+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. (/thread-4944.html)
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Doc - 01-26-2006
Oh crap.
Something to think about. If lethal injection causes pain and suffering, and is cruel and unusual, I wonder how the murder victim feels. Being killed is quite painful I assure you. Looks like the murdering prick can dish it out but is to much of a wussy to take it himself.
What the hell?
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - SwissMercenary - 01-26-2006
If capital punishment was about vengeance, shouldn't we be torturing these guys?
I personally think that you guys should be doing beheadings. Lovely excuse for everyone to go have a picnic, probably well among the least painful ways to off somebody, what with the rapid loss of consciousness, and no need to have a doctor on hand to verify death (seeing as how seperating the head from the body is often fatal).
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Guest - 01-26-2006
I dont have much respect for people who think inflicting pain is good for the sake of fairness.
I understand when a victim or or a friend of a victim wants a painful revenge, they are damaged and human nature(for very good reasons) craves revenge.
But people who arent involved should know better.
That said I dont particularly mind if someone gets a painful turn as a result of their own misdeeds if its a by product of preventing future harm to others.
On a seperate not I dont mind capital punishment as a deterent, but it should be done as humanly as possible and in truth I dont think our juries are reliable or smart enough to deal it properly.
EDIT: BTW could you use a few less scatalogical references? They just arent all that pleasant to read.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Doc - 01-26-2006
Ghostiger,Jan 26 2006, 01:14 AM Wrote:I dont have much respect for people who think inflicting pain is good for the sake of fairness.
I understand when a victim or or a friend of a victim wants a painful revenge, they are damaged and human nature(for very good reasons) craves revenge.
But people who arent involved should know better.
That said I dont particularly mind if someone gets a painful turn as a result of their own misdeeds if its a by product of preventing future harm to others.
On a seperate not I dont mind capital punishment as a deterent, but it should be done as humanly as possible and in truth I dont think our juries are reliable or smart enough to deal it properly.
EDIT: BTW could you use a few less scatalogical references? They just arent all that pleasant to read.
[right][snapback]100176[/snapback][/right]
I think that death should be dealt swiftly and as painlessly as possible... But complaining about a little burning or the prick of a needle just makes you a wussy. If you man enough to kill a cop, but you aint man enough to deal with a little poke, there is something wrong there. They are phasing Old Sparky out, they are getting rid of hanging, firing squad is no longer common, and the needle was about as gentle as you could get. If you don't want to die... DON'T KILL PEOPLE JACKASS! Duh.
Man up Nancy.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - kandrathe - 01-26-2006
Doc,Jan 26 2006, 01:40 AM Wrote:I think that death should be dealt swiftly and as painlessly as possible... But complaining about a little burning or the prick of a needle just makes you a wussy. If you man enough to kill a cop, but you aint man enough to deal with a little poke, there is something wrong there. They are phasing Old Sparky out, they are getting rid of hanging, firing squad is no longer common, and the needle was about as gentle as you could get. If you don't want to die... DON'T KILL PEOPLE JACKASS! Duh.Maybe the method of execution should be decided by the victims immediate family. The death penalty stopped being a real deterent when executions stopped being public. And, consider how far we have come since 1867.
Man up Nancy.
[right][snapback]100178[/snapback][/right]
In lethal injection, usually the first injection is a powerful barbituate that quickly causes unconciousness. I don't consider giving someone a shot cruel, nor unusual.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Occhidiangela - 01-26-2006
Doc,Jan 26 2006, 12:40 AM Wrote:I think that death should be dealt swiftly and as painlessly as possible... But complaining about a little burning or the prick of a needle just makes you a wussy.How to make it painless. Give the felon a drink of water with some sedative mixed in. He'll relax. Ether to put him to sleep. Needle in the vain, after first of course wiping his arm with alcohol to avoid any chance of infection. :rolleyes: Thank you, George Carlin.
[right][snapback]100178[/snapback][/right]
Carlin suggested publicly broadcast executions. (OK, it was a stand up routine, perhaps he was being bitterly facetious.)
Expanding on his idea, consider beheadings as a TV Pay Per View event (not as a public TV or public service broadcast) with a split screen displaying pictures of his dead victims. (from the crime scene?) The striking linkage between criminal, crime, and punishment might send a different message than the very solemn procedures outlined in the links kandrathe provided, thanks. :)
Hollywood has depicted such gory scenes, and worse, in murder thrillers for years. As intriguing and ghoulish as this ideas is, I don't think it would sell enough "views paid for" to pay for production costs and make enough money.
(The prospect of corruption, bribery, and other skulldugggery to ensure enough appeals are over turned to provide a large enough supply of execution subjects makes me reject the idea on the grounds of our public officialss capacity for sleaze.)
But I don't think you could sell the business model in any case. I think that the beheading's reality, rather than its being part of a story in a movie, would be disturbing enough to put most people off, while some victim's families would object on the grounds that they have either
a) forgiven the murderer or
B) gotten over the loss of their family member and gotten on with their lives. Dredging it all back up again would probably be a slap to their faces.
"The needle" is humane enough, if one is going to off murderers and other such vermin.
Note the headgear the felon in question is wearing.
Occhi
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Mithrandir - 01-26-2006
The entire American prison system has a rather significant identity crisis. Someone just needs to decide whether we're rehabilitating or punishing criminals. The stated goal for the prison system is that the entire instiution is intended to rehabilitate individuals who break the law, but then 38 of 50 states execute people and people who seem to be legitimately rehabilitated are killed anyway (i.e. Stan Williams aka Tookie). Throw in the fact that prison sentences are way out of whack - I can get 22 years in prison for setting fire to some SUVs but attempted rape gets me 15 days in jail? ( http://www.freefreenow.org/sentences.html and http://www.freefreenow.org/ ) - and I have to question whether our legal system is impartial enough to decide whether someone lives or dies.
It even costs more money to sentence someone to death than keep them incarcerated for life since a capital case goes through so many appeals. 65% of capital cases are overturned. 10% of inmates on death row are mentally retarded. It has yet to be shown that the death penalty actually deters crime. Has it really come down to vengeance and "it makes me feel good to kill this person"? That's a scary thought.
Why are we so eager to kill fellow human beings?
http://www.newsbatch.com/deathpenalty.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - kandrathe - 01-26-2006
Ok. Your example of Jeff Luer's is a solitary case. It might be that he received an unjust sentence, and sometimes innocent people are convicted as well. The system has flaws.
The only case that struck me as odd was the professional basketball player who received a light sentence. Which may have been due to him being able to afford very good lawyers to challenge the evidence against him. Seems like an OJ defense.
Quote:The Register Guard reported on Aug. 2, 2001, that 26-year old Ruben Patterson, a basketball player with the Portland Trailblazers, recently received a suspended sentence of one year in prison for attempted rape on his children's 24-year-old nanny. Patterson ended up serving 15 days in jail -- for coercing a young woman to perform oral sex on him.Where I live now, 20+ year olds regularly receive 30 days in jail, mandatory sex offender couseling at their own expense, 3 years probation, and being on the sexual offenders list for life for having a consentual relationship with a 17-year-old young woman. Even when she might have children already.
I believe prison or the death penalty can serve 3 possible motives. Justice (punishment if you will), rehabilitation, and protection of society. I don't believe in the death penalty except in extreme cases where rehabilitation would not be trusted. That is when the nature of the crimes committed are so heinous that the offender should never be trusted into society again. In most mundane murder cases today where the death penalty is applied I would rather the offender serve life working 16 hour days with every dime earned above his own housing costs to repay the victims family.
As for Tookie, his sentence was an application of justice for a cold blooded, multiple murderer.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Occhidiangela - 01-26-2006
Mithrandir,Jan 26 2006, 10:13 AM Wrote:The entire American prison system has a rather significant identity crisis. [right][snapback]100212[/snapback][/right]Just a couple of thoughts on your post.
1. The "three strikes and you are out" foolishness and "mandatory minimum sentencing" has increased the prison populations. This makes the task of rehab, if it is even viable, even more difficult.
2. If rehab is the sincere aim, and I am not so sure that Penal Codes imply rehab, then there is no requirement to have TV's in a prison, nor is there a need to have weight equipment. To isolate and control the environment and set the conditions for a rehab approach, an attempt at significant value resetting and behavior modification, is not supported by toxic influences. (TV is a toxic influence, so too is any modern mass media entertainment.)
3. I wonder at the desire of our fellow citizens to rehab, given the number of scofflaws who avoid any punishment via the various loopholes in our "justice" system.
Not debating death penalty with you. Very simply, I am for it, I am for improving the process to reduce the "false positive" rate for such a sentence. It appears that DNA evidence is helpful in more cases, so exploring that should be a priority.
I no longer have the patience to explain why I am for it on an internet discussion forum.
Occhi
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - jahcs - 01-26-2006
Occhidiangela,Jan 26 2006, 11:18 AM Wrote:I no longer have the patience to explain why I am for it on an internet discussion forum.Â
Occhi
[right][snapback]100234[/snapback][/right]
Yup, the sound of one's own head hitting the monitor (especially if you still use a CRT) gets annoying after a while. ;)
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Occhidiangela - 01-26-2006
jahcs,Jan 26 2006, 03:03 PM Wrote:Yup, the sound of one's own head hitting the monitor (especially if you still use a CRT) gets annoying after a while. ;)Wow, you heard that one all the way across the internet? Yes, I had to use an icepack. :blink:
[right][snapback]100256[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - ShadowHM - 01-27-2006
Occhidiangela,Jan 26 2006, 04:10 PM Wrote:Wow, you heard that one all the way across the internet? Yes, I had to use an icepack. :blink:
Occhi
[right][snapback]100258[/snapback][/right]
So did I, the last time we went through that painful process. It seems that hitting each other over the noggin with verbal bludgeons produces that effect. :rolleyes:
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Occhidiangela - 01-27-2006
ShadowHM,Jan 26 2006, 06:17 PM Wrote:So did I, the last time we went through that painful process. It seems that hitting each other over the noggin with verbal bludgeons produces that effect. :rolleyes:At least you didn't bump your head, like I did. ;)
[right][snapback]100273[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - whyBish - 01-27-2006
Occhidiangela,Jan 27 2006, 04:05 AM Wrote:How to make it painless.
Occhi
[right][snapback]100204[/snapback][/right]
Who cares whether it is painless or not. The end result is death.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - GenericKen - 01-27-2006
kandrathe,Jan 26 2006, 05:23 PM Wrote:I believe prison or the death penalty can serve 3 possible motives. Justice (punishment if you will), rehabilitation, and protection of society. I don't believe in the death penalty except in extreme cases where rehabilitation would not be trusted. That is when the nature of the crimes committed are so heinous that the offender should never be trusted into society again. In most mundane murder cases today where the death penalty is applied I would rather the offender serve life working 16 hour days with every dime earned above his own housing costs to repay the victims family.
As for Tookie, his sentence was an application of justice for a cold blooded, multiple murderer.
[right][snapback]100223[/snapback][/right]
Well, there are more than 3 reasons for a penal system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Po..._for_punishment
...and they're not neccessarily mutually exclusive. Argumetns for and against the death penalty should stem directly from the fundamental rationales for a state penal system:
-Deterrence: In recent years, the deterrant effect of the death penalty has become questionable in the common wisdom, given how popular culture has glorified it. There's also the question as to how much more of a deterant death is over life imprisonment/abuse/rape. In the end, the death penalty has been in place for so long that argumetns from both sides on its deterant effectiveness on such a large population are mostly theorhetical.
-Rehabilitation: Clearly not the death penalty's thing.
-Incapacitation: There's no question that the death penalty incapasitates a person from commiting further crimes. There is the argument that life imprisonment equally prevents such a person from doing so, but they do happen to be capable of commiting further crimes while in prison. One could argue for life in solitary confinement, but then a question arises as to the cruelty and unusual-nature of such a punishment. Arguments with regards to cost are all void, as they have no bearing on whether the punishment is just.
-Restoration: A death will not bring back another life. Well, technichally, I suppose they might donate the offender's organs, but that's a tenuous argument, and I think it's illegal without the consent of the offender.
-Retribution: People who claim there's no retributive virtue to punishment have clearly never been wronged. While retribution may seem base in the light of post-modern relativism or Christian forgiveness, one cannot deny that it exists as a factor.
Note that "Cruel and Unusual" has no actual bearing on any of the basic rationales for a penal system; the clause against "cruel and unusual" punishment in the constitution is not a propery of the philisophical rationales for punishment (that is to say, as though there were no crime heinous enough to warrent a cruel punishment). "Cruel and Unusual" punishment exists as an extention of the belief that there are inallientable rights that come with being subject to the state.
You cannot argue that there are crimes terrible enough to warrent cruel punishment, as there are beliefs we hold more dearly than perfect justice.
Likewise, you cannot argue that life-imprisonment's "virtues" as a punishment are the same as the death penalty's; there are core differences that, at the very least, are significant enough to spawn all this debate.
So does the supreme court think that lethal injection may in-fact be torture in disguise? Fine. Postpone the execution, do a study, and find another way to go forward. The courts' finding had no bearing on whether the death penalty itself is inheirantly "cruel and unusual".
My own personal opinion on the death penalty? I'm not for it in my own state, but I do believe it should be a state matter. Who am I as a Californian to dictate to Texas what precicely is neccessary? I do not think death or killing is inheirantly either cruel or unusual; it's just as cruel as anything else in the world we live in, and it happens all the time. This may change one day, but I doubt it.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Munkay - 01-27-2006
Doc,Jan 26 2006, 01:40 AM Wrote:I think that death should be dealt swiftly and as painlessly as possible... But complaining about a little burning or the prick of a needle just makes you a wussy. If you man enough to kill a cop, but you aint man enough to deal with a little poke, there is something wrong there. They are phasing Old Sparky out, they are getting rid of hanging, firing squad is no longer common, and the needle was about as gentle as you could get. If you don't want to die... DON'T KILL PEOPLE JACKASS! Duh.
Man up Nancy.
[right][snapback]100178[/snapback][/right]
:blink:
Did you read the article you linked to? There was no complaint about the pain of inserting a needle. Not ment as a flame, but your comment is so far off base it warranted a reply.
Cheers,
Munk
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Doc - 01-27-2006
Munkay,Jan 26 2006, 11:25 PM Wrote::blink:
Did you read the article you linked to? There was no complaint about the pain of inserting a needle. Not ment as a flame, but your comment is so far off base it warranted a reply.
Cheers,
Munk
[right][snapback]100300[/snapback][/right]
There has been in the past.
One guy got off the death penalty because he had an intense phobia of needles.
Poking him would have been psychological torture.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Artega - 01-27-2006
Quote:-Restoration: A death will not bring back another life. Well, technichally, I suppose they might donate the offender's organs, but that's a tenuous argument, and I think it's illegal without the consent of the offender.
Harvesting the deceased's organs might be impossible, since lethal injections involve concentrated potassium; can't use the organs if they're destroyed by the potassium.
I'd rather see someone sentenced to life-long solitary confinement, but I guess I'm a bit sadistic.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - Doc - 01-27-2006
Artega,Jan 26 2006, 11:54 PM Wrote:Harvesting the deceased's organs might be impossible, since lethal injections involve concentrated potassium; can't use the organs if they're destroyed by the potassium.
I'd rather see someone sentenced to life-long solitary confinement, but I guess I'm a bit sadistic.
[right][snapback]100303[/snapback][/right]
Didn't Carlos the Jackal get lifelong solitary confinement in France?
He begged to be executed as i recall, and the Frogs decided he should be given a chance to think about what he done.
Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan. - kandrathe - 01-27-2006
Edit: I was thinking on this further and I discovered I usually lump deterrence, restoration, and retribution into one thing called justice. I don't think there is can be deterrence in our system other than the proper application of justice. To do more would violate human rights and diminish the very system which laws and justice seek to maintain. Retribution, (or the application of just punishment) and restoration (just compensation) to the victims for their loss is the heart of Justice and social rightousness. So beyond justice, I see incapacitation, and rehabilitation as the other two parts of the system. I'm becoming less inclined to support incarceration alone as proper punishment.
GenericKen,Jan 26 2006, 11:15 PM Wrote:...If the prick of a needle is too severe, what is left?
Note that "Cruel and Unusual" has no actual bearing on any of the basic rationales for a penal system; the clause against "cruel and unusual" punishment in the constitution is not a propery of the philisophical rationales for punishment (that is to say, as though there were no crime heinous enough to warrent a cruel punishment). "Cruel and Unusual" punishment exists as an extention of the belief that there are inallientable rights that come with being subject to the state.
....
[right][snapback]100295[/snapback][/right]
Would cruel and unusual include something like...
Having the prisoner in a straight jacket, with all six sides of the solitary cell containing unreachable large screen televisions playing the same few "My Little Pony" cartoon reruns, and a noose hanging and chair just ready and waiting in the corner.
I almost threw myself out of the boat during the 15 minute "It's a small world" ride I got roped into taking at Disneyland. Imagine that 24x7 for weeks... No one, sane or not, could take that.