iclfan2 wrote: What moral complication is there? You shouldn't MURDER someone. Punishing someone to death, imo, is completely different than murdering someone.

completely agree with this. ok how about this. we find some island in the south pacific or somewhere in the amazon and we dump them all there. that way its either nature that kills them or they themselves that kill each other.

killing is killing, period.

That is incorrect. Someone enters my house with a gun and I kill him is 100 x different then me planning out a murder of a fellow citizen. Self-defense, war, "societal self defense" (aka death penalty), are all different than some yahoo going on a shooting spree, drive by, home invasion, etc. If you really think they are all the same then this argument is useless.

no i agree with you iclfan2, that was just a minor thing that in my mind would keep me from wanting the death penalty. my main points are the realities that it does cost more and doesn't appear to be a deterrent.

Actually, I think it IS a deterrent.

It deters us taxpayers for paying for the criminals "comparative" comfort for the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying everybody that is for it is terrible and whatnot, im just saying that based on the research i've done, i've found many reasons to be against it

Sorry to bring this thread back up, but we have been talking about this at school a lot (lethal injection)

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec07/071215a.asp

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjection/LI/euthanasia.html

The second article mentions sodium pentobarbital. We actually use a solution called Euthasol which the main acting ingredients are sodium pentobarbital and sodium phenytoin.

D.J.,

The argument is that if the inmate is not properly sedated by the first drug, the prisoner will experience paralysis, suffocation, and excruciating pain when the other drugs are injected.

Exactly what is it that they want done? An increase of dosage for the first drug? Or are they really wanting to do away with lethal injection altogether? Or are they wanting to use the exact same procedure as used on cats/dogs?

CenterBHSFan wrote: D.J.,

The argument is that if the inmate is not properly sedated by the first drug, the prisoner will experience paralysis, suffocation, and excruciating pain when the other drugs are injected.

Exactly what is it that they want done? An increase of dosage for the first drug? Or are they really wanting to do away with lethal injection altogether? Or are they wanting to use the exact same procedure as used on cats/dogs?

From what we discussed many organizations that are not completely against lethal injection want a single dose cocktail like the Euthasol. Potassium causes a horrific death and some worry that the anesthetic sometimes will not work.

Hmm... I find this pretty interesting! And it just leads to more questions haha!

For instance, is there any evidence that that might be the case? Or could this be just an imaginative fear?
Would the practice of just increasing the first shots dosage allay those fears?

*Off topic
Why do so little vets practice small animal work?

CenterBHSFan wrote: Hmm... I find this pretty interesting! And it just leads to more questions haha!

For instance, is there any evidence that that might be the case? Or could this be just an imaginative fear?
Would the practice of just increasing the first shots dosage allay those fears?

*Off topic
Why do so little vets practice small animal work?

From what I gather the fear is from the paralyzation that the second drug causes. In other words, if the first did not work like it was supposed to the person will be paralyzed and would not be able to express pain or anything like that. So basically the major heart attack that the 3rd drug causes could cause a horiffic death and by our standard of care, would not be considered humane on an otherwise healthy patient.

Funny you ask about small animal practice. Columbus Ohio is completely oversaturated with small animal vets. Large animal vets are lacking. The government has been proposing scholarships for people who want to solely work on large animal.

dubnine wrote: no i agree with you iclfan2, that was just a minor thing that in my mind would keep me from wanting the death penalty. my main points are the realities that it does cost more and doesn't appear to be a deterrent.

It's called natural selection. The death penalty just speeds up the process. Did you know for a long time in China if you committed a major crime (such as murder) and were found guilty, about a half an hour after the trial was over, they'd take you out back and shoot you in the back of the head, and bill your family for the cost of the bullet.

Life is sacred, do not kill.

I really don't care if the criminal sees the death penalty as a deterrent or not, he won't be around afterward to complain about it.

I want to see the death penalty for child molesters, rapists, and murderers altogether. They are the scum of society and should be treated as such.

I would also like to see leaders of gangs included.

mtgrad_2013 wrote: Life is sacred, do not kill.

J.A. Muhammad's life was sacred?

^^Just throw them in prison for life without parole.

Pretty straight forward here.......are you for it or against it and why?

The execution in Ohio today made me think of it.

Personally I am completely against the death penalty because I do not believe humans have the right to decide who lives and who dies, even if that person broke that rule and murdered someone themselves, I believe we are just as bad as the murderers when we put people to death.

Add in the other factors such as botched executions, the chance we can be executing innocent people, and we are the only "civilized" nation on earth who still practices it, I don't see how it is still legal.

Oh and before someone says "what if someone killed your brother/mother/girlfriend etc." YES I would want that person to die but I'm really not of the opinion that emotionally unstable people make very logical decisions.

Also, reference this thread
http://www.freehuddle.com/thread-186.html

One innocent person being executed is far worse than any number of guilty not being executed.

Yes, I've been through the whole process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Edwin_Fox

That douchebag killed my cousin and therefore was executed by the State of Ohio.

Keep it legal, the advancement in technology is removing a ton of innocent people from prison and putting away the correct criminals. The forensics will only get better over time imo.

For it, but I don't care that much. I don't see any good arguments to get rid of it, so why not keep it?

fan_from_texas wrote: For it, but I don't care that much. I don't see any good arguments to get rid of it, so why not keep it?

How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

I Wear Pants wrote:How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

We need to keep the death penalty as an option and trust that our system of justice actually works. I like the track record.

For it. Cook 'em up....over easy.

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

We need to keep the death penalty as an option and trust that our system of justice actually works. I like the track record.

Explain. I fail to see how we "need" it. Its clearly not deterring any criminals.