Posted on 05/06/2014 9:24:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Killing a human being turns out to be surpassingly hard to do.
This was made gruesomely apparent in Oklahoma last week, when the state tried to execute a convicted murderer named Clayton Lockett by injecting him with a new and secret mix of deadly chemicals. "Man," Lockett moaned, sixteen minutes after the injection and long after he was supposed to be dead, and he tried to get up, and began to writhe and jerk on the gurney until prison officials closed a curtain to keep the witnesses from seeing the rest of the episode. Alarm set in. The doctor on hand told state officials that Lockett had not received enough chemicals to kill him, but that there were no more chemicals on hand. There were debates over whether to take the prisoner to a hospital. Forty-three minutes after injection, Lockett had a massive heart attack (this was not part of the state's plan) and died.
Even under controlled circumstances like state executions in which the executed has no freedom of movement, no ability to resist, in which the state is in complete control human beings prove surprisingly resilient. Over the past century, 3 percent of hangings have been botched, and about 2 percent of electrocutions. More than 5 percent of gassings in state-operated gas chambers went awry. Lethal injections have become the most common mode of execution in the United States, but they are more error-prone still: 7 percent of them are botched. Which means that subsumed into the deep and difficult question of why we are executing prisoners at all is another question, more tangible but just as telling: Why are we killing them in the least effective way?
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
Sorry--can't agree.
Capital punishment should be reserved for those who maliciously and with intent take someone's life. That life was not his to take, so his is now forfeit. It is punishment, and has nothing to do with rehabilitation or lack thereof. It has nothing to do with whether the person is a threat to society or not.
Taking the life of another is the most egregious act, and must be met with the most egregious punishment.
I kind of go into more detail on post #56.
The morning of his execution, Lockett cut his arm and opened a vein and sustained blood loss. This is why they had to go through the groin. And that didn’t even work.
This “botched” execution was entirely his fault.
It’s also cheap .
Too many paragraphs. My eyes glazed over at the third.
Agreed. But what if someone has deliberately and purposefully taken the most egregious, tortuous punishment for this guy's specific crime? Then the justice of punishment for what he did has already been satisfied. You need to look elsewhere for valid and just consequences for the perpetrator.
I know we’re used to the quick one-line answers for things, but some things need thought and analysis. Come back to it when you have more time or energy - it’s good stuff.
That Someone did not forbid capital punishment. Since it was (is) already in the Law, and He did not countermand it, it is still in effect.
I apologize for my snark. But I really do support the death penalty - although I wish we could find something quick and easy.
Because some people just need to die, in the worst way.
What’s the failure rate for firing squad?
Let’s define failure as the condemned not dying, or taking longer than 30 seconds to die.
You are confusing the concept of “sin” with the concept of “crime.” They are not interchangeable and not the same. Many are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Many who are convicted manage to escape punishment. Many who are punished for crimes never renounce their sins. Different things, in terms of He who reads hearts.
I may be the only one in the whole world, but my two experience with nitrous oxide, one recreational and one medical, were frightening - the first time the people around me were seemed demonic and the second there was a pulsing kaleidoscope of evil floating before my eyes.
For some small fraction of the population that actually would be cruel.
That Someone said to the perpetrator of a capital crime, “I don’t condemn you.” He could say that becasue he was about to take her and everyone else’s punishment upon himself for all time.
Reference?
Don't think you ever will because I don't believe God is in it. And if it's the wrong thing to do, you'll never truly find a right way to do it.
Interesting study of psychopathy here.
Not the same or interchangeable doesn't mean that they don't overlap. Probably every named crime is also a sin. Here, however, we're dealing with act as a crime. The full penalty was paid for that criminal act, which also happens to be a sin.
John 8:11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.