02 May 06
I know this issue has been addressed here before, but I do not believe that we looked at the process from the perspective of the condemned. Following this post is a link to a thread regarding an execution in Ohio in which the process was bungled. Does pain during an execution qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? One thing is for certain, there are too many cases of executioners erring and causing the condemned undue pain. If there should be executions at all (which I think that there should not), shouldn't the staffers who perform executions have some sort of training so that they perform the execution correctly the first time?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/02/lethal.injection.reut/index.html
02 May 06
Originally posted by socialist1917Does pain during an execution qualify as cruel and unusual punishment?
I know this issue has been addressed here before, but I do not believe that we looked at the process from the perspective of the condemned. Following this post is a link to a thread regarding an execution in Ohio in which the process was bungled. Does pain during an execution qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? One thing is for certain, there a ...[text shortened]... correctly the first time?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/02/lethal.injection.reut/index.html
No.
Executions qualify as cruel and very unusual punishment.
02 May 06
I would only qualify pain during execution as "cruel and unusual" if it was caused intentionally. Not too place too blunt a point on the subject, but if death were meant to be painless, it is unlikely we would use such an object as a punishment. That some (or perhaps most) executions involve unintentional discomfort is an unfortunate, but likely unavoidable concept.
-JC
03 May 06
Originally posted by socialist1917I suppose that the original French method of execution was the least likely to be 'bungled' in such a way as to cause physical suffering since either knife came down and swiftly ended the process or it got stuck and caused no injury. But messy.
I know this issue has been addressed here before, but I do not believe that we looked at the process from the perspective of the condemned. Following this post is a link to a thread regarding an execution in Ohio in which the process was bungled. Does pain during an execution qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? One thing is for certain, there a ...[text shortened]... correctly the first time?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/02/lethal.injection.reut/index.html
03 May 06
Originally posted by socialist1917Why should it be looked at from the perspective of the condemned? They don't view their crimes from the perspective of a victim.
I know this issue has been addressed here before, but I do not believe that we looked at the process from the perspective of the condemned. Following this post is a link to a thread regarding an execution in Ohio in which the process was bungled. Does pain during an execution qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? One thing is for certain, there a ...[text shortened]... correctly the first time?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/02/lethal.injection.reut/index.html
03 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforangeA criminal case is called 'The People of the USA vs. The Perpetrator', not 'The Victim vs. The Perpetrator'. Punishment is about upholding the formal rule of law, not getting revenge for the victim. Therefore it doesn't necessarily follow that the perpetrator should be treated in the same manner as the victim -- anyway, we imprison burglars, for example; we don't just break their windows and confiscate their TVs. There's thus no immediate reason to execute murderers.
Why should it be looked at from the perspective of the condemned? They don't view their crimes from the perspective of a victim.
There are good reasons not to execute anyone:
First, it's impossible to be certain of anyone's guilt (a conviction is a recognition that twelve people think someone's guilty -- it's not a recognition that they are guilty). There is absolutely no difference between the execution of an innocent person and manslaughter through negligence. If an innocent is executed then the state, through incompetence, has acaused an innocent person to die, in much the same way that a drunk driver might.
Second, it's well-known that trying and executing someone costs taxpayers far more money than trying and imprisoning them does. The execution process could be made cheaper, but at the cost of a less reliable procedure for appeals, making innocents even more likely to be executed.
There are also significant moral arguments against executing actual guilty people, but I doubt you're interested. The two above reasons are in themselves sufficient for ending this practice.
03 May 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeFor me, there are three reasons for not supporting the death penalthy though they are probably related.
Why should it be looked at from the perspective of the condemned? They don't view their crimes from the perspective of a victim.
1) A murderer shows no mercy. For me, in a humane society, at the final act of committing murder, the one thing that should be able to prevent the deed is the act of mercy. If we wish, would be murderers to adopt our ideals of a civilized way of life then we must show how one behaves in the most difficult of circumstances, when we are full of rage. We must show mercy.
2) For me, it is wrong to kill, for any reason whatsoever. Before people say "what would you do under this or that circumstance" I would say, perhaps I would kill too but I would still be wrong to do so.
3) The concept that life is a "right", bestowed by society that can be rescinded, goes against the most basic freedom of mankind.
03 May 06
Originally posted by royalchickenIn addition, the death penality is unlikely to be an effective deterrent, mainly because, at the time of committing a crime, criminals are not thinking about it.
A criminal case is called 'The People of the USA vs. The Perpetrator', not 'The Victim vs. The Perpetrator'. Punishment is about upholding the formal rule of law, not getting revenge for the victim. Therefore it doesn't necessarily follow that the perpetrator should be treated in the same manner as the victim -- anyway, we imprison burglars, for examp ...[text shortened]... ested. The two above reasons are in themselves sufficient for ending this practice.