The problem with the Death Penalty - we're trying to pretend that we're not really murdering someone

[scarletwoman]

It's ridiculous. If we want the state to kill someone, then we should make sure that the state just plain kills them.

Shoot 'em in the head, stab 'em in the heart, cut off their head, rip out their innards, throw 'em in a gas chamber, electrocute 'em, hang 'em, make 'em bite down on a cyanide capsule - just fucking DO it. This whole charade of laying someone down on a bed (with a fucking pillow, no less!) and poking into a vein, and trying to make it look decent is garbage.

If you want to kill someone, stop trying to make it look clean. There's no such thing as a clean death when it's being done deliberately.

If your sensibilities are too delicate to witness someone being killed by firing squad, or any other method of swift and sure death-dealing, then maybe you ought to re-think the whole deal about state-sanctioned murder.

Jeeze...

[Prophet 451]

1. Well, we're not murdering someone

Granted, this is legalism but the offence of murder requires an unlawful killing. If something is legal, it isn't murder, by definition.

That said, I agree with the more general point. If you're going to have a death penalty, you should use whichever method of execution is most painless for the condemned, whatever that may be.

[scarletwoman]

3. Okay, I'll yield to the legalism. Still, if you set out out to kill someone deliberately,

that seems like a murderous intent - whether it's "lawful" or not.

Semantics and legalisms aside, if you're determined to kill, then at least do it efficiently.

[Prophet 451]

8. On that, we agree entirely n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. That is why death certs say homicide

ok, keep that fantasy.

[dpbrown]

9. There are many forms of homocide

Murder is just one. The point the above person was making is that it's not murder if it's legal homocide. Homocide by definition is just the killing of one human by another. Since societies and legal systems put different definitions on various forms of homocide, some are murder, some are negligent, and some are legal.

That being said, no society needs to put its citizens to death for any reason. Any reasonable person could understand that making a person suffer while alive and in prison beats freeing them from the bonds of existence.

[GOPee]

37. I have a real dilemma, when taking a firm stand on the DP.

We've had a close relative murdered in cold blood, by a career criminal, with a prior murder conviction in his past, when he was a teen.. He killed my nephew, 17 yo, for his new leather jacket. Imagine that, a coat! I was shocked that he received only 15 years to life. Like it or not, and I hate it, some people need to be eliminated from the threat to murder at will. There are people that are walking the streets that are pure EVIL

[Major Nikon]

12. So Hitler didn't murder 6 million Jews?

[Prophet 451]

16. Depends on which legal standard you're using

By international law, he absolutely did. By German law at the time, that's complicated because it's unclear if German law ever actually made killing Jews (and Roma and, well, anyone they disliked) legal or not.

Note, I am talking about the letter of the law here. It's an admittedly nitpicky legal point.

[Major Nikon]

21. Use any legal standard you wish that existed at the time

Which international law? Please be specific since you are talking about the letter of the law and we can pick nits.

After the Enabling Act of 1933, Hitler was dictator of Germany. He had the power to write any law he wished and legally kill as many Jews or anyone else he wished (at least within his own borders during peacetime). The word genocide didn't even exist before 1944. Certainly those who were killed outside Germany's borders and during wartime were a different matter.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Of course it's ridiculous, but...

every time we come up with an argument against it, they counter with some bullshit like making it painless.

The whole lethal injection thing comes out of lawsuits claiming executions are cruel and unusual. Our argument was that execution itself is cruel and unusual, but they argued it was the methods used, so they came up with "comfortable" ones.

And that's the way it's still dealt with. But nobody's mentioning that what we're really doing it cleaning it up and making it ok for modern sensibilities. If I were to be pro execution, I'd agree with just kill 'em and get it over with. Line 'em up and machine gun 'em down. We had gallows with multiple ropes, why not ganged guillotines... How about family members and friends be the executioners-- real down home justice there.

Poison in the last meal?

You might want to goggle up Raney Bethea, who had the honor of being the last public execution in the US in 1936. I knew a guy whose father said he was there, and it was nasty stuff, but probably not quite as rowdy as some reports had it. Anyway, aside from the obvious hysteria over a black man executed in Kentucky for the rape and murder of a white woman, the stories about it in the yellow press back then were so revolting that public executions were banned nationwide soon after.

True crime can make you sick, but what we do about it is often no better.

[scarletwoman]

4. "True crime can make you sick, but what we do about it is often no better."

Exactly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. If I might add

if we are going to do it... I want this on live TV, breaking news, all channels, no escape, in the middle of the day. Oh and for my fellow photographers, tight shots please, of the dying condemned prisoner. Oh and no hoods, if we chose hanging, I want the public to see the purple tongue hanging out, and the bug eyes.

Oh and no hood for the executioner either. I want to know it was Bob or Jane... and chiefly I want their neighbors to know it was them.

We have medicalized it to try to make it palatable. And we moved it behind prison walls because people were pretty much turning against it in the 1920s after a couple botched executions. One was so gory the person dropped (we used to hang them then), and the body separated from the head, bathing some of the witnesses in blood.

[scarletwoman]

7. Yes, enough of trying to sanitize it!

If we support this, then we ought to witness it.

[Rex]

10. State sanctioned murder should disturb people.

http://www.tv.com/shows/the-twilight-zone/the-obsolete-man-12649/

[Taitertots]

11. The problem with prison - We're trying to pretend we arn't intentionally making people suffer

If the state is going to inflict suffering on people, then shouldn't they make sure those people really suffer.
Burn 'em, waterboard 'em, torture 'em....



If you think a quick painless death is qualitatively no different from a torturing someone to death, then you have a disgusting lack of morality.

[NYC_SKP]

13. Best post in weeks.

What's happened to DU?

He'll if I say another word I'll get my post hidden by an anonymous jury.

WTF?



K/R

[Electric Monk]

19. Are forum/group hosts allowed to have 4 hidden posts in the past 90 days?

I thought that even one hide disqualified them from hosting anymore, and they were supposed to get back in line once they had a clean record. Or something like that. I don't have a link.

I'd welcome anyone who knows the rule to jump in and clarify

[NYC_SKP]

20. juries are random as you know...

and stalkers and bullies are not unknown to the board.

[Electric Monk]

22. When the jury votes 5-2 or 6-1 I don't think you can really call it a fluke bad luck hide.

[billh58]

23. From the "Announcements" page:

Last edited Sat May 3, 2014, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=3332

If you have five hidden posts on your account you will be unable to post.
... If you have five hidden posts showing on your Transparency page (a 90-day period), then you will be temporarily unable to post. In order to regain your ability to post, you will need to wait until the oldest post of the five is more than 90 days old and "falls off" of your record. At that point you will only have four posts showing on your Transparency page, and you will regain your ability to post.

- Snip -

Members whose transparency pages are showing will be restricted in the following ways: 1) they can't post, 2) they can't serve on juries, 3) they can't serve as hosts in forums or groups, and 4) they can't serve on the Malicious Intruder Removal Team. If they are currently assigned as a host or as a MIRT member, they will be removed by the software.

It's a cliff hanger...

[Major Nikon]

24. I'm not sure if it was ever implemented

This was the last I saw on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595589#post1

[Electric Monk]

31. Ah, thanks, that explains why their hosting abilities haven't been removed. They need 1 more hide.nt

[blkmusclmachine]

14. ,

,

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. The problem is we feel "justice" = "revenge".

[TroglodyteScholar]

26. You missed the point

You are correct, but the point of the original post is that those seeking the revenge do all they can to make themselves feel civilized and humane via the method of execution. It's a big self-deception, and murder is barbaric in any case.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

30. Carlin went there and said we should televise executions....

Set up a guillotine and have the heads roll down a ramp into numbered holes and have the audience try to guess which hole the heads roll into.

[TroglodyteScholar]

35. Yep, that's about the highest level of dignity state-sponsored killing will ever have. n/t

[AAO]

17. A Valium drip until they pass out, then stop breathing, then heart stops. Completely painless.

[AScott]

29. Humane enough by any reasonable standard.

[leftieNanner]

18. No More Death Penalty!

Ever. Anywhere. It's wrong. It's barbaric. Life without possibility of parole should be the sentence for heinous crimes. What happened in Oklahoma this week is beyond hideous.

[TroglodyteScholar]

25. The voice of reason here

Thanks for posting

[avebury]

27. Executing someone is not a pretty process.

If this country wants to execute someone it should be done in broad daylight in front of the world. Let everyone see exactly what it is absent any coverups or attempts to make it more palatable for the viewers. The fact that states are now writing and passing laws to make the process around executions secret should be a major clue that there is a problem with the death penalty.

I am 100% against the death penalty because it is the sign of a barbaric culture, you can't rely upon legal community to prevent innocent people from ending up on death row and being executed (and even Scalia has said that future proof of innocence is not grounds to not execute someone), and anyone who believes in the sanctity of life cannot then cherry pick who lives and who dies.

I truly dare all the blood thirsty people out there who thrive on executing the bad guys to demand public executions. It will never happen because when people see how horrendous the process is, it might cause the people to rise up against the death penalty.

[yallerdawg]

28. Now, what's the penalty...

for executing an innocent man or woman? If we all agree capitol punishment is murder?

And now 1 in 25 death row inmates are likely innocent?

[GeorgeGist]

33. Hospital medical errors now the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

Medical errors leading to patient death are much higher than previously thought, and may be as high as 400,000 deaths a year, according to a new study in the Journal of Patient Safety.

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/hospital-medical-errors-third-leading-cause-death-dispute-to-err-is-human-report/2013-09-20

[GeorgeGist]

32. Should would stop using drugs for euthanasia of animals?

[unblock]

34. technically it's not murder. it's merely cold-blooded, premeditated homicide

other forms of legalized killings involve some sort of emergency involving imminent harm otherwise. self-defense, war, etc.

this is the only time it is deemed acceptable to commit a cold-blooded, premeditated killing when there is a perfectly reasonable, peacful alternative exists (life imprisonment without parole) not only at the ready, but already well under way (anyone getting executed has already been imprisoned for years).

even if executions were perfect (completely pain-free, never botched, never done on an innocent person, zero bias, etc.) it would still be heinous act that no one can and no group can ever actually do and plausibly claim that it's right and proper.

nevermind that governments inherently prone to becoming corrupt, biased, and tyrannical and therefore killing their own subjects is a right they should never have.

[johnlucas]

36. Agreed

The whole "Justice" System is really the Revenge System.

Human beings get really funny when it comes to killing things.
It's "Neutralize the Target" or "Euthanization" or "Put to Sleep" or "Casualties" or "Collateral Damage".
Euphemisms piss me off.

The way you talk about things can influence the way you think about things.
And if you go around with misleading dishonest talk, you might just end up being a misleading dishonest person.

I think George Carlin had a bit about shellshock & the Department of War once...
John Lucas