- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Regardless your position on the death penalty, this question is for places where it is currently a legal option, and in instances where it would be imposed. This question is also relevant to opponents of the death penalty in a, "If we have and are going to use it anyway..." type of way.
Should a person sentenced to death be allowed to choose the manner in which they are put to death?
Electric chair, hanging, lethal injection, firing squad, whatever.
Note: This thread is NOT about whether or not we should have a death penalty. There are many other threads already addressing that. This thread is also NOT whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, or not. There are plenty of other threads for that, as well.
How so? I have no issue with someone saying, "I prefer <insert method here>.", then the state carrying out said method. Presuming it is a "legit" method.No, opens up too many complications.
How so? I have no issue with someone saying, "I prefer <insert method here>.", then the state carrying out said method. Presuming it is a "legit" method.
Give em a blade at the end of sentencing and say they can take the honorable way out if they so choose. Otherwise they get dumped on a deserted island with nothing, that has nothing, to fend for themselves for as long as they so choose to continue living or they die of natural causes. This way no one kills the perp, but they get removed from society permanently.
Fair points, but if I were in charge we wouldn't have automatic appeals. There have been times when people just wanted to get it over with and have been denied. In a curious way, I think that's wrong, too. I have no issue with making the filing of an appeal easy, but the person should be pro-active about it.Mainly because a death penalty case has too many automatic functions, namely automatic appeals. It makes selecting the method a bit absurd as often the defending party has more political interests than actual interest in the condemned. It adds a layer of complexity for the one condemned to specify the method, when technically we do not allow much say so of someone convicted of a crime to have much say so in the punishment.
The former would be assisted suicide, which is immoral (and criminal). The latter would involve the person who dumped them being proximate you responsible for their death.
I don't see it that way. They have choice. They are just crappy.
Fair points, but if I were in charge we wouldn't have automatic appeals. There have been times when people just wanted to get it over with and have been denied. In a curious way, I think that's wrong, too. I have no issue with making the filing of an appeal easy, but the person should be pro-active about it.
I think we got automatic appeals as an attempt to head off wrongful convictions and executions, then we kept having wrongful convictions because the appeal process is just pretty much a rubber-stamp process, and we finally realized that, but we're stuck with the automatic "protections" as part of the process.It would be basic to argue that automatic appeals have nothing to do with any one case (meaning any one condemned wanting to get it over with,) and everything to do with the politics of the matter. Because we are talking about general flaws in our legal system we have no choice but to force an evaluation of every death penalty case.
Personally I am on the fence about automatic appeals as well, but as of late I have also been on the fence about use of the death penalty regardless. Too problematic and we are one of the few nations left still doing it.
But to your subject, the condemned having a say in how they are executed adds a whole new layer to an existing legal system mess.
How you choose to see things isn't particularly relevant to anyone but you. The laws of causation don't bend to your personal fancy.
Regardless your position on the death penalty, this question is for places where it is currently a legal option, and in instances where it would be imposed. This question is also relevant to opponents of the death penalty in a, "If we have and are going to use it anyway..." type of way.
Should a person sentenced to death be allowed to choose the manner in which they are put to death?
Electric chair, hanging, lethal injection, firing squad, whatever.
Note: This thread is NOT about whether or not we should have a death penalty. There are many other threads already addressing that. This thread is also NOT whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, or not. There are plenty of other threads for that, as well.
You realize the same could be said for your view. Also this be an opinion thread, which means I am bound by nothing but the constraints of the op.
Regardless your position on the death penalty, this question is for places where it is currently a legal option, and in instances where it would be imposed. This question is also relevant to opponents of the death penalty in a, "If we have and are going to use it anyway..." type of way.
Should a person sentenced to death be allowed to choose the manner in which they are put to death?
Electric chair, hanging, lethal injection, firing squad, whatever.
Note: This thread is NOT about whether or not we should have a death penalty. There are many other threads already addressing that. This thread is also NOT whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, or not. There are plenty of other threads for that, as well.
I haven't expressed my views here on how the death penalty should be administered, nor have I asserted counterfactual accounts of causation. So no, the same couldn't be said of me.
Regardless your position on the death penalty, this question is for places where it is currently a legal option, and in instances where it would be imposed. This question is also relevant to opponents of the death penalty in a, "If we have and are going to use it anyway..." type of way.
Should a person sentenced to death be allowed to choose the manner in which they are put to death?
Electric chair, hanging, lethal injection, firing squad, whatever.
Note: This thread is NOT about whether or not we should have a death penalty. There are many other threads already addressing that. This thread is also NOT whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, or not. There are plenty of other threads for that, as well.
Give em a blade at the end of sentencing and say they can take the honorable way out if they so choose. Otherwise they get dumped on a deserted island with nothing, that has nothing, to fend for themselves for as long as they so choose to continue living or they die of natural causes. This way no one kills the perp, but they get removed from society permanently.
That's how we got Australia.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?