Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
The government should never be allowed to put its own citizens to death. The government is not infallible. The government has put innocent people to death.
The same government can't even be trusted to reliably fix a pothole.
Boomer humor. Government did something imperfect or not to MY personal standards therefore the whole thing is shit. Hahahahhahahahahaha aren't I funny?
/s
Subjecting human beings to inhumane torture by consistently failing to kill them is so far below anybody's standards for a death sentence that the mere action itself should be illegal.
No, the whole thing really is shit.
Okay, then just go ahead and whip out a better system. I'm waiting lol
Do not execute people.
Wow that was easy.
Just don't live near Robert Bedella or Jeffery Dharma! Simple!
Or Jimmy Savile...
....or Jack the Ripper. Or any number of people who are lifetime murderers, rapists, torturers, criminals.
Simple!
Yeah because we've only two forms of punishment: slap on the wrists or execution. There's nothing in between.
Feel free to go live off the grid and no longer enjoy all the everyday qualities of life that are a result of government that you take for granted.
If your spouse or child were imperfect would you also toss them in the trash?
this is such a fucking strawman holy shit
Edit: just looked through your comment history, honestly you should probably live off the grid you are a net negative to society
Imagine wasting your life reading other peoples post history on a site that doesn't matter.
How's it feel to me the old man screeching about the way elvis moves his hips.
Cruelty is the point for conservatives
Yeah, I'm pretty sure* they took a method that was supposed to give a clean painless death and deliberately implemented it in a way that would cause agony.
Edit: after further reading about this, there are other possible mechanisms that could have lead to that first one being in agony, so it is possible that the nitrogen asphyxiation method was approached and implemented in good faith while still causing agony. Though I'd say continuing to use it despite how the first one went does bring that good faith into question plus the possibility of good faith doesn't imply it wasn't in bad faith, but I no longer stand by that "pretty sure" I originally stated above.
Cruel and unusual. Unconstitutional.
Regardless of the method of execution, imagine knowing the exact date and time of your death and knowing nothing you could do would stop it. That is torture, plain and simple. It should be in violation of the eighth amendment.
Consider Japan, who does it differently. Death row inmates in Japan are not told their execution dates, as they had issues with people committing suicide before they could be executed. So now they only find out with just a few hours of notice when they're going to be executed. You could be sitting in your cell, ten years into your sentence, enjoying an otherwise ordinary, quiet day in prison, only to be told that it's time to die, whether you're ready for it or not, the equipment and staff are already prepared and there's no time left to argue your case.
Honestly, I don't know which one is "better". They're both cruel in their own ways.
But also, apparently all of the available methods of execution barely work at all because of gross incompetence of the people who create the systems. That's the more important issue, here, imo. The state clearly isn't capable of serving a death sentence, nor do I expect they ever will be, so they shouldn't even have the right.
I don't think they should have the right if they are capable. The power of life and death over its citizenry is not a power a state should ever have.
I'm a consequentialist with aversion to suffering, so I think there are some very rare cases where it would be warranted if reform were considered truly impossible or would cause more suffering than it is worth, such as older or insane accused with very solid evidence convictions by a jury of peers.
Hard choices exist in this world, people sometimes have to choose what they can protect.
I'm really not understanding your argument. What does this 'suffering' have to be worth? And if an elderly or mentally ill person suffers in prison, that sounds like we should make prison a less horrible place, not euthanize people we feel deserve it.
I'm operating in the very real world assumptions that the restrictions of freedom of a large class of people will never so easily be made "a less horrible place." This is far moreso true for chronic mental illness care. I don't have a plan for any of that, and it doesn't appear as though you do, either, so instead a simple solution is to only give a death sentence under very specific and hard to establish conditions agreed upon by a majority of people.
The plan is caring for mentally ill people with psychiatric supervision, possibly medication and/or therapy, something our prison system doesn't offer, not killing them. You're doing the "I shot the dog because he was untrainable and killed chickens" Kristi Noem defense, except for killing people.
Psychiatric Supervision, Medication, and Therapy don't necessarily eliminate all suffering, and certainly have no guarantee of reform or a cure. Kristi Noem had a perfectly fine young animal capable of training by qualified owners of which many were likely available in her area, she instead chose to kill her dog. This is a great example of how outcomes with excess suffering are always worse and that many people are too mentally incompetent to weigh their options. If her dog were judged by a jury, it would have been acquitted.
Who gets to decide that people are too mentally ill to be kept alive and why is it up to them?
A judge and jury of peers adhering to very strict legal definitions and sentencing guidelines written by a democratically elected congress, because after thousands of years that's the best system we've ever developed to reduce harm and promote equality and wellbeing for the majority of people. It's not one person deciding the fate of another, it's all of us deciding the fate of individuals for the benefit of us all.
So people who have no actual expert knowledge of mental health or mental health treatment? And you want this congress to be responsible for deciding who lives and who dies?
So you think Doctors should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies? I'm going to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how many doctors are on an average jury bench, but they're pretty commonly used as character witness testimony.
You seem to imply that I'm defending the actions of the state of Alabama when I've only ever been critical of them in this entire discussion.
No, I don't think anyone should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies. I'm not sure why that isn't clear to you yet.
You've made it very clear that you think differently than I do, and you started this conversation by asking me to explain my thoughts which I did very clearly. Perhaps you're projecting the confusion you feel.
I believe you'll find that you replied to my initial comment. So you would be the one who started this conversation. I didn't make you respond to me.
That's fair, but I also didn't ask you any questions. Takes two to tango.
Don't they have bullets? Gassing people seems very cruel and unusual. Being shot is not unusual.
I'm not pro-death penalty, but if it's going to be done at least get the shit right.
I feel like if they fuck it up your sentence it should be commuted. They shouldn't get a do-over.
It's not the case here, but fuckups tend to happen when the person is morbidly obese and therefore a vein can't be found.
Not making a point one way or another, just sharing a bit of information. This is a problem in the medical field as well.
This attempt had nothing to do with the failures of lethal injection. They tried to fill a room with 0% oxygen and it failed spectacularly causing suffering and trauma, but not death.
That's why I started with "not the case here".
That's fair.
If you survive one execution I don't think they should be allowed a do over, let him live in his cell, he earned it.
I've heard (don't know if it's true) that in the old days if you survived a hanging then you were allowed to live
I'd always heard the sentence 'hung by the neck until dead' was taken literally: If you survived the drop, you're just gonna be hanging there longer. The result is the same.
I’m gonna be pedantic for a second, hanged* not “hung”
I reject your pedantry, you've learnt a different localized lexicon and your defence of the specifics of the English language ain't gonna hold up.
Barbaric