Lethal injection: death by slow drowning?

[Ron]

I suspect the being humane part is more about those tasked with the decision and responsibility to carry out the execution.

Ghastly might be a better deterrent but what does it do to those on the side of justice? 

[zxcvbob]

[sumpnz]

I suspect the being humane part is more about those tasked with the decision and responsibility to carry out the execution.

Ghastly might be a better deterrent but what does it do to those on the side of justice? 

Saw the movie "Pierpoint" about the British hangman.  Lead actor thought it would be a great screed against capital punishment.  I thought it was the opposite.  Not going to sign up to be a hangman.  But it was impressive the attention to detail and concern for the condemned but without excusing their crimes.

[RoadKingLarry]

I don't care what anyone says about the death penalty not being a deterrent.  It WOULD be if we still had the ghastly spectacle.  Your hardened shithead probably isn't all the worried about being put to sleep like a beloved family dog.  Nothing really scary about that.

I agree.
Bring back public executions.
Execute them in groups. Rapists, murderers, child molesters, people that use their cell phones in the movie theater....
After the violent criminals are executed the encore is those former members of the justice system (judges, prosecutors, police) that were convicted of prosecutorial and/or judicial misconduct in capital cases. Perjury, falsification of evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence... the sort of thing that gets a not guilty person onto death row.

[Angel Eyes]

https://youtu.be/eVQyzHJwThY?t=38

[MechAg94]

Hmmm... I've wondered if an efficient means of execution wouldn't be just to handcuff the perp, weigh them down, and toss them in the ocean. 

Would that be cruel and unusual?

For serious, real child molestation, I think so.  For general capital punishment, no.

[MechAg94]

I suspect the being humane part is more about those tasked with the decision and responsibility to carry out the execution.

Ghastly might be a better deterrent but what does it do to those on the side of justice? 

True. 

[K Frame]

Wait a second...

just infect the condemned with Corona Virus.

[Pb]

Last year, we had about 16,214 murders in the USA.

We also had 22 executions.

We have already abolished capital punishment in the USA for all practical purposes.

 

[MechAg94]

Last year, we had about 16,214 murders in the USA.

We also had 22 executions.

We have already abolished capital punishment in the USA for all practical purposes.

 

And none of those 22 executions were for any of the 16,214 murders last year....or the previous year. 

[makattak]

And none of those 22 executions were for any of the 16,214 murders last year....or the previous year. 

Or the previous decade, but more likely two.

[MillCreek]

^^^The delay, the lack of deterrence, and the enormous cost of death penalty cases, are all reasons why I would not shed a tear if it was eliminated formally all across the country.

[K Frame]

I've never bought that the death penalty is a deterrent.

It is a punishment.

[MechAg94]

I've never bought that the death penalty is a deterrent.

It is a punishment.

Well, yes. 

[Ron]

^^^The delay, the lack of deterrence, and the enormous cost of death penalty cases, are all reasons why I would not shed a tear if it was eliminated formally all across the country.

Our government, unfortunately, is such that I don't trust them at any level to fairly apply the application of capital punishment.

I'm not opposed to capital punishment in principle.

I'm opposed to the corruption in our government that disqualifies it from having that power over it's citizens.   

[Pb]

If we had 10k executions for murder a year, I strongly suspect it would be both a deterrent and a punishment.

[Ben]

If we had 10k executions for murder a year, I strongly suspect it would be both a deterrent and a punishment.

We'd then also likely be killing 50-100 innocent people a year.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/browse.aspx

As I've said before here, I'm 100% for the death penalty, but only with multiple, independent, absolutely concrete sources of evidence. Or the murderer freely confessing (like in a selfie video with a bodycam during the murder, not "He confessed during interrogation").

Otherwise, things like lying witnesses occur at an appalling rate (see the link above). How many times have we angrily discussed here, some innocent college kid getting railroaded for rape because a girl was mad at him?

Edit: corrected my number estimates.

[RoadKingLarry]

That's where holding those guilty of judicial and/or prosecutorial misconduct as well as anyone found guilty of perjury, subject to the same maximum penalty that their intended victim would have received, up to and including the death penalty, might serve to improve the the accuracy of the process.

[Andiron]

I suspect the being humane part is more about those tasked with the decision and responsibility to carry out the execution.

Ghastly might be a better deterrent but what does it do to those on the side of justice? 

We managed capital punishment for all of recorded history...   I don't honestly know.

That said,  I'm for the general concept, but there are concerns. Truely bad guys need to die,  but the "justice" system getting it right 100% of the time?  Impossible, and I don't trust the same system to get lesser things right.

I'm still all for hanging rapists, murderers, pedos, and those that camp out in the passing lane/don't use turn signals.

[French G.]

We managed capital punishment for all of recorded history...   I don't honestly know.

That said,  I'm for the general concept, but there are concerns. Truely bad guys need to die,  but the "justice" system getting it right 100% of the time?  Impossible, and I don't trust the same system to get lesser things right.

I'm still all for hanging rapists, murderers, pedos, and those that camp out in the passing lane/don't use turn signals.

For all of recorded history we have been murderous savages. The crimes that got the death penalty haven't always been real capital. I support the death penalty too, for those subject to the UCMJ. Different club, different rules. Here at home we get it wrong enough to not do the death penalty. Additionally, much of the evidence that can be used to convict someone is too complex for the lay juror to determine its veracity. So when DNA and other high tech stuff comes in it becomes a battle of who's lab is more corrupt and who can pay for better experts and lawyers.

[Pb]

We'd then also likely be killing 50-100 innocent people a year.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/browse.aspx

As I've said before here, I'm 100% for the death penalty, but only with multiple, independent, absolutely concrete sources of evidence. Or the murderer freely confessing (like in a selfie video with a bodycam during the murder, not "He confessed during interrogation").

Otherwise, things like lying witnesses occur at an appalling rate (see the link above). How many times have we angrily discussed here, some innocent college kid getting railroaded for rape because a girl was mad at him?

Edit: corrected my number estimates.

I respect that argument.  I think it is by far the best argument against the death penalty.

I do not agree with it however.

Punishing criminals is by far the most basic, undeniable function of legitimate government through all history and in every major religious tradition that I am aware of.

Every human action causes harm and death to some individuals- medicine, transportation, policing, electicity generation and so. 

The question is not "Will this ever cause a human being to die?" but "is it worth doing despite the fact that it may kill an innocent person?"

For example, I have read that, on average, 390 children die yearly from drowning in swimming pools and spas in the USA.

That is about four times the maximum number of potential innocent deaths you attributed to the death penalty.

I do not think it follows that, because hundreds of children die yearly from drowning in home swimming pools, that home swimming pools should be banned by law.

That is because there a benefits to swimming pools- healthy excessive, fun, and teaching people how to swim, and so on.  It is actually possible that home pools decrease drowning deaths be teaching children to swim.

In the same manner, I want you to consider the benefits of killing murderers.  Dead murderers can no longer kill guards and other prisoners (which happens a lot in the usa- the murder rate of prisoners in the USA is about 5 per 100k yearly).  They can no longer get on parole and murder others.  They can't escape and murder others.  Their deaths will, in my opinion, deter other potential murderers (at least if the death penalty were swiftly and universally applied to convicted killers).  I believe very strongly that a quick, universally applied death penalty would decrease the murder rate.  I could be wrong.  I don't think so though.

Another benefit of killing murderers is that they are evil people who deserve to die.  And it is the most basic function of the state to kill them.  It is time for the state to start doing its job and get rid of these people.

[RocketMan]

Pb, comparing the application of the death penalty to innocent persons convicted of crimes they did not commit to accidental deaths is a very poor rationale.  The two situations are not even remotely similar.  You may want to rethink that.

[Firethorn]

I might have that wrong,  ask Charby.  I was at the Butcher last week,  and he was telling me about how they kill hogs.  It's a double elevator system, a door opens,  hogs go in,  get gassed and elevated, door next to that opens, empty. rinse and repeat all day.

Different animals have different systems.  Most burrowing animals, for example, are better at detecting O2 levels, while humans, who aren't supposed to spend lots of time in restricted tunnels by evolution, only measure CO2 levels in the blood, and don't monitor O2 directly. 

CO2 asphyxiation, or better yet include a trace of CO (carbon monoxide), is pretty quick, but still very nasty as others say - people will strive mightily for air until they lose conciousness.

The thing with the elevator might be that because the pigs are all dead by the time the elevator reaches the top, people don't see their reaction during the gassing stage.

I'll note that there are certainly videos out there of pigs reacting violently to being exposed to high CO2 concentrations.

Here's a study that clearly shows that it isn't a "clean" stun(kill), at least much of the time:
https://www.grandin.com/humane/carbon.stun.html

[Pb]

Pb, comparing the application of the death penalty to innocent persons convicted of crimes they did not commit to accidental deaths is a very poor rationale.  The two situations are not even remotely similar.  You may want to rethink that.

Nope- the point is that every activity has both costs and benefits- swimming pools and the death penalty are alike in this. 

We do activities that are not 100% safe because they have benefits as well as costs.

We should not ban the death penalty using rational "if it saves just one (or a hundred) life, it is worth it!"

Doing so would get rid of the benefits of the death penalty.

If you don't like the pool example, consider this these:

Should be ban guns because of the huge number of innocent people shot, both criminally and accidentally?  (If it saves just one life!)

No; that ignores the benefits of gun ownership.  Preventing tyranny, crime etc.

Just like the argument that the death penalty should be banned because it cannot be 100% safe ignores the benefit of killing murderers.

Another example that has become very clear lately:  should we defund the police because they sometimes accidently kill innocent people? 

Lots of people now seem to think so.

I don't... because that would deprive us of the benefits of the police in reducing crime.

Exactly like getting rid of the death penalty for fear of sometimes accidently killing an innocent deprives us of the benefits of killing murderers.

If you think there is no benefit to executing murderers, then nothing I am saying will matter to you.

If you consider that there are benefits to executing killers, then you should consider that perhaps the death penalty should not be eliminated even if it cannot meet the impossible standard of perfection.

[Perd Hapley]

All of what Pb said.

If we want justice done, and the innocent to be spared from suffering, we must have the death penalty.