[Closed] Pity the poor convicted murderers...

so you advocate murder, or not? i'm confused?

What I find a bit disturbing is the fact that Arkansas hadn't put anyone to death for 12 years and have only scheduled 11 deaths now due to the drug soon to be going out of date. If the drug had a longer life span would these prisoners just sit there on death row indefinitely?

announcing that he would schedule eight killings in 11 days, in order to use up a batch of the sedative medazolam that was expiring at the end of this month.

Nice. You stay classy, Arkansas 🙁

It's a measure of society as to how we treat prisoners etc.
The death penalty is cruel and barbaric and something that should have been stopped years ago.

What 4130s0ul said.

I'm all for the death penalty. People who commit and are subsequently convicted of murder should be snuffed out right away. No way should any taxpayers money be spent on keeping them locked up.

They gave their 'human rights' up when they took away their victims'.

I'm all for the death penalty. People who commit and are subsequently convicted of murder should be snuffed out right away. No way should any taxpayers money be spent on keeping them locked up.

And what about all the times they manage to convict the wrong people?
Would they just be classed as collateral damage?

Surely the first step in promoting murder is to advocate it?

Where there is no doubt, kill the ****ers.

I don't approve of the death penalty, but if it does happen why do they not use a firing squad? It's instant, no ****ing about trying to put lines, dose the right amounts etc.

I remember reading of another botched execution in the states (lethal gas I think) where the accused ended up headbutting himself to death from the pain after some chemicals were not mixed properly.

[I]Where there is no doubt, kill the ****. [/I]

Define 'no doubt'.

loddrik - Member
I'm all for the death penalty. People who commit and are subsequently convicted of murder should be snuffed out right away. No way should any taxpayers money be spent on keeping them locked up.

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

Plus, if it were someone close to you who was murdered, would you be so concerned about the human rights of the perpetrator...?

And yes, miscarriages do happen, but it's up to judge and jury to decide on guilt through evidence presented.

[I]Plus, if it were someone close to you who was murdered, would you be so concerned about the human rights of the perpetrator...?[/I]

I'd be concerned about me being dragged down to their levels of malice.

I don't approve of the death penalty, but if it does happen why do they not use a firing squad? It's instant, no **** about trying to put lines, dose the right amounts etc.

Because then you need to find people who are completely willing, and sound of mind before, during and after the act of executing someone.

The reason chemical death is used is because it's "the machine" who kills the guy and no one person is solely responsible for the ultimate death of a person. It's equally about keeping those who have to do the job sane as it is about having a quick, merciful death.

Unless you're offering to pull the trigger?

loddrik - Member
Plus, if it were someone close to you who was murdered, would you be so concerned about the human rights of the perpetrator...?

Absolutely 100% for the death penalty. It'd be interesting to see what the country thinks of it in a brexit style referendum.

Plus I don't really see it as being a deterrent, it's a punishment plain and simple.

Plus, if it were someone close to you who was murdered, would you be so concerned about the human rights of the perpetrator...?

And yes, miscarriages do happen, but it's up to judge and jury to decide on guilt through evidence presented.

Humans have a solid record of consistently, undeniably, categorically ****ing things up and getting sh*t wrong.

Group think is real, and no one group of people should have the power to kill another person.

And yes, miscarriages do happen, but it's up to judge and jury to decide on guilt through evidence presented.

And when they get it wrong?

Plus, if it were someone close to you who was murdered, would you be so concerned about the human rights of the perpetrator...?

Yes. The death penalty has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with malice and revenge.

The death penalty falls slap bang into the category I call "simple answers to complex problems", the effectiveness of all of which can nearly always be disproved with the tiniest application of rational thought.

Would you accept the higher murder rate too?
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

And yes, miscarriages do happen, but it's up to judge and jury to decide on guilt through evidence presented.

So it doesn't matter if they get a few wrong then ?

As long as we get to kill a few of the right ones.

Where there is no doubt, kill the ****

tbh there are some people who certainly should be executed, or at least banished to a remote part of the Sudan, but I don't know where there threshold is or what the arbitrary limit of "alright kill this f****r" should lie.

loddrik - Member

And yes, miscarriages do happen, but it's up to judge and jury to decide on guilt through evidence presented.

Odd, I don't recall you coming across as mental before.

Just to clarify, you're not only advocating killing people, you're also not too bothered if they're innocent? 😯

loddrik - Member
Plus, if it were someone close to you who was murdered, would you be so concerned about the human rights of the perpetrator...?

I wouldn't go baying for blood. If you value life you value it all, The death penalty doesn't seem to be a deterrent and it is motivated by vengance not justice.

And yes, miscarriages do happen, but it's up to judge and jury to decide on guilt through evidence presented.

That's the point, they get it wrong an awful lot of the time. Should we then have them all executed if someone is wrongfully put to death because of their mistake? How would you feel if your loved one was wrongfully convicted and executed, wouldn't you want the judge, jury and executioners all executed?

No I'd probably do away with them too.

Define 'no doubt'

[i]He strangled the bookkeeper with the cord to a coffee pot while her 11-year-old daughter, Lacey, who survived, was in the room. [/i]

Not "It's alleged"...

[i]Williams, 46, was sent to death row for the 1994 rape and killing of 22-year-old Stacy Errickson, whom he kidnapped from a gas station in central Arkansas. Authorities said he abducted and raped two other women before he was arrested over Errickson’s death. Williams admitted responsibility to the state parole board last month.[/i]

"due to the drug soon to be going out of date."

Giving them out of date drugs could risk their health.

You're all a bunch of bloody lilly livered liberals. I'm off to live in Texas...

I mean, the question needs to be reversed -

What if someone you hold dearly was accused of murder? But you know they didn't do it, they have an alibi, but somehow there's a small shred of evidence, perhaps tampered with to hit department quotas, that jumps through hoops to link your dearest to the crime. The jury is convinced, they're going to the chair on Monday.

At least if they're in prison you can mount a defence, do investigations, get convictions erased.

Loddrick = Jambalaya?

I think this may explain the rise in Uber....

You've got to love the hypocrisy of a species that at one level rings it's hands at putting to death a murderer but on the other engages in the industry of dealing death to thousands of innocents via an arms industry and or supports a government that pursues policies of invasion and mass slaughter for energy needs.

If we don't kill our own, then we shouldn't kill others, period.

If on the other hand we have absolutely evil murderers caught in the act then where is the logic of permitting their continued existence (like the case of the recent French gunman released to kill again).

But that still doesn't license us to put millions of innocents to death just because they live in an area we need to dig up for oil or put a pipeline through. KIll by all means to keep us domestically safe, provided it is beyond any reasonable doubt, but killing remotely is wrong.

Not "It's alleged"...

That's a legal thing, not a factual thing. Once it's been decided in court, in a civil or criminal case, it can be reported as a fact. Until that point, anyone claiming it had happened who had not witnessed it would be opening themselves up to libel/slander.

Frustratingly for some who have wrongly been convicted then had the conviction overturned, it's tricky even in these situations to stop people making claims like that as fact.

Giving them out of date drugs could risk their health.

Yes, that is possible. It's a bit like the "why use sterile needles for executions" thing. One of them was appealing the death penalty on grounds of poor health already, so I don't see that it makes much difference.

What about people who enable/encourage people to do things that lead to their death?

Drug dealers, for example?

Williams admitted responsibility to the state parole board last month.

Rightly or wrongly that shows nothing.

If you put me infront of a parole board a month before they were going to execute me I'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear too if I thought there was the slightest chance of a reduced sentance. I'd find god, confess to everything, take the Pepsi challenge and tell you where Elvis is hiding and who really shot JFK.

And if you were wrongly convicted loddrik? Or, which is more likely...

[img] [/img]

[i]reduced sentance[/i]..

Not sure that's what he got.

And if you were wrongly convicted loddrik?

Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view

loddrik - Member

I'm off to live in Texas...

...where you are five times more likely to be a victim of murder. 💡

in an attempt to add something new to the thread:

imagine you're on a jury, the evidence seems clear, you find the defendant guilty of murder, the sentence is death.

some time after the convicted person is killed, days/weeks/years, whatever, it turns out the evidence was flawed (this does happen). how would you feel knowing that you'd effectively sent (an innocent) someone to their death?

the death penalty has consequences for all involved.

as for method: nitrogen chamber seems the obvious choice...

Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view
Yeah, that's the repeated argument against Loddrick's view

So I guess the repeated crossed posts pointing out the obvious flaws in someone's logic is winding someone with a similar viewpoint up.

I guess we'd better all just stop pointing them out. Poor vengeance monkeys are getting upset.