The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Suey Park my favorite new political activist. One of my friends is convinced she is actually a Republican doing a Colbert'esque impersonation of an activist, but I think she is for real.

 

I have no doubt she's for real.

[Balta1701]

This mayor of a South Carolina town fired the local police chief for being gay for whatever excuse he came up with after he realized she was gay.

 

I'd just like to stress...firing her for no other reason than being gay is 100%, completely legal in that state and in more than 1/2 of this country.

“I would much rather have … and I will say this to anybody’s face … somebody who drank and drank too much taking care of my child than I had somebody whose lifestyle is questionable around children.

 

“Because that ain’t the damn way it’s supposed to be. You know … you got people out there – I’m telling you buddy – I don’t agree with some of the lifestyles that I see portrayed and I don’t say anything because that is the way they want to live, but I am not going to let my child be around.

 

“I’m not going to let two women stand up there and hold hands and let my child be aware of it. And I’m not going to see them do it with two men neither. I’m not going to do it. Because that ain’t the way the world works.

 

“Now, all these people showering down and saying ‘Oh it’s a different lifestyle they can have it.’ Ok, fine and dandy, but I don’t have to look at it and I don’t want my child around it.”

[Balta1701]

So...Oklahoma killed a man last night in a way that makes Thomas Edison's elephant electrocution look humane.

[CrimsonWeltall]

So...Oklahoma killed a man last night in a way that makes Thomas Edison's elephant electrocution look humane.

 

Why is it so difficult to knock someone off in a reasonably quick and painless way? These supposedly humane methods like gas chambers and lethal injection seem needlessly complicated and prone to being botched.

 

How about like 5 ambien to knock them out and then a bullet to the brain/decapitation while they're asleep?

[Balta1701]

Why is it so difficult to knock someone off in a reasonably quick and painless way? These supposedly humane methods like gas chambers and lethal injection seem needlessly complicated and prone to being botched.

 

How about like 5 ambien to knock them out and then a bullet to the brain/decapitation while they're asleep?

Apparently part of the problem in this one was in the first step, the "5 ambien to knock them out" step.

[StrangeSox]

Why is it so difficult to knock someone off in a reasonably quick and painless way? These supposedly humane methods like gas chambers and lethal injection seem needlessly complicated and prone to being botched.

 

How about like 5 ambien to knock them out and then a bullet to the brain/decapitation while they're asleep?

 

You could kill someone with a quick and massive overdose of opiates, but the body can react pretty violently to that. They give a bunch of muscle relaxants first for the viewing audience's sake.

 

Also something that might be worth noting, doctors do not administer the lethal injection. They'd be reprimanded by the AMA if they were involved in the actual execution.

[GoSox05]

US death row study: 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent

 

 

Between botched executions and the fact that we are probably killing innocent people, time to get rid of the death penalty.

Edited April 30, 2014 by GoSox05

[cabiness42]

You could kill someone with a quick and massive overdose of opiates, but the body can react pretty violently to that. They give a bunch of muscle relaxants first for the viewing audience's sake.

 

Also something that might be worth noting, doctors do not administer the lethal injection. They'd be reprimanded by the AMA if they were involved in the actual execution.

 

Just stick them inside a uterus. Then you can kill them in all kinds of torturous ways with no problem.

[StrangeSox]

zing!

[CrimsonWeltall]

Apparently part of the problem in this one was in the first step, the "5 ambien to knock them out" step.

 

Well if the actually killing step were something quick, and not some "chemical that slowly turns your bodily functions off", then there wouldn't be an issue of step 1 needing to last a long time.

[Jenksismyhero]

So...Oklahoma killed a man last night in a way that makes Thomas Edison's elephant electrocution look humane.

 

Boo. f***ing. Hoo.

 

Mr. Lockett was convicted of shooting a 19-year-old woman in 1999 and burying her alive. Mr. Warner, condemned for the rape and murder of an 11-month-old girl in 1997, was to be executed two hours later.

 

It infuriates me that you people feel sympathy for these animals.

[StrangeSox]

I don't feel sympathy for that man. I feel that we're better than him and shouldn't be torturing and killing people.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't feel sympathy for that man. I feel that we're better than him and shouldn't be torturing and killing people.

 

How is that not sympathy? You feel bad that he was "tortured" and killed. Why?

Edited April 30, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

I guess because I think torturing and killing people is wrong.

[StrangeSox]

Because I'm morally opposed to torture and killing and do not believe that the state should be doing these things. It does not mean I have sympathy for this specific individual or don't think his crimes were horrible.

 

It seems very odd to me to equate not wanting to torture or kill someone (or having the state do it in your name) with having sympathy for the target of the torture or killing. I'm not quite sure how you get there.

[StrangeSox]

I'm also not sure why torture is in scare quotes there. This sounds like straight-up legitimate torture, even if it wasn't done deliberately:

 

At 6:37 p.m., he tried to rise and exhaled loudly. At that point, prison officials pulled a curtain in front of the witnesses and the doctor discovered a “vein failure,” Mr. Patton said.

 

Without effective sedation, the second two drugs are known to cause agonizing suffocation and pain.

[Jenksismyhero]

I guess because I think torturing and killing people is wrong.

 

This guy suffered for minutes. How long did his victim suffer as she was shot with a sawed off shotgun and buried alive?

Edited April 30, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

I mean, I agree with you guys, this was clearly a botched attempt and something that should never happen. But I don't get why this needs to be a rallying cry for anti-lethal injection people. Let's go back to hangings and firing squads if you like. I'm ok with that.

[StrangeSox]

This guy suffered for minutes. How long did his victim suffer as she was shot with a sawed off shotgun and buried alive?

 

Probably immensely. Probably more than him. I don't see why that excuses or justifies cruel and unusual punishment, though.

 

Killing him and doing it in a painful manner doesn't undue the damage he did, doesn't bring anyone back to life. I think what he did was morally wrong, and I think that the state killing and in this case torturing him is also morally wrong. I'm not asking or expecting you to agree with my moral stance on the death penalty, but I really don't know why you think that morally opposing the death penalty and torture necessarily requires sympathy for criminals.

[Jenksismyhero]

Probably immensely. Probably more than him. I don't see why that excuses or justifies cruel and unusual punishment, though.

 

Killing him and doing it in a painful manner doesn't undue the damage he did, doesn't bring anyone back to life. I think what he did was morally wrong, and I think that the state killing and in this case torturing him is also morally wrong. I'm not asking or expecting you to agree with my moral stance on the death penalty, but I really don't know why you think that morally opposing the death penalty and torture necessarily requires sympathy for criminals.

 

Because to me there are certain killings that are justified - self defense, war, etc. And it's justified based on context. Here, with convicted criminals who performed horrific acts, I think we're justified in killing them too and I think it's justified because of that context. It doesn't undue the damage, it doesn't bring anyone back to life. But it also doesn't cost the state 60k a year or whatever for the rest of their lives either.

 

Do you think certain killings are justified? Or are they always morally wrong? If some are justified, you have to be taking something into consideration in determining that killing a convicted criminal who raped and murdered an 11 MONTH old girl doesn't deserve to die. And the only one I can think of is some kind of sympathy for him. "I don't want the state to kill people" doesn't work if you're also ok with the state killing enemies during war.

 

Edit: I'll add too that I don't buy that cruel and unusual punishment argument. 1) it's not unusual, it's been done for thousands of years. 2) Cruel is obviously relative, but I could just as easily argue that being placed in an 8x10 cement box for 23 hours a day for 60 years is also cruel.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's another question - the estate of the dead criminal will obviously be filing a lawsuit over this. Are you ok giving the family millions of dollars for the pain and suffering endured by this kind of criminal, a criminal whose victim suffered more than he did?

Edited April 30, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Because to me there are certain killings that are justified - self defense, war, etc. And it's justified based on context. Here, with convicted criminals who performed horrific acts, I think we're justified in killing them too and I think it's justified because of that context. It doesn't undue the damage, it doesn't bring anyone back to life. But it also doesn't cost the state 60k a year or whatever for the rest of their lives either.

 

Do you think certain killings are justified? Or are they always morally wrong? If some are justified, you have to be taking something into consideration in determining that killing a convicted criminal who raped and murdered an 11 MONTH old girl doesn't deserve to die. And the only one I can think of is some kind of sympathy for him. "I don't want the state to kill people" doesn't work if you're also ok with the state killing enemies during war.

 

In a (necessary and justified) war, killing people is a necessity. In the criminal justice system, it is not. I don't think a criminal justice system should be taking "does it cost more for us to kill them or keep them alive?" into account, either. That's pretty damn immoral in and of itself. I don't agree with a punitive view of a justice system, but that's less appalling than a "what costs us less" version.

 

Even setting aside the many issues with a death penalty (it's barbaric, it has a decently high rate of killing innocent people, it has a hugely disparate racial application, it's actually more expensive than LWOP, it's not actually a deterrent), it's simply not necessary to kill someone in order to achieve justice or prevent them from harming society again. Most of the world gets by without a death penalty.

 

Edit: I'll add too that I don't buy that cruel and unusual punishment argument. 1) it's not unusual, it's been done for thousands of years.

 

This argument proves far too much. By this argument, burning people alive, stoning them to death, drawing and quartering and numerous other horrible acts are okay because they've been done for thousands of years.

 

Putting aside whether or not the DP itself is C&U, lethal injection pretty clearly is. Botched executions happen, and when they do, they result in substantial suffering. I'd actually agree with you that, if we absolutely must have the state kill people convicted of certain crimes, there are more humane ways of doing it (guillotine or a competent hangman can be nearly instantaneous). But they don't look as calm and peaceful as LI, so we don't do those much these days.

 

2) Cruel is obviously relative, but I could just as easily argue that being placed in an 8x10 cement box for 23 hours a day for 60 years is also cruel.

 

Solitary confinement is definitely cruel. It seems to me that other justice systems that have maximum sentences of 20-30 years with judicial review that work as parole boards after that are more effective than ours (fwiw, that's essentially the situation Charles Manson is in, and nobody really thinks he's getting out anytime soon or that he should).

Edited April 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Here's another question - the estate of the dead criminal will obviously be filing a lawsuit over this. Are you ok giving the family millions of dollars for the pain and suffering endured by this kind of criminal, a criminal whose victim suffered more than he did?

Yes. His crimes do not exonerate the state of their wrongdoing.

[bmags]

This guy suffered for minutes. How long did his victim suffer as she was shot with a sawed off shotgun and buried alive?

 

Right, but this is under the assumption that because he felt it was okay to torture and maim I should be okay with torturing him. And that's not the case. I think he should be punished, just not tortured to death.

[Jenksismyhero]

In a (necessary and justified) war, killing people is a necessity. In the criminal justice system, it is not. I don't think a criminal justice system should be taking "does it cost more for us to kill them or keep them alive?" into account, either. That's pretty damn immoral in and of itself. I don't agree with a punitive view of a justice system, but that's less appalling than a "what costs us less" version.

 

Even setting aside the many issues with a death penalty (it's barbaric, it has a decently high rate of killing innocent people, it has a hugely disparate racial application, it's actually more expensive than LWOP, it's not actually a deterrent), it's simply not necessary to kill someone in order to achieve justice or prevent them from harming society again. Most of the world gets by without a death penalty.

 

Well we know a restorative justice system has never worked, so there's really no other alternative here. I just don't see the value in keeping these guys alive. Or keeping mass murders alive. Let's ignore the instances of error (a small percentage mind you) and stick to cases where we're 100% confident that the person who is charged is the person that did the killing - the boston marathon bomber, the colorado theater shooting. You're not going to restore them back to law abiding citizens. They'll never be free again. They've committed heinous and unforgivable crimes. What's the point of keeping them around? Why shouldn't death be the appropriate punishment?

 

And just because the world gets by or does something different doesn't make it better.

 

Putting aside whether or not the DP itself is C&U, lethal injection pretty clearly is. Botched executions happen, and when they do, they result in substantial suffering. I'd actually agree with you that, if we absolutely must have the state kill people convicted of certain crimes, there are more humane ways of doing it (guillotine or a competent hangman can be nearly instantaneous). But they don't look as calm and peaceful as LI, so we don't do those much these days.

 

What are the percentages of botched attempts though? If this happens 2% of the time, is it really cruel and unusual as a whole? They basically sedate you and then paralyze you until your heart stops. If dont properly, you don't feel anything. You go to sleep.