application of fentanyl would render the condemned dead rather effectively. I don't believe it is right to inflict suffering on defenseless people in any circumstance. I believe in the death penalty, but that is should be as painless and humane as is possible, something the current injection regime is not. Opiates or excessive barbiturates are ideal. Even a combination of them. If it's "painless and humane" it loses its usefulness as a deterrent. When bastards knew they'd end up dancing on air for a murder conviction, there were far fewer murderers. A short drop and quick stop is also ecologically sound. That isn't true. Surely you can understand that the death penalty does not deter criminals who don't think they'll be caught, or else haven't thought through the ramifications of being caught. For all the things capital punishment is (such as just and right) it is *not* a deterrent for crimes like murder and that argument is doomed to failure. How do you explain lower violent crime rates than the US has, in countries who's justice system is harsher than ours, then??? You're flat out wrong - but don't want to admit it...  - georgestrings

Or lower violent crime rates than the US in countries whose justice systems are more lenient than ours.

Here is a list of countries' murders per capita. Some of the ones with more murders are much more harsh than the US, some with fewer are much less harsh.

The conclusion that we can reasonably draw from these facts is that the death penalty is probably not instrumental in preventing murder, because there is no clear correlation between imposing the death penalty for murder and the amount of murders committed per capita.  Do you agree or disagree, georgestrings, and why?

Remember, so as not to say anything foolish as others have, that I support the death penalty.

#1     Colombia:   0.617847 per 1,000 people  
#2   South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people  
#3   Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people  
#4   Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people  
#5   Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people  
#6   Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people  
#7   Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people  
#8   Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people  
#9   Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people  
#10   Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people  
#11   Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people  
#12   Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people  
#13   Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people  
#14   Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people  
#15   Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people  
#16   Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people  
#17   Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people  
#18   Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people  
#19   Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people  
#20   Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people  
#21   Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people  
#22   Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people  
#23   Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people  
#24   United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people  
#25   Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people  
#26   India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people  
#27   Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people  
#28   Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people  
#29   Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people  
#30   Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people  
#31   Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people  
#32   Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people  
#33   Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people  
#34   Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people  
#35   Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people  
#36   Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people  
#37   Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people  
#38   Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people  
#39   Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people  
#40   France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people  
#41   Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people  
#42   Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people  
#43   Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people  
#44   Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people  
#45   Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people  
#46   United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people  
#47   Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people  
#48   Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people  
#49   Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people  
#50   Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people  
#51   Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people  
#52   New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people  
#53   Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people  
#54   Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people  
#55   Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people  
#56   Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people  
#57   Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people  
#58   Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people  
#59   Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people  
#60   Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people  
#61   Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people  
#62   Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought this thread was about using K-Y during lethal injections.  How wrong I was. I thought the same. Read my above post. KY is only for meat injections, and even then that is a luxury.

they used Neosporin at the jail i worked at dumb fuckers figured it would help reduce STDs too

Quoted: Killing someone is humane if you minimize the pain involved in actually killing them.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Just like euthanitizing a dog? Perhaps this helps you keep your strong emotions in check.

Strong emotions might make you want to hurt people who do bad things, but the proper role of the government is to take their lives, not to torment them needlessly while they are defenseless.

Or perhaps strong emotions may make you want to elevate the comfort of convicted murderers over the rights of the victims and the victims families.

On the issue of torment, it seems to me that the government does this all the time with life sentences. How better to torment someone that to tell them that they will be locked in a cage for the remainder of their natural lives without the possibility of parole? What about prisons like Supermax, that was designed to isolate and cause the mental deterioration of its inmates? Is this not torment by the government while the inmates are defenseless? Would you feel better if the convicts were not defenseless but were instead giving a "sporting chance"? Perhaps you are a Gladiator fan, eh?

Quoted: Simple hanging by the neck until dead has been good enough for millennia, and it's good enough now.

+1
It's an effective and painless method when used correctly. I'm also a fan of the guilloutine.

Inject air - no cost ....................

BTW, does this method really work?????

How about a stick of dynamite taped to the back of the head .......... light the fuse or detinate via electricity ...... bang ............. painless ............

Quoted: Quoted: Killing someone is humane if you minimize the pain involved in actually killing them. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Just like euthanitizing a dog? Perhaps this helps you keep your strong emotions in check. Strong emotions might make you want to hurt people who do bad things, but the proper role of the government is to take their lives, not to torment them needlessly while they are defenseless.   Or perhaps strong emotions may make you want to elevate the comfort of convicted murderers over the rights of the victims and the victims families. On the issue of torment, it seems to me that the government does this all the time with life sentences. How better to torment someone that to tell them that they will be locked in a cage for the remainder of their natural lives without the possibility of parole? What about prisons like Supermax, that was designed to isolate and cause the mental deterioration of its inmates? Is this not torment by the government while the inmates are defenseless? Would you feel better if the convicts were not defenseless but were instead giving a "sporting chance"? Perhaps you are a Gladiator fan, eh?

That's incorrect.

A firm moral and ethical conviction against harming defenseless people is a constraint on unreasonable, emotional barbarism.

The fact remains that the simplest, most reliable, cheapest and at the same time ethical means of executing condemned criminals is to give them a strong overdose of barbiturates and / or opiates.

As far as imprisoning people, the effect of the punishment is to take away their freedom, to do justice for their having infringed upon the freedoms of others.

I don't think prisons should be designed especially to torment prisoners unnecessarily. A prisoner can come to terms with the fact that he is jailed for life, many seem to. The punishment is not inflicting suffering, but depriving freedom, just like capital punishment is not inflicting suffering, but rather depriving life.

Quoted: That's incorrect. A firm moral and ethical conviction against harming defenseless people is a constraint on unreasonable, emotional barbarism.

That is some pretty good Zen, but I have no idea what this means with regard to the topic we are discussing. Do you have strong emotions with regard to maintaining this position?

The fact remains that the simplest, most reliable, cheapest and at the same time ethical means of executing condemned criminals is to give them a strong overdose of barbiturates and / or opiates.

This may be true. Nowhere have I engaged you on this issue of the most inexpensive way of ending the life of a criminal. However, you do seem to have strong feelings about this point. Is this personal knowledge you have regarding such drugs? Further, what possible evidence could you have to indicate that the US criminal justice system has even the slightest notion of economics? Each convicted felon is guaranteed appeals by state-appointed lawyers. Many appeals go on for two decades. All the while, society must foot the bill for housing and feeding the felon while he awaits his appointment with justice. To think after all this that the US would try to save a few bucks on the lethal injection cocktail that ends the criminal's life is really off base.  

As far as imprisoning people, the effect of the punishment is to take away their freedom, to do justice for their having infringed upon the freedoms of others.

Interesting. However, the "effect of the punishment" will in most cases only torment the person being incarcerated. I would expect that it would be very difficult for your to reconcile this with your "it shouldn't hurt" mindset. Maybe you would rather have these murderers come and live on a street near you.

I don't think prisons should be designed especially to torment prisoners unnecessarily. A prisoner can come to terms with the fact that he is jailed for life, many seem to. The punishment is not inflicting suffering, but depriving freedom, just like capital punishment is not inflicting suffering, but rather depriving life.

I doubt is most of the Supermax tenants would agree with you. Ask Robert Hansen, Richard Reid and the rest. Again, I fail to see how being locked in a cage for the remainder of your natural life could be anything but torment.

Quoted: Quoted: That's incorrect. A firm moral and ethical conviction against harming defenseless people is a constraint on unreasonable, emotional barbarism. That is some pretty good Zen, but I have no idea what this means with regard to the topic we are discussing. Do you have strong emotions with regard to maintaining this position? The fact remains that the simplest, most reliable, cheapest and at the same time ethical means of executing condemned criminals is to give them a strong overdose of barbiturates and / or opiates. This may be true. Nowhere have I engaged you on this issue of the most inexpensive way of ending the life of a criminal. However, you do seem to have strong feelings about this point. Is this personal knowledge you have regarding such drugs? Further, what possible evidence could you have to indicate that the US criminal justice system has even the slightest notion of economics? Each convicted felon is guaranteed appeals by state-appointed lawyers. Many appeals go on for two decades. All the while, society must foot the bill for housing and feeding the felon while he awaits his appointment with justice. To think after all this that the US would try to save a few bucks on the lethal injection cocktail that ends the criminal's life is really off base.   As far as imprisoning people, the effect of the punishment is to take away their freedom, to do justice for their having infringed upon the freedoms of others. Interesting. However, the "effect of the punishment" will in most cases only torment the person being incarcerated. I would expect that it would be very difficult for your to reconcile this with your "it shouldn't hurt" mindset. Maybe you would rather have these murderers come and live on a street near you. I don't think prisons should be designed especially to torment prisoners unnecessarily. A prisoner can come to terms with the fact that he is jailed for life, many seem to. The punishment is not inflicting suffering, but depriving freedom, just like capital punishment is not inflicting suffering, but rather depriving life. I doubt is most of the Supermax tenants would agree with you. Ask Robert Hansen, Richard Reid and the rest. Again, I fail to see how being locked in a cage for the remainder of your natural life could be anything but torment.

1) I wouldn't call it zen... It is particularly germane to the topic because the topic is the method of execution used in the USA. I've given my opinions on the topic and given the reasons I hold those opinions. To wit, that there is no good reason to use any method of execution other than barbiturate/opiate overdose, on the grounds that it is the maximally ethical and at the same time cheap, reliable and simple.

2) The point of highlighting its cost-effectiveness is to point out the fact that it would not create extra financial burden, and might instead lower the cost of execution.

3) A person will probably suffer as a result of being deprived his freedom, but the just aim of punishment, in my opinion, is not to make the person suffer, but just to take away his freedom. This is different from punishing someone by beating him or maiming him, which aims to cause suffering.

We should avoid unnecessarily painful methods of execution for the same reason that we should avoid beating jail inmates or scalding them with hot water, or making them sleep on barbed wire, or any other unnecessary infliction of cruelty.

Lastly, my mindset isn't that "it shouldn't hurt," but that it shouldn't hurt more than is reasonably necessary. Keeping people locked up and under control necessitates violence sometimes and other hazards to them, but as long as the aim is keeping them locked up and not hurting them out of cruelty, it is perfectly reasonable that it 'hurts some.'

To restate the same point I've made several times in the thread already, opiate/barbiturate overdose is the best method of execution because it is not only perfectly ethical and humane, but also cost effective and reliable.  

No one has been able to argue against it so far except by recourse to cruelty - unnecessary infliction of pain - which is expressly forbidden in the constitution and also immoral.