With how people are getting uppity over lethal injection lets get something new.

The night of the execution, after the inmate goes to sleep they just inject carbon monoxide into the cell and the guy would never wake up. No pain, no suffering, no needle, no need to swab his arm so he doesn’t get infected. Now going to sleep knowing you are not going to wake up might be hard, but they have sleeping pills, or they could just use the drug to knock you out then start with the carbon monoxide or something similar.

4/18/2006 11:57:31 PM

Or, you could just not murder the inmate at all.

4/19/2006 12:04:20 AM

^ winner

4/19/2006 12:06:42 AM

or people could stop committing crimes and we could live in a perfect world.

4/19/2006 12:16:19 AM

you mean to say they could just not exterminate the murderer.

4/19/2006 12:16:43 AM

The implementation of my policy is way easier than the implementation of yours.

And no, I meant it exactly as I said it.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ...]

4/19/2006 12:17:24 AM

Quote :

"inject carbon monoxide"

take too long, too expensive....too hit and miss

4/19/2006 12:18:05 AM

this isn't a new way

it's called a gas chamber

4/19/2006 12:20:54 AM

they should just surprise them with it.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/19/2006 12:24:21 AM

Quote :

"The implementation of my policy is way easier than the implementation of yours."

Well, one could argue that killing him after a few years of appeals is easier than housing and feeding him for 50 years and dealing with all those appeals.

But I no longer believe in the death penalty simply because I could pull the switch myself and if I can't bring myself to do it then how can I simply say its someone else's job. My faith plays a large part in this now too.

4/19/2006 12:26:49 AM

sewing up his inmates' rectums is probably not as easy either.

4/19/2006 12:28:39 AM

I was actually comparing the implementation of a policy of everyone living without committing crimes versus simply not executing criminals. And, as you're well aware (b/c i'm sure we've had or you've seen this debate before), it might be easier in some sense to execute, but it's not cheaper. And unless you're going to implement a system that kills markedly more people by mistake to save on costs, you can't avoid the problem.

But, on second thought, I suppose that it would be easy enough for people to stop committing crimes. Just repeal all laws. Problem solved. No criminals to kill or incarcerate.

4/19/2006 12:46:44 AM

what do they say about an ounce of prevention?

4/19/2006 12:47:41 AM

How about we just use a high speed metallic projectile projected through the skull of the inmate?































sorta like a bullet.

4/19/2006 12:52:31 AM

thats legal, and they did that like 50 times last century....you cant get it on request

4/19/2006 12:53:58 AM

Quote :

"But I no longer believe in the death penalty simply because I could pull the switch myself and if I can't bring myself to do it then how can I simply say its someone else's job."

I'm ok with the death penalty on ideological grounds, and I support the death penalty for the practical reasons that GrumpyGOP always gives (don't feel like explaining his position, so if you aren't familier with it, you'll have to wait until he inevitably gives it again in this thread).

However, my gold-standard individual case sanity check is "Could I throw the switch myself and feel good--or at least comfortable--about what I'd done?"

At the end of the day, supporting the death penalty (and even more so when I'm an elected official) is pretty much the same thing.


and in the cases when I'd support it at all, I don't really give a damn about making it minimally traumatic for the condemned (I'm not arguing for cruel treatment or torture or anything...but I feel no obligation to sneak carbon monoxide in on him in his sleep or anything)

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 12:57 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/19/2006 12:55:29 AM

I just can't get past the institutionalizing of first degree murder. While on the other hand, criminalizing first degree murder.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 12:59 AM. Reason : i'm sure i'm gonna get all kinds of argued with when grumpy hops to it though ok]

4/19/2006 12:57:28 AM

I say we devise a new method in which a hamster combined with a creative rube goldberg device to kill the inmate, that way no one (person) has to have pulled the switch. It's all the hamster's doing.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 12:58 AM. Reason : p]

4/19/2006 12:57:51 AM

While we could make it a reality TV show and offset some of the costs, that's the last thing we need.

It would be ok with me if the governor of the state had to personally throw the switches.

4/19/2006 12:59:47 AM

^ Not a bad idea itself. I'd much rather the governor be held personally accountable for the execution of criminals.

To me, though, the fact that someone would suggest the rube goldberg device speaks to the point. If you can't be decisive enough about the legitimacy of the punishment to administer it yourself, perhaps it's the punishment itself that's the problem.

4/19/2006 1:02:04 AM

I would totally run for governor

4/19/2006 1:02:09 AM

Then I could totally use the line from American Psycho where Patrick tells the chick hes into murders and executions, and she hears ohhh mergers and acquisitions.

4/19/2006 1:05:29 AM

And if your only motivation was to throw the switch, I doubt you'd get elected.

4/19/2006 1:05:59 AM

^^^^No, I don't think that it's the punishment at all. I think I have a pretty well-devoloped sense of right and wrong, or justice and injustice, and I'm ok with the death penalty, per se.

I think that we look at it a little too ideologically and statistically, though. Those arguments have their place, certainly. I just think that it's a crock for a jury to sentence a man to die, and for a governor to refuse to grant clemancy, when someone else is going to do the dirty work. I think that there should be more accountability for the administration of such an extreme form of justice. I mean, if you support the death penalty, that's all well and good, but if you're a juror or a governor, let's make it perfectly clear that the blood is on your hands, and that you'd better damned well REALLY support what you're doing.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:09 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/19/2006 1:07:07 AM

prisons + tv
george carlin idea from the 90s. his ideas was to fence in large, square western states and then fill them with different types of criminals then put it on tv. he also suggested gates between the states, opening for a few minutes once a month (those events were on pay per view).
its a 10 minute rant. probably the best policy proposal i have ever heard.

4/19/2006 1:07:32 AM

Put my vote down for an old fashioned firing squad.

4/19/2006 1:11:38 AM

You can't tell me you wouldn't jump at the chance to pull the switch and get to legally kill a child killer/raper.

Quote :

"I think that there should be more accountability for the administration of such an extreme form of justice."

I don't, because if you put people in a position that have to be judge and executioner, they don't have the ability to make a well thought out choice, because of their fucking conscience.

4/19/2006 1:12:41 AM

Quote :

"Well, one could argue that killing him after a few years of appeals is easier than housing and feeding him for 50 years and dealing with all those appeals. "

its actually less expensive to house the prisoner than allow so amny appeals

4/19/2006 1:13:50 AM

Uh...if hes going to be housed for 50 years, hes going to continue to make appeals buddah.

4/19/2006 1:15:29 AM

Quote :

"You can't tell me you wouldn't jump at the chance to pull the switch and get to legally kill a child killer/raper."

Sure, there are people who I wouldn't even want the switch for. I'd be perfectly fine with a well-administered blood choke.

but there are a bunch of chickenshit people out there who would sentence a man to die without REALLY believing in what they're doing enough to make that kind of call.

Quote :

" if you put people in a position that have to be judge and executioner, they don't have the ability are forced to make a well thought out choice, because of their fucking conscience."

4/19/2006 1:17:11 AM

^^ if there is no death penalty then he doesnt have eleventybillion appeals dummy

4/19/2006 1:18:51 AM

^^I disagree. Those people will chickenshit out of it, and say but I don't have the balls to take another mans life. Those people WONT even consider it. For all sorts of reasons, but religion ranks #1. They will deny doing it simply on principle.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:19 AM. Reason : 6]

4/19/2006 1:19:40 AM

then they don't REALLY support the death penalty to begin with, and therefore shouldn't be sentencing people to die.

4/19/2006 1:21:06 AM

But if you, for example, make the govener the executioner in a state that has the death penalty, he may be able to get elected and refuse to execute anyone.

4/19/2006 1:24:27 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: I just think that it's a crock for a jury to sentence a man to die, and for a governor to refuse to grant clemancy, when someone else is going to do the dirty work. I think that there should be more accountability for the administration of such an extreme form of justice. I mean, if you support the death penalty, that's all well and good, but if you're a juror or a governor, let's make it perfectly clear that the blood is on your hands, and that you'd better damned well REALLY support what you're doing."

While I disagree with the death penalty on principle, I agree with what you've said here. I'd find the whole thing more acceptable at least, if it worked according to this idea.

Very similar to how I think decisions of war and peace should be made. There was far more honor involved in the decisions of kings who'd plunge their countries into war and be among the first men on the battlefield than there is in leaders who declare war and send men out to risk their lives in their stead.

Quote :

"ZeroDegrez: You can't tell me you wouldn't jump at the chance to pull the switch and get to legally kill a child killer/raper."

I most certainly can. I have no intentions of killing anybody in my lifetime. Especially on purpose.

Don't misunderstand me. I happen to think there are fates more humane, yet still worse than death for people like you've described. Namely solitary confinement for extended periods. I also think reform after such periods is possible, but I think that's for another thread.

4/19/2006 1:26:10 AM

and it would bring the issue to the forefront for his constituents. if they wanted to keep the death penalty, they'd vote him out in favor of someone who would do it, and by doing so would be taking their own small share of responsibility.

Quote :

"I most certainly can. I have no intentions of killing anybody in my lifetime. Especially on purpose."

I do.

that sort of righteous indignation is how I ended up in this job to begin with (although it was more against African and European genocidal warlords and maniacs than filthy terrorists, although one dirtbag KIA is about as gratifying to me as the other, I guess).

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:29 AM. Reason : asfd]

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:36 AM. Reason : ggsdasdfas]

4/19/2006 1:26:44 AM

Quote :

"buddha1747^^ if there is no death penalty then he doesnt have eleventybillion appeals dummy"

No, you listen dummy, if you abolish the death penalty, there will be no fucking extra money lying around. It will simply shift. Then, it will no longer be the dealth penatly people who have so much money dumped in their appeals, it will be the life without parol people whos court costs will increase.

Why the fuck don't people understand that's how shit works. Whatever the "best" things are in life, they will ALWAYS be the ones to bare the most cost. It doesn't fucking matter how many fucking times you crop off the worst or best, a new one will rise to take it's place.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:30 AM. Reason : retard]

4/19/2006 1:30:13 AM

i think we should bring back hangings and firing squads, and make executions public. this would drive more fear into the criminal element, and let them know that killing people DOES have dire consequences.

4/19/2006 1:31:49 AM

people dont care about getting the death penalty. If you are whacked out enough to commit murder, do you think you would be weighing whether you will get death?

4/19/2006 1:33:14 AM

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? If they do not value life, extending it for them does not do anything for them or us. If they murder 10 people there's no fucking reform. The bitch gota go.

4/19/2006 1:35:17 AM

Funny that as long as there's been organized society, there's been a death penalty there to deter criminals.

AWESOME HOW THAT'S WORKIN OUT.

---

Quote :

"theDuke866: that sort of righteous indignation is how I ended up in this job to begin with (although it was more against African warlords and stuff than filthy terrorists, although I hope I get to kill plenty of both)."

Righteous indignation?

I'm stating a matter of fact. I'm not being indignant about it. Nor am I claiming any sanctimonious high ground because of it. I'm simply saying that I have no intention of killing anyone on purpose. Ever.

Perhaps I don't understand your point.

---

Quote :

"ZeroDegrez: If they murder 10 people there's no fucking reform."

No possibility for reform? Or you won't permit reform?

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:41 AM. Reason : clarity]

4/19/2006 1:36:25 AM

Quote :

"Then, it will no longer be the dealth penatly people who have so much money dumped in their appeals, it will be the life without parol people whos court costs will increase"

The reason the death penalty is so expensive is because it is final and defendants are affored multiple appeals, because we dont want to fuck that up. However people not sentenced to death are only granted [b]1[/] appeal, and maybe one habeus petition. So lifers will not all of a sudden be the ones appealling because they only have one. So it will cost less.

dummy

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:40 AM. Reason : oh yeah, dummy]

4/19/2006 1:39:18 AM

no, i mean righteous indignation against scourges of the human race who need to die. That's why I joined the USMC...it wasn't to get college paid for or to see the world--i signed up to kill people who suck (and i signed up before 9/11 ever happened, although I hope I get to kill a lot of those dudes, too)

Just contrasting my viewpoint from your (understandle and respectable) desire to never take another human being's life, and highlighting that my restraint in terms of supporting the death penalty has nothing to do with unwillingness to kill people who have it coming to them.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:41 AM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:43 AM. Reason : asfd]

4/19/2006 1:40:10 AM

Quote :

"No possibility for reform? Or you won't permit reform?"

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Who the hell thinks a murderer (#1, possibly #2 as well) could ever be reformed. That shit isn't happening without a damn lobotomy.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:40 AM. Reason : out]

4/19/2006 1:40:24 AM

Quote :

"If they do not value life, extending it for them does not do anything for them or us"

what does it do for us to take their lives away from them?

4/19/2006 1:42:01 AM

Quote :

"buddha1747The reason the death penalty is so expensive is because it is final and defendants are affored multiple appeals, because we dont want to fuck that up. However people not sentenced to death are only granted 1 appeal, and maybe one habeus petition. So lifers will not all of a sudden be the ones appealling because they only have one. So it will cost less."

I don't think you understand how shit works. If the death penalty goes away. It won't be 1 any more, it will turn into 2, then 3, then omfg 11billion because it will suddenly become the new fucking liberal travesty that we lock people away for 75 years.

Don't you fucking get it. Dummy.

4/19/2006 1:43:00 AM

^ Possible answers include:

1. Any self-respecting psychologist.
2. Anyone who's been through military training.
3. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of behaviorism.

Reform is possible. Extreme methods are necessary, but it is possible, even in the worst of circumstances.

4/19/2006 1:43:19 AM

why are "pro life" activists in favor of the death penalty?
i know this question is asked a lot but i have never gotten an answer for it, probably because i havent asked any republican for an answer. is it just the law and order argument, saying that those who are up for the death penalty have committed a crime against society and the unborn are innocent?

but arent we all born in sin? thanks adam! (<<ignore that, its unimportant)

4/19/2006 1:44:17 AM

Quote :

"You've got to be fucking kidding me. Who the hell thinks a murderer (#1, possibly #2 as well) could ever be reformed. That shit isn't happening without a damn lobotomy. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tookie

Quote :

"I don't think you understand how shit works. If the death penalty goes away. It won't be 1 any more, it will turn into 2, then 3, then omfg 11billion because it will suddenly become the new fucking liberal travesty that we lock people away for 75 years."

I respond with facts and you make up a conspiracy. You're intelligent

4/19/2006 1:45:13 AM

Quote :

"I just can't get past the institutionalizing of first degree murder. While on the other hand, criminalizing first degree murder."

It is illegal for any person to keep someone in their basement against their will, but it is not illegal for a society to keep a person in a jail given certain criteria.

It is illegal to rape someone, but in prison, rape is rampant (or so we are led to believe).

4/19/2006 1:46:16 AM