The Death Penality and Pagans

[Brass Bell Doll]

Would you be able to explain what form of the death penalty makes for a peaceful drift into sleep and why?

I am also a little confused- when you mentioned that there was a difference between those who choose to kill and those who kill to protect others- I could understand how that would decriminalize self defense, but not how it would negate the choice to kill by execution those who have already been secured within the prison system.  

[Shearaha]

Brass Bell Doll

Would you be able to explain what form of the death penalty makes for a peaceful drift into sleep and why?

Lethal injection. While I'm not sure about other states it's the primary (ie only) form of execution used in my state. The condemed are give an IV anesthetic that puts them into a deep surgical plane of anesthesia and then a lethal dose of the same or another IV anestetic is given after the condemned is asleep. It's really no different then how pet dogs and cats are euthanized.

Brass Bell Doll

I am also a little confused- when you mentioned that there was a difference between those who choose to kill and those who kill to protect others- I could understand how that would decriminalize self defense, but not how it would negate the choice to kill by execution those who have already been secured within the prison system.

Because the prison system is not really secure. While they have been removed from the populace at large they are still a threat to other inmates and guards. Contraband is a huge problem in prisons and make shift weapons can be made from just about anything, including items that our system is required to provide to the inmates.
It's also a permanent solution, once a perportrator is dead they can't physically hurt anyone anymore.

Really I don't see the killing of convicted murders any different then the killing of viscious dogs, or man-killer lions. A visciuos dog can be caged, but it's still a danger to the people who have to provide it food water and clean housing. It can still escape and cause more damage, injuries and possible loss of life.

On the other side of that coin though I also see leaving an animal in a filthy cage or tied with out food and water on the same level as denying a child food and water and forcing them to live in filthy conditions. I see hitting a dog or cat on the same level as hitting a child.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Shearaha

Lethal injection. While I'm not sure about other states it's the primary (ie only) form of execution used in my state. The condemed are give an IV anesthetic that puts them into a deep surgical plane of anesthesia and then a lethal dose of the same or another IV anestetic is given after the condemned is asleep. It's really no different then how pet dogs and cats are euthanized.

My concern with this is that sodium thiopental will render a person unconscious, but that does not mean that there is no sense of pain upon the delivery of the pancuronium and potassium chloride. It does however mean that the pain experienced by the person dying will not be expressed as violently, especially since it is standard procedure to administer the muscle relaxant first.

I have not seen anything to show that there is no pain registering in the brain during the execution.

Shearaha

Because the prison system is not really secure. While they have been removed from the populace at large they are still a threat to other inmates and guards. Contraband is a huge problem in prisons and make shift weapons can be made from just about anything, including items that our system is required to provide to the inmates.

While this is true, I would point out that by those standards, there is no such thing as security at all. It is possible that a complete stranger who has never committed an offense may do so tomorrow. For that matter, in traditions that believe in reincarnation, it would not eliminate the long term possibility that they could reincarnate and kill again in the future.

Please understand this is not sarcasm, but merely an illustration that absolute security does not exist, so I feel it is not a supportive argument. It also means that if we accept that locking a criminal away does not make us secure, then we would have to resort to executing everyone- because specific crimes do not negate the dangers of a prison dynamic.
It's also a permanent solution, once a perportrator is dead they can't physically hurt anyone anymore.

Shearaha

Really I don't see the killing of convicted murders any different then the killing of viscious dogs, or man-killer lions. A visciuos dog can be caged, but it's still a danger to the people who have to provide it food water and clean housing. It can still escape and cause more damage, injuries and possible loss of life.

I agree that there is not a difference when it comes to the fundamental threat present, but then, I'm not convinced that "vicious" animals always deserved to be killed, so I am not in a position to accept that as an argument at face value either.  

[CuAnnan]

I'm in two minds.
The statistics imply it is not a deterrent, so I don't buy that argument. Crime rates are not distinctly lower in states with the death penalty. Also, there have been studies done which worry me on the statistics of black people versus white people, when it comes to death penalty sentences.
However. There are some criminals that are beyond treatment. Sociopaths, for which the only cure is "colt 45 treatment".  

[Brass Bell Doll]

CuAnnan

I'm in two minds.
The statistics imply it is not a deterrent, so I don't buy that argument. Crime rates are not distinctly lower in states with the death penalty. Also, there have been studies done which worry me on the statistics of black people versus white people, when it comes to death penalty sentences.
However. There are some criminals that are beyond treatment. Sociopaths, for which the only cure is "colt 45 treatment".

Would that mean that there is a form of mental illness that deserves death?  

[CuAnnan]

Brass Bell Doll

Would that mean that there is a form of mental illness that deserves death?

More that society deserves to be protected from people who have the pathological, untreatable need to harm it and its members and that life imprisonment is a worse punishment.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

If there is the potential for a treatment to be developed, and that potential is being explored, is there cause to end life in the interim?  

[CuAnnan]

Brass Bell Doll

If there is the potential for a treatment to be developed, and that potential is being explored, is there cause to end life in the interim?

If there is a potential for an end to all crime ever, is there need for jails?
If there is a potential cure for AIDS, is there need for safe sex?

Please, please for the love of all that's holy, let's not move the goal posts.

There is no cure for sociopathy. When asking about whether or not some cure which is, as yet, unimagined changes the moral framework of the question, what you are asking is "are you omniscient". My answer is no.

At the current medical level of technology, with our current technological abilities, with the current level of divine intervention in the world, with the current social conditions, etc:
I believe there are limited grounds for the death penalty.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

I'm sorry if I misrepresented my question.
It is an interesting coincidence that you mentioned AIDS as an example, it was one I was thinking about as well, though more along the lines of terminal illness and assisted suicide.

If there is a potential to develop a cure for an illness that is beyond their control, should their right to life be ended?

I understand your answer is yes, and I can respect that.

I am currently contemplating the idea that there is a form of illness that impacts us in a way that it warrants execution.

It was not my intention to ask if you were omniscient or change the moral framework, merely to fully explore the framework that already exists in full.  

[CuAnnan]

Brass Bell Doll

I'm sorry if I misrepresented my question.

No, I have a chest infection.
I have not been sleeping properly despite the fact I've been getting 14 hours or so sleep a day.

Brass Bell Doll

It is an interesting coincidence that you mentioned AIDS as an example, it was one I was thinking about as well, though more along the lines of terminal illness and assisted suicide.

I'm all for assisted suicide, as long as the person is capable of informed consent or has listed informed consent at a time when they were capable of it.

Brass Bell Doll

If there is a potential to develop a cure for an illness that is beyond their control, should their right to life be ended?

Yes.
a) they may not be able to afford it
b) they may just have given up on life

Brass Bell Doll

I understand your answer is yes, and I can respect that.

Honestly, my answer is squiffy, at best.

Brass Bell Doll

It was not my intention to ask if you were omniscient or change the moral framework, merely to fully explore the framework that already exists in full.

I understand now.
Alas, the best answer I can give is that until the cure is made known, it has no impact on the current moral value of the situation, so to speak.  

[River_Moonwolf]

Shearaha

While the system isn't perfect and there is room for mistakes the accused have the oppurtunity to prove themselves innocent, and even if found guilty then have an extendable period of time in which to find new evidence or witnesses to get the decision reversed.

Annnnd here's the problem, in a nutshell. In the American system, defendants don't have to prove ANYTHING. It's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit. Of course, this never works, thanks to the media. Not trying to be pissy, it's just I hear that so freakin' much it annoys the hell outta me. I work in afield where that attitude has seriously damaged some folks for life.

As to the original question? I oppose the death penalty. I stand foursquare for life. Who's to say that the "criminal" in question isn't actually innocent (as has been proven of numerous Death Row inmates), or may have a greater destiny awaiting him/her.

There are a slew of other arguments I could bring, but they'd only rile, incense or offend, so I'll just shut up.  

[CuAnnan]

River_Moonwolf

or may have a greater destiny awaiting him/her.

The same person who says their destiny is to die.
Nobody.
Because we don't have a mainline to destiny.  

[River_Moonwolf]

True, but by condemning another sentient to death, aren't we, in effect, saying we can dictate destiny? At least, that's the way it always seemed to me, no offense intended.  

[chaoticpuppet]

I, too, am in two minds about the issue.

On the one hand, I see prison as a means of punishment, and for this reason, I have no problem with the death penalty. There are crimes where an 'eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is the correct form of punishment. On the other hand, I also see prison as a means to reform and reintegrate a person into a contributing member of society - something which cannot be done if they are dead.  

[Gho the Girl]

River_Moonwolf

True, but by condemning another sentient to death, aren't we, in effect, saying we can dictate destiny? At least, that's the way it always seemed to me, no offense intended.

Unless destiny dictates it's own way, and we merely give a judgement that is in line with what has been written.