The indications: What is the purpose of the drug. What has the pharmaceutical company provided to the doctors?
You’re making my hair hurt.
1 Like
Think of it as phased incarceration. Say a 16-yr-old commits a crime that warrants a six year sentence. The first two years are served in a juvenile detention facility and the rest of it in a regular prison.
1 Like
I think it is in my state, death by hanging. The old timers say that there was no horse thieves because of that law. That’s why I say if people watched one death by guillotine, that would be all that is needed.
It’s the law in TN now.
If they want to challenge it the current SC would no doubt affirm the law.
It’s not about deterrence for me. The guillotine is compatible with my views on execution.
- It should be quick.
- It should be painless.
Guillotine meets those requirements for me.
They were accused of specific actions in relation to that case.
from your article.
The Crumbleys were accused of not securing the newly purchased gun at home and acting indifferently to signs of their son’s deteriorating mental health, especially when confronted with a chilling classroom drawing earlier that same day.
The old timers used to hang people for stealing horses and modern libs don’t even want murderers executed any more.
In fact they barely want them arrested.
Plus, they show no remorse for the execution of the unborn baby.
1 Like
What about a firing squad?
That’s true too.
No respect for human life except when it involves murderers and criminals in general.
1 Like
I doubt the Guillotine is painless but for cold blooded vicious murderers they shouldn’t expect painless.
1 Like
I’m good with that too. It’s the most honorable way to go out. So I think it should be reserved for condemned criminals who show true remorse about their actions.
And it should be done with the condemned standing and against a wall and facing their executioners. I don’t like the sit down method. It’s an honorable way to die so you should be allowed to stand as a man or woman with your head held up high.
1 Like
If it’s painful you wouldn’t feel it for long at all.
I dislike hanging because it backfires a lot. In a perfect hanging the neck is snapped at the end of travel. But you have to measure it out perfectly (and that depends on factors such as the person’s weight and whatnot) for that to for sure happen. Otherwise you end up with a slow strangulation death. Which is anti-republican to me. Basically I have a French Republican view on the death penalty.
Executions should be about equality and ending life. Not torturing them.
The method of execution in Bible times was stoning. That would have to be the most painful death. I think the community carried out that sentence.
It was a community affair.
Actually even after that the community usually played a part in executions for thousands of years. Even just as spectators. In medieval Europe it was treated as a sporting event with concessions being sold by street vendors.
In medieval executions the actual death usually wasn’t the point though. Those executions were basically torture sessions meant to absolve you of your sins. The worst was probably breaking on the wheel. They chained you to a wagon wheel and then broke each of your bones with a sledgehammer or another wagon wheel one at a time. At the very end they’d decapitate you to end the suffering.
Also that sort of death was usually reserved for commoners. Nobles and priests who were condemned usually just got decapitated with an axe or a sword by an executioner who hopefully wasn’t drunk.
That’s why the guillotine was so important. Basically when it came on the scene people had kind of advanced past the aspect of the torture being the main point. The new republican revolutionaries believed that your birth class had no bearing on the crime committed and that all executions should be fair and with any chance of error mitigated. The guillotine works as advertised every time. Versus being a noble and getting your head cut off by a sword where the guy doing it might have been drinking.
I read a horror story once about a girl who was executed by decapitation in southern Germany for witchcraft. It was the first execution that community had had in a while and the executioner was very rusty and very drunk. He was using a sword. He had to hack her over 20 times before her head came off. Even the crowd was appalled by it. And they usually loved shows like that.
It’s difficult to know if it is painless or not. It isn’t like you can ask the head in a basket, “on a scale of 1 to 10 how painful was this?” LOL.
Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, the dregs of society that prey on the innocent should feel the maximum level of pain possible.
I’m pretty tired of people who are law-abiding having less rights than the criminals.
1 Like
No ■■■■ .
The truth is that law abiding individuals do not have less rights than criminals.
It is a balancing act between victims rights and criminal rights. Because someone accused of a crime has very specific constitutionally protected rights it can appear that more emphasis is placed on the criminal than the victim.
The other tricky part is understanding why someone commits a crime in the hope that that understanding will help to combat other crimes. Also helping a criminal to rehabilitate and reenter in society can at times be viewed as giving more help to the criminal than the victim.
Explaining behavior is very different to excusing it and I agree at times there has been a desire by some to excuse it away. Ultimately the criminal made a decision to commit the actions they did and regardless of the reasons why there has to be consequences.
A family member recently spent several months in a county jail and he said even though he was allowed to do certain the denial of liberty was horrible. He said even if he could have watched TV all day in his cell (which he could not) it would not eliminate the fact he was incarcerated and the tiny freedoms he had were at the whim of others.
