Support NeoGAF

[PsychBat!]

Raped and murdered a pregnant woman and I'm supposed to have sympathy for him? If that were my wife or loved one, I'd pop bottles at his suffering.

Who cares if anyone has sympathy or no sympathy for this guy to see that this is fucked up.

God damn.

 

[SolidsnackooFoxhound]

Let this be an example.

 

[RangerX]

ugh. I'm done.

Exactly which part of my post do you take issue with?

 

[Stet]

What shouldve been his or any other death row inmate's punishment if not death?

Whatever it is, they wouldn't be called death row inmates anymore and that kind of change of self-identification has gotta sting a little.

 

[CountAntonius]

Reading the details:



OK, brief pharmacology info

midazolam is a benzo, same as valium or xanax

hydromorphone is obviously and opiate

So, basically, the same death as someone who shoots up Valium and heroin and ODs.

You are given essentially the same mixture when you get procedures like colonoscopy - obviously lower doses You get midazolam (Verced) and instead of hydromoprhone you usually get Fentanyl.

He was gasping for air because benzo+opiate suppresses respiratory drive, by the time this happens, you would have passed out long ago. So, while it may have looked freaky to onlookers, I can guarantee you 99.999999% that he died completely and utterly pain free.

This is just uneducated public + lawyers trying to score some cash.

This has been stated a ton already but ignored by everyone who has said he died a painful inhumane death. they will probably ignore this too.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Couldn't help but think of the botched (on purpose) execution in the green mile when I read this

Now I'm sad

 

[VistraNorrez]

scenario: what if the victim's family had a choice for this man, life in prison or death penalty. what do you think the family would decide? shouldn't the choice, ultimately come down to the familys wishes? (assuming said criminal is eligible for yhe death penalty)

No, not even remotely. Justice is not about revenge and never should be. People under extreme emotional distress do not make good decisions either. Crimes of passion are one of the many ways people kill in the first place. And crimes of passion are of course not even remotely deterred by the death penalty.

 

[Durask]

This has been stated a ton already but ignored by everyone who has said he died a painful inhumane death. they will probably ignore this too.

I know what's right, do not bother me with your facts!

 

[HappyBivouac]

Exactly which part of my post do you take issue with?

You said something that makes perfect sense, and he's offended because he's realizing that his position is probably in the wrong.

Spoiler

one can only hope

 

[BertramCooper]

It's sad that we as a society can never have a logical conversation about the death penalty because anytime you bring up a specific case, the response is always, "Pssh, that fucking monster deserved it!"

 

[koryuken]

But he killed 2 human beings(if you count the pregnancy)?

I agree, it is terrible what he did.

Should kill him twice though? Maybe we should bring back torture. Murdering him won't bring the victim's back, we are just sinking to his level as a society.

 

[Eppy Thatcher]

Because it's messy?

Most fun things are....

but seriously. A lot cheaper. Take em outside to see the sun one last time and then it's off to the races...

 

[CountAntonius]

It's sad that we as a society can never have a logical conversation about the death penalty because anytime you bring up a specific case, the response is always, "Pssh, that fucking monster deserved it!"

Not everyone says that. Same could also be said about the other side of the fence calling everyone who disagrees with their position "barbaric".

 

[Seeds]

Maybe I didn't explain clearly enough. Wanting him to die at all means you're a bad person. Wishing death on anyone, ever is abhorrent and barbaric.

Seeing it even less now...

Unless you live in a society in which everyone born starts making rational decisions all the time, people who don't deserve to live among others will be born.

 

[koryuken]

This is just lazy, come on. Genocide and ethnic cleansing is not the same as a society implementing laws to punish criminals.

Maybe when it comes to scale, but the ethics of the issue is the same.

 

[fluffydelusions]

I agree, it is terrible what he did.

Should kill him twice though? Maybe we should bring back torture. Murdering him won't bring the victim's back, we are just sinking to his level as a society.

I never said I was in favor of death penalty. See my recent post history

 

[sonicmj1]

Are there people in here in favor of repealing the 8th Amendment so we can do terrible things to those convicted of society's worst crimes? Because it's starting to seem that way.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

It's sad that we as a society can never have a logical conversation about the death penalty because anytime you bring up a specific case, the response is always, "Pssh, that fucking monster deserved it!"

Yes because the dp is only given to a select set of murderers which tend to be the more monstrous of the bunch. Divorcing the punishment from the crime does a disservice to the victims and their families. And to the community.

 

[HappyBivouac]

Not everyone says that. Same could also be said about the other side of the fence calling everyone who disagrees with their position "barbaric".

Well, let's break it down. Both sides of the argument probably agree that life is sacred, something we hold dear as a society. Why do you think there is such a harsh punishment for murder? So, we have an ethical basis for argument: that life is sacred.

Why, then, do we have state-sponsored killing? It makes perfect sense to point out the contradiction in this, and how it is barbaric, does nothing beneficial for society, and results in the wrongful deaths of innocent people.

Admittedly, it is nice when all sides explain their positions, instead of using one-liners. Something I'm a bit guilty of here.

 

[BertramCooper]

Yes because the dp is only given to a select set of murderers which tend to be the more monstrous of the bunch. Divorcing the punishment from the crime does a disservice to the victims and their families. And to the community.

And we've never ever screwed up and executed a wrongfully convicted person. Ever.

 

[koryuken]

And we've never ever screwed up and executed a wrongfully convicted person. Ever.

Or no one notices that most people on death row are of a particular race. Just a coincidence too.

 

[Mononoke]

And we've never ever screwed up and executed a wrongly convicted person. Ever.

At what point can we ever be 100% satisfied someone is guilty enough to be executed? Outside of video that shows the person doing it. I mean even DNA sometimes can be questionable.

 

[Huff]

Exactly which part of my post do you take issue with?

i couldnt care less about your opinion on the dead penalty. but feel free to read any of my previous posts in the thread or three posts above yours.

this was a humane death. he was not in pain. this was not an experiment.

 

[HappyBivouac]

At what point can we ever be 100% satisfied someone is guilty enough to execute? Outside of video that shows the person doing it. I mean even DNA sometimes can be questionable.

So then it logically follows that we probably shouldn't be executing people.

Derp.

i couldnt care less about your opinion on the dead penalty. but feel free to read any of my previous posts in the thread or three posts above yours.

this was a humane death. he was not in pain. this was not an experiment.

The larger argument (and a big part of his post) is whether is the death penalty as a whole is justifiable at all. Did you even read it?

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

And we've never ever screwed up and executed a wrongfully convicted person. Ever.

Ah, well now I see why you are afraid of discussing the details of the actual crime, such as in the instant case instead you have to retreat to this line of argument when you have a dna match and a confession. Yes, let's not worry about those details.

 

[CountAntonius]

Well, let's break it down. Both sides of the argument probably agree that life is sacred, something we hold dear as a society. Why do you think there is such a harsh punishment for murder? So, we have an ethical basis for argument: that life is sacred.

Why, then, do we have state-sponsored killing? It makes perfect sense to point out the contradiction in this, and how it is barbaric, does nothing beneficial for society, and results in the wrongful deaths of innocent people.

Admittedly, it is nice when all sides explain their positions, instead of using one-liners. Something I'm a bit guilty of here.

I think in theory it's a more full proof method of stopping dangerous people from hurting others ever again. In practice it's a flawed, sloppy system that costs too much money and poses to great a risk for those who were found guilty but were not. I'm not against it in theory but in practice is another story. That being said when someone who definitely commitrd a crime is put to death I'm not really opposed to it.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Or no one notices that most people on death row are of a particular race. Just a coincidence too.

Trotting out that line when this guy was a Caucasian? Really?

 

[Orayn]

Ah, well now I see why you are afraid of discussing the details of the actual crime, such as in the instant case instead you have to retreat to this line of argument when you have a dna match and a confession. Yes, let's not worry about those details.

BertramCooper's point is that having the death penalty on the table at all opens up the possibility of executing an innocent person. That fact can easily stand alone as an argument against the death penalty, regardless of why you think any specific person truly deserves it.

 

[Mononoke]

So then it logically follows that we probably shouldn't be executing people.

Derp.



The larger argument (and a big part of his post) is whether is the death penalty as a whole is justifiable at all. Did you even read it?

It was the point I was making lol

 

[HappyBivouac]

Yes because the dp is only given to a select set of murderers which tend to be the more monstrous of the bunch. Divorcing the punishment from the crime does a disservice to the victims and their families. And to the community.

If the death penalty is meant as a "service to the victims and their families," then we're kind of fucked up as a society. State-sponsored revenge is all that is.

 

[Valhelm]

I agree, it is terrible what he did.

Should kill him twice though? Maybe we should bring back torture. Murdering him won't bring the victim's back, we are just sinking to his level as a society.

Should we kill veterans as well, because they've killed people? You seem to operate under the logic that all killing is murder. I don't think very many people agree with that sentiment.

 

[Huff]

The larger argument (and a big part of his post) is whether is the death penalty as a whole is justifiable at all. Did you even read it?

i have no interest in that part of the argument.

but rather the false premise that this execution was botched or that the state was randomly throwing drugs together to kill and torture this guy.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Reading the details:



OK, brief pharmacology info

midazolam is a benzo, same as valium or xanax

hydromorphone is obviously an opiate

So, basically, the same death as someone who shoots up Valium and heroin and ODs.

You are given essentially the same mixture when you get procedures like colonoscopy - obviously lower doses You get midazolam (Verced) and instead of hydromoprhone you usually get Fentanyl.

He was gasping for air because benzo+opiate suppresses respiratory drive, by the time this happens, you would have passed out long ago. So, while it may have looked freaky to onlookers, I can guarantee you 99.999999% that he died completely and utterly pain free.

This is just uneducated public + lawyers trying to score some cash.

What's the one that BURNS LIKE HELL when they inject it into my arm? LMAO. Cause that's happened to me three times I was put under anesthesia. It hurt like hell and as I'm cursing my vision blurs and I'm out like a light.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

What would opponents of the death penalty have in place of it?

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

BertramCooper's point is that having the death penalty on the table at all opens up the possibility of executing an innocent person. That fact can easily stand alone as an argument against the death penalty, regardless of why you think any specific person truly deserves it.

It can, however I view that as a lazy argument particularly when the immediate case involves dna and a last second confession/prayer for mercy.

 

[Mononoke]

What would opponents of the death penalty have in place of it?

Life in prison?

Inb4 debate about cost. The cost of death row is insanely hight itself though. In order to properly carry out a legal execution, the cost is higher than just regular prison. Although I imagine the length of life in prison would bring the cost higher in the end.

 

[Valhelm]

Life in prison?

This solution is actually more cost effective than capitol punishment.

There is no reason for the death penalty other than petty revenge.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

If the death penalty is meant as a "service to the victims and their families," then we're kind of fucked up as a society. State-sponsored revenge is all that is.

have you heard of something called deterrence?
christ

 

[Seeds]

Well, let's break it down. Both sides of the argument probably agree that life is sacred, something we hold dear as a society. Why do you think there is such a harsh punishment for murder? So, we have an ethical basis for argument: that life is sacred.

Why, then, do we have state-sponsored killing? It makes perfect sense to point out the contradiction in this, and how it is barbaric, does nothing beneficial for society, and results in the wrongful deaths of innocent people.

Admittedly, it is nice when all sides explain their positions, instead of using one-liners. Something I'm a bit guilty of here.

Do you really think most agree on that life is sacred? How many people do you think the members here would kill to save the life of their kids? Do you think that the number of people stops at two because the life of two people is more sacred than the life of one?

What we as a soceity agree on is that people have rights, and once you start taking away the rights of other people, you start losing them yourself.

 

[Jenov]

The US needs to implement the Demolition Man version of punishment.

 

[Orayn]

have you heard of something called deterrence?
christ

The death penalty isn't conclusively proven to have a deterrent effect on crime. Plenty of studies on the subject don't show any effect at all.

 

[Professor Beef]

Reading the details:



OK, brief pharmacology info

midazolam is a benzo, same as valium or xanax

hydromorphone is obviously an opiate

So, basically, the same death as someone who shoots up Valium and heroin and ODs.

You are given essentially the same mixture when you get procedures like colonoscopy - obviously lower doses You get midazolam (Verced) and instead of hydromoprhone you usually get Fentanyl.

He was gasping for air because benzo+opiate suppresses respiratory drive, by the time this happens, you would have passed out long ago. So, while it may have looked freaky to onlookers, I can guarantee you 99.999999% that he died completely and utterly pain free.

This is just uneducated public + lawyers trying to score some cash.

Hm, good to know. Thanks for this.

 

[BertramCooper]

It can, however I view that as a lazy argument particularly when the immediate case involves dna and a last second confession/prayer for mercy.

And I can view your argument as myopic.

Just because one execution - or even the overwhelming majority of executions - has been carried out on a rightfully convicted individual does not mean that the institution of capital punishment is not fraught with grievous issues.

As pointed out above, I disagree with this execution because I disagree with the entire concept of capital punishment, for the very simple reason that there's no taking back a wrongful execution. We have wrongfully executed people before, and we will undoubtedly do it again.

 

[Mononoke]

This solution is actually more cost effective than capitol punishment.

There is no reason for the death penalty other than petty revenge.

Yeah I actually edited my post, but you provided actual data. I appreciate that.

Edit: but I was wrong about some stuff .

 

[GungHo]

So if killing someone doesn't actually solve any problems on a societal level, why should anyone support it as a societal policy?

Because vengeance feels good, man. God liked it so much, he had to reset the calendar to get over it. I wish that was just a troll response, and I'm an atheist, so not actually supporting theology here... But for some reason, humans are really into this shit.

Let this be an example.

An example of what? That the state can fuck up? Yeah, that works.

 

[Loofy]

Dont think anyone here minds when terrorists are killed, not sure who made the rule that citizens cant be any worst than Osama.

 

[VistraNorrez]

have you heard of something called deterrence?
christ

Passion, profit, compulsion are the reasons people kill. The Death Penalty does nothing to deter any of those.

You can look at statistics of states that have the dealth penalty and their murder rate. For instance my home state of New Jersey has no death penalty, our murder rate was 4.4 in 2012. Louisiana, a Death Penalty state, had a murder rate of 10.8 in 2012. Louisiana is actually the highest and NJ is about in the middle, so it's a bit unfair, but it goes to show you, DP doesn't deter murder.

Check out here for more info: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Here's my favorite fact from that site: "For 2012, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.7"

 

[Sutton Dagger]

It can, however I view that as a lazy argument particularly when the immediate case involves dna and a last second confession/prayer for mercy.

The lazy argument is simply saying 'well this guy was definitely guilty'. What do you think about those who have been executed who have later been found innocent? Take your argument to its logical conclusion, innocent people can and do die, is that justified though considering you'll still get your revenge on a percentage of the inmates?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Dont think anyone here minds when terrorists are killed, not sure who made the rule that citizens cant be any worst than Osama.

Who said I support the execution of terrorists, why are you setting up a straw man?

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

And I can view your argument as myopic.

Just because one execution - or even the overwhelming majority of executions - has been carried out on a rightfully convicted individual does not mean that the institution of capital punishment is not fraught with grievous issues.

As pointed out above, I disagree with this execution because I disagree with the entire concept of capital punishment, for the very simple reason that there's no taking back a wrongful execution. We have wrongfully executed people before, and we will undoubtedly do it again.

Myopic because I am focusing on the specifics of the case of the thread? I think you are afraid to actually think about the specifics of what this person did because deep down you know there is only one solution to a person like this and that scares you. It's easier for you to hide behind generalities than to deal with reality.