News
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.
view the rest of the comments
Serious question. Why don't we just shoot them? I'm pretty sure bullets are cheaper than any chemical we use and it's instantly effective. You can't really mess it up either especially if you built a contraption the make sure the bullet hits the base of the skull.
Or fuck even one of those things they use for cattle. I just don't understand why we seem to choose expensive options when the cheapest solution is right there.
Nitrogen is pretty cheap, and would be considered way more human. Bullets aren't an instant death, the cattle thing would be but considered brutal. Both a firing squad and cattle thing would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, the SCOTUS has already said firing squads are cruel and unusual. The classic three drug cocktail was painless but no one will.make it.
Nitrogen makes you feel.like.your drunk, nitrogen narcosis, until you pass out. It is considered painless.
But the real question you should be asking is, why do we even still allow the death penalty. Innocent people have been put to death. Or at least enough doubt that they shouldn't have been killed.
But revenge is more important then justice. /s
People always think of the innocent person who got off. I get that. But what do you do with somebody who has, say, shot lots of kids in a school?
Rehab? In what world could we let that person back into society?
Never said let them back into society. Knowing you will die in a 6x6 cell, alone, and unwanted by anyone in the whole world is far worse punishment then anything else I can imagine. But killing anyone, regardless of crime, or evidence, makes you just as much of a murderer as anyone convicted of that crime. Also, there is the possibility of killing someone completely innocent, what then? Oops our bad, but we killed 30 other bad people, so this one isn't a big deal?
Many people would prefer to be executed vs. being tortured for 50 years in a cell. Others wouldn't, though. Is it worse to imprison someone innocent for decades or mistakenly execute them? I'm not sure. People could take their choice, perhaps? That's pretty cruel too though.
So... Revenge then?
Is there some reason a prison is incapable of containing them until they die? The only two choices aren’t kill them or let them rejoin society.
I didn't mean to imply that - but I don't see how lifetime imprisonment is any more humane. In fact others arguing against the death penalty are saying it's worse which... Is confusing.
If it were your kid in that chair, you wouldn't give a shit what they'd done, you'd fight with your last breath to save them anyway.
Who you are doesn't matter.
Who they are doesn't matter.
Fight to save them.
If it were my 12 year old they killed I would be taking a different view...
because a huge percentage of convicted are later exonerated, and a large percentage that aren't are posthumously exonerated.
I'm talking about where there is zero doubt the crime was committed.
School shootings and the like.
You can't have it both ways. I only execute the absolutely guilty and never put someone in jail who is innocent. The world is not black and white. It's not as simple as you make it out. Innocent people who ere put to death by the criminal.justoce system, at the time we're beyond a doubt guilty.
I'm posting a hypothetical.
Every prosecution team will tell you there is zero doubt until the exoneration, at which point they'll say "hmm."
Also, you say "zero doubt in school shootings" but unlike folk-wisdom, the law actually does care about the minutae of culpability and is exactly the place to get into the distinctions between aforethought, meditation and whether or not they were responsible for their actions.
We can know they did it regardless of culpability.
Let's hypothesize a perfect legal system for sake of argument.
The 3 drug cocktail worked, but it was often a minimally-trained technician charged with placing the actual IV lines. I know most of us have had an IV sometime in our life with relatively little pain, but that seems not to be the case for some inmates. Anxiety, old age, obesity, dehydration, and myriad other reasons can make it more challenging to place a catheter.
Bullets and the cattle thing are both instant when they are fired at the right part of the brain. Why is more brutal and less humane? If it kills them immediately, then it’s as humane as killing someone gets.
Firing squads didn't shoot you in the head.
I didn’t say they should use a firing squad. I said they could shoot you in the part of the brain with a bullet that will kill you instantly.
And it is illegal per cruel and unusual punishment clause.of the Constitution
Why is it cruel and unusual to kill someone instantly with a bullet and not cruel and unusual to electrocute or hang someone?
It’s not actually written in the constitution that killing someone instantly with a bullet is a cruel and unusual punishment. It’s an interpretation of the constitution that is frankly bizarre considering the ways we do actually execute people.
Have you ever been narc’d? My dive buddy was once, he took his regulator out of his mouth and tried giving it to fish. Never felt a thing from it other than “oh shit, trying to make a fish breath air”.
I would rather be shot than nitrogen then because I want to die sober.
People can survive gunshots (even momentarily), it's messy, and it looks scary. Honestly nitrogen hypoxia is not the worst way to go, I'd choose it over getting my brain blasted. Ideally we wouldn't do it at all.
They want to look painless and bloodless.
I am against the death penalty. Its only purpose is vengeance.
I'm torn on it honestly.
On one hand I don't want innocent people killed by it but on the other I believe certain people don't deserve to keep living after their crimes.
But I'll never understand how "humane" just means "doesn't leave a mess"
If it's faster and cheaper it should be implemented.
You're correct to identify that your position is inconsistent - (A) not wanting the innocent to be wrongly executed and (B) wanting the option to enact retributive punishment against certain offenders.
Let's analyze these two imperatives:
The benefits of (A) are quite self evident. It's bad to execute people for no reason. It's maybe the most brutal and terrifying thing the state can do to a person. And where there exists capital punishment, it happens with non-zero probability.
The benefits of (B) are that you get a nice bellyfeel that you've set the universe into karmic alignment. Since there's no evidence that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on crime (this can be proven by comparison of statistics between states/countries with capital punishment and without), this is really the ONLY benefit of position (B).
So if you want to prioritize what's best overall for reducing harm in society, then select (A). If you enjoy appointing yourself the moral arbiter of karma by enforcing who "deserves" to live and die (and killing some innocent people is a price worth paying), then select (B).
Simples!
It’s hard for the people doing the execution. That’s why the traditional firing squad gives some of the shooters blanks: so they can convince themselves they’re not the killer.
Pulling a lever in another room for a method that looks calm and painless is a lot easier for the killers.