welcome to unintended consequences

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
In the liberals pursuit of ways to end capital punishment by removing the availability of drugs used in lethal injection, Virginia legislators approve mandating the electric chair.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/03/...4151/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&intcmp=hplnws

The Virginia state Senate on Monday approved a bill making the electric chair the default method of execution if lethal injection drugs are unavailable.

The bill passed the Republican-controlled Senate by a 22-17 vote. The Republican-dominated House has already approved the measure.

After a lower chamber vote on a minor amendment, the measure will go to Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe for approval. A spokesman for the governor said the measure would be reviewed when it arrived.

Virginia is one of eight states that allows electrocution as a method of execution, letting condemned inmates choose between it and lethal injection. If they do not choose, lethal injection is used.

Virginia, along with other states, has struggled to get lethal injection drugs because pharmaceutical companies have protested their use in executions.
 
In extreme cases, I think I could solve the problem entirely. You put the worst of the worst (like that guy who cut a woman open to kill the baby and then killed her) in a tiny little room just wide enough to hold a bed. Then you sever their spinal cord in order to cause quadriplegia. Then you insert a feeding tube that sustains their life (the contents thereof supplied by non-death-row inmates making the nutrient liquid). Then you wall them up and leave them there so they can experience a life of being totally unable to move, trapped in their own bodies and soiling themselves until infection or nature causes death. (And the liberals like to think I'm a nice guy.)

The rest? Rope is damned cheap.

Executions are ineffective as a deterrent because they happen privately and as humanely as possible.

If you want executions to deter people from engaging in illegal activities, they should be horribly brutal and public.

And yep, I'm for that.
 
The troubles with the death penalty are a) it's barbaric, 2) it is uncivilized, and iii) it's irreversible when wrongful convictions occur.
 
firing squad if we must keep death penalty. Lethal injection and electric chair is cruel and unusual punishment.
I'd just abolish it I had my way, it serves no purpose to extract justice; just revenge
 
Stelakh said:
In extreme cases, I think I could solve the problem entirely. You put the worst of the worst (like that guy who cut a woman open to kill the baby and then killed her) in a tiny little room just wide enough to hold a bed. Then you sever their spinal cord in order to cause quadriplegia. Then you insert a feeding tube that sustains their life (the contents thereof supplied by non-death-row inmates making the nutrient liquid). Then you wall them up and leave them there so they can experience a life of being totally unable to move, trapped in their own bodies and soiling themselves until infection or nature causes death. (And the liberals like to think I'm a nice guy.)

The rest? Rope is damned cheap.

Executions are ineffective as a deterrent because they happen privately and as humanely as possible.

If you want executions to deter people from engaging in illegal activities, they should be horribly brutal and public.

And yep, I'm for that.
Click to expand...

And if the man is innocent?
 
Stelakh said:
In extreme cases, I think I could solve the problem entirely. You put the worst of the worst (like that guy who cut a woman open to kill the baby and then killed her) in a tiny little room just wide enough to hold a bed. Then you sever their spinal cord in order to cause quadriplegia. Then you insert a feeding tube that sustains their life (the contents thereof supplied by non-death-row inmates making the nutrient liquid). Then you wall them up and leave them there so they can experience a life of being totally unable to move, trapped in their own bodies and soiling themselves until infection or nature causes death. (And the liberals like to think I'm a nice guy.)

The rest? Rope is damned cheap.

Executions are ineffective as a deterrent because they happen privately and as humanely as possible.

If you want executions to deter people from engaging in illegal activities, they should be horribly brutal and public.

And yep, I'm for that.
Click to expand...

Capital punishment becomes less of a deterrent when there is a long period between crime and punishnent.
People here in VA got a good deterrent when we offer the Briley brothers in under 2 years.
Have constitutionally mandated speedy trials and you solve that.
What you suggest is cruel and unusual.
We have plenty of electricity.
 
Celticguy said:
Capital punishment becomes less of a deterrent when there is a long period between crime and punishnent.
People here in VA got a good deterrent when we offer the Briley brothers in under 2 years.
Have constitutionally mandated speedy trials and you solve that.
What you suggest is cruel and unusual.
We have plenty of electricity.
Click to expand...

Of course it's cruel and unusual. That's rather the point.

I would argue that someone, as in the case I reference, who is not only capable of but in fact has opened a woman's abdomen to kill her unborn baby and then kills her is not someone who deserves anything but cruel and unusual punishment.

Speedy trials are not a silver bullet, either. Speedy trials is where you wind up with a heightened incidence of sending wrongfully accused to their deaths.

And no, I am not oblivious to the possibility of wrongfully accused. But when someone (take the two in England who butchered a man in the streets and then shot a video to post online) is irrefutably guilty, we need to stop calling them "alleged murderers" (as in this example) and trot out the cruel and unusual.

It is cruel and unusual punishment to force the care of clearly guilty (as in that case and so many others) on the state and, in turn, its citizens. Want to save some money in the budget? Stop coddling people who have committed the most heinous and reprehensible crimes.

I am not in favor of outright killing someone who is not irrefutably guilty, nor would I revel in the death of someone who is, but at some point, the punishment should fit the crime, and for those who commit such unspeakable acts, there is no reason they should be treated "humanely."
 
Stelakh said:
In extreme cases, I think I could solve the problem entirely. You put the worst of the worst (like that guy who cut a woman open to kill the baby and then killed her) in a tiny little room just wide enough to hold a bed. Then you sever their spinal cord in order to cause quadriplegia. Then you insert a feeding tube that sustains their life (the contents thereof supplied by non-death-row inmates making the nutrient liquid). Then you wall them up and leave them there so they can experience a life of being totally unable to move, trapped in their own bodies and soiling themselves until infection or nature causes death. (And the liberals like to think I'm a nice guy.)

The rest? Rope is damned cheap.

Executions are ineffective as a deterrent because they happen privately and as humanely as possible.

If you want executions to deter people from engaging in illegal activities, they should be horribly brutal and public.

And yep, I'm for that.
Click to expand...

Were you masturbating while you wrote this?
 
People who believe in the death penalty should be subjected to the death penalty. It is justice to dehumanize those who dehumanize others.
 
Stelakh said:
Of course it's cruel and unusual. That's rather the point.

I would argue that someone, as in the case I reference, who is not only capable of but in fact has opened a woman's abdomen to kill her unborn baby and then kills her is not someone who deserves anything but cruel and unusual punishment.

Speedy trials are not a silver bullet, either. Speedy trials is where you wind up with a heightened incidence of sending wrongfully accused to their deaths.

And no, I am not oblivious to the possibility of wrongfully accused. But when someone (take the two in England who butchered a man in the streets and then shot a video to post online) is irrefutably guilty, we need to stop calling them "alleged murderers" (as in this example) and trot out the cruel and unusual.

It is cruel and unusual punishment to force the care of clearly guilty (as in that case and so many others) on the state and, in turn, its citizens. Want to save some money in the budget? Stop coddling people who have committed the most heinous and reprehensible crimes.

I am not in favor of outright killing someone who is not irrefutably guilty, nor would I revel in the death of someone who is, but at some point, the punishment should fit the crime, and for those who commit such unspeakable acts, there is no reason they should be treated "humanely."
Click to expand...

I think we should subject you to the treatment you advocate for other humans. I see no rain that anyone who believes in torturing people to death should be allowed to continue breathing and wasting our air. You just get off on the thoughts of other humans suffering and being tortured. Why don't you masturbate, or watch television? The justice system should not be used as your own personal form of entertainment. You are a disgusting animal and should be treated like an animal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top