[News] Alabama carries out first nitrogen gas execution

[GT49er]

And, as far as miscarriages of justice leading to erroneous execution is concerned, I also appreciate (but do not agree with) the stance of the former lord chief justice who refused to consider the Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 appeals on the grounds that if they had succeed it would have brought British justice into disrepute. And had we hanged them at the time nobody would be attempting to overturn the convictions.

Don't you believe it! Of course there would have been. There was a huge clamour for the re-opening of the Hanratty case, for the verdict to be overturned and a posthumous pardon granted, blah, blah, blah. - and then forensic techniques, not available at the time of his trial and conviction proved conclusively that he was guilty as hell. Whoops!
.........and then there were the idiots that proclaimed George Davis* was innocent, although he was no more innocent than the earth is flat! So, the idea that nobody would be campaigning for the Guidford 4 and the Birmingham bombers to get posthumous pardons is delusional.

*Yes, I know he wasn't hanged, but the point is that many misguided twats campaigned to 'prove' black was in fact white, and there always will be.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Don't you believe it! Of course there would have been. There was a huge clamour for the re-opening of the Hanratty case, for the verdict to be overturned and a posthumous pardon granted, blah, blah, blah. - and then forensic techniques, not available at the time of his trial and conviction proved conclusively that he was guilty as hell. Whoops!
.........and then there were the idiots that proclaimed George Davis* was innocent, although he was no more innocent than the earth is flat! So, the idea that nobody would be campaigning for the Guidford 4 and the Birmingham bombers to get posthumous pardons is delusional.

*Yes, I know he wasn't hanged, but the point is that many misguided twats campaigned to 'prove' black was in fact white, and there always will be.

Well it's the best justification I have seen for killing innocent people so far on this thread. Two convictions proven unlawful in British courts that you think are 'dodgy' with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

But let's face it, it's not exactly a high bar you've managed to duck under, is it

 

[GT49er]

Well it's the best justification I have seen for killing innocent people so far on this thread. Two convictions proven unlawful in British courts that you think are 'dodgy' with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

But let's face it, it's not exactly a high bar you've managed to duck under, is it

So you seriously think if the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham bombers had been hanged, nobody would be campaigning for posthumous justice for them today? Of course there would be - just as loud as the campaigns for their convictions to be overturned were in real life. Bloody hell - stick to believing that people who voted for the 'B' word believe in unicorns.

That would be a bloody sight less stupid than agreeing than agreeing with the OP that nobody would be bothered about campaigning for the Birmingham bombers and the Guildford 4 had they been hanged! You've excelled yourself tonight.....

 

[WATFORD zero]

So you seriously think if the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham bombers had been hanged, nobody would be campaigning for posthumous justice for them today? Of course there would be - just as loud as the campaigns for their convictions to be overturned were in real life. Bloody hell - stick to believing that people who voted for the 'B' word believe in unicorns.

That would be a bloody sight less stupid than agreeing than agreeing with the OP that nobody would be bothered about campaigning for the Birmingham bombers and the Guildford 4 had they been hanged! You've excelled yourself tonight.....

You seem a little distracted

 

[GT49er]

You seem a little distracted

Not at all. Your comprehension is depleted. You're way off the plot. ?

 

[Baldseagull]

I may have used poetic license, and omitted the words "like a mouse"

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Don't you believe it! Of course there would have been. There was a huge clamour for the re-opening of the Hanratty case, for the verdict to be overturned and a posthumous pardon granted, blah, blah, blah. - and then forensic techniques, not available at the time of his trial and conviction proved conclusively that he was guilty as hell. Whoops!
.........and then there were the idiots that proclaimed George Davis* was innocent, although he was no more innocent than the earth is flat! So, the idea that nobody would be campaigning for the Guidford 4 and the Birmingham bombers to get posthumous pardons is delusional.

*Yes, I know he wasn't hanged, but the point is that many misguided twats campaigned to 'prove' black was in fact white, and there always will be.

Not all convicted criminals are innocent. I get that. But that does not justify capital punishment.

 

[kojak]

If somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night ,armed with a hammer or a knife
I would serve out my own capital punishment

 

[drew]

Don’t take this is as a criticism Drew, you’ve made some good points in this thread. As have some others with a different opinion (imo).

But why don’t you try answering Brighton Dave’s question, at face value?

It’s an interesting one as it forces antis to see a murder directly, rather than standing back with a political perspective.

FWIW I wouldn’t want the death penalty in this country but also bristle at those that write off all pro-death penalty people as bloodthirsty morons.

Thanks, appreciate the comments but I made reference to Brighton Dave being the one to take action, eye for an eye if that is how strongly he feels. I don't believe the state should enact revenge on behalf of the parents in that scenario.

 

[Eeyore]

How about we advise the Yanks to make their criminals watch episodes of Mrs Brown's Boys on a loop? Madness or the desire to slit ones own wrists surely beckons

Then I must be permanently on Death Row. I love that show.

 

[drew]

If somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night ,armed with a hammer or a knife
I would serve out my own capital punishment

Big words, hope you're able to back that up with serving the relevant punishment.

 

[GT49er]

Big words, hope you're able to back that up with serving the relevant punishment.

Even bigger words on t'internet, eh?

 

[chip]

Interesting points. Yes, killing is justified - when someone is trying to kill you, or we are at war. I have no problem with that.

I do, however, perhaps put a great deal of value on human life outside of the realms of lethal jeopardy, but I'm happy with that.

You might be able to make a case for The Greater Good (which is how we justify killing in wars) to justify judicial capital punishment, but as I implied, we don't have to move too far away from stringing up paedophile murderers who refuse to recant before we start to get into crimes where views on the appropriate punishment vary.

And, as far as miscarriages of justice leading to erroneous execution is concerned, I also appreciate (but do not agree with) the stance of the former lord chief justice who refused to consider the Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 appeals on the grounds that if they had succeed it would have brought British justice into disrepute. And had we hanged them at the time nobody would be attempting to overturn the convictions. You will recall that all these convictions were eventually overturned, yet there are some conservatives who feel that it would have been better to keep these innocent men in jail (or put on the gibbet).

I suppose that is the defining reason why I disapprove of conservatism - the belief in the pursuit of the greater good over the rights of individuals, especially the frail - and I mean the right to not be falsely imprisoned, or (like the post office people) deprived of their livelihoods, not the libertarian right to hunt and kill animals, beat one's children, and indulge in Johnsonian social onanism.

So, yes, I regard reintroduction of capital punishment as the start of a slippery slope, whose benefits can never justify the risks. I hope we never get that referendum that the tories occasionally contemplate because, without a doubt, the public would bring back hanging.

I enjoyed that chat, even if (by dint of the forum) it was a sequence of monologues.

I was going to go down the greater good route but could see that would be problematic. I think that I agree with you, especially the rights of individuals and protecting the most vulnerable and I wouldn't trust any of our politicians with capital punishment, you just know how that would go. I also think that a referendum would be dangerous, there is hope for youngsters involved in gang/knife crime and the calls for mandatory prison for carry a knife shows a complete, and probably willful, ignorance of the problem. It wouldn't be long before there were calls to execute kids for stupidity. So you've made me think that though I do agree with a death penalty I would trust the state with it :shakesheadconfusedemoji

Courts do decide to kill people today through the removal of treatment and that really does cause terrible and unneccessary suffering. I think that as a society we have a strange relationship with life, death and our own importance. Perhaps we need to be clearer about the circumstances that can justify killing, but can't imagine a clear consensus. I'm also not very keen on keeping people locked up forever, that just seems like a sop to our own consciences. Inocent people will always be jailed and guilty people go free kit will always be an imperfect system but I wouldn't have suggested the Guildford 4 etc as candidates. I think more of Huntley and the likes. I have particularly strong feelings about paedophiles, perhaps because I have seen the damage they do far to often.

I particularly liked your Johnsonian social onanism, I can imagine that appearing in future philosphical tomes. There's several papers in it

 

[El Presidente]

If somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night ,armed with a hammer or a knife
I would serve out my own capital punishment

 

[Westdene Seagull]

If somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night ,armed with a hammer or a knife
I would serve out my own capital punishment

Word of advice - open up a browser and search "Tony Martin"

 

[drew]

I was going to go down the greater good route but could see that would be problematic. I think that I agree with you, especially the rights of individuals and protecting the most vulnerable and I wouldn't trust any of our politicians with capital punishment, you just know how that would go. I also think that a referendum would be dangerous, there is hope for youngsters involved in gang/knife crime and the calls for mandatory prison for carry a knife shows a complete, and probably willful, ignorance of the problem. It wouldn't be long before there were calls to execute kids for stupidity. So you've made me think that though I do agree with a death penalty I would trust the state with it :shakesheadconfusedemoji

Courts do decide to kill people today through the removal of treatment and that really does cause terrible and unneccessary suffering. I think that as a society we have a strange relationship with life, death and our own importance. Perhaps we need to be clearer about the circumstances that can justify killing, but can't imagine a clear consensus. I'm also not very keen on keeping people locked up forever, that just seems like a sop to our own consciences. Inocent people will always be jailed and guilty people go free kit will always be an imperfect system but I wouldn't have suggested the Guildford 4 etc as candidates. I think more of Huntley and the likes. I have particularly strong feelings about paedophiles, perhaps because I have seen the damage they do far to often.

I particularly liked your Johnsonian social onanism, I can imagine that appearing in future philosphical tomes. There's several papers in it

Not sure if I read that right but are you saying that withdrawing treatment causes terrible and unnecessary suffering? If so, what examples are you thinking of? My understanding is that the courts only get involved when an interested party, usually a parent, can't accept the medical opinion. I think contrary to your assertion, the withdrawal of treatment is to end unnecessary suffering for the individual receiving that treatment.

There is a massive moral difference between intervening to cause someone to die and withdrawing intervention (treatment) to allow someone to pass away in my view.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I’ve heard that no doctor can administer the poisons that kill in the States because of the oaths they take so it’s left to others. So as you day how does Dignitas go about it. I should know because I am a regular donater to the assisted dying charities
Edit : In general, Dignitas uses the following protocol to assist death: an oral dose of an antiemetic drug, followed approximately half an hour later by a lethal overdose of 15 grams of powdered pentobarbital dissolved in a glass of water. If necessary, the drugs can be ingested through a drinking straw.
Pentobarbital used as a sedative, a preanesthetic, and to control convulsions in emergencies.[2] It can also be used for short-term treatment of insomnia but has been largely replaced by the benzodiazepine family of drugs.

On the topic of oaths and administering…..I read an article about assisted dying a while back. It was related to one particular clinic in Switzerland so others might differ. Whilst the doctors provide the drugs and set things up, the patient themselves had to administer them. Their protocol made it very clear whilst the doctor helps it’s the patient who actually carries out the act. In this particular the patient had to turn a wheel which released drugs into the vein.

 

[Hamilton]

Taking another life is wrong. That maxim applies to a group of people (the state) as much as it applies to the individual.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was going to go down the greater good route but could see that would be problematic. I think that I agree with you, especially the rights of individuals and protecting the most vulnerable and I wouldn't trust any of our politicians with capital punishment, you just know how that would go. I also think that a referendum would be dangerous, there is hope for youngsters involved in gang/knife crime and the calls for mandatory prison for carry a knife shows a complete, and probably willful, ignorance of the problem. It wouldn't be long before there were calls to execute kids for stupidity. So you've made me think that though I do agree with a death penalty I would trust the state with it :shakesheadconfusedemoji

Courts do decide to kill people today through the removal of treatment and that really does cause terrible and unneccessary suffering. I think that as a society we have a strange relationship with life, death and our own importance. Perhaps we need to be clearer about the circumstances that can justify killing, but can't imagine a clear consensus. I'm also not very keen on keeping people locked up forever, that just seems like a sop to our own consciences. Inocent people will always be jailed and guilty people go free kit will always be an imperfect system but I wouldn't have suggested the Guildford 4 etc as candidates. I think more of Huntley and the likes. I have particularly strong feelings about paedophiles, perhaps because I have seen the damage they do far to often.

I particularly liked your Johnsonian social onanism, I can imagine that appearing in future philosphical tomes. There's several papers in it

It is all very nuanced all this, isn't it (after the 'eye for an eye' versus 'turn the other cheek' contingent have left the building, at least)? The 'not trusting anyone to undertake the task I feel should be done' is quite.....resonant.

I'll add one comment before picking up on your point about removal of treatment. I have always said that if someone 'damaged' one of my own, I'd seek to track them down an exact revenge, but I'd expect the state to 'hold me back'. (In my case, I suspect I would be 'held back' well simply by the laws, although I'd not necessarily put money on it). Our individual reactions are part of being human, while rules, the organization of a state, the distribution of wisdom into specialisms, process and experience is what keeps us from barbarism. Even if there are occasional fails, sometime big ones.

As for removal of treatment, even with consent (and who would consent to that?), yes this is problematic. One would imagine that health care professionals (OK, the buck stops with the doctors) would have invented a good rubric, but the withdrawal of fluids (if it is still done - it certainly was) seems horrendous. I did a search and found this:

Withholding and withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration

Although the practice of withholding and withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) has become more common, it remains controversial, particularly in the paediatric setting. Decisions regarding ANH, along with other medical interventions, should ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I wonder whether process has become suboptimal (or even dysfunctional) due to the need to respond to competing voices: the patient (who may have no voice), the family, different members of the family, the 'court of public opinion', the activism of highly motivated pro-live versus pro-'freedom' organizations (some religious, some secular), and of course the self-serving imperatives of politicians. I don't have an answer to this. Ordinarily I would have said 'trust the doctor' but I have come across militant 'pro-life' medics (and also anti-vivisectionist medics who appear to think that medicines grow on trees) and an increasing cohort of career medics, there only because they can memorize 'facts' and have pushy parents who want a doctor in the family, so my faith is far from unconditional.

Here is how it can all go completely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

Back in the day my old boss' dad had terminal cancer, and his GP left him a load of morphine, with precise instruction on avoiding a lethal overdose. Essentially this allowed the old man the freedom to decide his own fate. Which he did. Nothing was said about it. All illegal now of course.

So, yes, I am not really a 'gut' anti-capital punishment bod (and certainly not a religious one), but in a world run by imperfect humans, judicial cold-blooded punishment murder seems to me to be worth keeping at arms length, despite how much I would like to slowly dip certain individuals into a vat of boiling oil (execution does need to hurt, of course).

 

[Questions]

I liked that post. Obviously correct but succinct.