Ohio lethal injection takes 2 hours, 10 tries

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No it is not.

Yes it is so.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Only in your world, and homey don't play dat.

[Flint]

Explain specifically how you disagree. Elaborate at will. Go ahead. Shoot me down.

[TheMercenary]

Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.

[Undertoad]

An imperfect system is inevitable

Deaths of innocents is inevitable

We can only do what the elected representatives of the people will do, because to do otherwise would lead to more imperfection and more innocent deaths.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

An imperfect system is inevitable

Deaths of innocents is inevitable

We can only do what the elected representatives of the people will do, because to do otherwise would lead to more imperfection and more innocent deaths.

An imperfect system is inevitable, but luckily the death sentence is not the default option. You have to consciously decide that innocent deaths are a jutifiable trade-off, for...well for whatever it is you think the death sentence accomplishes. Which is...?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.

Hey man, I respect you for coming right out and saying what you think. There's something to be said for being able to state a clear position.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

Explain specifically how you disagree. Elaborate at will. Go ahead. Shoot me down.

Shoot you down? You've made up your mind, with your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC", that I only have two choices. I reject that notion. Your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC" may limit your thinking, but not mine.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.

While I agree it's a cheaper and more practical option than housing them for 60 years, the idea that it's punishment went out with sword fighting and knickers.

Almost 200 hundred years ago, in Philadelphia, the legal/criminal justice community started to change their thinking from the old world 'draw & quarter' them for revenge and an example to others. They decided they didn't want to become what they had rejected in Europe. It didn't take very long for that position to become accepted.

While I agree that the public is divided, with some feeling it's punishment/revenge/pay back, that's not the official position of the legal/criminal justice community. Since they are running the show, their's is reality while yours and mine are only opinions. That's why we aren't allowed to lynch people, they hate competition.

Personally, the only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth, and the ultimate rut is a cell.


And Wesley Cook (Mumia Abu Jamal) is guilty as hell.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.

Clearly advocating murdering lots of innocents... thanks for clarifying what you want.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Clearly advocating murdering lots of innocents...

Clearly proving that would be a big task on your part. "Lots" is at best an overstatement. "Murdering" would be your opinion, nothing less.

So, you feel they are about to kill you at any minute from their cage, so you must protect yourself LOL!?
The burden of proof is on you since you are so hot to trot to murder them before their appeals are up & spend as many tax payer dollars as possible, murdering them being so much more expensive than keeping them alive.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

So, you feel they are about to kill you at any minute from their cage, so you must protect yourself LOL!?
The burden of proof is on you since you are so hot to trot to murder them before their appeals are up & spend as many tax payer dollars as possible, murdering them being so much more expensive than keeping them alive.

Who is being murdered? They are being punished by society for heinous acts. Who says they are dying before their appeals are up? Pretty clear to me. Yea, but basically it is a cost benefit ratio.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...You've made up your mind, with your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC", that I only have two choices. I reject that notion. Your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC" may limit your thinking, but not mine.

Logic "limits your thinking" to what is actually possible. Think of this as a flowchart:

- Do you believe that the judicial system is 100% infallible?

If Yes: You have not "limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).
If No: Then you must acknowledge the possibility that people will be wrongly convicted/sentenced/executed.

- Do you support the state-sanctioned execution of innocent human beings?

If Yes: You must consciously accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty.
If No: You do not accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty. You cannot support the Death Penalty.
If No, BUT you SUPPORT the Death Penalty: You have not "limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).

Either you disagree that the system is imperfect, or you think that innocent deaths are acceptable. Those are the only options.

Are you familiar with the term Cognitive Dissonance?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Shoot you down? You've made up your mind, with your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC", that I only have two choices. I reject that notion.

What are the third and fourth choices?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who is being murdered? They are being punished by society for heinous acts. Who says they are dying before their appeals are up? Pretty clear to me. Yea, but basically it is a cost benefit ratio.

The human beings who are being murdered.
If you kill someone for any reason other than immediate self-defense, it is murder.
You can dehumanize them all you want, but murdering innocents is not cost effective.
Once it becomes clear it has happened your state will be liable and should have to pay the family of the murdered victim millions because assholes supported state-sanctioned murder because they wanted to feel powerful and cool and for NO OTHER REASON.
Punished implies you are teaching them something, if one is murdered, they have learned nothing... your bulb is petty dim these days.