State brings back electric chair

[Skull Pilot]

i dont get that....why skull? i am for the firing squad if we have to kill them that way....i still say harvest.....you do realize that was part of dr kevorkian plans....to go to the later stages of his plan included voluntary organs donors being harvested just after they died.....but that would be in a controlled environment not in a coyote hotel room.....

"We wantonly squander priceless opportunities to study ourselves and our living brains, as well as new ways to make us wiser, healthier and happier. We snuff out lives of criminals eager to make amends by donating their organs and helping science unlock some of nature's deepest secrets." 6

Euthanasia and Jack Kevorkian | The Life Resources Charitable Trust

It's fast, inexpensive, easily maintained and if the scum bag getting executed is given a $5 dose of sodium pentothal he won't feel a thing.

It's possible for one to survive a firing squad and even an electric chair but no one has ever survived the removal of the head from the body.

 

[strollingbones]

in reality this is gonna shut down the death penalty in the us

 

[martybegan]

Southern Red State Barbeque!

BBQ is low and slow cooking. The electric chair is fast and hot.

Get your analogies right will ya.

I think the proper term for the chair is "Searing"

 

[martybegan]

i have given you the downside of hanging.....now think about it....quick and painless all the focus on the dude or dudette being executed or perhaps a method that allows harvesting...and i hate to say this but if we want to harvest......all you have to do is put them under and harvest....oddly they will die without those organs....is that inhumane?

I'm less about pain during execution (don't care if it happens though) and more about general indignity leading up to it. hanging to me is the least honorable method of being killed, with being allowed suppuku first, then firing squad, the guillontine/beheading, then single shooter, then chair/gas chamber, then injection, and finally hanging.

The problem with death from harvesting is you are asking a doctor to kill a "patient"

marty i got one word for ya here.....mengele.....


i dont see a problem at all...pay them enough money and they will line up to break that hippocratic oath

You will be able to find some, but the rest of the doctors will raise such a stink it just wouldn't work.

 

[strollingbones]

what the ama is gonna start policing themselves....

takes marty by the hand....come on honey i got some unicorns in the back yard you may enjoy

 

[martybegan]

what the ama is gonna start policing themselves....

takes marty by the hand....come on honey i got some unicorns in the back yard you may enjoy

There are alot of questionable things doctors do, but they all can be considered doing something "positive" for the patient, i.e. "do no harm"

Harvesting organs as a form of execution does not pass the "do no harm" test, not even close.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

Death by harvesting would find its way into the official community inevitably; many humans are simply perverse.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

The outcome, I believe, will laws that allow execution with facts dictating the condemned will be incarcerated for life.

 

[martybegan]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

For some people maybe, for others its justice served.

If you feel the need to take a life without cause, the government should be able to take yours, after due process of course.

 

[Ringel05]

what the ama is gonna start policing themselves....

takes marty by the hand....come on honey i got some unicorns in the back yard you may enjoy

There are alot of questionable things doctors do, but they all can be considered doing something "positive" for the patient, i.e. "do no harm"

Harvesting organs as a form of execution does not pass the "do no harm" test, not even close.

Only if the "patient" is still alive......... Uuummmm........

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

Death by harvesting would find its way into the official community inevitably; many humans are simply perverse.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

The outcome, I believe, will laws that allow execution with facts dictating the condemned will be incarcerated for life.

More stupidity coming from a leftard.

If executions debased juries then juries would not sentence people to death. Or do you think people just like to debase themselves?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

For some people maybe, for others its justice served.

If you feel the need to take a life without cause, the government should be able to take yours, after due process of course.

I know that many Americans believe that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

Death by harvesting would find its way into the official community inevitably; many humans are simply perverse.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

The outcome, I believe, will laws that allow execution with facts dictating the condemned will be incarcerated for life.

More stupidity coming from a leftard.

Simply a whine from a debased individual, hmm, who launches a slur in what has been a fairly decent conversation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Stoning would be an excellent method of execution for organ transplant. ..

Yes, but only applied to other people, never to the people pushing the law!

If everyone were made subject to the rules they push,
maybe we wouldn't be so quick to cast stones, would we?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

Death by harvesting would find its way into the official community inevitably; many humans are simply perverse.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

The outcome, I believe, will laws that allow execution with facts dictating the condemned will be incarcerated for life.

More stupidity coming from a leftard.

Simply a whine from a debased individual, hmm, who launches a slur in what has been a fairly decent conversation.

If you call stupidity decent then you're right.

Face it, you just stated that condemning a man to death debases a jury. Yet juries routinely sentences people to death. Your claim made no sense, therefore it was stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

For some people maybe, for others its justice served.

If you feel the need to take a life without cause, the government should be able to take yours, after due process of course.

OK so why not require all citizens to sign an agreement for legal and financial responsibility?

If some districts/states believe in taking a life for a life, then require residents to AGREE to pay ALL COSTS associated with this so the taxpayers are not punished multiple times for crimes of others.

If people agree to LIFETIME restitution, or deportation for committing premeditated crimes abusing firearms or weapons,
let that be written in the SIGNED contract for citizenship, spelling out all costs involved of arrest, investigation, prosecution and incarceration.
If Democrats believe in making people buy insurance, what about insurance to cover the costs of crime, damages and imprisonment?

The right and costs of defense in criminal cases is supposed to be provided by the state,
but why not require FULL cooperation and disclosure in order to invoke this benefit?
So it doesn't incur more costs on the public to deny or withhold information
that could have settled the case and prevent the obstruction of due process/justice for other people?

Why not add requirements in order to enjoy the privileges of citizenship
including requirements in order to have right of counsel/defense paid for by the public?

Note: if people have some mental or criminal behavioral conditions that requires rehab or treatment,
that does not mean to discriminate against such people with a disability; but the state could require
treatment, detention or monitoring of dangerous conditions that pose a threat to personal health and public safety.
Someone still should be required to take legal responsibility should such people cause damages to others,
so if residents or citizens are not legally competent to sign for financial responsibility, this should require a legal guardian
cosigner or cosponsor who will, similar to how employers or organizations can sponsor an immigrant on temporary visas.

Democrats should have gone after the criminal justice issues at the same time as health care reform.
People who have committed no crimes should not be subject to penalties or regulations depriving lawabiding citizens of liberty.
But people who have committed crimes or have no intention of paying their costs they incurred on others
should be the ones held responsible for dumping their costs on the public.

There should be some method of "due process" set up to determine who is responsible for which costs and consequences of their own actions,
and not keep punishing law abiding citizens by taking rights away or adding more taxes "to cover costs of the misconduct or crimes of others."

 

[namvet]

strap these 2 cocksuckers in first and throw the switch. fry em !!!

 

[Iceweasel]

Seeing Ole Sparky come back brought a tear to my eye. You just can't beat the graphic romanticism of "The Chair". I'm looking forward to once again hearing things like "Bubba Reese got the chair."

 

[emilynghiem]

Execution debases all involved from jury to the those involved down the years to those doing the deed.

Death by harvesting would find its way into the official community inevitably; many humans are simply perverse.

However, some crimes are so heinous that execution are necessary vengeance and punishment, in my opinion.

The outcome, I believe, will laws that allow execution with facts dictating the condemned will be incarcerated for life.

I believe that since spiritual and religious beliefs and judgments are involved in the decision to take a life in order to serve some "higher justice"
this should only be conducted by consensus with all parties, out of equal respect protection and inclusion of all people so nobody's beliefs about justice are denied but are fully addressed.

if anyone does not believe it is right or consistent, then if the state pushes for the execution, it is basically imposing a belief over the equal beliefs of other people.
I do not believe the govt has the right or authority to do this WITHOUT the consent of all the people whose beliefs should be represented equally in order to PREVENT imposition by govt or discrimination against persons. Thus, a consensus would be needed to ensure ALL conflicts are resolved and the state authority is not abused to exclude, impose or discriminate on the basis of belief.

In order to enforce equal protection of all beliefs and interests under law, with govt authority backing a neutral and all inclusive policy without discrimination, I believe that in cases of religious conflicts, including the death penalty, there should be a consensus as the standard of proof that it is necessary by law and NOT dictating or violating religious or spiritual beliefs for anyone affected in the case.
(for taxpayers paying for the process, there should be equal option to fund alternative restorative justice or restitution plans or prison programs if people do not believe in funding executions.
for people who violate the beliefs of others by their crimes, this must be resolved first in the process of determining proper restitution or consequences owed, where a consensus decision
would serve as the standard of proof that all such issues were resolved for justice sake. Only if the guilty party refuses to cooperate, but takes the fifth amendment, they should likewise forfeit all other
rights and let the state decide for them; if they want the right to due process, defense and petition, they should be required to cooperate fully and disclose all information freely so as not to object justice.
If people cannot agree to respect due process as part of the law, they should not even be allowed rights of citizenship to begin with, where enforcing the laws depends on respecting that process.)

In that case, if there was agreement, then there would not be these long drawn out processes and appeals.
All the people involved in the case should have equal right to closure, healing and full restitution for the wrongdoing, injuries and debts/damages/costs, as they believe in.

All this is necessary for justice, so the people should agree on that process especially where execution is involved.

I don't see how you can get away from the spiritual and religious beliefs people have, whether they call it religious or not. The state cannot impose this for people, but people must agree and so the govt REFLECTS a consensus decision by the people, not govt imposing on people -- in order NOT to have the govt cross the line and start imposing decisions in place of religious authority.

 

[emilynghiem]

strap these 2 cocksuckers in first and throw the switch. fry em !!!

Isn't this the same attitude that criminals have toward others they target?

I thought the point of executions was to DETER crime not encourage
more people to think like this. Isn't this defeating the purpose if it promotes killing?

 

[martybegan]

what the ama is gonna start policing themselves....

takes marty by the hand....come on honey i got some unicorns in the back yard you may enjoy

There are alot of questionable things doctors do, but they all can be considered doing something "positive" for the patient, i.e. "do no harm"

Harvesting organs as a form of execution does not pass the "do no harm" test, not even close.

Only if the "patient" is still alive......... Uuummmm........

The concept from Strolling as I understood it would be to anesthetize the person, remove said organs, and then let them expire while under.

They would be "alive" during the extraction and then left to die.