Hey,

This is a question that has been nagging me for some time now. I have been wondering if the death penelty is actually not cruel enough. Now I know your thinking, "how can he say something like that." Well, I'll tell you how. Did you know that the most common form of execution, the lethal injection, is done with the victim asleep. How is that right. They don't feel any pain, or even know that they are dying. They are asleep. Am I the only one who feels that this isn't right. Most people on death row are convicted murderers. They took the life of another human, most of the time willingly. I don't see why they should be put to sleep. I would want them to know that they are paying for what the did to the very last second.


http://people.howstuffworks.com/lethal-injection4.htm

__________________
"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." ~Elmer Davis

That is because we don't execute in order to punish people and we certainly don't do it to teach them a lesson. We do it because we need to get them out of society's hair permanently (I personally don't agree with it, but this is the argument for most who do) so they can't commit anymore crimes. If death does not scare someone or they don't feel that they will be caught, it is doubtful that more painful death would be all that more effective. It does end after all. And I see nothing wrong with us taking pride in our mercy in comparison to some nations.
On the other hand it's really dumb that we disinfect the needles that we use to kill them with. Is that necessary?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I can see where your point is coming from. That we don't kill to punish that we kill to get them off of our streets. If thats the case, why do we have to use such complex methods of it. There are some states that use a firing squad. That seems simple enough. And if we're not doing it to punish them, why not just posion in one of their meals. Why do we have to pay for these exensive electric chairs, gas chambers, and lethal injection rooms?

__________________
"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." ~Elmer Davis

Good point. I'm not for the death penalty, but if we're going to do it, it should be quick, cheap, and effective.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Onewhoismany, I know we have argued over many a different cases.

And once again, I have to. Sorry.

There are two options: killing a person or keeping them in jail for life. One costs around $400,000 and the other costs about $3.2 million. Can you guess which one is which? Guess what? Killing them costs more. Yes, it is true. Most of the money comes from the series of appeals before one dies, for you can figure out for yourself that a needle and a syringe does not cost that much.

Do you honestly believe murder is the best policy? Would you rather have a friend/family member killed or left alive, only in a cell?

In the Declaration of Independence, it states our unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although it was to the colonists, an unalienable right is one you cannot take away. Life is the first one. Let's all be hypocrites then, and do exactly what we teach our children is wrong.

-Mike Freas

__________________
"I'm not saying you're wrong, that would be rude. I'm just right."

-Mike Freas, conservative Independent

Never forget September 11, 2001.

I am going to have to agree with mike. Sorry onewhoismany but i cant but help to feel this way. Someone commits murder. This is wrong i know and is one of the most heinous crimes someone could commit, but does that mean that we need to stoop down to their level and commit murder this makes us as bad as them. Life in jail is the answer. It might cost more in the long run for food and such but it is a sacrifice we should take.
~brandon~15

Great, I have an illiterate person on my side. While I am glad I have someone on my side, I feel it is not the best of choices. Evidently firepko did NOT read my post to the utmost extent. As I said, it costs more to kill the person than to let him live in jail. Even sadder is that the person that agrees with me can not capitalize the letter 'I'. He might also know that murder is not the only crime that causes the death sentence.

__________________
"I'm not saying you're wrong, that would be rude. I'm just right."

-Mike Freas, conservative Independent

Never forget September 11, 2001.

I did in fact know that it costs more to execute someone that to keep them allive. I also knew that most of this cost comes from the ammout of appeals. The supreme ct. is actually reducing the amount of Habeus Corpus (fancy word for appeals) that an inmate gets. Another problem with the cost is that now they don't just strap someone down and inject them, they have fancy machines do it now. They do this to reduce the risk of a mistake, and not only do they just use one, they have three, two of which don't do anything excpt act like they are injecting the drug. This is done to protect the identity of the "executioners". The people pressing the button on the machines don't even know who is actually killing the guy.

In addition to the actually costs of killing a person, there is also some costs that will be reduced. If there are less dangerous criminals that are in prision, then we can close down some prisions, or at least parts of the prisions, and that will save lots of money in the long run.

__________________
"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." ~Elmer Davis

Which one do you like?

Choice A: Supreme Court cuts down majorly on the amount of appeals a person can have when on death row. Just ignore the fact that a study in 1986, a study showed that of 16,505 people arrested for murder, 139 were sentenced to death and later found innocent. Of this number, 23 were actually executed. Lower the number of appeals, and kill more innocents. God Bless America.

Choice B: Supreme Court keeps the same amount of appeals, with fewer innocent lives taken, and still, use tons more money to kill people than keep them in jail for life.

Face it, it's a lose/lose situation. Personally, the only way I think you can win, is do away with the death sentence altogether.

-Mike Freas

__________________
"I'm not saying you're wrong, that would be rude. I'm just right."

-Mike Freas, conservative Independent

Never forget September 11, 2001.

I have to agree with Mike on this one. It would be especially immoral to cut the appeals process for a person who will die upon a guilty verdict. Life in prison is reversible. Death is not. In addition, I feel that a person should have the opportunity to reflect on past deeds and make up for them in some way, even if it must be done from a jail cell. Doesn't happen often, but I believe all people deserve a shot at redemption.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside