Nine months after Kenneth Smith’s botched lethal injection, state attorney general has asked for approval to kill him with nitrogen

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what else is cruel? People killing other people. And the former continuing to live despite their cruelty.

    The only rub against execution to me is the risk of executing the innocent. But that is not the concern here. There is no dispute this guy is guilty.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capital punishment is government sanctioned killing. Outside of war, the government should not have the power to kill anyone.

      Let them rot in prison. It’s cheaper anyway.

      Abolish capital punishment.

      • derf82@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except them rotting in prison is cruel and unusual punishment. No, they get shelter, 3 meals a day, healthcare when they need it, and even recreation.

        And I’m anti-war. It’s ok for innocents to fight and kill each other, but not to kill murderers?

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The government shouldn’t be sanctioning killing. Period.

          Other than Japan, the US is the only Western country left with this primitive, revenge-based way of looking at crime and punishment. Yet, the US continues to be the most violent country of them all and the murder capital of the Western world.

          Usually, when something doesn’t work, we try something else. Time for the US to try something else.

          • derf82@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The US is likely more violent due to a combination of corrupt capitalism and lead poisoning.

            We do need to try something else, but that something else is in terms of economics, infrastructure, and healthcare, not punishment.

            • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              do need to try something else, but that something else is in terms of economics, infrastructure, and healthcare

              I definitely agree there, especially in healthcare. What an awful mess in the US when you look at how successful other countries are with universal healthcare.

              But I will just never accept capital punishment. It’s such an awful way to seek revenge. It’s especially surprising that conservatives love the concept of government power extending to killing its own citizens. And evangelicals who are commanded by Jesus himself to turn the other cheek and seek forgiveness. I know they are backward on many things, but this seems particularly egregious.

              • derf82@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                See, you are assuming it’s about revenge. No, it is just acknowledging that what is done is so awful, you have to take the consequence to the next level.

                And while I get wanting to call out evangelical hypocrisy, the Bible should have nothing to do with policy. Besides, the most famous supposedly anti-death penalty account was likely added years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

                • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, I definitely assume it’s about revenge, because, to most people, it’s about revenge. You might call is “justice.” I call it revenge. It’s an eye for an eye. It’s old testament, and Jesus specifically pointed it out as wrong many times. Not only in the story you mentioned. Yet, here we are.

                  • derf82@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It is a punishment to fit the crime, as it should be.

                    When else does Jesus talk specifically about the death penalty? He was talking about getting hit with turn the other cheek. You can’t turn the other cheek when you are dead.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only rub against execution to me is the risk of executing the innocent.

      Right, so why is that not a total disqualifier then? Even if the risk is fleeting small, there is no taking it back. If it came out later on, dead is dead. Combining that with the fact that executions are obv a psychological cluster fuck for everyone who deals with it, especially the one executed, and the fact that it takes a lot of resources every trial because it’s such an unusually cruel punishment, the arguments for it are dwindling.

      Also

      You know what else is cruel? People killing other people.

      Right but we’re not voting someone in office who can eliminate all homicides in the United States. Things are different for execution.

      We could also talk about how this “well tough shit” opinion always fucks over positive and healthy change, but that’s probably the least impactful argument for the folks who still bank on executions as some sort of greater good.

      • derf82@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Read the rest of what I said. There is no doubt here. I do think the death penalty should require a higher standard of guilt. But some people, through their actions, simply have forfeited their right to live.

        • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Glad to have it straight from the moral arbiter of the universe, someone who feels they can personally determine, from a safe distance, whether someone has forfeited their life. Otherwise I’d be seriously worried the state was carrying out a horribly immoral practice that regularly results in murder of innocents in order to deliver, at best, the short-lived false victory of vengeance, for the low priceof permanently extinguishing of a human life. Which I’ll remind you doesn’t bring back their victims.

            • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I know, me pointing out that the pompous way you phrased your opinion made it sound like you thought you were expounding on universal truths isn’t going to stop you. It wasn’t intended to. Maybe if you don’t want pushback next time, avoid the phrase “have forfeited their right to live.”

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know what else is cruel? People killing other people.

      Then why aren’t you advocating for executing those that execute killers? After all, they kill people. But I’m going to assume that you think those killers are okay.

      • derf82@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Executions are generally set up so no one person is responsible for the person’s death. And they generally volunteer.

        How are they different from a war veteran that killed somebody during war?

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Executions are generally set up so no one person is responsible for the person’s death. And they generally volunteer.

          Okay. Why not kill all those who might be the killer? If not, why allow the spreading of the responsibility? If two guys beat someone up and kill them, would you be as lenient, considering we don’t know which one actually killed them?

          How are they different from a war veteran that killed somebody during war?

          In war often there is no choice (at least if you’re defending - I don’t condone wars of aggression). With death row inmates we do have a choice! You understand the difference, right?

          • derf82@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

            So you are ok sending the innocent to die, but refuse to condemn the guilty? I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

              So people killing people is okay if the right people kill the right people?

              So you are ok sending the innocent to die

              No, defending yourself is different from “sending the innocent to die”. If the choice is to die peacefully or to die fighting, the latter is the better option, since you might not die.

              but refuse to condemn the guilty?

              Where did I say anything about not condemning the guilty? Is killing other people the only way to satisfy your dismay for them, even if you’ll kill innocent people this way?

              I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

              Then why do states with the death penalty keep killing innocent people, even though this is supposedly already the standard? You’re the one who wants innocent people to die.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t ‘people killing other people’ include the state killing people? I don’t see how vengeance for a murder solves anything.

          • derf82@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because they are carrying out a judgement. We don’t toss prison guards in jail for false imprisonment. We don’t send IRS agents to jail for theft.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No. It’s killing people either way.

                  Do they survive in either? Did they die of some natural disaster or disease? No. They were killed. I don’t even know why you think this is arguable unless you don’t know what ‘killed’ means.