Because the guy dying might die from AIDS. :|
Isn't the person in an induced coma when they do it?
This is all stuff I remember from a newspaper article I read a while ago, so feel free to dismiss it if you have an actual source for contradictory information.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Because the guy dying might die from AIDS. :|
No. They're paralyzed with one drug before injected with the killing drug. If they're only injected with the killing drug, they writhe around, but people are arguing that the paralysis drug is very painful. They leave a pretty corpse, but die in agony. I think there's a third drug injected first, but I can't remember what it is.
This is all stuff I remember from a newspaper article I read a while ago, so feel free to dismiss it if you have an actual source for contradictory information.
I thought they injected them with a coma-inducer first, then one to shut down their lungs, then one to stop their heart.
Feh. You're probably right. At any rate.... if you did something to deserve the death penalty in the first place....
Then again, I think as a civilization it's probably best for everyone if they just don't have it at all and try to set the best example they can all around.
That's an extremely utilitarianist way of thinking and I don't agree with it. I mean, would you think the same way if your mother or brother or son was about to be executed for a crime they didn't commit? That's the problem with the ends justifying the means.... the scales won't always be in our favour.
If re-enslaving every black person in the United States(less than 5% of the population) would make the lives of the whites far easier, would you say the same?
And heck, what if it were the non-human animals with their fingers on the button? They could wipe out 6 billion people and save a few dozen times that in the animals we wipe out every year, but would it be worth it?
I don't think prison overcrowding is as bad as you think. Executing every rapist and murderer we can may seem good in the small picture, but overall, I think we should be doing as much as we can to be as civil as possible without comprimising public safety.
I split off the posts and made a new thread because this was getting a bit off-topic.
In last postI suggest if you want we carry this on in it's own thread before we take this one off topic too much
I split off the posts and made a new thread because this was getting a bit off-topic.
That's like me saying the same thing for you. A rapist goes to prison. They decide that the death penalty is wrong. 25 years later he gets out of prison. He rapes your mother or sister or 10 other girls.
was it still worth not executing him when they had the chance?
No , That's not the same thing. That's making life a little easier NOT saving lives or stopping people getting hurt.
ProjectX2 said:I, personally, support the death penalty, but only in the most extreme cases.
TwilightEL said:I think the death penalty should only be used in cases where it's very clear that the criminal in question will never, ever be a benefit to society.
They obviously committed heinous crimes--beyond murder, beyond rape. There is no doubt that they did it. They will never hold down a steady job or contribute to society. Their mind is so twisted that they are simply incapable of providing any happiness to anyone, except by dying. They won't repent or heal. They'll never do anything of any value, no matter how small.
Rape and torture a dozen people to death in your basement and wear their skin? Nothing will ever, ever make up for that. Kill 'em in as humane a method as possible. Abuse a child whose life was entrusted to you in ways no humane person could think of? That's it, you're done, the end.
No, but by no means am I saying that a crime like rape, first-degree murder or paedophilia should get anything else than a life sentence without parole.
I'd definitely rather someone like that be executed than ever let out of prison.