I'm of the opinion that we should outlaw executions, but that if you are going to do it the governor of the state should have to kill the person themselves as they hold the final power over life and death in our stupid system. Russian style pistol to the back of the ear.
This is some terrifying Sin City shit.
+1
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I'm of the opinion that we should outlaw executions, but that if you are going to do it the governor of the state should have to kill the person themselves as they hold the final power over life and death in our stupid system. Russian style pistol to the back of the ear.
This is some terrifying Sin City shit.
By not pardoning them when they can they are essentially committing them to death, I think the person with that power should be forced to pull the trigger.
I think this cyberpunk dystopia can do without a running man competition. I can roll over and accept the bread and circuses method so long as they aren't blood circuses.
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
It's not unfeasible to abolish the death penalty. Washington State has.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
It's not unfeasible to abolish the death penalty. Washington State has.
It's less unfeasible than mandatory state-wide viewing-parties for executions, sure, but it's unfeasible that SCOTUS is going to declare capital punishment unconstitutional and without that happening there's a lot of states that aren't going to give it up easily.
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
Emotional appeal
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't even know where I stand with the death penalty. There's some evil people in this world and we're better off without them. Fuck them pretty much. But then there's the majority of the cases and the fact it's used as a tactic to get people to plead guilty for a plea bargain because of the threat of the death penalty.
Setting aside questions of purpose or morality, I'm glad they brought up the guillotine during the show because it's what I'd starting thinking about shortly after the bit began.
I figure the guillotine is probably one of the best methods of execution ever invented. It's fast, lethal, and %100 effective.
But it looks too much like what it is - a device for killing people. It makes people uncomfortable.
And the kind of squirmy dishonesty surrounding the search for a more "humane" method of killing people that has led to all this fuck-uppery is disgusting. It is what it is.
I wouldn't count the guillotine as humane - (speculation is that) if the executed person doesn't immediately lose consciousness to system shock their head can maintain awareness until the brain runs out of oxygen. Which is a pretty fucked up way to die.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Setting aside questions of purpose or morality, I'm glad they brought up the guillotine during the show because it's what I'd starting thinking about shortly after the bit began.
I figure the guillotine is probably one of the best methods of execution ever invented. It's fast, lethal, and %100 effective.
But it looks too much like what it is - a device for killing people. It makes people uncomfortable.
And the kind of squirmy dishonesty surrounding the search for a more "humane" method of killing people that has led to all this fuck-uppery is disgusting. It is what it is.
I wouldn't count the guillotine as humane - (speculation is that) if the executed person doesn't immediately lose consciousness to system shock their head can maintain awareness until the brain runs out of oxygen. Which is a pretty fucked up way to die.
That was a rumor propogated during the Reign of Terror.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I'm of the opinion that we should outlaw executions, but that if you are going to do it the governor of the state should have to kill the person themselves as they hold the final power over life and death in our stupid system. Russian style pistol to the back of the ear.
This is some terrifying Sin City shit.
By not pardoning them when they can they are essentially committing them to death, I think the person with that power should be forced to pull the trigger.
You know they would just get off on that if they are the death penalty type.
That was a rumor propogated during the Reign of Terror.
Hmmm....
In 1794, German surgeon Dr S. T. Sommering argued in the Parisian newspapers that 'consciousness of feeling may persist [in a severed head] even if blood circulation is terminated, partial or weak [...] the head's strongest sensation would be the after-pain felt in the neck.' French doctors argued that he was confusing nervous spasms with sensory perceptions and voluntary motion. Little research was conducted on the subject, however, until the turn of the twentieth century, when another French doctor, Beaurieux, was permitted to make an investigation of a severed head, of a criminal called Languille, immediately after guillotining: "Here is what I was able to note immediately after the decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the decapitated man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about 4 or 6 seconds. I waited several seconds longer. The spasmodic movements ceased. The face relaxed, the lids half-closed in the eyeballs, leaving only the white of the conjunctiva visible, exactly as in the dying whom we have occasion to see every day [...] It was then that I called in a strong, sharp, voice: 'Languille!' I then saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contraction -- I insist advisedly on this pecularity -- but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts. Next, Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I was not, then, dealing with a vague dull look, without any expression that can be observed any day in dying people to whom one speaks: I was dealing with undeniably living eyes which were looking at me." By 1956, further research had proved, in the words of governemntal advisers Drs Piedelievre and Fournier, that "death [by decapitation] is not instantaneous [...] every vital element survives [...it is] a savage vivisection, followed by a premature burial." The French government abolished execution by decapitation in 1977.
It's as if we want a method of execution that always succeeds properly, is painless, and doesn't look like we're killing someone, and we can barely hit 1 of the 3. Maybe there's a lesson here.
It's as if we want a method of execution that always succeeds properly, is painless, and doesn't look like we're killing someone, and we can barely hit 1 of the 3. Maybe there's a lesson here.
Oh we can hit one and two very easily.
Number three is where wait what thread am I reading
The impression I got from the episode is that the most humane method of execution would involve properly administered general anesthesia. Right? And the condemned don't get that because doctors refuse to administer it. Which is understandable but boy also a real gray area. I know if I was on death row I'd rather a doctor break their principles than, you know, be tortured to death
Because once drug manufacturers started figuring out what they were being used for, there was a concerted effort to keep them out of states that use them for execution.
Drug companies generally don't want to be known for providing drugs used in executions, and they're generally not designed for that purpose.
Exactly this. Nobody wants to be known for selling drugs for executions.
I can expound a little though, because I find this whole situation darkly humorous.
Lethal injections in the US are done using a three drug protocol developed by forensic physician Jay Chapman in 1977 in response to the Gary Gilmore execution.
Keep in mind that at the time there was no known reliable drug cocktail for the euthanization of humans, and this isn't exactly something you can set up clinical trials for. Chapman used his experience examining poisoning deaths to come up with a cocktail. Chapman himself has since said that the cocktail is too variable and needs to be changed.
The primary anesthetic used in the Chapman protocol is sodium thiopental. It is no longer manufactured in the US. The last US manufacturer was the pharma company Hospira, who said this:
Hospira manufactures this product because it improves or saves lives, and the company markets it solely for use as indicated on the product labeling. The drug is not indicated for capital punishment, and Hospira does not support its use in this procedure.
Sodium thiopental has a legitimate use as an inexpensive general anesthetic for surgery or trauma, and is therefore still manufactured in Europe. However, the EU bans the export of sodium thiopental to the US, specifically because they don't want us killing people with it: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/21/drug-maker-discontinues-key-death-penalty-drug
"We cannot take the risk that we will be held liable by the Italian authorities if the product is diverted for use in capital punishment," Hospira spokesman Dan Rosenberg said. "Exposing our employees or facilities to liability is not a risk we are prepared to take."
Some states have switched to different, unproven cocktails. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
In addition to the problem of which drugs?, there's a second problem of where do we get the drugs? Most of these drugs are either surgical anesthetics or controlled substances - which means it is not exactly trivial to obtain them. You can't just buy propofol at the neighborhood apothecary, let alone in the dosages necessary to kill a human being.
Legitimate drug suppliers (of the type that sell drugs to hospitals) are often uneasy, for obvious reasons, to sell execution drugs to correctional facilities. This has led the states buying those drugs to turn to less-stringently-licensed pharmacies. Of course, pharmacies don't really want to be associated with lethal injections, so they aren't really willing to just ship a bunch of surgical anesthetics to State Prison, 123 Capital Row, Prisontown, Missouri.
Lombardi confirmed that Missouri purchases its execution drugs in cash through a Department official. The official takes $11,000 in cash to Oklahoma in person and then hand-delivers the new drug, pentobarbital, to the department. Luby contended that this effectively turned state employees into drug mules.
We live in a nation where you can be arrested and put into prison for buying marijuana with cash and driving it across state lines, while cops themselves buy pentobarbital with cash and drive it across state lines.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The impression I got from the episode is that the most humane method of execution would involve properly administered general anesthesia. Right? And the condemned don't get that because doctors refuse to administer it. Which is understandable but boy also a real gray area. I know if I was on death row I'd rather a doctor break their principles than, you know, be tortured to death
The episode is a little bit contemptuous towards Jay Chapman, but honestly that is what motivated him IIRC. He figured the state was going to go forward with lethal injections no matter what, and he had the opportunity to make them less horrible. Granted, it didn't work, but I respect the utilitarian calculus he made.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Because once drug manufacturers started figuring out what they were being used for, there was a concerted effort to keep them out of states that use them for execution.
Drug companies generally don't want to be known for providing drugs used in executions, and they're generally not designed for that purpose.
Exactly this. Nobody wants to be known for selling drugs for executions.
I can expound a little though, because I find this whole situation darkly humorous.
Lethal injections in the US are done using a three drug protocol developed by forensic physician Jay Chapman in 1977 in response to the Gary Gilmore execution.
Keep in mind that at the time there was no known reliable drug cocktail for the euthanization of humans, and this isn't exactly something you can set up clinical trials for. Chapman used his experience examining poisoning deaths to come up with a cocktail. Chapman himself has since said that the cocktail is too variable and needs to be changed.
The primary anesthetic used in the Chapman protocol is sodium thiopental. It is no longer manufactured in the US. The last US manufacturer was the pharma company Hospira, who said this:
Hospira manufactures this product because it improves or saves lives, and the company markets it solely for use as indicated on the product labeling. The drug is not indicated for capital punishment, and Hospira does not support its use in this procedure.
Sodium thiopental has a legitimate use as an inexpensive general anesthetic for surgery or trauma, and is therefore still manufactured in Europe. However, the EU bans the export of sodium thiopental to the US, specifically because they don't want us killing people with it: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/21/drug-maker-discontinues-key-death-penalty-drug
"We cannot take the risk that we will be held liable by the Italian authorities if the product is diverted for use in capital punishment," Hospira spokesman Dan Rosenberg said. "Exposing our employees or facilities to liability is not a risk we are prepared to take."
Some states have switched to different, unproven cocktails. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
In addition to the problem of which drugs?, there's a second problem of where do we get the drugs? Most of these drugs are either surgical anesthetics or controlled substances - which means it is not exactly trivial to obtain them. You can't just buy propofol at the neighborhood apothecary, let alone in the dosages necessary to kill a human being.
Legitimate drug suppliers (of the type that sell drugs to hospitals) are often uneasy, for obvious reasons, to sell execution drugs to correctional facilities. This has led the states buying those drugs to turn to less-stringently-licensed pharmacies. Of course, pharmacies don't really want to be associated with lethal injections, so they aren't really willing to just ship a bunch of surgical anesthetics to State Prison, 123 Capital Row, Prisontown, Missouri.
Lombardi confirmed that Missouri purchases its execution drugs in cash through a Department official. The official takes $11,000 in cash to Oklahoma in person and then hand-delivers the new drug, pentobarbital, to the department. Luby contended that this effectively turned state employees into drug mules.
We live in a nation where you can be arrested and put into prison for buying marijuana with cash and driving it across state lines, while cops themselves buy pentobarbital with cash and drive it across state lines.
Oliver very briefly touches on it (and by brief, I mean a sentence). Verbatim: "The latest idea is nitrogen gas, which seems like it has problems of its own." Honestly, it would've been nice if he'd mention in the very next sentence "For example..." and then move on to the "Best position to feel less guilty f***ing your mom" portion.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Yes, let's put condemned people in a chamber, and flood it with a gas that will kill them. Why hasn't anybody thought of that before?
While I get the point you're trying to make, it should be pointed out that the gas chamber was used by varing states in America for 75 years, the majority of that time period AFTER World War II.
Last execution by this method was just over 20 years ago, and it appears it wasn't suspended due to cultural concerns, but due to cruelty due to inefficiency (didn't kill quickly enough, reportedly up to 8-11 minutes).
Yes, let's put condemned people in a chamber, and flood it with a gas that will kill them. Why hasn't anybody thought of that before?
While I get the point you're trying to make, it should be pointed out that the gas chamber was used by varing states in America for 75 years, the majority of that time period AFTER World War II.
Last execution by this method was just over 20 years ago, and it appears it wasn't suspended due to cultural concerns, but due to cruelty due to inefficiency (didn't kill quickly enough, reportedly up to 8-11 minutes).
Also mentioned in the LWT video:
"What about cyanide (as an alternative to lethal injection)? We tried cyanide gas in 1992, and it was so horrifying the attorney general vomited and the prison warden claimed he'd resign if forced to conduct another one."
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Cyanide gas is not the same thing as inert gas. Inert gas will kill you very quickly without you even realising it. Death by inert gas is a fairly common accident that happens due to people not even realising that they are in danger.
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
Edit: Unnecessary backlash Of course I'd rather abolish the death penalty.
But my state did, and the people got a referendum in 2016 to repeal the abolition, and they repealed it. The people have spoken.
And when we had our first execution in 19 years, we had around a dozen protestors, and like 7 or 8 people actually watching the execution. Weird that the governor, who pushed so damn hard to get the death penalty back, wasn't in the room. Weird.
So, no, I'm not seriously proposing that people be forced to watch the execution, but I am angry enough to feel that if you want the death penalty that fucking badly, you should at least reap what you sow.
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
C'mon, you know that's not a serious suggestion. Of course I'd rather abolish the death penalty. Jesus.
But my state did, and the people got a referendum in 2016 to repeal the abolition, and they repealed it. The people have spoken.
And when we had our first execution in 19 years, we had around a dozen protestors, and like 7 or 8 people actually watching the execution. Weird that the governor, who pushed so damn hard to get the death penalty back, wasn't in the room. Weird.
So, no, I'm not seriously proposing that people be forced to watch the execution, but I am angry enough to feel that if you want the death penalty that fucking badly, you should at least reap what you sow.
Okay, I can understand where you're coming from on that.
The problem is that lot of people would happily attend the executions of people who they think "deserve" it.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
C'mon, you know that's not a serious suggestion. Of course I'd rather abolish the death penalty. Jesus.
But my state did, and the people got a referendum in 2016 to repeal the abolition, and they repealed it. The people have spoken.
And when we had our first execution in 19 years, we had around a dozen protestors, and like 7 or 8 people actually watching the execution. Weird that the governor, who pushed so damn hard to get the death penalty back, wasn't in the room. Weird.
So, no, I'm not seriously proposing that people be forced to watch the execution, but I am angry enough to feel that if you want the death penalty that fucking badly, you should at least reap what you sow.
Okay, I can understand where you're coming from on that.
Well, and I should have maybe just provided that context from the beginning, instead of being an angry asshole, but I just don't want to talk about where I live. Sorry, man. :sad:
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I can understand execution as a method of risk mitigation in extreme cases, and in some circumstances death might be more humane than forcing someone to endure a particularly terrible prison. But we're so bad at it, I can't support it.
I'm of the opinion that we should outlaw executions, but that if you are going to do it the governor of the state should have to kill the person themselves as they hold the final power over life and death in our stupid system. Russian style pistol to the back of the ear.
The southron lords are too soft to follow the northern ways.
Cyanide gas is not the same thing as inert gas. Inert gas will kill you very quickly without you even realising it. Death by inert gas is a fairly common accident that happens due to people not even realising that they are in danger.
I was more responding to Expletive Deleted's comment that MorganV responded to.
For your inert gas comment, I actually quoted you and then posted LWT's sentence about the use of nitrogen gas...which is an inert gas.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I don't even know where I stand with the death penalty. There's some evil people in this world and we're better off without them. Fuck them pretty much. But then there's the majority of the cases and the fact it's used as a tactic to get people to plead guilty for a plea bargain because of the threat of the death penalty.
I think this where you have to ask: How much better?
Then calculate the benefit gain between incarceration and execution, and ask yourself if it outweighs the -better of an innocent person being executed vs incarcerated.
I'm thinking the potential net benefit of execution probably isn't large enough to bother with the second comparison.
I'm of the opinion that we should outlaw executions, but that if you are going to do it the governor of the state should have to kill the person themselves as they hold the final power over life and death in our stupid system. Russian style pistol to the back of the ear.
The southron lords are too soft to follow the northern ways.
Hey, we northerners don't execute anyone. We've even got rules about extraditing people to countries where they would be executed.
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Posts
If you want, I can show hundreds of gruesome executions where the entire population of town showed up to celebrate the brutality.
Making people watch wont help.
Probably not but it'd be far less hypocritical.
These people also don't think our justice system should be reformed in general.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This is some terrifying Sin City shit.
Also a lot of human history where executions were exciting and people made a day of it.
By not pardoning them when they can they are essentially committing them to death, I think the person with that power should be forced to pull the trigger.
I also don't give a shit what those people think.
And am probably naive but nevertheless optimistic that the majority of today's society would recoil at having their children exposed to state sanctioned murder.
Oh, are you proposing that literally everyone in the state is forced to watch the execution? That it isn't voluntary?
Why not propose an unfeasible but ultimately more socially productive thing instead, like just abolishing the death penalty entirely?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's not unfeasible to abolish the death penalty. Washington State has.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's less unfeasible than mandatory state-wide viewing-parties for executions, sure, but it's unfeasible that SCOTUS is going to declare capital punishment unconstitutional and without that happening there's a lot of states that aren't going to give it up easily.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Emotional appeal
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I wouldn't count the guillotine as humane - (speculation is that) if the executed person doesn't immediately lose consciousness to system shock their head can maintain awareness until the brain runs out of oxygen. Which is a pretty fucked up way to die.
That was a rumor propogated during the Reign of Terror.
You know they would just get off on that if they are the death penalty type.
Hmmm....
In 1794, German surgeon Dr S. T. Sommering argued in the Parisian newspapers that 'consciousness of feeling may persist [in a severed head] even if blood circulation is terminated, partial or weak [...] the head's strongest sensation would be the after-pain felt in the neck.' French doctors argued that he was confusing nervous spasms with sensory perceptions and voluntary motion. Little research was conducted on the subject, however, until the turn of the twentieth century, when another French doctor, Beaurieux, was permitted to make an investigation of a severed head, of a criminal called Languille, immediately after guillotining: "Here is what I was able to note immediately after the decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the decapitated man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about 4 or 6 seconds. I waited several seconds longer. The spasmodic movements ceased. The face relaxed, the lids half-closed in the eyeballs, leaving only the white of the conjunctiva visible, exactly as in the dying whom we have occasion to see every day [...] It was then that I called in a strong, sharp, voice: 'Languille!' I then saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contraction -- I insist advisedly on this pecularity -- but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts. Next, Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I was not, then, dealing with a vague dull look, without any expression that can be observed any day in dying people to whom one speaks: I was dealing with undeniably living eyes which were looking at me." By 1956, further research had proved, in the words of governemntal advisers Drs Piedelievre and Fournier, that "death [by decapitation] is not instantaneous [...] every vital element survives [...it is] a savage vivisection, followed by a premature burial." The French government abolished execution by decapitation in 1977.
Oh we can hit one and two very easily.
Number three is where wait what thread am I reading
Me, in 2014:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The episode is a little bit contemptuous towards Jay Chapman, but honestly that is what motivated him IIRC. He figured the state was going to go forward with lethal injections no matter what, and he had the opportunity to make them less horrible. Granted, it didn't work, but I respect the utilitarian calculus he made.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
jfc there is no way that was in 2014
I... I read that like last spring.... right?
right?
Oliver very briefly touches on it (and by brief, I mean a sentence). Verbatim: "The latest idea is nitrogen gas, which seems like it has problems of its own." Honestly, it would've been nice if he'd mention in the very next sentence "For example..." and then move on to the "Best position to feel less guilty f***ing your mom" portion.
While I get the point you're trying to make, it should be pointed out that the gas chamber was used by varing states in America for 75 years, the majority of that time period AFTER World War II.
Last execution by this method was just over 20 years ago, and it appears it wasn't suspended due to cultural concerns, but due to cruelty due to inefficiency (didn't kill quickly enough, reportedly up to 8-11 minutes).
Also mentioned in the LWT video:
"What about cyanide (as an alternative to lethal injection)? We tried cyanide gas in 1992, and it was so horrifying the attorney general vomited and the prison warden claimed he'd resign if forced to conduct another one."
Edit: Unnecessary backlash Of course I'd rather abolish the death penalty.
But my state did, and the people got a referendum in 2016 to repeal the abolition, and they repealed it. The people have spoken.
And when we had our first execution in 19 years, we had around a dozen protestors, and like 7 or 8 people actually watching the execution. Weird that the governor, who pushed so damn hard to get the death penalty back, wasn't in the room. Weird.
So, no, I'm not seriously proposing that people be forced to watch the execution, but I am angry enough to feel that if you want the death penalty that fucking badly, you should at least reap what you sow.
Okay, I can understand where you're coming from on that.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well, and I should have maybe just provided that context from the beginning, instead of being an angry asshole, but I just don't want to talk about where I live. Sorry, man. :sad:
One is too many.
The southron lords are too soft to follow the northern ways.
I was more responding to Expletive Deleted's comment that MorganV responded to.
For your inert gas comment, I actually quoted you and then posted LWT's sentence about the use of nitrogen gas...which is an inert gas.
I think this where you have to ask: How much better?
Then calculate the benefit gain between incarceration and execution, and ask yourself if it outweighs the -better of an innocent person being executed vs incarcerated.
I'm thinking the potential net benefit of execution probably isn't large enough to bother with the second comparison.
Hey, we northerners don't execute anyone. We've even got rules about extraditing people to countries where they would be executed.
That's cases we know about, to be clear.