UKC

Stories such as this are horrific.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27215508


When pets are put down, is it really "painless" as claimed, or are there similar problems? If not, why not use the same methods on humans (if you must execute someone)? Same question for euthanasia.

In reply to MG:

surely a bullet to the head is the quickest most effective and least painful way?

In reply to MG:

I think part of the problem is that the likes of Oklahoma are experimenting in a very unscientific way with novel drug combinations, because a lot of drugs are unavailable to them because Big Farmer are suprisingly sensitive about being seen by more civilized countries/markets to be supplying these drugs to such regimes

In reply to MG:

When pets are put down, it is by an overdose of general anaesthetic. It is as painless as that.

I'm not sure how much the US is aiming for painlessness - I remember reading something about this once...

In reply to toad:
There must be lots of generic stuff floating about on the market, easy enough for a state to purchase. In any case the state upheld the pharma companies right to privacy. It says something in the article about the cannula which delivered one of the drugs not working which caused the problem.

Sorry my bad. The leaky vein was probably from the cannula.

D

In reply to tlm:

Wonder if they finished him off with a pick axe handle?

D

In reply to Dauphin:


If it was that easy, why is there a law stating that the suppliers of said drugs can not be named... even in court?

It is all a bit horrific.

In reply to Dauphin:



He wasn't fussed about burying his victim alive after shooting her, maybe that would be an option in OK.

In reply to MG:


"This is not the first time that the EU’s anti-death-penalty stance has affected the US supply of anesthetics. Since 2011, a popular sedative called sodium thiopental has been unavailable in the United States. The manufacturer, US company Hospira, abandoned plans to produce the drug at its plant in Italy after regulators in the country required that the thiopental never be used in executions. The drug, which is difficult and costly to make, was already in short supply because of manufacturing problems."

"As supplies of thiopental ran low in 2009 and 2010, many states started stockpiling pentobarbital, another sedative. But in 2011, Lundbeck, a drug company in Copenhagen and sole US supplier of pentobarbital, banned it from use in executions because of Danish and EU human-rights laws."

" But if propofol is used for executions in Missouri or any other state, it could disappear too, leaving hospitals in a serious bind. “Propofol has a lot of uses for which there are no substitutes,” says Cohen."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bid-to-use-common-anesthetic-for-...

In reply to Coel Hellier:
So what drug is used to put pets down in the US? Does this not work on humans? Does the US not manufacture suitable drugs itself?

In reply to MG:

absolutely horrific. This should put an end to the death penalty but it won't..

I don't know why they dont just use a massive dose like with animals. TBH I'd actually favour organ harvesting, anaesthetic and removal of major organs. Obviously huge ethical issues but painless and others live who would have died.

In reply to MG:
I'm guessing the heavy legislative framework with which the big pharma companies use to control U.S. healthcare mean states can't go looking for cheaper generics on the open market - because there isn't one. They can't do business with companies that have EU based operations because EU law forbids them from selling them and it would mean that whole sectors of U.S. healthcare market would be off limits for EU pharma sales.

D

In reply to IainRUK:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/25/pennsylvania-prison-builder-ki...

this may over an example be why it would be undesirable to make it benificial to harvest organs

In reply to jethro kiernan:

yeah, there was another report that 4.1% (and that was a conservative estimate) of prisoners sentenced to death in the last 30 years were innocent..

In reply to ow arm:

Amazingly plenty of people survive this

In reply to IainRUK:

reading some of the comments i had to check i wasnt on the daily mail website

In reply to mark s:

what do you mean?

I think I've clearly outlined I'm totally opposed to the death penalty, and that if it must be done then it should be as painless as possible - which it wasn't here.

In reply to IainRUK:

it wasnt aimed at you,i just replied to the thread
i know you are not anything like some of the mail readers on here.

In reply to MG:
The US Government has spent millions on developing all sorts of secretive drugs for military purposes but somehow value their prisoner's lives so little that they seemingly cannot be bothered develop a substance to execute them humanely. Truly sad.

In reply to MG:

Maybe they picked him to experiment with so there wouldn't be too many tears shed if it went wrong:

Lockett, 38, was convicted of the killing of 19-year-old, Stephanie Neiman, in 1999. She was shot and buried alive. Lockett was also convicted of raping her friend in the violent home invasion that lead to Neiman's death.

E

In reply to FrankBooth:


Did you watch that documentary that Michael Portillo did about the death penalty?
Put them in a chamber and take the oxygen out slowly - appparently you die laughing.


E

In reply to MG:


Yes, it is painless - provided that one has complete control over the cannula. There are some considerations over minimum dosing and speed of delivery, particularly where prior sedation has been performed, but a practised hand shouldn't have any issues.

A number of anaesthetic drugs are surprisingly painful - and damaging - if injected perivascularly (around the vein, rather than into it) and pentobarb - our drug of choice - is no exception.

For this reason, catheters should always be used and, critically, tested properly before drugs are introduced. In humans, I'd find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't use pre-placed back-ups. Unfortunately, my limited understanding is that the process of injection is automated, which means that clear markers of catheter dysfunction, like unexpected resistance, might be missed until big problems erupt.

As vets, we perform euthanasia very regularly, usually in the presence of owners. We've all had ones that have gone poorly and we all get kept awake by the memories even years later. But we're good at it through practice - something which I'm not sure is mirrored in the human situation.

As to whether the death penalty is justified, that's a different question altogether.

Martin (vet)

In reply to ow arm:

Blown away by guns would be more effective and less painful for the executed.

A lot of it is to do with the effect on the executor. A firing squad 'shares' the guilt and therefore lessens it becuase there's multiple firers. Indeed, it's otften the 'coup de grace' administed by another that actually kills those executed by firing squad- so there's almost no need for the firing squad at all in terms of merely doing the killing.

In reply to FrankBooth:

I'd imagine it's much like any drug- it'll have varying and unpredictable effects on any particular subject.

The real question is whether it's humane to kill anyone at all.

In reply to maisie:

Thanks, interesting.

In reply to Ander:



Well that's a different thread. As a form of punishment, I would say no, though..

In reply to maisie:

Cheers Martin.

I had to sadly have my old foster dog put down end of last year.

Because i often foster and Adopt old animals, i am often Present when seeing them on their way.

Always tears my Heart out, but can honestly say that vets have always been very Professional, and has always been quick and Peaceful. nothing but respect Martin. Its not a pleasant job, but always Appreciated that it goes quick and well

In reply to maisie:

At a guess, you don't take less care with a dog that's been a nasty piece of work all his life - especially as he may have been appallingly mistreated when he was younger - than you do with a perfectly behaved family pet, do you?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


No, I don't. Any conclusions are yours to infer from that, rather than mine to imply, of course

In reply to broken spectre:

Thank you, that was a very nice thing to say.

In reply to Ander:

The Russians used surprising shot to back of the head.. the convicted prisoner would think he was being moved cells.. and then walk around a corner and someone would step out.

In reply to Enty:




They were saying similar about people in the MH370 flight.. flying above 40,000 feet would have been quite a nice death supposedly.

However I've seen rats euthanised that way and they certainly don't like it...

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Very few have survived the guillotine (for more than a second or two)

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Sweet Jebus, don't get onto the Halal thing again.....

In reply to maisie:

Now that you mention it, a tap on the head before the blade dropped would have been a small mercy, wouldn't it?

In reply to MG:

The Death Penalty isn't punishment its revenge thinly disguised as retribution.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


20 seconds I heard? Lift up the head, shout their name and they respond (apparently)

E

In reply to Dauphin:

The US drug market for anaesthetic drugs seems quite broken - its commonly the case that drugs are not available or have limited availability in the US when they can be obtained in Canada and the EU easily. For some drugs like Thiopental the potential for use in euthanasia has not helped, but there are lots of other examples (propofol, morphine, diazepam, glycopyrolate) where availability has been very limited in the past few years - quite surprising.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

It's not just the US market: we regularly get a hiatus in supply of even the most commonly supplied drugs. The vaccine market has been all over the place in the last few years, mostly - we're told - because of quality control. It doesn't get any better for over the counter human remedies, either - we just spent six months watching the wife throw up on a variety of transport because Kwells, which are just hyoscine, seem to have disappeared into a hole. Such is pharma.

This current debacle, though, seems more to be about catheter placement than drug availability. Can you imagine a similar situation in your own practice, where inept anaesthetic administration led to cardiac arrest? It just seems so amateur.

Martin

In reply to Enty:




In an experiment done in a calm setting it seemed to be about 25-30 seconds.

http://www.aintnowaytogo.com/beheading.htm

In reply to IainRUK:


The approved method of euthanasing rats is by carbon dioxide (unless the rules have changed recently). I always objected to it because, although it's quick, it seemed to me that it did cause some distress. Asphyxiation by removal of oxygen (eg by flooding with nitrogen) is different. There is no change on blood pH causing the reflex stimulation to breathe and the gasping and panting you see with use of carbon dioxide. There's lots of evidence that unconsciousness occurs painlessley and unexpectedly (which is why hyperventilating when free-diving is so dangerous).

It might be marginally more complicated to use nitrogen because it isn't heavier than air like carbon dioxide, but I'm sure it would be easy to design a simple chamber for small mammals and I think it should become the approved method.

In reply to MG:

I bet his execution was a lot less painful than that of the girl he shot and buried alive...

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Most small animal vets will have an anaesthetic 'chamber', which is essentially a Tupperware box, plumbed so that it links to the anaesthetic machine. For really small and/or bitey small furries, it's the most practical way of inducing anaesthesia - occasionally for euthanasia purposes.

I find an injection with a really small needle to be the best method for rats. A tiny prick with a needle (ah, the old chestnuts), and then a cuddle with the owner whilst it drifts off. The problem with chambers is primarily stress at being in an unusual environment.

In reply to crayefish:

Yes I think we all get that.

In reply to maisie:


I was often killing anything from two to a dozen at a time, so sadly they didn't get an individual cuddle, but I still think the process could be made less stressful. The problem is getting the Home Office rules changed. I'm not involved in lab science any longer, so it's not something I can do much about.

On the other hand, I am reluctantly going to have to do something about the rabbit invasion in the garden and vegetable patch. Many of them seem very tame, which makes it harder, not easier!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Particularly if you have kids

What about a cat? Or, with your background, even a ferret?

In reply to maisie:

Actually, our neighbours have a ferret. And no rabbits. There's an idea, although whether that's any more humane than a well-placed .22 pellet I'm not sure. I'll investigate.

It's the cute little baby ones hopping around on the lawn that will cause the most trouble. Also, they're a bit small and I'm planning an entirely homegrown version of this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/recipes/rabbit-and-c...

Sorry that's probably a slightly tasteless hijack. Well, not tasteless, exactly...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Or a cleverly subversive satire on the arbitrariness of our approach to Life in different species.

But mainly, nom nom nom.

I have kids, and through work keep getting given (shot) rabbits. I can't even take them home any more

Pheasant seems to go down well, though, as do mussels off the beach.

In reply to MG:

I disagree with the death penalty anyway, but what I find most barbaric about execution in the US is the number of people who don't seem to care if it's painful or not. This was demonstrated in the Portillo film, as well as in other cases (interviews from the police chief regarding the Washington Sniper, for example) Surely the way we treat our most vulnerable and our criminals is a mark of the humanity of a society.

To those in the know, why couldn't they just knock in a big overdose of morphine? What complications could that bring?

In reply to crayefish:


Would you like to see the style of justice where if somebody blinds another person, they can be blinded by their victim?

In reply to Timmd:

None as blind as those that cannot see

..seemed quite appropriate

In reply to IainRUK:


Was the CO2 removed from the system? I've not come across it in that setting.

In humans, low oxygen itself doesn't cause distress, but the build up of CO2 that you'd get in a normal sealed box does. It was a classic undergrad physiology pratical (with a strict time limit in place) - not sure if it's still allowed!

In reply to Green Porridge:


Presumably just the supply problems that seem to apply to other drugs when they're intended for this purpose. It certainly ought to be effective.

In reply to Carolyn:

But is there none made in the US? It's not like it's a brand new, super expensive drug, is it?

In reply to Green Porridge:

Neither, as far as I know, are some of the drugs you'd use in animals.

I haven't quite got my head round exactly what the legal issues are, but I'd assume they also apply to morphine and similar.

In reply to Green Porridge.
Pharma companies are multinational, if they trade in the EU they are forbidden from supplying them for execution. If they did they would not be able to supply the billion dollar healthcare market in north america.

D

In reply to Carolyn:

Aye.. they just pump CO2 in to it... so yeah the mechanism will be different, but the little guys certainly suffered.

I'd guess not re your practical...

We used to decerebilize lobsters before any work was done.. i.e. stab them in the head..

In reply to IainRUK:


I'd be disappointed if the physiology department had been dragged into the 21st century, but I fear it had to happen sometime. They had to tone down their postgrad safety demo after setting off the smoke alarms and causing the chemistry department to be evacuated two years in a row....

Anyhow - yes, completely different overdosing on CO2, and having low O2 with the CO2 being removed - we did both. You don't notice the lack of O2, but high CO2 is horrible.

In reply to crayefish:

Agree!!

In reply to MG:

Why dont we be totally fair and equitable to murderers.

Kill them in the same way that they murdered their victims. They obviously have no problems with that method of death!!

In reply to mgco3:

You're a genius born out of your time! Or maybe just a nasty sadist...

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Have a look at Buddhism and what Gautama said about violence....

Japanese martial arts have unfortunately misapplied Buddhist mind techniques for violent ends.

In reply to mgco3: Why do they need to faff around with drugs.The electric chair or gas chamber are effective in sorting out that filth.No apologies.

In reply to jkarran:



I havent murdered anyone or been to prison for violence. I am simply suggesting that if a murderer thinks it is OK to take someones life by a specific method then they should have no problems having that method used on themselves.

In the spirit of eye for an eye , you think I am a sadist maybe you are just an idiot!!

In reply to mgco3:
And I would assume that in the annoying misconviction cases that those who did the misconviction - judge, jury, police and executioner receive the death penalty for murdering an innocent?

In reply to wbo:


seems fair - death by gavel?

In reply to maisie:


sure - but it really seems the yanks have stuffed up - single suppliers for really critical drugs - running out of Propofol?



Sure I can envision an accident with a misplaced catheter leaing to problems, and I can certainly imagine anaesthetic overdose leading to problems in my practice, although hopefully not by me.

In this case the cardiac arrest happened c40min (?) after they started though - so it seems they got into a bit of a dither - at the point they had got to they should have just bashed in another IV and carried on, or even gone IC or something similar... frankly as you say amateur not to have a plan B in place.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


A whole other thread Doc. I make no secret that I am a "For" capital punishment.

I believe this thread was about "Methods" of execution not the ethics of whether it is correct or not.

If you are a Doc of Medicine then prehaps you can put ethics aside and suggest the most humane method.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Or called a halt, of course....

In reply to MG:
The traditional lethal injection is a triad of an overdose of anaesthetic agents at doses far above clinical levels:
- Thiopental, a barbituate at doses 10-20x anaesthetic doses. Similar to Pentobarbital, which has replaced it recently due to supply issues. Also used in veterinary practice as described above. Anaesthetic dose onset within 1 minute.
- Pancuronium, a muscle relaxant causing paralysis of respiratory muscles with a duration of action of at least 45 mins. Very large doses given. Onset 2-3 mins for Anaesthetic practice. Generally been replaced by newer agents in anaesthetic practice.
- Potassium chloride (KCl) to stop the heart. I suspect that this may sting when given or contribute to the failing of cannulas at the concentrations used.

As someone with experience using the above drugs or similar derivatives, I wish to stay out of the ethics but my gut feeling is that if you extrapolate the above pharmacology, provided that good IV access is secured and that the barbituate is given before the paralysis, I wouldn't expect the condemned to suffer any sensation of suffocation or pain. Of course we know very little about what happens inside the dying brain. It sounds as if inadequate 'execution' of the execution was to blame in the above article rather than failure of the drugs.

(Typo & ambiguity corrected)

In reply to mgco3:


I don't suppose you have. It's the apparent pleasure you take in discussing violent retribution that makes me suspect you're either stupid or a sadist. I'm not convinced you're stupid.


Am I supposed to be wowed by biblical bullshit? Should we still be stoning adulterers too?

Am I an idiot? Possibly.
jk

In reply to mgco3:



Well whether you are for or against it seems obvious that the death penalty should be carried out as humanely as possible. The US don't however, they contravene UN guidelines. The UN would much prefer people are executed swiftly, not locked up for decades then executed.

But with 4% of those on death row being innocent, a conservative estimate from the latest study, I think we should see it stop. I'm hoping this case brings about the end of this practice.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-hav...

Your argument that he should get what he gave is just childish and the state should rise above that. We teach kids an eye for an eye is wrong, if a kid gets hit we dont tell them to hit back, we dont hold the other kid down so he can get a free punch in.. you teach why it is wrong. The death penalty just encourages a disregard for life.

There is very little evidence it works, in the states there's certainly no correlation between executions and decline in murder rates.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-hav...

In reply to IainRUK:

How do you tell the direction of influence: i.e. maybe states with lots of murders have the death penalty *because* their population wants it *because* of the crime and the states without the death penalty don't see the need because their population is less scared of being murdered.

Texas, for example, has problems because it has a long border with Mexico where there is a near civil war going on with drug cartels,

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Of course, but there is just very little evidence that it's a deterrent.

Of course the populations with the death penalty want it... the US is a democracy..

But its those states which have a lower regard for life.

I doubt in Texas the mexico situation is that much of an impact.. there's a few very dangerous border towns but the murder rate elsewhere is pretty high, Dallas and Houston have high murder rates yet nowehere near the borders.. whereas El Paso is much lower.

Amazingly Austin has a higher murder rate than El Paso, and the murder rate in El Paso is 100 fold less than Juarez across the border.

Maybe you'd need to look at the murder rates when the death penalty was abolished and see how murder rates changes within that state..

But the death penalty is only carried out in a few states now, PA still has it but its not been used for a good 15 years or so.

Texas accounts for something like 50% of executions in the last 40 years.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murders-drop-new-jersey-following-moratoriu...

The number of murders in New Jersey declined 24% in the first six months of 2009 compared to the same period last year. Murders declined in 2008, the year after the state abolished the death penalty, marking the first time since 1999 that New Jersey has seen a drop in murders for two consecutive years. Murders dropped 11% in 2007, the year following a state-imposed moratorium on executions, which was instituted in 2006. Governor Jon Corzine, who signed the bill abolishing the death penalty, was encouraged by the statistics and attributed the decline to aggressive crime-fighting measures: "The release of these crime report statistics shows that we are winning important battles in the war against violent criminals and gangs," said the Governor. "Thanks to the efforts of Attorney General Milgram and the New Jersey law enforcement community, county task forces, police departments, and partner agencies, more than 4,200 offenders have been arrested for crimes including murder, assault with a firearm, armed robbery, and gun and drug trafficking. We know more work remains. Even one act of violence against a New Jersey citizen is one too many."

In reply to jkarran:

The eye for an eye quote wasn't meant to be "biblical" just logical. ( If you think I subscribe to biblical teaching then you dont know me at all matey!!)

If someone thinks it OK to take someones life then they cannot complain when their own life is taken from them. Plain and simple.

The "Pleasure" I would take would be from removing ,from society, people who are OK with murder.

Stoning Adulterers?? Stay on subject!! The OP is "Killing things"

In reply to mgco3:



It's not plain and simple. 4.1% of people on death row in the US are innocent.. that's 1 in 25.. and that's in a developed country.. so 3000 people on death row, 1 in 25 are innocent.. that's 120+ people waiting to be executed who should not be there... the problem is its actually better to be innocent on death row than innocent and have the sentence reduced to life without parole because those on death row have a chance of their convictions being challenged; due to limited resources those in for life without parole will probably never have their cases challenged...

A colleague has just written a book about a local lad in TX who was executed and his lawyer slept through his trial.. this was quite recently too. The system just is not reliable enough never mind if we even decide that state killing is right if judgements are reliable..

No, you are right if they did the murder I dont think they should expect much sympathy, but as humane people and people better than the sort that kill I'd hope a civilised state would not execute them and show the compassion which they couldn't..

I'm even not entirely happy with no chance of parole, I think the British, Canadian and others is the way forwards. I also think prisons should be as nice as possible, follow the Norwegian model. I see no reason to continue to punish someone other than taking their freedom. Allow education, allow them to develop and become better people. Some that won't be possible but we should try IMO.

In reply to IainRUK:

Nice to see that you havent changed your views on Capital Punishment Iain.

I totally disagree of course. I also totally disagree with your point of view on kids teaching! I was taught (and taught all of my kids) that you NEVER attack anyone but if someone attacks you you have free rein to return the attack blow for blow!!!

Kick the shit out of a bully and he will think twice before trying it again.

I can honestly say that I have never started a fight but I have ended several.

I see you are also trawling out your "The death penalty is proved not to work" links (again).

Not convinced. Never will be. A dead murderer can never reoffend.

In reply to mgco3:
It's many of the rest of us rather than the murderers complaining that the death penalty is expensive, doesn't reduce the murder rate, results in the state killing innocent people and some say it's immoral.

In reply to mgco3:

Why would I change? It's a core belief, you may become more conservative with age, more liberal, you dont suddenly lose regard for life.

I'm trawling out the innocent get executed again.. yes.. kind of a valid argument. If life is so sacred how can you support the killing of innocent people?

So as a teacher you'd tell a kid to punch back.. ffs

In reply to mgco3:



And an innocent person cannot be brought back from the dead... your thinking is illogical.

In reply to elsewhere:

Cheaper than keeping someone in Prison for the rest of their life

Without the death penalty if 1 murderer is released and then commits another murder then the death penalty would , at the least, reduce the murder rate by 1.

If 10 innocent people are saved by 1 innocent death then the odds are , IMO , worth it.

My definition of immoral is society letting these sort of people free to commit these sorts of crimes against "Real" innocent people.

Sometimes society has to kill for the common good. During war for example.

I dread to think how much worse the holocaust would have been if countries hadn't stood up to the Hitler. Yes innocent people died during the conflict but for the common good.

Or would you prefer the alternative?

In reply to mgco3:


How is it logical?




It's not because of supposed complaints from those executed that people oppose the death penalty. It's because of the implications of making mistakes, brutalising those who do the execution and society more generally, the ineffectiveness in lowering crimes rates, and cost.

In reply to mgco3:


In extreme cases yes. But dealing with crime isn't one of them. Which society with the death penalty do you think is preferable to the UK in terms of crime rates, society's good and so on?

In reply to mgco3:


You are just so wrong...


No its not... please go and read up on this subject. the cost of the death penalty is huge.. with all the appeals and re-trials. Unless you have no regard for life and dont allow appeals..

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html?_r=0
https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/02viewpoint-swaying-public-radical-fa...


Even Fox news

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-b...

Do you actually read these links? Or just decided that its cheaper to drag the guy outside and kill him..



Are you really this challenged?



So if your kid was executed?



Wow.. you've brought the holocaust in to this? Its pretty simple, I want a fair just society...

In reply to IainRUK:

You are right about innocents not comming back from the dead!

Tell that to the family of Lee Rigby.

And tell them that we can do nothing about his murderers because they may well be innocent!

Your thinking is the sort of thinking that has resulted in the sort of society where it is no longer safe to walk the streets at night.

In reply to mgco3:

And the economist..

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

Ae you prepared to accept you are wrong?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/economy.death.penalty/index.html?iref=h...

500,000 per case saved if they don't seak the death penalty...

In reply to mgco3:





It is safe to walk the streets at night.. I do every day..

Dont hijack Lee Rigby... its been atrocious how that guys death has been hijacked like this for any one to pin a campaign on from racists to those in favour of capital punisments.. his family have been quite vocal recently that it should stop.

In reply to mgco3:



And no, there is no evidence it's a deterrent. You can argue it all you want but it just is not shown to be the case.

Economically there is 0 argument for it.

As a detterent.. it falls down. In NJ the murder rate fell considerably once it was abolished.

They have also looked at murder rates in a number of states before and after high profile executions.. there is almost no difference, if anything murder rates go up following an execution..

It's people like you preaching a lack of regard for life who are the problem..

In reply to IainRUK:

I cannot understand why anyone would rather side with murderers than their victims. This is what it boils down to.

Answer this for me Iain.

What if your kid was violently attacked in the street and you witnessed it?? Would you not use every ounce of your strength to protect them even if meant killing the attacker? Who's life would you chose ?The life of your child or the life of their attacker?

When it comes to a distinct choice your childs life of an attacker. Who would you chose?

In reply to mgco3:


You have got to be a troll. In case you aren't (and I am pretty certain I can answer for Iain here too), I would protect from immediate danger but wouldn't then proceed to kill the attacker once the danger was over. If you really can't see the difference between self-defence and judicial punishment, you are a moron.

In reply to mgco3:
How have I sided with the killers. I have said lock them up.

If you look at the families response, most victims familities then get a greater regard for life and oppose the death penalty, that was a crucial factor in its abolition in NJ... but hey I wouldnt expect someone who refuses to read about a subject to know such details...


You've just asked the most ludicrous question.. so you are now admitting you lost the argument? You are now saying to chose between kill one or have your kid killed, not killing in retribution?

Those who kill in the heat of the moment in defence of themselves or others I can understand, that's very different from catching someone and having the state execute them.


Your question just reinforces how little support you can actually provide for the death penalty. You've brought up Hitler.. now saying its your kid or them...

I'm not a huge fan of armed police but understand it is needed in areas with high gun crime. if an officer shoots someone who is a risk to others I would not want him prosecuted. He'd have done his job. Had he caught them without needing to shoot I would not want that person executed.

In reply to MG:

I did ask Iain . So thanks for answering the question for him!! I am sure he needs no hand holding on this one.

No troll, just asking the question. If you had no choice. The attackers life or your child. No options of disabling etc etc.

Make the choice, Kill the attacker or let your child be killed.

Choose. One or the other.

In reply to mgco3:


They were tried, found guilty and given whole life tariffs. In what possible way is that 'doing nothing'?

They hadn't killed and been released previously so your 'dead men can't kill' bullshit doesn't apply. What point are you making, surely not just that violent vengeance would be a better alternative sentence? They're already removed from society.

What's the point in killing them, just to satisfy your bloodlust?

jk

In reply to IainRUK:

So you are saying that if an officer has to kill an armed criminal you would not want the officer charged with killing the criminal?

In reply to mgco3:

If you read very carefully, you will see I answered for me anx speculated he would agree. I am sure he will point out if he doesn't.




I've already answered that - obviously the attacker. What relevance does this have to the death penalty?

In reply to jkarran:

The subject of the post was method of killing murderers not just their sentencing.

No bloodlust. Just proper justice and the method of applying it.

My argument being if somone is happy to take a life then they should be happy to have theirs taken too..

In reply to MG:

So you confirm that there are circumstances that you would take a life.

In reply to mgco3:
Get on with it...what point are you attempting make?

In reply to mgco3:


Perhaps you could shed some light on the difference, I'm struggling to see it myself?

You want to see someone killed, on your behalf by the state in revenge for their crime and you've said you'd consider it appropriate for the same method used on the killer's victim to be used on the killer (18:34 Thursday). Dispute any of that? In what way is wishing to have someone hacked to death with knives not bloodlust?


I know, you've mentioned it a couple of times already. What they want or 'should be happy with' doesn't matter, what counts is what we as the rest of a decent society want.

jk

In reply to MG:

Simply that you would have made the choice to take a life.

Now imagine that that you didnt get there in time and your child was killed instead of the attacker and the attacker was a previously convicted murderer who had served a sentence but had been released.

What then. If there had been the death sentence for murderers your child would still be alive. Hypothetical I know but the question still begs an answer.

In reply to mgco3:


Not hypothetical. One of my friends was brutally murdered by someone who'd killed before.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

A the risk of getting posts "crossed", my idea of a decent society is one where murderers are removed.

I would be happy if they were removed and imprisoned forever! but sometimes they are freed to reoffend.

If murderers always got a whole life sentence without chance of parole then I would be happy with that whatever the cost.However thyat is not always the case

I reiterate that the post originally was about "Humane methods" of execution. I have no problems with capital punishment as my own personal belief is that the sentence itself should be a detterent. Others have offered "statistical" evidence to support the view that the punishment does not prevent the crime. I am afraid I dont see that a life of relative luxury in a prison is a sufficient deterent for such an abhorent crime. Hence my support of capital punishment.

In reply to mgco3:

It's totally different... The killing of an armed man to save others is different to executing them..

Do you now accept you were wrong that the death penalty is cheaper .. Just answer the question and support your answer...

In reply to jkarran:

Then you must be able to make the conclusion that , had the murderer been "removed" from society permanently(by whatever means, total life sentence or capital punishment) they would still be alive today.

In reply to IainRUK:

Iain, you know very well that the question can not be anwered as it would depend on how long the prisoner stayed alive.

The likelyhood however is:-

The person would continue to accumulate costs of appeals etc whether they were given a life sentence or a death sentence.

The difference being that with a death sentence the appeals cost would end with the execution.

In reply to mgco3:
Please go and read the links... Yes the question can be answered .. Look at the links... You were wrong. You made a statement that you cannot defend.

In reply to maisie:

My understanding was that was what happened - the person in charge decided to abandon the execution after the MD alerted him to the problem with the IV - the victim subsequently arrested.

A sub lethal dose of NMBA, barbiturate and KCL extravascularily not my dignitas cocktail of choice.....

In reply mgco3


Hmmmm, Xenon could be quite nice, pricey though.

In reply to IainRUK:

I only need to look at the scource Iain. CNN!!!

As soon as a prisoner is excecuted the costs stop!!!

That is a fact that, even you, cannot deny.

The cost of continuing appeals ad infinitum is an unmeasurable cost.

Once again you have traded off simple logic for the views of those who are against the death penalty.

You cannot deny simple maths. We have been down this path before. If I remember you final post the last time we argued about this you stated that you would never support the DP no matter what proof was offered.

You have your point of view. I have mine.

I will , again, state. If 1 murderer is executed who would have, without the DP, been released and commited another murder then that is 1 innocent life saved.

You can wax lyrically all you want but this fact remains.

1 less murder!!

In reply to mgco3:
Well it seems 4% of those on death row are innocent so that unless more than 4% of released murderers commit murder the the death penalty increases the number of innocent lives lost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ra...

In reply to mgco3:

You picked one link... I gave you what 6/7? Back up your statement that it is cheaper to execute.. I've shown it is not. You also haven't said what if your kid was executed by mistake?

BBC links says 3 released murderers kill per year so that costs about 3 innocent lives per year.

Wiki link says 700 murders per year so if we had the death penalty then we would expect 30 innocents to be executed per year.

Overall the death penalty would cost several or ten times the number of innocent lives than the number of people who would be saved.

URLs a couple of posts up.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


I hadn't realised that - I thought they were still beavering away when he decided to take matters into his own hands.

A good few times over the years I've called a halt to anaesthetics when induction hadn't gone according to plan; I suspect, given your advanced skills, you'll have been through the same process more often still.

It's ironic that a series of inept actions which kill the patient don't seem to constitute malpractice in this case.

Martin

In reply to mgco3:

'You cannot deny simple maths.'

No but everyone can recognise 'simple'.

You're an idiot, and sadly you don't even seem to know it. Arguments about the DP are nothing to do with cost, and only marginally to do with preventing deaths on some simplistic calculus. (Look the words up and understand them before you reply, please.)

The issue is how we move to a more civilised world where everyone is safer, where there is less violence and less murder. The theory - backed up with evidence - is that countries that don't have the DP have lower murder rates than those that do.

And anyway, I could never kill anybody in cold blood, (hot blood is very different), so I will never ask anyone to do so on my behalf.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Quite. This is excellent and a masterclass in debating
youtube.com/watch?v=46oFIJiWR5E&

In reply to mgco3:





You are right... apart from by all measures deaths by mistakes Death penalth exceed those by deaths by mistaken releases...

In reply to IainRUK:

Iain, as usual, your closed mind refuses to even acknowledge the obvious.

Using arbitrary figures here:-

Quite simply if a murderer costs 10,000 a year to keep in jail and expends another 10,000 a year on legal costs then 20,000 a year is the cost.

If he is kept in prison 30 years then = 600,000

If he is executed after 5 years (5 x 20,000 = 100,000) then as long as the execution costs less than 500,000 it is cheaper.

Plain and simple . I dont expect you to agree of course but then you never do accept simple facts. I cant make it any simpler.

Dont wander off into morals and ethics those are subjective point.

Cold hard cash terms DP is cheaper in the long run

In reply to elsewhere:

Again we are wandering into morals and ethics here. The post theme was "Methods of killing murderers". My original argument being that if a murderer is OK taking a life then they cannot complain when their life is taken.

Your 4% quotes "those on death row" and not those executed. Some of those 4% may well be innocent and may well get off on appeal which will lower the figure.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Hi there. I see you havn't been able to string together a coherent argument yet and are resorting to name calling (again)

Your posting kind of gives you away:-

>so I will never ask anyone to do so on my behalf. You are unwilling to even contemplate that the facts might contradict your views

Definition of a idiot - Someone who cannot string together a coherent argument and resorts to infantile name calling.

have a nice day sunshine.

In reply to mgco3:

Whilst I in principle agree with a death penalty from the point of view of a removal of a threat where you lack the resources to do otherwise (ie if someone is very likely to re-offend and you lack the resources to change or contain them, and it is debatable whether killing or containing for life is the more humane, then execution is the only logical step). I do not advocate execution within society for the following reasons.
a) aside from the removal of a specific person who has committed a criminal act it has been proved time and time again not to have any overall deterrent value. Far more effective in preventing murder is education, a stable society and the likely hood of being caught.
b) The obvious one of miscarriage of justice, not only from the point of view of mistaken identity (which is very real) but also from the deliberate falsification of evidence but those who bring prosecutions. Compensation is a poor substitute to a partner or child returned. The length of time spent on death row in American gaols is partially a response to the possibility of miscarriage as any attempt to speed up the process creates room for error.
c) Dress it up how you like but at the end of the day it is still State sanctioned murder, which is not necessarily a bad thing but shouldn't we aim to rise above that?
d) execution removes the possibility of redemption

In reply to mgco3:


It is if you make up the numbers. It's also clear that in the real world it's not so simple, referring to actual data rather than made up bullshit it's apparent it costs far more to have the state kill someone 'safely' than to imprison them long term.

jk

In reply to mgco3:


Indeed. If you live by the sword then you can expect to die by it.
However the complain or otherwise of the murderer is irrelevant to the actions of the state in deciding how best to deal with them, which should operate on a higher level than that of the criminal, having far more to consider than the mere act of killing.

In reply to mgco3:

but you need to factor into your calculation the fact that prisoners on death row tend to go through more, and more expensive, legal processess than those just in jail - so just to fiddle with your figures:

30 years in jail at 10,000 pa = 300,000
legal costs during that period = 500,000
total
800,000

5 years in jail at 10,000 pa - 50,000
legal costs during that time - 1,000,000
cost of execution using xenon - 1,000

total
1,051,000

so clearly cheaper to keep people in jail!

do my made up numbers trump your made up numbers?

In reply to mgco3:

Using the argument of cold hard cash then we should simply garrotte them with cheesewire with out trial. May be we could have a DM readers poll to see if they are guilty or not? May be even sell the rights to television and make money for the state?
Cheaper is not necessarily better

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Again we are off thread here. (Methods of killing)

I agree with most of the points that you put. If a life sentence for murderers actually meant that they would be removed from society forever then I would accept this as an alternative to the DP despite the additional cost.

I dont however agree that the DP is not a deterrent. You cannot prove the deterrent factor totally unless you match like for like.

Saying that the states of the USA that do have the DP have higher murder rates than those that dont isnt matching apples with apples.

You can say that state 'A' has the DP but has a higher murder rate that state 'B' proves nothing.

You would have to repeat the "measurement" for state 'A' WITHOUT the DP for the SAME time frame.

Something we cannot do. We can only match apples and oranges and make assumptions.

In reply to jkarran:

If my figures are bullshit then I am happy to look at your figures.

I only used simple maths. I have given a simple mathematical sum. Prove it wrong.

In reply to Timmd:

Not something I'd 'like' to see. But if it was proven beyond ALL shadow of a doubt and that the person did it with malicious intent (i.e. the guy was blinded because the attacker tried to blind him purposely, rather than punched him and an eyeball popped!), I wouldn't be opposed to it.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
You didnt use the same numbers for legal costs per annum. Based on a cost per hour which is reasonable to assume for ongoing appeals. If it isn't already legal aid should be on a time and cost basis.

I hope you can calculate the doseage of tablets that you precribe!!

Thank you for the figure for the "xenon execution costs" that adds more weight to my cost based argument.

In reply to mgco3:
I think I heard before that it is much more expensive to have someone on deathrow than life inprisonment. But I am sure given the will that could be changed. But remember, while you can let someone out of prison if they are found to be innocent later (appeals etc), it's a little more difficult after a visit to old sparky

Probably the reason the legal costs are much higher for deathrow.

EDIT: also, the official figures could be skewed possibly as I think prisoners in the US work so thus make inprisonment cheaper (some cash to them, some to the prison/state). I don't think deathrow guys do. But I could be wrong.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I never said cheaper was better. Someone put the point of costs against keeping them in prison. I simply offered an answer.

xenon sounds cheap though. Is that a "humane" method of euthanasia?

In reply to mgco3:

>

And yet every study going shows that it is not a deterrent.


Still shows that it isn't a deterrent though, but I wasn't arguing from the US perspective


Equally it doesn't prove that it is a deterrent, we have no statistics to back that up


Agreed so how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is a deterrent?

In reply to mgco3:

fair enough.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Using human nature. Everyone is afraid of death, it is basic human nature.

It is an argument that I am open for anyone to disprove. Only problem is to truly disprove it you would have to kill yourself.

( in the spirit of OTT PC I hereby state that I am in no way expecting or suggesting that anyone actually kill themself and this statement is offered as part of a general theory of human nature)mgo3

In reply to mgco3:


Except you've proved time and time again that you're not happy to and you won't. Iain has provided you with plenty of links to data and analysis that you refuse to read and reject out of hand in favour of making up 'simple maths'. Read what Iain has linked.


The arithmetic is correct (well done!) but it's garbage in, garbage out. There's a wealth of real data available, why make up your own?

jk

In reply to crayefish:


If you wouldn't be willing to do it yourself, to put out someone else's eyes in an act of cold-blooded vengeance why would you be willing to ask someone to do it on your behalf?

And why wouldn't you be willing to do it yourself?

jk

In reply to jkarran:


I am not making it up. I am offering simple mathematics to prove a statement.

How do you know that your "Real data" is true, unbiased and accurate. They are usually produced by those with an axe to grind.

Millions of people believe in one god or another and they will all produce "facts and figures" to prove their separate beliefs.

They cant all be right..

In reply to mgco3:



There are plenty of good opportunities that exist and that have been exploited for a rigorous appraisal of the 'deterrent effect'. There isn't one.

To dismiss those studies out of hand as invalid simply displays your ignorance. There's a simple solution to ignorance.

jk

In reply to mgco3:



no - and I gave reasons for that - read what I posted.



Its made up. just like your numbers - either provide real figures (see Iain's links probably) or accept your argument based on made up values is cobblers.

In reply to mgco3:


I would think so - of course we would need to test it to be sure, do you fancy paying a visit to my research establishment?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

What, smoking Beagles and squirting shampoo in rabbits eyes?

Not ruddy likely!!

I have probably been there already ! protesting outside

In reply to mgco3:


and yet we have a lower murder rate now than all those times in history when the death penalty was inforce in this country? I agree that it is human nature to be afraid of death but in the case of murder fear of death is not upper most in the mind of the muderer as it is either a) a crime of passion, spur of the moment anger or b) if premeditated, then the murderer does not believe that they will be caught. Fear of being hanged never stopped Jack the Ripper, William Palmer, the Boston Strangler or any other killer you care to mention.
To my mind the people deterred by a death penalty would also be deterred by the prospect of 20 years, or even 10 years in prison.
People who deliberately kill do so for many different reasons. The woman who stabs the husband she believes may kill her acts out of fear that may out weigh the prospect of being hung. The "hoodie" who kills out of peer pressure from a gang may believe that loyalty (however misplaced) is more important than his life, the clever serial killer who believes that he can never be caught, etc, etc, and how would a death penalty be a deterrent to a suicide bomber?



Given the numbers of suicides we see in the papers every day that doesn't really hold water.

Or point out how many murders are done in DP zones. You say it isn't arguing like for like but it is very plain to see that a Death penalty was no deterrrent to them wot done them murders


phew!

In reply to mgco3:
What are your guesstimate for the number who would be executed, the number of innocents who would be executed and the number of innocents who would be saved?

In reply to Dr.S at work:



Read your post. I did state "arbitrary figures" . You can use whatever figures you like. The only 2 variables are:-

1) Number of years in prison. = Less when exection takes place

2) Cost of execution - As long as this is less than (Number of years in prison without execution X cost of keeping inmate in prison and ongoing legal cost per year)

Use any values you want for both equations. As long as the cost of execution is less than the ongoing cost then the answer will be that execution is cheaper.

UNLESS the cost of execution is high and the life expectancy of the prisoner is low..

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I like your argument. You point out that some people may not be afraid of death.

The conclusion can be drawn then, If we had the DP anyone committing murder does not fear death. That is fine then . They will have no fear or problem being executed!

In reply to mgco3:
You've missed out the expensive bit - court and legal costs.

In reply to elsewhere:

I wouldnt even hazard a guess.

What I could say is:-

1)There would be no repeat offenders therefore lives saved.

2)Less "innocents" would be executed as technology and forensics improves

3) ANY innocents saved is a good thing.

In reply to mgco3:




Well some wouldn't fear death, others might, but their sentiments are not relevant to their execution.

I am reminded of the case of one Charles Shaw who at fifteen was arrested for the murder of a younger lad John Holdcroft after a gambling argument. He had strangled him and put a rope around his neck to make it look like suicide but blood on his shirt and witnesses who had seen them both together laid suspicion upon him. At the trial he confessed and was sentenced to hang. However due to some problems with the evidence (rather than his age) the sentence was commuted to transportation to New Zealand. Nevertheless he wasn't told straight away. He was reported as crying on his way to the scaffold and they actually put the noose over his head before telling him that he wasn't going to die. He was transported for life married a fellow prisoner, became a farmer and raised a family.

Not a for or against. Just an example of how we used to do things

In reply to mgco3:



3 lives per year saved


Why inverted commas? It is not plausible that justice is free from human error.


Even if it costs the lives of a greater number of wrongly convicted innocents?

In reply to mgco3:

Not as cheap as nitrogen, and works the same way. Although whether it gives a comedy squeaky voice I'm not sure.

Actually, from a quick look at the periodic table, probably not.

In reply to jkarran:



Never said I wouldn't be willing to do it myself... if someone chopped my leg off on purpose, then I wouldn't have too much trouble chopping theirs off... maybe reattach it to my stump

But anyway; no one else is doing it for you... execution these days is computer administered so no one is 'to blame'. The law as an entity is responisble for the decision of course, but making such decisions (with death penalty being the most extreme) is exactly what the law is for. If someone kills your child, the law locks them up for life (you hope)... you are not asking the prison guard or judge to do it for you as a person.

But of course the law doesn't allow self administered punishment (which is a good thing really as people would go overboard). But it is all speculation... we say one thing now but we might (and likely would) react differently when in the situation you describe.

In reply to crayefish:


Gosh, different points of view I guess. I'd just want criminals to be prevented from harming anybody else. I feel it can do something negative to society if it sanctions things like the death penalty, or tit for tat punishments.

In reply to crayefish:



No... a trial is 500k more if you seek the death penalty, many states now no longer seek it for this reason.. financially its a huge issue..

In reply to mgco3:



Its not plain and simple.. we can take two approaches here.. use actual numbers or 'arbitrary' numbers... one says the death penalty has no economic sense.. did you read the f*cking links?

cold hard cash terms the death penalty is NOT cheaper....

READ

THE

LINKS

In reply to Dave Garnett:



indeed, it would be a nice deep voice - quite a lot denser than air, and its anaesthetic attributes would mean you would lose conciousness before you became hypoxic so I think it might be nicer than nitrogen.

Its actually quite expensive - if it was cheap we would use it a lot for anaesthesia.

In reply to IainRUK:






To be fair the figures don't relate to the death penalty per se. They relate to the costs of the (US) judicial and legal processes that have been adopted and sprung up around the (US) systems that have been put into place around the death penalty. (eg second trials to decide on death penalty sentences, automatic rights of appeal, etc)

In reply to off-duty:
Yes, we could get rid of all that appeals stuff because the justice system has never got it wrong and get bullets at 20 cents each from Walmart.

In reply to elsewhere:


I can't see where I have suggested that - just that the claims about the economic cost of the death penalty are inaccurate.

In reply to off-duty:


No they are not.. read the links.. its also about first trials...

But yes we also should allow appeals, they are involved in the costs, and as as may as 4% maybe innocent thank god we have appeal processes..

There is no economic argument to support it, try and find some?

In reply to off-duty:
The increased legal costs are part of the cost of the death penalty. If you're going to discount those then you might as well discount all the other costs too and say the cost is the 20 cents for the bullet.

In reply to IainRUK:




All the costs are in relation to the American system and the particular alterations and additions made to the "ordinary" trial system for a death penalty case.

There is no reason why the American system would have to be adopted by the UK (or any other country) that decided to introduce the death penalty.
It would be feasible to introduce it as a sentencing option at trial with the system of appeals remaining as it currently exists.

In reply to elsewhere:


No they aren't. They are the possible costs if the American system is copied. We don't copy vast tracts of the US legal system in our current law and process, so why should we do it here.

In reply to off-duty:
So using the based on historical error rate within the current legal system how would the expected number of innocents executed compare to the number of innocents saved from murder?

In reply to elsewhere:

An entirely different argument from the financial one, and not a point I have tried to make.

I would imagine it is a difficult calculation to make, particularly since being acquitted whether on trial or on appeal is not (*edit) always (*edit) the same thing as being innocent.

In reply to off-duty:

I did a very easy bit of mental arithmetic earlier in this thread and unless less than 0.4% of convicted murderers are innocent more innocents would be executed than innocent victims of released murderers saved.

In reply to off-duty:

So provide some working that it is cheaper?

The cost of a trial will still, and should be astronomical.

We can only look at other developed nations, most civilised nations have got rid of it and the societies are safer, and the US system clearly demonstrates there is no financial argument for the death penalty..

Your response of 'well we'll do it cheaper'.. is without any support.

In reply to elsewhere:


I think it's a very hard calculation to make.
The obvious inaccuracies I can see with it are :-
1. The 700 (UK) murders you mention doesn't equate to 700 people on death row. The US has 14,173 murders PER YEAR, and there are 3088 people on death row IN TOTAL

2. I don't know the level of recidivist murders in the US. I would think it is quite skewed - partially because convicted murderers get much longer sentence in the US than the UK, and partially because those murders that do occur will tend to be of other prison inmates.

In reply to IainRUK:





I haven't said that it will be cheaper. I am just pointing out that the economic cost argument is based on a different system and different processes.

However it is feasible that the UK system, operating as it currently does, could convict someone to the death penalty for a similar cost as a "normal" conviction, allow the same appeal process as a "normal" conviction allows for similar costs, and then save money on the cost of imprisoning someone as they would be executed rather than spend 30+ years in custody.

As I previously said there are large difference between our system and the US system, so it is wrong to suggest that our costs would be the same.

In reply to off-duty:
But if you execute fewer than the the 700 or so murderers per year you'll save even fewer or none of the 3 or so victims of released (good point, or possibly still imprisoned) previously convicted murderers per year.

Those are uk numbers.

In reply to elsewhere:



Quite possibly, it's not an argument I have made. Just highlighting difficulties with the calculation - and with mixing together UK and US stats.

In reply to off-duty:
Numerical estimates based on assumptions are my bread and butter. Only a fool would claim precision.

Got any numbers however rough suggesting death penalty is useful or not useful?

In reply to off-duty:

There is but you will need an appeal process... and you are just saying it can be cheaper..

"However it is feasible that the UK system, operating as it currently does, could convict someone to the death penalty for a similar cost as a "normal" conviction, allow the same appeal process as a "normal" conviction allows for similar costs, and then save money on the cost of imprisoning someone as they would be executed rather than spend 30+ years in custody."

SHow some numbers? I suspect not, you have to bring in the death penalty again for a start, then have an appeal trial, then actually go through with the sentence which will have its own costs. I'd be amazed if it could be done cheaper.

If it could be the US would be doing so, the cost of it is a huge issue which you'd understand if you read the links but I suspect you did not. States could streamline the process but you'd still need a lengthy process.

If we brought in the death penalty I think its unlikely we'd not bring in a lengthy appeals and sentencing review as well.. but thankfuly the UK is civilised bar a few of the mgoco3 people so its all academic. Just the financial argument is weak and easily refuted.

There are 3 reasons for it commonly argued
deterrent, stop innocents being killed, financial..

There's no evidence of a deterrent, there is more chance of innocent people being executed and there is no evidence to support the financial argument...

Mgco3 says he's willing to have the odd innocent executed for the greater good.. yet I suspect if its his innocent kid wrongly convicted being strapped into a gurney he'd not be so keen on the collateral damage argument..

In reply to IainRUK:


No I wasn't. I was highlighting the difficulties with comparison with the US system. Feasibly it could be cheaper as I mentioned:-



Numbers are very hard to "show" as they would pretty much be pulled out of the air. I mentioned appeals - why would "extra" be necessarily required for capital cases.



I did read the links. Not sure why you think I didn't. My argument is purely that they (as usual) are based purely on the US system. A system that already differs from ours in a number of ways, and is even more different when it comes to capital cases.
Since I have repeated this point for the third time, I could equally ask whether you have actually read my posts.






I find the criminal justice system is often not a very good area for cost/benefit analysis and you are missing out the most important argument about the death penalty - the moral one:- Whether it is an acceptable or appropriate means of dealing with those who commit the most heinous crimes.

In reply to elsewhere:



Similar to my reply to Iain, the question shouldn't be about "use" - in my view it should be about a moral judgement of society.

In reply to off-duty:
No I'm not chalky brought out the argument about the death penalty being financial not me...

Yes I have read your points, you as usual side step..

You may think the moral issue is the main one. It is not, people rarely use if for the death penalty, hence we are so far in and its not been mentioned much.. the big one is that its a deterrent.. which it is not.

Morally things like deterrents and innocents being executed are part of the issue.. you may want people to look at it from off duty's narrow perspective but you cant dictate how people think, many of us think about the bigger picture... and that will include the risk of wrongful executions and if its a deterrent.

In reply to IainRUK:



I'm not clear what you think I'm sidestepping.
My initial point was simply that your financial argument is based on figures that relate to a large scale change of the legal process to emulate the American system - not simply an incorporation of the death penalty within our existing system.

As I have said - cost/benefit is often not a useful way of making decisions about criminal justice - as it is very difficult to give a number to a moral decision.
The fact that the moral position hasn't been raised by anyone else doesn't make it any less key (though glancing through the posts I see Rob touched on it at 21.29 on Friday)

(Edited to remove a couple of typos)

In reply to mgco3:

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Do you have comprehension problems? Nowhere did he say anything of the sort, that's not to say it's not true, but Duncan didn't say or imply that in his post. It's a short paragraph, read it again slowly and carefully.

jk

In reply to crayefish:


I meant would you maim a stranger in cold blood but you're a smart guy, you new what I meant.


You believe that?


You ask them as a society, a society which you as an individual are a part of.


Indeed.
jk

In reply to off-duty:


True. We'd probably contract the management and execution of terminal convicts out to G4S or Serco...

In reply to jkarran:

Not really... I didn't think we were talking about maiming strangers. It was about revenge on someone who had maimed yourself.


I think that's fairly well known isn't it? Executions in the US are done so that no one 'pushes the button' so to speak. Obviously it other countries it can be different (especially with older style excecutions). That's the main reason firing squads are done with a squad rather than an individual... after all a good shot will easily hit someone in the right place from the low range used for this execution. But with many people doing it, it is impossible to say which bullet in particular (and hence the person) delivered the fatal blow. Thus the families of the deceased and others cannot blame one individual for killing the person and they are less accountable.


Of course. But as a society we appoint/employ/elect law makers/enforcers to do this on our behalf.

In reply to mgco3:


Really?

youtube.com/watch?v=Wy3SuhEQHVg&

In reply to IainRUK:

I READ THE LINKS!!!

WASN'T

IMPRESSED!

HAVEN'T

CHANGED

MY

VIEWS

Regards

mgco3

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Frankly that's uncalled for Tom, you have lowered this debate to the gutter. Suggest you delete.

In reply to jkarran:

No Comprehension problems at all.

I said people are afraid of death.

He countered with people who commit suicide.

Which of the 2 statements dont you understand FFS.

Please read peoples posts and try and understand their points of view and not just jump straight into petty insulting posts.

It make you look like your IQ matches your age!

In reply to off-duty:

Iain. You are, once again, back to the point of using US as a defacto set of rules for how things "would be if"

The origanl post, admittedly, was brought about by a botched US execution, but the theme of the post was execution methods.

Just because something does or doesnt work in the US doesnt neccessarily mean that it would or wouldnt work anywhere else.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I think if asked most thrill seekers would still admit to being afraid of death.

That is part of the thrill

In reply to mgco3:
No you were saying it saves money...

OK so we make it UK speciifc.. so we have to factor in re-introducing it, laws, facilities...

And I think we would have a US type system, just because we didn't 40 years ago doesn't mean we wouldn't now..

Well if it works so much why has almost every country in europe done away with it genius?

In reply to mgco3:

You may think it is a deterrent and people are afraid of death.. then why is it not a deterrent? why did we get rid of it?

We were killing innocent people and it was not acting as a deterrent...

You states the loss of a few innocents is OK.. so what if it was your kid?

You can say 'well thats the US'.. we have almost no other data to use because the US is about the only country with a transparent open execution system with reliable data. It has been shown that following an execution murder rates actually go up.. it has also been shown that once abolished, murder rates go down...

In reply to mgco3:




And people who willfully commit murder.

Just occured to me today that climbers fit into the catagory, have lead some quite run out routes today with potentially fatal falls, but I wasn't really thinking that I could die I just focused on the matter in hand.

It is quite an interesting side line to ponder that although we all have a natural disinclination to die it is always part of a wider assessment of risk. "I don't want to die but how likely is that?" And people assess risk in different ways, for some people my climbing would be an insane thing to do.

In reply to IainRUK:


It was abolished in 1965. There has been no referendum on the DP since.


No, it was abolished to align with europe. There was no study to prove or disprove a detterent.


Unfortunately these days it is more likely that one of my kids would be a victim of violent crime than the criminal. I could ask the question of you. What if your kid was murdered by a reoffending murderer?


http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

Gives a balanced and opposing view.

By stating that, once abolished murder rates go down, you have to also suggest the conclusion that the death penalty encourages people to commit murder. Either it is a deterent or an incentive. Which?

In reply to mgco3:

'No, it was abolished to align with europe.' Your history is as flaky as everything else, that's rubbish. We had very little to do with Europe as such in 1965, the DP was only abolished in France in 1977!

'Unfortunately these days it is more likely that one of my kids would be a victim of violent crime than the criminal.'

The probability of one of your children *dying* as a result of violent crime in the UK is (thankfully) vanishingly small. If that's your biggest concern then you have a massive issue with reality.

In reply to mgco3:



Climbers don't think they will fall and criminals don't think they will get caught.

In reply to mgco3:

We abolished it long before much of europe did.. but we still ave life imprisonment and that is no detterent, we'd only seek the death penalty for the most heinous of murders, these still happen elsewhere with the threat of execution and they still happen in the UK when they face life in prison with little chance of release.

re risk of violent crime.. of course because the state is better than violent criminals and we dont execute. Re the chance, thats a risk of living in a civilised progressive state. You are assuming becausse I am against the death penalty I am against life meaning life.

Your last statement is crazy... I've said it encourages a lack of respect for human life.. but yes murders actually rose when states carried out high profile executions.. read about the philadelphia study.

From your nicely balanced site...
"The death penalty debate in the U.S. is dominated by the fraudulent voice of the anti-death penalty movement."

A huge chunk of support comes from the bible in that study.. quoting sections to justify it... crazies...