[Closed] Botched lethal injection...has this been done yet?

Thing is though, none of those things really effectively counter the main argument for the death sentence, ie, vengeance. Lots of people seem totally happy with the idea of increasing crime, as long as criminals are treated worse.

(after all, this is why so many people are in favour of being "tough on crime" while not in favour of actually helping criminals rehabilitate- it's not limited to executions.)

And that's why we have representative democracy.....because the plebs should never ever be allowed anything close to direct democracy.

Killing is wrong, that's why we're having you killed.

And that's that.

What was it TJ used to say, 'an eye for an eye leaves us all blind'.

He didn't half talk some bollix.

If someone kills someone else, purposely, with no mitigating circumstances, unprovoked, without good reason, & no doubt, just cos they wanted to etc etc, then they should lose the right to life. IMO.

I did mention 'mitigating circumstances' didn't I?

Some people have posted Lockett shot his 19yr old victim. He didn't killer her just wounded her but he did watch his accomplices bury her ALIVE.......karma it's a bitch 😯

But..... If [i]"someone kills someone else, purposely, with no mitigating circumstances, unprovoked, without good reason, & no doubt, just cos they wanted to"[/i] then they are quite likely to seriously mentally ill.

Seems odd to say you'd put them to death whilst sparing the people who callously plotted a murder in cold blood but had a "good reason".

Tom_W1987 - Member

And that's why we have representative democracy.....because the plebs should never ever be allowed anything close to direct democracy.

I'd say that's why it sucks that we've had successive governments who'll play to base instincts because it's easy, rather than try and make a more complicated argument because it's hard.

Just to clarify, are you saying you'd rather have direct democracy? That would be far far worse in terms of politicians trying to pander to base instincts, especially without the checks and balances the Americans have.

Deliberative democracy, sure. Though how practical that is... Probably we're back at the "worst system, except for all the others".

Thanks for the English lesson Graham, I realise that 'without good reason' wasn't a good phrase. Is there ever a good reason to kill someone else?

Thanks for the English lesson Graham

I wasn't trying to be picky. A "good reason" could simply mean "a motive".

e.g. is a "motiveless" killing by a nutter worse than someone plotting to bump off their parents for the life insurance money?

Is there ever a good reason to kill someone else?

There are lots of "good" (as in "compelling") reasons. But few "good" (as in "virtuous") ones.

Mercy killing maybe?

If a 'nutter' kills someone then 'mitigating circumstances' may be involved. If theyr'e not 'of sound mind' for instance or have a recorded history of mental health problems?
You could say that anyone who kills someone else must have mental health problems but I dunno about that.

I do know that say, if I had a daughter & she was raped (for instance) I'd be ****in livid to say the least & may not be held accountable for my actions!

And holding you not accountable would probably be the right thing to do, due to your state of mind and the fact that the state would have failed in it's duty to protect you and the accused.