286
Alabama sets nitrogen-gas execution for man who survived botched 2022 effort
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
286 points (98.3% liked)
News
23424 readers
1525 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Regardless of the method of execution, imagine knowing the exact date and time of your death and knowing nothing you could do would stop it. That is torture, plain and simple. It should be in violation of the eighth amendment.
Consider Japan, who does it differently. Death row inmates in Japan are not told their execution dates, as they had issues with people committing suicide before they could be executed. So now they only find out with just a few hours of notice when they're going to be executed. You could be sitting in your cell, ten years into your sentence, enjoying an otherwise ordinary, quiet day in prison, only to be told that it's time to die, whether you're ready for it or not, the equipment and staff are already prepared and there's no time left to argue your case.
Honestly, I don't know which one is "better". They're both cruel in their own ways.
The better one is no death penalty at all.
"Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."
As you wish.
Or is it cruel to make someone wake up and ask "is this the day that I will die?"
That’s just life
Not for much longer
Sieze the day
It's been ruled that a punishment needs to be BOTH cruel AND unusual, to qualify as a violation. One or the other is fine, as long as it's not both. Scalping someone for petty theft would be okay as long as most-everyone convicted got scalped.
In this specific case, I wouldn't call it usual and it certainly is cruel.
I would also argue that, since it is not applied evenly in any way and that only a minority of people get the death penalty, even though some people who don't get it have committed worse crimes, it is always unusual. Usual is prison for some length of time, possibly life.
I would also add that SCOTUS found it both cruel and unusual at one point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia
Then it was reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia because SCOTUS claimed that some states met some arbitrary criteria they didn't actually meet.
But also, apparently all of the available methods of execution barely work at all because of gross incompetence of the people who create the systems. That's the more important issue, here, imo. The state clearly isn't capable of serving a death sentence, nor do I expect they ever will be, so they shouldn't even have the right.
I don't think they should have the right if they are capable. The power of life and death over its citizenry is not a power a state should ever have.
I'm a consequentialist with aversion to suffering, so I think there are some very rare cases where it would be warranted if reform were considered truly impossible or would cause more suffering than it is worth, such as older or insane accused with very solid evidence convictions by a jury of peers.
Hard choices exist in this world, people sometimes have to choose what they can protect.
I'm really not understanding your argument. What does this 'suffering' have to be worth? And if an elderly or mentally ill person suffers in prison, that sounds like we should make prison a less horrible place, not euthanize people we feel deserve it.
I'm operating in the very real world assumptions that the restrictions of freedom of a large class of people will never so easily be made "a less horrible place." This is far moreso true for chronic mental illness care. I don't have a plan for any of that, and it doesn't appear as though you do, either, so instead a simple solution is to only give a death sentence under very specific and hard to establish conditions agreed upon by a majority of people.
The plan is caring for mentally ill people with psychiatric supervision, possibly medication and/or therapy, something our prison system doesn't offer, not killing them. You're doing the "I shot the dog because he was untrainable and killed chickens" Kristi Noem defense, except for killing people.
Psychiatric Supervision, Medication, and Therapy don't necessarily eliminate all suffering, and certainly have no guarantee of reform or a cure. Kristi Noem had a perfectly fine young animal capable of training by qualified owners of which many were likely available in her area, she instead chose to kill her dog. This is a great example of how outcomes with excess suffering are always worse and that many people are too mentally incompetent to weigh their options. If her dog were judged by a jury, it would have been acquitted.
Who gets to decide that people are too mentally ill to be kept alive and why is it up to them?
A judge and jury of peers adhering to very strict legal definitions and sentencing guidelines written by a democratically elected congress, because after thousands of years that's the best system we've ever developed to reduce harm and promote equality and wellbeing for the majority of people. It's not one person deciding the fate of another, it's all of us deciding the fate of individuals for the benefit of us all.
So people who have no actual expert knowledge of mental health or mental health treatment? And you want this congress to be responsible for deciding who lives and who dies?
So you think Doctors should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies? I'm going to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how many doctors are on an average jury bench, but they're pretty commonly used as character witness testimony.
You seem to imply that I'm defending the actions of the state of Alabama when I've only ever been critical of them in this entire discussion.
No, I don't think anyone should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies. I'm not sure why that isn't clear to you yet.
You've made it very clear that you think differently than I do, and you started this conversation by asking me to explain my thoughts which I did very clearly. Perhaps you're projecting the confusion you feel.
I believe you'll find that you replied to my initial comment. So you would be the one who started this conversation. I didn't make you respond to me.
That's fair, but I also didn't ask you any questions. Takes two to tango.
Neither I you until several replies in. Maybe you should actually go back and look.