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.

(NBC News)   Two thirds of Americans won't let a simple thing like a lack of drugs stop their bloodlust   (nbcnews.com) divider line 177
    More: Scary, Americans  
•       •       •

2542 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2014 at 12:39 PM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 10:13:37 AM
A comfortable majority of those questioned - 59% - said they favor the death penalty as the ultimate punishment for murder, while 35% said they are opposed.

I suppose my opposition to the death penalty is strange after all.  I will say, though, that if we're going to execute people I don't have any problem with the method as long as it is fast: firing squad, the gallows, even the guillotine was designed to be a fast death for the sake of the condemned.  Death is a messy business, and if we're going to be in it as a people we need not pretend like we don't have blood on our hands by avoiding any actual blood.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-15 10:47:16 AM
Jesus didn't use lethal injection when he wanted to kill people.
 
2014-05-15 11:00:55 AM
I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent. So while I don't think that killing some mass murderer is a bad thing. Killing some guy who is innocent because a lawyer screwed up is.

And we got plenty of drugs we could use but for some reason we don't. I'm sure a massive shot of heroin would do the job quickly and painlessly. And really if i was going to go out a nice high is about the best I could hope for.
 
2014-05-15 11:16:57 AM

Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent. So while I don't think that killing some mass murderer is a bad thing. Killing some guy who is innocent because a lawyer screwed up is.



That is my fundamental problem with it.  If one asserts that the death penalty is about justice and not vengeance, then any innocent person being executed is too many, as we have no gain to show for it.  Plus the courts hand out the death sentence in unbelievably biased patterns based on race.

Horrible people doing horrible things to innocent victims deserve to die, but unless we can ensure justice we shouldn't be doing the killing.
 
2014-05-15 11:27:30 AM

Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent. So while I don't think that killing some mass murderer is a bad thing. Killing some guy who is innocent because a lawyer screwed up is.

And we got plenty of drugs we could use but for some reason we don't. I'm sure a massive shot of heroin would do the job quickly and painlessly. And really if i was going to go out a nice high is about the best I could hope for.


I get the whole innocent people potentially being executed argument, which is fine, and a perfectly sound reason why the death penalty shouldn't be given out all willy nilly. I do however feel that it should still be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst of the worst, where there is absolutely no question of their guilt for whatever reason whether it's because they were caught in the act, they voluntarily confessed, or the mountain of evidence is so overwhelming that there is literally no possible reasonable doubt that can exist, and the only argument the defense can make is insanity.

Yes, this makes up a very small percentage of all crimes, but the death penalty should be reserved for only a very small percentage of all crimes. I don't see any reason why people like James Holmes, or the Boston Marathon Bomber, or the guys in Connecticut that committed that home invasion, should continue to live.
 
2014-05-15 11:46:28 AM
This drug shortage nonsense is bullshiat. You don't need a fancy mix of paralytics and poisons to kill someone. Just load 'em up with a steadily increasing morphine dose until the forget to keep breathing.
 
2014-05-15 12:42:43 PM
executions should be stopped altogether

With or without drugs.

Here are some of the results of a poll of 800 registered voters conducted for NBC News between May 7 and 10. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46%.

Because 800 people screened by NBC represent the entire country.

Yeah I'm convinced.
 
2014-05-15 12:42:46 PM
Dumb question.

Why don't we just use what we use to euthanize pets?

Or is that what we do, and the implication is that pet euthanasia isn't as painless as we're led to believe?
 
2014-05-15 12:43:42 PM

spman: I do however feel that it should still be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst of the worst, where there is absolutely no question of their guilt for whatever reason whether it's because they were caught in the act


you'd need to define a justicable standard that is harsher than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. good luck.
 
2014-05-15 12:43:59 PM
I'll support absolute punishments as soon as we start requiring absolute proof of guilt.

I don't have a problem with killing people who deserve it, I have a problem with the fact that killing people who didn't deserve it is inevitable so long as we're all still human.
 
2014-05-15 12:44:04 PM

whidbey: Because 800 people screened by NBC represent the entire country.


People make comments like this about polls all the time.

The are routinely humiliated when the polls end up being an accurate representation of reality.

Farking statistics, how do they work?
 
2014-05-15 12:46:16 PM

incendi: This drug shortage nonsense is bullshiat. You don't need a fancy mix of paralytics and poisons to kill someone. Just load 'em up with a steadily increasing morphine dose until the forget to keep breathing.


It's a technicality with the way pharmaceutical laws are written. Anyone using morphine in that way would be guilty of off-label use of a scheduled narcotic. Anyone who provided that morphine knowing of its purpose would be guilty of narcotics trafficking.

It's also deeply stupid. Morphine will do the job in a relatively humane way, and it's cheaper than dirt. It wouldn't be difficult to build a specific schedule/prescription exemption for the purpose of a lawful execution.

/still prefers the guillotine
 
2014-05-15 12:49:42 PM
Executions should be by beheading carried out by one of the victims. They will only be allowed one blow.
 
2014-05-15 12:51:15 PM

Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent. So while I don't think that killing some mass murderer is a bad thing. Killing some guy who is innocent because a lawyer screwed up is.

And we got plenty of drugs we could use but for some reason we don't. I'm sure a massive shot of heroin would do the job quickly and painlessly. And really if i was going to go out a nice high is about the best I could hope for.


I read somewhere that morphine isn't used because the condemned would be smiling as he died. Too traumatic for the victim's family or something.

Then again, why do we let the victim's family watch the murderer die?
 
2014-05-15 12:51:38 PM
None of these people ever think about the person who has to perform these executions, I notice. I get it, they're just lowly civil servants, after all...
 
2014-05-15 12:51:43 PM

Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent.


I'm not sure sentencing to someone of 30 years of torture and anal rape is all that better.  Honestly if my priority was the rights of the convicted, I would focus my energy on the deplorable state of our prisons and sheer difficulty of life after you get out even if you want to go straight.

My opposition to the Death Penalty is that it is more expensive than the alternatives and has no proven effect on crime rates.
 
2014-05-15 12:52:34 PM

elchip: whidbey: Because 800 people screened by NBC represent the entire country.

People make comments like this about polls all the time.

The are routinely humiliated when the polls end up being an accurate representation of reality.

Farking statistics, how do they work?


It's farking NBC. They probably thought Romney won or something.
 
2014-05-15 12:53:22 PM

Riothamus: Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent. So while I don't think that killing some mass murderer is a bad thing. Killing some guy who is innocent because a lawyer screwed up is.

And we got plenty of drugs we could use but for some reason we don't. I'm sure a massive shot of heroin would do the job quickly and painlessly. And really if i was going to go out a nice high is about the best I could hope for.

I read somewhere that morphine isn't used because the condemned would be smiling as he died. Too traumatic for the victim's family or something.

Then again, why do we let the victim's family watch the murderer die?



Because nobody is going to say "no" to grieving family members, even decades later.

Most states cover the condemned's head with a black hood. That could be made a federal standard with the use of morphine.
 
2014-05-15 12:54:32 PM

skozlaw: I'll support absolute punishments as soon as we start requiring absolute proof of guilt.

I don't have a problem with killing people who deserve it, I have a problem with the fact that killing people who didn't deserve it is inevitable so long as we're all still human.


I honestly don't get the "killing" part.

It's so farking stupid, so "eye for an eye" type thinking. And yes, I would feel the same if someone raped and killed my mother. It's stupid barbaric bullshiat that keeps being justified. Over and farking over.
 
2014-05-15 12:55:38 PM

lilplatinum: Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent.

I'm not sure sentencing to someone of 30 years of torture and anal rape is all that better.  Honestly if my priority was the rights of the convicted, I would focus my energy on the deplorable state of our prisons and sheer difficulty of life after you get out even if you want to go straight.

My opposition to the Death Penalty is that it is more expensive than the alternatives and has no proven effect on crime rates.


The death penalty is more expensive than the alternative of a life sentence? Are you on morphine right now?
 
2014-05-15 12:57:07 PM

spman: I do however feel that it should still be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst of the worst, where there is absolutely no question of their guilt for whatever reason whether it's because they were caught in the act, they voluntarily confessed, or the mountain of evidence is so overwhelming that there is literally no possible reasonable doubt that can exist


I suspect it's too easy for 12 jurors to have no questions about the guilt of someone on trial.
 
2014-05-15 12:57:28 PM
Which is why I don't consider the US a civilized country.  I want to say we're barbarians, but that's a gross insult to the inhabitants of northern and central Europe c. 500 BCE- 500 CE.
 
2014-05-15 12:57:58 PM

whidbey: It's so farking stupid, so "eye for an eye" type thinking. And yes, I would feel the same if someone raped and killed my mother. It's stupid barbaric bullshiat that keeps being justified. Over and farking over.


Eye for an eye was actually a call for mercy, because before that the punishments were out of proportion with the crime committed.
 
2014-05-15 12:59:00 PM
The thing that bothers me about the death penalty advocates is the implicit admission that killing a few innocent people once in awhile is fine as long as the guilty are executed.
 
2014-05-15 12:59:13 PM

elchip: whidbey: Because 800 people screened by NBC represent the entire country.

People make comments like this about polls all the time.

The are routinely humiliated when the polls end up being an accurate representation of reality.

Farking statistics, how do they work?


Oh no, but see 800 only has a 93% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error.  It's sooooooo unrepresentative.
 
2014-05-15 12:59:33 PM
Republicans, whites, Protestants and older people were more likely to favor execution than Democrats, blacks and Latinos, Catholics and young people.


That's because the only white people who face the death penalty all have the middle name "Wayne".
 
2014-05-15 01:00:20 PM

milowitz: The death penalty is more expensive than the alternative of a life sentence? Are you on morphine right now?


Trials and countless appeals plus prison time for twenty years is more expensive than just life in prison.
 
2014-05-15 01:03:18 PM

milowitz: lilplatinum: Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent.

I'm not sure sentencing to someone of 30 years of torture and anal rape is all that better.  Honestly if my priority was the rights of the convicted, I would focus my energy on the deplorable state of our prisons and sheer difficulty of life after you get out even if you want to go straight.

My opposition to the Death Penalty is that it is more expensive than the alternatives and has no proven effect on crime rates.

The death penalty is more expensive than the alternative of a life sentence? Are you on morphine right now?


Death Row inmates typically get the benefit of a long appeals process, meant to ensure that an innocent man definitely isn't getting executed (although we all know how well that works).  All those appeals, plus the cost of housing the convicted while that process runs its course, usually leads to a higher cost than a simple life sentence.

If we went back to the swift carryout of a death sentence (like, within a year of the end of the trial), then it would be cheaper.  But lots more innocent people would be killed.
 
2014-05-15 01:03:33 PM

GhostFish: The thing that bothers me about the death penalty advocates is the implicit admission that killing a few innocent people once in awhile is fine as long as the guilty are executed.


As a pragmatist, I'd be fine with that if there were any meaningful data that suggests the death penalty achieves anything.
 
2014-05-15 01:05:05 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-15 01:05:32 PM

The Name: Which is why I don't consider the US a civilized country.  I want to say we're barbarians, but that's a gross insult to the inhabitants of northern and central Europe c. 500 BCE- 500 CE.


Japan has the death penalty.  By hanging.  And they don't tell you when your execution date is until the day of.
 
2014-05-15 01:06:10 PM

Gwyrddu: whidbey: It's so farking stupid, so "eye for an eye" type thinking. And yes, I would feel the same if someone raped and killed my mother. It's stupid barbaric bullshiat that keeps being justified. Over and farking over.

Eye for an eye was actually a call for mercy, because before that the punishments were out of proportion with the crime committed.


Yeah well you just keep rocking your Old Testament bad self.
 
2014-05-15 01:06:32 PM
Did guns stop working or something?
One to the dome seems pretty cheap, swift, and painless.

Maybe I take the data differently, but it sounds like people don't think the method matters more than the sentencing. If we've decided to kill a prisoner as punishment for his crimes then the lack of a specific drug cocktail won't change anything.

The death penalty is probably here to stay. The question should be "who deserves it?"
 
2014-05-15 01:06:36 PM

Gwyrddu: milowitz: The death penalty is more expensive than the alternative of a life sentence? Are you on morphine right now?

Trials and countless appeals plus prison time for twenty years is more expensive than just life in prison.


You're going that route, gotcha. That's true. I'm not Googles that number$, sitting in prison for decades costs taxpayers enough.
 
2014-05-15 01:07:27 PM
So, while I understand and often agree with anti-death-penalty people, I think that a technique like nitrogen asphyxiation would be pretty humane, possibly moreso than the lethal injection, especially given the reports I've read that the administering people have been known to screw up the anesthesia dose so that the subject is semi-conscious and paralyzed when the KCl hits the bloodstream.

Poison gas chambers and electrocution are pretty horrible, though.
 
2014-05-15 01:07:33 PM

elchip: The Name: Which is why I don't consider the US a civilized country.  I want to say we're barbarians, but that's a gross insult to the inhabitants of northern and central Europe c. 500 BCE- 500 CE.

Japan has the death penalty.  By hanging.  And they don't tell you when your execution date is until the day of.


Yeah well they pixilate genitals too.

Your point?
 
2014-05-15 01:08:01 PM
ugh the government can't do ANYTHING right

except kill people of course
 
2014-05-15 01:08:30 PM

way south: Did guns stop working or something?
One to the dome seems pretty cheap, swift, and painless.

Maybe I take the data differently, but it sounds like people don't think the method matters more than the sentencing. If we've decided to kill a prisoner as punishment for his crimes then the lack of a specific drug cocktail won't change anything.

The death penalty is probably here to stay. The question should be "who deserves it?"


I think we've found Yosemite Sam's Fark login.
 
2014-05-15 01:08:42 PM

elchip: Dumb question.

Why don't we just use what we use to euthanize pets?

Or is that what we do, and the implication is that pet euthanasia isn't as painless as we're led to believe?


I can tell you that what we give our dogs isn't all that cotton candy clouds and milkbone mountains the vet says it it. When I had to have our dog put down a couple of years ago, I was in there when they gave him the injection, and he lasted about 15 seconds until his eyes got wide, and he started freaking out, trying to get up from the table, looking all over. That lasted another 20 seconds or so, while I tried to calm him down. It sucked, and it still does. it's really not fun when your dog looks at you to help him with whatever is happening that is so bad, and you have nothing to offer. I still haven't mentioned it to my wife and probably never will. This will be my own weight on my shoulders, but either way, it's not the dog just going to sleep and it's all good.
 
2014-05-15 01:08:53 PM

milowitz: The death penalty is more expensive than the alternative of a life sentence?


haha holy shiat there are people that don't know this?
 
2014-05-15 01:09:34 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: That's because the only white people who face the death penalty all have the middle name "Wayne".


Great. I'm screwed.
 
2014-05-15 01:09:40 PM

Mikey1969: it's not the dog just going to sleep and it's all good.


Ending another life never is.
 
2014-05-15 01:10:54 PM
How to Kill a Human Being Documentary by a Tory MP in favor of capital punishment used humanly.

Last few minutes of the documentary and why we can't have nice things.
 
2014-05-15 01:10:55 PM

elchip: Dumb question.

Why don't we just use what we use to euthanize pets?

Or is that what we do, and the implication is that pet euthanasia isn't as painless as we're led to believe?


We can't do that because the manufacturers of those drugs won't let them be used in lethal injections. According to el Wiki, the most common drugs used to euthanize pets are pentobarbitol and sodium thiopental, which are the drugs that had been used as the first part of the three-part drug cocktail that is used for lethal injection. Those drugs are anesthetics, and in animals, a heavy dose causes unconsciousness, following by respiratory and cardiac arrest. I'm guessing there's nothing preventing us from using a single heavy dose of those drugs on humans - I think it would kill people painlessly - but I think that can also cause spasms which is kind of awkward. Sodium thiopental is no longer available in the US, period. It's not being manufactured here anymore, and the EU has banned the export of the drug. The company that manufactures pentobarbital does not sell the drug to prisons for use in lethal injections, and while it's being manufactured here in the US, the company that is manufacturing it here on behalf of the Danish pharmaceutical company signed a contract promising that the drug wouldn't be sold to be used in lethal injections.

What the states have done instead has been to use compounding pharmacies to come up with their own generic version of those drugs. Obviously, they're doing a really shiatty job of it.
 
2014-05-15 01:13:33 PM

ikanreed: GhostFish: The thing that bothers me about the death penalty advocates is the implicit admission that killing a few innocent people once in awhile is fine as long as the guilty are executed.

As a pragmatist, I'd be fine with that if there were any meaningful data that suggests the death penalty achieves anything.


Well, Ted Bundy,Timothy McVeigh and John Wayne Gacy are dead. I think those are good achievements.

I understand your point, though. I don't think it works as a deterrent, but what do we do with the people that have absolutely no place in society? Especially since some of these people end up being heroes in prison, so it becomes even better than when they were out in the real world. The other poster's point is good, too. It bothers me when innocent people get convicted, but it REALLY bothers me when it's someone on death row. Makes you wonder just how many have been wrongly convicted.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:26 PM

factoryconnection: A comfortable majority of those questioned - 59% - said they favor the death penalty as the ultimate punishment for murder, while 35% said they are opposed.

I suppose my opposition to the death penalty is strange after all.  I will say, though, that if we're going to execute people I don't have any problem with the method as long as it is fast: firing squad, the gallows, even the guillotine was designed to be a fast death for the sake of the condemned.  Death is a messy business, and if we're going to be in it as a people we need not pretend like we don't have blood on our hands by avoiding any actual blood.


The past methods were fine.  Lethal injection is basically OD'ing on general anesthesia.  But unfortunately, people unlike you want death penalty opposed and abolished by any means necessary.  So the involuntary muscle twitches and air release from lungs that happens while high and ODing on general anesthesia meds becomes "a terrifying struggle for life."  Then suddenly what was a perfectly humane way to do it becomes off limits so they start having to try new combos of drugs.

People love the hypocrisy of pro-life, pro-death penalty people, myself included.  I also enjoy watching the anti-death penalty people utilize the same bullshiat tactics as the pro-lifers.  Pro-lifers pretend we need ER/Hopsital level standards at abortion clinics as a method to try to outlaw abortion.  Anti-death penalty people pretend ODing on general anesthesia is cruel and unusual because if that's what it takes to stop it, well then so be it.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:58 PM

Riothamus: Tellingthem: I support it in theory but not in practice. A lifetime sentence still gives innocent people a chance to obtain their freedom while death is a bit more permanent. So while I don't think that killing some mass murderer is a bad thing. Killing some guy who is innocent because a lawyer screwed up is.

And we got plenty of drugs we could use but for some reason we don't. I'm sure a massive shot of heroin would do the job quickly and painlessly. And really if i was going to go out a nice high is about the best I could hope for.

I read somewhere that morphine isn't used because the condemned would be smiling as he died. Too traumatic for the victim's family or something.

Then again, why do we let the victim's family watch the murderer die?


Because we are farking barbarians trying to pull off that we're both civilized and enlightened.

You really had to ask?
 
2014-05-15 01:15:30 PM

ikanreed: GhostFish: The thing that bothers me about the death penalty advocates is the implicit admission that killing a few innocent people once in awhile is fine as long as the guilty are executed.

As a pragmatist, I'd be fine with that if there were any meaningful data that suggests the death penalty achieves anything.


it achieves the death of the person found guilty of murder
 
2014-05-15 01:15:55 PM

milowitz: You're going that route, gotcha. That's true. I'm not Googles that number$, sitting in prison for decades costs taxpayers enough.


Unfortunately there are a lot more people sitting in prison per capita in the US than any other country in the world, most of which don't have a death penalty. Reason being a combination of the drug war, lack of mental health facilities, mandatory minimum sentences and lobbying from private industry. In comparison the number of people we execute hardly makes a dent in that number.
 
2014-05-15 01:17:04 PM
Cons:

* Victims often don't feel closure
* Has no significant impact on crime rate
* Significantly more expensive than life incarceration
* Chance of killing an innocent person

Pros:

* We get to keep being a bunch of bloodthirsty a-holes
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report