Barbaric

[Toni]

It isn't race. It's money. The justice system is strongly biased against the poor.

And the notoriety of the crime matters.

Money and notoriety play roles, of course.

Race and money are still very much linked. And yes, because of systemic racism that has benefited you and me.

Race | Death Penalty Information Center

Use of the death penalty has always reflected racial bias: the data show that who is prosecuted, sentenced, and executed depends heavily on race.

deathpenaltyinfo.org

In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

Unfortunately, our government is not remotely a credible source on whether something is racist. There is a pervasive problem that once "discrimination" is found that's normally the end of the line. Very rarely is there any attempt made to discern whether there's some other effect going on. Socioeconomic effects are huge and virtually always ignored. Disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination! You pretend to understand this but then go right back to using a disparate outcome as proof of discrimination. Be very careful of research where the researcher's job is dependent on finding the problem. The first job of any organization is to protect it's existence.

I know that a lot of people prefer to use whatever definition absolves them.

 

[Tigers!]

In the land of Arizona, you have to pay to be in jail:

I think that is fair. In India, 500 people with death sentences and 71,632 people with life sentences. Why should tax payers support them? Send them to gallows.

Shouldn't we be better than those that we imprison? If, ethically, we say that killing for reasons other than self defence (immediate threat) is wrong, that killing is not a solution for our problems, why would it be right for us as a society to kill those who we feel are a problem?

You have to kill them to show them that killing people is wrong.

No. We execute them to protect society and its members from those who are predators upon society.

We separate them from society. We build prisons to hold and house them. No longer posing a threat to society, there is no need to execute them. Killing them is not justified when there is no threat.

Provided you can guarantee that a stupid magistrate or parole board will not let them out.

 

[Tigers!]

So to deter people from doing the wrong thing legally and morally, to kill because it serves the purpose of the killer, a civilised society is to do the very thing it regards as immoral and illegal?

If it's considered to be immoral to kill for any reason other than self defence, that governments reserve the right to execute people as an example or a deterrence doesn't make it moral or good to do so.

So, why even put them in jail? Ask the robbers, killers, rapists to attend a sermon at 11 am once a week and that should be enough.
Punishing a wrong-doer is not immoral or illegal. This is for the defense of the society.

So according to your point of view the expedient thing to do is kill them all? No need for jails or rehabilitation programs, even for those who may be helped?

Has there ever been a rehabilitation program(s) that have worked for murders, rapists, paedophiles etc? How would you tell if it works? And letting them out is not the answer.

 

[Tigers!]

Morality has no place?

Punishing wrongdoers is not immoral.

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defence, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.



Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

There are actually three (3) questions buried in there
1. Should the authorities protect society from those who would prey on its members aka justice?
2. How then do the authorities protect society aka deterrence?
3. What takes precedence - the victims or the criminal aka rehabilitation?

Sadly it seems to me too much emphasis is placed on no. 3, next to nothing on no. 1 and a bit of effort on no. 2

 

[bilby]

University physics lab I was handling LN2. Instructions for a spill were about avoiding contact, inhalation hazard was not even mentioned. Even if the whole dewar had been spilled we wouldn't have suffocated.

My dad used to do a cryogenics lecture for the general public on university open days.

It included all the usual stuff, dipping fruit and flowers in LN₂ and then shattering them, dipping a cigarette in LOX, which made it burn like a road flare, all kinds of neat demonstrations.

The finale was to carry a full dewar of LN₂ towards the audience, and 'accidentally' trip, hurling the contents directly at the front row.

Of course, by the time it reached them, it was just a cool breeze.

 

[bilby]

Provided you can guarantee that a stupid magistrate or parole board will not let them out.

Guarantee? Why such an insanely high bar?

There are circumstances (eg exoneration, or illness/infirmity that renders them incapable of further crimes) when you want to let them out - why pay to keep a harmless person locked up?

It just needs to be unlikely that "a stupid magistrate or parole board" will let them out without good reason.

Absolutism is always and invariably wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It isn't race. It's money. The justice system is strongly biased against the poor.

And the notoriety of the crime matters.

Money and notoriety play roles, of course.

Race and money are still very much linked. And yes, because of systemic racism that has benefited you and me.

Race | Death Penalty Information Center

Use of the death penalty has always reflected racial bias: the data show that who is prosecuted, sentenced, and executed depends heavily on race.

deathpenaltyinfo.org

In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

Unfortunately, our government is not remotely a credible source on whether something is racist. There is a pervasive problem that once "discrimination" is found that's normally the end of the line. Very rarely is there any attempt made to discern whether there's some other effect going on. Socioeconomic effects are huge and virtually always ignored. Disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination! You pretend to understand this but then go right back to using a disparate outcome as proof of discrimination. Be very careful of research where the researcher's job is dependent on finding the problem. The first job of any organization is to protect it's existence.

I know that a lot of people prefer to use whatever definition absolves them.

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

 

[Toni]

It isn't race. It's money. The justice system is strongly biased against the poor.

And the notoriety of the crime matters.

Money and notoriety play roles, of course.

Race and money are still very much linked. And yes, because of systemic racism that has benefited you and me.

Race | Death Penalty Information Center

Use of the death penalty has always reflected racial bias: the data show that who is prosecuted, sentenced, and executed depends heavily on race.

deathpenaltyinfo.org

In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

Unfortunately, our government is not remotely a credible source on whether something is racist. There is a pervasive problem that once "discrimination" is found that's normally the end of the line. Very rarely is there any attempt made to discern whether there's some other effect going on. Socioeconomic effects are huge and virtually always ignored. Disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination! You pretend to understand this but then go right back to using a disparate outcome as proof of discrimination. Be very careful of research where the researcher's job is dependent on finding the problem. The first job of any organization is to protect it's existence.

I know that a lot of people prefer to use whatever definition absolves them.

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

Why do you think there is a difference in socioeconomic status, on average?

 

[Politesse]

It isn't race. It's money. The justice system is strongly biased against the poor.

And the notoriety of the crime matters.

Money and notoriety play roles, of course.

Race and money are still very much linked. And yes, because of systemic racism that has benefited you and me.

Race | Death Penalty Information Center

Use of the death penalty has always reflected racial bias: the data show that who is prosecuted, sentenced, and executed depends heavily on race.

deathpenaltyinfo.org

In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

Unfortunately, our government is not remotely a credible source on whether something is racist. There is a pervasive problem that once "discrimination" is found that's normally the end of the line. Very rarely is there any attempt made to discern whether there's some other effect going on. Socioeconomic effects are huge and virtually always ignored. Disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination! You pretend to understand this but then go right back to using a disparate outcome as proof of discrimination. Be very careful of research where the researcher's job is dependent on finding the problem. The first job of any organization is to protect it's existence.

I know that a lot of people prefer to use whatever definition absolves them.

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

What kind of data would prove that "race is a proxy for socioeconomic status"?

 

[aupmanyav]

Growing the population is some sort of competition?

No and Yes. Ultimately numbers win.
I am pointing at the efficient management by Yogi Adityanath, of a large lawless population to an peaceful, fast developing one in 10 years time.

 

[DBT]

Growing the population is some sort of competition?

No and Yes. Ultimately numbers win.
I am pointing at the efficient management by Yogi Adityanath, of a large lawless population to an peaceful, fast developing one in 10 years time.

For short to medium term economics maybe, but considering long term ecological sustainability, do the numbers ultimately win? What sort of population can India sustain in the long term?

 

[DBT]

Morality has no place?

Punishing wrongdoers is not immoral.

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defence, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.



Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

There are actually three (3) questions buried in there
1. Should the authorities protect society from those who would prey on its members aka justice?
2. How then do the authorities protect society aka deterrence?
3. What takes precedence - the victims or the criminal aka rehabilitation?

Sadly it seems to me too much emphasis is placed on no. 3, next to nothing on no. 1 and a bit of effort on no. 2

The point here is the morality of execution. The prisoner has been tried, found guilty, locked away, no longer a threat to public safety. Then after having spent decades on death row they are taken to a place of execution and killed.

 

[aupmanyav]

Provided you can guarantee that a stupid magistrate or parole board will not let them out.

Or a stupid lenient law. No freedom without responsibilities.

 

[Tigers!]

Provided you can guarantee that a stupid magistrate or parole board will not let them out.

Guarantee? Why such an insanely high bar?

If we are talking about a convicted murder, rapist, paedophile etc. then we need an insanely high bar as they have already shown their wicked potential. To allow them into society again is a grave risk.

There are circumstances (eg exoneration, or illness/infirmity that renders them incapable of further crimes) when you want to let them out - why pay to keep a harmless person locked up?

They are not 'harmless'. They have already shown their potential. Their victims never get such mercy or consideration.
If exonerated then fair enough.

never
It just needs to be unlikely that "a stupid magistrate or parole board" will let them out without good reason.

Magistrates can be stupid. You may not of heard of this case in Victoria. Bayley should never have been released but he was foolishly let out.

Absolutism is always and invariably wrong.

Which funnily enough is an absolutism statement.

 

[Tigers!]

Morality has no place?

Punishing wrongdoers is not immoral.

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defence, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.



Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

There are actually three (3) questions buried in there
1. Should the authorities protect society from those who would prey on its members aka justice?
2. How then do the authorities protect society aka deterrence?
3. What takes precedence - the victims or the criminal aka rehabilitation?

Sadly it seems to me too much emphasis is placed on no. 3, next to nothing on no. 1 and a bit of effort on no. 2

The point here is the morality of execution. The prisoner has been tried, found guilty, locked away, no longer a threat to public safety. Then after having spent decades on death row they are taken to a place of execution and killed.

I am sure you see a problem in there somewhere.

 

[bilby]

Absolutism is always and invariably wrong.

Which funnily enough is an absolutism statement.

Gosh, is it?

 

[aupmanyav]

For short to medium term economics maybe, but considering long term ecological sustainability, do the numbers ultimately win? What sort of population can India sustain in the long term?

India's population is slated to peak around 1.6 billion before actually declining. I am no prophet to comment on future, It depends on what sort of leadership India gets in future. At the moment Modi is doing excellently in spite of all difficulties (created by Trump).

The point here is the morality of execution. The prisoner has been tried, found guilty, locked away, no longer a threat to public safety. Then after having spent decades on death row they are taken to a place of execution and killed.

If tried and found guilty of a crime for which law mandates death, they should be put to death without any delay. Delay is injustice to those who have suffered.

 

[Bronzeage]

What about inert gas, Nitrogen, Argon?

It's been used in some states. What we need is a substance that kills a person and doesn't cause spasms, convulsions, or other physical signs of distress. Inhaling pure nitrogen or argon causes unconsciousness in a few seconds, but it takes quite a while to die. It seems a person lying unconscious on a gurney burns oxygen very slowly. The nitrogen is basically a sedative which allows the person to asphyxiate. Eventually lack if oxygen in muscle cells cause a few last futile contractions. The brain has long since stopped functioning on any level, but it looks unseemly.

The whole thing about Carbon Monoxide is that displaces Oxygen in the bloodstream very aggressively. I don't know if it's more effective that pure Nitrogen though.
I still think that capital punishment is a barbarism. Being locked up in jail for the rest of my life would be the ultimate. Especially if the only thing on TV was a channel of the collected speeches of Donald Trump. Clockwork Orange punishment.

Lethal, yes. But unpleasant before it reaches the lethal point, and hazardous if there's a leak.

Inert gases, however, cause no unpleasant effects and it takes a huge leak to pose any hazard. You compare the volume of the gas being used to the volume of the enclosing space, if it's a small percentage you don't care. University physics lab I was handling LN2. Instructions for a spill were about avoiding contact, inhalation hazard was not even mentioned. Even if the whole dewar had been spilled we wouldn't have suffocated. Compare to the careful observation involved with handling a few drops of a cyanide solution. (Said cyanide would be properly behaved so long as the pH was high enough. Add to acid--cyanide gas would have been produced.)

There's simply no probable way for an inert gas(Nitrogen, Argon, etc) released, spilled in a ventilated work or living space to kill someone. It's a different matter in a confined space, such as a car or a vessel in a chemical plant. I've heard the same story at numerous safety training sessions, that an inert atmosphere in a confined space usually kills two people. It's common practice to purge a vessel with Nitrogen to remove all hydrocarbons and other vapors, followed by air, before it can be entered for inspection. If a man enters the tank without testing the air, he might collapse in a few seconds. The second man sees him fall and scrambles in through the quite small hatch and lands beside him. The third man sees two men down and realizes something is wrong.

The real problem with executing someone with Nitrogen is that although they are unconscious in a few seconds, it takes 20 to 30 minutes for them to die. Heartbeat can be to faint to hear with a stethoscope, but only an EKG monitor can detect when the heart quits for good. In the meantime, irreversible brain damage is well underway. This leaves the possibility of the prison morgue attendant hearing a cough from under the sheet. As the state of Tennessee has illustrated, the protocol for killing a person is pretty clear up to the point it doesn't go as expected.

 

[DBT]

It's dangerous to enter sealed void spaces in steel ships because oxidation/rust removes oxygen from the air. The hatch must be opened and have fans blowing fresh air into the compartment before workers go in.

 

[DBT]

For short to medium term economics maybe, but considering long term ecological sustainability, do the numbers ultimately win? What sort of population can India sustain in the long term?

India's population is slated to peak around 1.6 billion before actually declining. I am no prophet to comment on future, It depends on what sort of leadership India gets in future. At the moment Modi is doing excellently in spite of all difficulties (created by Trump).

The point here is the morality of execution. The prisoner has been tried, found guilty, locked away, no longer a threat to public safety. Then after having spent decades on death row they are taken to a place of execution and killed.

If tried and found guilty of a crime for which law mandates death, they should be put to death without any delay. Delay is injustice to those who have suffered.

Never mind those wrongly convicted, or the moral implications of execution.

Expediency and cost takes precedence.

Stalin, eat your heart out.