• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma to Continue Lethal Injections After Man Vomits During Execution

Psychology itself (which I never referred to) is largely pseudoscience, and overtly political pseudoscience. It merely follows whatever the current fad is. Like the fact that gender dysphoria was mental illness until one day it suddenly wasn’t.
Incorrect. Psychology is a valid science, has helped millions lead better lives, and has helped to shape public policy for the better. Generally people who wish to claim is it a pseudo-science don't like the direction the facts go and would prefer a more primitive society.
 
Incorrect. Psychology is a valid science, has helped millions lead better lives, and has helped to shape public policy for the better. Generally people who wish to claim is it a pseudo-science don't like the direction the facts go and would prefer a more primitive society.
There is no such thing as “valid science” valid is a term used to denote an argument in the logical sense has a conclusion following its premises. As far as psychology’s accuracy as a science, it exists solely to provide a scientific veneer to left assumptions about how humans should operate. Freud was largely wrong, most of their experiments were either highly unethical or could not be replicated, and very little of note has been accomplished by psychologists. Who are basically priests of the secular religion except they affirm instead of absolve you
 
There is no such thing as “valid science” valid is a term used to denote an argument in the logical sense has a conclusion following its premises.
Incorrect. The fact that you are using advanced technology born of science to argue premise amuses me though.
As far as psychology’s accuracy as a science, it exists solely to provide a scientific veneer to left assumptions about how humans should operate. Freud was largely wrong, most of their experiments were either highly unethical or could not be replicated, and very little of note has been accomplished by psychologists. Who are basically priests of the secular religion except they affirm instead of absolve you
Incorrect, as I already gave an example of contributions made to society by psychology.
 
Incorrect. The fact that you are using advanced technology born of science to argue premise amuses me though.

Incorrect, as I already gave an example of contributions made to society by psychology.
No, you did not. You asserted this and provided zero examples
 
What I asserted is a given, but sure. I will provide a link.

So in other words, you’ve proven my point. Skimming this source it is just leftist polemics. There is nothing in anything I’ve seen to indicate any kind of scientific rigor
 
So in other words, you’ve proven my point. Skimming this source it is just leftist polemics. There is nothing in anything I’ve seen to indicate any kind of scientific rigor
If your point that knowledge is liberal, sure. The silliness about priesthoods and what not is just paranoid nonsense that has no basis in reality.
 
How can you deny deterrence when the recidivism rate for those executed is zero? This brutal murder occurred inside a prison, so obviously locking folks up is not a deterrent either.
deterrence, noun, the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences

If it worked that way murders wouldn't occur.
 
deterrence, noun, the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences

If it worked that way murders wouldn't occur.

Yep, yet criminals (by definition) choose to ignore and/or violate laws. Some people think it odd that mass shootings would occur in ‘gun free’ zones, others see that as a conscious decision by the perp who wanted to have more uninterrupted range time.
 
Yep, yet criminals (by definition) choose to ignore and/or violate laws. Some people think it odd that mass shootings would occur in ‘gun free’ zones, others see that as a conscious decision by the perp who wanted to have more uninterrupted range time.
One factor of gun-free zones that never seems to be included is the reality that the gfz's are big soft target opportunities.
 
That's a good way to execute even more innocent people.

I disagree. I think my scheme provides a solid incentive for the jurors to get it right.

Also, I think that overall it would lead to far fewer juries recommending death, and so fewer executions innocent or not.
 
I disagree. I think my scheme provides a solid incentive for the jurors to get it right.

Also, I think that overall it would lead to far fewer juries recommending death, and so fewer executions innocent or not.

We used to execute people minutes after they were convicted. In the Dark Ages. They were called that for a reason.
 
We used to execute people minutes after they were convicted. In the Dark Ages. They were called that for a reason.

FWIW, the practice continued in places right up to the turn of the 20th century right here in the USA.

My objection is to the way we disconnect the jury making the decision to kill from the act of killing. They aren't condemning a person to death, but to a roulette wheel of appeals, delays, stays, medical claims, corruption claims, etc with no clear outcome. That's not effective justice. It's half-assed nonsense.

I'd be happy to have them strike capitol punishment off the books, rather than know that serious adults in suits are performing that courtroom kabuki.

If jurors knew they were to be involved with the execution directly, they would weigh the decision more seriously, and this would lead to fewer mistakes and fewer executions overall.
 
That would fall under "cruel and unusual" in most states which have banned the use of lethal gas. I have no problem with it, but if asphyxia is the goal, which basically occurs when carbon monoxide is replacing oxygen in the blood stream, then why not just put a plastic bag over the guy's head and seal it off with heavy zip-lock tie. A method which works well and is far less messy.

Pure nitrogen would do the job quickly.

Generally, people pass out after the first breath.
 

It was the state’s first lethal injection since 2015, when it halted executions after using the wrong drug in one instance and allowing a prisoner to regain consciousness in another.

The director of Oklahoma’s prison system said on Friday that he did not plan to make any changes to the agency’s lethal injection protocols, a day after a man vomited while shaking for several minutes during the state’s first execution since 2015.

The man, John Marion Grant, was the first person executed by Oklahoma since prison officials made severe mistakes in previous executions, including using the wrong drug in one instance and, in another, allowing a prisoner to regain consciousness.

Mr. Grant, 60, was convicted of stabbing a prison cafeteria worker to death in 1998.
==========================================================
There is no justification for this in today's society. But this is what you can expect in red states.
Probably every state has an ample supply of Fentanyl, ready for destruction after use in evidence. Having had it for surgery, I can attest that they inject you, you doze off for a few seconds, you wake up in the recovery room without so much as a hangover. If they were to OD you, you simply would not wake up.
 
Back
Top Bottom