if i ever got sent to prison, i'd kill other inmates (the shitty ones who should've already been pricked in the arm, anyway) until i got put on death row and executed.

i'll be damned if i would ever rot away in the butt-hut for a day longer than i could help it.

11/21/2005 12:53:57 AM

^

Indeed. The irony of the death penalty is that it's altogether more humane than life imprisonment; and nobody cares enough to change that particular circumstance.

11/21/2005 12:57:17 AM

Quote :

"no, it would obviously be protecting them."

No better than the death penalty would, and probably worse.

Quote :

"according to your numbers, we only have to worry about 71 people every 31 years. keeping the violent of the violent in solitary wouldnt put any more of a strain that housing death row inmates. hell, that's where we'll put them. just until they die, not we kill them."

Flaws with that reasoning:

1) I also stated that those numbers didn't take into account murderers who went on to kill their fellow inmates, or their guards.
2) You're not going to be able to pick the 71 who are going to get the opportunity to kill again. You're only going to be able to pick the number (whatever it is) of convicts who would be most likely to repeat their offenses, given the chance.
3) If acommodating these people is so easy, why does your whole "life in prison" scenario break down so often?

11/21/2005 12:58:29 AM

Quote :

"The irony of the death penalty is that it's altogether more humane than life imprisonment"

The goal is not to offer the most humane treatment available. As long as it falls within what is allowed by the Constitution, it's fair game. The goal is to minimize crime. If a shit-hole prison accomplished that, I'd be all for it. As things stand, we need a change, but not for the sake of the prisoners.

11/21/2005 1:01:07 AM

i think he was taking a stab at the sentiment that "the death penalty is too harsh"

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 1:05 AM. Reason : zgsdagasd]

11/21/2005 1:05:05 AM

It's entirely possible. Smoker has his flashes of lucidity. But I wanted to make the point.

11/21/2005 1:05:36 AM

what you're still missing is

2) These guys would be the same guys deemed executable by your standards. so if you would be executing them, i would just be putting them in solitary for life.
3) 907 beds. we cannot accommodate 907 more beds?

11/21/2005 1:06:15 AM

^^^^

I have trouble believing that the goal of prison is to minimize crime. That's a patently silly notion. People who are going to commit murders deserving of death, quite obviously don't care about the consequences. They are not rational people in the same sense as you or I.

As to the overflowing of prisons, that rather flows from the use of the law to criminalize any manner of behaviors which society finds unappealing (of course, drugs being first among them). In that sense, the use of prison has been to increase the level of crime, by redefining crime and assigning its punishment accordingly.

I am in favor of death for the worst among us, and humane prisons for the rest. Anything else is morally reprehensible -- as the system is today.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 1:06 AM. Reason : foo]

11/21/2005 1:06:21 AM

i don't think he's arguing that deterrence is a viable method of reducing crime

11/21/2005 1:07:51 AM

no one is arguing deterrence.
no one is arguing rehabilitation.

much to abonorio's chagrin

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 1:09 AM. Reason : alright i got tests tomorrow.]

11/21/2005 1:08:44 AM

Quote :

"907 beds. we cannot accommodate 907 more beds?"

It's not 907 beds if you're putting them in solitary, it's rooms, separate exercise schedules, etc.

Actually, it's not 907 anything. That's just the number of people who have actually been executed, not the number that has been sentenced to death in fact or that should be sentenced to death under the standards I would put forward.

Quote :

"I have trouble believing that the goal of prison is to minimize crime."

Well, it's not what our current prison system is doing or attempting to do, but it is at the base of why prisons and the like exist.

Quote :

"They are not rational people in the same sense as you or I."

Right. That's why you remove them from society so they cannot, ah, manifest their irrationality any further. Ergo, crime has been reduced as much as it can be in a world where some people like to commit murder.

Whatever sentence is most likely to prevent a repeat offense should be applied. Maybe it's therapy, maybe it's simple punishment, maybe it's death.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 1:18 AM. Reason : ]

11/21/2005 1:18:05 AM

I'm against the death penalty for different reasons. I believe that a person should be made to work for the rest of their natural lives instead of being executed. Killing them is giving them the easy way out. Let them linger on and think about what they have done for the rest of the lives. I look at it this way, why kill when you can enslave?

11/21/2005 1:46:25 AM

now that's a weird position coming from a hardliner, ideologue Libertarian.

11/21/2005 1:47:49 AM

Quote :

"now that's a weird position coming from a hardliner, ideologue Libertarian."

I believe a serial killer/rapist/child molestor should have to pay their debts to society and killing them is giving them an easy way out. I say let them work for the rest of their lives. Hard labour, no parole or probation.

11/21/2005 1:55:03 AM

takin' it off here, Boss.

11/21/2005 1:55:43 AM

GrumpyGOP, it seems you are arguing that we need to kill more prisoners, because it's the only way to stop their recidivism (which is fairly high, I can't find a good number, but it's upwards of 50% it seems), and also that the potential State murdering of innocent citizens is okay, because it's such a small percent (this seems to be arguable) of overall murdered people by the government. Last year, if I read that deathpenaltyinfo.org site right, only about 60 people were executed. This is such a small amount of people, that this number likely puts no dent in the crimes. At most, 48 repeat-crimes were prevented by those executions, with most of those not being murders or rapes. It seems ridiculous to argue for the current death penalty on the basis of being the only way to reduce crime absolutely.

I hate to bring this up too... but your argument against abortion is that even though most would-be aborted babies will be born disadvantaged (to poor, stupid parents/mother), and might be statistically to be criminals or on welfare (a general burden to society), the potential death of an innocent is not acceptable. They seem to be 2 philosophies at odds with each other.

11/21/2005 2:09:44 AM

no, both of those philosophies are based primarily around minimizing the deaths of innocents. you aren't getting the big picture of what he's driving at.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 2:14 AM. Reason : he's saying he'll wrongly execute 1 innocent to save 2 other innocents]

11/21/2005 2:13:20 AM

^ I don't. One promotes the creation of (a small amount of) criminals, while the other stops a very small amount of crime.

Quote :

" he's saying he'll wrongly execute 1 innocent to save 2 other innocents"

That doesn't make sense. You can just not execute anyone, and still save a theoretical 2 innocents.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 2:17 AM. Reason : d]

11/21/2005 2:16:12 AM

Quote :

"the potential death of an innocent is not acceptable."

There is nothing "potential" about it. An infant/fetus/whatever has not done anything wrong.

Quote :

"most would-be aborted babies will be born disadvantaged (to poor, stupid parents/mother), and might be statistically to be criminals or on welfare (a general burden to society)"

There is a huge gap between an individual who has demonstrated a specific predisposal towards violent crime an an individual whose socioeconomic circumstances have a general tendency to promote bad behavior. The disadvantaged as a group produce a vastly smaller percentage of violent crimes than the subgroup of prior offenders do.

Further, economic burden is largely a red herring. I'm not arguing in favor of the death penalty to save money.

Quote :

"This is such a small amount of people, that this number likely puts no dent in the crimes. At most, 48 repeat-crimes were prevented by those executions, with most of those not being murders or rapes."

Small dent? Tell that to the 48 people.

Let's say that we only saved five people. That's still more than the 3.6 (at the upper extreme) innocents we executed. Under my system we're up 1.4 innocents.

Quote :

"It seems ridiculous to argue for the current death penalty on the basis of being the only way to reduce crime absolutely."

WTF? Where did I say it was the only way? In certain cases, the death penalty is the best way to prevent crimes from being committed. For the overwhelming majority of crimes, the death penalty isn't even a conceivable option. Even within the set of murders, there are plenty of cases where the death penalty would not be the best method.

11/21/2005 2:40:30 AM

Quote :

"There is nothing "potential" about it. An infant/fetus/whatever has not done anything wrong. "

Statistically, some of them WILL commit a crime, and I bet it's at a rate higher than the general populous (AFAIK, no study had been done along this line, and I don't have the statistics to give you some numbers).

Quote :

" Small dent? Tell that to the 48 people. Let's say that we only saved five people. That's still more than the 3.6 (at the upper extreme) innocents we executed. Under my system we're up 1.4 innocents. "

I would have an easier time telling most of those 48 people the crime committed against them was acceptable, than you would (or should...) have telling those 3.6 innocents that their death was acceptable (or umm... to their loved ones).

Quote :

"There is a huge gap between an individual who has demonstrated a specific predisposal towards violent crime an an individual whose socioeconomic circumstances have a general tendency to promote bad behavior. The disadvantaged as a group produce a vastly smaller percentage of violent crimes than the subgroup of prior offenders do."

There IS a huge gap, but that gap doesn't justify killing the person who has had a chance to prove they're scum, esp. if they may be innocent of the crime they were killed for.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 2:52 AM. Reason : d]

11/21/2005 2:51:40 AM

Quote :

"Statistically, some of them WILL commit a crime"

Yeah. Same could be said for college students or Catholic schoolgirls or nursing home residents. Yes, people from any group will commit crimes...but certain factors allow us to predict who will a lot better than others.

Quote :

"I would have an easier time telling..."

So? Telling anyone that their loved one is dead isn't any fucking fun. At least it can be said of the 3.6 that, in a roundabout way, they gave other people life. That is, if they hadn't died, more people would have.

Quote :

"There IS a huge gap, but that gap doesn't justify killing the person who has had a chance to prove they're scum"

Let me boil it down real simple like:

If I kill murderers, the end result is that more murders (killings of innocent people by anyone) will be prevented than are actually committed.

If you kill babies, the end result is that more murders are committed than are actually prevented. The only way for you to deny this is to claim that the majority of aborted babies would, if allowed to live, grow up to be murderers. Do that and I will laugh at you.

11/21/2005 3:03:05 AM

Quote :

"Let me boil it down real simple like: If I kill murderers, the end result is that more murders (killings of innocent people by anyone) will be prevented than are actually committed."

A very small amount. According to: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf the percentage of people who are released from prison from a murder sentence to go on to commit a murder is 1.4 percent. For the ~50 people killed last year by the gov., that means that .7 victims will be killed by them. If even 1 of those 50 people is innocent, it's not worth the gain from killing all of them.

11/21/2005 3:39:53 AM

Hmm.

I will sleep on it.

11/21/2005 3:51:48 AM

For the record, I support the death penalty, but it is on the basis of irrationality.

If someone killed a loved one (that I loved), I feel I would want them to be killed in return.

From a practical perspective though, I feel it's ridiculous and disgusting for any modern, civilized culture to have an government controlled, systematic ritual for killing people.

11/21/2005 4:04:18 AM

Well, actually, here's a few thoughts now:

-The report says that it only takes into account the three year period following the prisoner's release. Meaning that if the convicted murderer kills a guy three years and a day after he got let out of jail, he's not counted. That's your biggest problem.

-The study only counts people who were released, not those who may have killed people in prison or who escaped..

-The study only looks in fifteen states out of fifty in one particular year out of thirty or so.

-Not all of the people who got released are the type of murderer that I favor executing.

11/21/2005 4:09:34 AM

^ Why would prisoners killing prisoners affect your argument?

I don't think the other variables would drastically alter thing (except maybe the last one, since you could define "murders who murder people after they are released" as your criteria).

11/21/2005 4:13:38 AM

you know, I don't really care if something "works" or not. Beating your wife will probably teach her to keep her mouth shut; it definitely WORKS. Whether or not it's right is what's most important.

11/21/2005 7:19:19 AM

that's totally true, but not comparable to what GrumpyGOP is arguing.

11/21/2005 7:23:55 AM

Quote :

"If I kill murderers, the end result is that more murders (killings of innocent people by anyone) will be prevented than are actually committed."

see i dont get how your argument supports the death penalty
it seems that argument could be made for life sentances with no risk of killing an innocent person

11/21/2005 7:57:20 AM

11/21/2005 8:02:17 AM

to be clear, I don't think the death penalty does work as a deterrent. We've been using it... since the dawn of civilization, I guess? And it hasn't seemed to have really stopped criminals in those couple of thousand years.

But, the way I see it, even if it did work, you're just causing more sadness. Someone kills a few people, hurting their families and friends, right? Then you kill the murderer, thereby hurting HIS family and friends. How is that fixing anything?

11/21/2005 8:33:27 AM

i dont think (i hope not) that anyone is arguing that it is a deterrent
it would be foolish as there is no evidence its true

11/21/2005 8:35:05 AM

Quote :

"now that's a weird position coming from a hardliner, ideologue Libertarian"

Libertarians are all about liberty and responsibility.

11/21/2005 8:39:28 AM

Quote :

"It's not 907 beds if you're putting them in solitary, it's rooms, separate exercise schedules, etc. Actually, it's not 907 anything. That's just the number of people who have actually been executed, not the number that has been sentenced to death in fact or that should be sentenced to death under the standards I would put forward. "

what you are failing to realize here is that everyone currently on death row is already separated from the general population. They each get their own cell for the 10 or 20 years before they finally get executed or exonerated. all of the current death row inmates are already accounted for in the system. The 907 beds are the actual beds and cells that would be needed in addition to our current number of cells to accommodate those we have executed.

the problem is the juries and/or judges; they are the ones that are putting the murderers on the streets again.

Why don't you do a study to find out how many more beds would be needed under "your new standards" so we can look at whether or not "my system" can handle the extra beds. then you may actually have an argument about spacing. And with the money saved from appeals, i can go about building all the cells needed to accommodate your fictious number that you seem to think would be really high. so high, in fact, there is no way any prison system in the world could handle it, unless they just started executing everyone.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 9:19 AM. Reason : appeals]

11/21/2005 9:10:15 AM

doesn't suprise me

Texas is the killinest state in the Union, they're bound to mess up now and then

11/21/2005 12:59:31 PM

^^ pwnt

11/21/2005 1:08:58 PM

Quote :

"Why would prisoners killing prisoners affect your argument?"

Because not all prisoners deserve to die, and even among the ones that do I don't think a system that relies on a disorganized system of prison murders is really a good one.

Quote :

"it seems that argument could be made for life sentances"

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT???

Life sentences have proven unreliable as a means of preventing murderers from going at it again.

Quote :

"The 907 beds are the actual beds and cells that would be needed in addition to our current number of cells to accommodate those we have executed."

Fair enough. Although, as you concede, these cells are at the moment only occupied by any one prisoner for 10 to 20 years, and once we stop killing them that number will go up. As it is, every year a couple of death row inmates are removed, and a couple of more are introduced. A minor point, but one worth mentioning.

You also fail to take into consideration that I'm talking about a larger population than just the ones currently on death row.

Quote :

"And with the money saved from appeals, i can go about building all the cells"

Now this is just ludicrous. The difference in cost between sustaining a prisoner for life and executing him is real, but not so large as to fund massive construction projects.

Quote :

"the problem is the juries and/or judges; they are the ones that are putting the murderers on the streets again."

Maybe if you were to fix this, I would quit caring about the death penalty. As it is, pansy-ass judges are letting people out too early and too often for your system to work like it is supposed to.

Quote :

"so high, in fact, there is no way any prison system in the world could handle it, unless they just started executing everyone."

Though you exaggerate, this is exactly the point. If we could accomodate them in settings that made their potential for repeat offenses sufficiently low, we wouldn't have to execute them. As it is, we can't, so we do.

11/21/2005 1:33:57 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=366833

11/21/2005 1:47:09 PM

Quote :

"Life sentences have proven unreliable as a means of preventing murderers from going at it again."

what you are failing to understand here is that everyone that would normally be executed would be getting life sentences on death-row (meaning they would be treated exactly the same except they won't be killed off). Once they actually occupy these cells, there is no escape.

Quote :

"Now this is just ludicrous. The difference in cost between sustaining a prisoner for life and executing him is real, but not so large as to fund massive construction projects."

actually, if you were do to the math, you would see this is completely reasonable.
first off, currently we have 3415 death row inmates as of July 1st, according to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=9&did=188

And according to a Kansas study the average death penalty execution cost $1.26 million total, from start to finish. In contrast, non-death penalty cases cost a median of $0.74 million from start to finish.

assuming kansas was a good example of states with executions, that would mean that $520,000 times 3,415 death row inmates gives us $1,775,800,000 in additional costs to kill all of the inmates currently on death row, not mention those already killed.

now how much does it cost the for prisons construction?
for facilities:

Quote :

"Of these, capital expenditures (on construction, land and equipment) were 6 percent of total expenditures, i.e., a total of $1.3 billion. Construction costs at $0.8 billion represented 4 percent, while equipment and land at $0.3 and $0.2 billion each represented about 1 percent of total expenditures."

http://www.publicbonds.org/prison_fin/prison_fin.htm

as we have it now, the money currently being spent on prison construction is 1.3 billion. the money wasted on death row inmates is roughly 1.8 billion dollars. That leaves us 500 million to add to the current construction budgets, or about 35% of the current construction costs. this means we would build a prison entirely for non-existant people with $500 million. so, if we estimate that the costs to execute the 907 to be the same as the kansas study, that gives us an extra $471.64 million, in fact, we can just use this money to build the uninhabited prison, and then we would net.

a duke study says:

Quote :

"The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993). "

http://www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf seems to be broken today...

i'm not going to go on and on about how much cheaper life without parole is than the death penalty. because it is a fact, and if you are too obstinate to believe that, then tough shit for me, huh? and if you argue that you would be putting more of our currently incarcerated criminals to death, that is a moot point, because those criminals are already in our system being paid for.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 3:52 PM. Reason : f]

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 3:53 PM. Reason : intriguing]

11/21/2005 3:50:57 PM

Quote :

"Once they actually occupy these cells, there is no escape."

Wasn't it you on the last page who pointed out that a prisoner escaped from death row?

Quote :

"And according to a Kansas study the average death penalty execution cost $1.26 million total, from start to finish."

I think I have made it obvious on more than one occasion that the reason executions cost more at the moment are things that I would streamline. How much money that would save is not really something I am prepared to answer with what's available to me.

Also, is this average mean or median?

Quote :

"In contrast, non-death penalty cases cost a median of $0.74 million from start to finish."

Does this applpy solely to capital crimes? Crimes with life sentences? What?

Quote :

"this means we would build a prison entirely for non-existant people with $500 million."

I'm not so sure you've demonstrated that, because the question of how much it actually costs to build and equip a single prison hasn't really been answered.

Quote :

"because it is a fact, and if you are too obstinate to believe that, then tough shit for me, huh?"

I haven't argued that the death penalty is cheaper, merely that it is not (or should not, with the right adjustments) be expensive to the point of impracticality.

The main point of my argument has never been cost, anyway. What I have said is: The death penalty is the only surefire way to prevent convicted murderers from committing more murders. Until you can demonstrate that more innocent people are spared your way than they are mine, you've got nothing.

Quote :

"and if you argue that you would be putting more of our currently incarcerated criminals to death, that is a moot point, because those criminals are already in our system being paid for. "

What does this mean?

11/21/2005 4:47:48 PM

Quote :

"HEART-POUNDING... UNTIL ITS SHOCKING, MIND-BLOWING CONCLUSION!"

Whatever. I knew what was going to happen ten minutes into it.

11/21/2005 4:51:22 PM

Quote :

"Wasn't it you on the last page who pointed out that a prisoner escaped from death row?"

yup, and if you'd read it, you'd see that he was being held at a local houston county jail. and he wasn't in the cell which i explicitly stated as a stipulation to security.

Quote :

"How much money that would save is not really something I am prepared to answer with what's available to me."

so you are basing your ideas of cost on what? i am arguing that it is cheaper, which means if there is less money being spent on prisons, more money can go into things that directly benefit society, such as policing and healthcare.

Quote :

"Also, is this average mean or median?"

median. sorry, i thought i linked it. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=7&did=918

Quote :

"The estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000). "

these are cases of 1st degree murder that either the death penalty was sought after, not sought after, or sought after but denied. all cases ended in conviction.

Quote :

"I'm not so sure you've demonstrated that, because the question of how much it actually costs to build and equip a single prison hasn't really been answered. "

Quote :

"Cost to build a new 1,000-bed prison: At least $85 million"

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/03/27numbers.html

Quote :

"So it might seem like an odd time for the state to be erecting a new prison that will cost taxpayers more than $700 million to build and more than $110 million annually to operate. "

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/05/MNG2D43G871.DTL

but luckily:

Quote :

"And the system currently is under capacity, according to the department, with space for about 170,000 inmates but an actual prisoner population of 161, 000. "

we can just fit the 900 in the 9000 beds. (as if it were that easy, though. but, seeing as how we are both revamping the current system, then i would definitely adjust these factors.

Quote :

"Until you can demonstrate that more innocent people are spared your way than they are mine, you've got nothing. "

well, since we are talking hypotheticals here, i would simply increase the security of prisons, exactly like how you would streamline the appeals process.

Quote :

"What does this mean?"

in retrospect, i can't remember my train of thought.

11/21/2005 6:03:46 PM

Quote :

"and he wasn't in the cell which i explicitly stated as a stipulation to security."

So nobody's escaping from death row?

Quote :

"so you are basing your ideas of cost on what? i am arguing that it is cheaper"

It is entirely possible that after all adjustments by either side are made, your way will be cheaper. Unfortunately, we won't know until either we're in government high enough of have enough private money to get together a team to answer some of the relevant questions.

As it stands, the world is what it is, and repeat murderers are killing more people than the gas chamber is.

Quote :

"median. sorry, i thought i linked it."

It's fine. I would be curious to know what the means are.

Quote :

"And the system currently is under capacity, according to the department, with space for about 170,000 inmates but an actual prisoner population of 161, 000."

Wha? This would seem to fly in the face of all the, "Prisons are overcrowded!!!1" whining I've been hearing from your like-minded people for, well, ever. Where are all these empty prison cells?

Also, I read the Lufkin article and found it rather amusing that you linked it. Particularly this part got me chuckling:

Quote :

"Preliminary new statistics show that if only a few of the more than 100 tougher-on-crime bills proposed this session become law, Texas in two years will probably have full prisons and jails, and no place to house a steadily increasing stream of convicted felons. The situation could be even worse than the historic crisis of the late 1980s, when convicts outnumbered prison beds by 40,000 and Texas had to triple the size of its prison system in five years at a cost of more than $1.5 billion."

Yeah...

Quote :

" i would simply increase the security of prisons, exactly like how you would streamline the appeals process."

Uh-huh. So now you're trying to increase spending and I'm trying to reduce it.

11/21/2005 10:09:44 PM

if prisons get full, kill more prisoners
got it

11/21/2005 10:24:17 PM

Quote :

"So nobody's escaping from death row?"

are they? you are the one suggesting that death row inmates are escaping and killing again. where?

Quote :

"Wha? This would seem to fly in the face of all the, "Prisons are overcrowded!!!1" whining I've been hearing from your like-minded people for, well, ever. Where are all these empty prison cells?"

obviously in california. california is expected to decrease the population by about 15,000 if i read it correctly. the national population would go down if several rockefeller-esque laws were repealed. when i start arguing that prisons are over-populated, come back and try to make yourself and your argument look good with your unsubstantiated insults.

what gets me chuckling to myself is that you think i would duplicate texas when it comes to a criminal justice system!

Quote :

"Uh-huh. So now you're trying to increase spending and I'm trying to reduce it."

no, you know that money that i calculated that would be saved? instead of building a prison for people already dead, i'll just spend that money on security.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 10:56 PM. Reason : ][]

11/21/2005 10:54:49 PM

Quote :

"california is expected to decrease the population by about 15,000 if i read it correctly. the national population would go down if several rockefeller-esque laws were repealed."

OK, so yet another thing you would have to do before you got rid of the death penalty without any problems: repeal a bunch of laws.

Quote :

"what gets me chuckling to myself is that you think i would duplicate texas when it comes to a criminal justice system! "

you don't, but you're arguing against a guy who, in a general sense, does. I don't think that wanting to put guys who beat their wives mercilessly for a solid week in jail for life is all that unreasonable.

11/22/2005 12:18:40 PM

just one week?

11/22/2005 12:57:53 PM

What is the best method to eliminate someone? If not a firing squad to save ammunition. Something quick but less barbaric than guillotine?

Conversely, what method is worst? I feel like stoning or crucifixion were pretty over the top.

Nitrogen hypoxia I’d put closer to the good method end of the scale. Especially with it being too difficult to acquire the proper drugs etc. Why can’t they just give someone like a bunch of fentanyl, person has most awesome couple of minutes ever

1/26/2024 8:09:27 PM

Pressing

1/26/2024 8:21:02 PM

Nitogen/CO seem like good ways. You just pass out. Another option could be massive insulin injection; again, you just pass out

1/27/2024 12:54:58 PM