Alabama executes man by nitrogen asphyxiation

[DaleCooper]

There’s more sympathy in this thread for the thug executed than his actual victim. One of several things wrong in this country

Nice strawman. Nobody sympathizes with the person, we’re just appalled at the method of execution.

Let’s suppose that’s true

Is there any sympathy for the victim and her family though? If there was, then the execution method becomes less appalling. I don’t think anyone mention the victim on the first page

The truth is, there’s a certain percentage of American society that thinks everyone is truly innocent and not deserving of punishment. When ever a shoplifter gets stopped, there’s always someone yelling “let her go she hasn’t done anything wrong”

None of the pro death penalty people care about her either, they just like the idea of seeing a bad guy get killed. I go back and forth on the death penalty myself. If you support the death penalty, then argue in favor of that without throwing the victims and families out in front of you like they're human shields, please.

[Skill and Chance]

I generally oppose the death penalty (because what if you have the wrong person?- We can't bring them back!).  However, if we are going to have the death penalty, for goodness sake why don't we just shoot the condemned people in the head instead of potentially torturing them with expensive experimental drugs?!  It doesn't make any sense.

[VBM]

There’s more sympathy in this thread for the thug executed than his actual victim. One of several things wrong in this country

Nice strawman. Nobody sympathizes with the person, we’re just appalled at the method of execution.

Let’s suppose that’s true

Is there any sympathy for the victim and her family though? If there was, then the execution method becomes less appalling. I don’t think anyone mention the victim on the first page

The truth is, there’s a certain percentage of American society that thinks everyone is truly innocent and not deserving of punishment. When ever a shoplifter gets stopped, there’s always someone yelling “let her go she hasn’t done anything wrong”

None of the pro death penalty people care about her either, they just like the idea of seeing a bad guy get killed. I go back and forth on the death penalty myself. If you support the death penalty, then argue in favor of that without throwing the victims and families out in front of you like they're human shields, please.

This is a very bizarre claim to make. We want to see the bad guy get killed because we sympathize with the victim and the immense pain they went through by being murdered, and we also sympathize with the friends and family of the victim whose lives will permanently be worse off with their loved one being taken away in such a horrible manner. Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

[Ferguson97]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

JFC dude. This caveman-instinct reaction is the exact reason why we have should want to have an impartial criminal justice system instead of lynch mobs.

[DaleCooper]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

JFC dude. This caveman-instinct reaction is the exact reason why we have should want to have an impartial criminal justice system instead of lynch mobs.

This is their line because "I want to see people get killed" isn't very compelling. They're projecting their blood lust onto the innocent victims of murderers, and it's pretty disgusting. Just own your f-ckin opinion. If you want to see people die horribly, because you're angry at them for committing a particular crime, then just say so. Don't drag other people into it. Stand by what you believe. 

[VBM]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

JFC dude. This caveman-instinct reaction is the exact reason why we have should want to have an impartial criminal justice system instead of lynch mobs.

The purpose of the justice system is to make sure that we catch the right person (angry mobs are obviously more prone to punishing the first suspect without thoroughly reviewing the evidence), and that the punishment they receive fits the crime. Why would sentencing someone to death for the crime of murder be a disproportionate punishment?

[VBM]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

JFC dude. This caveman-instinct reaction is the exact reason why we have should want to have an impartial criminal justice system instead of lynch mobs.

This is their line because "I want to see people get killed" isn't very compelling. They're projecting their blood lust onto the innocent victims of murderers, and it's pretty disgusting. Just own your f-ckin opinion. If you want to see people die horribly, because you're angry at them for committing a particular crime, then just say so. Don't drag other people into it. Stand by what you believe. 

And the anti-death penalty crowd is projecting their desire to kill someone without forfeiting their own life onto the death row inmate. We can both play this game.

[DaleCooper]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

JFC dude. This caveman-instinct reaction is the exact reason why we have should want to have an impartial criminal justice system instead of lynch mobs.

This is their line because "I want to see people get killed" isn't very compelling. They're projecting their blood lust onto the innocent victims of murderers, and it's pretty disgusting. Just own your f-ckin opinion. If you want to see people die horribly, because you're angry at them for committing a particular crime, then just say so. Don't drag other people into it. Stand by what you believe. 

And the anti-death penalty crowd is projecting their desire to kill someone without forfeiting their own life onto the death row inmate. We can both play this game.

Nope.

[VBM]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

JFC dude. This caveman-instinct reaction is the exact reason why we have should want to have an impartial criminal justice system instead of lynch mobs.

This is their line because "I want to see people get killed" isn't very compelling. They're projecting their blood lust onto the innocent victims of murderers, and it's pretty disgusting. Just own your f-ckin opinion. If you want to see people die horribly, because you're angry at them for committing a particular crime, then just say so. Don't drag other people into it. Stand by what you believe. 

And the anti-death penalty crowd is projecting their desire to kill someone without forfeiting their own life onto the death row inmate. We can both play this game.

Nope.

Ok. So you can just assume the worst possible motives for the pro-death penalty crowd, but I can't assume the worst possible motives for the anti-death penalty crowd? I support the death penalty largely out of sympathy for the victim and their loved ones. Not because I am just itching to see a criminal get killed. I imagine how I would feel if someone I knew was brutally murdered, and can thus empathize with the people who have to go through that horrible experience.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

This is the problem in a nutshell. Whether or not victims want to see the murderer dead is ultimately irrelevant from a governmental perspective. It is the purpose of the state to carry out necessary functions of governance and societal organization, not to give everyone what they want. Prison serves a necessary function in separating criminals from society. Execution provides no additional benefit beyond satisfying people’s lust for blood, which really isn’t the government’s job. It is at best a “want”, not a “need”.

[VBM]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

This is the problem in a nutshell. They do not. It is the purpose of the state to carry out necessary functions of governance and societal organization, not to give everyone what they want. Prison serves a necessary purpose in separating criminals from society. Execution provides no additional benefit beyond satisfying people’s lust for blood, which really isn’t the government’s job. It is at best a “want”, not a “need”.

I mean, I'm not saying that the victims should get to decide what the punishment is. Our justice system should give a punishment equivalent to the severity of the crime that the person was determined by a jury of their peers to have committed. However, it would be nice if our justice system did hand out punishments that match the crime as closely as possible, and it would be good for society if people did feel like they were given the justice and retribution that they deserve. I can't imagine how it must feel having to live the rest of your life having to bottle up your anger at the thought of your loved one's murderer not being sufficiently punished for their crime. It doesn't feel right just totally disregarding these people's emotions.

[Ferguson97]

I can't imagine how it must feel having to live the rest of your life having to bottle up your anger at the thought of your loved one's murderer not being sufficiently punished for their crime. It doesn't feel right just totally disregarding these people's emotions.

Why is life in prison without parole insufficient to you?

I support the death penalty largely out of sympathy for the victim and their loved ones. Not because I am just itching to see a criminal get killed. I imagine how I would feel if someone I knew was brutally murdered, and can thus empathize with the people who have to go through that horrible experience.

That's not empathy, that's projection. Not all victims' families support the death penalty, but frankly, their wishes are irrelevant. Again, the entire point of having an impartial criminal justice system is that it won't be tainted with emotions like this.


You keep saying "the punishment must fit the crime",  so let me ask you this then: should a murderer who gave their victim a quick and painless death be executed in a different manner than a murderer who gave their victim a slow and agonizing death?

Does this principle extend to other crimes? Should someone who is convicted of rape be sentenced to a punishment of being raped? If a man blinds someone, should he be punished with blindness as well?

If this principle only applies to murderers, why?

[VBM]

I can't imagine how it must feel having to live the rest of your life having to bottle up your anger at the thought of your loved one's murderer not being sufficiently punished for their crime. It doesn't feel right just totally disregarding these people's emotions.

Why is life in prison without parole insufficient to you?

I support the death penalty largely out of sympathy for the victim and their loved ones. Not because I am just itching to see a criminal get killed. I imagine how I would feel if someone I knew was brutally murdered, and can thus empathize with the people who have to go through that horrible experience.

That's not empathy, that's projection. Not all victims' families support the death penalty, but frankly, their wishes are irrelevant. Again, the entire point of having an impartial criminal justice system is that it won't be tainted with emotions like this.


You keep saying "the punishment must fit the crime",  so let me ask you this then: should a murderer who gave their victim a quick and painless death be executed in a different manner than a murderer who gave their victim a slow and agonizing death?

Does this principle extend to other crimes? Should someone who is convicted of rape be sentenced to a punishment of being raped? If a man blinds someone, should he be punished with blindness as well?

As an atheist, I think that there's nothing worse than death. I'd rather be locked away in a dark room with no one to talk to or nothing to do for eternity than be killed. So I think life without parole is infinitely better than being murdered.

Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to administering a more painful method of killing to someone who intentionally tortured their victim before killing them.

Rape is generally more mentally traumatic than physically traumatic, so the problem with sentencing a rapist to being raped is that you can't guarantee that they'll be as traumatized by it as the victim was. In fact, I'd assume that a rapist probably wouldn't care nearly as much as being raped themselves. So for rape, our justice system has to determine how long and how severe of a sentence would be fitting for their crime.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

This is the problem in a nutshell. They do not. It is the purpose of the state to carry out necessary functions of governance and societal organization, not to give everyone what they want. Prison serves a necessary purpose in separating criminals from society. Execution provides no additional benefit beyond satisfying people’s lust for blood, which really isn’t the government’s job. It is at best a “want”, not a “need”.

I mean, I'm not saying that the victims should get to decide what the punishment is. Our justice system should give a punishment equivalent to the severity of the crime that the person was determined by a jury of their peers to have committed. However, it would be nice if our justice system did hand out punishments that match the crime as closely as possible, and it would be good for society if people did feel like they were given the justice and retribution that they deserve. I can't imagine how it must feel having to live the rest of your life having to bottle up your anger at the thought of your loved one's murderer not being sufficiently punished for their crime. It doesn't feel right just totally disregarding these people's emotions.

People's emotions obviously shouldn't be "discarded" in general, but when it comes to crime they frankly should be completely irrelevant. The punishment that a person receives for committing a crime really shouldn't have anything to do with the involved parties' personal feelings.

To illustrate why I have this perspective on crime and punishment, consider the opposite case to the one you've been describing. It's one that is uncommon but certainly not unheard of. What happens if a criminal wrongs someone and is forgiven by the victim afterwards? Should an attempted murderer go free if the victim forgives them wholeheartedly and doesn't want prosecution? Of course not. The fact that the victim no longer wants anything to be done to the criminal isn't important, because that is not ultimately the purpose of the judicial system. Criminal law doesn't fundamentally exist to handle interpersonal issues like forgiveness, anger, or vengeance. The purpose of the criminal justice system is for the government to punish criminals in accordance with their crimes and to separate such individuals, at least temporarily, from the public.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to administering a more painful method of killing to someone who intentionally tortured their victim before killing them.

And you wonder why we characterize pro-death penalty people as being bloodthirsty?

Rape is generally more mentally traumatic than physically traumatic, so the problem with sentencing a rapist to being raped is that you can't guarantee that they'll be as traumatized by it as the victim was.

THAT'S the problem you have with sentencing someone to be raped?

I'm just going to ask you directly: what the absolute f-ck is wrong with you?

[VBM]

Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to administering a more painful method of killing to someone who intentionally tortured their victim before killing them.

And you wonder why we characterize pro-death penalty people as being bloodthirsty?

Rape is generally more mentally traumatic than physically traumatic, so the problem with sentencing a rapist to being raped is that you can't guarantee that they'll be as traumatized by it as the victim was.

THAT'S the problem you have with sentencing someone to be raped?

I'm just going to ask you directly: what the absolute f-ck is wrong with you?

I believe in an eye for an eye while you do not. Idk what else there is to say here.

I will say that I do agree that it's important for prison to rehabilitate criminals, but I do think that punishment and retribution are also important.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to administering a more painful method of killing to someone who intentionally tortured their victim before killing them.

And you wonder why we characterize pro-death penalty people as being bloodthirsty?

Rape is generally more mentally traumatic than physically traumatic, so the problem with sentencing a rapist to being raped is that you can't guarantee that they'll be as traumatized by it as the victim was.

THAT'S the problem you have with sentencing someone to be raped?

I'm just going to ask you directly: what the absolute f-ck is wrong with you?

I believe in an eye for an eye while you do not. Idk what else there is to say here.

I will say that I do agree that it's important for prison to rehabilitate criminals, but I do think that punishment and retribution are also important.

Admitting that you have a blood lust is a good first step, but why not go further? If we must have the death penalty, it should at least be profitable to the nihilist state. Executions should be interesting, public, and only require a fee to see a murderer's head get chopped off and fall into one of three holes that people can bet on.

[VBM]

Those people deserve to experience the catharsis of seeing the murderer get killed

This is the problem in a nutshell. They do not. It is the purpose of the state to carry out necessary functions of governance and societal organization, not to give everyone what they want. Prison serves a necessary purpose in separating criminals from society. Execution provides no additional benefit beyond satisfying people’s lust for blood, which really isn’t the government’s job. It is at best a “want”, not a “need”.

I mean, I'm not saying that the victims should get to decide what the punishment is. Our justice system should give a punishment equivalent to the severity of the crime that the person was determined by a jury of their peers to have committed. However, it would be nice if our justice system did hand out punishments that match the crime as closely as possible, and it would be good for society if people did feel like they were given the justice and retribution that they deserve. I can't imagine how it must feel having to live the rest of your life having to bottle up your anger at the thought of your loved one's murderer not being sufficiently punished for their crime. It doesn't feel right just totally disregarding these people's emotions.

People's emotions obviously shouldn't be "discarded" in general, but when it comes to crime they frankly should be completely irrelevant. The punishment that a person receives for committing a crime really shouldn't have anything to do with the involved parties' personal feelings.

To illustrate why I have this perspective on crime and punishment, consider the opposite case to the one you've been describing. It's one that is uncommon but certainly not unheard of. What happens if a criminal wrongs someone and is forgiven by the victim afterwards? Should an attempted murderer go free if the victim forgives them wholeheartedly and doesn't want prosecution? Of course not. The fact that the victim no longer wants anything to be done to the criminal isn't important, because that is not ultimately the purpose of the judicial system. Criminal law doesn't fundamentally exist to handle interpersonal issues like forgiveness, anger, or vengeance. The purpose of the criminal justice system is for the government to punish criminals in accordance with their crimes and to separate such individuals, at least temporarily, from the public.

Fair point. Do you also disagree with the anti-death penalty people who argue against it because of how awful the inmate must feel leading up to and during his execution (for example, refer to Arizona Iced Tea's post on page 1)?

[VBM]

Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to administering a more painful method of killing to someone who intentionally tortured their victim before killing them.

And you wonder why we characterize pro-death penalty people as being bloodthirsty?

Rape is generally more mentally traumatic than physically traumatic, so the problem with sentencing a rapist to being raped is that you can't guarantee that they'll be as traumatized by it as the victim was.

THAT'S the problem you have with sentencing someone to be raped?

I'm just going to ask you directly: what the absolute f-ck is wrong with you?

I believe in an eye for an eye while you do not. Idk what else there is to say here.

I will say that I do agree that it's important for prison to rehabilitate criminals, but I do think that punishment and retribution are also important.

Admitting that you have a blood lust is a good first step, but why not go further? If we must have the death penalty, it should at least be profitable to the nihilist state. Executions should be interesting, public, and only require a fee to see a murderer's head get chopped off and fall into one of three holes that people can bet on.

I really don't have a problem with public executions tbh. If people want to watch it, I don't see the harm in that. I don't think it'd make people more likely to become violent themselves

I don't see why retribution is a bad thing so long as it's proportional and it's being performed against the right person. As I said before, it seems like a lot of people try to discredit "eye for an eye" philosophy with examples where it's not truly an eye for an eye.

[Ferguson97]

Admitting that you have a blood lust is a good first step, but why not go further? If we must have the death penalty, it should at least be profitable to the nihilist state. Executions should be interesting, public, and only require a fee to see a murderer's head get chopped off and fall into one of three holes that people can bet on.

I really don't have a problem with public executions tbh. If people want to watch it, I don't see the harm in that. I don't think it'd make people more likely to become violent themselves

I don't see why retribution is a bad thing so long as it's proportional and it's being performed against the right person. As I said before, it seems like a lot of people try to discredit "eye for an eye" philosophy with examples where it's not truly an eye for an eye.

...You are aware you don't have to nod your head and say "actually, that's not a bad idea" when someone creates a strawman to mock you, right?

[VBM]

Admitting that you have a blood lust is a good first step, but why not go further? If we must have the death penalty, it should at least be profitable to the nihilist state. Executions should be interesting, public, and only require a fee to see a murderer's head get chopped off and fall into one of three holes that people can bet on.

I really don't have a problem with public executions tbh. If people want to watch it, I don't see the harm in that. I don't think it'd make people more likely to become violent themselves

I don't see why retribution is a bad thing so long as it's proportional and it's being performed against the right person. As I said before, it seems like a lot of people try to discredit "eye for an eye" philosophy with examples where it's not truly an eye for an eye.

...You are aware you don't have to nod your head and say "actually, that's not a bad idea" when someone creates a strawman to mock you, right?

I genuinely don't have a problem with it though. If someone's set to be executed anyways, why not let some people watch it if they want to? You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. Just make sure that it's taking place in a closed space so that passersby who wouldn't want to see it don't get unintentionally get exposed to it.

[Ferguson97]

Admitting that you have a blood lust is a good first step, but why not go further? If we must have the death penalty, it should at least be profitable to the nihilist state. Executions should be interesting, public, and only require a fee to see a murderer's head get chopped off and fall into one of three holes that people can bet on.

I really don't have a problem with public executions tbh. If people want to watch it, I don't see the harm in that. I don't think it'd make people more likely to become violent themselves

I don't see why retribution is a bad thing so long as it's proportional and it's being performed against the right person. As I said before, it seems like a lot of people try to discredit "eye for an eye" philosophy with examples where it's not truly an eye for an eye.

...You are aware you don't have to nod your head and say "actually, that's not a bad idea" when someone creates a strawman to mock you, right?

I genuinely don't have a problem with it though. If someone's set to be executed anyways, why not let some people watch it if they want to? You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. Just make sure that it's taking place in a closed space so that passersby who wouldn't want to see it don't get unintentionally get exposed to it.

Because glamorizing death is distasteful? You are making a spectacle of it like it's some sick game.

[VBM]

Admitting that you have a blood lust is a good first step, but why not go further? If we must have the death penalty, it should at least be profitable to the nihilist state. Executions should be interesting, public, and only require a fee to see a murderer's head get chopped off and fall into one of three holes that people can bet on.

I really don't have a problem with public executions tbh. If people want to watch it, I don't see the harm in that. I don't think it'd make people more likely to become violent themselves

I don't see why retribution is a bad thing so long as it's proportional and it's being performed against the right person. As I said before, it seems like a lot of people try to discredit "eye for an eye" philosophy with examples where it's not truly an eye for an eye.

...You are aware you don't have to nod your head and say "actually, that's not a bad idea" when someone creates a strawman to mock you, right?

I genuinely don't have a problem with it though. If someone's set to be executed anyways, why not let some people watch it if they want to? You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. Just make sure that it's taking place in a closed space so that passersby who wouldn't want to see it don't get unintentionally get exposed to it.

Because glamorizing death is distasteful? You are making a spectacle of it like it's some sick game.

Now you're starting to sound like a conservative. If people get a thrill out of it but otherwise aren't causing any harm, than it shouldn't be any of my business.

[Ferguson97]

Now you're starting to sound like a conservative. If people get a thrill out of it but otherwise aren't causing any harm, than it shouldn't be any of my business.

You're contemplating the idea of torturing people to death and broadcasting it to the public, but I'm the one sounding like a conservative? Sure, buddy.

[VBM]

Now you're starting to sound like a conservative. If people get a thrill out of it but otherwise aren't causing any harm, than it shouldn't be any of my business.

You're contemplating the idea of torturing people to death and broadcasting it to the public, but I'm the one sounding like a conservative? Sure, buddy.

Who said anything about torture? Conservatives don't like how other people get a thrill out of watching people have sex, but I'd assume you don't think porn should be banned for that reason.