# Is lethal injection cruel and unusual for the death penalty?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Interesting debate on whether lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment when administered for the death penalty....

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 931860.htm

Case speaks to rising scrutiny of lethal injection procedure

By John Simerman
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

The unusual eleventh-hour legal wrangling over the execution of Michael Morales -- not whether to kill him, but how -- marks only the latest in a recent flurry of challenges to lethal injection that have conflicted courts across the country.

And that conflict has death penalty opponents hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the procedure, adopted by most states as more humane than gas or electrocution, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Questions of whether some inmates may have suffered excruciating pain while appearing sedate persuaded federal District Judge Jeremy Fogel last week to craft an unprecedented order that legal experts say is bound to have implications beyond Morales.

Fogel gave the state two choices.

The first: have a qualified medical expert monitor the inmate to ensure that the first drug, a barbiturate, renders Morales unconscious before the injection of a paralyzing agent and a drug designed to stop the heart. The second: use the lethal dose only of the barbiturate, sodium thiopental, which could take a half-hour longer to kill.

The state chose the first option, but two anesthesiologists who volunteered to monitor the procedure backed out, citing ethical concerns. Late Tuesday, the state postponed the execution indefinitely.

It is unclear whether Fogel's ruling will result in a permanent shift in how California kills people, but legal scholars say it was the first time a federal judge has directly modified the procedure.

What's not unique, they say, is the interest shown by federal courts across the country.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether inmates can challenge lethal injection as a violation of inmates' civil rights, in the case of a Florida man who was granted a stay of execution. The case does not address the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. But the surprise decision by the high court "had a massive effect on other courts," said Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor.

In the past two weeks, courts have issued four stays of execution in cases from Florida, Missouri and Maryland, all of which challenged the lethal injection procedure, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

"Most people coming up for execution are raising the issue, except those who happen to be volunteers, waiving their appeals," he said.

Backed by studies and anecdotal descriptions, death penalty opponents argue that in some cases, failures in injecting the barbiturate may have left some inmates awake, paralyzed and suffering searing pain from the third drug.

Other judges, including Fogel in earlier cases, have denied similar challenges. In his ruling, Fogel cited several cases, including the executions of Stanley "Tookie" Williams in December and Clarence Ray Allen in January, in which inmates were seen breathing several minutes longer than expected. He also questioned why some inmates required a second dose of potassium chloride.

The high court never overruled the use of gas or electrocution, but nearly every state changed to lethal injection or offered it as an option in response to mounting court and public pressure. In California, inmates still can choose gas, though lethal injection is the default method.

Oklahoma was the first state to adopt lethal injection, in 1977, shortly after the Supreme Court allowed states to reinstate the death penalty. Other states followed Oklahoma's lead, and most use a drug "cocktail" similar to the one conceived for that state nearly 30 years ago.

Many other states simply copied Oklahoma's procedure, leaving open the possibility of finding a more humane method with modern drugs, one that stands up to scrutiny from the medical community.

But legal experts note that the medical community has been loath to enter the fray.

In California, each chemical is delivered in lethal doses. The dosage of sodium thiopental, the first drug, is about 10 times the high range for patients, said Dr. Larry Sullivan, an anesthesiologist at O'Connor Hospital in San Jose and past president of the California Society of Anesthesiologists.

"That's a whopper," he said. "I don't have any qualms about a person feeling pain at those dosages."

Opponents say the greater concern is whether the drugs are administered properly and ensure that the inmate is unconscious. But anesthesiologists, those best trained to monitor that, face an ethical conflict.

At some point, however, lethal injection itself may come under direct attack, said Elisabeth Semel, director of the Death Penalty Clinic at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.

"Like any other method, it will probably work as it's intended most of the time," she said. "But error is inevitable. It's just a question of how often and how much pain it's going to inflict."

Fogel's decision "obviously has implications for future executions," though it's unclear what they are, said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

To some death penalty supporters, pain during an execution is far from a drawback. The state, said Barankin, thinks otherwise.

"It's a sentence to be carried out," he said, "not a method for extracting painful revenge."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact John Simerman at [email protected]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

On the radio today I heard that the third chemical which is injected, potassium, if one is not sedated properly, causes one to feel as if they are on fire, as every nerve ending in the body reaches the height of its pain producing capacity. That is certainly cruel and unusual. I am against the death penalty, but if it has to be done, shooting seems like the least cruel method.

As to the sedative not working, it is not that it is too weak, rather that it acts too slowly in some people, taking as much as 20 minutes to get into full swing.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I agree with MT!!! I feel woozy...

They should have never done away with the firing squad. A well placed shot to the head means instant death, and ya never hear the shot that kills you.

I'd love the chance to shoot the murdering rapist myself, but aside from liberal cryin, I dont dare take any guns into CA.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Putting someone to death really is a barbaric way of doing buisness though. Consider that the very terrorists we despise do the same. We should distance ourselves from them as much as possible.

I can understand the mentality of the victim's family, wanting the accused to never have another laugh, or smile, or any feeling of warmth, just as their family member will not. However, for every smile that this bloke may have rotting in prison, he will have ten hours of reflecting on his lost liberty, his sensless crime, and what is to face him beyond the grave. I think the better revenge is to let him live, and deprive him of all that we as Americans hold dear, freedom.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Putting someone to death really is a barbaric way of doing buisness though. Consider that the very terrorists we despise do the same. We should distance ourselves from them as much as possible.
> 
> I can understand the mentality of the victim's family, wanting the accused to never have another laugh, or smile, or any feeling of warmth, just as their family member will not. However, for every smile that this bloke may have rotting in prison, he will have ten hours of reflecting on his lost liberty, his sensless crime, and what is to face him beyond the grave. I think the better revenge is to let him live, and deprive him of all that we as Americans hold dear, freedom.


If prison were truly hell, I'd agree with you. But liberal thinking has given prisoners so many rights to things a lot of ordinary Americans dont have. Im all for rehabilitang minor offenders, but someone serving life for murder isnt worth the cost to rehabilitate. Feed the bastard gruel and leave him to rot in a dank dark place with a bucket he has to clean himself to piss in. Only then would I be for allowing these scum to live.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The life sentence was not created for rehabilitation. The idea that prisoners live in luxery is not true. Though they have clothes, three square meals and weights, they live their life in a room the size of a sheet of plyboard. The mental anguish is unbearable. Why do you think prisoners commit suicide?


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

What was wrong with the firing squad??? or hanging???


----------



## 94silverado (Oct 16, 2005)

I agree they should have kept the firing squad they won't feel anything and it cost 17.99 (here anyway) for a box of remington 180 grain .30-06 thats 20 prisoners .90 cents a death row convict. Anybody know how much lethal injection cost? I would like to know just for fun compartive facts.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

This is EZ, take the prisoner to his maker the same way he got in prison.
Quit being a bunch of [email protected]#ES :dead:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> The idea that prisoners live in luxery is not true.


Your head is in the sand again or you've never taken it out.........



> The mental anguish is unbearable.


Should we care?????????????



> they have clothes, three square meals and weights,


Don't for the law library.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> The idea that prisoners live in luxery is not true. Though they have clothes, three square meals and weights


Clothes and 3 square meals are more than alot of people have. I would dare to bet if they moved the maximum time spent in prison after a murder or rape conviction down to 5 years there would be a whole heck of alot less of it.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

I think, following MT's logic, that it would be more humane to put said death row prisoners to death with a bullet to the brain stem than either having them in anguish for so many years as they contemplate their crime or worrying whether or not the drug would take effect quickly and painlessly. More economical too. I never thought revenge was the purpose of the death sentence. I was always under the impression that the purpose was to permanently remove from society, someone who was likely to commit another crime heinous enough to get them the death sentence in the first place. I am sure I will be corrected if I am mistaken. Burl


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Want proof about the "fun" that can be had in prison. Look up a guy named Richard Speck.....

Its a lil more unusual than most prison stories, but the fact remains that people get away with a lot of stuff in prison.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Yea, MT's view would change if: his Mother was raped and killed in front of him and father shot to death trying to protect his family, it could happen!
Life altering experiences have ways of changing your liberal views into real world views.


----------



## Ranger_Compact (Nov 2, 2005)

I don't think prison would be that horrible. One of my friends was in for four years since the age of 14, and he said it wasn't bad at all. He said juvinelle detention for a one weekend was worse than prison. He said at least in prison, they don't tell you when to eat, when to sleep, and have all the harsh rules of juvinelle detention.

Note: Some of you may call this a "hijack", but notice that I'm not one who introduced the topic of living conditions in prison.

On the original topic, I say "An eye for an eye, an ear for an ear." If someone raped, they shall be raped themselves. If someone should beat someone with a baseball bat, they should be swung away at. If some one stole a car, they should have all driving rights revoked for life. And if someone murdered someone, they should be murdered in the same fashion they killed.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Hey how about Hanging, set up some gallows right in the center of town have pie eating contests barrel races and then hang the maggot!! No I dont think lethal injection is too cruel, and if it is the only thing I have to say is "well you should have thought of that before you commited the crime".


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

A hanging, when done right, will kill pretty quick, as the noose is designed to snap the neck cleanly. Trouble is all too often in the fall, the noose moves from the ideal position and you end up with someone dangling there choking to death.

I for one dont care, but lets face it. If people start thinking that every time the death penalty is enforced some convict is gonna suffer, we could see a lot more bans on the death penalty. A quick painless death is insurance to keep the death penalty in good favor.

As far as quick, painless, and fool proof....The guilotine was the most effective tool. Even a firing squad can miss....


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

Lethal injection inhumane? Why don't you ask if the way the people they killed was humane. Stabbing, beat to death, strangled....etc. Although I do believe the only way to sentence someone to death is with dna evidence. Not many people get the DP and are later founbd innocent, but when the penalty is that stiff we need to be certain.

and btw...the guilotine... not so great. Rumor has it that Marie Antionette's eyes moved after she got guilotined from herself for about 3 minutes


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm with Bore.224, the west has went to hell since they outlawed public execution. Stretch his neck!!! 

Most people have a hard time realizing when we die it is much the same as when the animals we kill die. It's never pretty.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> the guilotine... not so great. Rumor has it that Marie Antionette's eyes moved after she got guilotined from herself for about 3 minutes


Ever wring a chickens neck? The head snaps off but the body continues to flop around for a minute or so. It's just nerve and muscle reaction. The chicken hasn't a clue what happened.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

My main objection with the death penalty is that once it is done, it is permenant. If you put someone to death was innocent, the blood on your hands can never be washed off. At least with a life sentence you can be pulled back into society if you were indeed innocent.

As to prison not being that bad, there are different levsl of prison. The one your buddy was in is probably not the same level of security nor has the same rules as one that a heinous murderer would inhabit.

Public execution has been used for thousands of years by tyrants to get their point across. It has a bad, bad track record and is inhumane in every sense. An eye for an eye and soon the whole world goes blind. Was it not Jesus who said that we should turn the other cheek?

I think the feeling of being burned alive, evenly, across every portion of your body inside and out is worse than most of the crimes committed by those who we are putting to death.

Also, note that there is little correlation between the amount of heinous crime being committed within states and the death penalty. It is simply a method for revenge, and a very expensive one both monetarily and emotionally.

To ABBK, my convictions are stronger than my emotions. That is the difference between us.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Maybe you'll have a life experience that will bring you to the lighter side.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Maybe you'll have a life experience that we bring you to the lighter side.


I hardly see killing a man as light.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Could you shoot someone that was raping your mother?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Could you shot someone that was raping your mother?


To prevent him from doing so? Yes, probably. For revenge, I think not. In neither case would I feel good about shooting a man.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

WOW! how dare you judge him? We could rehabilitate him! Maybe he had a bad childhood.


----------



## Ranger_Compact (Nov 2, 2005)

Militant_Tiger, my friend was in for grand theft auto, other burglury, a DUI, minor in possesion, drug dealing, and those were the least of his worries. He was too ashamed to ever tell me the rest of what he did, but a teacher of mine knew, and she said it was pretty bad. Regardless of what he did to get in what level of prison, he was only 14 years old when they locked him up, so I'm sure anything was pretty bad to him. And both of his parents died when he was in prison, in the second year.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Ranger_Compact, I like your though processes :wink:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Richard Speck was givin a life sentence for killing 8 nurses, he wasnt supposed to be in "easy jail"......
If you havent looked him up yet, please do. Its rather disturbing.

Regarding the feeling of pain across the entire body... Well I imagine thats the exact same pain a lot of these criminals victims felt as they died. Death in and of itself is pain. We can talk about being nice about it all we want, but in the end, they deserve to die, and once they are dead any pain of the punishment is over.

Personally Im thinking that more than those that commit murder should be out to death. I think violent sexual predators, especially those that target children, should also be put to death. 
But thats a whole nother argument.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN! :beer:


----------



## dlip (May 16, 2004)

It seems cruel until you have to read your aunt's comments in the State Newspaper on the interview over the murder of her son, my cousin.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It doesn't make it any less cruel, it just seems to justify it. It is a reactionary system, but if it helps people to overcome what has happened to them and their families, it is hard to say that it is wrong.


----------



## dlip (May 16, 2004)

I guess you could say it doesn't make it any less cruel, and technically that is true. But at the same time, who gives a damn what the outsiders think is cruel and what isn't, when it's not directly affecting them. I know it gives me closure knowing that there are four people on death row for his murder. This wasn't a quick death either. This was a full out mauling, stabbing, and bludgeoning. He didn't die with the first blow, he died in the hospital. My cousin wasn't an angel, he did some bad things, but he hasn't ever killed anybody. He hasn't ended the life of someones brother, dad, son, cousin, nephew. He fit all of those categories of family members. I hope MT, that you don't have to have an experience to see where I'm coming from on this. He was killed 11 months ago yesterday. The immediate family of the victims should choose how a person is punished. That's my opinion on it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I am terribly sorry to hear that. That is an awful situation that no one should have to go through.

I feel thought that even in the face of such sensless violence that one should maintain their values and let the Lord sort him out when his time comes. I have not suffered such a tragedy however, and as such my word does no count as much as yours here.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Public execution has been used for thousands of years by tyrants to get their point across. It has a bad, bad track record and is inhumane in every sense. An eye for an eye and soon the whole world goes blind. Was it not Jesus who said that we should turn the other cheek?


It tamed the west MT, worked once and would work again.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK here is my two cents.

I suppose this is going to come as a surprise to you guys, but even though I work part time law enforcement I don't want to take the chance of executing an innocent person.

Here is what I would do. Maintain the current system for the nonviolent criminals. For the violent criminals I would throw their behind out on an island. Patrol it with the navy. To heck with guards, if they kill each other that is their problem. They want their behind out of the rain - here are some boards, nails, paint, build something. You want to eat - here are some seeds, some chickens, pigs, beef, - take care of them and don't eat them all at once or your going to starve to death. Raise your own vegetables and your own meat or starve.

What's the island where we tested nuclear weapons. That's just about livable. Livable enough for them anyway. I wouldn't bloody my hands with their miserable lives, but I wouldn't pamper their behind either.

If DNA or something proves one innocent later on take an armed force in and get him. You can retrieve an innocent person from this situation, but you can't retrieve him from the grave.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT isn't Totally a spineless jellyfish liberal!  
He would shoot someone if they were raping his mom.
There might be some hope for him yet :lol: 
I figured him to call the police so they could maybe put the guy in jail.
But MT picked the DEATH over jail.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

As I understand it, it's more expensive to execute a convict rather that incarcerate him/ her for life. 
I guess I thought of the death penalty as more of a punishment for a crime rather than a removal of the un redeamable from society. If this is the case, I'm not sure I would see any of the commonly used methods of execution to be in humane. Certainly a Spanish Inquisition style torture/ execution seems unreasonable, but hanging, shooting, injecting, electrocuting, even chopping seem to be quick and final. We're not talking about showing somebody Jesus's love, we're ending life. I don't know that I feel comfortable with the retribution or revenge ideas. It seems to me that justice should be dealt fairly, cooly, and even handedly. I feel like we as a society are supposed to be above the animalistic displays of the convicted criminals, so if this is the case, if someone is to be executed for a crime, no matter how henious, the execution should be carried out in a calm collected manner. Cold if you will, no temper, no passion. 
As mentioned in a previous post, I don't have any experience with this kind of ordeal, so I won't argue that I have any frame of reference. It was just a detatched thought.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

When I was stationed in Japan I had an apartment about a block from a prison called Otsu Prison. Got to know some of the people around there and here is what I discovered about their judicial system. First of all they do have the death penalty. But their prisons are run a lot different than ours. There is no hard labor unless you want to work. Instead of all the perks our prisons have you are locked up in a single cell that has nothing but a toilet and a cot. You are awaken at 6:00 a.m. each morning for breakfast but first you must make up the cot military style. After breakfast you are returned to your cell. You are not allowed to lay down but you may sit on the cot. You are not allowed to talk to other inmates or guards unless first spoken to by a guard. Only reading material allowed is newspapers. At 8:00 p.m. it is lights out. You go through the day like this seven days a week. Now the real kicker. Say for example you have a 10 year sentence. You are eligible for parole after 5 years. But the parole board is the victims of your crime. If say for example you are in for involuntary manslaughter from drunk driving the family of the victim has the right to deny you parole. Seems to work pretty good over there.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

This state has become even more worthless than I imagined....Ridiculous!
This cruel and unusual argument is utter non sense in my opinion. What is cruel? What is unusual? I'd say cruel might be something like allowing starving dogs to attack and eat someone alive may be cruel....and unusual...LoL.

As far as unusual, I would guess lethal injection is rather unusual because who the hell uses it in this world besides us?

Personally, I am a BIG time supporter of the death penalty because I think it works (despite what the statistics say); numbers can be manipulated to read whatever you want.

As far as putting someone to death that was innocent, it has not happened.....unless it has happened in the past 4 years (heard this in a class).

Personally, I do not support the idea of the Cruel and Unusual clause in the Constitution because of the following:

The Second Amendment allows law abiding citizens the right to bear arms. Once a law abiding citizen commits a felony, this CONSTITUTIONAL right is neglected to them.

With the Eigth Amendment, unlike the Second, we are never neglected this. One could commit treason (hell, not even be a Citizen!!) and be ensured this right forever.

May not be a very saavy legal argument, but it is my feelings.

Too much fun for one night, I'm tired!

Jeff Given


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> It tamed the west MT, worked once and would work again.


No, law tamed the west. Even with the threat of death, crimes happened, frequently. If I was planning on killing someone the thought of losing my freedoms for the rest of my existance is a far colder end than a loss of life. It takes a lot more will power to go to the grave naturally and be inexorable than it does to go to the chopping block inexorable.

Plainsman I tend to agree with your scenario because it allows for the chance of reconciliation if something went wrong. However, allowing an entire island of people to starve in a bad year is still barbaric. I would like to see stiffer prison sentences for murderers and other heinous inmates. If it were up to me, such prisoners would live their entire lives alone, without television or other modern convenience, save an hour to stretch their legs to keep their muscles from wasting away. Permenant mental anguish is a far better deterrent than temporary and possibly nonexistant phsyical anguish.



> We're not talking about showing somebody Jesus's love, we're ending life.


Thus the issue, if one truly believes in Jesus and his teachings, one must be willing to follow them even in the most horrid of situations. An eye for an eye was not good enough for Jesus, and it is not good enough for me.



> I don't know that I feel comfortable with the retribution or revenge ideas. It seems to me that justice should be dealt fairly, cooly, and even handedly. I feel like we as a society are supposed to be above the animalistic displays of the convicted criminals, so if this is the case, if someone is to be executed for a crime, no matter how henious, the execution should be carried out in a calm collected manner. Cold if you will, no temper, no passion.


Therein lies the problem. Murder trials are carried out to give the victim's family a sense of closure and allow them to express their passion. Thus why they are allowed to address the killer directly, and thus why many arguments ask juries "how would you feel if it was your family?". One cannot remove passion while sentencing someone to death.



> Personally, I am a BIG time supporter of the death penalty because I think it works (despite what the statistics say); numbers can be manipulated to read whatever you want.


You cannot simply avoid facts because they don't read out as you want them to. Find a reputible source, and believe what they have to say.



> As far as putting someone to death that was innocent, it has not happened.....unless it has happened in the past 4 years (heard this in a class).


Last time I checked something under one hundred men have been pulled off of death row, just shy of being executed in recent times. God only knows how many we have put to death over the history of this country who did not deserve it.

The Eighth Amendment stands for all people because all people are human. The right to bear arms does not come with being a human, but the right to be treated fairly does.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Mt ...laws are words that can be manipulated and did not tame the west. By the People For the People tamed the west MT. Check out what that means. In case you are to busy that means laws were made as needed to handle the worst of the worst on the spot. Vigilante groups are the most responsible for taming the outlaws of the old west. Maybe just maybe....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

buckseye said:


> Mt ...laws are words that can be manipulated and did not tame the west. By the People For the People tamed the west MT. Check out what that means. In case you are to busy that means laws were made as needed to handle the worst of the worst on the spot. Vigilante groups are the most responsible for taming the outlaws of the old west. Maybe just maybe....


Or, lawmen. Depends on which movie you watch.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I suppose for you MT it matters which movies you watch, but for some of us we have had History Class it's pretty cool you really should check it out sometime.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

MT lots of people I know feel the way you do about Capitol Punishment. I agree spending life in Jail in a small cell would be worse than death. However tax payers dollars are spent to support the incarcerated pig. I know it costs lots of $$ to put someone to death as well. The real issue is we need to redue the whole leagal system, wade throught miles of red tape and political backtalk. Unless we address this first people like me "for capitol punishment" and people like you "against capitol punishment" are just blowing the wind around!! :roll:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Bore.224 said:


> MT lots of people I know feel the way you do about Capitol Punishment. I agree spending life in Jail in a small cell would be worse than death. However tax payers dollars are spent to support the incarcerated pig. I know it costs lots of $$ to put someone to death as well. _The real issue is we need to redue the whole leagal system, wade throught miles of red tape and political backtalk. Unless we address this first people like me "for capitol punishment" and people like you "against capitol punishment" are just blowing the wind around!! _:roll:


I do have to agree with you one this one. I think, IMHO, that we do need a re-vamp on the system.

Ever think what Thomas Jefferson or George Washington would think if we could bring them to the present and show them that what they created has turned into?


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

i suppose the victim of some criminal on death row didn't go through cruel and unusual punishment when they were stabbed 8 times, or shot in the stomach and left to bleed to death, thats not cruel at all!!!, AN EYE FOR A FRICKEN EYE!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> AN EYE FOR A FRICKEN EYE!!!


And soon the whole world is blind. -Mahatma Ghandi


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

hahahaha, i'm gonna take advice from some goof wearin a dress, with a bald head and likes to hum alot.


----------



## Ranger_Compact (Nov 2, 2005)

Triple B said:


> hahahaha, i'm gonna take advice from some goof wearin a dress, with a bald head and likes to hum alot.


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

I agree with an eye for an eye, my motto-if you can't get justice, get revenge! :******:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Ranger_Compact said:


> Triple B said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha, i'm gonna take advice from some goof wearin a dress, with a bald head and likes to hum alot.
> ...


So I take it you aren't a Christian, or at least not a very good one.


----------



## Ranger_Compact (Nov 2, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> So I take it you aren't a Christian, or at least not a very good one.


Nope. I'm atheist, why do people always assume everyone's a theist? :eyeroll:


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

yes i am a christian, and i did go to a catholic school for 8 years, and i do believe it DOES make a few references in the bible about an "eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth."


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I had one more thought about this topic.
For those of us that believe we are Christian; I can appreciate the verses in the Bible that talk about "an eye for an eye," and the rest. But here's the what if,....
What if we get to Heaven, what if we are infront of The Father on Judgement Day,......and what if He asks us,........" So,....this whole taking revenge,....getting even,.....capitol punishment thing,.......where'd you get that from!?!?!?!?!
See, I don't think God would hold it against us if we said that human life is sacred, given by God and not for humans to take away. However, I think there is a chance that God might get a little sore about ending the life that He spent the day creating. 
Guilty or not, we think deserves it or not, God in the Trinity loves each and every one of us. That would include Saddam, Hitler, and thankfully, me. If this is the case, do we risk the possible sin of executing someone Jesus loves? 
I'm no gambler, but this bet sounds sketchy.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

That's why they get last rights; so they can make peace with there maker before we fry their a%&!
AMEN!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Triple B said:


> yes i am a christian, and i did go to a catholic school for 8 years, and i do believe it DOES make a few references in the bible about an "eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth."


Yeah, before Jesus showed up. Must be nice living in the B.C.s



> That's why they get last rights; so they can make peace with there maker before we fry their a%&!
> AMEN!!


WWJF- Who Would Jesus Fry


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Sadaam.............. and stand by on that one, it's about to happen.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

I think the best method would simply shoot em!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT wrote:
WWJF- Who Would Jesus Fry

I don't know what WWJF is, but for the rest of your above quote the Bible says anyone who does not believe in him. I don't think there is any mention of a lake of ice is there.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Yeah, I never really believed that part.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So you think the Bible is like a buffet? You will have a little of the love part (candy) but none of the punishment (broccoli). Do you believe any of the words in red?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I just believe that since it is written by men, it was probably written down to fit their agenda. I just don't believe that Jesus would say that anyone who didn't believe in him would burn in an eternal fire. That is just my take, and I know most of you don't agree with me. So be it.


----------



## Ranger_Compact (Nov 2, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> So you think the Bible is like a buffet? You will have a little of the love part (candy) but none of the punishment (broccoli). Do you believe any of the words in red?


If the bible is like a buffet, I would only take 1 Corinthians 13:4 to heart. But if I can't use the bible as a buffet, I'm sure Davey Havok (the best composer ever) could write something just as great, and probably better. Davey is amazing-he makes people think, which the bible and modern education teaches us not to do. But if I stick with Aaron, I'm going to be stuck in a catholic wedding...oh boy. It's hard enough putting up with a Luthern family when I'm atheist, but his crazy catholic mom? This could be interesting to say the least, I'm kinda worried. But if the wedding is to be in Corpus Christi-it is to be catholic, and that's okay-because I don't need a psycho mother in law!


----------



## Niles Short (Mar 18, 2004)

Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent.
-Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., 19941

The danger that innocent people will be executed because of errors in the criminal justice system is getting worse. A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Twenty-one condemned inmates have been released since 1993, including seven from the state of Illinois alone. Many of these cases were discovered not because of the normal appeals process, but rather as a result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalists, and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not available to the typical death row inmate.

This report tells the stories of people like Rolando Cruz, released after 10 years on Illinois's death row, despite the fact that another man had confessed to the crime shortly after his conviction; and Ricardo Aldape Guerra, who returned to Mexico after 15 years on Texas's death row because of a prosecution that a federal judge called outrageous and designed to simply achieve another notch on the prosecutor's guns.

In 1993, the Death Penalty Information Center was asked by Representative Don Edwards, then Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, to prepare a report on the problem of innocent people on death row. The Center 's report listed 48 defendants who had been released from death row in the prior 20 years because of subsequently discovered evidence of innocence. The growing number of additional cases in the ensuing years has prompted us to issue another report.

This report particularly looks at the dramatic narrowing of the opportunity to appeal and to raise newly discovered evidence of one's innocence. The federal funding for the death penalty resource centers, which helped discover and vindicate several of the innocent people cited in this report, has been completely withdrawn. Some courts have now taken the position that it is permissible for executions to go forward even in the face of considerable doubt about the defendant's guilt.

The current emphasis on faster executions, less resources for the defense, and an expansion in the number of death cases mean that the execution of innocent people is inevitable. The increasing number of innocent defendants being found on death row is a clear sign that our process for sentencing people to death is fraught with fundamental errors--errors which cannot be remedied once an execution occurs.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Is it cruel and unusual for us to put our pets down when needed? Give them what they give dogs or other animals.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

buckseye said:


> Is it cruel and unusual for us to put our pets down when needed? Give them what they give dogs or other animals.


Putting someone out of their misery is intended to spare them pain. Putting a healthy person to death is cruel, in my opinion.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> buckseye wrote:
> Is it cruel and unusual for us to put our pets down when needed? Give them what they give dogs or other animals.
> 
> Putting someone out of their misery is intended to spare them pain. Putting a healthy person to death is cruel, in my opinion.


How about the countless dogs and cats that are put down at humane society's is that cruel or necessary?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/nyreg ... r=homepage

Nonviolent justice in action. Far more dreadful will his dreary days on this earth be than a quick death.


----------



## Chris Schulz (Sep 7, 2004)

He doesnt care!!! Have you relized that? Maybe ending his life would give the families a little bit of comfort??? Hes not even sorry, and if hes not now, do you think he will ever be?

MT, your a loop and a half :eyeroll:


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> buckseye said:
> 
> 
> > Is it cruel and unusual for us to put our pets down when needed? Give them what they give dogs or other animals.
> ...


 And you are intitled to youre opinion, it is a cruel world, and here is my opinion, the more people you know and the more you know about how the world works the more you will be for Capitol Punishment!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I've found that the older one gets the more they are for the preservation of life. When people realize that they are going to meet their maker soon, it takes the fire and brimstone out of them. How old are you bore?

Chris Schulz how will killing him help? If he doesn't care now why would you send him to the grave not caring? At least in prison he will be forced to think over his actions. If at the end of his life he still does not care, he will have spent the greater part of it fruitlessly in a dank cell. Death is too quick for people like this to get off the hook right away.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

MT, Age does not matter, you if I am correct are around 17 right? When you talk to older people they may not tell you how they really feel as they may feel you are too young to understand. I however do not feel this way in fact I think Teenagers are treated too much like children and not enought like adults in modern society. I am 37 by the way.

How will killing Chris Schulz help, you ask? Will it ease the minds of the victoms family, Will it tear apart the family of Chris Schulz at the same time? MT as you may have found out allready in life somtimes their is no good reason for doing something, some things are done for no apparent reason at all!! It all comes down to "some people just need killing"! Guess it soothes the animal we all have within us.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT, Age does not matter, you if I am correct are around 17 right? When you talk to older people they may not tell you how they really feel as they may feel you are too young to understand.


You know what happens when you assume, you make an *** out of... well you know.



> How will killing Chris Schulz help, you ask?


Woah, that is pretty radical. I don't advocate killing any of the board members no matter how wild their views.

Really though, you should consider at least looking at the story before you bother to comment on it.



> Guess it soothes the animal we all have within us.


No, it brings out the beast in us that we have been trying to supress since man has been around.


----------

