horrifying execution ... what about the victim

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Had a family member on that was on the execution team at SOCF, now retired.
  But, from his view and talks with him, as well growing up near SOCF, I have a unique view.
  I see the death penalty as appropriate in rare and extreme circumstances. There are simply some men that cannot be "fixed" or changed.
  
  Now, the method has been really screwed up over the past decade. That could be tightened.
  Add to the new cocktail, and it was not known how exactly he would react.
  Hopefully, the next one will be a little smoother.
  
  I would still prefer this method, lethal injection, over all other forms that are out there.
  
  If it were up to me, I would raise the bar for crimes that are death penalty cases, and I would make the process quicker. (Not 10+ years for appeals and waste of money).
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570241 wrote:You're more determined to confirm your preconceptions than to actually care about the facts. You just said in effect "I don't think I'm wrong, but even if I am, I'm not changing my mind".

  You cited an NBC article. So apparently you win with your "facts".
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570242 wrote:Why?

  Really? You don't think the death penalty process needs work?
  
  From YOUR article:
  

  The panel, which agreed with California Chief Justice Ronald M. George that the state's death penalty system was "dysfunctional," blamed exorbitant costs on delays in finding qualified public defenders, a severe backlog in appellate reviews, and a high rate of cases being overturned on constitutional grounds.
  "Failures in the administration of California's death penalty law create cynicism and disrespect for the rule of law," concluded the 117-page report.

• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1570273 wrote:Really? You don't think the death penalty process needs work?
  
  From YOUR article:

  You think cases overturned om constitutional grounds is something needing overhauled? I think it it's extremely American. Lack of public defenders? IOW, need to spend more money.
  
  Other than some sort of need for vengeance (as opposed to justice), usually coming from those with no standing to demand either, why do we need to fix it? Get rid of it, lock them up and throw away the key.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570282 wrote:You think cases overturned om constitutional grounds is something needing overhauled? I think it it's extremely American. Lack of public defenders? IOW, need to spend more money.
  
  Other than some sort of need for vengeance (as opposed to justice), usually coming from those with no standing to demand either, why do we need to fix it? Get rid of it, lock them up and throw away the key.

  There is no reason for the cases to extend as long as they do. 20 years on death row? Certainly you don't think that should be normal.
  
  Find them guilty, hand out the punishment. If you want to add a single extra layer for DP, then fine. But it shouldn't take that long.
  
  The only reason a DP case would cost more than LWOP is because of the absurdity that goes on after the verdict.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570282 wrote:Get rid of it, lock them up and throw away the key.

  What if we did everything exactly the same, except inject them and bury them. No way the cost of DP is more in that case.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1570283 wrote:There is no reason for the cases to extend as long as they do. 20 years on death row? Certainly you don't think that should be normal.
  
  Find them guilty, hand out the punishment. If you want to add a single extra layer for DP, then fine. But it shouldn't take that long.
  
  The only reason a DP case would cost more than LWOP is because of the absurdity that goes on after the verdict.

  Fine, let's do this. What do we accomplish? Will the murder rate go down faster than it's already doing? That's rhetorical, it won't. Will we save any money? Anonymous cites by you aside, it will not.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570287 wrote:Fine, let's do this. What do we accomplish? Will the murder rate go down faster than it's already doing? That's rhetorical, it won't. Will we save any money? Anonymous cites by you aside, it will not.

  It accomplishes not housing the country's worst criminals. Why should they be kept alive? For who's benefit? And if we did this, yes, it WOULD save money. It's debatable even now (whether you'll admit it or not) whether it costs more even with the long, drawn out DP process.
• WebFire

  Also, no, murder wouldn't go down. I never claimed that, and it's not why I'm in favor of the DP. Murderer's will murder, no matter the punishment. One more reason to just rid the world of them.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1570293 wrote:It accomplishes not housing the country's worst criminals. Why should they be kept alive? For who's benefit? And if we did this, yes, it WOULD save money. It's debatable even now (whether you'll admit it or not) whether it costs more even with the long, drawn out DP process.

  It won't save money. I've cited one article among many readily available that all say the same, all with actual people considered experts in the field of criminal justice. You "cited" some anonymous debate, likely between students. The evidence is debatable only if one is more determined to hold onto one's position rather than to be correct. I've spent hours looking at the research. You did a Google search and responded in two minutes.
• rrfan

  

  About the guy that got the "new cocktail" who cares if he suffered (which from doctors that have spoke about this said he did not). He murder, raped a pregnant women. I could not care less about scum like that. If he suffered for 24 hours trying to breath I would not feel sorry for him. We need to speed up the process in the courts and use it more often. That is the only way it will become a deterrent.
• QuakerOats

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1570196 wrote:My opinion is that the death penalty fails in its two purposes: deterrent and punishment. That murders still happen despite active executions is proof of the first failure. As for the second, the horror of murder is that it can never be properly punished. It's what makes it this worst type of crime/sin.
  
  We acknowledge the brutality of killing people, so we don't allow violent and bloody execution methods. But this shows the flaw in it all - you can't be a little bit humane when taking a life.
  
  I desire a society that does not lower itself to doing this I accept that murder is horrible because it can never be made up for. I also believe that a just culture does not allow emotions and victims' desires to make precedent. If I ever lost a loved one to murder, I'd want vengeance - and maybe I'd take it myself. But I don't believe society should do it on my behalf.

  
  
  First, the vast majority of murderers are not executed, thus your conclusion that the death penalty is not a deterrent is rather flawed. If the majority of murderers were (rightfully) executed, then more of a deterrence would arise, especially if we make the executions for public viewing. Regardless though, of whether it is a deterrent or not, the more important element is whether it is just. I think that the only way we can begin to do justice to the victim and to society as a whole, is at least equate the value of one life with another. Hence, one who takes a life should lose his life. It is a matter of simple justice. The second benefit of course is that society is not weighed down (for decades) with the cost of carrying these murderers ad infinitum.
  
  Thus, for at least several reasons, the death penalty can be successful. Defending the innocent is a virtue.
• queencitybuckeye

  QuakerOats;1570304 wrote: If the majority of murderers were (rightfully) executed, then more of a deterrence would arise, especially if we make the executions for public viewing.

  You have no basis for this opinion, other than it fits your desired view of the world.
• QuakerOats

  I don't have a "desired view". I do know that increasing executions and making them public will not increase the murder rate; it can only decrease it. And I know there are countries where this occurs and they have relatively low murder rates. And as I also posted, the most important element in this discussion is not deterrence, it is doing what is just.
• queencitybuckeye

  QuakerOats;1570312 wrote:I don't have a "desired view".

  Of course you do.
  

  I do know that increasing executions and making them public will not increase the murder rate; it can only decrease it.

  You do not know this. You left out the most likely scenario. How convenient.
  

  And I know there are countries where this occurs and they have relatively low murder rates.

  Please list a few. I'd love to see whose lead you would like us to follow.
  

  And as I also posted, the most important element in this discussion is not deterrence, it is doing what is just.

  You are not entitled to justice in cases where you have no standing. The family and friends of the victim are, and a substantial percentage of such people are firmly against the idea of the death penalty as retribution.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570300 wrote:It won't save money. I've cited one article among many readily available that all say the same, all with actual people considered experts in the field of criminal justice. You "cited" some anonymous debate, likely between students. The evidence is debatable only if one is more determined to hold onto one's position rather than to be correct. I've spent hours looking at the research. You did a Google search and responded in two minutes.

  Umm, you said "Let's do this." That was in response to my post about cleaning up the DP process. Now you are referring to present time. Which is it?
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570300 wrote:It won't save money. I've cited one article among many readily available that all say the same, all with actual people considered experts in the field of criminal justice. You "cited" some anonymous debate, likely between students. The evidence is debatable only if one is more determined to hold onto one's position rather than to be correct. I've spent hours looking at the research. You did a Google search and responded in two minutes.

  If you are asking for me to research, I will. Citing one article doesn't make your opinion the only correct one.
• WebFire

  Also, your one article blamed the cost of DP on the process, which is exactly what I am proposing we change. Are you now seeing that? I can see how it might cost more as it is now. Fix it.
• QuakerOats

  queencitybuckeye;1570320 wrote:Of course you do.
  
  
  
  You do not know this. You left out the most likely scenario. How convenient.
  
  
  
  Please list a few. I'd love to see whose lead you would like us to follow.
  
  
  
  You are not entitled to justice in cases where you have no standing. The family and friends of the victim are, and a substantial percentage of such people are firmly against the idea of the death penalty as retribution.

  
  
  Ok, I have a 'desired view' because you say so. lol
  
  It is not about "retribution", it is about what is just; it is about the value of a life. Please stay on topic.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1570325 wrote:Umm, you said "Let's do this." That was in response to my post about cleaning up the DP process. Now you are referring to present time. Which is it?

  I've moved on from that post. I showed that to "clean up the process" requires 1) more money not less, 2) going on record as constitutional protections being a bad thing. Or are just your protections worthy of protection?
• queencitybuckeye

  QuakerOats;1570330 wrote:Ok, I have a 'desired view' because you say so. lol
  
  It is not about "retribution", it is about what is just; it is about the value of a life. Please stay on topic.

  Please stay on topic and tell us whose example you want us to follow. Where is this paradise that has a low murder rate BECAUSE of the way they use capital punishment. Can't wait.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570333 wrote:I've moved on from that post. I showed that to "clean up the process" requires 1) more money not less, 2) going on record as constitutional protections being a bad thing. Or are just your protections worthy of protection?

  Constitutional protections. haha. You are going to hang on to that quote, eh? Yeah, a guy is found guilty, and repeatedly appeals to delay or remove the death penalty. That has nothing to do with the Constitution.
  
  The process is broken when the avg DP take 20 years.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1570338 wrote:Constitutional protections. haha. You are going to hang on to that quote, eh? Yeah, a guy is found guilty, and repeatedly appeals to delay or remove the death penalty. That has nothing to do with the Constitution.

  Then why did you post it? Stop hitting the ball out of bounds then trying to move the stakes.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1570342 wrote:Then why did you post it? Stop hitting the ball out of bounds then trying to move the stakes.

  Haha. That's what you got, huh?
  
  The article that you posted states the reason for the high cost is the bad process. Fact.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1570343 wrote:Haha. That's what you got, huh?
  
  The article that you posted states the reason for the high cost is the bad process. Fact.

  It states no such thing.