3 ms·

If the idea is to prevent pain, there are many simple methods. Heroin overdose? Carbon monoxide? I'm theoretically OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes

If the idea is to prevent pain, there are many simple methods. Heroin overdose? Carbon monoxide? I'm theoretically OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes, but in practice I oppose it -- the chance of a false positive is way above zero with the current legal system.

Crito 12y ago
If the idea were a painless "clean looking" death, then a tank of nitrogen, a rubber tube, and a mask are all that you would need. Painless, cheap, effective, and could be administered by anybody so you don't need a nurse to insert the needle. You could pull the nitrogen straight from the air at the facility so you wouldn't even have chemical supply issues (not that local welding gas supply companies would face international pressure to refuse shipments anyway...) That executions are not done that way is all the proof that I need to say that executions are not currently designed to be painless. They are designed to appear clean, but specifically designed to torture.
nickff 12y ago
The only problem with the 'solution' of abolishing the death penalty is that it makes the real issue (false conviction) easier to ignore, while there will still be innocent people who have to suffer a horrible fate, (life imprisonment not substantially better than death,) for a crime they did not commit.
- Crito 12y ago
  I'm not sure if that is valid justification enough to avoid abolishing the death penalty, but I think it does touch on a concern I have with the "life imprisonment is cheaper anyway" argument. The reason generally cited for the higher cost of executing somebody is the lengthy appeals process. Why is it that this makes executions more expensive than life in prison? Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal? Unless they are actually guilty, either possibility is problematic. In the first case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are giving up on justice. In the second case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are being denied justice. One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?
  - nickff 12y ago
    >"I'm not sure if that is valid justification enough to avoid abolishing the death penalty, but I think it does touch on a concern I have with the "life imprisonment is cheaper anyway" argument." I agree completely with these points. >"Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal?" This is what many criminal defense attorneys say, and the reason that some defendants prefer a charge which carries the death penalty to one which has a life imprisonment sentence. >"One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?" This is a clearer statement of one of my ill-expressed thoughts.
- joesmo 12y ago
  At least the people wrongfully convicted to life in prison have a chance (sometimes) to prove their innocence. Such an opportunity is obviously lost if one is executed. Executions are not helping to reduce false convictions. They might add a bit more media attention, but should innocent people die for that? Seems preposterous to me.
  - nickff 12y ago
    If what you are saying is true, why do some of the people on trial for heinous crimes push for a death penalty offense? They say that it is the only way for them to get a good attorney or an appeal, and avoid a life wasted in prison. Are they wrong?
    - joesmo 12y ago
      What cases are you referring to? I've never heard anything like this. Even if such cases exist, it still doesn't justify murdering people because the state is incapable of doling out justice.
giarc 12y ago
Watch this video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w Basically, they brought a guy close to deadly hypoxia (lack of O2). Throughout the process they asked him to perform basic tasks to test brain function. Toward the end they asked him to push a button to end the procedure. They told him that not pushing the button would result in his death (don't worry, he doesn't die). The hypoxia basically resulted in his brain not being able to discern his imminent death and he wouldn't push the button. This was discussed as a means of "civilized" death penalty since the victim didn't realize their fate at the last moments of their life. Arguments against it is that perhaps the victim should know they are going to die.

Crito 12y ago

If the idea were a painless "clean looking" death, then a tank of nitrogen, a rubber tube, and a mask are all that you would need. Painless, cheap, effective, and could be administered by anybody so you don't need a nurse to insert the needle. You could pull the nitrogen straight from the air at the facility so you wouldn't even have chemical supply issues (not that local welding gas supply companies would face international pressure to refuse shipments anyway...) That executions are not done that way is all the proof that I need to say that executions are not currently designed to be painless. They are designed to appear clean, but specifically designed to torture.

nickff 12y ago

The only problem with the 'solution' of abolishing the death penalty is that it makes the real issue (false conviction) easier to ignore, while there will still be innocent people who have to suffer a horrible fate, (life imprisonment not substantially better than death,) for a crime they did not commit.

Crito 12y ago
I'm not sure if that is valid justification enough to avoid abolishing the death penalty, but I think it does touch on a concern I have with the "life imprisonment is cheaper anyway" argument. The reason generally cited for the higher cost of executing somebody is the lengthy appeals process. Why is it that this makes executions more expensive than life in prison? Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal? Unless they are actually guilty, either possibility is problematic. In the first case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are giving up on justice. In the second case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are being denied justice. One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?
- nickff 12y ago
  >"I'm not sure if that is valid justification enough to avoid abolishing the death penalty, but I think it does touch on a concern I have with the "life imprisonment is cheaper anyway" argument." I agree completely with these points. >"Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal?" This is what many criminal defense attorneys say, and the reason that some defendants prefer a charge which carries the death penalty to one which has a life imprisonment sentence. >"One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?" This is a clearer statement of one of my ill-expressed thoughts.
joesmo 12y ago
At least the people wrongfully convicted to life in prison have a chance (sometimes) to prove their innocence. Such an opportunity is obviously lost if one is executed. Executions are not helping to reduce false convictions. They might add a bit more media attention, but should innocent people die for that? Seems preposterous to me.
- nickff 12y ago
  If what you are saying is true, why do some of the people on trial for heinous crimes push for a death penalty offense? They say that it is the only way for them to get a good attorney or an appeal, and avoid a life wasted in prison. Are they wrong?
  - joesmo 12y ago
    What cases are you referring to? I've never heard anything like this. Even if such cases exist, it still doesn't justify murdering people because the state is incapable of doling out justice.

giarc 12y ago

Watch this video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w Basically, they brought a guy close to deadly hypoxia (lack of O2). Throughout the process they asked him to perform basic tasks to test brain function. Toward the end they asked him to push a button to end the procedure. They told him that not pushing the button would result in his death (don't worry, he doesn't die). The hypoxia basically resulted in his brain not being able to discern his imminent death and he wouldn't push the button. This was discussed as a means of "civilized" death penalty since the victim didn't realize their fate at the last moments of their life. Arguments against it is that perhaps the victim should know they are going to die.