I saw it today. Lethal injectuons is just dearh by torture. It's medieval ! How on Earth this can exist in a democracy.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Lethal Injections - Last Week Tonight
- Thread starter Keasar
- Start date
Honestly, during the description of how the various drugs have terrible effects especially when not administered properly, and that it's possible and documented for people to feel those effects without being able to react or show they're in discomfort, the question that came to my mind is what we could be doing to our pets when we euthanize them.
This. It should be proven beyond ANY reasonable doubt. And that's.... pretty fucking hard.
The justicial system in most countries is counterproductive, inhumane, prone to errors, unfair and fucking dumb. The U.S. is no exception.
Prisons are inhumane crime academies. Most countries and most people are backwards and sadistic.
Having said that i certainly think some people absolutely wasted their right to live by their horrific crimes against others. Purely based on personal emotions.
I would like those people to be removed from existence with whatever painless humane drugs is needed to make them go to sleep forever. A person who rapes babies and kids for instance. No need for them mate. Ever. They put their own urges above the life of another in the most gruesome way. Serial killers? Sure, gone with them. I'm sure most people share those feelings to some extend.
I know it is touched upon in the video but i still think it's possible to give them enough delicious drugs to make them die peacefully and without pain.
If that costs money, then so be it. No need for highly trained doctors to give people silly amounts of Morphine or similar stuff.
Problem is: it has to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they did what they are accused of. And that's harder than most think. Maybe mostly impossible. So that means prison time in most cases. But if there is anything i've learned it's that prisons are designed by seriously sadistic people. Not even mentioning what silly reasons people get prison time for like smoking weed or being gay. Hell in the most backwards inhumane countries in the world you can get the death-penalty for that.
Also, how the hell do you determine what crime is bad enough to give a death-penalty? Who determines that? What is the lightest crime to receive this sentence? People might never be able to agree on that.
Best to remove capital punishment and revamp the entire justicial system and prisons.
Look in this thread and you'll see why. When people hear "Death row inmates" they just start imagining the worst possible monsters they can think of, and they tune out any arguments for why they shouldn't be suffering. A good amount of people don't care about people on death row, and they're cool with the idea that they're suffering because in their minds, they deserve it.
There is a bunch of problems with that mind set obviously, but one that really sticks out to me is that it ignores the people on death row that aren't actually guilty of the crime. The number of innocent people who have been executed has no reason to be any higher then 1, and the fact that it isn't is inexcusable.
It's cheaper to keep people locked up for life then it is to kill them. It's less barbaric to keep people locked up for life then it is to kill them. Innocent people have a chance to clear their name if you don't fucking kill them. There's literally no upsides to killing someone in this situation other then to quench someone's bloodlust.
Killing someone who deserves to die is still murder.
Don't believe me: Go kill a released child rapist and see what you get charged with.
Obviously there is always time to acquit and free someone in prison for life than there is someone who is already dead.
It is universally more expensive to kill someone than to imprison them for life.
Partially because Death Row is way, way more expensive than general population.
While I am 100% against the death penalty, killing someone is not always murder. The easiest example is self defense.
This - if ANY - should be one of the biggest reason death penalty should be abolished. So many innocent have been MURDERED ! Just for that alone , death penalty should never be autorized.
I'm glad Canada doesn't do this. Even ignoring the whole innocence thing and cost thing....it's just terribly barbaric. Even if we knew 100% of the time who was guilty and could do it for cheap...humans should be rising above that. I agree with removing from society completely and rehabbing where it makes sense and is possible, but anything else is just crazy.
I can't argue that. With serial killers and heinous killers, I do want vengeance for the victims. A killer who literally kills dozens of people - all the while torturing them before they die etc. - is just something i cannot deal with.
It's also worth remembering that forensic science has a lot of problems. For example, there have been at least 33 convictions based on suspect hair microscopy evidence that have resulted in the death penalty, of whom 9 have since been executed and 5 died of other causes while on death row. Here's the article at The Intercept.
I don't even understand how the death penalty can be constitutional. If there's even a chance of wrongful execution - which surely there must be - then I don't see how anyone can justify such irreparable harm.
I don't even understand how the death penalty can be constitutional. If there's even a chance of wrongful execution - which surely there must be - then I don't see how anyone can justify such irreparable harm.
Sorry, where do you live? Are you on those european countries with no crime and population rates like in the hundreds? Like utopian Finland?
Pretty bold to come to a thread and call people that don't agree with you psychopaths. It's laughable also the way people talk about "destroying the system" and putting another justice system up. The utopian thoughts are cringe.
Funny how an antiquated method like the fucking guillotine is ultimately more effective and humane for the victim than modern injections and yet people like that woman still balk at the idea in the face of all the evidence of the latter's brutality. Ultimately the only ones for whom lethal injections are "humane" are the people who have to administer them.
Death is always going to be messy. If you insist on murdering people to enforce laws at least have the decency to give them a quick death. I'll take a fucking bullet to the brain over paralyzing blood fire.
Death is always going to be messy. If you insist on murdering people to enforce laws at least have the decency to give them a quick death. I'll take a fucking bullet to the brain over paralyzing blood fire.
What are you talking about? No crime? Population rate in the hundreds? That's not only inaccurate for Finland it's irrelevant when it comes to the things Protome said.
It's far easier to talk about justice, psychology and prison systems in countries where education, wage, health and state systems work. I'm from a 3rd world country and the shit that happens here, specially in vulnerable places, takes away all hope. We don't have capital punishment though, but i'm not that sure that's the right way to go.
When you put it in words, everything looks beautiful, perfect. But reality is not like that. There is too much evil, unsalvageable people out there, and we really tend to give them the benefit of doubt after the horrible shit they do. I'm talking specifically about those that don't have mental illnesses and constantly chose to do bad shit.
No, I'm in the UK. Our prison system has issues too, not to the extremes of the US though. A country doesn't need to be "utopian" to realise that murdering people is wrong and enslaving people (often ones who have done very minor crimes) in order to make a profit off their work is also wrong.
Yeah thanks, I'm not really sure what their deal is.
Then abolish death row if it´s so inefficient. There is no reason whatsoever why people who commited similar crimes should be treated different just because they have received a different sentence.
I see no reason to treat a death sentence radically different than a life sentence. Seems more like life sentences are handed out way too easily if they are that much cheaper.
1. It´s not me doing the killing but the state. And the state is allowed to use lethal force in several different circumstances.
2. What does that change? "Hey i was sentenced to a life in prison but i may have a chance to be released 20 years from now. Or maybe nothing changes and i´ll die in prison." Having a chance to be released does not make a life sentence any more ethical than a death sentence.
3. So let´s assume the death sentence is abolished. What do we do now? Just put the child murderers, mass shooters and seriel killers in gen pop? This is nonsense. The incarceration of extremely dangerous people with the general prison population is unacceptable regardless of the sentence they reveive.
It's still mind boggling to me how many people support the death penalty hear. It doesn't do anyone any good. It's doesn't deter crime. It's more expensive. It's unnecessarily cruel. It's killed innocent people. It doesn't bring closure to the victims.
"I want vengeance for victims." "I cannot deal." Dude, in all practical ways it doesn't effect you at all whether x murderer or y rapist dies or rots in jail. It's all in your head.
You see no massive difference between a life sentence that can be stopped early in case of wrongful conviction and an execution that is final and cannot be changed?
Then you're simply refusing to look.
Edit:
...yeah alright, you're just not thinking about what you're writing. That's blatantly false. Of course a punishment that can be lifted, with years of freedom to spare, is more ethical than an irreversible execution.
Even liberals support the death penalty because violence is ingrained in American culture. Their minds justify it by imagining every person on death row as those child rapist torture murderers they stayed up to 3am reading about online for some reason. The death penalty is barbaric and makes us no better than the people we use it on. That's the moral argument. The logical argument revolves around the costs associated with it, thr incompetence of adminstrators, the broken justice system and the wrongful conviction rate. The only possible argument for is one that's purely emotional.
The state is the representation of the public.
All who support the death penalty are complicit in it's use on some level. Lethal force being used as self-defense or a tool of war is not comparable to executing prisoners. Most of the free world has come to this conclusion, some of us 40+ years ago.
Of course it does? Are you a robot?
The simple fact that SO MANY people have been exonerated and had post-Prison lives where, if the death penalty was enforced, that would not be possible is reason enough to abolish the death penalty by itself.
Understand that the correct philosophy of the justice system is better a guilty man walks free than an innocent man be put in prison. So why on earth would it not also be that better a guilty man live in prison rather than an innocent person die?
You've advocated for the removal of Death Row on this page and are telling us that it's unacceptable to put them in general population. That's a pretty idiotic self contradiction.
Hint: Most of the mass shooters, child rapists and serial killers live full lives in max security prison already. And by full lives, I mean they don't strapped to a chair and tortured to death by sadists - they spend their lives under heavy supervision with limited time around other people. It works to protect society from the people who can not be rehabilitated. Unlike the death penalty, which is statistically neither a deterrent nor economically viable, on top of immoral.
Your viewpoint is blood-thirsty and savage. I don't respect it.
I used to be all for the death penalty, but when you find out how many innocent people have been sent to their deaths, I just couldn't. There are people who's crimes are so awful, that I am upset I breath the same air, but if there is even a 1% chance of an innocent person being sent to their death, the percentage is too high.
Judging by some of the posts that are for the death penalty you would think removing it would make countries devolve into criminal hellholes, yet Europe (not the EU, actual Europe) basically no longer has it:
"The death penalty has been completely abolished in all European countries except for Belarus and Russia, the latter of which has a moratorium and has not conducted an execution since 1999. "
My country hasn't had it for like over 150 years by now, somehow we have managed just fine, this is one of those things where the US looks at the rest of the world, sees that the rest of the world is better for it (or at the very least the same), and somehow still goes "yeah nop those other countries are special, if we did it over here it would be a disaster".
At some point you just got to drop the feelings and look at factual examples of it working and go with what actually works.
"The death penalty has been completely abolished in all European countries except for Belarus and Russia, the latter of which has a moratorium and has not conducted an execution since 1999. "
My country hasn't had it for like over 150 years by now, somehow we have managed just fine, this is one of those things where the US looks at the rest of the world, sees that the rest of the world is better for it (or at the very least the same), and somehow still goes "yeah nop those other countries are special, if we did it over here it would be a disaster".
At some point you just got to drop the feelings and look at factual examples of it working and go with what actually works.
1. The Death Penalty is legal in the United States, we know. There are a large chunk of those that view the death penalty as ethical that find abortion unethical, and both are legal. Yes, the definition of murder is unlawful killing, but arguing about the definition of murder is pedantic. Honestly why are you wasting your breath arguing about the legality when we're debating the ethics of that law?
2 and 3. Wrongfully killing any innocent life is unethical. I don't think killing anyone guilty is ethical either, but even removing that from the equation, we kill innocent people in the United States. You say it's unethical for extremely dangerous people to be mixed with the general prison population as if there are no other alternatives. Which is silly. There are a million different solutions including putting violent dangerous criminals in a separate population (Hey, we already do this!) or we reform how incarceration works altogether and find something amicable that minimizes risk of everyday Americans while y'know, not throwing lives away frivolously.
It's one of these threads where you can clearly tell who's from the US and who is not.
Even the idea that it can be in any way justified to murder and torture "those who deserve" it is bizarre, and the idea that feelings like revenge should have any part in a modern legal justice system is just wrong.
With topics like these, I seriously question if the US ever managed to overcome their (imported) medieval past... casual pillory-like public shaming is still acceptable, not even questioned, and a-leg-for-a-leg justice is just fine...really... America, you are long overdue for some societal progress.
As usual with John Oliver videos, it only touched the very surface. Too bad, but I guess there just isn't much time to get into the gritty details.
Even the idea that it can be in any way justified to murder and torture "those who deserve" it is bizarre, and the idea that feelings like revenge should have any part in a modern legal justice system is just wrong.
With topics like these, I seriously question if the US ever managed to overcome their (imported) medieval past... casual pillory-like public shaming is still acceptable, not even questioned, and a-leg-for-a-leg justice is just fine...really... America, you are long overdue for some societal progress.
As usual with John Oliver videos, it only touched the very surface. Too bad, but I guess there just isn't much time to get into the gritty details.