|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 18, 2011 7:19:23 GMT -5
In fairness, that might be due, in part, to being in denial about ones impending death, as well as wanting to be clear-headed during their final days. "Drugs are bad, m'kay" could be factoring in too, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 18, 2011 7:25:20 GMT -5
In fairness, that might be due, in part, to being in denial about ones impending death, as well as wanting to be clear-headed during their final days. "Drugs are bad, m'kay" could be factoring in too, though. The "drugs are bad, m'kay" seems to be the overwhelming factor. The clearheaded bit seems logical at first, but on closer examination, it really isn't. First of all, pain is a much larger distraction than pain relief. And second, pain is (and this is a clinical fact) an excellent antagonist to the side effects of opiates. I.e. if you are in a great deal of pain, you can take an amount of opiates that would stun, or even kill, a well person without actually getting foggy headed. *sigh* If you have ever spent any time around terminal patients, this sort of becomes a bit of an emotional issue. Sorry if I'm derailing a bit. Just trying to highlight the way people discuss drugs and their appropriate usefulness in completely fantastic and utterly arbitrary ways, due to years of negative propaganda, which effects execution by lethal injection, and is, I would suggest, why we continue to fuck around with mixtures that may be quite painful rather than going with the obvious choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 18, 2011 7:42:07 GMT -5
It's similar with psychiatric drugs. Quite a few people seem to think that antidepressants merely dope a person up, which is total bullshit -- if one feels "high" while taking them, it means they need to be adjusted or switched for another medication. I've been taking Effexor for years now, and I'm more clear-headed on it than I am without it. Still, I run into plenty of dicks who seem to think that they know my own thoughts/emotions/perspective better than I do.
I can only imagine how many people have opted to reject medication as a potential treatment because of this "pharmaceuticals are the devil" crap, even though they'd benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 18, 2011 8:46:34 GMT -5
What is stopping states from adopting this then? The fact that Fox News would run a story with the headline, “Officials Give Prisoners Heroin” for one. And, unfortunately, running afoul of Fox News does have political consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 18, 2011 9:00:49 GMT -5
Isn't carbon dioxide poisoning used for euthanizing pets? That seems like a pretty viable option to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by SCarpelan on Oct 18, 2011 10:05:58 GMT -5
<snip>There were wartime executions during/after the civil war<snip> Warning: Tangential rant ahead. Just "wartime executions" during the civil war? I'm sorry but this is a thing I've been pretty pissed off for a long time and have to get out of my mind. The Finland of today is seen as a liberal paradise in many ways but the birth pangs of our nation were brutal. Many people almost romantisize the civil war of 1918 and call it the Independence War as if there were good guys fighting the evil commies who would have given up our newfound independence to join the Soviet Union. That ignores the fact that the extreme communists were a minority in the Red side. Why I am so angry about this is that the both sides did equally horrible things and seeing the blood bath as a good thing in any way is unforgivably ignorant (this is not directed to askold, it's only a general notion!). A civil war is a horrible thing in itself but the tactics used by both sides were just despicable. Both sides had death squads with members as young as 13 years old kids riding around murdering and terrorizing civilians to demoralize the opposing faction – and that's just during the actual fighting. What happened afterwards was just as disgusting. After a conflict like this the aftermath was not pretty. The combat casualties of the Reds were around 5000 but the total Red death toll was 27 000, over five times that. About half of the 22 000 people who died outside actual fighting were people who died of deseases and hunger in the prison camps after the war. The rest were either straightout killed after surrendering or convicted and executed in illegal kangaroo courts. There was at least one case where the White troops entered a Red Cross hospital and slaughtered all the wounded patients. Of course, if the Reds had won I have no doubt that the Whites would have faced a similar fate. This is how badly an ideology can fuck people up. This was no tribal conflict or territorial one, it was a purely ideological one where both sides demonized the other. It's no wonder that it took a Soviet invasion to make people of both sides to forget the grudges from the civil war. Tl;dr: I'm extremely pissed off about many Finns not realizing how fucked up issue our civil war was and seeing it as a justified fight against evil commies. Okay, now back to the discussion about the death penalty in general. Sorry again about the outburst. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 18, 2011 10:16:42 GMT -5
Isn't carbon dioxide poisoning used for euthanizing pets? That seems like a pretty viable option to me. Most vets use a drug called " Lethabarb", at least for dogs and cats. Some will use it on smaller mammals as well. Quite a few medical facilities and vets use CO2 or "cervical dislocation" on smaller mammals, like rodents. Because of their small lung capacity and circulatory system, Co2 is very quick and painless. However, using it on a human would be pretty cruel, since it doesn't poison, so much as it asphyxiates. A human, who was conscious, at least, would spend the first few minutes desperately gasping for breath, able to fill his lungs, but would still feel like he wasn't getting any air. It would be pretty upsetting. Then, once he depleted the oxygen in his bloodstream below a certain level, he would lapse into unconsciousness, but he would still have between 4 and 6 minutes before brain death. Not what I would call humane. For non mammals, (reptiles and fish) cold storage is usually the method of choice, they just drop off to sleep without any undue distress. But to do this to a human, it could take a long time. suddenly immersing someone in something really cold, like liquid nitrogen, say, would probably work on a human very quickly, but actually getting them into it could be unpleasant for all concerned, and you'd have to ask, "why would you bother?". For larger animals, vets typically use either an explosive bolt or cranial gunshot. This is quick and painless, but can be a bit messy. With humans, the explosive bolt methodcould work, except I imagine it could be quite traumatic for the executioner. As for firing squad, a. there's always the possibility of them missing anything vital, and the victim being fully conscious and in pain, not to mention terrified, while they reload and fire again. b. A headshot from a firing squad would be very quick and painless, assuming a large enough calibre of rifle, and not as trying on the squad, however, traditionally, firing squads aim for "centre of seen mass", not head shots. I don't know why, exactly, I imagine its probably to proivide a bigger target. Head shots can be quite difficult to pull off, even for a trained marksman. All of which kinda brings me back to my earlier point, "why would you bother?". Again, massive drug overdose is painless, clean, surefire and humane on everyone involved. If you absolutely HAVE to kill someone, and causing them pain and distress is something you are trying to avoid, its the only option I can think of. ETA: I've thought about it for a minute...Cranial gunshot with a large calibre rifle on a human is not what one would call "neat". So its probably not the target of choice for that reason as well as the fact that CSM is easier to hit. Less trying on the squad AND the janitorial staff. Not to mention the executed person's family, assuming they want an open casket funeral. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 18, 2011 10:36:02 GMT -5
Okay, then let's go with the heroine overdose.
ETA: Although I'd prefer us to not kill criminals at all, but if we have to kill them, at least kill them in the most civilized manner possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 18, 2011 10:37:08 GMT -5
Eh give me some morphine and let me float away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 18, 2011 10:37:50 GMT -5
Same thing, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 18, 2011 11:08:00 GMT -5
All of which kinda brings me back to my earlier point, "why would you bother?". Well, Representative Drake explicitly said he wants to bother because his method is less humane. He would probably consider it a bonus if the firing squad had to take several re-tries before hitting anything vital. The dude is a sadistic bastard. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 18, 2011 11:35:36 GMT -5
All of which kinda brings me back to my earlier point, "why would you bother?". Well, Representative Drake explicitly said he wants to bother because his method is less humane. He would probably consider it a bonus if the firing squad had to take several re-tries before hitting anything vital. The dude is a sadistic bastard. Well, if you want to go for less humane, there is an extensive amount of historical interest in the subject. Indeed, pretty much every > agrarian culture prior to about 1700ish spent a great deal of time and effort perfecting ways of dispatching people in extremely nasty fashion, often over a period of days, if not longer. Firing squad, even if it takes them two or three goes is pretty meek, compared to what could be. But then, I'm pretty sure there's something in the US constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment", so, in effect, this guy is nothing but a blowhard.  Yes, that's a wood saw. And the guy is upside down so that the oxygenated blood will flow to his brain as long as possible, to maintain consciousness (not that the people doing this sort of thing believed in the circulatory system). |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 18, 2011 11:40:06 GMT -5
Well, if you want to go for less humane, there is an extensive amount of historical interest in the subject. Indeed, pretty much every > agrarian culture prior to about 1700ish spent a great deal of time and effort perfecting ways of dispatching people in extremely nasty fashion, often over a period of days, if not longer. Firing squad, even if it takes them two or three goes is pretty meek, compared to what could be. But then, I'm pretty sure there's something in the US constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment", so, in effect, this guy is nothing but a blowhard. Two not-mututally-exclusive options: - Brad Drake is seriously lacking in the imagination needed to pull off the really sadistic stuff.
- Brad Drake is pragmatic and knows that even without the 8th amendment, political fallout for something especially cruel.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 18, 2011 11:47:26 GMT -5
Well, if you want to go for less humane, there is an extensive amount of historical interest in the subject. Indeed, pretty much every > agrarian culture prior to about 1700ish spent a great deal of time and effort perfecting ways of dispatching people in extremely nasty fashion, often over a period of days, if not longer. Firing squad, even if it takes them two or three goes is pretty meek, compared to what could be. But then, I'm pretty sure there's something in the US constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment", so, in effect, this guy is nothing but a blowhard. Two not-mututally-exclusive options: - Brad Drake is seriously lacking in the imagination needed to pull off the really sadistic stuff.
- Brad Drake is pragmatic and knows that even without the 8th amendment, political fallout for something especially cruel.
Quite possibly. However, for me, the possibility of executing an innocent person is all the argument I need not to support execution, and to prove to me that anyone who does is at least 29 points sociopathic |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 18, 2011 11:54:28 GMT -5
However, for me, the possibility of executing an innocent person is all the argument I need not to support execution, and to prove to me that anyone who does is at least 29 points sociopathic Right. For the record, I agree. My discussion here, however assumes that execution is already accepted as appropriate, which it is, for the state of Florida. |
|
