Held captive as a sex slave...

[Locutus of Bored]

^^^ Actually, the apparent painlessness of lethal injection is hotly debated, at least the version carried out in parts of the US. It's argued that it simply makes things easier on the people ordering, carrying out, and viewing the execution (and for voters who support it) to give them peace of mind, rather than being a more "humane" form of execution for the criminal, if you'll excuse the contradiction of terms.

Opponents of lethal injection believe that it is not actually humane as practiced in the United States.

Opponents argue that the thiopental is an ultra-short acting barbiturate that may wear off (anesthesia awareness) and lead to consciousness and an excruciatingly painful death wherein the inmate is unable to express his pain because he has been rendered paralyzed by the paralytic agent.

Opponents point to the fact that sodium thiopental is typically used as an induction agent and not used in the maintenance phase of surgery because of its short acting nature. Following the administration of thiopental, pancuronium bromide is given. Opponents argue that pancuronium bromide not only dilutes the thiopental, but (since the inmate is paralyzed) also prevents the inmate from expressing pain. Additional concerns have been raised over whether inmates are administered an appropriate level of thiopental owing to the rapid redistribution of the drug out of the brain to other parts of the body.

Additionally, opponents argue that the method of administration is also flawed. They state that since the personnel administering the lethal injection lack expertise in anesthesia the risk of failing to induce unconsciousness is greatly increased. Also, they argue that the dose of sodium thiopental must be customized to each individual patient, not restricted to a set protocol. Finally, the remote administration results in an increased risk that insufficient amounts of the lethal injection drugs enter the bloodstream.

In total, opponents argue that the effect of dilution or improper administration of thiopental is that the inmate dies an agonizing death through suffocation due to the paralytic effects of pancuronium bromide and the intense burning sensation caused by potassium chloride.

Opponents of lethal injection as currently practiced argue that the procedure employed is designed to create the appearance of serenity and a humane death, rather than actually providing a humane death. More specifically, opponents object to the use of Pancuronium bromide, arguing that its use in lethal injection serves no useful purpose since the inmate is physically restrained. Therefore the default function of pancuronium bromide would be to suppress the autonomic nervous system, specifically to stop breathing.

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

 

[Jayson]

Why do people always take these things as an excuse to start acting like a caveman?

It just goes to show that the caveman is still just under the surface in many cases.

Because justice isn't about staying civilized. Justice is about revenge. It's barbaric because things that deserve to be avenged, on this scale, are crimes that are barbaric, themselves. There is some truth in the eye for a eye, aproach to justice.

This is completely wrong. Justice is about punishment and reparations where appropriate. In this case, punishment is irrelevant and it is the obligation of society to aid and support the victims in whatever manner possible. Justice is not about committing acts as ugly as the criminal without the mitigating circumstance of mental illness.

It's what they deserve, unless there are circumstances that change the status of the crime such as mental illness

Obviously, anybody who would do this is mentally ill, so you've just countered your own argument. You disappoint me, Jayson; you're letting your anger turn you into a Right Winger.

There are different levels of mental illness. I mean I am mentally ill because I have OCD, but if I went out and killed someone I would deserve to be killed because I know it's wrong to murder inocent people. I also don't think this makes me into a right winger. I just feel like when we try being civilized to these people it ends up being about us and not the victim. It's about showing off how great we are as people and how advanced we have become and I just don't buy it. It's false nobility that is a luxurary we can have, because it most cases the victims are people we don't have emotional attachments to, and thus we have the freedom of taking a more noble and civilized stance to, because in the end we don't have to live with end results of what the criminal has done. Things change though when you become the victim or a loved one becomes a victim because then all those great and noble sentiments about justice end up feeling hollow and false. Nothing i suspect wakes people up from the illusion of being in a civilized human society than finding out a loved one has been murdered or raped or worst.

Jason

 

[RJDiogenes]

There are different levels of mental illness. I mean I am mentally ill because I have OCD, but if I went out and killed someone I would deserve to be killed because I know it's wrong to murder inocent people.

You don't kill people because of OCD. If you kill somebody, then you obviously have something more wrong with you. The action is the evidence.

I also don't think this makes me into a right winger.

It does. You're using anger to justify undermining civilized ideals; that's intrinsic to Right Wing ideology.

I just feel like when we try being civilized to these people it ends up being about us and not the victim. It's about showing off how great we are as people and how advanced we have become and I just don't buy it. It's false nobility that is a luxurary we can have, because it most cases the victims are people we don't have emotional attachments to, and thus we have the freedom of taking a more noble and civilized stance to, because in the end we don't have to live with end results of what the criminal has done. Things change though when you become the victim or a loved one becomes a victim because then all those great and noble sentiments about justice end up feeling hollow and false. Nothing i suspect wakes people up from the illusion of being in a civilized human society than finding out a loved one has been murdered or raped or worst.

Of course people feel that way when they or a loved one is the victim; otherwise we wouldn't need laws. The law is there to be rational when we are unable to be rational. If I'm ever put in a position where I lose my cool enough to want to torture or kill a person, I want somebody to be there to hold me back.

 

[Jayson]

There are different levels of mental illness. I mean I am mentally ill because I have OCD, but if I went out and killed someone I would deserve to be killed because I know it's wrong to murder inocent people.

You don't kill people because of OCD. If you kill somebody, then you obviously have something more wrong with you. The action is the evidence.

I also don't think this makes me into a right winger.

It does. You're using anger to justify undermining civilized ideals; that's intrinsic to Right Wing ideology.

I just feel like when we try being civilized to these people it ends up being about us and not the victim. It's about showing off how great we are as people and how advanced we have become and I just don't buy it. It's false nobility that is a luxurary we can have, because it most cases the victims are people we don't have emotional attachments to, and thus we have the freedom of taking a more noble and civilized stance to, because in the end we don't have to live with end results of what the criminal has done. Things change though when you become the victim or a loved one becomes a victim because then all those great and noble sentiments about justice end up feeling hollow and false. Nothing i suspect wakes people up from the illusion of being in a civilized human society than finding out a loved one has been murdered or raped or worst.

Of course people feel that way when they or a loved one is the victim; otherwise we wouldn't need laws. The law is there to be rational when we are unable to be rational. If I'm ever put in a position where I lose my cool enough to want to torture or kill a person, I want somebody to be there to hold me back.

I want someone to hold me back as well if I loose my cool and want to kill someone who keyed my car or stole my tv. I don't want anyone standing in my way if someone has raped my niece or nephew or murdered my mom. Also I am not arguing that this stuff shouldn't be illegal. I just don't see it as imoral if a pedophile gets killed and is truly guilty. Civilized laws are good, because the alternative is anarchy but what I am saying is there is some truths that are true but can't be endorsed by society because the truth is ugly and not something to be proud of. It's kind of like war, back in the days when we still had wars that were justified. Like World War II. War is ugly but it's not evil unless the war becomes about something that we shouldn't be going to war over.

Jason

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Death Wish Jayson kinda frightens me. I like happy monkey crazy thread Jayson. Maybe I should stop closing your threads before I find a horse head under my sheets.

 

[Jayson]

I don't like feeling angry either. It always makes my feel nauseous but I always remind myself that this issue should never be about my emotions, whether there civilized or about anger. The way I see it, if you can't hold your head up with convinction and tell the victim or family of the victim your views, then it's proably not the correct one. I just couldn't tell a mother that her child was raped and the guy who did it, only deserves to be in prision without feeling great shame. Not sure what would be worst. That I am telling her that he gets to live or that I am telling her what the guy, deserves as punishment. I a stranger who has no emotional connection to the victim.

Jason

 

[Locutus of Bored]

There's no shame in standing up for your principles even when it's the uncomfortable choice. It doesn't make it wrong to oppose capital punishment just because a grieving mother might be opposed to it. Of course she's possibly (maybe even probably) going to desire capital punishment, and that's a perfectly natural reaction. Which is precisely why those kinds of decisions need to be made as objectively as is reasonably possible by unaffected individuals.

 

[Jayson]

There's no shame in standing up for your principles even when it's the uncomfortable choice. It doesn't make it wrong to oppose capital punishment just because a grieving mother might be opposed to it. Of course she's possibly (maybe even probably) going to desire capital punishment, and that's a perfectly natural reaction. Which is precisely why those kinds of decisions need to be made as objectively as is reasonably possible by unaffected individuals.

I agree that's a natural reaction to grief, because she has been broken from the illusion of what society is. Alot of people see this as being false because they can't be objective. I see it as the lie of society being removed and allowing people to see the truth for what it truly is. Hasn't anyone here ever had a moment were you have realized everything you beleive isn't real?

For me it was when I had my crying breakdown on my route and accepted my OCD. My illusion of Obama I feel is about to be broken, when we don't get health care. I thought he was actually going to be able to do, or at least fight for it. To me having to face a trajedy is one of those wakeup calls, when it comes to looking at criminals. We see them for what they are, more keenly than when we have the cloak of civility covering our eyes.

Jason

 

[Itisnotlogical]

There's no shame in standing up for your principles even when it's the uncomfortable choice. It doesn't make it wrong to oppose capital punishment just because a grieving mother might be opposed to it. Of course she's possibly (maybe even probably) going to desire capital punishment, and that's a perfectly natural reaction. Which is precisely why those kinds of decisions need to be made as objectively as is reasonably possible by unaffected individuals.

I don't see how somebody can be objective in this matter. I know I'd never be able to pursue a career in law because I could never be objective and calm about a case such as this. Sure, I may be a barbarian in feeling that lethal injection simply isn't enough in some cases, but I feel that there's times for things like losing our cool, not being objective and- gasp!- something that might actually not be politically correct! I'd rather try to leave sides and parties out of this, but sometimes compensation and appeals and due course aren't what's needed.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

This has nothing to do with political correctness, which is just a largely pointless buzzword(s) people throw out to discredit an argument they don't like. Nor have I mentioned any political parties or political leanings for that matter.

I said "as objectively as is reasonably possible" for precisely the reason that no one can be completely objective on a matter such as this. When you hear the horrific nature of the crime obviously you're going to form (hopefully negative) opinions on the perpetrator even if you were not directly affected by the crime itself. The hope is that you can overcome those negative feelings and judge the case/sentencing using the letter of the law rather than emotion to guide your decision. The courts don't always work that way, of course, but what other option is there?

 

[Jayson]

This has nothing to do with political correctness, which is just a largely pointless buzzword(s) people throw out to discredit an argument they don't like. Nor have I mentioned any political parties or political leanings for that matter.

I said "as objectively as is reasonably possible" for precisely the reason that no one can be completely objective on a matter such as this. When you hear the horrific nature of the crime obviously you're going to form (hopefully negative) opinions on the perpetrator even if you were not directly affected by the crime itself. The hope is that you can overcome those negative feelings and judge the case/sentencing using the letter of the law rather than emotion to guide your decision. The courts don't always work that way, of course, but what other option is there?

Being objectiive though has two levels. One is in determing guilt. The other is punishment. I think the courtis are very important in determin guilt, though I think we all know there are situations like this one or OJ were the guilt is ovious even before you have a trial. The ability to figure out if someone is guilty of something is the main reason I am agaisnt vigilante justice.

To me the issue becomes murky when it comes to punishment and I find it uncomfortable with strangers figuring out what a fair punishment is. I have a problem with this on many levels. Don't like the government having that power, I don't like strangers melting out justice, when they don't have any emotional stake in the crime yet at the same time I also don't like victims having complete control because they might abuse the power. That is why I said there can be no justice in the justice system but it's almost impossible to get justice as well in a vigilante system.

The system we have now might be the best we can do but at the same time I can't hold moral judgments on people who do get revenge, asuming the person they get revenge on was guilty, because the system is flawed. There is no soultion to this problem. You just got to take every crime,ever revenge and every situation differently and judge them on there own, instead of taking grand statements about how revenge is always wrong. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

Jason

 

[kimc]

Another thing that got me a I read more about it in this morning's paper is how this couple has the nerve to please not-guilty after a confession. Not to mention all the physical evidence against them.

I know it's their legal right to enter whateve plea they wish but now they're going to need legal representation and there will be a trial - it will be an absolute circus. Not to mention how hideously expensive the whole process will be.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I have read through the thread, and I feel like briefly posting my view in relation to the discussions here, if I may be so bold :

I have said it before, and I'll say it again now: I have never understood how anyone could want to take revenge, to inflict, condone, or not become distressed about, violence inflicted on criminals. It is not an impulse I share, and I simply cannot understand why people possess such a strong desire to see others suffer. People do not cease to matter because they violate your morality. We have systems in place to ensure criminals are safely removed from society before they do further damage and to deter other offenders. As this case proves, those systems on occassion fail. That, however, is the flaw of the people in the system, not the system itself.

As for justice, I do not believe in it. I lost my faith in the concept years ago, after thinking through my people's attitudes towards several major issues of interest to me. It soon became apparent the concept had no meaning, as there were many situations where, upon asking people "how is justice served in this situation?", no-one could tell me. The purpose of the legal system should be to identify those who have committed crimes harmful to others, to fairly try them in court, and if they are found guilty, to discipline them and take steps to prevent further crimes (WITHOUT violence). If the crime is serious- abduction, rape, assault, murder, etc- the offender must be imprisoned.

The idea of forgiveness often comes up in conversations of this kind, so let me clarify now: I never forgive criminals, or anyone. I don't hold grudges either . I have never forgiven anyone for anything (myself included, obviously). This is not my choice- this is simply who I am, how my mind works. When I am provoked to strong emotion- any emotion, anger, joy, shame, sadness, fear, love- the memory associated with that event is burnt into my mind permanently, and is forever a part of me. Every moment, I live not only the present but every powerfully emotional moment of my life to date, from around age 2 onwards. I do not forget, and so I do not forgive. I simply don't let the past interfere with the essential business of loving, respecting and befriending the people around me in the present. If you've been wronged, it'll be with you forever (same if you've wronged others). Why cause further wrongs, further moments of shame, hate, fear or sadness? Instead, create rights . Build relationships so the good memories outweigh the bad.

I respect everyone's unique life experiences, their sacred right to life. Only those who hate need forgiveness. Hatred isn't something I feel. Anger, rage, extreme distaste and disgust, of course. I am capable of feeling those just like anyone else. But hatred? The events of my life have shown me that is not a part of who I am. I do not know forgiveness, and I do not know hatred.

All life is precious. To take a life in anything other than urgent self-defense or immediate and urgent defense of others is unacceptable in my view. Even then, it is a last resort only. Criminals require imprisonment to keep them out of the way of other people, and hopefully to install in them discipline and offer a chance for rehabilitation. Sadly, not everyone is capable of rehabilitation or learning discipline, and must remain imprisoned. What does the desire to punish have to do with this? Punishment is irrelevant. The criminal must be imprisoned and disciplined for the good of society. This is a neccessity if assault, abduction, rape, murder etc are to be prevented and society's objection to such actions reaffirmed.

However, from what I see by many of those who have posted here, rape and torture and murder are not objected to...as long as the victim has engaged in such acts themselves. I feel great distaste and anger towards many criminals, too. I also feel concern and care and love. Violence and hate only lead to further violence and hate. How are those with criminal tendencies to learn another, better way if you show them only their own violence and hate directed back at them?

I myself have been the victim of violence and abuse by those around me, to the point, I don't mind adding, where I was suicidal. Rather than becoming like the perpetrators, however, I aimed to influence them to become more like me. I have, to my joy, had success. Now there are fewer violent, distasteful types...instead of more, which would have been the case had I been eager to see them suffer as I had. Encouraging empathy is always more effective than demonstrating a lack of it.

 

[Trekker4747]

What a hippie, head-in-the-sand, naive way of looking at the world.

 

[Pingfah]

Been the victim of much violent abuse have you Trekker?

 

[RJDiogenes]

How could such a big tough guy be the victim of violent abuse?

 

[Pingfah]

The poster didn't even suggest that violent criminals not be punished, just that once they are incarcerated they not be subjected to needless abuse whilst in custody.

Now apparently not violently assaulting people just for heck of it is "hippie head in the clouds" behaviour. Because of course, having hardened criminals assault other hardened criminals is the very heart of justice.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

What a hippie, head-in-the-sand, naive way of looking at the world.

It is none of the three. It is constantly amusing to me that people believe I am naive and ignorant simply due to my benevolent outlook. I can assure you, I am not naive or ignorant at all. Of all the people to accuse of walking through life with their "head in the sand", I'm one of the least likely . Then again, you of course don't know me, only what I type, so I suppose I can see why you might make such assumptions given my above comments. Your understanding of my way of looking at the world is of course arrived at through what I type and how I express it. Maybe I am not always successful (this wouldn't be the first time someone has gotten completely wrong ideas about me based on what I type) but I try and make it accessible.

Friendly and benevolent does not equal clueless. I assure you, I am quite aware of the need for a firm, efficient justice system (my problems with the word besides). My post clearly contained the opinion:

"The criminal must be imprisoned and disciplined"

I only ask that people avoid the desire to inflict violence on (or condone violence against) the criminal, and that revenge, hate and the desire to "punish" play no part in the process of trial and incarceration, or in the treatment of the convicted as the penalty is applied. The legal system should try and discipline criminals on the basis of what serves the society and the community, not on the basis of emotional reactions that mirror those which motivated the criminal in the first place. That's no way to make a stand. Reinforcing that which you condemn will do nothing useful.

 

[Trekker4747]

Some people are evil scum and deserve to die.

This guy? One of those people.

 

[Jayson]

What a hippie, head-in-the-sand, naive way of looking at the world.

It is none of the three. It is constantly amusing to me that people believe I am naive and ignorant simply due to my benevolent outlook. I can assure you, I am not naive or ignorant at all. Of all the people to accuse of walking through life with their "head in the sand", I'm one of the least likely . Then again, you of course don't know me, only what I type, so I suppose I can see why you might make such assumptions given my above comments. Your understanding of my way of looking at the world is of course arrived at through what I type and how I express it. Maybe I am not always successful (this wouldn't be the first time someone has gotten completely wrong ideas about me based on what I type) but I try and make it accessible.

Friendly and benevolent does not equal clueless. I assure you, I am quite aware of the need for a firm, efficient justice system (my problems with the word besides). My post clearly contained the opinion:

"The criminal must be imprisoned and disciplined"

I only ask that people avoid the desire to inflict violence on (or condone violence against) the criminal, and that revenge, hate and the desire to "punish" play no part in the process of trial and incarceration, or in the treatment of the convicted as the penalty is applied. The legal system should try and discipline criminals on the basis of what serves the society and the community, not on the basis of emotional reactions that mirror those which motivated the criminal in the first place. That's no way to make a stand. Reinforcing that which you condemn will do nothing useful.

I don't think your naive or a hippie. Unless you got a woodstock story you want to share. To me everything you say sounds good on the surface. When you hear about these awful things, happening though and the crimes become real instead of methphor then they begin to feel hollow to me. I use to not beleive in the death penalty. Still don't actually to a degree, which is ironic because think there is alot of people that deserve to die. My problem is with giving the government that much power over it's citizens. The reason though I didn't beleive in it was because I didn't feel like I could push the button or inject the needle if someone asked me to.

The thing is I still proably couldn't do it, but I changed my views on the issue somwhat because I began to feel selfish. That I was putting my emotional views before those of the victims. I don't think some rape victim cares if I don't have the balls to kill someone. They want justice for what happened to them. They don't and shouldn't care what we all think or whats best for society. They have the right to get revenge for what happened to them, provided they can have the proper perspective.

Oviously that is easier said than done which is why I stil think vigilante justice should be illegal but morally I just can't opose it anymore.

Jason