Also, in addition to the 11 cases I found, the ACLU claims as many as 124 reversed death sentances. While these are not wrongful executions, these are definately things that keep me up late at night...
PsylentNemo said:
While I still maintain what I said earlier, it is with a grain of salt that I add, our judicial system is not perfect. As much as we would like it to be, it is still a human process that opens itself to human error/wrong-doing. Admitting this seems entirely contrary to being pro-execution, however, everyday I ask myself the question, "Can I live with myself if this man is condemned to die for his crimes?" One look at all my little nieces and nephews, and the thought that one day my own children will be walking the streets with the same sociopaths, answers that question for me.
If there is a better alternative to execution by the state, I am all ears. But until such time, I retain my right to keep my views unchanged in the name of precaution. Call it the ultimate testimate to my conservatism...
The question you should be asking yourself, given you acknowledgment of the fallibility of the system, is, "Can I live with myself if this man is condemned to die for someone else's crimes?"
Nobody should be executed if we can't guarantee without any doubt at all that every person being executed is guilty, and as far as the law is concerned, that their deaths are not cruel.
Saraah said:
...medical professionals should be present IN THE ROOM at the time of injection.
Hippokrates might have a problem with this.
Well, Hippocrates would also have a problem with abortion. And euthanasia.
And "medical professional" doesn't have to equal doctor. It can be anyone with adequate training to ensure IV lines are clear, a vein is found properly, and the paralytic is acting as designed.
MissTyrios said:
...leaving open the question about whether the constitutionality of the method itself was really being examined at all.
And it seems to me that it isn't. With arguments like this...
Justice Breyer was unexpectedly skeptical, expressing doubt that any other method of execution would be any less painful or less prone to human error.
... how could it be? It seems to be a superficial question that doesn't lead to any substantial examination of the issue. I mean, why not boil them in oil - if that's the case?
Well for one thing with oil being over $100 a barrel it's not cost effective.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Kentucky's method of putting criminals to death by lethal injection, not only clearing the way for Kentucky to resume executions but ending an unofficial moratorium in the 35 other states that have the death penalty. However one justice predicted that the ruling would not end disputes over lethal injection and could reignite the debate over capital punishment itself.
By 7 to 2, the court rejected challenges to the Kentucky execution procedure brought by two death-row inmates, holding that they had failed to show that the risks of pain from mistakes in an otherwise "humane lethal execution protocol" amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, which is banned by the Constitution.
The death penalty came up in my class discussion today. We were talking about the duty, a la MLK, JR., to break any laws one feels are unjust. And one of my students piped in with "I think it is unjust to not have the death penalty."
I asked him if there was a proper way to follow in the steps of King, and he says "Well, we should just shoot them, then."
This is a student who often quotes the Bible in class, says he doesn't drink because he thinks it is wrong in the eyes of God, and constantly wants to argue with me about religous matters.
coyotemike said:
The death penalty came up in my class discussion today. We were talking about the duty, a la MLK, JR., to break any laws one feels are unjust. And one of my students piped in with "I think it is unjust to not have the death penalty."
I asked him if there was a proper way to follow in the steps of King, and he says "Well, we should just shoot them, then."
This is a student who often quotes the Bible in class, says he doesn't drink because he thinks it is wrong in the eyes of God, and constantly wants to argue with me about religous matters.
Easy.
He's one of those "an eye for an eye" people.
Saraah said:
...medical professionals should be present IN THE ROOM at the time of injection.
Hippokrates might have a problem with this.
Well, Hippocrates would also have a problem with abortion. And euthanasia.
And "medical professional" doesn't have to equal doctor. It can be anyone with adequate training to ensure IV lines are clear, a vein is found properly, and the paralytic is acting as designed.
coyotemike said:
The death penalty came up in my class discussion today. We were talking about the duty, a la MLK, JR., to break any laws one feels are unjust. And one of my students piped in with "I think it is unjust to not have the death penalty."
I asked him if there was a proper way to follow in the steps of King, and he says "Well, we should just shoot them, then."
This is a student who often quotes the Bible in class, says he doesn't drink because he thinks it is wrong in the eyes of God, and constantly wants to argue with me about religous matters.
And believes that "Thou shalt not kill", I am sure.
PsylentNemo said:
Personally, I think we should go back to drawing and quartering. Or mayhaps public eviceration. If you knew that if you caused harm enought to people that, if caught, you would be subject to the most painful form of execution that can be conjured up, would you not be more reluctant to commit the crime in the first place?
I don't know, probably not, if you know... being killed isn't enough to dissuade someone in the first place. If you're crazy enough to commit the type of crime that is met with a death sentence, and you don't care about being killed, I'm going to bet you're not going to stop yourself because you don't want to go through a painful death. Maybe normal people think in such ways, but I don't think killers do. And normal people, I would hope, don't need to be dissuaded from killing.
I don't think anyone should be killed unless it's in self defense. Ever. This doesn't mean I disagree with the death penalty totally. If you take someone like Ted Bundy, look at his escape from prison and what he did as soon as he escaped... I'd say there wasn't much choice over what to do with him after that.
Though generally I just see it as a little hypocritical.
coyotemike said:
The death penalty came up in my class discussion today. We were talking about the duty, a la MLK, JR., to break any laws one feels are unjust. And one of my students piped in with "I think it is unjust to not have the death penalty."
I asked him if there was a proper way to follow in the steps of King, and he says "Well, we should just shoot them, then."
This is a student who often quotes the Bible in class, says he doesn't drink because he thinks it is wrong in the eyes of God, and constantly wants to argue with me about religous matters.
Easy.
He's one of those "an eye for an eye" people.
Why is it that people who remember the "eye for an eye" part always seem to forget the "thou shalt not kill" part?
PsylentNemo
Honolulu, HI
November 2007
JAN 15, 2008 08:36 PM