Personal opinion - the governor themself should be the one to push the drugs/button/trigger that kills the death row inmate.
S/he should be the one to follow through on the state mandated and sanctioned death of one of its people. They are the head of the state after all, with the power to stay the execution.
At the very least, they should have to be in the room to give the executioner a final yes/no decision. Not really sure how we'd make all the states do something like that, but I think it'd really help.
The article indicates something along those lines is in place.
> The governor is always listening through a phone when people condemned to die in South Carolina take their last breath. During 13 of the state’s recent executions, the Commander was on the line with the governor.
Sitting on a phone hundreds of miles away talking to a guy in the room isn't really the same thing as being there yourself. Yes, you could stop the execution either way, but you're not seeing the consequences of your decision.
IMHO executions should be open to the public. The people ultimately responsible for these deaths are the people who voted for [politicians who support] the death penalty. They should be able to see what their votes have wrought.
Would you be upset if people showed positive emotion at the execution (cheers, etc.; think murder victim's family)
Executions have a long history of being a public event and fun/exciting/scratching a human morbid itch and satisfying cravings for justice (putting aside the innocence / false positive question for a moment) and I think a contemporary audience may exhibit some of the same historical reactions and behaviors
> Would you be upset if people showed positive emotion at the execution
I would be disappointed. I would also be surprised. I think there's a reason executions aren't public any more, and I think it's because we have largely evolved beyond the point where most of us can take pleasure from watching another person die. I think this is the reason that the reality of industrial meat production is such a closely guarded secret. If people knew what happened behind those closed doors they'd eat a lot less meat.
I have a similar opinion about skin in the game for war, any politician who votes for or pushes for combat action has to go themselves into the most dangerous part of the action to help carry it out.
Yes. I 100% support the national vote for all aggressive 'war' actions, where a yes vote is also registration for selective service for that action.
I understand that system becomes vulnerable to bad-faith actors who can use PR and other means to turn public opinion against US interference to then get away with whatever they want.
I also think death penalty by lethal injection should be illegal. It is regularly botched, leaving the victim to suffocate or experience a fatal heart attack for minutes without pain killers while also paralyzed. Seems fairly cruel and unusual to paralyze someone and then suffocate them while leaving them conscious.
There’s also something deeply unseemly about a method of execution that is quite painful but designed to make the executioners feel better about what they’re doing. If we’re going to execute people it should be via firing squad, which is honest about what is happening and much less painful for the condemned. If we’re not comfortable with that, well then maybe we shouldn’t be doing this at all then.
I agree with the point you're making, but there are far more humane methods than firing squad. Firing squad causes trauma issues for those doing the firing, and could easily be botched as well.
Asphyxiation by another gas such as helium is generally considered to be "better" as far as I understand – it creates a feeling of euphoria for the subject.
This is not an endorsement of any method of execution, I'm strongly against the entire idea.
Right, but that's a feature and not a bug. You really don't want the state to be able to execute people without someone feeling morally culpable for it.
I don't know exact details, but because of the chemical structure of helium, it binds to red blood blood cells without causing the body panic, like CO2 and others would.
Your brain doesn't stay conscious too long without oxygen, so it's pretty quick once you start breathing it in.
There are two things about Oxygen free environments.
First, humans can't actually detect Oxygen. We can detect CO2, largely because the build up in our blood makes it more acidic, but we can't actually tell how much Oxygen is in the air or in our bodies. The negative feeling of holding your breath isn't caused by insufficient air, but the buildup of CO2 in your blood due to metabolism. As such, humans actually can't detect an oxygen free room, as long as it isn't full of CO2 (we'd notice that).
Second, part of how we absorb gas is via the difference in gas pressure between our blood and the air. When the partial pressure of CO2 in our blood is higher than the air, it diffuses out, and when the partial pressure of O2 in the air is higher than our blood it tends to dissolve into solution. In an Oxygen free environment any O2 in our blood not already bound up by Hemoglobin rapidly diffuses away, robbing us of O2 faster than holding our breath and cell metabolism normally would, resulting in loss of consciousness very quickly.
The combination of these is why it is advised you never enter an Oxygen free environment without a self contained breathing apparatus. Industrial reports are littered with tragic stories of multiple people entering an N2 or Halogen environment to rescue their friends, only to perish themselves.
Hangings get botched fairly often. The last execution at the Old Idaho Penitentiary, now a historical site in Boise, took 15 minutes to finish. Not really an improvement over lethal injection in that area.
Beheading works, but requires a lot of specialized equipment and what not. Meanwhile a firing squad doesn't really require any special equipment and training above and beyond what the judicial system already has available.
I think the method of execution should depend on how much the victim suffered. Killed in their sleep or never noticed the bullet? Asfixiation with an inert gas.
Abducted, raped, tortured and killed? Bring out the rack.
But then I am also okay with the death penalty for rape, but SCOTUS has already ruled that one out.
My main concern in making sure there was a fair trial and that the conviction was correct - replacing death with life in prison is not a substitute for a fair trail.
I always found it interesting how many people consider themselves devout Christians and also become Marines/Soldiers and kill others for a living.
Islam and Judaism, sure, their books are littered with commands from god to kill people over resources and dogma, but Christians? In contrast to Judaism or Islam, Christ never ordered his devotees to wage war, steal, commit genocide or give their enemy's virgin women to soldiers as sex slaves.
These guys know that they are doing wrong both by secular ideals and by their own dogma. Maybe they deserve PTSD and to suffer for their sins?
I suspect this is a side effect of Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.
You cannot keep an empire of that size together without quite a lot of violence, especially when enemies like Attila the Hun come plundering your territory, so you find all kinds of religious justifications for war and killing even against the original intent. The alternative is defeat and slavery.
Where did you get the idea that it doesn't give authorities the power to use force? How is law enforcement etc supposed to work if there is no possibility of using any sort of force?
From Romans 13
1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
7. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Note: those were the words of that revisionist bastard Paul. The closest Jesus ever came to saying anything like that was "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", and even there, there's a significant range of interpretation.
Interesting. Extremely traumatizing to the executioner, despite the (theoretically) bloodless death. I do wonder why prisoners being executed aren't completely anaesthetized first so that they don't/can't feel pain. Also, compare and contrast to the attitudes of an executioner in Saudi Arabia who generally uses a sword to behead people [0]:
"[T]here are many people who faint when they witness an execution. I don't know why they come and watch if they don't have the stomach for it. Me? I sleep very well."
"There are no drawbacks for my social life."
"I successfully trained my son Musaed, 22, as an executioner and he was approved and chosen," he says proudly.
At the risk of sounding too ghoulish, I wonder if the right lens to view this through might be that of alienation from one's work. TFA's executioners are technicians, dressed up in the gloves and scrubs otherwise associated with people who save and preserve lives. Saudi executioners use a fucking sword, you know, like we always have! Of course, that cultural factor helps too.
Not that dressing up in a black hood and hanging people would necessarily be less traumatic, but maybe we'd think differently if there was a cultural continuity of hangmen hanging people which we were all casually aware of as a consequence of growing up and learning about the world.
Setting aside the morality of the death penalty, the methods used by prisons have been grotesquely mismanaged. I’m not surprised state-sanctioned homicide, as it was characterized in the article, has left an indelible mark on anyone willing to take on such a ghastly job. For the reason that nobody wants to do this job, the methods are subjected to further inefficiencies that turn executions into torture.
The documentary, Mr. Death, by Errol Morris (who also directed Fog of War) comes to mind. Well worth a watch for anyone who doesn’t mind the gruesome topic, which I’m guessing is anyone reading this comment. It chronicles the rise of a private citizen and jailhouse worker who decided he could improve the electric chair —- despite having no background at all. Eventually he was advising on all sorts of execution methods.
My opinion is simple. We should just never kill people except when there's an imminent threat. The death penalty doesn't deter crime, and life in prison is significant enough punishment. As far as I can tell, the death penalty mostly just serves to satiate the appetite of those who want revenge. Does it provide victims with enough solace to justify its downsides? I doubt it.
Absolutely. And let's not forget innocent people do get convicted and even if there is a 99% accuracy the state still kills innocent people. You can't get years behind bars back, but at least you're still alive if your conviction gets overturned.
>> life in prison is significant enough punishment.
What is the point of keeping a human behind bars for 50, 60 years?
Especially in a clear-cut case like a mass shooting. Those guys are still alive, behind bars, forever, unless they shoot themselves when they are done.
My local grocery store cards everyone for alcohol, even people obviously in their 90s. It turns out it's really hard to determine what counts as "clear-cut", and there are consequences for fucking it up.
What would you say to people like myself who view "life in prison" as essentially the death penalty with 'entropy' chosen as the method of execution? Is the purpose of prison punishment or reform? If the latter, there is no reason for life in prison; what use is reformation to someone who's stuck in prison for their entire life? If the former, then life imprisonment is a terrible punishment from an economic standpoint. Incarcerating an inmate can cost anywhere from $80,000[0] to $200,000 per year. Death row inmates can double that amount. Looking at the situation from a completely cold-blooded perspective, life imprisonment is a worst-of-both-worlds compromise. It maximizes the suffering of the individual prisoner and wastes the maximum amount of the people's money. How many other people's lives could that money save if we weren't subject to identifiable victim bias?
If prison is so expensive, stop putting people there for no-victim crimes like smoking some weed. Then the money can go to humanely incarcerating real criminals without giving them the easy way out of death.
Question; if, upon finding a defendant guilty of a severe enough crime, they were instantly and automatically transported to a foreign island not under the control of the state, would the government have a duty to deliver food and other amenities to them? That is to say, are the people of a nation morally obliged to provide for people that they no longer want to be part of their community? If your answer is no, and no other country will take in the person found guilty of the crime, then what is the government supposed to do? If your answer is yes, that's quite a strange position to me. It prioritizes the needs of criminals above that of law-abiding citizens (as, with rare exceptions, a law-abiding citizen is unlikely to have their physical needs met in such a manner by the state). Why should your tax dollars go towards the care and housing of a person who has proven themselves eager and able to murder you if the opportunity arose?
Also, you have either misunderstood or altered my premise. Regarding the first part, It's not that the life of an inmate has no value; my premise is that said life costs more to preserve than the education and healthcare that could be provided to dozens or hundreds of people for every year that said inmate languishes in prison. I'm comparing the QALY's of a prisoner with others. Life imprisonment as an intervention fails to maximize social utility and fails at the task of killing fewest people because, after all, (regarding the second part) everything that a government does kills people. A state that spends 2 billion dollars on housing death row inmates is choosing not to spend that money on improving its education, infrastructure, social programs, healthcare systems, and everything else it can do that save lives. Hence why I mentioned the identificable victim bias; people on death row feel more like victims than the hundreds of people that will freeze to death in the streets because of a lack of housing, or when wildfires consume their homes, or because higher taxes and regulations have stalled out the economy and left them destitute and hopeless. They are killed by neglect rather than direct action, but they are dead all the same.
The American prison complex is an inhumane travesty, and life imprisonment is one of its worst failures. It is the worst compromise possible between those who see the system as fundamentally reformatory, and those who see it in talionic terms. It is maximum punishment at maximum cost.
Note that the original article's title was "They executed people for the state of South Carolina. For some, it nearly destroyed them." and not this, if you'll forgive my language, wishy-washy 'both-sides' thing.
"when they asked the warden, Robert Ward, if they could take a break from execution work, he said they could lose their leadership roles if they didn’t do it, the men said. ... So they kept going. They both valued their managerial roles and needed them to support their families."
They did it for the money and status.
They chose to do other people's dirty work in a corrupt and utterly indefensible system. No one forced them to be killers. This is what people are like.
Someone strongly pressured them to be killers, and they lacked the moral courage to say "no". But maybe we'd be better off not creating systems where people need that moral courage?
Don't fall into the trap of accepting the premise. Killing was always considered evil. An evil that's occasionally necessary or justified, sure, but so is today.
If a person commits a crime they must face some kind of societal intervention. When that intervention is punishment the goal is to make an example of that person. The purpose of punishment is to disincentivize certain crimes.
Jail is a weird mix of punishment and intervention. Prisoners are isolated so that they can’t commit more crimes and given free food and medical. But they are exposed to brutal violence.
I would like for jail to be reformed. Take the violence out of it by physically separating the inmates. And only put people in jail for violent crime, crimes where it’s necessary to keep them away.
If a person in jail murders another inmate, isn’t that kind of stupid to add more jail time? You’re going to give the guy 100 years when he’s already serving life? This is insanity. It makes prison an unusual and cruel form of punishment because it makes jail a very violent place where people kill on a whim and face literally little to no punishment. The good intentioned liberals are creating hell on earth. If a person murders a fellow prisoner then they should be put to a humane death at once. Everything is on camera in jail, there won’t be any question about what happened or who did it.
The death penalty is something where it saves a lot of money for the tax payer. please don’t link to those liberal articles that say otherwise, it’s propaganda — without endless appeals and other bullshit it is infinitely cheaper. Serving time in a proper jail, not the nightmare jails that we have now, is a gift. Society says “we will pay to house you so that you can live out your life even though you’re too dangerous to be a free man.” So the question is when is it appropriate to execute instead? The answer is when it is necessary (ie jail killing) or when the crime must be heavily disincentivized. The latter is a matter of opinion but everyone could agree on some basic set of things like the murder of children. If there is any room for doubt in their conviction then execution should not be used.
Humane execution is possible. The drugs they use now is like the rest of the justice system: broken, poorly thought out. Hypoxia is cheap, reliable and humane. If I had a terminal illness it’s what I would choose. Combined with the option for sedative and anxiolytic drugs, it’s full proof.
In the us our healthcare system is corrupt and terrible as well as many other things. But the state of our jails is truly a stain on our country.
"The death penalty is something where it saves a lot of money for the tax payer. please don’t link to those liberal articles that say otherwise, it’s propaganda — without endless appeals and other bullshit it is infinitely cheaper."
Let me guess, white, male, 25-35, living in a suburb. Make about $100k and feel you should be making $250k. Sexual fantasies about your sister and your dad you'd really like to act out. Call yourself a christian, but that's just because you want to molest little boys.
Listen to a lot of Alex Jones an think you're a downtrodden class of human, what being white, upper middle-class, and a nzi who enjoys licking shitty asses?
> The film is based on the life of Britain's most prolific hangman, Albert Pierrepoint (played by Timothy Spall), from the time he is first trained for the job and accepted onto the list of the country's official hangmen in 1932 until his resignation in 1956.
69 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 211 ms ] threadS/he should be the one to follow through on the state mandated and sanctioned death of one of its people. They are the head of the state after all, with the power to stay the execution.
> The governor is always listening through a phone when people condemned to die in South Carolina take their last breath. During 13 of the state’s recent executions, the Commander was on the line with the governor.
Sitting in your office hundreds of miles away is nowhere near the same as being in the room, looking the condemned in the eyes.
Executions have a long history of being a public event and fun/exciting/scratching a human morbid itch and satisfying cravings for justice (putting aside the innocence / false positive question for a moment) and I think a contemporary audience may exhibit some of the same historical reactions and behaviors
I would be disappointed. I would also be surprised. I think there's a reason executions aren't public any more, and I think it's because we have largely evolved beyond the point where most of us can take pleasure from watching another person die. I think this is the reason that the reality of industrial meat production is such a closely guarded secret. If people knew what happened behind those closed doors they'd eat a lot less meat.
I understand that system becomes vulnerable to bad-faith actors who can use PR and other means to turn public opinion against US interference to then get away with whatever they want.
But I also believe it is important.
There’s also something deeply unseemly about a method of execution that is quite painful but designed to make the executioners feel better about what they’re doing. If we’re going to execute people it should be via firing squad, which is honest about what is happening and much less painful for the condemned. If we’re not comfortable with that, well then maybe we shouldn’t be doing this at all then.
Asphyxiation by another gas such as helium is generally considered to be "better" as far as I understand – it creates a feeling of euphoria for the subject.
This is not an endorsement of any method of execution, I'm strongly against the entire idea.
Still wouldn't ease my conscious if I was holding the gun, personally.
I don't know exact details, but because of the chemical structure of helium, it binds to red blood blood cells without causing the body panic, like CO2 and others would.
Your brain doesn't stay conscious too long without oxygen, so it's pretty quick once you start breathing it in.
But being painless is not really the point. The fact that lethal injection is painful is a feature in the minds of those who advocate it.
First, humans can't actually detect Oxygen. We can detect CO2, largely because the build up in our blood makes it more acidic, but we can't actually tell how much Oxygen is in the air or in our bodies. The negative feeling of holding your breath isn't caused by insufficient air, but the buildup of CO2 in your blood due to metabolism. As such, humans actually can't detect an oxygen free room, as long as it isn't full of CO2 (we'd notice that).
Second, part of how we absorb gas is via the difference in gas pressure between our blood and the air. When the partial pressure of CO2 in our blood is higher than the air, it diffuses out, and when the partial pressure of O2 in the air is higher than our blood it tends to dissolve into solution. In an Oxygen free environment any O2 in our blood not already bound up by Hemoglobin rapidly diffuses away, robbing us of O2 faster than holding our breath and cell metabolism normally would, resulting in loss of consciousness very quickly.
The combination of these is why it is advised you never enter an Oxygen free environment without a self contained breathing apparatus. Industrial reports are littered with tragic stories of multiple people entering an N2 or Halogen environment to rescue their friends, only to perish themselves.
Helium doesn't react to anything chemically without a shit ton of energy.
Why not hanging? Or beheading? Those seem pretty honest to me.
Beheading works, but requires a lot of specialized equipment and what not. Meanwhile a firing squad doesn't really require any special equipment and training above and beyond what the judicial system already has available.
But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there were a market for guillotines they would be readily available too. They are not hard to make.
Abducted, raped, tortured and killed? Bring out the rack.
But then I am also okay with the death penalty for rape, but SCOTUS has already ruled that one out.
My main concern in making sure there was a fair trial and that the conviction was correct - replacing death with life in prison is not a substitute for a fair trail.
Islam and Judaism, sure, their books are littered with commands from god to kill people over resources and dogma, but Christians? In contrast to Judaism or Islam, Christ never ordered his devotees to wage war, steal, commit genocide or give their enemy's virgin women to soldiers as sex slaves.
These guys know that they are doing wrong both by secular ideals and by their own dogma. Maybe they deserve PTSD and to suffer for their sins?
You cannot keep an empire of that size together without quite a lot of violence, especially when enemies like Attila the Hun come plundering your territory, so you find all kinds of religious justifications for war and killing even against the original intent. The alternative is defeat and slavery.
How many more millennial until humanity becomes free of our barbaric abrahamic past?
From Romans 13 1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
"[T]here are many people who faint when they witness an execution. I don't know why they come and watch if they don't have the stomach for it. Me? I sleep very well."
"There are no drawbacks for my social life."
"I successfully trained my son Musaed, 22, as an executioner and he was approved and chosen," he says proudly.
"Sometimes [my family] help me clean my sword."
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/06/saudiarabia.fe...
Not that dressing up in a black hood and hanging people would necessarily be less traumatic, but maybe we'd think differently if there was a cultural continuity of hangmen hanging people which we were all casually aware of as a consequence of growing up and learning about the world.
The documentary, Mr. Death, by Errol Morris (who also directed Fog of War) comes to mind. Well worth a watch for anyone who doesn’t mind the gruesome topic, which I’m guessing is anyone reading this comment. It chronicles the rise of a private citizen and jailhouse worker who decided he could improve the electric chair —- despite having no background at all. Eventually he was advising on all sorts of execution methods.
What is the point of keeping a human behind bars for 50, 60 years?
Especially in a clear-cut case like a mass shooting. Those guys are still alive, behind bars, forever, unless they shoot themselves when they are done.
[0]: https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost [1]: https://www.golocalprov.com/news/maximum-security-prisoners-...
And no longer wrongful death penalties
- an inmate living the remainder of his natural in prison instead of being killed today
- a society not having killed a person in an act of state-sponsored revenge
Question; if, upon finding a defendant guilty of a severe enough crime, they were instantly and automatically transported to a foreign island not under the control of the state, would the government have a duty to deliver food and other amenities to them? That is to say, are the people of a nation morally obliged to provide for people that they no longer want to be part of their community? If your answer is no, and no other country will take in the person found guilty of the crime, then what is the government supposed to do? If your answer is yes, that's quite a strange position to me. It prioritizes the needs of criminals above that of law-abiding citizens (as, with rare exceptions, a law-abiding citizen is unlikely to have their physical needs met in such a manner by the state). Why should your tax dollars go towards the care and housing of a person who has proven themselves eager and able to murder you if the opportunity arose?
Also, you have either misunderstood or altered my premise. Regarding the first part, It's not that the life of an inmate has no value; my premise is that said life costs more to preserve than the education and healthcare that could be provided to dozens or hundreds of people for every year that said inmate languishes in prison. I'm comparing the QALY's of a prisoner with others. Life imprisonment as an intervention fails to maximize social utility and fails at the task of killing fewest people because, after all, (regarding the second part) everything that a government does kills people. A state that spends 2 billion dollars on housing death row inmates is choosing not to spend that money on improving its education, infrastructure, social programs, healthcare systems, and everything else it can do that save lives. Hence why I mentioned the identificable victim bias; people on death row feel more like victims than the hundreds of people that will freeze to death in the streets because of a lack of housing, or when wildfires consume their homes, or because higher taxes and regulations have stalled out the economy and left them destitute and hopeless. They are killed by neglect rather than direct action, but they are dead all the same.
The American prison complex is an inhumane travesty, and life imprisonment is one of its worst failures. It is the worst compromise possible between those who see the system as fundamentally reformatory, and those who see it in talionic terms. It is maximum punishment at maximum cost.
"when they asked the warden, Robert Ward, if they could take a break from execution work, he said they could lose their leadership roles if they didn’t do it, the men said. ... So they kept going. They both valued their managerial roles and needed them to support their families."
They did it for the money and status.
They chose to do other people's dirty work in a corrupt and utterly indefensible system. No one forced them to be killers. This is what people are like.
Jail is a weird mix of punishment and intervention. Prisoners are isolated so that they can’t commit more crimes and given free food and medical. But they are exposed to brutal violence.
I would like for jail to be reformed. Take the violence out of it by physically separating the inmates. And only put people in jail for violent crime, crimes where it’s necessary to keep them away.
If a person in jail murders another inmate, isn’t that kind of stupid to add more jail time? You’re going to give the guy 100 years when he’s already serving life? This is insanity. It makes prison an unusual and cruel form of punishment because it makes jail a very violent place where people kill on a whim and face literally little to no punishment. The good intentioned liberals are creating hell on earth. If a person murders a fellow prisoner then they should be put to a humane death at once. Everything is on camera in jail, there won’t be any question about what happened or who did it.
The death penalty is something where it saves a lot of money for the tax payer. please don’t link to those liberal articles that say otherwise, it’s propaganda — without endless appeals and other bullshit it is infinitely cheaper. Serving time in a proper jail, not the nightmare jails that we have now, is a gift. Society says “we will pay to house you so that you can live out your life even though you’re too dangerous to be a free man.” So the question is when is it appropriate to execute instead? The answer is when it is necessary (ie jail killing) or when the crime must be heavily disincentivized. The latter is a matter of opinion but everyone could agree on some basic set of things like the murder of children. If there is any room for doubt in their conviction then execution should not be used.
Humane execution is possible. The drugs they use now is like the rest of the justice system: broken, poorly thought out. Hypoxia is cheap, reliable and humane. If I had a terminal illness it’s what I would choose. Combined with the option for sedative and anxiolytic drugs, it’s full proof.
In the us our healthcare system is corrupt and terrible as well as many other things. But the state of our jails is truly a stain on our country.
"liberal bullshit"
@dang
Let me guess, white, male, 25-35, living in a suburb. Make about $100k and feel you should be making $250k. Sexual fantasies about your sister and your dad you'd really like to act out. Call yourself a christian, but that's just because you want to molest little boys.
Listen to a lot of Alex Jones an think you're a downtrodden class of human, what being white, upper middle-class, and a nzi who enjoys licking shitty asses?
> The film is based on the life of Britain's most prolific hangman, Albert Pierrepoint (played by Timothy Spall), from the time he is first trained for the job and accepted onto the list of the country's official hangmen in 1932 until his resignation in 1956.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrepoint_(film)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint