Support NeoGAF

[Random Painted HIghway]

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?

I'm speaking in regards to the case of this topic not all executions in modern history.

 

[pompidu]

Of course not. How moronic. That would be a system that encourages a revenge mentality.

As I said before, a good justice system exists for the betterment and safety of society as a whole, not to satisfy people's barbaric "feelings." Promoting revenge makes society worse off, not better.

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.

but that criminal is already set to face the death penalty anyway. why not give the option then? in this case Im sure the victims could argue to the courts to sentence the man for life in prison and not the chair(no idea if something like that is possible).

 

[Sutton Dagger]

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.

I'm speaking in regards to the case of this topic not all executions in modern history.

Actually you are the one not dealing with reality, as the reality of the situation is that innocent people can and are put to death, that is the issue. It's not about this particular case, it's about every case. Having the death penalty on the table results in innocent people losing their lives, as such the bloodlust and revenge motives that sentences a guilty man to death, also sentences innocent people.

 

[Zhengi]

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.

Why would you kill veterans? That is also government sponsored killing.

 

[baphomet]

He deserved far worse than 20 minutes of agonizing death.

 

[Huff]

He deserved far worse than 20 minutes of agonizing death.

well he actually got zero minutes of agonizing death

 

[Valhelm]

Why would you kill veterans? That is also government sponsored killing.

The poster I replied believed that there is no difference between the death penalty and cold-blooded murder. While I don't support capital punishment, I completely disagree.

There are more than a few circumstances in which it can be acceptable to kill a person.

 

[Mononoke]

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?

I don't even know how people can reconcile this with themselves. How anyone involved, can look at themselves in the mirror and not feel like they murdered someone. I know someone will say, well it was an accident. They thought they were serving justice, therefore it's not as bad as someone outright murdering an innocent person.

But jesus. Someone's life was taken from them. And that's not even putting into perspective the hell they went through prior to being executed. The time they spent in jail, and on death row. Or that, they ended up dying knowing that their reputation was smeared, and falsely accused for doing something heinous. Truly terrible.

I just can't even...

For the record, I'm not 100% against killing someone. As I said in another thread, I think if someone is trying to kill you, it's okay to kill that person if it's your only option. I am by no means a pacifist, and accept that sometimes violence is the only solution. But it's hard for me to entirely justify the death penalty. I understand why people support it. I get why family's that have their loved one taken from them, feel it's justice to have the killer lose their life too (because their loved one wasn't afforded to live their life, so why should their killer).

But it's the fact that we can be wrong, that makes me against it. I feel like even one innocent life taken by accident in this process is too much.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

have you heard of something called deterrence?
christ

Is the threat of execution by the state really the thing stopping you from committing murder?

 

[BraXzy]

It is a bit messed up but it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who did something like that. I'm certainly not going to cry over the murderer of a pregnant woman..

 

[IcyBlueStrawberry]

I don't agree with the death penalty in the first place, but this is ridiculous.

I don't feel sorry for him at all, but if the government insists on killing people they should at least go about it in a civilized manner.

 

[empty vessel]

He deserved far worse than 20 minutes of agonizing death.

You believe in torturing people who commit crimes?

 

[Zhengi]

I don't agree with the death penalty in the first place, but this is ridiculous.

I don't feel sorry for him at all, but if the government insists on killing people they should at least go about it in a civilized manner.

How was it uncivilized? The guy most likely felt no pain at all.

 

[daw840]

You believe in torturing people who commit crimes?

Depends on what you (or he) considers torture.

 

[empty vessel]

Depends on what you (or he) considers torture.

The needless infliction of pain. Or if you don't want to consider that "torture," I can just ask if he believes in the needless infliction of pain to people who commit crimes.

 

[baphomet]

You believe in torturing people who commit crimes?

Who murder in cold blood? Yes i do.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Sounds like an awesome case of good old karma. Fuck him.

Also, executed so early in the morning? Damn.

 

[daw840]

The needless infliction of pain. Or if you don't want to consider that "torture," I can just ask if he believes in the needless infliction of pain to people who commit crimes.

Do you believe this person felt pain? I really don't....probably just muscle spasms really. With the amount of opioids he was given he was probably completely pain free.

 

[empty vessel]

Do you believe this person felt pain? I really don't....probably just muscle spasms really. With the amount of opioids he was given he was probably completely pain free.

I'm not talking about this case, just responding to a particular sentiment that was expressed.

 

[daw840]

I'm not talking about this case, just responding to a particular sentiment that was expressed.

Fair enough. Though "pain" is a pretty subjective term. Do you think it causes pain to be incarcerated?

 

[Valnen]

You believe in torturing people who commit crimes?

I don't believe someone that would rape and murder an innocent person should be considered a person at all. Takes a subhuman monster to do something like that.

 

[soul creator]

It solves what it supposed to solve. Murderers no longer murdering people. The same way life in prison does. As for what it doesn't do "It doesn't lower murder/rape/etc. rates. It doesn't save taxpayer money. It doesn't "solve" anything in society (which, again, is what government policies are in theory supposed to be about)" Pretty sure life in prison doesn't achieve any of that either.

Yes, life in prison and the death penalty "solve" the issue of keeping a murderer from murdering anyone else.

But it just so happens that the death penalty introduces a whole bunch of other drawbacks, and life imprisonment at the very least allows for things like wrongly imprisoned people to get some semblance of their life back.

So, if one wanted to pick the better government policy of the two...

If there was a way to make it accident and corruption proof, make it painless, quick and more efficient when it comes to cost I would think in some circumstances it should be an option.

As it stands now? I think it's a clumsy system which is why I voted on California Proposition 34 in 2012 to make death penalty cases become life imprisonment with no parole. In my mind these are both equally barbaric, and both can be vengeance fueled actions. They are meant to be punishments and neither is very humane.

So we agree, since death penalty has flaws that life imprisonment doesn't have, but both accomplish the same goals, it would be pretty strange for someone to still support the death penalty...right? Why would someone still want to support the government killing someone, if we already admit that it's way more flawed than the other option?

Hurm.

edit: Is it a fair assessment to say that pro death penalty folks tend to focus on gut feelings on individual cases ("what a monster, how could we let this guy live!") as opposed to the anti death penalty folks who are looking at as a matter of public policy, and all that it entails?

posts like this seem to indicate that.

I don't believe someone that would rape and murder an innocent person should be considered a person at all. Takes a subhuman monster to do something like that.

I get why people have these types of feelings. Hell, I have those same exact feelings too sometimes. I don't think there's anything even necessarily "wrong" with these types of feelings. I just don't think it should be matter of official state policy.

 

[CountAntonius]

Yes, life in prison and the death penalty "solve" the issue of keeping a murderer from murdering anyone else.

But it just so happens that the death penalty introduces a whole bunch of other drawbacks, and life imprisonment at the very least allows for things like wrongly imprisoned people to get some semblance of their life back.

So, if one wanted to pick the better government policy of the two...



So we agree, since death penalty has flaws that life imprisonment doesn't have, but both accomplish the same goals, it would be pretty strange for someone to still support the death penalty...right? Why would someone still want to support the government killing someone, if we already admit that it's way more flawed than the other option?

Hurm.

Because there are some individual cases where their guilt is not in question and in those circumstances the death penalty does a better job of insuring that these people can no longer hurt anyone. Ever. Like I've stated before I am not for it in it's current form but I am for it in theory which certain individuals I just think the way it is done now leaves too many openings for mistakes and corruption.

 

[Mononoke]

Because there are some individual cases where their guilt is not in question and in those circumstances the death penalty does a better job of insuring that these people can no longer hurt anyone. Ever. Like I've stated before I am not for it in it's current form but I am for it in theory which certain individuals I just think the way it is done now leaves too many openings for mistakes and corruption.

I mean, are you talking about these people breaking out of jail? Or killing other inmates in jail? Typically, doesn't life in jail prevent these monsters from hurting people again?

I guess certain organized crime, people can still make moves while in jail. I still feel like these would be rare occasions?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Because there are some individual cases where their guilt is not in question and in those circumstances the death penalty does a better job of insuring that these people can no longer hurt anyone. Ever. Like I've stated before I am not for it in it's current form but I am for it in theory which certain individuals I just think the way it is done now leaves too many openings for mistakes and corruption.

The very nature of evidence means we can never be 100% certain about anything, the notion of only supporting it if we're 100% certain is not a reality.

 

[RELIGHT]

Not really upset about this. Better than be stoned to death.

 

[empty vessel]

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

Regardless of the validity of the rest of your post, I can assure you that no lawyer can "score some cash" from this. You are as uneducated about law and courts as you think people are about pharmacology.

 

[CountAntonius]

I mean, are you talking about these people breaking out of jail? Or killing other inmates in jail? Typically, doesn't life in jail prevent these monsters from hurting people again?

I guess certain organized crime, people can still make moves while in jail. I still feel like these would be rare occasions?

The very nature of evidence means we can never be 100% certain about anything, the notion of only supporting it if we're 100% certain is not a reality.

I guess it depends on the opinion of the individual whether or not the death penalty is worse than life in prison. I see them both as options but one more final. My one qualm about the death penalty is the way people are found guilty can leave a lot of doubt. But there are individual cases where there is no doubt about the crime and who did it. Anders Breivik being one of them. But legislation can't pick and choose and it's hard to draw the line between hard evidence and fact so when it comes to vote again I will vote for life imprisonment but not cause I feel it's unethical but because I feel the system is flawed. Again I am not "for" but I just feel this debate was better served with actual conversation and not one off posts of people attacking one another.

 

[rokkerkory]

If there was a way that we could 100%, positively, no doubts conclude that someone is guilty for murder, then I would accept death penalty. I don't really care how it's done either.

But currently, we aren't at 100%.

 

[Abinash117]

And locking someone in a cage for decades isn't?

Guess so, ask the people that doesn't support the death penalty , but support life sentences. I really don't know why either all I did was just answer your question because that is how some people view the death penalty .

Depends on what you (or he) considers torture.

http://www.irct.org/what-is-torture/defining-torture.aspx there's a excerpt of what is considered torture by the UN and here's one of what is considered by the US http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
I think the key word would be intentionally. Since the substances are meant to kill him and it did they can say it wasn't for torture if they(whomever carried it out) ever go to court for it. The 20 minutes of pain probably was "unintentionally" . Now I believe it was stupid to use a experimental injection, but I think why they did that way would possibly be that maybe in that state it was illegal to use other forms of execution and the guy had to do die on that day I guess. Maybe they could have delayed his execution.

 

[Takuan]

If there was a way that we could 100%, positively, no doubts conclude that someone is guilty for murder, then I would accept death penalty. I don't really care how it's done either.

But currently, we aren't at 100%.

As long as humans are involved in the process, we never will be. Human error or corruption will always make me think twice.

 

[HappyBivouac]

Guess so, ask the people that doesn't support the death penalty , but support life sentences. I really don't know why either all I did was just answer your question because that is how some people view the death penalty .

The main difference for a lot of people between the death penalty and life in prison, is that if someone is later found to be innocent, imprisonment is reversible, and death... not so much.

 

[nastybastard]

I'm a fence sitter on the death penalty but lets make it a bullet in the head and the governor that signs the death warrant has to do it.

 

[Huff]

http://www.irct.org/what-is-torture/defining-torture.aspx[/url] there's a excerpt of what is considered torture by the UN and here's one of what is considered by the US http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
I think the key word would be intentionally. Since the substances are meant to kill him and it did they can say it wasn't for torture if they(whomever carried it out) ever go to court for it. The 20 minutes of pain probably was "unintentionally" . Now I believe it was stupid to use a experimental injection, but I think why they did that way would possibly be that maybe in that state it was illegal to use other forms of execution and the guy had to do die on that day I guess. Maybe they could have delayed his execution.

this dude was not in pain. these are widely known drugs used all the time.

 

[Zee-Row]

His victim didn't have a choice to die in a humane way. i feel no sympathy at all.

 

[Dead Man]

The main difference for a lot of people between the death penalty and life in prison, is that if someone is later found to be innocent, imprisonment is reversible, and death... not so much.

Indeed. Even if I had no other qualms with the death penalty, until you can guarantee that no innocent person will ever be killed you are not going have my support for it.

His victim didn't have a choice to die in a humane way. i feel no sympathy at all.

So the state being reduced to his level is something you are okay with? Cool.

 

[Zee-Row]

Indeed. Even if I had no other qualms with the death penalty, until you can guarantee that no innocent person will ever be killed you are not going have my support for it.



So the state being reduced to his level is something you are okay with? Cool.

My Mother was murdered too , until its happened to you you'll have no idea what real pain is.

 

[Omega]

it's funny how GAF is regarding this.

You see a story like girls in India getting raped and GAF is all for "cruel" punishment but when this actually happens it's somehow a bad thing.

 

[Dead Man]

My Mother was murdered too , until its happened to you you'll have no idea what real pain is.

Sorry to hear that. However, you know nothing about me at all. So just fuck right off with that self righteous you know nothing horse shit. Come up with an actual rebuttal or shut the fuck up.

it's funny how GAF is regarding this.

You see a story like girls in India getting raped and GAF is all for "cruel" punishment but when this actually happens it's somehow a bad thing.

Who was for cruel punishments then and is against it now? Or could it be that you are conflating separate posters into some homogeneous unit that doesn't actually exist?

 

[soul creator]

Sorry to hear that. However, you know nothing about me at all. So just fuck right off with that self righteous you know nothing horse shit. Come up with an actual rebuttal or shut the fuck up.

what a great avatar/post combo, haha

 

[Tekniqs]

can't say i feel sympathy for him. heinous crime /shrug

 

[Zee-Row]

Sorry to hear that. However, you know nothing about me at all. So just fuck right off with that self righteous you know nothing horse shit. Come up with an actual rebuttal or shut the fuck up.

I'm not going to shut the fuck up because all murderers deserve to die as slow as possible and if it were up to me i would take care of the guy that killed my mother myself if i could get away with it.

That may sound brutal to you but that's how I feel , this whole pacifist mentality personally sickens me.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm not going to shut the fuck up because all murderers deserve to die as slow as possible and if it were up to me i would take care of the guy that killed my mother myself if i could get away with it.

That may sound brutal to you but that's how I feel , this whole pacifist mentality personally sickens me.

This whole pacifist mentality sickens you? And you want all people convicted of murder to die as slowly as possible? The pacifist mentality of not treating people as badly as they have treated people? And you think it is admirable to want to torture people? You don't see the problem there?

 

[zoukka]

So he suffered a tiny fraction of the pain he inflicted on the pregnant woman? I'm having trouble drawing up any pity.

Is hammurab the current president in USA?

 

[Dai101]

Is hammurab the current president in USA?

Well his name sounds middle eastern..ish so .......

 

[smokeandmirrors]

That may sound brutal to you but that's how I feel , this whole pacifist mentality personally sickens me.

Pacifist Mentality? Your barbarism sickens me.

 

[LowEndTorque]

The United States is literally the only "civilized" Western nation on the planet that still uses the death penalty. In the good company of countries like China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Iran.

 

[HappyBivouac]

it's funny how GAF is regarding this.

You see a story like girls in India getting raped and GAF is all for "cruel" punishment but when this actually happens it's somehow a bad thing.

You do know that "GAF" is composed of quite a few different people, with quite a few different values, beliefs, and opinions, don't you?

Did that not occur to you, dude?

 

[CountAntonius]

The United States is literally the only "civilized" Western nation on the planet that still uses the death penalty. In the good company of countries like China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Iran.

Japan hangs people.

 

[Durask]

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.

If it was white milky stuff then it would have been propofol. It shouldn't burn though.

Maybe you are just sensitive to IV fluids in general?