Tennessee is sparking up the chair!

[BlueSkiesDad 0]

You do realize that people, for whatever F'd up reason, frequently come in and admit to being the perpetrator of crimes? If they vaguely resemble the actual perpetrator or saw enough on the news before making the claim, it can take a long time to get it sorted out.

What truly amazes me is that the same people who get all holier-than-thou about the US using drone strikes to kill people are somehow for the death penalty. They're both state sponsored killings. I don't think that's a power that they should have.

To whoever blamed the liberals... have you done any actual research on the subject? The biggest reason that states are having problems with lethal executions has to do with the fact that we got the drugs from another country. They decided they didn't like the fact that we were using them to kill people and cut us off. Don't you worry though, we're a resourceful people, we'll find some other crap to use to kill them and the bodies will keep piling up.

Think for yourself. Question authority.

[jclalor 12]

cruelpops

***Your suggestion reminds me of "The Lottery".


Either method chosen, we as a society already pay for it.
The DP costs more. LOTS more.
More so when it's an innocent person.

Explain how a person is "innocent" if they admit the crime.


Not only did Brenton butler confess to a murder, but he also had an eyewitness positive ID him as the shooter.

He was innocent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenton_Butler_case

[cruelpops 0]

Now there's an idea. The military needs training and there are people on death row that need to be executed. So why not let those on death row run around the forests outside Ft. Bragg or wherever and let the military conduct some drone practice. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[jclalor 12]

cruelpops

Now there's an idea. The military needs training and there are people on death row that need to be executed. So why not let those on death row run around the forests outside Ft. Bragg or wherever and let the military conduct some drone practice. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Are you still in high school?

[cruelpops 0]

jclalor

***Now there's an idea. The military needs training and there are people on death row that need to be executed. So why not let those on death row run around the forests outside Ft. Bragg or wherever and let the military conduct some drone practice. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Are you still in high school?

Is that your slight-of-hand attempt to violate Forum Rule #1?

[billvon 2,434]

>The military needs training and there are people on death row that need to be
>executed. So why not let those on death row run around the forests outside Ft.
>Bragg or wherever and let the military conduct some drone practice. Sounds like a
>win-win to me.

Sorry, I made the mistake of taking you seriously. Won't happen again.

Now, how about you use them for dog food? That way dogs could eat them! (Get it? It's humiliating.) Or you could use them to fill in potholes. Not like they shovel asphalt into them, like actually use _them_ to fill in the potholes. Get it? That would be humiliating too because people would be driving over them all the time. And we have to fill in potholes anyway.

[Amazon 7]

cruelpops

Now there's an idea. The military needs training and there are people on death row that need to be executed. So why not let those on death row run around the forests outside Ft. Bragg or wherever and let the military conduct some drone practice. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Do you support health care death panels?

[jclalor 12]

cruelpops

******Now there's an idea. The military needs training and there are people on death row that need to be executed. So why not let those on death row run around the forests outside Ft. Bragg or wherever and let the military conduct some drone practice. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Are you still in high school?

Is that your slight-of-hand attempt to violate Forum Rule #1?

It's an honest to god question. Your response is exactly what I would expect of a stoned teenager, playing on a Sony play station, if he was asked how the capital punishment issue should be handled.

When you sounded baffled that a person who has confessed to a crime could only have ever been found guilty, that was another clue you were young. There's been countless people released from prison based on fake confessions, this should not be news to anyone, with the possible exception of the very young.

You should check out the "The innocence project"

[cruelpops 0]

Since you said it was an "honest to god question"; I will respond to you. You don't seem to be a pompous ass like others in this topic.

At no point in this forum did I demonstrate an attitude as being "...baffled that a person who has confessed to a crime could only have ever been found guilty". I simply posed the following question, "Explain how a person is "innocent" if they admit the crime."

There are many cases where the introduction of DNA testing has proven the innocence of a lot of people that were previously found guilty of crimes. There has also been numerous cases that uncovered unscrupulous practices (e.g. obstruction, withholding evidence, false discovery, etc.) by police officers, prosecuting attorneys and judges. I am very aware of the shortcomings of the legal system.

But there are also many people sitting on death row that have confessed to their crimes. Many have confessed to parole boards and many have confessed to prison officials for the purposes of expediting the "process" to death. If you ever watch Lockup Raw on MSNBC (I believe that is correct channel) - many of those people admit to their crime... unprovoked and in front of a camera.

My point about "drone strikes" is that although it was absurd in its presentation, it was at the very least - staying on topic. Unlike others who are unable to stay on topic; keep their emotions in check and are unable to abstain from making condescending comments towards others.

There is no humanity in capital punishment. While it may not be a popular topic of discussion for family dinner conversation, the practice has covered thousands of years and is a necessary evil.

[freethefly 6]

cruelpops

***>Why does the execution have to be humane?

Because in general we are a humane species, even when it's not required. That's one of the better aspects of humanity.

Perhaps we should engage in a closer examination of the term "humane" and see if it is applicable. According to Mirriam-Webster, they have defined "humane" as marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals.

I take it that you prefer smashing a dog or cat over the head to humanely euthanizing them? Do you enjoy clubbing baby seals? I suspect that you enjoy pulling the wings off of flies and, probably, throwing puppies at brick walls.

We're executing a person that has committed the most heinous crime: murder. Executions are not humane regardless of how you slice it. So essentially you want an execution that is a kinder, more gentle death.

Ya... sounds good.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Unlike others who are unable to stay on topic; keep their emotions in check and are unable to abstain from making condescending comments towards others.

Welcome to Speaker's Corner...

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,434]

>they have defined "humane" as marked by compassion, sympathy, or
>consideration for humans or animals.

Reasonable definition.

>I take it that you prefer smashing a dog or cat over the head to humanely
>euthanizing them?

Nope.

>We're executing a person that has committed the most heinous crime: murder.
>Executions are not humane regardless of how you slice it. So essentially you want
>an execution that is a kinder, more gentle death.

Nope, again. But keep guessing; it's easier than actually reading what I have written.

[ryoder 1,400]

cruelpops

***Your suggestion reminds me of "The Lottery".


Either method chosen, we as a society already pay for it.
The DP costs more. LOTS more.
More so when it's an innocent person.

Explain how a person is "innocent" if they admit the crime.

In November 1988, Kluppelberg’s alleged confession was ordered suppressed by a judge after Kluppelberg claimed he had been beaten and presented evidence that when he was admitted to the Cook County Jail after his interrogation, he had several bruises in his kidney area and was urinating blood. The judge concluded Kluppelberg had been beaten by police and that his statement had been coerced.

Source: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3908

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[cruelpops 0]

StreetScooby

Quote

Unlike others who are unable to stay on topic; keep their emotions in check and are unable to abstain from making condescending comments towards others.

Welcome to Speaker's Corner...

Hahaha thanks.

[cruelpops 0]

I take it that you prefer smashing a dog or cat over the head to humanely euthanizing them? Do you enjoy clubbing baby seals? I suspect that you enjoy pulling the wings off of flies and, probably, throwing puppies at brick walls.

Is that your best efforts of presenting an argument? Sounds like you're getting emotional and defensive.

[kallend 1,647]

cruelpops

Why does the execution have to be humane? Did the convicted murderer think of the choices for the victim? Was the murderer thoughtful and offer up a suggestion as to how the victim would like to be murdered?

Because:

1) Two wrongs don't make a right.

2) Killing someone to emphasize that killing people is wrong is totally illogical.

3) Capital cases are more expensive than life imprisonment.

4) Because we are better than the criminals.

5) Because "he did it first" is not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. I expect your mother taught you that when you were in grade school.

6) Why would we want to be in the same cultural club as N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and the Peoples Republic of China? Are these nations we identify with?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

BlueSkiesDad

To whoever blamed the liberals... have you done any actual research on the subject? The biggest reason that states are having problems with lethal executions has to do with the fact that we got the drugs from another country. They decided they didn't like the fact that we were using them to kill people and cut us off.

it's gone beyond that. States are having difficulty sourcing what are fairly easy to obtain chemicals because those companies will suffer attacks by opponents of capital punishment. Given that we're talking about tiny orders to cover a handful to a few dozen executions a year, there's no way the business is worth that much scrutiny. So now the attempt is to get their names withheld, but then this precludes an ability to scrutinize the execution method against the 8th.

It's been a highly effectively strategy for DP opponents. There's little (personal opinion) difficulty around ensuring a cruelty free death via chemicals, but the publicity concerns have made it either impossible to obtain, or impossible to verify. Hence, a defacto elimination of death by chemical means.

[kelpdiver 2]

cruelpops

I have even a better suggestion; let the country vote on it. Every time a person is convicted and recommended for death row, let the country vote on whether the person should be executed or stay in prison their entire life.

Given that scenario, let's say the vote is 51-49 to execute the person. So those who voted for the execution will be billed and ultimately PAY for the execution. But if the vote is 51-49 to NOT execute the person then those voting in the majority get to PAY for the cost of housing that person.

I like that idea.

This again invites the very fair question - how old are you, really?

There are two generations of Americans still alive who lived during times where it was acceptable (per a 50% vote as you suggest) to lynch innocent blacks. And we're now just a couple years removed from a time where the majority successfully voted that gays couldn't marry.

The whole point of the Constitution was to ensure rights wouldn't be overridden by the majority, be it the voters, or the Members of Congress and the President.

'Let the people decide' is among the dumber ideas proposed in SC, and that says a lot.

And in this particular case, was just silly. The cost of housing someone for life costs over a million, and the costs of executing someone is still slightly higher. So this unworkable method of making those in the majority pay just means that you have shifted the same bill to a smaller number of people. The astute person would trying to gauge the sentiment and always vote on the other side.

* This ignores the obvious fact that the cost of recording votes and then appropriately billing that person for every year of the criminal's remaining life would exceed the money collected.

[freethefly 6]

cruelpops

I take it that you prefer smashing a dog or cat over the head to humanely euthanizing them? Do you enjoy clubbing baby seals? I suspect that you enjoy pulling the wings off of flies and, probably, throwing puppies at brick walls.

Is that your best efforts of presenting an argument? Sounds like you're getting emotional and defensive.

Given your replies in this thread, it seems to me, that you respond without clearly thinking your response through. Somewhat emotional or, desperate.

I was merely wondering if you think it would be appropriate to smash a dog (that has, maybe, killed a child) over the head with a baseball bat, oppose to gassing or lethal injection. If not, how could you wish a painful death on another? I will agree that there are those who do deserve the worst type of death. Yet, how can we, as civilized people, lower ourselves to the primal level of one who kills for pleasure? Would you revel in the role of the executioner?

Personally, I am for the death penalty. As long as it is 100% certain that the right person is being put to death. However, there are one too many who have been wrongly executed. One is one too many. Every possible effort should be exhausted before we push the needle in, otherwise we become the killer of an innocent person. I would not wish to be the one who flips the switch only to find out that I just murdered an innocent man. Would you?

Method that I would prefer for those who are guilty without doubt would be to merely put them to sleep. Justice served.

If America wants to continue with executions then, we really have no say when other countries execute prisoners.
You know we are in the company of some of the worst and the only country in the Americas that still execute people.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/death-penalty-2013-small-number-countries-trigger-global-spike-executions-2014-03-27

Quote

The USA was once again the only country to carry out executions in the Americas, although four fewer people (39) were put to death in 2013 compared with 2012. The state of Texas accounted for 41 per cent of all executions. Meanwhile, Maryland became the 18th US state to abolish the death penalty. Several Greater Caribbean states reported empty death rows for the first time since Amnesty International began keeping records in 1980.

I sure hope all 39 were guilty. If only one was wrongly executed then we are no better than the ones who are guilty. Society as a whole is guilty if we allow it to continue without conscious.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

***Why does the execution have to be humane? Did the convicted murderer think of the choices for the victim? Was the murderer thoughtful and offer up a suggestion as to how the victim would like to be murdered?

Because:

1) Two wrongs don't make a right.



Ah - but three lefts do.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cgriff 0]

***Why does the execution have to be humane? ***

I've seen a number of good answers to this, but I've not seen what I consider to be the most important one:

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I realize it's (sadly) out of fashion but it is still supposedly the law of the land.

[Bolas 5]

The folly in this whole argument is choice of execution method.

These alternatives are being proposed and some will likely be implemented due to lack of availability of what was a standard method.

Maybe they'll come up with a more efficient way, maybe they won't.

Either way, the death penalty should and will continue with or without injectable options.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[winsor 187]

cruelpops

Why does the execution have to be humane? Did the convicted murderer think of the choices for the victim? Was the murderer thoughtful and offer up a suggestion as to how the victim would like to be murdered?

"Hello sir, my name Clifford the Career Criminal and I will be your attacker this evening. Would you like to be sodomized with a rusty piece rebar before or after I slit your throat and steal your wallet?"

If the goal is social surgery, there is nothing to be gained by adding vindictiveness to the process.

“If you are going to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”

Winston Churchill

[winsor 187]

billvon

>So essentially you want an execution that is a kinder, more gentle death.

Nope. If we can prove beyond even a shadow of a doubt that someone has committed a capital crime, and is thus sentenced to death, then we should execute them quickly, cheaply and humanely with the goal of removing them permanently as a threat to others. Nothing about "kind" or "gentle" - and also nothing about "revenge."

My issue with the death penalty is not that it's hard to execute people humanely/cheaply. It's the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" part.

Bingo. The legal system is as capricious as it is ponderous.

[Channman 2]

Amazon

***The responsibility of choosing cruel (your word) methods of execution falls squarely on the individual state's legislators. Trying to place the onus anywhere else is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

Zach

+1

The bloodlust is strong in many places still. It usually seems to be strongest in places with those who claim to follow Christ the most.

-1