His daughter probably cares, no?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lawyer says Ohio killer's execution botched; took over 20 minutes for man to die
- Thread starter XiaNaphryz
- Start date
- Status
His daughter probably cares, no?
It's probably reasonable to say that "National Research Council. Deterrence and the Death Penalty . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012" accurately summarizes the state of death penalty deterrence research.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13363
Although that may suggest that the current research can not rule out deterrence, it does make it much more likely that either there is no deterrence or there is very little.
e: changed citation to suggested
And the part where he also confessed to the crime?
The United States and the combination of bullets and rope does NOT have a very good history of a fair process of justice.
Confessions can be forced.
You literally did.
But what qualifies as certainty beyond a doubt can differ between two people, and can thus differ between two sets of juries.
It does not matter what you or I think about a case, only the jury matters, and if one group of people is more easily convinced of someone's guilt (even by a small margin, just enough to remove the tiniest sliver of doubt for them) than say some other group that might have been selected for the jury instead, then the verdict is partly up to chance, leaving room open for doubt.
I'd argue that the lack of empathy from the general public as a side effect of widespread mistreatment of the incarcerated (and ex-cons) is an even worse consequence.
See: People in this thread
Honestly most of this thread is going off the rails, the main issue I have is still the state attorney's statement. The state should be an impartial party in the matter, to rehabilitate, punish or otherwise to the letter of the law. The state shouldn't have some vindictive stance on the matter... leave that to the general public.
And do you think that happened in this case?
Also, OP, did you edit your original post to remove the part about the confirmatory DNA test and letter confession?
The traditional cocktail has some similar issues, but they're experimenting with new drugs because of supply issues.
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/26/241011316/lacking-lethal-injection-drugs-states-find-untested-backups
The lord loves a hangin. That's why he gave us necks...
shinobi602
Member
Only physical facts should be considered evidence, and I don't think those are subjective. Facts shouldnt differ among two people.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
That is pretty sucky. Fuggin' drug injections.
Shotgun to the head just above the ear is messy, but at least it's 99.99% fool-proof. Really hard to mess up that one.
Then again, I don't really trust judge and jury with killing someone. But if it is true and this killer is guilty of what he did, I don't care if he suffered. Still, I'd prefer it to be peaceful and quick. I wouldnt be in it for the satisfaction of killing a scumbag murderer.
Shotgun to the head just above the ear is messy, but at least it's 99.99% fool-proof. Really hard to mess up that one.
Then again, I don't really trust judge and jury with killing someone. But if it is true and this killer is guilty of what he did, I don't care if he suffered. Still, I'd prefer it to be peaceful and quick. I wouldnt be in it for the satisfaction of killing a scumbag murderer.
I hate the idea that society winds up footing the bill to keep monsters alive. I think it's China that executes these sorts of criminals and bills the family for the bullet, though I'm not sure if this is still practiced. My biggest issue with capital punishment is this, however:
Human error is inevitable, and I'd rather a hundred monsters be locked up in a cell for life than to see them buried with a single innocent.
That comes with the territory of having a justice system implemented at the level of society, rather than blood feuds between acquaintances.
I don't know for sure, but I can't guarantee it didn't occur, either. In this case, the most I could agree with is life imprisonment. I cannot justify killing someone.
This way, if it does come to light that the convicted was innocent, we can still apologize and set them free.
Any system that kills "for sure" convicted persons will always end up killing innocent people. The desire to keep the innocent alive outweighs making sure you "got" those one or two that truly did it.
Thanks for this. This is a very interesting conclusion by the study. I'm going to make an account on the site and see if I can read it.
So you'd rather keep a convicted murderer on the taxpayer dime at $100,000 a year, plus feed him 3 meals a day?
The guy brutally stabbed a pregnant woman to death, killing her unborn child in the process.
In BC, we had a convicted child serial killer be kept around for almost 30+ years because we have no death penalty. Not only did he apply for parole several times, but he started to also receive old age pension while in jail too because he was entitled to it as a senior.
It depends on how people interpret the physical evidence and how it's presented to them.
You wanna volunteer to be the one to shoot a man and then mop up the floor? Because if it's not you, than someone else is going to have to deal with the trauma of shooting him and cleaning up the mess.
You do realise that it's more expensive to execute a convicted felon, right? Those appeals and retrials aren't cheap.
I think that's one of the 3 popular stances in this discussion.
No, but if the government has to cling to archaic punishments over rehabilitation then I would prefer that nobody take pleasure in it.
shinobi602
Member
Then something needs to be reformed in the jury system. I'm in no position to begin postulating how to go about that however. Or remove it altogether.
No, here's what we do.
We hold like an auction, highest bidder gets to do it. I'm sure there's more than enough people willing to kill a man for a price. Not only do we get rid of the shithead cheaply, we profit from it!
There's going to be people here that genuinely think this is a good idea, and this makes me sad 
I don't normally follow the logic an eye for an eye, but when a defendant has been convicted of 1st degree murder, I believe that the person should be put on death row.
According to the Federal Register :
If a 28 year old convicted murderer is sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and dies at the age of 68 (assuming he isn't shanked), that prisoner would have cost taxpayers $1,161,098.40 in forty years. It is a lot of money to keep a very violent prisoner incarcerated. The amount of money saved could go to other needs in the U.S. like feeding the hunger, education, improving the economy, or other necessities the country needs.
I know I am going to get a backlash at this, but I just feel that a person who takes one, two, three or more innocent lives should not be able to live.
According to the Federal Register :
If a 28 year old convicted murderer is sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and dies at the age of 68 (assuming he isn't shanked), that prisoner would have cost taxpayers $1,161,098.40 in forty years. It is a lot of money to keep a very violent prisoner incarcerated. The amount of money saved could go to other needs in the U.S. like feeding the hunger, education, improving the economy, or other necessities the country needs.
I know I am going to get a backlash at this, but I just feel that a person who takes one, two, three or more innocent lives should not be able to live.
I want to know if the man really did suffer or if the lawyer is saying he did. Taking the sedative midazolam and the painkiller hydromorphone intravenously, I really doubt he was feeling much pain at all, or that his brain was even registering what was happening to his body. Depends on the dosage, but he'd be out of it pretty much instantly depending on the dosage.
Oh right, there's never been a murder in prison before. Other inmates and guards are perfectly safe.
CountAntonius
Member
Am I the only one who finds a life time of imprisonment more barbaric and inhumane than the death penalty?
People against the death penalty seem to be so against treating people inhumanly and revenge but what the hell is 60 years rotting away in a cell? I guess I don't understand their logic.
People against the death penalty seem to be so against treating people inhumanly and revenge but what the hell is 60 years rotting away in a cell? I guess I don't understand their logic.
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." - Fyodor Dostoevsky
We are just barbaric animals.
Money is more important than a human life? The barbarian is strong in you.
We are just barbaric animals.
Money is more important than a human life? The barbarian is strong in you.
How do you rehabilitate someone who has no qualms about raping and murdering a woman?
Neither are parole hearings, clemency applications and a whole bunch of other issues that waste time and money, but must be allowed for all offenders. Not to mention how many are straight up assholes and how it revictimizes family members who have to speak against such people.
CountAntonius
Member
More importantly I think most would agree life in prison would be the way to go in this crime. So how is that even rehabilitation? It's still revenge.
The death penalty always costs more though.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/
How dare you have complex opinions on a complex issue.
There's no logic. Some people just get warm fuzzies because they've arbitrarily decided that life rotting away in a cell is dignified and A-OK, but the death penalty is somehow barbaric. And it's entirely selfish.
Abinash117
Member
Sutton Dagger
Member
That's the whole problem with your position, by the very nature of our legal system and evidence an 100% rate of convicting the guilty only is untenable. In the mean time until we reach this utopian idea of the legal system, you're supporting a system that we know is not anywhere near this ideal.
soul creator
Member
I get that people support the death penalty. I just hope that those that support it don't think it's actually solving anything, and realize that you support a government policy purely based on what's essentially gut feelings, vengeance, and bloodlust.
That's cool, and those are obviously very human emotions, especially with such a controversial topic...but I just hope people know what it is they're actually feeling.
That's cool, and those are obviously very human emotions, especially with such a controversial topic...but I just hope people know what it is they're actually feeling.
It's either a jury of the people, or its not. Accepting that a jury of people is preferable, we also have to accept that people are flawed and imprecise and susceptible to emotions no matter how hard we try not to be.
Therefore, I feel, it is impossible to be 100% certain of anything no matter how ironclad the evidence might be. The thought of any person being sentenced to death makes me ill, but even more so knowing the socially accepted (and often times praised) conditions that the decision was made under.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest evidentiary standard there is in the legal system. This means you shouldn't convict someone if you have doubt that they did it. Even if this doubt is slight. The jury decides verdict and they should decide it without any doubt to his guilt. Of course, back then there wasn't any DNA testing or forensics that could pinpoint the right guy, but now everything is covered in semen and DNA is everywhere. In case you guys didn't get that, it is a reference from Superbad.
CountAntonius
Member
Yeah I just never understood it. I guess it's the fact that death is irreversible if an innocent man is found guilty but most of them don't bring up that point and say it's an humanitarian thing.
So what is lifetime imprisonment?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked