Good talking head. No thought behind some of those points, so a perfect GQP hopeful.
Thank you for the reference. Having read most of it so far, I came across this passage:
Having disqualified Sue’s argument, Cabanis turns to Sömmerring’s thesis on the post-decapitation persistence of an active, conscious sensorium commune. Several facts argue against this. What is commonly known as a “rabbit punch” shows that a violent blow to the neck leads to an immediate loss of consciousness. Furthermore, a rapid hemorrhage deprives the brain of the blood it needs to function. Each of the individual circumstances brought together by the guillotine is enough to produce a true syncope. Cabanis concludes from this that the head and body of a man who has been guillotined endure no suffering and that death is as fast as the stroke of the blade.
Thus highlighting the difference between justice and revenge.
While, for the most part, I agree with you, there are cases that are simply a textbook example of needing the death penalty. If somebody, in their right mind, decides to kill simply because they want to know what it's like, they need to be removed from the herd.
Look at inmates who continue to present a danger not only to staff, but to other inmates. If, as far as medical science is able to, they are in their right mind, what do you do with them?
You only need to look at the imbalance in death penalties by skin color to know something is wrong.
All five justices agreed with at least part of the ruling. But two of the justices said they felt the firing squad was not a legal way to kill an inmate and one of them felt the electric chair is a cruel and unusual punishment.
Lethal injection has serious downsides. It turns out the drugs simply keep you from moving about as you slowly asphyxiate.
The electric chair it truly cruel. Yes, it fries your system, but it does it relatively slowly.
The firing squad has the issue of the marksman's aim. If it's off, you die slowly. Even if it's dead on, pun intended, you realize what's happening.
I've always wondered if, perhaps, the fastest method would be the guillotine.
Many years ago, in OMNI magazine, there was a story about a future where it was deemed inhumane to even let someone know they were going to be executed. They were kept in a small apartment awaiting the verdict. When the verdict was announced, no matter what it was, they were told they were free to go. Upon grabbing the doorknob, a neurotoxin was injected into the guilty with almost instantaneous effect.
As to discussions of the death penalty itself, I feel if someone was in their right mind, understood the consequences of their actions, and, if placed in the same situation, would commit the crime again, yes, they need to be removed from society permanently. Those who are deemed mentally fit, but bent like serial killers, should lose all their freedom and be placed at the disposal of mental health professionals to study.
What are your thoughts on ways of killing that would be humane?
“I think it’s a very nasty question,” Trump said. “For you to start off a question and answer period especially when you’re 35 minutes late … in such a hostile manner, I think it’s a disgrace.”
It's just his way of saying, "I'd rather not answer that."
May you have to deal with people like yourself for eternity.
This is what I did through Zenni as well. Only, I intend to get a third pair of glasses. The distance at which you read a computer screen compared to a physical book is very different.
The previous crop of insurrectionist losers got treated with kid gloves, so there would be no claim of political retribution. Kamala gets elected, the new ones will face a black woman prosecutor. Do you really want to be on the receiving end of that?
Reminds me of that Iraqi official who, during Desert Storm, kept saying victory was imminent right up the moment the allied tanks came rolling up the street.