Oklahoma to use nitrogen for executions in first for U.S.

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Then just use the humane killer; the one with the captive bolt. Just like the one the vet used to put down your pony! Jesus.

I don't have a pony. If a country has to have a death penalty (I don't agree with it) then death should be made as comfortable as possible, I saw a BBC program once on the use of nitrogen ,one apparently dies in euphoria, no pain. The firing squad or captive bolt would do just as well but nitrogen appeals to the sensibilities.

[Credo]

The use of nitrogen gas is quite environmentally friendly.   Years ago, in California, there was a guy who was scheduled for the gas chamber but it had to be postponed because there was some bird nest, of an endangered species on the roof of the prison near the vent where the gas was released.   

 

 

[mtls2005]

Surprised they haven't tried some fracking chemicals?

[CharlesSwann]

They're making it too humane. There should be some drama in it for a deterrent effect, which is supposedly the point. Remember Angels With Dirty Faces? Bring back the Chair.

[mtls2005]

9 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

They're making it too humane. There should be some drama in it for a deterrent effect,

 

Hear, hear. Bloody Eighth Amendment.

 

Not sure how effective the death penalty is as a deterrent?

 

 

 

 

[CharlesSwann]

11 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Hear, hear. Bloody Eighth Amendment.

 

Not sure how effective the death penalty is as a deterrent?

 

 

Not completely, obviously, but surely partially. It will help deter those crimes where there is some premeditation and uncertainty, but the effect is more visceral than rational, so the penalty has to have an emotional element for the deterrent effect to work. Make it too humane and they undermining the whole point of the execution.

[attrayant]

While you all are musing about how gruesome an execution should be in a supposedly civilized country, keep in mind that innocent people have been executed before and likely will be again.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

While you all are musing about how gruesome an execution should be in a supposedly civilized country, keep in mind that innocent people have been executed before and likely will be again.

These days, there doesnt seem to be any disputed executions , no disputes about innocence .

[CharlesSwann]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

While you all are musing about how gruesome an execution should be in a supposedly civilized country, keep in mind that innocent people have been executed before and likely will be again.

Don't execute people if there's any doubt. Solved.

But if they are going to be executed anyway, might as well generate some deterrent effect out of it for the greater good of humanity.

I call myself a sensitive person, but I don't subscribe to the increasing hypersensitivity over this issue, which, interestingly, is proof positive that society is becoming effete.

Edited March 16, 2018 by CharlesSwann

[jak2002003]

On ‎15‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 8:42 AM, daoyai said:

The reason nitrogen has not been used previous is it is a painless "happy" death, the thought being that it would not be a deterrent to capital crime as the fear factor is reduced.

Fear factor reduced?  I a sure a person would still be terrified as they went to get the mask put on!!!!

 

 

[jak2002003]

4 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

Don't execute people if there's any doubt. Solved.

 

Sounds good.  But what about all the corruption, set ups, government cover ups etc.  

[attrayant]

19 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

Don't execute people if there's any doubt. Solved.

 

There have been past executions where there was no doubt, but evidence later surfaced to raise doubt or even completely exonerate the executed.  Even now, when we have DNA testing and video evidence there is still going to be human failings entering into the equation, be it corrupt prosecutors or lying witnesses.  Wherever human emotions are involved, there is always going to be the possibility of error.

 

19 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

But if they are going to be executed anyway, might as well generate some deterrent effect out of it for the greater good of humanity.  I call myself a sensitive person, but I don't subscribe to the increasing hypersensitivity over this issue, which, interestingly, is proof positive that society is becoming effete.

 

I don't think a self-described sensitive person should be advocating for torture as a warm-up show before an execution.  One day, it could be you mistakenly on death row instead of Troy Davis.

[midas]

23 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

And is clearly a barbarous one for allowing it.

China is far worse with its fleet of execution vans

 

China Has Mobile Execution Vans

 

Quote

The exact number of executions that happen in China is a state secret. Amnesty International put the 2016 number at 1,032, more than the rest of the world combined. Though to be fair, that is better than the number from 2002, which was 12,000.

http://www.chinauncensored.tv/execution-vans/

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by midas

[CharlesSwann]

30 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

There have been past executions where there was no doubt, but evidence later surfaced to raise doubt or even completely exonerate the executed.  Even now, when we have DNA testing and video evidence there is still going to be human failings entering into the equation, be it corrupt prosecutors or lying witnesses.  Wherever human emotions are involved, there is always going to be the possibility of error.

I don't think a self-described sensitive person should be advocating for torture as a warm-up show before an execution.  One day, it could be you mistakenly on death row instead of Troy Davis.

It's because I believe the net effect would be beneficial to society. I don't advocate heads on spikes, only a manner of execution will that help make potential murderers think twice.

 

In your sophistry, you are overlooking the fact that lack of a sufficient deterrent will fairly certainly result in avoidable deaths of innocent people. That would be on your conscience.

 

In any case, talking about the US, executions are uncommon, only used occasionally for the worst cases, both to establish the penalty as real, and set an example. In the past, quality of justice was indeed low. I would have more confidence with today's forensics that mistakes are hardly likely to happen. It wouldn't apply to O.J. Simpson and crimes of passion, but cases of human 'evil' that are beyond all doubt whatsoever. Those are the candidates.

 

[Oxx]

2 minutes ago, midas said:

23 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

And is clearly a barbarous one for allowing it.

China is far worse with its fleet to execution vans

 

Just because another country is even more barbaric than the United States in no way exculpates America.

 

It's a bit like saying that a sadistic mass murderer isn't so bad, just because someone else murdered more people more sadistically.

[attrayant]

8 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

lack of a sufficient deterrent will fairly certainly result in avoidable deaths of innocent people.

 

What is this 'fair certainty' based on?  Do you have any data at all?  Any countries that have curtailed their violent crime rate by enacting televised, grizzly-style executions?  Or perhaps the converse - any countries that have banned executions and subsequently seen a sharp rise in violent crime?  At least that would give us some correlation to work with.

 

8 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

That would be on your conscience.

 

And it would be on your conscience that society would be forced to view this act of torture porn - especially young adults and maybe even children, otherwise how would the desired deterrent effect become sufficiently implanted in young minds?  As if social media isn't bad enough already.

 

If a criminal is already of a mind that she won't be deterred by by capital punishment, preempting that execution with torture won't make a bit of difference.  Case studies show that too many violent criminals aren't thinking about potential punishment when they commit their crimes.  From Punishment, by Thom Brooks:

 

 

The citation is to this study, which shows that offenders are more responsive to the certainty of punishment, and much less responsive to the severity of punishment.

 

Most of the crimes we execute people for are irrational and impulsive, and criminals are rarely operating in a rational state of mind at the time. It's ridiculous to assume a violent criminal is rationally considering the mode of their potential punishment while committing their crimes.

 

8 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

I would have more confidence with today's forensics that mistakes are hardly likely to happen.

 

Hardly likely.  That's putting you some distance away from your earlier statement of "don't execute if there's any doubt".

[CharlesSwann]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

What is this 'fair certainty' based on? 

Knowledge of human nature, and this simple logic: take away every form of punishment, constraint and discipline - every article of the social contract - and do you see a reduction in crime by a newly-enlightened and grateful population? No, you will see everyone - maybe literally everyone - taking newfound liberties, because human nature is essentially competitive.

 

If there is no punishment at all for anything, there will be general anarchy. If there is no punishment for murder in particular, there will be more murder. If there is severe punishment for murder, especially that works on a visceral level, that will help prevent at least some of those murders those that are premeditated or hesitant.

 

I don't think I have strayed from logic and common sense anywhere in this, and I disdain recourse to emotion as an argument (such as your reference to 'torture porn'). Your argument is basically that you can't bear the thought of people dying. That's nice. The world needs people like that. The world also needs tough people who can impose discipline.

Edited March 16, 2018 by CharlesSwann

[owl sees all]

17 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

If there is no punishment at all for anything, there will be general anarchy. If there is no punishment for murder in particular, there will be more murder. If there is severe punishment for murder, especially that works on a visceral level, that will help prevent at least some of those murders those that are premeditated or hesitant.

Just can't agree with this. In other words If there were no punishment things could get worse. What about honour killing and apostasy deaths. Get rid of religion and there will be less crime all round.

[CharlesSwann]

17 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Just can't agree with this. In other words If there were no punishment things could get worse. What about honour killing and apostasy deaths. Get rid of religion and there will be less crime all round.

Maybe you misread. I said if there were no punishment there would be general anarchy.

As to religion, that is also a supplementary form of moral discipline, and sometimes has its own punishments as you mention. My conclusion is that religion is necessary for the discipline of the masses and without religion there would be far more crime than religion causes. Atheists don't think so (except me), but atheists should be careful what they wish for.

 

Seems that people here are arguing that less punishment will mean less crime. They are extrapolating from their own sensitivity to the whole world, which is idealistic. Unfortunately, the world has its proportion of brutes, and they must be dealt with severely. I say the electric chair is appropriate - as it was for a long time, until people got soft. Euthenasia shouldn't apply to executions. What next - let them die in a rocking chair?

Edited March 16, 2018 by CharlesSwann

[owl sees all]

13 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

Maybe you misread. I said if there were no punishment there would be general anarchy.

I didn't read in wrongly. I just don't agree.

 

It's perfectly OK to live a 'good' life without religion.

 

Killing in the name of religion should carry an automatic death penalty. And not some fancy, easy death either. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by owl sees all

[Grouse]

Capital punishment does work in America now does it? The end!

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Capital punishment does work in America now does it? The end!

Yes but revenge is sweet.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, CharlesSwann said:

Knowledge of human nature, and this simple logic

 

That sounds a lot like "it's common sense" or "I just know".  If that's as much detail as you're going to give, then you're basically just asking us all to take your word for it.

 

 

Quote

take away every form of punishment, constraint and discipline - every article of the social contract - and do you see a reduction in crime by a newly-enlightened and grateful population? No, you will see everyone - maybe literally everyone - taking newfound liberties, because human nature is essentially competitive.

 

If there is no punishment at all for anything, there will be general anarchy. If there is no punishment for murder in particular, there will be more murder. If there is severe punishment for murder, especially that works on a visceral level, that will help prevent at least some of those murders those that are premeditated or hesitant.

 

The "if there's no punishment at all..." argument sure is easier to defend, but you're attacking a straw man because nobody here is making such an argument.

 

If, on the other hand, you're saying that removing the pain of execution will inevitably lead to the elimination of all forms of punishment, then you are constructing a slippery slope fallacy.  Human response to modes of punishment is not linear.  A punishment that is twice as severe does not necessarily result in half as many criminals.  There comes a point of diminishing returns, where we can no longer be assured of effective deterrence simply by making the punishment more terrifying (your appeal to common sense notwithstanding).

 

In support of my earlier point:

 

Longer jail sentences do deter crime, but only up to a point

 

Researchers found little evidence that criminals responded to harsher sentencing, and much stronger evidence that increasing the certainty of punishment deterred crime. This matters for policy, as it suggests that locking vast numbers of people in jail is not only expensive, but useless as a deterrent. The point is also made that harsher punishments do sometimes work as a deterrent, but only up to a point. 

 

 

Quote

I don't think I have strayed from logic and common sense anywhere in this, and I disdain recourse to emotion as an argument (such as your reference to 'torture porn').

 

I fear a world where there is a black market for execution videos because social media will of course ban such vileness.  I drew a parallel to porn, some flavors of which are available only on the dark web.  The point is your execution deterrent will be too vile to be seen by almost anyone, and how much of a deterrent would it be then?

 

 

Quote

The world also needs tough people who can impose discipline.

 

Up to a point - there is a limit on how effective a punishment is.  I think I've supported that premise more than adequately.  You are attempting to create a binary world where there are "people like me" and other people who want discipline.  The implication is that I don't want discipline.  I haven't said anything of the sort.  Crimes beget punishment, but most violent criminals simply aren't deterred.  Deterrents just keep honest people honest.

[The manic]

What a laugh! 

[attrayant]

Just one more point about deterrents.  Religious people are supposed to believe in some sort of final judgement, which may include eternal pain and suffering if you've been naughty.  It's interesting then, that the prison population self-identifies as more than 95% religious but only 1% atheist.  (Numbers are all over the place depending on which study you read.  Some have atheists at a tenth of a percent, while others say ten percent, but the point is made regardless.)

 

That ultimate deterrent of eternal pain and suffering doesn't seem to be very effective.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by attrayant
typo

[the guest]

what a gas!

[CharlesSwann]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

Just one more point about deterrents.  Religious people are supposed to believe in some sort of final judgement, which may include eternal pain and suffering if you've been naughty.  It's interesting then, that the prison population self-identifies as more than 95% religious but only 1% atheist.  (Numbers are all over the place depending on which study you read.  Some have atheists at a tenth of a percent, while others say ten percent, but the point is made regardless.)

 

That ultimate deterrent of eternal pain and suffering doesn't seem to be very effective.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

 

 

I guess the fire and brimstone stuff does deter some people, but deterrents are only partial.

I suspect that correlation is really between crime and emotional susceptibility (which presumably correlates with religiosity). Which ties in with my theory that deterrents should operate on an emotional rather than an intellectual level. Hence the need for executions to be somewhat dramatic rather than evoking a sensation of blissful slumber.

[HerbalEd]

On 3/15/2018 at 3:25 AM, Basil B said:

I do not think it is happy, but the person being executed would first feel light headed, may be a few seconds of tingling before passing out.

You're guessing, right? Why pretend you actually know?

[Scott]

There are reports from people that have been subject to inert gas asphyxiation and those anecdotal reports indicate that it is painless and the person is not physiologically suffering.  

 

I can't find any links on those reports, but here's a little about how it works:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation

[mtls2005]

Capital punishment in the U.S. varies by States. I think the split is roughly 30 with and 20 without. Those states without the death penalty generally have lower crime and murder rates. I'm not saying the two are directly related, but it certainly doesn't buttress the "deterrent" effect argument.

 

FWIW, most expect that President Trump's "Opioid Plan", which may be unveiled soon, will include provisions for the death penalty for "dealers". Not sure that will hold up.

 

SCOTUS has danced around Capital Punishment for ages, but I'm not sure they have ruled that executions have to involve some degree of "suffering"? My guess is that they'd rule against some forms of unusually savage execution methods as a violation of the 8th amendment? But matches and firewood are cheap so expect states like Texas to try the BBQ method if they can't find good chemicals?