Ohio lethal injection takes 2 hours, 10 tries
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/25/ohio.execution.ap/index.html
Capitol punishment is barbaric and just makes murderers of us all.
Executions get botched every now and again.
There weren't "ten tries" to execute him ... it took ten attempts to establish an IV line. BIG difference. Guy was a junkie, and they couldn't get a decent vein. Might be a good idea to consider a PICC instead of just an IV, but that's a surgical procedure and requires that an xray be taken to establish correct placement of the line.
Would have been nice had the fellow thought murder was barbaric before he beat and killed his cellmate in an argument over a chess game.
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?
Clarification: this man was not said to be an intravenous drug user. That reference was to the previous 'botched' execution of another prisoner where they could not establish an IV line.
This man was larger than usual and that was the reason the line was difficult to establish.
Also consider that most health professionals accustomed to putting in IVs would not participate in an execution. Totally my guess here, but it probably is done by a military trained field medic rather than a practicing medical specialist. There would have to be a doctor to certify the death and oversee the injections, but the doc is nowhere near the condemned man. That person is in a separate room.
A PICC is probably too invasive, being an order of magnitude more involved than a simple IV lock.
Can you tell I'm in a death penalty state? ugh.
what is so strange is that anyone cares that a PICC is too invasive. Dude, the guy is toast---who cares if its invasive?? He's not going to die of an infection.
I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. I always feel bad for the person being executed and then I read what they did to their victim(s) and wonder what took the state so long to ice them. It's one of "those" issues.
Clarification: this man was not said to be an intravenous drug user. That reference was to the previous 'botched' execution of another prisoner where they could not establish an IV line.
This man was larger than usual and that was the reason the line was difficult to establish.
I misread the article. Thanks for pointing this out. Even so, 265 pounds is not that fat.
I would doubt that some sort of a field medic, whether military or paramedic, was the one to establish an IV line.
Rule of thumb ... doctor = 10 tries, no starts.
Medic = 1 try, one start, while in the back of an ambulance doing 45 mph over potholes, with lots of turns. There was a line in an episode of Saved that made me laugh, because it's so true ... "Give me 10 seconds of smooth," because that's really all they need.
At VA I've poked till I say that's it. Go get an IV nurse. I try to let them have 3 shots, but not if they miss by inches.
I am against capital punishment but the way we run prisons today is very inefficient.
Manuel labor and community service is much better for punishment and they put something back to the community instead of just taking more in the form of taxes.
It could be easily avoided, along with the expense, by just stoning them. Stones are reusable.
Capitol punishment is barbaric and just makes murderers of us all.
No, not murders, killers.
Ten tries?
Just shove the damn needle into his aorta.
Ten tries. Scoff.
It usually takes three tries for me. I have tiny veins that "like to roll," apparently. My record is six.
I fully support it. Fast track em...
It usually takes three tries for me. I have tiny veins that "like to roll," apparently. My record is six.
Ah Ha. I knew you were a slippery devil.
<sigh> Okay, for those of us who don't understand the protocols in a lethal injection execution, the wikipedia article is pretty basic. Even gives a line about why the needles used are sterile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection
It's not like people haven't thought about these things before. It is a very carefully considered and designed system that does not thoroughly please anyone.
Pro or con, any US execution will have to withstand scrutiny for any cruel and unusual punishment. We are currently not in a police state. These are our basic rights here. Yours and mine as well as the condemned.
You may not like that the prisoner is guaranteed an expeditious end, but understand there are innocent but interested people who MUST be witness to the execution. There will be a member of the press from the county where the crimes were commited and one from the county where the trial was held, both to testify that justice was done. There will be family and friends of the condemned as well as family and friends of the victims. Certain dignitaries will be included to represent both sides of the political issue of execution, as well as some interested parties that have previously petitioned to observe this particular execution. I think the only people that have to be there are the one or two members of the press and an observing physician.
Ten sticks would not be an unusual number for a large person with the layers of subcutaneous fat that can easily be acquired on the Death Row diet and exercise regimen.
There are two sites: bilateral arms. Only one arm? Then most likely a leg will be the back up site. They have to have a back up site to proceed.
Most licensed or certified nurses of any level, doctors of any degree or field, Physician's Assistants, etc., will refuse to participate in an execution. One, it's gross. Two, it's a very touchy subject. Three, the chamber is a long ways from civilization usually, often an hour or more drive from the nearest sizable city. Four, the job does not pay well. It's not specifically against most standards of practice, but is ethically questionable. What the prison is often seeking for a job candidate is someone who is willing to risk career and is having a hard time finding other employment. Not the case with the jobs I've mentioned. The doctor observing is on retainer and does not have to get dirty by actually doing any of the things that bring about death. Doc is only there to observe, then listen to the heart and sign the death certificate.
The person inserting the cannulas will be a prison employee, not a jobber like the doc. Usually male, usually accustomed to working with Death Row inmates, and he could possibly be the prison nurse. This person would have to be vetted by the facility. It would not be someone hired for the day. Anyone who is not keeping up with IV skills could have problems when performing under close scrutiny.
I don't have a stake in this. I have a philosophical interest. I am a little more acquainted with Death Row routines and executions because I have an acquaintance on Death Row and an ex who will witness that execution as an impartial member of the press.
It is a very carefully considered and designed system that does not thoroughly please anyone.
YES, that's the American way...whatta country.
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!!!"
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.
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.
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.:rolleyes:
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.
Hmmm...I'll just wait for the flame wars after that last few sentances. lol
Quite aside from the moral question, I have always had a [COLOR="Red"]slight[/COLOR] 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.
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.
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.
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.
I completely agree with flint, and yet I see nothing wrong with killing a murderer. So, what do we do?
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.
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?
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?
As regards the question of whether capital punishment is morally justified, that is a non sequitur.
...unless "inconvenience" is a justification for the state-sanctioned execution of innocent human beings.
Yeah. But, but. the bible says.
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.
Yes they are, because you are missing the point of execution.
It has nothing to do with revenge, payback, even the score or balancing the scale.
When the courts have determined that a person is not, and will not, be allowed back into society because they pose a danger to the population, then they are separated from society permanently. Murdering someone is only one of the reasons to be found a danger to society.
What point would there be to run the risk, or the expense, of keeping this person in prison? They will never be an asset, always a liability.
That was their choice, when they found they couldn't be compatible where they were, they chose to become a problem rather than finding some place they could be compatible.
Discarding liabilities is good practice.
The courts are not 100% perfect, so some percentage of the people we execute will be innocent.
Simple question: what do we gain to justify the death of those innocents? What is "worth" an innocent death?
Does it really make that much difference to them to be in maximum security?
What about the ones that say, "Yeah, I did it and would rather die then be locked up. Would you honor their wishes?
Poor fella, should have had 20 false starts and each time told him, "fake!", "Ok, not really, we are going to kill you", "fake!", "well not this time." "Fake!"
Over and over till you spring it on him.
What about the ones that say, "Yeah, I did it and would rather die then be locked up. Would you honor their wishes?
Mailer, Executioner's Song...
A little long, but a WONDERFUL book.
Yeah. But, but. the bible says.
Funny, as always, two different things and neither of them matter any more than what Sponge Bob says.
It has nothing to do with revenge, payback, even the score or balancing the scale.
When the courts have determined that a person is not, and will not, be allowed back into society because they pose a danger to the population, then they are separated from society permanently.
Does it really make that much difference to them to be in maximum security?
What about the ones that say, "Yeah, I did it and would rather die then be locked up. Would you honor their wishes?
These questions
appear to deviate from the stated goal of separating them from society, and enter the realm of execution as punishment.
I don't know what their preference would be, however I do know that if we choose to execute individuals based on the outcome of a system that isn't 100% infallible, then there will be some percentage of innocent people wrongly executed by the state, with our consent. Can you disagree?
Either we can ignore that reality, or we can state that it is acceptable as a trade-off for something. What that "something" is is what I am asking you.
What is the price of one innocent human life? What can we get in return for knowingly executing an anonymous human being, that will make it okay?
You must know the answer, since you support doing so.
Justice is not vengeance. Vengeance is not justice.
Oh, and the ones that asked to be killed would be requesting a "suicide by state" - a variation of "suicide by cop" that differs by being completely avoidable (not a split-second reaction). It really has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate, unless we are discussing killing as punishment.
Of course it does. You said you don't want executions because we might fry an innocent person, if I understand your position.
So, I asked about situation where making a mistake is not an issue. If you still don't want to execute, even though he requested it, then your argument is not the accidental frying an innocent. It's personal belief, moral position, whatever, it's how you feel.
These questions appear to deviate from the stated goal of separating them from society, and enter the realm of execution as punishment.
Not at all, just a more practical way than locking them up with the related hassles for the next 40/50/60 years. Nothing to do with being punitive.
I don't know what their preference would be, however I do know that if we choose to execute individuals based on the outcome of a system that isn't 100% infallible, then there will be some percentage of innocent people wrongly executed by the state, with our consent. Can you disagree?
Either we can ignore that reality, or we can state that it is acceptable as a trade-off for something. What that "something" is is what I am asking you.
What is the price of one innocent human life? What can we get in return for knowingly executing an anonymous human being, that will make it okay?
You must know the answer, since you support doing so.
There's no perfect system. How many people did your hospital kill last year? Did the hospital close because they might kill someone? At least stop all elective procedures. Should we replace all stairs with ramps so those thousands of people don't die? Damn near anything we do, including getting out of bed is statistically more dangerous, than the risk of being falsely executed.
Remember the alternative is not fields of clover and bucolic afternoons, it's being Big Bubba's bitch for the rest of their life.
There's no perfect system. How many people did your hospital kill last year? Did the hospital close because they might kill someone?
Hospitals serve a purpose in society, but carry risks as well. I'm convinced that by default we should have hospitals despite the risks. I'm not convinced that by default, we should execute criminals. I think the default is
not killing people, unless a reasonable justification can be supplied. I'm still waiting to hear that justification.
Nothing to do with being punitive.
The specific reason I said that your questions appear punitive in nature is that you were asking about the criminals preference, IE which would they prefer: death or jail. That is not a question about what serves society, it's a question about what punishes the criminal more harshly. Do you understand how I might get that impression?
Not at all, just a more practical way than locking them up with the related hassles for the next 40/50/60 years.
I ask again: is "convenience" a reason for state-sanctioned executions, even knowing that innocents might die with your consent?
So, I asked about situation where making a mistake is not an issue.
I disagree. You asked this (a "GOTCHA" hypothetical):
What about the ones that say, "Yeah, I did it and would rather die then be locked up. Would you honor their wishes?
Your scenario, applied to reality, necessitates a system where the state has the power to issue state-assisted suicides. We aren't debating assisted suicide, we're debating capital punishment.
The criminals wish to be executed (or not) does
not factor into capital punishment.
And, to be specific, a "confession/request-to-die" does
not create a situation where
all doubt is removed.
This hypothetical creates a scenario that is exponentially
more complex,
when you apply it to reality.
If you still don't want to execute, even though he requested it, then your argument is not the accidental frying an innocent. It's personal belief, moral position, whatever, it's how you feel.
Wrong. My position is based in
IRON-CLAD LOGIC. I repeat:
With a .000~01 percent chance that an innocent person is wrongly executed, we are condoning the execution of innocent persons .000~01 percent of the time.
I
know that the system isn't infallible, and I
don't support the state-sanctioned execution of innocent persons; therefore, by a series of connected, logical points, I
cannot support the death penalty.
Either you disagree that the system is imperfect, or you think that innocent deaths are acceptable. Those are the only options.No it is not.
Yes it is so.
Only in your world, and homey don't play dat.
Explain specifically how you disagree. Elaborate at will. Go ahead. Shoot me down.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.
An imperfect system is inevitable
Deaths of innocents is inevitable
We can only do what the elected representatives of the people will do, because to do otherwise would lead to more imperfection and more innocent deaths.
An imperfect system is inevitable
Deaths of innocents is inevitable
We can only do what the elected representatives of the people will do, because to do otherwise would lead to more imperfection and more innocent deaths.
An imperfect system is inevitable, but luckily the death sentence is not the
default option. You have to
consciously decide that innocent deaths are a jutifiable trade-off, for...well for whatever it is you think the death sentence accomplishes. Which is...?
Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.
Hey man, I respect you for coming right out and saying what you think. There's something to be said for being able to state a clear position.
Explain specifically how you disagree. Elaborate at will. Go ahead. Shoot me down.
Shoot you down? You've made up your mind, with your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC", that I only have two choices. I reject that notion. Your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC" may limit your thinking, but not mine.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.
While I agree it's a cheaper and more practical option than housing them for 60 years, the idea that it's punishment went out with sword fighting and knickers.
Almost 200 hundred years ago, in Philadelphia, the legal/criminal justice community started to change their thinking from the old world 'draw & quarter' them for revenge and an example to others. They decided they didn't want to become what they had rejected in Europe. It didn't take very long for that position to become accepted.
While I agree that the public is divided, with some feeling it's punishment/revenge/pay back, that's not the official position of the legal/criminal justice community. Since they are running the show, their's is reality while yours and mine are only opinions. That's why we aren't allowed to lynch people, they hate competition.
Personally, the only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth, and the ultimate rut is a cell.
And Wesley Cook (Mumia Abu Jamal) is guilty as hell.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.
Clearly advocating murdering lots of innocents... thanks for clarifying what you
want.
Clearly advocating murdering lots of innocents...
Clearly proving that would be a big task on your part. "Lots" is at best an overstatement. "Murdering" would be your
opinion, nothing less.
So, you feel they are about to kill you at any minute from their cage, so you must protect yourself LOL!?
The burden of proof is on you since you are so hot to trot to murder them before their appeals are up & spend as many tax payer dollars as possible, murdering them being so much more expensive than keeping them alive.
So, you feel they are about to kill you at any minute from their cage, so you must protect yourself LOL!?
The burden of proof is on you since you are so hot to trot to murder them before their appeals are up & spend as many tax payer dollars as possible, murdering them being so much more expensive than keeping them alive.
Who is being murdered? They are being
punished by society for heinous acts. Who says they are dying before their appeals are up? Pretty clear to me. Yea, but basically it is a cost benefit ratio.
...You've made up your mind, with your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC", that I only have two choices. I reject that notion. Your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC" may limit your thinking, but not mine.
Logic "
limits your thinking" to what is actually possible. Think of this as a flowchart:
- Do you believe that the judicial system is 100% infallible?
If
Yes: You have not "
limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).
If
No: Then you must acknowledge the possibility that people will be wrongly convicted/sentenced/executed.
- Do you support the state-sanctioned execution of innocent human beings?
If
Yes: You must
consciously accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty.
If
No: You do
not accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty. You cannot support the Death Penalty.
If
No, BUT you SUPPORT the Death Penalty: You have not "
limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).
Either you disagree that the system is imperfect, or you think that innocent deaths are acceptable. Those are the only options.
Are you familiar with the term Cognitive Dissonance?
Shoot you down? You've made up your mind, with your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC", that I only have two choices. I reject that notion.
What are the third and fourth choices?
Who is being murdered? They are being punished by society for heinous acts. Who says they are dying before their appeals are up? Pretty clear to me. Yea, but basically it is a cost benefit ratio.
The human beings who are being murdered.
If you kill someone for any reason other than immediate self-defense, it is murder.
You can dehumanize them all you want, but murdering innocents is not cost effective.
Once it becomes clear it has happened your state will be liable and should have to pay the family of the murdered victim millions because assholes supported state-sanctioned murder because they wanted to feel powerful and cool and for NO OTHER REASON.
Punished implies you are teaching them something, if one is murdered, they have learned nothing... your bulb is petty dim these days.
The human beings who are being murdered.
If you kill someone for any reason other than immediate self-defense, it is murder.
You can dehumanize them all you want, but murdering innocents is not cost effective.
Once it becomes clear it has happened your state will be liable and should have to pay the family of the murdered victim millions because assholes supported state-sanctioned murder because they wanted to feel powerful and cool and for NO OTHER REASON.
Punished implies you are teaching them something, if one is murdered, they have learned nothing... your bulb is petty dim these days.
Dim is better than off IMHO. "Murder" as you would call it is
your opinion. Nothing more.
Punishment is the death penalty. It is not "murder". It is not to set an example. It is the ultimate form of punishment. Capital
Punishment.
You go ahead with your murderous ranting... done with you. You just want to see people killed and could care less who they are.
You go ahead with your murderous ranting... done with you. You just want to see people killed and could care less who they are.
(double post)
You go ahead with your murderous ranting... done with you. You just want to see people killed and could care less who they are.
More opinion. And you are welcome to it. As I am mine.:rolleyes:
Punishment is the death penalty. It is not "murder". It is not to set an example. It is the ultimate form of punishment. Capital Punishment.
Seems to me you're putting them out of their misery. Let's see, endure years of being butt-fucked in the mouth, or get a shot so you can drift peacefully away?
Totally callous joke, but there are those who would say death is not a punishment.
we could solve this with a 30 cent bullet
Does it really make that much difference to them to be in maximum security?
What about the ones that say, "Yeah, I did it and would rather die then be locked up. Would you honor their wishes?
You could slip them a razor and then later wonder where it came from....
Are you familiar with the term Cognitive Dissonance?
Yes, but that's your problem.
Everyone executed has been proven guilty by the legal system. Saying the legal system can't be 100% perfect does not mean the must be executing innocent people. If they are in your state then do something about it. I'm comfortable with mine.
Bruce is right, it just says there will be a chance that you will execute an innocent person, not that you will. We probably wouldn't know if we executed an innocent person anyways.
I am against captial punishment because I don't see the need of killing someone. Let them perform community service and manuel labor for the rest of their lives, it will at least be useful.
Bruce is right, it just says there will be a chance that you will execute an innocent person, not that you will. We probably wouldn't know if we executed an innocent person anyways.
I am against captial punishment because I don't see the need of killing someone. Let them perform community service and manuel labor for the rest of their lives, it will at least be useful.
Nice comfy thought but I don't think I want guys on death row doing community service.
Everyone executed has been proven guilty by the legal system.
Saying the legal system can't be 100% perfect does not mean the must be executing innocent people.
Oh, Bruce. The possibility exists that an innocent person could be executed.
Point-Blank Question: Do you agree?
Yes or
No?
If they are in your state then do something about it. I'm comfortable with mine.
Going on the offensive, huh? Nice.
Nice comfy thought but I don't think I want guys on death row doing community service.
Well, certain community servicies.
I was thinking more on the lines of cleaning up communities and making it look nicer, writing books for kids, making music, and giving speeches at schools to help avoid the path that they took. The personal community service is obviously off-limits.
Bruce is right, it just says there will be a chance that you will execute an innocent person, not that you will.
We probably wouldn't know if we executed an innocent person anyways.
You don't have to tell me "Bruce is right" - he just repeated what I've been saying that all along.
The fact that we wouldn't specifically know an innocent person was executed doesn't mean it couldn't happen, or render it "okay" via anonymity.
I skipped through the middle part because it looked like you were going over the same thing.
I thought you said that it was inevitable that we would kill an innocent person and I disagreed with that. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Well, certain community servicies.
I was thinking more on the lines of cleaning up communities and making it look nicer, writing books for kids, making music, and giving speeches at schools to help avoid the path that they took. The personal community service is obviously off-limits.
Yea, John Wayne Gracy writing kids books, that would be a hit... :D
Oh, Bruce. The possibility exists that an innocent person could be executed. Point-Blank Question: Do you agree? Yes or No?
Fuck your yes or no, you don't tell me my options, I told you that before.
Not everything can be broken down to simple flow charts, in the real world. The real world has too many variables for that.
I don't believe my state is going to execute any innocent people. I said that before, also.
If you have some moral objections to executing criminals, don't do it.
Fuck your yes or no, you don't tell me my options, I told you that before.
What is wrong with the formulation of Flint's question? Is there something misleading about the question itself? Are there more options than yes or no? If so, what are they?
If I accept his yes/no ultimatum, then I'm accepting his whole flow chart. I don't.
Why not? What premise are you objecting to?
the real world is not that simple. If you want to flow chart it, go ahead and get back to me in a hundred years.
Why not? What premise are you objecting to?
The conclusion.
He doesnt like the conclusion, so he has to reject the whole flow. He cant find where the logic doesn't work, so he starts at the top.
I thought you said that it was inevitable that we would kill an innocent person and I disagreed with that. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
No problem. If I mis-worded aything to give you that impression, at any point, I officially retract it and apologize for the misunderstanding.
the real world is not that simple. If you want to flow chart it, go ahead and get back to me in a hundred years.
But what premise is oversimplified? Where is the complication that invalidates the question?
Yea, John Wayne Gracy writing kids books, that would be a hit... :D
I can't give a link but it has been done already and from what I've heard, has been effective as well.
The conclusion.
He doesnt like the conclusion, so he has to reject the whole flow. He cant find where the logic doesn't work, so he starts at the top.
And, to be specific, the conclusion is
NOT that
you shouldn't support the Death Penalty or
the Death Penalty is just plain wrong.
The conclusion is something very specific: the literal conclusion of a simple, logical analysis of known factors. It is not an
opinion or a
feeling.
Saying the legal system, being a system, can not be perfect means anyone supporting the death penalty supports killing innocent people is bullshit.
- Do you believe that the judicial system is 100% infallible?
If Yes: You have not "limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).
If No: Then you must acknowledge the possibility that people will be wrongly convicted/sentenced/executed.
Yes is an option, like it or not. No, does not mean there is a possibility.
First, the legal system deals with more than death penalty cases.
Second, attention and care is allocated by the seriousness of the consequences.
Traffic tickets, you pay or go to court, lose and you have one appeal.
Death penalty cases are long and complicated with many mandatory appeals and reviews, designed to check and correct any mistakes along the way. It would take a bunch of mistakes, unchecked and uncorrected, and that's not happening.
I can make wrong turns on the way to work and still get to the right place.
So no, I don't buy because it's not 100% infallible they are going to execute any innocent people. That is not a given.
- Do you support the state-sanctioned execution of innocent human beings?
If Yes: You must consciously accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty.
No must about it. That's only true if I buy your previous premise and I don't.
If No: You do not accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty. You cannot support the Death Penalty.
That's not true either.
If No, BUT you SUPPORT the Death Penalty: You have not "limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).
Why, because I must accept your logic, you carefully constructed to lead to where you want it to go? No, I believe your logic is flawed. Like many things that make sense when you simplify to a few generalities, but don't actually work in the real world because that's not simple.
You can object to the Death penalty on moral grounds, if you wish, but the basis of executing innocents doesn't pass muster.
Yeah but what if you do kill someone who's innocent?
You can't, the court says they are guilty before they are executed.
They've already gone back and DNA-proved a bunch of people that were executed (mostly in Texas) were innocent...
A court finding someone to be guilty is not the same as them being guilty.
Saying the legal system, being a system, can not be perfect means anyone supporting the death penalty supports killing innocent people is bullshit.
Do you believe that there is a
ZERO PERCENT chance of executing an innocent person:
[SIZE="3"] Yes[/SIZE] or
[SIZE="3"]No[/SIZE]...??? Can you answer this direct question?
They've already gone back and DNA-proved a bunch of people that were executed (mostly in Texas) were innocent...
I don't dispute it has happened, especially in Texas and other places where there is racial tension. What I said was I don't believe PA is going to execute any innocent people and I support the death penalty.
Do you believe that there is a ZERO PERCENT chance of executing an innocent person: [SIZE="3"] Yes[/SIZE] or [SIZE="3"]No[/SIZE]...??? Can you answer this direct question?
I told you I'm not playing that game. I already told you I think your methodology is flawed and why. I've already stated my position in favor of the death penalty and why.
Death penalty cases are long and complicated with many mandatory appeals and reviews, designed to check and correct any mistakes along the way. It would take a bunch of mistakes, unchecked and uncorrected, and that's not happening.
Yes it is. Volunteer groups are continually finding evidence that was missing, ignored, or suppressed during trial and exonerating people who have exhausted their appeals.
Six in PA, just two fewer than Texas. Innocent convicts not lucky enough to get that volunteer attention (or not lucky enough for the real killer to have left DNA evidence, or not lucky enough for any evidence from the trial to have been properly stored, etc.) have been and will continue to be executed.
I told you I'm not playing that game. I already told you I think your methodology is flawed and why. I've already stated my position in favor of the death penalty and why.
"& don't you
dare bring logic into it" LOL!
Yes it is. Volunteer groups are continually finding evidence that was missing, ignored, or suppressed during trial and exonerating people who have exhausted their appeals. Six in PA, just two fewer than Texas. Innocent convicts not lucky enough to get that volunteer attention (or not lucky enough for the real killer to have left DNA evidence, or not lucky enough for any evidence from the trial to have been properly stored, etc.) have been and will continue to be executed.
Not just volunteer groups, the system is reversing convictions too.
Six in PA.
Wilson got a new trial because he didn't have enough black jurors and the state said in the retrial they couldn't go for the death penalty again. Then they did a DNA test that showed there was another person at the crime seen besides him and the multiple victims.
Yarris is a scumbag that should have been executed. He caused his own problems by trying to frame some one else for his own gain, then telling them he was there when he wasn't.
Kimball was freed when they found out someone else could possibly have killed the four people. Not that the person did or Kimball didn't. The system corrected itself.
Nieves case went to the PA Supreme Court being a capital case. They ruled he was not represented properly. The system worked as it should, that's why capital cases are long and involved with all kinds of reviews.
Smith's case was bizarre, with the lead investigator taking money from Joseph Wambaugh, to provide inside information for his novel. Here again, the system corrected itself when the high court stepped in. I still think that sob is guilty.
Ferber was freed when the DA found new evidence shortly after the trial and urged the judge to grant a new trial. The system corrected itself this time by the prosecutors action.
I'm not sure about Wilson, but I don't see any evidence of volunteers in the other cases.
Oh, and none of them were executed even though I think two of them should be.
"& don't you dare bring logic into it" LOL!
Faulty logic.
You can't, the court says they are guilty before they are executed.
The courts have been wrong before and they will be again. That means innocent people have been and will be killed in future thanks to the death penalty.
Aside from my own moral objections which I've stated before so am not going to worry about saying them again.
That's why death penalty cases make repeated trips through the system, by law, Ali.
and still innocent people have been put to death.
Anyway, that's all I want to say about the subject. All due respect to the rest of you, please carry on. :)