Ohio lethal injection takes 2 hours, 10 tries

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm against capital punishment but on the other hand, waah waaaah, dey hurt da wittle murdewer, waah. Was there a comfy cushion for his ass while they tried to find a vein?

I see it differently.
The worse they are, the more clearly it illustrates how wrong murder is and that is what we become by murdering them.... we just become what they are.

Killers? NOT!
Killing a guy strapped to a bed or chair is murder... in no possible universe can that be construed as self-defense, what a joke!!!
"OH GOD! He blinked at MEEEEEEEE!!!"

[xoxoxoBruce]

It has nothing to do with self defense. All that kill are killers. There are different kinds of killers... murderer is one of those kinds. Executioner is another, as is euthanizer, and soldier.
Oh, don't forget gun owner and woman scorned.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I see it differently.
The worse they are, the more clearly it illustrates how wrong murder is and that is what we become by murdering them.... we just become what they are.

Life in a concrete box or death. The only difference is time. And we aren't just like they are. They killed an innocent. We killed a killer.

Right, we murdered a murderer, making us one too.
Thanks for making my point.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Thanks for making my point.

I think I made a distinction that constitutes a separate point. But don't let that stop you from giving yourself a self-awarded, self-congratulatory pat on the back of yourself.

[DanaC]

Quite aside from the moral question, I have always had a slight difficulty with the idea of the state having the right to inflict death upon one of its citizens. There are too many variables and unsafe convictions to say without shadow of a doubt, that all those executed were guilty of the crimes for which they died. Any one of us could be falsely accused of a crime, we'd just need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Personally I think its barbaric. It degrades the society that allows it, in my opinion. This is why the majority of civilised, liberal democracies have abandoned it as a measure.

[Aliantha]

Hmmm...I'll just wait for the flame wars after that last few sentances. lol

[DanaC]

:P

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Quite aside from the moral question, I have always had a slight difficulty with the idea of the state having the right to inflict death upon one of its citizens.

I would switch huge for slight. When the State authorizes killing, what it is doing is cracking the door to uncivilized behavior. Sometimes killing is in self-defense and is necessary. If someone invades your home or your country it becomes necessary. To kill for revenge or because someone might be a threat, introduces uncivilized behavior to a civilization which may be more fragile than we acknowlege. Whenever the State authorizes killing it sanctifies it and lowers the threshhold of acceptable violence. A cop recently suggested to a friend of mine that he take "care" of a situation himself, my friend didn't find this acceptable. A President of mine recently crossed the line and so men are being trained to believe its ok to kill because they're in a war-zone. Eventually they will come back to civilization many of them changed, having moved or erased that line between acceptable and unacceptable violence.

[lizzymahoney]

Originally Posted by Griff

A cop recently suggested to a friend of mine that he take "care" of a situation himself, my friend didn't find this acceptable.

I'm not gratified to learn that this is not particular to Florida.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It usually takes three tries for me. I have tiny veins that "like to roll," apparently. My record is six.

Same here. And the lovely nurses always joke about it and try to make me feel better by telling me it's a useful trait and my veins are just protecting themselves, while I'm turning green and thinking, blood, omigod they're talking about blood and eventually choke out that I'd rather not know.

To the shame of my Mum, who finds it all fascinating and actually watches them do it. I think I was adopted.

[Flint]

First, if there is a .000~01 percent chance that an innocent person is wrongly executed,
then we are condoning the execution of innocent persons .000~01 percent of the time.

Next, I believe that the state-sanctioned execution of one innocent person is not acceptable.

Finally, we know that our system cannot be 100% accurate in establishing a guilty party.

Therefore, by a series of connected, logical points, I cannot support the death penalty.

[jinx]

I completely agree with flint, and yet I see nothing wrong with killing a murderer. So, what do we do?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by jinx

I completely agree with flint, and yet I see nothing wrong with killing a murderer. So, what do we do?

What do we do? Ask ourselves what we hope to gain through the death of a murderer, and then ask ourselves if this outweights what we lose through the death of an innocent person who has been wrongly accused and convicted.

Does the death of 1,000 murderers carry more "value" than the death of one innocent person, executed in error? How many murderers do we have to execute to accrue the "price" of one innocent life? Overall, is there any actual "gain" of any kind we obtain through the execution of a murderer?

If so, would you knowingly pull the trigger and blow one innocent person's brains out, in order to get whatever reward you expect to receive by executing one million murderers?

These are not hypothetical questions.

[jinx]

Ok. Let's say we don't execute any murderers, becuase as you pointed out, the state makes unacceptable mistakes - what do we do with them?