ABA will revoke your certification if you execute someone

[Eta Carinae]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Originally Posted by psychforme
ABA certifies the anesthesiologist meet their standards. They can't certify that your not a psychopathic killer when you are - that would be lying. If the tea party crowd are fine with their anesthesiologists being killers the tea party crowd can let themselves be put to sleep by non-board certified anesthesiologists. Patients who don't want such a health care provider deserve better.
You are f'ing insane.

Dude, like Bertelman is the model of restraint and gentility.

never heard the guy use expletives.

So if he says you're insane, it's not an insult, it's a fact, dogma, truth, verity, an actual clinical diagnosis.

I feel immense pity for your (future) patients. I imagine it must be like the blind leading the blind.

 

[pgg]

All -

Let's try to keep it civil, however wrong, foolish, idiotic, ******ed, naive, inbred, and ugly the other mouthbreathing knucklehead may be.

I feel immense pity for your (future) patients. I imagine it must be like the blind leading the blind.

At least it took us 103 posts to get to Lee's law, so that's something. 😀

 

[Eta Carinae]

At least it took us 103 posts to get to Lee's law, so that's something. 😀

it actually took less that that:

Originally Posted by psychforme
ABA certifies the anesthesiologist meet their standards. They can't certify that your not a psychopathic killer when you are - that would be lying. If the tea party crowd are fine with their anesthesiologists being killers the tea party crowd can let themselves be put to sleep by non-board certified anesthesiologists. Patients who don't want such a health care provider deserve better.

But who's counting?😀

 

[Eta Carinae]

A Matter of Passionate and Adequate Justice, not retribution

We believe in certain inalienable rights that have been endowed on us by a Creator or by evolution, or that we hold as humans, as superior to every other species of life on the planet as a product of evolutionary distinction. One of our innate desires being the desire for justice- what is right, what is equitable. We have a sense of justice, of moral debts that are created, in the face of an offense so malevolent that it cannot be adequately righted without the call for an ultimate punishment.

Is it conceivable that some crimes and some criminals represent such an extreme deviation from what we would consider even human, such an embarrassment and denigration of the rights and status of humanity that the only befitting recourse is to impose the highest form of punishment possible? Or somehow is the idea that a crime could be worthy of no other just punishment than death, cost notwithstanding, for the closure and sense of compatible justice that it provides to the victims is lost to us? I highly doubt it.

I doubt there are many fathers here who would come home from work at night to find a pervert molesting their young daughters and calmly and rationally walk over to the phone and call the police. The innate response will be to exact severe and often lethal reparation. In fact in society, are we not quick to laud and apotheosize those who have acted in passionate defense of their loved ones in the face of exploitation- even when it leads to the loss of life of the offender?

Ultimately there is a sense in which the desire for justice has to be satisfied- to the victims and to society. The mislabeling of this as retribution is false and misleading and attempts to vilify those who have been victimized by violent crime and shame them from seeking the closure and redress they deserve.


Is it a Deterrent?

The matter of deterrence is less than decisive for either proponents or opponents of capital punishment. Most opponents acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Opponents appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

The death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others.

Quote from Harvard Law Review. Article by Ernest van den Haag, JD/PhD; John M. Olin Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University
"Whereas the lives of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers. In the words of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen: "Some men, probably, abstain from it because they regard capital punishment with fear and horror”. One great reason why they regard it with horror is that murderers are executed (H. Gross, A Theory of Criminal Justice 489 )"

The evidence for a deterrent effect has been hotly debated since Professor Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, theorized that would-be murderers would choose between illegal and legal behavior based on the threat of execution. From my reading, in 1975, University of Buffalo Professor Isaac Ehrlich published an influential article asserting that during the 1950s and '60s, each execution "…saved eight innocent lives" by deterring murder. Sharp critiques of Ehrlich's work appeared in academic journals such as the Yale Law Journal disputing his results and offering contradictory findings.

In 1978, an expert panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences strongly criticized Ehrlic's work and rejected its conclusions. Hence, intense debate was born. And over the next two decades, economists and other social scientists have attempted to replicate or reject results using different data, alternative statistical methods, and other twists- you know kind of like how the (mao)Obama administration attempted to prove the "cost-savings" of his healthcare "reform". The debate has since produced a standoff.

In more recent developments, legal academics, such as Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of the University of Chicago, find the newer deterrence evidence in more recent studies "powerful" and "impressive." Having pooled data from many decades of reliable data about [capital punishment's] deterrent effects, the "foundation" of their argument, holds that since "capital punishment powerfully deters killings," there is a moral imperative to aggressively prosecute capital crimes.

The most recent research to date on this topic I found was conducted by Emory University, with the finding that, and I quote: “Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus ten. Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws and are robust to many alternative specifications.” Does Capital Punishment have a deterrent effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium data. Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M.Shepherd Emory University. American Law and Economics Review V5 N2 2003 (344-376).

In other words, finding that other forms of punishment serve as deterrents, as one might intuitively suspect, but to an even greater extent, capital punishment does. Which calls to question the frequent quoting of an unreferenced anecdote that “the most conclusive evidence (or whatever other fabricative adjective is employed)” shows that there is non-deterrent effect. I did not find this conclusion in my search.


The Issue of Wrongful Executions

In a recent survey Professors Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael Radelet found that 7000 persons were executed in the United States between 1900 and 1985 and that 35 were innocent of capital crimes. A deplorable statistic by any measure. Between 1976 and 2008, the number whose guilt has been determined to be with reasonable doubt declined further, although I cannot find precise statistics on this group.

Among the innocents sited, we commonly find listed, Sacco and Vanzetti as well as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, in whose cases data may be questionable that has been touted as reason for suspicion of non-guilt. I do not doubt, however, that over a long enough period and without the strictest standards of justice, miscarriages of justice may occur even in capital cases.

Despite precautions, nearly all human activities, such as trucking, the practice of medicine, or construction, cost the lives of some innocent bystanders/patients. We do not give up these activities, because the advantages, moral or material, outweigh the unintended losses.

Analogously, for those who think the death penalty just, miscarriages of justice are offset by the moral benefits and the usefulness of doing justice. For those who think death penalty unjust even when it does not miscarry, miscarriages can hardly be decisive.



Conclusively then, in its ability to render just punishment (not retribution) that is called for according to the nature and severity of the crime, in its ability to deter violent and malevolent elements, in its ability to bring closure and satisfy a desire for justice for the victims, in its ability to send a resounding message of non-tolerance for the exploitation and violation of another human to the extent of capital crimes, the institution of capital punishment reserves its utility even presently.

 

[pgg]

HMMMM.

but OK.

Touche; I'm not immune to getting annoyed by people who are wrong.

 

[phospho]

Not that this has much to do with this thread, but I was reading about the Hi Fi murders just last week:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_Murders

copying and pasting some of it:
--------------------------------------------
Pierre and Andrews entered the Hi-Fi store in Ogden just before closing time, brandishing handguns. Two employees, Stanley Walker, age 20, and Michelle Ansley, age 19, were in the store at the time and taken hostage. Pierre and Andrews took the two into the basement of the store, bound them, and then began robbing the store. Later, a 16-year-old boy named Cortney Naisbitt arrived to thank Walker for allowing him to park his car in the store's parking lot as he ran an errand next door. He was also taken hostage and tied up in the basement with Walker and Ansley. Later that evening, Orren Walker, Stanley's 43-year-old father, became worried that his son had not returned home. Cortney Naisbitt's mother Carol Naisbitt, also arrived at the shop looking for her son who was late getting home. Both Orren Walker and Carol Naisbitt were taken to the basement and tied up. At this point, Ansley began begging and crying, as did Cortney Naisbitt.

Pierre then ordered Andrews to go out to their van and bring him back something. Andrews returned with a bottle in a brown paper bag, from which Pierre poured a cup of blue liquid. Pierre ordered Orren to administer the liquid to the other hostages, but he refused, and was bound, gagged and left face-down on the basement floor.

Pierre and Andrews then propped each of the victims into sitting positions and forced them to drink the liquid, telling them it was vodka laced with sleeping pills. Rather, it was liquid Drano. The moment it touched the hostages' lips, enormous blisters rose, and it began to burn their tongues and throats and peel away the flesh around their mouths. Ansley, still begging for her life, was forced to drink the drain cleaner too, although she was reported to have coughed less than the other victims (by Mr. Walker). Pierre and Andrews tried to duct-tape the hostages' mouths shut to hold quantities of drain cleaner in and to silence their screams, but pus oozing from the blisters prevented the adhesive from sticking. Orren Walker was the last to be given the drain cleaner, but seeing what was happening to the other hostages, he allowed it to pour out of his mouth and then faked the convulsions and screams of his son and fellow hostages.

Pierre became angry because the deaths were taking too long and were too loud and messy, so he shot both Carol and Cortney Naisbitt in the backs of their heads. Pierre then shot at Orren Walker but missed. He then fatally shot Stan Walker before again shooting at Orren, this time grazing the back of his head.

Pierre then took Ansley to the far corner of the basement, forced her at gunpoint to remove her clothes, then repeatedly and brutally raped her, after telling Andrews to clear out for 30 minutes. When he was done, he allowed her to use the bathroom while he watched, then dragged her, still naked, back to the other hostages, threw her on her face, and fatally shot her in the back of the head.

Andrews and Pierre noted that Orren was still alive, so Pierre mounted him, wrapped a wire around his throat, and tried to strangle him. When this failed, Pierre and Andrews inserted a ballpoint pen into Orren's ear, and Pierre stomped it until it punctured his eardrum, broke, and exited the side of his throat. Pierre and Andrews then went upstairs, finished loading equipment into their van, and departed.
--------------------------------------------

Don't get me wrong, I've always been very pro-"anti-life" (i.e. I'm w/ abortion, the death penalty, etc...), but if this crime isn't worth hanging someone for, I don't wanna believe in anything our laws stand for anymore. I'd rather go out, buy my own shot gun, and handle things the same way they handled them back in the day. Old school baby.

 

[Mman]

The death penalty does not deter murderers. It sounds good in theory. However, it just doesn't work. If you compare murder rates before and after capital punishment is enacted from state to state, there is no difference. If you look at murder rates in states that have stopped using the death penalty, it doesn't go up. People that commit murder just aren't very smart and usually aren't thinking clearly. They don't sit up at night debating the pros and cons of murdering somebody. Many of them are probably entirely unaware of whether or not their state even has the death penalty.

In our country, you are less likely to get murdered if you live in a state that does not have the death penalty than one that does. That is a fact and has been a fact for decades. We'd all like to think that maybe those states with higher murder rates needed the death penalty, but it's hard to argue that 50 or 150 years ago when they began using it that they were the same states that were more dangerous to live in than today.

I'm pretty conservative, but I think the death penalty is a waste of money. Lock 'em up and throw away the key and save us hundreds of thousands of dollars (or is it millions) per offender.

The additional savings should be plowed into increasing anesthesia's medicare reimbursement rates.

 

[Bertelman]

I'm pretty conservative, but I think the death penalty is a waste of money. Lock 'em up and throw away the key and save us hundreds of thousands of dollars (or is it millions) per offender.

The additional savings should be plowed into increasing anesthesia's medicare reimbursement rates.

How does it really save us that much money? If you choose not to execute a 27 y/o, you're obligated to house him for 40+ years.

What part of not executing a prisoner saves us money

 

[GoodmanBrown]

How does it really save us that much money? If you choose not to execute a 27 y/o, you're obligated to house him for 40+ years.

What part of not executing a prisoner saves us money

The cases are more costly to prosecute and defend against appeal because of all the extra safeguards built in to death sentences. So, you're paying for the years of litigation as a death-penalty case works its way through the court systems. Additionally, apparently death-row is the most expensive place to house a prisoner (not sure why), and most inmates spend years on death row before being executed. So, it'd be cheaper to house them in a maximum security prison. Here's one review, and I'll post another one or two if I find something useful.


EDIT: At least one of the studies cited in my link is bogus. It compared death-penalty cases vs. non-death-penalty. So, of course, the non-death penalty will be cheaper because it factors in cases without a life-sentence. Still reviewing...

EDIT x 2: At least some of the cited studies do compare death-sentence cases vs. life-sentence cases and come out finding the life-sentence to be less costly. So, the link does have some valuable info.

 

[Curious Biff]

I read through (most of) this thread. One thing is clear to me: the ABA is obviously against a dignified, humane, painless death of someone who's been sanctioned and condemned by society to the ultimate punishment.

Biff

 

[psychforme]

I read through (most of) this thread. One thing is clear to me: the ABA is obviously against a dignified, humane, painless death of someone who's been sanctioned and condemned by society to the ultimate punishment.

Biff

there is no dignity in being murdered.

 

[Bertelman]

The cases are more costly to prosecute and defend against appeal because of all the extra safeguards built in to death sentences. So, you're paying for the years of litigation as a death-penalty case works its way through the court systems. Additionally, apparently death-row is the most expensive place to house a prisoner (not sure why), and most inmates spend years on death row before being executed. So, it'd be cheaper to house them in a maximum security prison. Here's one review, and I'll post another one or two if I find something useful.


EDIT: At least one of the studies cited in my link is bogus. It compared death-penalty cases vs. non-death-penalty. So, of course, the non-death penalty will be cheaper because it factors in cases without a life-sentence. Still reviewing...

EDIT x 2: At least some of the cited studies do compare death-sentence cases vs. life-sentence cases and come out finding the life-sentence to be less costly. So, the link does have some valuable info.

That website seems to be quite biased. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm not wholly convinced.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

That website seems to be quite biased. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm not wholly convinced.

I agree, but I still think certain studies can be pulled from the site that are worthwhile. There were some links to articles that were published in respectable, peer-reviewed public policy journals.

It's hard to find objective data though because so many people bring an agenda.

 

[Eta Carinae]

The death penalty does not deter murderers. It sounds good in theory. However, it just doesn't work. If you compare murder rates before and after capital punishment is enacted from state to state, there is no difference. If you look at murder rates in states that have stopped using the death penalty, it doesn't go up. People that commit murder just aren't very smart and usually aren't thinking clearly. They don't sit up at night debating the pros and cons of murdering somebody. Many of them are probably entirely unaware of whether or not their state even has the death penalty.

Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders.

Paul R. Zimmerman, "State Executions, Deterrence, and the Incidence of Murder," Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1 (May 2004), pp. 163-193.

In our country, you are less likely to get murdered if you live in a state that does not have the death penalty than one that does. That is a fact and has been a fact for decades. We'd all like to think that maybe those states with higher murder rates needed the death penalty, but it's hard to argue that 50 or 150 years ago when they began using it that they were the same states that were more dangerous to live in than today.

I got statistics on murder rate by state from the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. (USDOJBJS for short.)



The latest data was for 2001. I got a list of which states had capital punishment as of July 2001 from the Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab and Death Penalty Information Center.


The average murder rate for the 38 states with capital punishment was 5.22 murders per 100,000 people. The average murder rate for the 13 states (including the District of Columbia) without capital punishment was 5.96. So in fact the states with capital punishment had a lower murder rate, but not dramatically lower.



The statistics include the District of Columbia as a state. DC has a very high murder rate. If we leave DC out of the average for non-capital punishment states, then their average murder rate is dramatically less, only 3.08. On the one hand you could say it's fair to leave out the one place that has an unusually high number from an average. On the other hand, if we get to arbitrarily leave out all the biggest numbers from the calculation of an average, of course the total will be smaller.

Graph 1: Homicide Rate

Graph 2: Homicide Rate vs Executions

Is it a Deterrent?

The matter of deterrence is less than decisive for either proponents or opponents of capital punishment. Most opponents acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Opponents appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

The death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others.

Quote from Harvard Law Review. Article by Ernest van den Haag, JD/PhD; John M. Olin Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University
"Whereas the lives of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers. In the words of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen: "Some men, probably, abstain from it because they regard capital punishment with fear and horror". One great reason why they regard it with horror is that murderers are executed (H. Gross, A Theory of Criminal Justice 489 )"

The evidence for a deterrent effect has been hotly debated since Professor Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, theorized that would-be murderers would choose between illegal and legal behavior based on the threat of execution. From my reading, in 1975, University of Buffalo Professor Isaac Ehrlich published an influential article asserting that during the 1950s and '60s, each execution "…saved eight innocent lives" by deterring murder. Sharp critiques of Ehrlich's work appeared in academic journals such as the Yale Law Journaldisputing his results and offering contradictory findings.

In 1978, an expert panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences strongly criticized Ehrlic's work and rejected its conclusions. Hence, intense debate was born. And over the next two decades, economists and other social scientists have attempted to replicate or reject results using different data, alternative statistical methods, and other twists- you know kind of like how the (mao)Obama administration attempted to prove the "cost-savings" of his healthcare "reform". The debate has since produced a standoff.

In more recent developments, legal academics, such as Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of the University of Chicago, find the newer deterrence evidence in more recent studies "powerful" and "impressive." Having pooled data from many decades of reliable data about [capital punishment's] deterrent effects, the "foundation" of their argument, holds that since "capital punishment powerfully deters killings," there is a moral imperative to aggressively prosecute capital crimes.

The most recent research to date on this topic I found was conducted by Emory University, with the finding that, and I quote: "Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus ten. Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws and are robust to many alternative specifications." Does Capital Punishment have a deterrent effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium data. Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M.Shepherd Emory University. American Law and Economics Review V5 N2 2003 (344-376).

In other words, finding that other forms of punishment serve as deterrents, as one might intuitively suspect, but to an even greater extent, capital punishment does. Which calls to question the frequent quoting of an unreferenced anecdote that "the most conclusive evidence (or whatever other fabricative adjective is employed)" shows that there is non-deterrent effect. I did not find this conclusion in my search.

 

[psychforme]

Have you heard of the term "confounding factors"? There might be a few of those when you sum murder rate of Montana and California, divide by 2 and compare it to inner city DC.

 

[Mman]

How does it really save us that much money? If you choose not to execute a 27 y/o, you're obligated to house him for 40+ years.

What part of not executing a prisoner saves us money

The trial is more expensive.

The 10-20+ years of holding them is very expensive.

The appeals process is very expensive.

I've never seen a proponent of capital punishment argue that it was cost effective. It isn't. The way our system works it is far more expensive and most estimates place it in at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars per inmate over the term of a life sentence compared to a death sentence.

The most fiscally conservative answer is to always abolish the death penalty because a life sentence is relatively very cheap in comparison.

 

[Eta Carinae]

The cases are more costly to prosecute and defend against appeal because of all the extra safeguards built in to death sentences. So, you're paying for the years of litigation as a death-penalty case works its way through the court systems. Additionally, apparently death-row is the most expensive place to house a prisoner (not sure why), and most inmates spend years on death row before being executed. So, it'd be cheaper to house them in a maximum security prison. Here's one review, and I'll post another one or two if I find something useful.


EDIT: At least one of the studies cited in my link is bogus. It compared death-penalty cases vs. non-death-penalty. So, of course, the non-death penalty will be cheaper because it factors in cases without a life-sentence. Still reviewing...

EDIT x 2: At least some of the cited studies do compare death-sentence cases vs. life-sentence cases and come out finding the life-sentence to be less costly. So, the link does have some valuable info.

The trial is more expensive.

The 10-20+ years of holding them is very expensive.

The appeals process is very expensive.

I've never seen a proponent of capital punishment argue that it was cost effective. It isn't. The way our system works it is far more expensive and most estimates place it in at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars per inmate over the term of a life sentence compared to a death sentence.

The most fiscally conservative answer is to always abolish the death penalty because a life sentence is relatively very cheap in comparison.

You guys do realize of course that you are making the argument for swifter execution of the sentence and not against capital punishment.

As has been shown, the expense is incurred with endless petition and protracted housing max security units. Not in the application of the sentence itself.

 

[bigeyedfish]

The biggest deterrent to murder, and crime in general, is legalized abortion. Just look what happened in Romania.

In any case, I don't believe in a eye for an eye.

I believe in two eyes for an eye.

 

[pgg]

You guys do realize of course that you are making the argument for swifter execution of the sentence and not against capital punishment.

Of course we could cut costs drastically if we re-used the same garrote behind the courthouse after the conclusion of the first trial, no appeal. 🙄

But what do you think might happen to the number of innocents who get executed? Two whole days ago you were quite satisfied with how higher judicial standards and scrutiny had supposedly eliminated the incidence of wrongful executions. Which is incorrect, of course, but just for the sake of argument I'll assume that we're within your collateral damage comfort zone at present.

So you favor cutting trial costs, limiting appeals, streamlining the system, and ensuring "swifter execution of the sentence" ... with the flip side being an inevitably higher incidence of wrongful execution?

The kind of strict scrutiny and extraordinary level of confidence needed to mete out a death sentence isn't cheap, and it isn't quick. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Bertelman]

The trial is more expensive.

The 10-20+ years of holding them is very expensive.

The appeals process is very expensive.

I've never seen a proponent of capital punishment argue that it was cost effective. It isn't. The way our system works it is far more expensive and most estimates place it in at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars per inmate over the term of a life sentence compared to a death sentence.

The most fiscally conservative answer is to always abolish the death penalty because a life sentence is relatively very cheap in comparison.

All of those things lead me to believe the system is broken (Shocker, I know.) Why should someone on Death Row have more appeals than a lifer? Why should incarcerating them be any more expensive? Obviously, the lifers are incarcerated for longer!

As for the basis of arguments for or against the death penalty, aside from some insightful minds on this forum, the average joe carries on about the death penalty being more expensive as a way to circumvent the other arguments for or against; it is a singular piece of information that provides a logical, rather than emotional, response.

I would argue that there is clearly something wrong with how our dollars are spent prosecuting and incarcerating these criminals. You either believe in the death penalty or not. I'm from Texas. You can guess where I stand. Having crossed that bridge, it is then a matter of finding a way to make carrying out the death penalty less expensive.

 

[pgg]

In any case, I don't believe in a eye for an eye.

I believe in two eyes for an eye.

I don't understand why you pro death penalty people are so soft on crime. If you weren't such bleeding heart libruls, then you'd want these people to suffer and rot away for 40 or 50 years in a concrete box 23 hours/day, slowly going insane with boredom and/or the guilt of what they've done.

Instead you want an anesthesiologist to gently induce general anesthesia, and let them escape into the sweet painless embrace of death.

Whatsa matter, don't have the stomach for harsh punishment?

 

[Eta Carinae]

Of course we could cut costs drastically if we re-used the same garrote behind the courthouse after the conclusion of the first trial, no appeal. 🙄

But what do you think might happen to the number of innocents who get executed? Two whole days ago you were quite satisfied with how higher judicial standards and scrutiny had supposedly eliminated the incidence of wrongful executions. Which is incorrect, of course, but just for the sake of argument I'll assume that we're within your collateral damage comfort zone at present.

So you favor cutting trial costs, limiting appeals, streamlining the system, and ensuring "swifter execution of the sentence" ... with the flip side being an inevitably higher incidence of wrongful execution?

The kind of strict scrutiny and extraordinary level of confidence needed to mete out a death sentence isn't cheap, and it isn't quick. You can't have it both ways.

You can employ whatever modes of hyperbole and misrepresentation you wish to use to pervert and misrepresent my stance and the stance of the majority in this country on this issue. It does not obscure the facts of the argument in defense of capital punishment as I've clearly laid them out.

I don't know of a single defendant on death row (except McVeigh who uttered famous last words about his head not being bowed) who has not proclaimed their innocence and sought appeal after appeal, endlessly prolonging and deferring the legal process when in fact a baseless appeal for its own sake ends up constituting a further burden to the tax payer. This is also, in my opinion, a miscarriage of justice.

If the trial can be shown to have met the standards I've laid out, then the sentence is just and should be administered anon.

 

[Eta Carinae]

I don't understand why you pro death penalty people are so soft on crime. If you weren't such bleeding heart libruls, then you'd want these people to suffer and rot away for 40 or 50 years in a concrete box 23 hours/day, slowly going insane with boredom and/or the guilt of what they've done.

Instead you want an anesthesiologist to gently induce general anesthesia, and let them escape into the sweet painless embrace of death.

Whatsa matter, don't have the stomach for harsh punishment?

liberals, they'll never get it.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Apollyon]

You have about as much chance of winning the powerball lottery as you do of being executed for committing murder. When 10 murderers out of 50,000 get executed, and often up to decades later, there is ZERO expectation of death when committing that crime, and therefore no deterrent.

Just a point of fact:

Odds of hitting 5/5 + Powerball: 1 in 195,249,054.00

10/50000 : 1 in 5000

Or, ~39050x as many people executed in CA for each Powerball jackpot winner.

I'm just sayin' - they don't go together.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Rabbit Hole]

Despite the politics of the death penalty. I believe that execution by lethal injection is the most humane way to end a life. I also think that if it must be done it should be done right - meaning a physician should oversee the process to make sure there is no pain and awareness. It's a morbid job, but somebody's gotta do it as long as the death penalty is around. The other options - electric chair, hanging, firing squad, guillotine, etc don't seem humane to me.

This reminds me of physician-assisted suicide - specifically The Oregon Death with Dignity Act which allows physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for terminally ill patients wishing to end their life. From what I understand, the entire legal process of carrying this out is long so it's not like you can just walk into a physician's office and... not walk out.
Okay, I didn't intend for that to sound so morbid. 😳

 

[Hampster10]

Despite the politics of the death penalty. I believe that execution by lethal injection is the most humane way to end a life. I also think that if it must be done it should be done right - meaning a physician should oversee the process to make sure there is no pain and awareness. It's a morbid job, but somebody's gotta do it as long as the death penalty is around. The other options - electric chair, hanging, firing squad, guillotine, etc don't seem humane to me.

This reminds me of physician-assisted suicide - specifically The Oregon Death with Dignity Act which allows physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for terminally ill patients wishing to end their life. From what I understand, the entire legal process of carrying this out is long so it's not like you can just walk into a physician's office and... not walk out.
Okay, I didn't intend for that to sound so morbid. 😳

👍

 

[hoyden]

I don't understand why you pro death penalty people are so soft on crime. If you weren't such bleeding heart libruls, then you'd want these people to suffer and rot away for 40 or 50 years in a concrete box 23 hours/day, slowly going insane with boredom and/or the guilt of what they've done.

Instead you want an anesthesiologist to gently induce general anesthesia, and let them escape into the sweet painless embrace of death.

Whatsa matter, don't have the stomach for harsh punishment?

The problem is - they won't. They would have relatively cushy life with TV, Internet, drugs and all other pleasures of the incarceration with bleeding heart liberals weeping their crocodile tears about poor ones that have had bad childhood and need to be pampered in jail now.

I am not a liberal. However, I do not know ( honestly) am I pro- or contra- the death penalty in a way it is done in this country.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I'm undecided on the death penalty for now, but I have to agree with the ABA's position on this. Unlike end-of-life/hospice situations, where a physician's expertise might be crucial to help comfort someone's death, I feel that there are enough ways to kill someone quickly that there's absolutely no need for a doctor's presence.

In fact, it makes me wonder why doctors are even involved at all. My thought process is that lethal injection seems like a more "humane" and/or "painless" process, and pro-death penalty people don't want to seem uncivilized or whatever. So getting doctors to smooth the process and eliminate any hiccups will keep the process seeming "humane."

I realize the Constitution talks about not having "cruel and unusual punishment," but let's be real, here. When we execute someone, we as a society have decided that that person has done something so cruel and heinous that they don't deserve the privilege of living in our society any more, and they deserve to die. Any pain/suffering they might endure in the process seems inconsequential to the end result. You can argue that there are worse things than dying, and I'll grant you that. But most of those things are not physical pain.

I guess to summarize, my issue is this. If we as a society are going to decide to have the death penalty, fine. Quick and painless? Fine. Have an official from the government snow 'em with some benzos and then put a bullet in their head point-blank. Doesn't take a doctor.

In fact, there could be a execution duty system, kinda like jury duty. Each citizen who voted yes on the death penalty referendum would be obligated to carry it out when summoned. If you voted for it, you have to back it up.

 

[Gern Blansten]

In fact, there could be a execution duty system, kinda like jury duty. Each citizen who voted yes on the death penalty referendum would be obligated to carry it out when summoned. If you voted for it, you have to back it up.

Sadly, I doubt getting "selected" for this would be as unpopular as getting selected for jury duty.

 

[Bertelman]

I guess to summarize, my issue is this. If we as a society are going to decide to have the death penalty, fine. Quick and painless? Fine. Have an official from the government snow 'em with some benzos and then put a bullet in their head point-blank. Doesn't take a doctor.

How do you propose we administer the benzos?

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

How do you propose we administer the benzos?

Doesn't take a doctor to administer medication. I guess the issue is where you get it from? I don't know how you'd have to handle it legally, but since you don't need physician prescriptions (obviously need other types of permits) for controlled substances in lab-type environments, there has to be some way around it.

Regardless, it's kind of a technicality, as the gist of my post was that there seems to be a lot of unnecessary hemming and hawing about the "humanity" of executing someone, since humans have been successfully accomplishing the feat of killing each other for thousands of years without physician intervention.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Bertelman]

Doesn't take a doctor to administer medication. I guess the issue is where you get it from? I don't know how you'd have to handle it legally, but since you don't need physician prescriptions (obviously need other types of permits) for controlled substances in lab-type environments, there has to be some way around it.

Let me rephrase. Do you administer the drug PO? PR? nasal?

I'm not being obtuse, but it doesn't appear that you understand the history of how we got to the point of requiring physicians to participate. The point is that these executions were being performed without physician oversight, and they were done poorly. Difficult or impossible IV access. Infiltrated IVs. Improper doses of medications.

If you want to argue that criminals don't deserve the benefits of sedation prior to administering panc and potassium, then fine. But we're here because some lawyers and judges believe they do.

 

[Apollyon]

If you want to argue that criminals don't deserve the benefits of sedation prior to administering panc and potassium, then fine. But we're here because some lawyers and judges believe they do.

Well, to play the "patriotism" card, it IS in the 8th amendment to the US constitution. It's not just "some lawyers and judges". The idea is that, if we go "eye for an eye", and execute/punish in the same manner as the convicted committed their crimes, society in general, which extrapolates to every citizen in specific, becomes as bad/evil/amoral/undesirable as the malefactor.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Let me rephrase. Do you administer the drug PO? PR? nasal?

I'm not being obtuse, but it doesn't appear that you understand the history of how we got to the point of requiring physicians to participate. The point is that these executions were being performed without physician oversight, and they were done poorly. Difficult or impossible IV access. Infiltrated IVs. Improper doses of medications.

If you want to argue that criminals don't deserve the benefits of sedation prior to administering panc and potassium, then fine. But we're here because some lawyers and judges believe they do.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, either. I'm aware of the history of difficulties with lethal injection. My original argument (which we've drifted away from with discussion of drug regimen/administration) is that there are far less complicated methods of killing people, none of which require doctors.

 

[Bertelman]

Well, to play the "patriotism" card, it IS in the 8th amendment to the US constitution. It's not just "some lawyers and judges". The idea is that, if we go "eye for an eye", and execute/punish in the same manner as the convicted committed their crimes, society in general, which extrapolates to every citizen in specific, becomes as bad/evil/amoral/undesirable as the malefactor.

I'm fine with a more humane method of execution. I mistakenly interpreted WLG's posts, leading to my above statement.

Whay don't we bring back the gas chamber, but fill it with sevo instead?

 

[Gern Blansten]

Whay don't we bring back the gas chamber, but fill it with sevo instead?

Would the vaporizers go up to eleven?

 

[Bertelman]

.......what a great movie