The Death Penalty - Why Not?

No, I read it, but it was just another biased account from people who want to eliminate the death penalty. Do you know what "biased" means? If so, then why link some biased account as if it's any kind of proof of something?

I'll ask you again ...do surgery patients feel the pain of the surgery while it's being done?

Baron Max

:roflmao:

Firstly, that wikipedia page was not biased. Do you know what 'biased' means? The definition is not 'anything that disagrees with Baron Max's point of view.'

Criminals are not given an anaesthetic with Lethal Injections - only a drug that paralyses them.
Patients in operations are given a general anaesthetic so they almost always have a pain-free experience.


Understand now?
 
Criminals are not given an anaesthetic with Lethal Injections - only a drug that paralyses them.
Patients in operations are given a general anaesthetic so they almost always have a pain-free experience.

Well, if that's your only concern with the death penalty, then why don't we ask them to give a general anaesthetic to the crimimals? If they did so, would you then enthusiastically approve the death penalty?

Baron Max
 
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice uses 3 drugs in its administration of the death penalty: sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride.

Sodium pentothal is a barbiturate that until about 10 years ago was the most widely used medication for inducing general anesthesia. (It has since been displaced somewhat by newer drugs that cause fewer side effects upon awakening. For obvious reasons, that isn't a concern for death penalty cases.)

It is important to understand that sodium pentothal is given to an inmate 1st to render him completely unconscious and insensible to pain. For example, a normal surgical dose for a man weighing 220 pounds would be about 300 milligrams. Yet for lethal injection, the inmate receives 3 grams - or 10 times the normal amount based on body weight.

I can attest with all medical certainty that anyone receiving that massive dose will be under anesthesia.

The 2nd of the three drugs given in a lethal injection is pancuronium bromide - the subject of so much recent scrutiny.

Pancuronium bromide and its newer cousins are members of a class called neuromuscular blockers. Simply put, those drugs paralyze the body's skeletal muscles. In a lethal injection, the effect of the drug is to relax the chest wall muscles and the diaphragm in the now unconscious inmate.
...

The last chemical in the three-drug lethal injection formula is potassium chloride, whose immediate effect in the dose given is to stop the heart and hasten death. In large doses given rapidly to a patient who is awake, the medication would cause pain in the arm due to irritation of the veins through which it courses. But for the sake of emphasis, we aren't talking here about a patient who is awake or even remotely conscious at this point.
...
The current argument against executions seems to hinge on the supposition that the second and 3rd drugs in this regimen would be cruel to someone who could feel them - and, to be candid, that assertion is true, since the pancuronium would cause a patient to be paralyzed and unable to respond to the pain of the potassium injection.

Yet for that argument to be valid in any way, you must ignore the 1st drug in the process - sodium pentothal - that (1) renders the inmate to be completely unconscious, (2) has been used for decades to induce anesthesia in surgical patients and (3) is given in doses far exceeding what is needed to keep the inmate from being aware or feeling anything.

Regardless of one's feelings about the death penalty as a moral punishment, as a deterrent or whether it is meted out fairly - this latest objection has neither logic nor science to support it. If it did, it would follow that anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists in this country have been treating patients "unconstitutionally" for decades.

State Sen. Kyle Janek (Republican, Houston), an anesthesiologist
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/TXInjection.htm
 
Nope, it's dead, innocent people versus dead, innocent people. Ain't no apples or oranges involved at all.

Well, try to see it this way ...the state allows cars to be driven at high speeds on state-maintained and state-controlled roads a...

Baron Max

Max, repeating your stupid analogy doesn't make it any more relevant.

But still you dodge my question, 'if you equate a death in a car wreck with the killing of an innocent, why prosecute those that take lives in the first place?'

But you can't answer this, because it shoots your stupid analogy to pieces.
 
Max, repeating your stupid analogy doesn't make it any more relevant.

It's not irrelevant. Innocent people who are killed are, strangely enough, innocent people who are killed. You seem to think that SOME innocent who are killed are different to OTHER innocent people who are killled. What's the difference?

Ahh, wait, I know .....it's because you can USE some of those dead innocent people to further your own agenda. The other dead innocent people are just dead innocent people that you don't give a fuck about!

But still you dodge my question, 'if you equate a death in a car wreck with the killing of an innocent, why prosecute those that take lives in the first place?'

Well, it's such a stupid question that I didn't want to waste my time. First, I never ever said that I "equate" the two situations. I did, however, say that innocent dead people are the same as innocent dead people.

But, society makes the laws, and they didn't make one for killing people in car accidents. If they did make such a law, then we'd prosecute people for it.

Answer me this: Are innocent dead people the same as innocent dead people? Or are some of those unequal people ...some more important than others?

See? To you, SOME dead innocent people are more important, because they help your argument agaisnt the death penalty. See?

Baron Max
 
First, I never ever said that I "equate" the two situations. I did, however, say that innocent dead people are the same as innocent dead people.

'the same' is to equate the two. Learn the basic terms before making statements Max. It makes you look more of a drooling moron than Sarah Palin.
 
It's not irrelevant. Innocent people who are killed are, strangely enough, innocent people who are killed. You seem to think that SOME innocent who are killed are different to OTHER innocent people who are killled. What's the difference?

Ahh, wait, I know .....it's because you can USE some of those dead innocent people to further your own agenda. The other dead innocent people are just dead innocent people that you don't give a fuck about!



Well, it's such a stupid question that I didn't want to waste my time. First, I never ever said that I "equate" the two situations. I did, however, say that innocent dead people are the same as innocent dead people.

But, society makes the laws, and they didn't make one for killing people in car accidents. If they did make such a law, then we'd prosecute people for it.

Answer me this: Are innocent dead people the same as innocent dead people? Or are some of those unequal people ...some more important than others?

See? To you, SOME dead innocent people are more important, because they help your argument agaisnt the death penalty. See?

Baron Max

So in your eyes it doesn't matter how an innocent person is killed, it all deserves equal punishment ?
 
So in your eyes it doesn't matter how an innocent person is killed, it all deserves equal punishment?

I didn't say that, did I, Enmos? If you think so, please read it again, and this time, don't read INTO it what you want it to say. I made no mention whatsoever about "punishment", did I.

If anyone is concerned about innocent people being killed, then shouldn't they care about ALL innocent people being killed? Why only care about a few of them? That makes no sense.

Baron Max
 
So why prosecute people for killing people, if it's the same as a car wreck?

You obviously aren't getting his argument, He's trying to say that there is no difference between some innocent being killed in a car accident and some innocent being killed by the state, he's not trying to imply anything at all about prosecution. We punish people when they had the INTENT to kill, if it is an accident we still punish them but we do so on a much lighter scale because it was only an accident.
 
You obviously aren't getting his argument, He's trying to say that there is no difference between some innocent being killed in a car accident and some innocent being killed by the state, he's not trying to imply anything at all about prosecution. We punish people when they had the INTENT to kill, if it is an accident we still punish them but we do so on a much lighter scale because it was only an accident.

Why..? Does INTENT have something to do with it ? :rolleyes:
 
You obviously aren't getting his argument, He's trying to say that there is no difference between some innocent being killed in a car accident and some innocent being killed by the state, he's not trying to imply anything at all about prosecution. We punish people when they had the INTENT to kill, if it is an accident we still punish them but we do so on a much lighter scale because it was only an accident.

Clearly you don't get it. The State really do intend to kill people it's not an 'accident'. Max is equating these intentional deaths to road accidents, I then ask if they are equivalent, why punish other killings where there was intent?

And no, Max isn't saying _anything_ about prosecution, I raised that, because it highlights his broken logic.
 
Clearly you don't get it. The State really do intend to kill people it's not an 'accident'.

Ahh, but you're wrong!! In death penalty cases, the state executes convicted criminals, convicted in a court of law. You, however, are concerned about those few innocent people who might be executed wrongly, correct? Well, golly, an accident by the state is no fuckin' different to an accident on the fuckin' highway! It's an accident!

You accept the tens of thousands of accidental deaths on the highway, yet you're ranting and raving about the few accidents that occur in death penalty cases.

Accidental death of innocent people on the highway is ...accidental death of innocent people.
Accidental death of innocent people in death penalty cases is ...accidental death of innocent people.

Tens of thousands of innocent peope die in accidents on the highways. Yet you're overly concerned about the dozens of accidental deaths in DP cases. Why, please tell me, is one accidental death more equal than the other? I just don't get it, I really just don't get it.

Baron Max
 
I just don't get it, I really just don't get it.

Baron Max

Well maybe you would Max if you were put on death row for a murder you didn't commit. You of course being the stoical soul you are would, as you walk along the green mile on the way to the lethal cocktail of injections, just just shrug and put your impending demise down to an accident by the state.

Fair dinkums, eh mate? We all gots to die sometime.
 
Well maybe you would Max if you were put on death row for a murder you didn't commit.

One can't make national policy from a purely personal point of view. Or if they try it, they're fuckin' up really, really badly.

If laws or policy was based on personal points of view, then in my own view, no one would be allowed to drive cars except me. Now, how 'bout one of your rules if you based laws on your own personal POV?

And now, what other laws would be passed if everyone could make their own laws based on their own POV? How many laws would that be, do you think?

Baron Max
 
Well, if that's your only concern with the death penalty, then why don't we ask them to give a general anaesthetic to the crimimals? If they did so, would you then enthusiastically approve the death penalty?

Baron Max

Who said that was my only concern? I was merely disagreeing with the thread poster who had asserted that Lethal Injection was painless.
Unfortunately, soon afterwards, you started spewing ignorance at me; I then had to spend the best part of three posts getting you to understand the basic point.

As you well know, I do not agree with the implementation of Capital Punishment; my views confirmed themselves when I read the autobiography of Albert Pierrepoint. He executed 433 men and 17 women before resigning from being one of our official hangmen in 1956. One of his most famous quotes is:

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."
 
One of his most famous quotes is:

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, ..."

Executions are not, nor have they ever been, designed to "solve" anything. They were designed specifically to rid the society of unwanted, unneeded evil elements of that society. Simple as that. Don't read so much into things ...unless you're just trying to use it to further your many and varied arguments against the DP.

Baron Max
 
Yet again you selectively quote. Why can you never address a point in its entirety, as it has been intended to be addressed?
I can only assume that the rest of my post was too subtle for your small and moronic mind.
 
Yet again you selectively quote. Why can you never address a point in its entirety, as it has been intended to be addressed?
I can only assume that the rest of my post was too subtle for your small and moronic mind.

No, my response was intended for your entire post, and I indicated that with the use of ...., after the quote. I just didn't want to repost the whole thing.

And as I see it, there's no reason to resort to personal insults. Please try to control that urge if you can.

Baron Max
 
Back
Top