12/14/2006

Can you be executed twice?
Filed under: Stupidity — nobrainer @ 9:15 am

A spokesman for Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, called Diaz’s death a botched execution.

“They had to execute him twice,” Mark Elliot said. “If Floridians could witness the pain and the agony of the executed man’s family, they would end the death penalty.”

The doctors involved said a pre-existing liver problem prevented the first dose of poison from killing the convicted guy. So they gave him a 2nd dose and the execution process took about 34 minutes, during which he “appeared to grimace.”

There are a lot of valid criticisms of the death penalty. However, a convicted murderer allegedly feeling pain for a few minutes just before he’s killed isn’t one them. At least not to me. And I have just learned that the new standard is for the feelings of the convicted man’s family. The next thing we know punishing anyone for anything will have to be outlawed because a convicted person’s family will be the one receiving cruel or unusual punishment.

Somebody give me some Valium and clothe me with bubble wrap. I want my human experience to be defined by a total absence of pain.

[Yahoo news link]

collapse tom sherman Says:
December 14th, 2006 at 12:55 pm

“They had to execute him twice,” Mark Elliot said. “If Floridians could witness the pain and the agony of the executed man’s family, they would end the death penalty.

“If Floridians could witness the indifference of the victim’s family, they would not give a fuck that some asshole had to grimace for 34 minutes.”

Reply to this comment
 
collapse lawtonfunk Says:
December 14th, 2006 at 1:29 pm

I think the punishment should fit the crime. If he raped, beat, and murdered someone, he should be raped, beaten, and murdered.

Why should anyone on death row recieve a painless death? I am sure what they did was anything but painless. I say we fry ‘em up without any water on the pads.

Reply to this comment
collapse slamcrank Says:
December 20th, 2006 at 2:21 pm

ahh, you are all such good christians.

Exactly the reason I stopped subscribing to that drivel years ago. Ditto to the republican cause - the final solution.

“I say we fry ‘em up without any water on the pads.”

You are the reason so many canceled their belief in evolution.

Reply to this comment
collapse nobrainer Says:
December 20th, 2006 at 2:42 pm

Lawton, did you use a fake name to respond to yourself?

Reply to this comment
 
collapse nobrainer Says:
December 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pm

So Christians behaving badly drives people away from evolution… and they’re supposed to be upset by that how?

Reply to this comment
collapse slamcrank Says:
December 21st, 2006 at 1:42 am

We surely speak different dialects of English, or perhaps you are Jane Austen en-reincarnate, but your (mis)appropriation of the pronoun “they” has left me curious….. who? The christians (I respectfully do not capitalize)? Or the ones who no longer subscribe to that faith? Or, even still, the evolutionists?

The point being: strict/fundamental christianity outright rejects the theory of evolution. Ironically, the theory of evolution states that living organisms will …ahem… evolve past certain aspects of barbarism. One “lawtonfunk” has, with his comment of frying people up like bacon, dispelled the notion of moral and conscient evolution, taking the moral low-ground, if you will. As in, where knuckles drag.

This idea of “eye for an eye” is not justice. It is barbarism. An eye for an eye will leave BOTH parties blind.

Reply to this comment
collapse nobrainer Says:
December 21st, 2006 at 10:17 am

“So Christians behaving badly drives people away from evolution… and the Christians are supposed to be upset by that how?” (Thanks for the grammar help, and if you don’t mind, please read through all my posts and make grammar suggestions. I could really use your help.)

Before moving on, let’s make sure we’re talking about the same “evolution.” I’m referring to the neo-Darwin-type evolution, which is non-directional. It is also non-moral. It says nothing about “living organisms” “evolv[ing] past certain aspects of barbarism.”

Reply to this comment
 
 
 
 
 
collapse Bear Says:
December 15th, 2006 at 10:53 am

Q: Can you be executed twice?
A: Of course, see Python, Monty

Reply to this comment
 
collapse Doug Stewart Says:
December 15th, 2006 at 7:00 pm

That would imply that you would have a court-sanctioned and appointed rapist, torturer and executioner - a whole road I don’t think anyone should even conscience going down.

Execution isn’t meant to be painful, it’s meant to be final. It’s the final justice in this world - everything else is up to God.

Reply to this comment
 
collapse Doug Stewart Says:
December 21st, 2006 at 6:07 pm

All due respect, slamcrank, but go back and read your Biblical history. “An eye for an eye” was an explicit limitation on vengeful acts. The Israelites lived in a time and area of the world where barbaric acts of reprisal were the general rule - kill my brother, me and my cousins wipe out your whole family, then your clan takes out a few families on my side, etc., etc., ad nauseum. God was laying out a limit on the vengeful acts, in essence ruling out corporate punishment and tit-for-tat behavior.

Additionally, what you’re conveniently glossing over in this case is the fact that the scumbagman in question cold-bloodedly took the life of another human being in an unprovoked attack. It was not self-defense, it was an act to eliminate a witness to his crimes. The equation is fulfilled; no more eyes need be taken, as the “eye” of Diaz’s victim has already been avenged by this act.

Reply to this comment