Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except you don't put an animal down with a cocktail of untried drugs.
I terms of hanging it's quick and effective.
I agree. The serial killer executed a couple of weeks ago in Texas went to sleep and started snoring before being pronounced dead thirteen minutes later, so obviously he was given a much stronger dose of the drug (and more humane death if such a thing is possible). The problem was the halting instead of just giving the guy more to put him out and end the suffering.
Just because sh*t happened, doesn't mean Americans want to torture these people. There are always searches for a humane way for death penalty.
"Three drugs didn't do it, now we're at one. We need to kill people softly, to kill people gently in order to have a legitimate form of execution. And we just can't figure out what that is."
But Dr Chapman thinks that the current methods are indeed humane."
Just because they didn't do it perfectly, doesn't mean they violated human rights. Sh*t happened, this is life.
Considering the method by which these people despatched their victims, it's perhaps a little too humane, you are comparing America to China now. China Admits Selling Prisoners' Organs.
They didn't use the drugs or process recommended by people like Chapman, and in terms of Sh*t happens, perhaps that should be the standard reply when the US criticises other nations in the world over human rights.
They didn't use the drugs or process recommended by people like Chapman, and in terms of Sh*t happens, perhaps that should be the standard reply when the US criticises other nations in the world over human rights.
Oh, I say we still have a right to outraged at a woman's stoning, regardless of a botched execution. The difference is that the guy is guilty of taking a life, whereas the woman may be "guilty" of getting raped but unable to produce four male witnesses. Sorry, but we still have the moral high ground in human rights over many countries.
Oh, I say we still have a right to outraged at a woman's stoning, regardless of a botched execution. The difference is that the guy is guilty of taking a life, whereas the woman may be "guilty" of getting raped but unable to produce four male witnesses. Sorry, but we still have the moral high ground in human rights over many countries.
Given that a recent study found one in twenty five US death penalty inmates to be innocent I would hardly say the US can even criticise much of the Muslim world, where stoning to death is only carried out in more hard line regimes. Nor does it give the US much room to criticise states such as China or the other countries who impose the death sentence.
It seems ever more than the US is guilty of double standards in relation to criticising other countries human rights records or even spying programs.
I agree. The serial killer executed a couple of weeks ago in Texas went to sleep and started snoring before being pronounced dead thirteen minutes later, so obviously he was given a much stronger dose of the drug (and more humane death if such a thing is possible). The problem was the halting instead of just giving the guy more to put him out and end the suffering.
I don't know if they could give more drug. His veins exploded. Why, I don't know.
It's not the execution that was defective. He had defective veins.
His problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
I said I recalled that...meaning I've read historical accounts. If I had to make a choice, I'd probably prefer firing squad, or lethal injection. Having seen my dog put down, it's not a bad way to go. The hospice workers basically drug their patients to death, just to make them comfortable. Hanging would probably be my third to last choice, before the electric chair or the gas chamber. They all seem unusually cruel to me.
This is a pretty Macabre conversation. I actually would prefer death by old age. I make it a point not to do anything that would require me to make one of the above choices.
One doesn't die of old age. People die at advanced ages because their organs are worn out. This guy's veins were apparently worn out.
Given that a recent study found one in twenty five US death penalty inmates to be innocent I would hardly say the US can even criticise much of the Muslim world, where stoning to death is only carried out in more hard line regimes. Nor does it give the US much room to criticise states such as China or the other countries who impose the death sentence.
I haven't heard of this outrage at China over the death penalty, but if there is it's probably because the people aren't given a trial or something. As for the 1 in 25 study, I have never heard of it, nor do I believe it. I personally only want the death penalty for the most heinous murders where guilt is not in question. I've mentioned a few I consider warranted in this thread. I do not like it when guilt is decided by eye witness testimony or circumstantial evidence. I also think it will become more and more rare here as many states have life without parole options now, but the people getting executed now did not have that option.
In Texas we got life without parole a few years ago, but before that it was either death or the person could be released after 35 years. Before the mid-90s, the convict could get out in less than 20 years. Does that seem right for people like this guy or rapists/murderers or serial killers?
They didn't use the drugs or process recommended by people like Chapman, and in terms of Sh*t happens, perhaps that should be the standard reply when the US criticises other nations in the world over human rights.
I am sorry, but Trial and error is also a heuristic method of problem solving, repair, tuning, or obtaining knowledge. I don't know only perfect nation has the right to point out Human Rights Violations. My apology.
I'm pro death penalty, but think it should be clean and without suffering.
I'm also pro death penalty, but unlike you, I don't care whether the guy suffers. I see no reason to prolong it or MAKE him suffer, but the goal is simply to get rid of the guy at the least inconvenience to society.
These are murderers, so adjudged by a jury, and found guilty over and ove by trial after trial. They have given up their right o liberty, right to property, and even their right to life by an especially horrible act or acts, usually multiple premeditated murder, or murder with torture, or kidnapping and murder, etc. Now the idea that they might experience a little anxiety or pain on their way to meet their maker, leaves me unmoved.
Dr. Guillotine had the right idea. Quick and final, not expensive, and not much chance for any screwups. And if the guy is frightened by the sight of the tall thing, that's too damned bad. Get rid of him after what he has done. I'll volunteer to pull the lever myself if needed. I won't like it, but I'll like even less the idea of this guy running around any longer than needed.
He would have been less of a monster if he would have at least thought to shoot her again and made sure she was dead before his friends buried her. Scumbag!
Exactly. I really have no sympathy. How long did that poor young woman suffer? Her family and friends will always be suffering.
We didn't set out to botch the execution or prolong it but if it happened, I really have a hard time caring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.