Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Drug companies won't let you use their products to execute people anymore, do you C) mix up your own brew and hope it doesn't leave people gasping and choking for 15 minutes before they die   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Sick, Dennis McGuire, federal public defender, TV star, official receiver, Hard Rock Hotel, Howard K. Stern, Biggie Smalls, Allen Bohnert  
•       •       •

9571 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2014 at 2:59 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



612 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-16 10:18:05 PM  

BigLuca: Dimensio: EyeballKid: Running a-puck: I'm honestly a bit baffled by people who think torture is ok as long as you're just torturing bad guys.  Torture is not ok.  Ever.  No matter what.  It's TORTURE.
Kill them quickly and painlessly and move on.

I'm honestly baffled by people who think murder is OK as long as you're just murdering bad guys.

Murder is, by definition, unlawful. Therefore the legally authorized taking of human life -- even with premeditation and malice aforethought -- is not murder.

So what the Nazis did to the Jews was not murder?


It was not murder under the laws of the Nazi regime.
 
2014-01-16 10:26:17 PM  

PsiChick: TheWhoppah: You equate the infliction of pain with uncivilized behavior.  You mention vengeance as if it were a dirty word.  Yet you've offered nothing in support of either proposition.   Vengeance is the root of all justice.  Citizens cede their natural right to seek justice to the government in return for orderly professional-grade high quality vengeance.  This is a fundamental element of the social contract between man and government.

...That's a  really interesting take on it, but most of us cede our right to vengeance to the government because we recognize we might one day be on the wrong end of the stick, and would prefer the law to treat us fairly, so we acknowledge other people have to be treated fairly too. That's called 'justice'. I mean,  you might be doing that, but I don't think the rest of us are...


So if you cede your right to vengeance to the government, why do you suppose government-administered vengeance is, or should be, distinct from government sponsored justice?  I say that vengeance is the most basic element of justice and that, without vengeance there is no justice.  Mercy is primarily a private concern rather than a function of government sponsored justice.
 
2014-01-16 10:29:20 PM  

PsiChick: Fano: PsiChick: TheWhoppah: You equate the infliction of pain with uncivilized behavior.  You mention vengeance as if it were a dirty word.  Yet you've offered nothing in support of either proposition.   Vengeance is the root of all justice.  Citizens cede their natural right to seek justice to the government in return for orderly professional-grade high quality vengeance.  This is a fundamental element of the social contract between man and government.

...That's a  really interesting take on it, but most of us cede our right to vengeance to the government because we recognize we might one day be on the wrong end of the stick, and would prefer the law to treat us fairly, so we acknowledge other people have to be treated fairly too. That's called 'justice'. I mean,  you might be doing that, but I don't think the rest of us are...

What about Batman? He is Vengeance. He is THE NIGHT.

/Snark on:

Gotham City is not a how-to manual

/snark


Are you suggesting that dressing up in tights and a cape and pummelling mentally unstable people and sending them to a revolving door ill equiped psych ward isn't a sound basis for a system of justice?
 
2014-01-16 10:29:30 PM  

TheWhoppah: udhq: There seems to be some debate as to whether this situation could be considered "cruel", but even if it's not, you can't deny that gurgling and gasping for air for 15 minutes on an experimental drug cocktail that has never been successfully used in an execution is certainly unusual by any measure.

OK so it seems clear that you agree that unusual punishments are not unconstitutional if they are not also cruel. So whats your angle?  Are you saying that any punishment that causes death is inherently cruel, even if there is no pain or consciousness?  Are you suggesting we can infer pain from the reflexive noises he produced?


Look up the definition of the word "cruel".  I'll bet that it doesn't include the words "unless they deserve it" at the end.
 
gja
2014-01-16 10:30:28 PM  

BigLuca: Dimensio: EyeballKid: Running a-puck: I'm honestly a bit baffled by people who think torture is ok as long as you're just torturing bad guys.  Torture is not ok.  Ever.  No matter what.  It's TORTURE.
Kill them quickly and painlessly and move on.

I'm honestly baffled by people who think murder is OK as long as you're just murdering bad guys.

Murder is, by definition, unlawful. Therefore the legally authorized taking of human life -- even with premeditation and malice aforethought -- is not murder.

So what the Nazis did to the Jews was not murder?


Have you lost your goddamned mind or do you lack the cognitive ability to see the fault in that?
Holy up-jumped Jesus on a powered pogo stick, was that dumb.
 
2014-01-16 10:33:34 PM  

TheWhoppah: PsiChick: TheWhoppah: You equate the infliction of pain with uncivilized behavior.  You mention vengeance as if it were a dirty word.  Yet you've offered nothing in support of either proposition.   Vengeance is the root of all justice.  Citizens cede their natural right to seek justice to the government in return for orderly professional-grade high quality vengeance.  This is a fundamental element of the social contract between man and government.

...That's a  really interesting take on it, but most of us cede our right to vengeance to the government because we recognize we might one day be on the wrong end of the stick, and would prefer the law to treat us fairly, so we acknowledge other people have to be treated fairly too. That's called 'justice'. I mean,  you might be doing that, but I don't think the rest of us are...

So if you cede your right to vengeance to the government, why do you suppose government-administered vengeance is, or should be, distinct from government sponsored justice?  I say that vengeance is the most basic element of justice and that, without vengeance there is no justice.  Mercy is primarily a private concern rather than a function of government sponsored justice.


No, vengeance is not part of any justice system. Depending on the society,  punishment might be, but punishment is not and never has been vengeance. Vengeance is punishment without proof, without checks, and on the basis of emotion. Punishment without vengeance is what can be shown as demonstrably based on non-emotional criteria and is for society's supposed benefit.
 
gja
2014-01-16 10:33:50 PM  

gfid: gja: Somewhere, somehow, there has to be enough of a base, visceral fear instilled into people to stop them from committing atrocities like murder.

Perhaps for some people there needs to be that, but that's not why I don't kill people.  I don't kill people because I have a sense of right and wrong.  Okay, and because I don't think I could ever get away with it.  But the whole morality aspect of it does play a factor too.


And for the vast majority of us humans the whole right/wrong balance is there. SOme though lack any compunction whatsoever.
Those are frightening people. The part that makes us most human is broken or gone in them.
Capable of smiling and whistling a tune, while shoving a pregnant mother off a cliff kind of scary.
 
2014-01-16 10:35:45 PM  

TheWhoppah: udhq: Except I'm the one arguing against murder

Murder is illegally killing a person.
People do not rape and kill a woman that is 8 months pregnant.
Sub-human animals perhaps, but not people.
Dennis McGuire forfeited the rights of personhood by his own choices.
Dennis McGuire deserved to be treated like a subhuman piece of swine waste.
Dennis McGuire should have been drowned in the shiat tank at a hog farm.
Dennis McGuire is not a person so killing him is not murder.
Also, execution is legal so, again, it is not murder.


Yeah, this guy shows his level of thinking is barely above a hungry alligator.  Hell, even at that, the gator is less cruel and actually has a purpose for killing someone: he's hungry and using his instincts to get a meal. Some random douche that rapes/kills for thrills is LESS worthy than that alligator, and should be put down immediately.  If there were only some way, Ghost Rider style we could make criminals see what hey have done, i'd be 100% on board, but we can't...yet.  I really have less respect for people like this guy than I do a common gator.  Senseless rape, senseless murder, senseless life cut short for no reason but his own prerogative.  No, wait, make that TWO lives, since she was pregnant.  Give the alligator this guy's shiat, because he doesn't deserve it, and any family he had probably knows it already.
 
2014-01-16 10:43:25 PM  

PsiChick: TheWhoppah: PsiChick: TheWhoppah: You equate the infliction of pain with uncivilized behavior.  You mention vengeance as if it were a dirty word.  Yet you've offered nothing in support of either proposition.   Vengeance is the root of all justice.  Citizens cede their natural right to seek justice to the government in return for orderly professional-grade high quality vengeance.  This is a fundamental element of the social contract between man and government.

...That's a  really interesting take on it, but most of us cede our right to vengeance to the government because we recognize we might one day be on the wrong end of the stick, and would prefer the law to treat us fairly, so we acknowledge other people have to be treated fairly too. That's called 'justice'. I mean,  you might be doing that, but I don't think the rest of us are...

So if you cede your right to vengeance to the government, why do you suppose government-administered vengeance is, or should be, distinct from government sponsored justice?  I say that vengeance is the most basic element of justice and that, without vengeance there is no justice.  Mercy is primarily a private concern rather than a function of government sponsored justice.

No, vengeance is not part of any justice system. Depending on the society,  punishment might be, but punishment is not and never has been vengeance. Vengeance is punishment without proof, without checks, and on the basis of emotion. Punishment without vengeance is what can be shown as demonstrably based on non-emotional criteria and is for society's supposed benefit.


Then, by your own definition, what this guy got was punishment.  There was no uncertainty, no lack of proof, no lack of checks.  It was proven he did it, someone said he admitted it, and apparently, the evidence points to him as the only suspect.  Staggering how people can feel more sorry for a murderer than the multiple victims he killed that we're no threat to him at all.  If this was drug dealers killing drug dealers, I bet you'd not be so critical.  This guy is worse than them.  By far, yet people still defend him.  Why?
 
2014-01-16 10:43:31 PM  

Dimensio: BigLuca: Dimensio: EyeballKid: Running a-puck: I'm honestly a bit baffled by people who think torture is ok as long as you're just torturing bad guys.  Torture is not ok.  Ever.  No matter what.  It's TORTURE.
Kill them quickly and painlessly and move on.

I'm honestly baffled by people who think murder is OK as long as you're just murdering bad guys.

Murder is, by definition, unlawful. Therefore the legally authorized taking of human life -- even with premeditation and malice aforethought -- is not murder.

So what the Nazis did to the Jews was not murder?

It was not murder under the laws of the Nazi regime.


that makes it okay then

good to know
 
2014-01-16 10:56:50 PM  
What is the problem with just chopping the head off? It seems the most reasonable approach.
 
2014-01-16 10:57:42 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: No, vengeance is not part of any justice system. Depending on the society,  punishment might be, but punishment is not and never has been vengeance. Vengeance is punishment without proof, without checks, and on the basis of emotion. Punishment without vengeance is what can be shown as demonstrably based on non-emotional criteria and is for society's supposed benefit.

Then, by your own definition, what this guy got was punishment.  There was no uncertainty, no lack of proof, no lack of checks.  It was proven he did it, someone said he admitted it, and apparently, the evidence points to him as the only suspect.  Staggering how people can feel more sorry for a murderer than the multiple victims he killed that we're no threat to him at all.  If this was drug dealers killing drug dealers, I bet you'd not be so critical.  This guy is worse than them.  By far, yet people still defend him.  Why?


Yes, what he got was punishment. However, there are different  types of punishment.  If the USA wants to introduce painful deaths instead of painless standardized deaths as part of the punishment,  then the USA must differentiate each type, class them according to crime, and otherwise fit them into our justice system (and find reasonable arguments that it should be that way). No one is defending this guy; they  are saying he was given  more punishment than he should have been by law. That's a problem. Why? Well, if you get pulled over for speeding, you don't want to end up in jail for two months, right? Yeah, that's why adding on punishments outside of the law is bad.
 
2014-01-16 11:02:26 PM  

PsiChick: ...I'm sorry, have we  completely lost our knowledge of poisons as a society? Holy fark, if you're gonna kill 'em, do it fast, painless, problem-free.


The difficulty in that is pretty much the same difficulty as the problem we have in "dual use" of surgical pharmaceuticals in executions, only multiplied.

A big part of the problem is that a number of countries that have prohibited the death penalty are also signatories to an international convention that essentially prohibits giving tools to "do the deed" to a country which still has the death penalty (kind of like how we have sanctions on countries that tend to engage in chemical weapons).  This is why Ohio is having to go to a Versed/Dilaudid cocktail in the hope of finding SOME drug combo to execute people with that will NOT result in triggering a de facto international sanction program that won't cause the loss of pharmaceutical agents for everyone--execution or otherwise.

(As I noted above, basically executions used to use a propofol/paralytic "two-step", occasionally followed up with a potassium chloride injection to the heart to trigger a heart attack.  First they got the propofol to knock them out, then the paralytic, then (in states that did the KCl injection) the injection.  This stopped because in essence the makers of propofol worldwide AND the makers of the paralytics (usually succhinylchloride) threated to block all drug sales to the US of those medicines UNLESS their use in executions was banned; seeing as those are very common agents in use in surgery, this would be a Bad Thing all around.)

The last agent we used as a "single use" chemical poison in capital punishment was the good old gas chamber, which was rapidly phased out after a remarkably similar fiasco in its last known use (where a guy took a good fifteen minutes to die, at least seven of which consisted of him literally beating his head bloody against the restraint chair) to what happened in Ohio.  It was based on pretty much an execution method known since Germany in the 40s; the gas chamber typically used hydrogen cyanide, aka Zyklon B.

Of course, one of the reasons it's hard to find single-use poisons for capital punishment is because the most effective poisons tend to be extremely strictly regulated because they have a bad tendency to be diverted towards the sorts of thing that is getting the Syrian government in worlds of trouble now (and got Germany in scads of trouble back in 1917).  Cyanide is very restricted now; many effective poisons like strychnine can be argued to be cruel and unusual due to the convulsions caused; the same can be argued for, say, the use of something like 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate, still used in the US and particularly in Australia and New Zealand for "predator control" aka poisoning the shiat out of wild canids).  Quite a lot of the really quick poisons--those that can be described literally as "human Raid bug spray"--tend to be extremely strictly regulated as chemical warfare agents, with the production of even the precursors regulated more strictly than, say, the basic ingredients of how to make meth.  Some others are just as dangerous to the person administering the poison as to the death row inmate...

Basically, yes, we've gotten very good (as a species) on how to kill each other chemically.  Finding ways to kill each other chemically (even if it's a case of someone gone Old Yeller) in a way that meets the muster of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's judgement (not to mention federal district courts) that it's not a particularly cruel or unusual method of execution...that's trickier.  (Pretty much it's now felt that both Death By Lungfuls-O-Zyklon-B and Death By Holy-Shiat-Livewire-Laxative-Invented-As-A-Fark-You-To-Niki-Tesla no longer meet Constitutional muster for Not Being Cruel or Unusual.  Hence why we did the propofol two-step at first, and why (after the non-capital-punishment countries threatened NO MOAR SURGERY DRUGS FOR YOU) Ohio went to the Versed/Dilaudid Cocktail.  This gives you the basic difficulty level here; unlike with critters, there really ARE no agents with an actual Prescribing Information indication for "putting down murderous farkwits".)

Even using animal euthanasia drugs isn't really a solution--if memory serves me right (and it well may not) there WAS a state that was essentially resorting to Fatal-Plus (which is a common veterinary euthanasia solution consisting of essentially One Metric Shiatload of Barbituates; pretty much ALL the major vet euthanasia agents are One Metric Shiatload of Barbituates, sometimes mixed with phenytoin to prevent agonal convulsions)...until the maker pretty much threatened to quit selling ANY barbituate-based drug to US companies unless they made sure it was NOT diverted to capital punishment.  (Seeing as barbituates are used occasionally in surgery and more frequently in treatment of status epilepticus...again, Not A Good Thing.)
 
2014-01-16 11:08:16 PM  

Dirtybird971: I think a bullet behind the ear should the SOP. Cheap, easy, and plenty of people in prisons who would do it for an extra tray at dinner.

If there is any travesty here it's the forgotten pain, anguish, and fear a woman felt as she was raped, beaten, and murdered. While pregnant with child. FFFFFF*ck this animal. SHE is the victim, not him.


THIS!!!
 
2014-01-16 11:15:22 PM  

almostsane: Dirtybird971: I think a bullet behind the ear should the SOP. Cheap, easy, and plenty of people in prisons who would do it for an extra tray at dinner.

If there is any travesty here it's the forgotten pain, anguish, and fear a woman felt as she was raped, beaten, and murdered. While pregnant with child. FFFFFF*ck this animal. SHE is the victim, not him.

THIS!!!


Well, it is messy, and a possible worry about blood-borne disease transfer.  People put pets to sleep this way all the time, and I consider Fido, who likely was a loyal companion his whole life, much more demanding of a no-pain end to life than some scumbag who killed for thrill.  The worst sort of being, period..
 
2014-01-16 11:20:06 PM  

StRalphTheLiar: Oldiron_79: Piece of rope works well and cheaper too.

And 100% recyclable for the next guy.


Hahaha! Also, he was convicted of stabbing and raping a woman. Zero shiats were given by me today. Go forth Ohio and be great.

/I wish all states would do this..
 
2014-01-16 11:20:09 PM  

PsiChick: Dr Jack Badofsky: No, vengeance is not part of any justice system. Depending on the society,  punishment might be, but punishment is not and never has been vengeance. Vengeance is punishment without proof, without checks, and on the basis of emotion. Punishment without vengeance is what can be shown as demonstrably based on non-emotional criteria and is for society's supposed benefit.

Then, by your own definition, what this guy got was punishment.  There was no uncertainty, no lack of proof, no lack of checks.  It was proven he did it, someone said he admitted it, and apparently, the evidence points to him as the only suspect.  Staggering how people can feel more sorry for a murderer than the multiple victims he killed that we're no threat to him at all.  If this was drug dealers killing drug dealers, I bet you'd not be so critical.  This guy is worse than them.  By far, yet people still defend him.  Why?

Yes, what he got was punishment. However, there are different  types of punishment.  If the USA wants to introduce painful deaths instead of painless standardized deaths as part of the punishment,  then the USA must differentiate each type, class them according to crime, and otherwise fit them into our justice system (and find reasonable arguments that it should be that way). No one is defending this guy; they  are saying he was given  more punishment than he should have been by law. That's a problem. Why? Well, if you get pulled over for speeding, you don't want to end up in jail for two months, right? Yeah, that's why adding on punishments outside of the law is bad.


When someone speeds, there is no loss of life to discuss (usually).  And when that does happen, the penalties become much more severe and appropriately so.  Law enforcement does not want to crowd jails any more than they have to, especially give the current state of prison overcrowding.  However, moving violations are truthfully not for penalty, it's for financial gain for the government, no matter what they tell you. Otherwise, no car would be able to exceed the max speed limit in the country, bar none.
 
2014-01-16 11:22:02 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: almostsane: Dirtybird971: I think a bullet behind the ear should the SOP. Cheap, easy, and plenty of people in prisons who would do it for an extra tray at dinner.

If there is any travesty here it's the forgotten pain, anguish, and fear a woman felt as she was raped, beaten, and murdered. While pregnant with child. FFFFFF*ck this animal. SHE is the victim, not him.

THIS!!!

Well, it is messy, and a possible worry about blood-borne disease transfer.  People put pets to sleep this way all the time, and I consider Fido, who likely was a loyal companion his whole life, much more demanding of a no-pain end to life than some scumbag who killed for thrill.  The worst sort of being, period..


When I say people put pets to sleep this way, I mean the vet drugs them to sleep.  But, I'm sure some people use the bullet method too, unfortunately.
 
2014-01-16 11:23:22 PM  

vodka: What is the problem with just chopping the head off? It seems the most reasonable approach.


Who has to clean that sh*t up?
 
2014-01-16 11:24:19 PM  

Great Porn Dragon: PsiChick: ...I'm sorry, have we  completely lost our knowledge of poisons as a society? Holy fark, if you're gonna kill 'em, do it fast, painless, problem-free.

The difficulty in that is pretty much the same difficulty as the problem we have in "dual use" of surgical pharmaceuticals in executions, only multiplied.

A big part of the problem is that a number of countries that have prohibited the death penalty are also signatories to an international convention that essentially prohibits giving tools to "do the deed" to a country which still has the death penalty (kind of like how we have sanctions on countries that tend to engage in chemical weapons).  This is why Ohio is having to go to a Versed/Dilaudid cocktail in the hope of finding SOME drug combo to execute people with that will NOT result in triggering a de facto international sanction program that won't cause the loss of pharmaceutical agents for everyone--execution or otherwise.

(As I noted above, basically executions used to use a propofol/paralytic "two-step", occasionally followed up with a potassium chloride injection to the heart to trigger a heart attack.  First they got the propofol to knock them out, then the paralytic, then (in states that did the KCl injection) the injection.  This stopped because in essence the makers of propofol worldwide AND the makers of the paralytics (usually succhinylchloride) threated to block all drug sales to the US of those medicines UNLESS their use in executions was banned; seeing as those are very common agents in use in surgery, this would be a Bad Thing all around.)

The last agent we used as a "single use" chemical poison in capital punishment was the good old gas chamber, which was rapidly phased out after a remarkably similar fiasco in its last known use (where a guy took a good fifteen minutes to die, at least seven of which consisted of him literally beating his head bloody against the restraint chair) to what happened in Ohio.  It was based on pretty much an ...


So why not just use morphine?
 
2014-01-17 12:01:00 AM  
It's not like he was woken up repeatedly with narcan. Regardless of how you feel about the death penalty, this guy did NOT suffer through some agonizing 15-20 minute death, he went out, in his sleep, on a cloud.
 
2014-01-17 12:05:10 AM  

gja: BigLuca: Dimensio: EyeballKid: Running a-puck: I'm honestly a bit baffled by people who think torture is ok as long as you're just torturing bad guys.  Torture is not ok.  Ever.  No matter what.  It's TORTURE.
Kill them quickly and painlessly and move on.

I'm honestly baffled by people who think murder is OK as long as you're just murdering bad guys.

Murder is, by definition, unlawful. Therefore the legally authorized taking of human life -- even with premeditation and malice aforethought -- is not murder.

So what the Nazis did to the Jews was not murder?

Have you lost your goddamned mind or do you lack the cognitive ability to see the fault in that?
Holy up-jumped Jesus on a powered pogo stick, was that dumb.


lighten up francis. I think you are reading too much into what I said.  The point I was making isnt even that contentious. That the word murder is used more often to pass moral judgments rather than legal ones.

I need to stop using Nazis in my examples. Gets the dander up for some reason.
 
2014-01-17 12:06:21 AM  

WTFDYW: Gee. I wonder how long the pregnant woman had to suffer at his hands before she punched the clock? I guess that doesn't matter to the FARK.com brigade huh?


It matters in the grand sense, it just isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. There is no karma, you see, no scales of justice. One act does not somehow magically balance out another. Instead of cutting our losses at one horrible death and making one family suffer, we went for two.
 
2014-01-17 12:25:30 AM  

super_grass: Just use a firing squad if you want someone dead.

- no complex medical procedure
- hard to screw up
- bullets are pretty damn cheap
- quick death for the convict
- organs that aren't shot can be put to good use


Incidentally, to render a convict suitable for organ donation *would* require a complex medical procedure. Even an expert marksman isn't going to reliably manage to hit the brain in just the right way to cause brain death but leave the rest of the body functioning.

Plus, convict organs? Not only will potential recipients probably not want them just for moral reasons, but someone who's been imprisoned for years is more likely to have Hep C or HIV. Plus, the need to supply ratio in this scenario is pretty high, so it wouldn't really be worth the additional expense and effort (and that's assuming you'd even find a surgical team willing to perform the procedure).

Personally, I'm against capital punishment because I think that's entirely too much power to give the government, but I think the idea of "let's use them to try and get *something* good out of the situation" is a noble one. However, it would be far more effective to just make organ donation an automatic thing you must opt out of, rather than opt-in as it is now.
 
2014-01-17 12:37:09 AM  

Rose of Sharon: super_grass: Just use a firing squad if you want someone dead.

- no complex medical procedure
- hard to screw up
- bullets are pretty damn cheap
- quick death for the convict
- organs that aren't shot can be put to good use

Incidentally, to render a convict suitable for organ donation *would* require a complex medical procedure. Even an expert marksman isn't going to reliably manage to hit the brain in just the right way to cause brain death but leave the rest of the body functioning.

Plus, convict organs? Not only will potential recipients probably not want them just for moral reasons, but someone who's been imprisoned for years is more likely to have Hep C or HIV. Plus, the need to supply ratio in this scenario is pretty high, so it wouldn't really be worth the additional expense and effort (and that's assuming you'd even find a surgical team willing to perform the procedure).

Personally, I'm against capital punishment because I think that's entirely too much power to give the government, but I think the idea of "let's use them to try and get *something* good out of the situation" is a noble one. However, it would be far more effective to just make organ donation an automatic thing you must opt out of, rather than opt-in as it is now.


That's where prior testing can hopefully expose any issues of diseases.
 
2014-01-17 01:26:33 AM  

Dog Welder: "And more importantly, the people of the state of Ohio should be appalled at what was done here today in their names."

As a resident of Ohio, I'm more appalled at what this jerk did to warrant the death penalty.


I'm appalled he wasn't burned to death while tickets were sold. Sign me up, I'll bring marshmallows.
 
2014-01-17 01:29:20 AM  

FlashHarry: so, both cruel AND unusual.

farking barbaric.


The mob must be appeased by blood sacrifice.
 
2014-01-17 02:21:53 AM  

jigger: He was convicted 25 years ago? The swift sword of justice, I guess.


I'm confused how someone convicted in a trial in 1989, when it appears capital punishment was not permitted in Ohio, is executed in 2014.  Capital punishment wasn't reinstated in Ohio until 1999, according to the article.

What am I missing?
 
2014-01-17 02:24:05 AM  
The government can't do anything right and we should abolish it.
 
HKW
2014-01-17 03:33:45 AM  

EyeballKid: I certainly know we wouldn't try to farking grow up and not satiate our bloodlust through executing people! We have murderboners to beat off, god damn it!


But killing a man in front if his children and family is a good way to show the world how more mature and lofty our society is.
 
2014-01-17 04:12:09 AM  
I HAVE THE  BESTIDEA..........Nitrous (no oxide).......imagine, the person laughs until they are DEAD

No torture, No Pain
 
2014-01-17 04:47:26 AM  

udhq: I'm sure he had himself convinced of the minimal suffering of his victim before he did what he did too.  He is going to heaven, after all.


Did you have a point here? Because if you're trying to argue that this guy suffered like his victim, you're going to have to provide some kind of scientific proof that he was the proverbial ubermensch that was immune to the effects of an  assload of benzos and opiates.

And you're bringing up religion as an excuse to an atheist.
 
2014-01-17 05:42:47 AM  

the money is in the banana stand: tirob: the money is in the banana stand: To those citing that the death penalty is barbaric and uncivilized, knock it off. Your life without parole isn't morally superior. Either way you look at it, you are condemning someone to death and neither are natural deaths.

The advantage of LWOP is that when the offender dies, he is not made into a martyr courtesy of the State of Ohio and the Huffington Post.  Nor is his crime publicized.

That is an interesting comment. I don't disagree with LWOP in lieu of the Death Penalty, however, I would assume that the Death Penalty would give the surviving family members or victims closure.


It does in some cases, I'm sure.  The family of the victim of this guy in Ohio clearly wanted him dead.  Don't know how they would have reacted if his sentence had been commuted to LWOP.

The only argument for the death penalty for murder that I buy is that it prevents the murderer from killing again--say, a prison guard.  Earlier this month, in fact, the state of Florida gave the needle of justice to a guy that did in a prison guard with a shank, this after having been sentenced to death for killing two people.  Retrospectively--hindsight is 20/20 of course--I believe that particular murderer should have been put to death before he killed the prison guard.

Very few murderers are recidivists.  I don't think that the guy that the State of Ohio just killed was one, although I have no way to demonstrate that of course.  For murderers that are *demonstrably* recidivists, such as mass killers or serial killers, I have no objection to the death penalty.
 
2014-01-17 06:15:21 AM  
He raped a pregnant woman, stabbed her to death, the unborn child also died and you people are worried about him suffering at his execution.  Why don't we ask his victim if she suffered?  Oh, that's right, we can't!  He took away her right to live, why should he get to keep his own right to live?
 
2014-01-17 07:42:43 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Cold_Sassy: Marcus Aurelius: Dog Welder: "And more importantly, the people of the state of Ohio should be appalled at what was done here today in their names."

As a resident of Ohio, I'm more appalled at what this jerk did to warrant the death penalty.

He was too poor to afford good lawyers.  That's how he got the death penalty.

Well yeah, that and he raped and stabbed a 22 year old girl to death but hey, let's not split hairs, eh?

So you're OK with a wealthy person getting 15 to 25 for the same crime, solely on the basis that they are wealthy?


Please cite ONE example of this particular scenario where the "rich" person skated.  One.
 
2014-01-17 08:38:46 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: He raped a pregnant woman, stabbed her to death, the unborn child also died and you people are worried about him suffering at his execution.  Why don't we ask his victim if she suffered?  Oh, that's right, we can't!  He took away her right to live, why should he get to keep his own right to live?


Yeah, it completely baffles me that so many people posting in this discussion fail to see exactly THIS.

Once convicted, the criminal should suffer the same exact fate as the victim was forced to endure.
 
2014-01-17 08:54:03 AM  

dittybopper: So why don't we just overdose them with morphine?  We know it works, and we know it's painless, and it's less messy than my idea of using explosive lenses to implode the heads of criminals like the pit of an atomic bomb, which, btw, is quite humane, because the explosive shockwave is faster than nerve conduction speed, so it's like instantly turning off a light.  They'd never even know when the end happens, because they'd be dead before the sensations could reach their brains.


HydroMORPHONE. Synthesized morphine. I used to be on it for a while after a bad injury. I highly doubt he felt any pain. I doubt he even knew what was going on. Even if he did he would be so high and euphoric he probably enjoyed it.

I really don't understand all the people who are against the death penalty. I would like you to imagine getting raped and than stabbed to death. Imagine the pain and sadness going through your mind as you slowly bleed to death.

Yet it's atrocious that he MAY have felt a little pain as he died? That it took him 15 minutes to die?
 
2014-01-17 08:55:41 AM  

Lando Lincoln: What, did they run out of dynamite? That's the way I'd want to go. Pretty messy, though. Might want to take me out into the middle of a field.


Have budding low level criminals clean you up, that will ensure they change their ways.
 
2014-01-17 09:54:33 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: He raped a pregnant woman, stabbed her to death, the unborn child also died and you people are worried about him suffering at his execution.  Why don't we ask his victim if she suffered?  Oh, that's right, we can't!  He took away her right to live, why should he get to keep his own right to live?


so this is purely about vengeance. how unchristian.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

he added: Did I farking stutter?
 
2014-01-17 10:32:03 AM  

FlashHarry: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: He raped a pregnant woman, stabbed her to death, the unborn child also died and you people are worried about him suffering at his execution.  Why don't we ask his victim if she suffered?  Oh, that's right, we can't!  He took away her right to live, why should he get to keep his own right to live?

so this is purely about vengeance. how unchristian.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

he added: Did I farking stutter?


Separation of church and state, buddy.  Light the grille, I'll get the tongs.
 
gja
2014-01-17 12:11:44 PM  

BigLuca: gja: BigLuca: Dimensio: EyeballKid: Running a-puck: I'm honestly a bit baffled by people who think torture is ok as long as you're just torturing bad guys.  Torture is not ok.  Ever.  No matter what.  It's TORTURE.
Kill them quickly and painlessly and move on.

I'm honestly baffled by people who think murder is OK as long as you're just murdering bad guys.

Murder is, by definition, unlawful. Therefore the legally authorized taking of human life -- even with premeditation and malice aforethought -- is not murder.

So what the Nazis did to the Jews was not murder?

Have you lost your goddamned mind or do you lack the cognitive ability to see the fault in that?
Holy up-jumped Jesus on a powered pogo stick, was that dumb.

lighten up francis. I think you are reading too much into what I said.  The point I was making isnt even that contentious. That the word murder is used more often to pass moral judgments rather than legal ones.

I need to stop using Nazis in my examples. Gets the dander up for some reason.


Well DUH. Why do you suppose that might be Dr. Clueless?
 
2014-01-17 12:13:01 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Separation of church and state, buddy.  Light the grille, I'll get the tongs.


i'm an atheist. i just have a thing against hypocrisy.
 
2014-01-17 12:18:26 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: PsiChick: Dr Jack Badofsky: No, vengeance is not part of any justice system. Depending on the society,  punishment might be, but punishment is not and never has been vengeance. Vengeance is punishment without proof, without checks, and on the basis of emotion. Punishment without vengeance is what can be shown as demonstrably based on non-emotional criteria and is for society's supposed benefit.

Then, by your own definition, what this guy got was punishment.  There was no uncertainty, no lack of proof, no lack of checks.  It was proven he did it, someone said he admitted it, and apparently, the evidence points to him as the only suspect.  Staggering how people can feel more sorry for a murderer than the multiple victims he killed that we're no threat to him at all.  If this was drug dealers killing drug dealers, I bet you'd not be so critical.  This guy is worse than them.  By far, yet people still defend him.  Why?

Yes, what he got was punishment. However, there are different  types of punishment.  If the USA wants to introduce painful deaths instead of painless standardized deaths as part of the punishment,  then the USA must differentiate each type, class them according to crime, and otherwise fit them into our justice system (and find reasonable arguments that it should be that way). No one is defending this guy; they  are saying he was given  more punishment than he should have been by law. That's a problem. Why? Well, if you get pulled over for speeding, you don't want to end up in jail for two months, right? Yeah, that's why adding on punishments outside of the law is bad.

When someone speeds, there is no loss of life to discuss (usually).  And when that does happen, the penalties become much more severe and appropriately so.  Law enforcement does not want to crowd jails any more than they have to, especially give the current state of prison overcrowding.  However, moving violations are truthfully not for penalty, it's for financial gain for the government, ...


You entirely missed the point of that. My point was that tacking on extra punishment after the sentencing is wrong, not a point about traffic laws.
 
2014-01-17 12:48:01 PM  

gja: BigLuca:
lighten up francis. I think you are reading too much into what I said.  The point I was making isnt even that contentious. That the word murder is used more often to pass moral judgments rather than legal ones.

I need to stop using Nazis in my examples. Gets the dander up for some reason.

Well DUH. Why do you suppose that might be Dr. Clueless?


I prefer cognitively myopic.  And I think it was because of the whole WWII thing.
 
2014-01-17 01:37:35 PM  

Mirandized: And while we are at it, this FTFA.


   "We have forgiven him, but that does not negate the need for him to pay for his actions," said a statement released by Carol Avery, Stewart's sister, after McGuire's death.

I would not presume to tell her that she should forgive him, but if this is her attitude, she hasn't forgiven him. That makes her statement just a meaningless sound bite.


Hmmm. I completely disagree with this. I think it's completely valid for her to forgive him, but still assume that he will suffer the consequences of his actions. I see no reason to tie necessarily forgiveness to a release from consequences.

I'm an Ohioan. I strongly support the death penalty, because I consider it a solace that brings peace to family of the victims (in the vast majority of cases; though I expect to see exceptions trotted out). It's quite possible that life in prison may be more awful for the perpetrator (assuming no after-life), but I don't care about the perpetrator. It's my lack of regard for the perpetrator that underpins my position with respect to the level of discomfort experienced by him/her in the process of the execution. I don't care if its painless, or very painful, the point is justice and peace for the survivors. Braiding, drawing quartering, etc., are probably cruel and unusually, but, I think, the line gets grey way out in front of gasping for 15 minutes. I would support a much more painful processes if that's all we had, frankly, not because its more painful, but because, again, the feelings and comfort of the condemned are less important than executing the perpetrator for the benefit of the survivors.

I'm OK with a society that provides that, if you rape and torture a pregnant woman, you may experience an uncomfortable execution. This works for me, and it currently works for the majority of the citizens and courts in the State of Ohio.
 
2014-01-17 01:51:15 PM  

udhq: dameron: TheWhoppah: When the 8th amendment was written people were still beheaded, drawn and quartered and boiled in oil.

And when the 8th Amendment was written you could still own a man.   Get a grip.  Society progresses whether you want it to or not.

This.  A lot of passionate defenders in this thread don't seem to mind that if nothing else, what happened here was clearly unconstitutional.


Clearly? Not at all. Look Cardozzo, it's possible. I'll give you that. But I also think its extremely unlikely. Citizens have constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Citizens do not have constitutional protection against being executed. Being executed is going to invovle some level of discomfort. The State has taken steps to minimize the amount of discomfort (it would obviously be cheaper to just shoot him). Has the State done enough? Probably.
 
2014-01-17 02:07:34 PM  

TV's Vinnie: When was the last time a rich person was executed for their crimes in the US?

Think about that.


That's easy to explain:  Rich people just don't commit crimes that deserve capital punishment.
 
2014-01-17 04:33:35 PM  

HighTechHick: TV's Vinnie: When was the last time a rich person was executed for their crimes in the US?

Think about that.

That's easy to explain:  Rich people just don't commit crimes that deserve capital punishment.


Didn't Madhoff get life?
 
2014-01-17 04:38:04 PM  

PsiChick: Dr Jack Badofsky: PsiChick: Dr Jack Badofsky: No, vengeance is not part of any justice system. Depending on the society,  punishment might be, but punishment is not and never has been vengeance. Vengeance is punishment without proof, without checks, and on the basis of emotion. Punishment without vengeance is what can be shown as demonstrably based on non-emotional criteria and is for society's supposed benefit.

Then, by your own definition, what this guy got was punishment.  There was no uncertainty, no lack of proof, no lack of checks.  It was proven he did it, someone said he admitted it, and apparently, the evidence points to him as the only suspect.  Staggering how people can feel more sorry for a murderer than the multiple victims he killed that we're no threat to him at all.  If this was drug dealers killing drug dealers, I bet you'd not be so critical.  This guy is worse than them.  By far, yet people still defend him.  Why?

Yes, what he got was punishment. However, there are different  types of punishment.  If the USA wants to introduce painful deaths instead of painless standardized deaths as part of the punishment,  then the USA must differentiate each type, class them according to crime, and otherwise fit them into our justice system (and find reasonable arguments that it should be that way). No one is defending this guy; they  are saying he was given  more punishment than he should have been by law. That's a problem. Why? Well, if you get pulled over for speeding, you don't want to end up in jail for two months, right? Yeah, that's why adding on punishments outside of the law is bad.

When someone speeds, there is no loss of life to discuss (usually).  And when that does happen, the penalties become much more severe and appropriately so.  Law enforcement does not want to crowd jails any more than they have to, especially give the current state of prison overcrowding.  However, moving violations are truthfully not for penalty, it's for financial gain f ...


Ahh, got it.  Wasn't there a case recently where a kid (in his teens, I think) got one sentence, and now it's being reviewed because it was inappropriate?  The Affluenza kid that wiped out his classmates, I think.
 
2014-01-17 04:49:04 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Ahh, got it.  Wasn't there a case recently where a kid (in his teens, I think) got one sentence, and now it's being reviewed because it was inappropriate?  The Affluenza kid that wiped out his classmates, I think.


Yes. That's why it's being reviewed--to figure out what is just within the existing laws. Weird situations happen, but they're rare and didn't apply to TFA.
 
Displayed 50 of 612 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report