Posted on 05/06/2014 9:24:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Lockett deserved a hell of a lot more agony for what he did to that little girl. Now he’s become the poster boy for capital punishment reform?
No, someone was already judged and punished for the specific crime committed by the specific criminal who is being executed for that precise act. That is a type of double jeopardy that is double judgment & double punishment, and is unjust, unrighteous, and immoral.
I am not certain what they mean when “an execution” is botched. If we are measuring on the results, we are batting 1,000. They all end up dead. If they are trying to guess what % of abnormalities occur, we should remember that technology is the order of the day in all things medical, including executions.
Beheading wasn’t even perfect. If a blade was dull, it could get ugly. As in everything human, it boils down to competency of individuals. Let’s not go and re-invent the wheel here.
Shoot them three times with a shotgun and bury them alive. I understand that was 100% effective for Lockett.
I think a 100 lb stone chained to the ankles and dropped into the Mariana Trench out in the Pacific would do the trick. And it would be good for the environment without air pollution or wasted real estate.... Food for the fishies.
So they can feel the pain they caused an eye for an eye.
Make it a 5-pound stone. The process of tirig would be good for them.
Actually, there was an evolution even to perfect hat process. The first generation of guillotines did not have angled blades. They didn't always make it all the way through the neck. In this case, they usually did well to break the neck or at least crush the wind pipe. The angled blade solved that as long as they kept the blade sharp.
re: “No, someone was already judged and punished for the specific crime committed by the specific criminal who is being executed for that precise act. That is a type of double jeopardy that is double judgment & double punishment, and is unjust, unrighteous, and immoral.”
Ok, I’m confused. Are you seriously trying to argue that because Jesus died for our sins, that this man who murdered a little girl should not face the consequences of his crime? Is that the “someone” you are referring to? Or, is there something about this case I am unaware of?
If we are going to go cruel and unusual, put them in a raft in the middle of the Pacific without any food or water with Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer and Elena Kagan. I don't know if he would die of thirst or suicide. But it would be brutal.
> Lethal Injection Is Pretty Much the Worst Way to Execute People. So Why Do We Use It?
Because they won’t let us hose them down with gasoline and burn them alive.
Are you referring to Jesus? I don’t know about this specific case, but you seem to be pointing there. If so, that punishment concerned eternal life. Civil authorities have been instituted by God to restrain evil in the present age. You seem a bit vague, so maybe I went off the rails...
Agreed. Just as war is always a bad option but occasionally better than the other available choices, execution is always a bad option but sometimes better than keeping alive an evil predator who poses a danger to society, to the general prison population, and to prison guards. When evil people make evil choices, sometimes there are no good responses, and you have to settle for the best among a set of bad choices. In the past several decades, I have not heard of a single person executed whom I would prefer to release into society or to keep in prison where the killer might escape, injure or kill a prisoner or a guard, or otherwise inflict more harm on society.
Ok, I’m confused. Are you seriously trying to argue that because Jesus died for our sins, that this man who murdered a little girl should not face the consequences of his crime? Is that the “someone” you are referring to? Or, is there something about this case I am unaware of?
Whoa! I was just getting ready to comment when you swerved that conversation over a cliff. I'm outa here if we are swinging from legal semantics of "Double Jeapordy" to "Jesus' dying for our sins." It's a "Bridge to Far" for me.
Actually, there are almost infinite ways to kill a human being effectively, with “effective” defined as making the guy be All Dead.
Painless is pretty easy too. As some have suggested, why not a large overdose of morphine or heroin? Let em go out not only painlessly, but blissfully.
Or use 100% nitrogen. Displaces oxygen, unconciousness is instant, death following shortly. Leave the mask in place for an hour, certify death, bury him.
Either one of those seem ok.
Well this article seems to be making the case to bring back ‘Ol Sparky.
He confessed to the crime. There were two accomplices but they were not deemed to be the actual murderers.
And if you are talking about Jesus, then let’s not punish any crimes whatsoever because He paid for all our sins, not just murder. :rolleyes:
Killing a human being turns out to be surpassingly hard to do.
Only for our Justice system.........
Human beings have been easily killing other human beings since the dawn of time.....
We just make it more difficult then it needs to be.....
Why don’t they just use second-hand smoke?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.