I think she’s earned life in prison at this point. They should stop trying.
She’s not innocent, she’s a murderer, but she also doesn’t deserve to be tortured by the state either. Life in prison.
I think she’s earned life in prison at this point. They should stop trying.
She’s not innocent, she’s a murderer, but she also doesn’t deserve to be tortured by the state either. Life in prison.
What's the legality with this ?
Is she still going to be executed.....again?
This has happened before and the court ruled the person was still condemned to die, at least one person has been executed twice.
I thought I saw somewhere that it's something like 7 percent of the people fail to die from it. So if that's true and they gave her 2 doses that day and it didn't work, you'd imagine the population would think finding a different method would be the preferred way to move forward. Then again... Most people who don't believe in the death penalty likely wouldn't want to vote for a new method, thus making it those who don't want the death penalty, and those who don't care that they are tortured voting potentially for the same result. : /
Doubtful. They had their chance and botched it. They are going to want to draw as little attention to this as possible. Likely just keep her locked up for life.
Americans can’t even execute people correctly anymore. They just torture them. I guess that’s the point?
By and large that is the point. It's an extension of protestantism and Christian and abrahamic philosophy more broadly: a philosophical imagining that by creating pain in one place you undo pain in another.
By engaging in a known wrong (murder), this somehow acts as a counterweight to some other known wrong (also murder).
It's pretty juvenile.
It's revenge, but it's also avoiding responsibility. The words say it, "sentenced to death, and may God have mercy on your soul". Everyone already lost. The victims. The murderer. Society. Killing doesn't solve anything, it doesn't deter more murders, it just removes them from being the state's problem.
And it doesn't allow us to pursue the question everyone asks, why did this happen? Because they're dead.
She killed someone in 1995, what does executing her now and even failing at that to the point of torture accomplish, if premeditated murder is a crime than how is it okay for the government to do the same as a form of punishment, it feels barbaric and outdated. The only situation I can see it acceptable is if the person is found guilty beyond doubt and their continued existence poses a threat like terrorists who people might try to break out or people who can run their crimes even behind bars
The point of capital punishment is not justice. It is to "heal" the sovereignty of the state, which it deems to have been injured by behavior outside of it's control. First it's criminals killing innocent people, then what's next? The populace killing their oppressors? Honestly the same can be said about the politics surrounding abortion. They don't care that a pregnancy is terminated, they care that they had no say. The state are to be the only one's with the power to grant life or death. This is how you reconcile the logical inconsistency of the pro-life people being the same as the pro capital punishment people people. It's all about the sovereignty of the state. This, incidentally, is also the motivation behind Please Hangseth's attempt to reestablish public execution.
There is the tax burden of keeping murderers alive that nobody is really gonna be jumping out of their seat to pay… but even as much as I dislike the idea of paying for that burden, I dislike the idea of possibly killing an innocent person even more.
It's more expensive to execute someone than to have them serve life in prison.
https://www.restonyc.com/is-it-cheaper-to-imprison-or-execute/
The body of evidence overwhelmingly shows capital punishment cases cost substantially more than life imprisonment cases at every stage. While the moral and ethical efficacy of the death penalty may still be debated, from a practical cost perspective, the evidence clearly suggests it is much more expensive for taxpayers than sentencing convicts to life in prison without parole.
https://sites.psu.edu/bleonard/2020/11/30/the-death-penalty-v-life-in-prison/
Well yea, the way they do it is beyond absurdly inefficient which can only be presumed for the sake of cruelty. Imo, it would generally more ethical and efficient to just shoot them rather than the insane bullshit the US does currently, and that’s coming from someone who doesn’t believe in the death penalty (other than for the most egregious of criminals).
Don’t even get me started on spending life in a US prison though lol, I’d rather get shot than be effectively turned into state property that gets fed garbage for the rest of my life. At that point, it’s a decision between some of the most optimized soul-crushing torture in human history or being given an end that avoids possibly decades of suffering.
Don't worry, the guy you responded to doesn't want to follow the law and just wants to take people out back and shoot them in the head based on feels
Lol don’t know where that was implied but sure
The cost savings of extermination vs incarceration. What would you call that and how would you implement that?
The law?
a lot of prisoners work jobs while incarcerated but that is another can of worms, besides the argument that it takes money to keep prisoners alive so maybe let's just kill them instead is psychopathic, maybe if the system was designed towards rehabilitation instead of punishment and offered people support to begin with like free healthcare access, education and unemployment benefits, we would have less prisoners to begin with. Also if you read any news you'll find countless examples of innocent people getting thrown in jails because the corrupt pigs didn't want to bother doing their jobs or had a vendetta.
I wouldn’t even give them the benefit of a doubt and call them jobs. Let’s be real: it’s generally forced, for-profit labor… AKA slavery. At least in the US.
I totally agree with you for the most part about everything else you said though, I think it came off like I was trying to play the devil’s advocate? If anything, I was trying to say that even that argument doesn’t really warrant the continuation of these executions as it stands. Especially when it costs so much and is clearly so ineffective.
What I want to know is "Will she hurt other people if released?" If she won't hurt anyone, let her out. If she will, keep her locked up. But there's no need to execute her. No good can come of it.
all 26 comments