Texas Uses Single-Drug Lethal Injection in Execution

There seems to be no definite answer in my opinion on which is the "right thing" to do. I agree lots of innocent people die on death row and thats a shame. Lots of LE and judicial personnel say that it doesnt matter if we got 1000 people on death row for the right reason, but having 1 innocent person is still too much. In an ideal world id say there should be no death penalty as life in prison with no parole would be a fate worse than death (and gives ample time for innocent people to appeal their case). And allow the inmate to make the decision themselves to have the death penalty when they choose. I know i would choose death over life in a 23 hour lockdown cell.
 
Serotonin101 said:
life in prison with no parole would be a fate worse than death
Click to expand...

That's extremely subjective. I imagine that if you offered euthanasia to every lifer, a few would take the offer, but the vast majority would decline. I think this would even hold for the supermax lifers who are kept in seclusion 23 hours of every day.
 
I agree with you. My mistake. In my opinion 23 hour lockdown is worse than death by barb od. I guess this topic can kinda relate to patient assisted suicide as well, but that will be a different thread. :)
 
^I think most death row inmates are on 24 hour lockdown.
ForEverAfter said:
They should feed death row inmates to zoo animals: even cheaper than bullets; entertaining for the animals; and, nobody has to pull the trigger or flick the switch. Where's the downside?
Click to expand...
Don't waste bullets and exotic animals on executions, too expensive. Get the families of the victim to stone them to death for free instead. Even better, let's bring back gladiatorial fights. Put it on broadcast television. The tickets and ratings alone pays for itself. Would even be a good source of revenue for states or the Correction Corporation Of America.
medicine cabinet said:
Bring back the guiteillene (sp) and public execution. Make it like the mid evil times and have a party about it.
Click to expand...
That's pussy shit, bring back the wheel, quartering, burning, the brazen bull, flaying, drowning, sawing, disembowelment and impalement(up the ass!). With skyscrapers now you can just throw them off it! A fitting method for Khalid Sheik Mohammad. Or do the baddest of the bad, crucifixion. Decorate the freeway with 'em. Also they could starve them to death with live feed to the internet for all to watch. Beat that David Blane! All should be in public and broadcasts. Make the people fear the government.

I used to support the death penalty, but I found it's not always black and white, nor is guilt often certain. Often murders and sex offenders have had really fucked up lives. Some are insane or retarded, like literally the medical definition. Sometimes they're taking the fall for someone else, because they don't want anyone to retaliate against their families. Sometimes they're innocent. Sometimes they're not quite innocent but their role is exaggerated. A lot, perhaps most, sex offender were themselves victimized at a young age.

Reading some really old cases, I often wonder if they used to execute just anyone, regardless of guilt, to both reassure and instill fear in the public.

There is some people(unworthy of the title) who are genuinely evil. They kill and rape with no remorse. They didn't necessarily have bad lives nor is there anything wrong with them mentally, except maybe psychopathy, sociopathy or pedophilia. I could care less if they put a bullet in their head or used any of the above mentioned methods.

But what if they're wrong and they kill the wrong person. Should the government have the power of life and death over civilians? I'd say no. So I oppose the death penalty.
 
I like the idea of gladiator type fights but being broadcast to the public, some impressionable people may look up to them as idols. Why not place them on an island where they can set up their own community with agriculture and simple industry.
 
Capital punishment offers no closure. It promotes violence and vengeance instead of rehabilitation. All the methods and suggestions about execution, in my mind, do not fly. Sure, I feel an aversion to psychopaths, serial molestors etc. But when you place all of the blame on that one person, its hard for the other party to just "wash their hands" of the situation. In my world, pacifism and deep compassion are the rule, and there would be few exceptions.
 
trees_please said:
Capital punishment offers no closure. It promotes violence and vengeance instead of rehabilitation. All the methods and suggestions about execution, in my mind, do not fly. Sure, I feel an aversion to psychopaths, serial molestors etc. But when you place all of the blame on that one person, its hard for the other party to just "wash their hands" of the situation. In my world, pacifism and deep compassion are the rule, and there would be few exceptions.
Click to expand...

I wonder how closely you'd stick to your principles if it was your friend or family member that was shot and then thrown in a dumpster.
 
Why don't we just get rid of execution altogether? The appeals process makes it significantly more expensive than simply housing them for life, and innocents have already been executed as well as enough lifers been proved innocent 40 years later to demonstrate that the death penalty is flawed. And before someone goes and says that we need to cut out the appeals process - no, we don't. An appeals process is how we narrow down the certainty that we have the guilty offender, you moron! Our society has evolved beyond the need for this kind of punishment.

I don't support the death penalty for many reasons, but if I did, I would support one that is fashioned after Colorado's. It should be used in the rarest of circumstances and with direct, bulletproof evidence. There are scum on this planet who do not deserve to live, or at least deserve to be locked away in some dark place forever, but if that can't be proven with concrete evidence then there's no point. The standard of evidence has to be at the highest levels for capital punishment. If it's not then you must always side with a lesser punishment to ensure the potentially innocent a chance at proper justice.
 
Why not place them on an island where they can set up their own community with agriculture and simple industry.
Click to expand...

Why don't we set up murderers for life with an island community of their very own? Isn't that going to encourage people to murder each other? Who's going to pay for this island? (I take it you're joking...)

I wonder how closely you'd stick to your principles if it was your friend or family member that was shot and then thrown in a dumpster.
Click to expand...

This is why people who are personally affected by these situations should not be calling the shots; and why the justice system exists in the first place: so there is an impartial method of justice rather than vigilante style revenge killings.

It should be used in the rarest of circumstances and with direct, bulletproof evidence. There are scum on this planet who do not deserve to live, or at least deserve to be locked away in some dark place forever, but if that can't be proven with concrete evidence then there's no point. The standard of evidence has to be at the highest levels for capital punishment.
Click to expand...

Even if there is indisputable evidence, killing them solves nothing. They should be put to good use. If executed, their organs should be donated. Most methods of execution destroy perfectly good organs. It seems to me that organ donation is the only justification for execution. If someone takes a life, you can give multiple lives back. Rather than just taking another one. I don't know why they don't do "chain gang" type work any more with prisoners. Those who are sentenced to life should be forced to contribute to society in some way. If not through the donation of their organs, they should serve some function for the community. At the moment, murderers who are given life sit around on their ass watching television paid for by tax payers. They end up taking money/ resources away from the national budget rather than contributing to it.

As for prisoners who haven't received a life sentence, I believe rehabilitation is possible. But, we don't even try to rehabilitate criminals. Most people I've known who've been to jail have come out worse than when they went it. We take criminals and put them together in an enclosed space. Jail is the opposite of rehabilitation. Locking criminals up with other criminals for long periods of time and leaving them to grow more and more resentful of society until they are finally released isn't rehab. It's bullshit. These people need therapy. They should be forced to work to pay for their place in jail and for their therapy/rehabilitation. This will give them a work ethic and, hopefully, set them on the right track. I don't have all the answers, obviously, but it seems like the system doesn't even make an effort to reform criminals. We just take them, shove them in a box for a couple of years, and then let them out again.

What the fuck good is that supposed to do?
 
I was joking lol. I was thinking on the terms of "escape from LA" the movie :P I agree whole heartedly with your contributions from prisoners idea (i'm very in favor of organ donation as the list awaiting transplants is huge). And i agree with the placing of criminals in a confined space made them (us because i got locked up with felons) resent society even more and the mixture of offenders can lead to "cross-training" of criminal fields ex: george jung went in as marijuana trafficker and came out trafficking cocaine.
 
my country did away with capital punishment decades ago.
our murder rate is only a fraction of what it is in the united states, where it acts as neither a deterrent or an act of justice.
how many innocent men/women need to go to the gallows (or other killing device) to demonstrate how barbaric this practice is? one is too many.

i'd be surprised if anyone here seriously believes the justice system gets it right all the time, and the thing i find most ironic about the argument is that it is so often the folks that bang on about the government taking their rights that support the death penalty.

in my opinion, the state should not have the right or the means to take away the life of any of its citizens. pretty fundamental, if you ask me.
 
Voxide said:
I wonder how closely you'd stick to your principles if it was your friend or family member that was shot and then thrown in a dumpster.
Click to expand...

I would stick to whatever I had left, man. principles are just stupid, egotistical shells we hide behind because of a fear of death. Those can be shed.. Your hypothetical scenario is not very effective, and i counter it with asking, how in control of your own emotions are you? Could I sit there and watch someone else die, and watch their family suffer for some vindication? Really cant say because its entirely hypothetical. What would you do if a member of your family was shot to death?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not sure what satisfaction people get out of seeing a murderer die; doesn't bring their victims back to life. Personally I'd find it more satisfying to know that whoever killed my loved one had repented and was truly sorry for what they'd done. That, at least, would offer me a little comfort; it's the only closure that makes sense to me in this type of situation. Sitting behind a glass screen and watching a man being put to death would be horrible. I don't want to watch people die. It seems to me that enjoying witnessing someone die, on any level, is fucked up. Doesn't matter who they are. It's not something you should want to see. If you do; if you need to personally witness their death in order to come to terms with your grief... then... you probably need a quite a lot of therapy.
 
I thought the movie "Gamer" was an interesting way for death row inmates to be executed.

The one thing I like about sharia (muslim) capital punishment is the eye for an eye type sentence. You left my daughter permanently disfigured by showering her face with acid, she will do exactly the same to you, etc.
 
whynaught said:
imo some executive official should have to approve every death penalty it shouldn't be left up to the courts.

and imo if the case involves multiple murders I do think its ok for the family of victims to watch and feel comfort that man or woman isn't going to kill anybody else's family member
Click to expand...

I think the family of the victim should have to approve the death penalty for the accused (assuming there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that said perpetrator is guilty).
 
I think that mentioning the exponential progress in the field of neuroscience that relates to and could offer something like a solution to the rehabilitation option is a good idea.
We are on the verge of being able to surgically (in terms of method and accuracy) alter brain chemistry and brain activity that forms intrinsic psychological makeup.
Why kill a person who is largely a product of their brain chemistry and psychological makeup when those things could just be altered, quickly and permanently turning a very sick person into a reasonable human being?
Looking deeper into this issue, I am left with more questions.
Why does the family of a murder victim say that the murderers death "eases the pain"?
Is it therapeutic to a grieving mother to know that another mother has lost their child as well?
This seems barbarous to me; a sick sort of satisfaction that I could not enjoy no matter how brutally that person killed the victim.
To even think that we, as such primal animals that are capable of enjoying such a display of violence, are worthy to judge the life of another sentient being worth being ended, is just arrogant.
A judge doesn't know what has led this person to kill, what intrinsic qualities marred this person's mind from birth, and what hellish experiences and torment has led a person to be capable of such an act. Why does a judge suddenly know that this person deserves to die for his act?
Is that judge a man qualified to deem the murder's sickness too severe to be cured by the most modern medical breakthroughs?
If that same judge had been born with the brain chemistry and activity patterns as the murder, and had the same experiences, who would be in the defendant's chair then?
And more importantly, why is it considered a solution at all that a life, which at the very least could produce goods or perform services, is removed from the Earth? Perfectly useful organs are ruined; organs which could sustain multiple lives.
Ultimately, there is no true solution. A solution would mean fixing the murder. That, obviously, cannot be done. The next best thing is fixing the psychological problems that led to this person committing a murder. No, it will not satisfy the primal desires of the victim's family, but if one considers that more important than a sick man being healed, they should probably consider some help themselves.

Let us think about an analogy:
Addiction was, and still largely is, considered a consequence of drug use, criminal behavior that the immoral engage in. Therefore, those criminals should be jailed, as a punishment for their actions.
However, the new philosophy is that addiction is a sickness; a disease caused by psychological and physiological factors, cured by rehabilitation.
Murder is almost exclusively considered a consequence of many immoral factors and criminal behaviors, and the murderer is considered beyond rehabilitation. Therefore, murderers should be killed, as a punishment for their actions.
However, I say murder is not just a choice a person makes because they are "evil" or lacking a conscience, but a symptom of a sickness; the tragic result of psycho-physiological propensities and a violent and hellish life. And thanks to groundbreaking advances in neuroscience, this sickness is soon to be curable. Rehabilitation through neurochemistry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top