http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090915/NEWS/909160350

In a prison witness room, the parents and aunt of Tryna Middleton - who was 
fatally stabbed on Sept. 21, 1984 - watched silently as prison nurses 
struggled to keep Broom's veins open for a lethal mix of chemicals to 
execute him.

There were so many logistical problems encountered Tuesday by an experienced 
execution team that Broom was never moved to the injection table in the 
adjoining death chamber. The Middletons and four news reporters, including 
from The Enquirer, watched the process via television monitors as prison 
staff tried to hook Broom to tubes in preparation for lethal injection.

Several times, Broom rolled onto his left side, pointed at veins, 
straightened tubes or massaged his own arms to help prison staff keep a vein 
open. He was clearly frustrated as he leaned back on the gurney, covering 
his face with his hands and visibly crying. His stomach heaved upward and 
his feet twitched. There is no audio from the holding cell, so reporters 
could only watch his movements. When the staff tried to put IVs in his legs, 
Broom looked up toward the camera above, appearing to grimace, at least four 
times, from pain.

..........

At least 20 protesters showed up. Many left for home by 1:30 p.m. because of 
the long drive home and the sweltering heat.

The one group that was there to the end was from Cincinnati. Sister Alice 
Gerdeman is president of Ohioans to Stop Executions. There were four of them 
remaining when the execution was halted. All four were still praying and 
weeping for Broom and his victims as the empty hearse drove out the prison 
gate.

(more)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The perspective on this is interesting.  The article mentions that prison 
staff in Ohio are now allowed to take as long as they need to prepare a 
prisoner for execution - sometimes taking two hours, yet in 2003 after the 
Space Shuttle disintegrated on re-entry calculations were made to work out 
when and for how long the astronauts realised they were going to die because 
the pain and suffering compensation award for families is increased if the 
victim knew they were about to die, and if they knew for any length of time.

I'm surprised any state can inflict death in circumstances already legally 
recognised as protracted suffering.  I thought there was some kind of 'cruel 
and unusual punishment' statute.

TWP

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:19:11 +0100, TWP  wrote:

> I'm surprised any state can inflict death in circumstances already  
> legally
> recognised as protracted suffering.  I thought there was some kind of  
> 'cruel
> and unusual punishment' statute.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Since 1977, there has been a re-interpretation of what 'cruel and unusual  
punishment' might be.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090915/NEWS/909160350
>
>In a prison witness room, the parents and aunt of Tryna Middleton - who was
>fatally stabbed on Sept. 21, 1984 - watched silently as prison nurses
>struggled to keep Broom's veins open for a lethal mix of chemicals to
>execute him.


Makes beheading seem civilised.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"TWP"  wrote in
news:yNOdnYAwyaSrxC3XnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@eclipse.net.uk: 

> 
> http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090915/NEWS/909160350
> 
> In a prison witness room, the parents and aunt of Tryna Middleton - who
> was fatally stabbed on Sept. 21, 1984 - watched silently as prison
> nurses struggled to keep Broom's veins open for a lethal mix of
> chemicals to execute him.
> 
> There were so many logistical problems encountered Tuesday by an
> experienced execution team that Broom was never moved to the injection
> table in the adjoining death chamber. The Middletons and four news
> reporters, including from The Enquirer, watched the process via
> television monitors as prison staff tried to hook Broom to tubes in
> preparation for lethal injection. 
> 
> Several times, Broom rolled onto his left side, pointed at veins, 
> straightened tubes or massaged his own arms to help prison staff keep a
> vein open. He was clearly frustrated as he leaned back on the gurney,
> covering his face with his hands and visibly crying. His stomach heaved
> upward and his feet twitched. There is no audio from the holding cell,
> so reporters could only watch his movements. When the staff tried to put
> IVs in his legs, Broom looked up toward the camera above, appearing to
> grimace, at least four times, from pain.
> 
> ..........
> 
> At least 20 protesters showed up. Many left for home by 1:30 p.m.
> because of the long drive home and the sweltering heat.
> 
> The one group that was there to the end was from Cincinnati. Sister
> Alice Gerdeman is president of Ohioans to Stop Executions. There were
> four of them remaining when the execution was halted. All four were
> still praying and weeping for Broom and his victims as the empty hearse
> drove out the prison gate.
> 
> (more)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- 
> 
> The perspective on this is interesting.  The article mentions that
> prison staff in Ohio are now allowed to take as long as they need to
> prepare a prisoner for execution - sometimes taking two hours, yet in
> 2003 after the Space Shuttle disintegrated on re-entry calculations were
> made to work out when and for how long the astronauts realised they were
> going to die because the pain and suffering compensation award for
> families is increased if the victim knew they were about to die, and if
> they knew for any length of time. 
> 
> I'm surprised any state can inflict death in circumstances already
> legally recognised as protracted suffering.  I thought there was some
> kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' statute.
> 
> TWP

Great post, thanks for this.
Glad the feral baboon felt a little pain & discomfort on his way out.
Do you think he was concerned about any discomfort he made his victims feel 
while murdering them ?
Highly unlikely - So why such concern for the well being and proper 
treatment of this gutter scum ? 

"legally recognised as protracted suffering" what are you talking about ?
Don't many areas of Europe use injections to end the suffering of the 
terminally ill ?
So it was a botched execution with inexperienced staff, don't throw the 
baby out with the bath water ... Though I'd be all in favor of a more 
certain method, like a cinder block to the head from some of the victims 
family.

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9C8856DEB84A0ewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@74.209.136.95...



>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --- 
>>
>> The perspective on this is interesting.  The article mentions that
>> prison staff in Ohio are now allowed to take as long as they need to
>> prepare a prisoner for execution - sometimes taking two hours, yet in
>> 2003 after the Space Shuttle disintegrated on re-entry calculations were
>> made to work out when and for how long the astronauts realised they were
>> going to die because the pain and suffering compensation award for
>> families is increased if the victim knew they were about to die, and if
>> they knew for any length of time.
>>
>> I'm surprised any state can inflict death in circumstances already
>> legally recognised as protracted suffering.  I thought there was some
>> kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' statute.
>>
>> TWP
>
> Great post, thanks for this.

I thought you'd be one of the replies! :-)


> Glad the feral baboon felt a little pain & discomfort on his way out.
> Do you think he was concerned about any discomfort he made his victims 
> feel
> while murdering them ?

No I don't.  He made his choice.  There were probably plenty of points where 
he could just walk away and go home.  I expect he thought he'd be able to 
cover his tracks and get away with it, and was probably as surprised as 
anyone when the cuffs went on,  however the state of Ohio isn't some 
psycopath.  The execution process is the product of decisions that are 
reasoned and within a legal framework established to prevent conviction of 
the innocent, and to prevent needless suffering to the condemned.  If that 
wasn't the case 1) there wouldn't be decades of appeals allowed and  2) they 
would be burning people at the stake rather than putting them to sleep.

Allowing people awareness of impending death - not the awareness of being 
sat in a condemned cell, but the awareness of actually having people put 
execution devices into you - seems to me to go against point 2, and going 
against point 2, in my view, damages your civilization's reputation.  I 
don't want to see that.  I wouldn't want to see that of my own.


> Highly unlikely - So why such concern for the well being and proper
> treatment of this gutter scum ?

I would have thought at least being aware that this was happening was vital 
to the deterrant theory.  That isn't my interest in this, but it does make 
me wonder what is the point of executions when broadly speaking no-one is 
usually aware that they are happening on any particular day, the 
circumstances or anything about the people involved.  A "nobody" is simply 
turned into "a body".  The people, and whatever they go through during 
execution are invisible and unimportant.  I can't see how it serves as 
anything more than prevention of repeat-offending.

It all depends on what shape you want your society to take and what you 
think actually works.  If burning at the stake was shown to cause the murder 
rates to fall 90% it might wall be in the running.  You can't argue with 
success.

Myself, I think if you must have executions they should be broadcast. 
There's little point in having a deterrant that no-one sees and no-one cares 
about.  The fact that they don't is like a quiet admission that something is 
going on that really shouldn't be.  If it must be done and you all really 
think it's justified, every part of the execution - fear, suffering, 
retribution - should be seen in the public light without shame.  You have 
executions and you want the gulty to suffer, but you don't see either 
really.  I bet most times you don't even hear about it, and neither do all 
the other murderers-to-be that are supposed to be scared straight.  You 
don't have executions, you just have a process where invisible people 
quietly become even more invisible, the only exceptions being cases that 
provide a news story.

Anyway, back to your question.  My interest is at the level of 
state-on-citizen.  The rules are set up to create a humane civilisation for 
everyone, and to protect the individual from abuse by the state.  The 
severity of his crime isn't part of the judicial process.  He doesn't get to 
suffer more because he made others suffer more.  That CAN be part of the 
process if everyone decides that it should be.  At the moment though, 
they've supposedly decided that it shouldn't be - hence no more gas 
chambers, electric chairs, laws forbidding certain types of punishment etc.

It makes me, personally, uncomfortable that people take it on themselves to 
kill someone else as a punishment.  It's not really any of my business as a 
non-US citizen, but I'd like to see the US represent a type of civilisation 
that judicial killing isn't a component of.   When I see something like 
this, where someone is wheeled off with 18 puncture wounds in him with a 
seven day reprieve after a two hour attempt at killing him, in which even 
the prisoner tried to assist to get it over with, I feel even more 
uncomfortable about it.  I'm not anti-American.  I'd like to see the US 
shaming other nations who don't value life or the individual, nations that 
are still run like it was two or three hundred years ago or worse.

I take your point that he personally is not deserving of my concern, but my 
concern is more for the society that is doing it, not the guy on the 
ceceiving end.  There'll always be more like him where he came from whatever 
your justice system.



>
> "legally recognised as protracted suffering" what are you talking about ?

A legal standard of suffering is in place for compensation.  If I build a 
bridge and it colllapses causing you to be trapped under water where you 
know for several minutes before you go that your time has come, your family 
would be due more compensation from me than if the bridge just drops on you 
and squashes you flat before you even knew what was happening.

The awareness of immediately impending death for any length of time is a 
factor legally in how much suffering is involved in the process of dying. 
If that applies to compensation it surely applies to execution.



> Don't many areas of Europe use injections to end the suffering of the
> terminally ill ?

At their request, and they can back out any time they want.  It's not an 
injection (I thought it was too), it's drink that you drink through a straw. 
It causes you to fall asleep in about five minutes and you are dead in, as 
far as I know, about 20 minutes.

> So it was a botched execution with inexperienced staff, don't throw the
> baby out with the bath water ... Though I'd be all in favor of a more
> certain method, like a cinder block to the head from some of the victims
> family.

That'd do it...


TWP

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C8856DEB84A0ewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@74.209.136.95...
> 
> 
> 
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --- 
>>>
>>> The perspective on this is interesting.  The article mentions that
>>> prison staff in Ohio are now allowed to take as long as they need to
>>> prepare a prisoner for execution - sometimes taking two hours, yet in
>>> 2003 after the Space Shuttle disintegrated on re-entry calculations were
>>> made to work out when and for how long the astronauts realised they were
>>> going to die because the pain and suffering compensation award for
>>> families is increased if the victim knew they were about to die, and if
>>> they knew for any length of time.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised any state can inflict death in circumstances already
>>> legally recognised as protracted suffering.  I thought there was some
>>> kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' statute.
>>>
>>> TWP
>> Great post, thanks for this.
> 
> I thought you'd be one of the replies! :-)
> 
> 
>> Glad the feral baboon felt a little pain & discomfort on his way out.
>> Do you think he was concerned about any discomfort he made his victims 
>> feel
>> while murdering them ?
> 
> No I don't.  He made his choice.  There were probably plenty of points where 
> he could just walk away and go home.  I expect he thought he'd be able to 
> cover his tracks and get away with it, and was probably as surprised as 
> anyone when the cuffs went on,  however the state of Ohio isn't some 
> psycopath.  The execution process is the product of decisions that are 
> reasoned and within a legal framework established to prevent conviction of 
> the innocent, and to prevent needless suffering to the condemned.  If that 
> wasn't the case 1) there wouldn't be decades of appeals allowed and  2) they 
> would be burning people at the stake rather than putting them to sleep.
> 
> Allowing people awareness of impending death - not the awareness of being 
> sat in a condemned cell, but the awareness of actually having people put 
> execution devices into you - seems to me to go against point 2, and going 
> against point 2, in my view, damages your civilization's reputation.  I 
> don't want to see that.  I wouldn't want to see that of my own.

Any execution method is going to allow time for intimate contemplation 
of impending doom, and personal contact with the implements which will 
achieve that, except for perhaps a common firing squad.
Even there, so might argue, no doubt, that strapping on the blindfold, 
and hearing the clicks of the rifles loading, causes undue stress to the 
criminal about to be executed.

To those who are flat out opposed to state executions, such as most 
Europeans claim that they are, there will always be excuse & reason to 
argue various technicalities about criminal rights, no matter what form 
of execution is used.

State executions are all about justice & retribution, allowances must be 
made for the fact that the intended goal is to end someones life, and it 
ain't always pretty.
Hanging often induces the hangee to involuntarily shit themselves, 
electrocution often causes them to puff up grotesquely, ect.

>> Highly unlikely - So why such concern for the well being and proper
>> treatment of this gutter scum ?
> 
> I would have thought at least being aware that this was happening was vital 
> to the deterrant theory.  That isn't my interest in this, but it does make 
> me wonder what is the point of executions when broadly speaking no-one is 
> usually aware that they are happening on any particular day, the 
> circumstances or anything about the people involved.  A "nobody" is simply 
> turned into "a body".  The people, and whatever they go through during 
> execution are invisible and unimportant.  I can't see how it serves as 
> anything more than prevention of repeat-offending.

Not all states heave the death penalty, you are probably aware.
Michigan, in which I reside, does not.
Ohio, right below me, does.
People, and certainly criminals committing capital offenses, are well 
aware that they may forfeit their lives for their misdeeds.

As already stated, state executions are all about justice & retribution 
and not so much deterrent.
I would suspect that many killings happen in the heat of passion, and/or 
with preplanned, perverse intent.
Nothing is going to deter people like that, not even the possibility of 
death.

That said, I agree.
They ought to publicize these executions, and hang their rotting heads 
from poles so far as I care.

> It all depends on what shape you want your society to take and what you 
> think actually works.  If burning at the stake was shown to cause the murder 
> rates to fall 90% it might wall be in the running.  You can't argue with 
> success.
> 
> Myself, I think if you must have executions they should be broadcast. 
> There's little point in having a deterrant that no-one sees and no-one cares 
> about.  The fact that they don't is like a quiet admission that something is 
> going on that really shouldn't be.  If it must be done and you all really 
> think it's justified, every part of the execution - fear, suffering, 
> retribution - should be seen in the public light without shame.  You have 
> executions and you want the gulty to suffer, but you don't see either 
> really.  I bet most times you don't even hear about it, and neither do all 
> the other murderers-to-be that are supposed to be scared straight.  You 
> don't have executions, you just have a process where invisible people 
> quietly become even more invisible, the only exceptions being cases that 
> provide a news story.

I don't think the state wants them to suffer, at all.
I think they should, and if someone with my mindset comes to power, they 
most certainly will - And I have no doubt that society would improve by 
orders of magnitude when criminal rights are not fussed over.
By all means, lets make sure we have the right guy, then justice should 
be executed swiftly and certainly.


There are 100's, if not 1,000's, on death row.
Only a small fraction meet their maker each year.
Of course, most of those are going to be generally unknown to the public 
at large - What do you suggest, perhaps a cable TV channel, or at least 
a web site, to educate the public about the barbarians we are putting away ?

> Anyway, back to your question.  My interest is at the level of 
> state-on-citizen.  The rules are set up to create a humane civilisation for 
> everyone, and to protect the individual from abuse by the state.  The 
> severity of his crime isn't part of the judicial process.  He doesn't get to 
> suffer more because he made others suffer more.  That CAN be part of the 
> process if everyone decides that it should be.  At the moment though, 
> they've supposedly decided that it shouldn't be - hence no more gas 
> chambers, electric chairs, laws forbidding certain types of punishment etc.

Not entirely true - The severity of the crime is the gauge for whether 
or not they are eligible for the death penalty in the first place.


> It makes me, personally, uncomfortable that people take it on themselves to 
> kill someone else as a punishment.  It's not really any of my business as a 
> non-US citizen, but I'd like to see the US represent a type of civilisation 
> that judicial killing isn't a component of.   When I see something like 
> this, where someone is wheeled off with 18 puncture wounds in him with a 
> seven day reprieve after a two hour attempt at killing him, in which even 
> the prisoner tried to assist to get it over with, I feel even more 
> uncomfortable about it.  I'm not anti-American.  I'd like to see the US 
> shaming other nations who don't value life or the individual, nations that 
> are still run like it was two or three hundred years ago or worse.
> 
> I take your point that he personally is not deserving of my concern, but my 
> concern is more for the society that is doing it, not the guy on the 
> ceceiving end.  There'll always be more like him where he came from whatever 
> your justice system.

You have a European view, cultivated over your life to date, so from 
that perspective, thats understandable.
You do not have the kind of human scum roaming your streets, with cheap 
and easy access to lethal weapons, like we do over here.
If you did, and heinous crimes were committed on a routine basis by 
career criminals, many of whom have had contactwith the law before they 
reached puberty, your view might be different.



>> "legally recognised as protracted suffering" what are you talking about ?
> 
> A legal standard of suffering is in place for compensation.  If I build a 
> bridge and it colllapses causing you to be trapped under water where you 
> know for several minutes before you go that your time has come, your family 
> would be due more compensation from me than if the bridge just drops on you 
> and squashes you flat before you even knew what was happening.
> 
> The awareness of immediately impending death for any length of time is a 
> factor legally in how much suffering is involved in the process of dying. 
> If that applies to compensation it surely applies to execution.

I still don't get it, within context of the topic at hand.
Who and what legally recognizes lethal injections as protracted suffering ?

>> Don't many areas of Europe use injections to end the suffering of the
>> terminally ill ?
> 
> At their request, and they can back out any time they want.  It's not an 
> injection (I thought it was too), it's drink that you drink through a straw. 
> It causes you to fall asleep in about five minutes and you are dead in, as 
> far as I know, about 20 minutes.

Ah, some Jim Jones kool aid - Decent concept, only if one is willing, of 
course ,,, Which I suspect many, if not most, criminals would not be.

>> So it was a botched execution with inexperienced staff, don't throw the
>> baby out with the bath water ... Though I'd be all in favor of a more
>> certain method, like a cinder block to the head from some of the victims
>> family.
> 
> That'd do it...
> 
> 
> TWP

Eye for an eye would be the best - And I wouldn't begrudge various 
societies to practice whatever methods they will to protect their 
populations from criminal predators, even if some of us more enlightened 
folks consider their methods a tad barbaric.

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:KVdsm.128775$nL7.17669@newsfe18.iad...
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:Xns9C8856DEB84A0ewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@74.209.136.95...



> There are 100's, if not 1,000's, on death row.
> Only a small fraction meet their maker each year.
> Of course, most of those are going to be generally unknown to the public 
> at large - What do you suggest, perhaps a cable TV channel, or at least a 
> web site, to educate the public about the barbarians we are putting away ?
>

Yes.   I think it should be televised.  It's being done in the name of the 
people.  It's on the public concience.  It's basically a secret process at 
the moment.  People are being shielded from what they're actually signing up 
to.  If they see it all and still approve of the death penalty, then the 
choice is made really.  What can you say at that point?   I still wouldn't 
like it as the person I am and as I see the world, but I couldn't argue that 
it was ongoing because people didn't get to see what it actually meant to 
judicially kill a person.   At the very least, random selections from the 
public should be made to be witnesses, like jury service.



>> The awareness of immediately impending death for any length of time is a 
>> factor legally in how much suffering is involved in the process of dying. 
>> If that applies to compensation it surely applies to execution.
>
> I still don't get it, within context of the topic at hand.
> Who and what legally recognizes lethal injections as protracted suffering 
> ?
>

Not lethal injection.  As far as I can tell it's probably not a horrible way 
to go.  I've had one of the drugs put into me, and sometimes you feel it as 
pins and needles all over (including a pins and needles in your hearing, 
like a building roaring sound), then a point of instant unconciousness.  You 
only realise you've become unconcious when you wake up.  Another way - 
probably the way it's experienced in ececutions because it seems to be when 
the drug is given a bit faster - you feel a building ringing in your head 
until it reaches a level that begins to be uncomfortable, then you wake up. 
If you weren't to wake up you probably wouldn't be aware of any particular 
last moment.

What's protracted suffering is being exposed to the final part of the 
process for a long period of time.  In the UK hangmen used to have you from 
condemned cell to hanging in seconds.

In Japan you apparently don't know when you're to be hanged until they come 
for you.  I'm not sure that's a better system!


TWP

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:KVdsm.128775$nL7.17669@newsfe18.iad...
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>> news:Xns9C8856DEB84A0ewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@74.209.136.95...
> 
> 
> 
>> There are 100's, if not 1,000's, on death row.
>> Only a small fraction meet their maker each year.
>> Of course, most of those are going to be generally unknown to the public 
>> at large - What do you suggest, perhaps a cable TV channel, or at least a 
>> web site, to educate the public about the barbarians we are putting away ?
>>
> 
> Yes.   I think it should be televised.  It's being done in the name of the 
> people.  It's on the public concience.  It's basically a secret process at 
> the moment.  People are being shielded from what they're actually signing up 
> to.  If they see it all and still approve of the death penalty, then the 
> choice is made really.  What can you say at that point?   I still wouldn't 
> like it as the person I am and as I see the world, but I couldn't argue that 
> it was ongoing because people didn't get to see what it actually meant to 
> judicially kill a person.   At the very least, random selections from the 
> public should be made to be witnesses, like jury service.

May be a slight bit of hypocrisy going on, true - But you over look 1 
salient point.
In theory, the people have the final say whether or not capital 
punishment is a go ,,, Which is why some states still don't have it.

You can hardly argue that if people were forced to watch it, they'd be 
repulsed and say "no way" - I could argue just the opposite, and claim 
that many would love it and say "hell yeah!"

I've seen people die, up close & personal.
I saw guts n brains splattered on the streets of Detroit when I was a 
kid, I seen quite a lot of graphic violence growing up and, dare I say, 
participated in it myself.
No choice but to, if its sink or swim, damn near everyone will chose to 
swim, regardless of who else goes under.
You don't, and can't, understand the way of life over here in almost all 
urban areas - And the majority of decent folk here are pretty jaded when 
it comes to criminal rights, which is why a large majority of states do 
have capital punishment.

We ought to ice the bastards proactively, before they have a chance to 
do real damage.
As soon as they establish themselves as career criminals, it should be 
curtains for them.
But no, they have to go out and rob, rape and murder, then get caught, 
have lengthy trials, go through a decade or more of appeals before 
anything is done ,,, And then when 1 execution gets botched, we have 
people like you crying "oh damn, we can't treat actual human beings this 
way, wheres the compassion??"

I trust I don't even need to point out the irony of wanting to show 
compassion & humanity to such sick sons of bitches who, throughout their 
whole lives by and large have done nothing but drain society and ruin 
innocent lives.

Why not show compassion to a cancer cell TWP, its also a living organism.
How about mosquitoes, feel guilty for swatting them ?
While your worrying about what we can do to help them, others of their 
ilk would like nothing better than to break in your home, rape your 
daughter, steal everything they can carry away, and leave you dying in a 
pool of your own blood.

>>> The awareness of immediately impending death for any length of time is a 
>>> factor legally in how much suffering is involved in the process of dying. 
>>> If that applies to compensation it surely applies to execution.
>> I still don't get it, within context of the topic at hand.
>> Who and what legally recognizes lethal injections as protracted suffering 
>> ?
>>
> 
> Not lethal injection.  As far as I can tell it's probably not a horrible way 
> to go.  I've had one of the drugs put into me, and sometimes you feel it as 
> pins and needles all over (including a pins and needles in your hearing, 
> like a building roaring sound), then a point of instant unconciousness.  You 
> only realise you've become unconcious when you wake up.  Another way - 
> probably the way it's experienced in ececutions because it seems to be when 
> the drug is given a bit faster - you feel a building ringing in your head 
> until it reaches a level that begins to be uncomfortable, then you wake up. 
> If you weren't to wake up you probably wouldn't be aware of any particular 
> last moment.
> 
> What's protracted suffering is being exposed to the final part of the 
> process for a long period of time.  

Well, this case was apparently an exception, you are picking it apart to 
condemn all lethal injections as inhumane now ?
Wasn't supposed to happen like that, that goes without saying ,,, So now 
you make a case to end all state executions, on the grounds that they 
might conceivably be botched also ?

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:kLnsm.219453$vp.49270@newsfe12.iad...
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:KVdsm.128775$nL7.17669@newsfe18.iad...
>>> TWP wrote:
>>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:Xns9C8856DEB84A0ewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@74.209.136.95...
>>
>>
>>
>>> There are 100's, if not 1,000's, on death row.
>>> Only a small fraction meet their maker each year.
>>> Of course, most of those are going to be generally unknown to the public 
>>> at large - What do you suggest, perhaps a cable TV channel, or at least 
>>> a web site, to educate the public about the barbarians we are putting 
>>> away ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.   I think it should be televised.  It's being done in the name of 
>> the people.  It's on the public concience.  It's basically a secret 
>> process at the moment.  People are being shielded from what they're 
>> actually signing up to.  If they see it all and still approve of the 
>> death penalty, then the choice is made really.  What can you say at that 
>> point?   I still wouldn't like it as the person I am and as I see the 
>> world, but I couldn't argue that it was ongoing because people didn't get 
>> to see what it actually meant to judicially kill a person.   At the very 
>> least, random selections from the public should be made to be witnesses, 
>> like jury service.
>
> May be a slight bit of hypocrisy going on, true - But you over look 1 
> salient point.
> In theory, the people have the final say whether or not capital punishment 
> is a go ,,, Which is why some states still don't have it.
>
> You can hardly argue that if people were forced to watch it, they'd be 
> repulsed and say "no way" - I could argue just the opposite, and claim 
> that many would love it and say "hell yeah!"

Why not find out?  It would be easy enough to arrange.  Some people would 
say "no way" and some would say "hell yeah!" - most of them probably people 
who would have said both to begin with.  The difference would be that once 
they had seen an execution they'd actually know what they were talking 
about.


>
> I've seen people die, up close & personal.
> I saw guts n brains splattered on the streets of Detroit when I was a kid, 
> I seen quite a lot of graphic violence growing up and, dare I say, 
> participated in it myself.
> No choice but to, if its sink or swim, damn near everyone will chose to 
> swim, regardless of who else goes under.
> You don't, and can't, understand the way of life over here in almost all 
> urban areas - And the majority of decent folk here are pretty jaded when 
> it comes to criminal rights, which is why a large majority of states do 
> have capital punishment.
>
> We ought to ice the bastards proactively, before they have a chance to do 
> real damage.
> As soon as they establish themselves as career criminals, it should be 
> curtains for them.
> But no, they have to go out and rob, rape and murder, then get caught, 
> have lengthy trials, go through a decade or more of appeals before 
> anything is done ,,, And then when 1 execution gets botched, we have 
> people like you crying "oh damn, we can't treat actual human beings this 
> way, wheres the compassion??"

It isn't compassion, it's a standard of behaviour - like having laws and 
customs of war.  It doesn't necessarily prevent you from killing when you 
have to.

It's a moral standard to make 'people different from animals'.




>
> I trust I don't even need to point out the irony of wanting to show 
> compassion & humanity to such sick sons of bitches who, throughout their 
> whole lives by and large have done nothing but drain society and ruin 
> innocent lives.

By the time they get to execution that's already happened.  What's the 
solution to that one?  We had Australia.  Maybe there's a spare island 
somewhere that no-one wants (no, not the UK!)




>
> Why not show compassion to a cancer cell TWP, its also a living organism.

It's not about simply being alive.



> How about mosquitoes, feel guilty for swatting them ?

That's self-defence.  Mosquitoes are said to have killed more people than 
every human war ever fought, also mosquitoes are hopefully not as 
intelligent and aware as people.


> While your worrying about what we can do to help them, others of their ilk 
> would like nothing better than to break in your home, rape your daughter, 
> steal everything they can carry away, and leave you dying in a pool of 
> your own blood.

It's not about helping the criminals, it's a standard that you judge 
yourself by, or how others judge you and your brand of civilisation by. 
It's what kind of a people you want to be and be seen to be.

OK, if you were dealing with an enemy soldier who had surrendered, and was 
unarmed, would you shoot him right there or take him prisoner?   As I 
understand it, the custom and probably the law of war is to take a prisoner. 
OK, what would you think of UK troops if whenever they took a prisoner they 
just disarmed them, took whatever might be useful, then shot them on the 
spot - perhaps after torturing them a little, depending on how much free 
time the soldier had?  Either would be doable, but which would be seen by 
you or the broader world as the scummier way to act - you accepting 
surrender and taking prisoners or us killing everyone, even those who had 
surrendered?  In WWII Germany, people said that the Russian soldiers 'had no 
respect for life'.  Maybe that's the difference.

There's only a difference because of standards of behaviour that everyone 
has agreed to, just like national laws.  OK, so why did people agree to 
those standards in the first place?  Is it because they're all damp-eyed 
liberals, was it done to make wars easier to end - so that there wasn't a 
running blood-feud forever afterwards between warring parties because of 
various atrocities committed by each side, or was it because parties who 
drew up the rules were trying to create a more civilised world where it's 
not OK for everyone to just act like animals?





>
>>>> The awareness of immediately impending death for any length of time is 
>>>> a factor legally in how much suffering is involved in the process of 
>>>> dying. If that applies to compensation it surely applies to execution.
>>> I still don't get it, within context of the topic at hand.
>>> Who and what legally recognizes lethal injections as protracted 
>>> suffering ?
>>>
>>
>> Not lethal injection.  As far as I can tell it's probably not a horrible 
>> way to go.  I've had one of the drugs put into me, and sometimes you feel 
>> it as pins and needles all over (including a pins and needles in your 
>> hearing, like a building roaring sound), then a point of instant 
>> unconciousness.  You only realise you've become unconcious when you wake 
>> up.  Another way - probably the way it's experienced in ececutions 
>> because it seems to be when the drug is given a bit faster - you feel a 
>> building ringing in your head until it reaches a level that begins to be 
>> uncomfortable, then you wake up. If you weren't to wake up you probably 
>> wouldn't be aware of any particular last moment.
>>
>> What's protracted suffering is being exposed to the final part of the 
>> process for a long period of time.
>
> Well, this case was apparently an exception, you are picking it apart to 
> condemn all lethal injections as inhumane now ?

I thought I'd given a very long "no" when I was talking about what an 
injection of sodium pentothal felt like.  Nitrogen gas poisoning is an even 
better way to go.  I don't think lethal injection is inhumane if you must 
kill someone.  What I think is inhumane is to stretch out for hours, and if 
necessary repeat, the killing process.




> Wasn't supposed to happen like that, that goes without saying ,,, So now 
> you make a case to end all state executions, on the grounds that they 
> might conceivably be botched also ?

No, it WAS supposed to happen like that.   In Ohio the rules on executions 
were changed so that prison staff could take as long as they needed to 
prepare the prisoner, even if it took hours.


You and people following this thread would probably find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do9VLZCHlN0

"How to kill a human being", a BBC "Horizon" programme.  It's the search for 
the 'best' way to execute someone.


TWP

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:kLnsm.219453$vp.49270@newsfe12.iad...
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>> news:KVdsm.128775$nL7.17669@newsfe18.iad...
>>>> TWP wrote:
>>>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:Xns9C8856DEB84A0ewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@74.209.136.95...
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are 100's, if not 1,000's, on death row.
>>>> Only a small fraction meet their maker each year.
>>>> Of course, most of those are going to be generally unknown to the public 
>>>> at large - What do you suggest, perhaps a cable TV channel, or at least 
>>>> a web site, to educate the public about the barbarians we are putting 
>>>> away ?
>>>>
>>> Yes.   I think it should be televised.  It's being done in the name of 
>>> the people.  It's on the public concience.  It's basically a secret 
>>> process at the moment.  People are being shielded from what they're 
>>> actually signing up to.  If they see it all and still approve of the 
>>> death penalty, then the choice is made really.  What can you say at that 
>>> point?   I still wouldn't like it as the person I am and as I see the 
>>> world, but I couldn't argue that it was ongoing because people didn't get 
>>> to see what it actually meant to judicially kill a person.   At the very 
>>> least, random selections from the public should be made to be witnesses, 
>>> like jury service.
>> May be a slight bit of hypocrisy going on, true - But you over look 1 
>> salient point.
>> In theory, the people have the final say whether or not capital punishment 
>> is a go ,,, Which is why some states still don't have it.
>>
>> You can hardly argue that if people were forced to watch it, they'd be 
>> repulsed and say "no way" - I could argue just the opposite, and claim 
>> that many would love it and say "hell yeah!"
> 
> Why not find out?  It would be easy enough to arrange.  Some people would 
> say "no way" and some would say "hell yeah!" - most of them probably people 
> who would have said both to begin with.  The difference would be that once 
> they had seen an execution they'd actually know what they were talking 
> about.

Then there would be those who argue that the prisoners dignity in their 
final moments should not be besmirched by making a public spectacle out 
of them.
"Too bad what the prisoner wants, they are condemned anyways" you might 
say ,,, And I agree, which rather takes away from your point of forcing 
people to watch in the hopes that most would be repulsed, and force the 
government to end this form of punishment.

Muslim nations, probably some Asian & Afreakan as well, still make 
public spectacles over executions.
We used to do it as well, as did most every country in Europe at one 
point or another - You would really want us to take a page from back then ?
And, it seems to me that any government which would force its population 
to witness state execution would smack of authoritarianism - No matter 
what they said about just wanting to educate people about reality so 
that they can make informed decisions, everyone would consider it 
intimidation and a blunt warning.


>> I've seen people die, up close & personal.
>> I saw guts n brains splattered on the streets of Detroit when I was a kid, 
>> I seen quite a lot of graphic violence growing up and, dare I say, 
>> participated in it myself.
>> No choice but to, if its sink or swim, damn near everyone will chose to 
>> swim, regardless of who else goes under.
>> You don't, and can't, understand the way of life over here in almost all 
>> urban areas - And the majority of decent folk here are pretty jaded when 
>> it comes to criminal rights, which is why a large majority of states do 
>> have capital punishment.
>>
>> We ought to ice the bastards proactively, before they have a chance to do 
>> real damage.
>> As soon as they establish themselves as career criminals, it should be 
>> curtains for them.
>> But no, they have to go out and rob, rape and murder, then get caught, 
>> have lengthy trials, go through a decade or more of appeals before 
>> anything is done ,,, And then when 1 execution gets botched, we have 
>> people like you crying "oh damn, we can't treat actual human beings this 
>> way, wheres the compassion??"
> 
> It isn't compassion, it's a standard of behaviour - like having laws and 
> customs of war.  It doesn't necessarily prevent you from killing when you 
> have to.
> 
> It's a moral standard to make 'people different from animals'.

People are animals, you can't dance around that.
Homo sapiens are a primate animal species.

You anyhow are engaging in word play and technicalities.
Of course, striving to make a condemned prisoners last moments as 
comfortable and problem free as possible is compassion.

>> I trust I don't even need to point out the irony of wanting to show 
>> compassion & humanity to such sick sons of bitches who, throughout their 
>> whole lives by and large have done nothing but drain society and ruin 
>> innocent lives.
> 
> By the time they get to execution that's already happened.  What's the 
> solution to that one?  We had Australia.  Maybe there's a spare island 
> somewhere that no-one wants (no, not the UK!)

I already proposed a solution - Proactive capital punishment.
"Who decides", I know, the great question.
Some left wing shill like Obama gets to decide, I might end up on the 
chopping block, a right wing demagogue like me, Obama & his crew will 
get it.
I doubt if proactive banishment would be a viable long term solution ,,, 
Isn't that how Australia was started ?

I think that a happy medium could be established where political/racial 
considerations will be taken out of the process, and the career 
criminals are tagged early on, and taken out of the picture before they 
have a chance to commit real mayhem.
Since the majority of violent acts are committed by a minority of the 
population [blacks, to be exact, although mexicans are quickly racing 
for that dubious lead], obviously the current administration would have 
none of it.

No one wants to do what is best for the country as a whole, rather to 
pander to certain ethnic/racial/political groups, and this country is 
being torn apart by all of the various "isms" and hyphenated loyalties.

>> Why not show compassion to a cancer cell TWP, its also a living organism.
> 
> It's not about simply being alive.
> 
> 
> 
>> How about mosquitoes, feel guilty for swatting them ?
> 
> That's self-defence.  Mosquitoes are said to have killed more people than 
> every human war ever fought, also mosquitoes are hopefully not as 
> intelligent and aware as people.

Incarcerating fellow human beings is self defense, pure and simple - 
Swatting them dead like a bug is the ultimate form of defense.
I don't see one jot about how sophisticated the creature who wants to 
suck your life blood happens to be is relevant.

If you were attacked by a wild dog, would you hesitate to use lethal 
force to defend yourself, thinking that a dog is relatively 
sophisticated, and usually mans best friend, unlike a dumb mosquito ?
Hell no, you'd pick up a pipe if you could, and smash its skull open 
until its brains busted out.


>> While your worrying about what we can do to help them, others of their ilk 
>> would like nothing better than to break in your home, rape your daughter, 
>> steal everything they can carry away, and leave you dying in a pool of 
>> your own blood.
> 
> It's not about helping the criminals, it's a standard that you judge 
> yourself by, or how others judge you and your brand of civilisation by. 
> It's what kind of a people you want to be and be seen to be.
> 
> OK, if you were dealing with an enemy soldier who had surrendered, and was 
> unarmed, would you shoot him right there or take him prisoner?   As I 
> understand it, the custom and probably the law of war is to take a prisoner. 
> OK, what would you think of UK troops if whenever they took a prisoner they 
> just disarmed them, took whatever might be useful, then shot them on the 
> spot - perhaps after torturing them a little, depending on how much free 
> time the soldier had?  Either would be doable, but which would be seen by 
> you or the broader world as the scummier way to act - you accepting 
> surrender and taking prisoners or us killing everyone, even those who had 
> surrendered?  In WWII Germany, people said that the Russian soldiers 'had no 
> respect for life'.  Maybe that's the difference.

I refuse to address that poor analogy in detail, as a surrendering 
soldier can in no way, shape or form be compared to a death row inmate.

> There's only a difference because of standards of behaviour that everyone 
> has agreed to, just like national laws.  OK, so why did people agree to 
> those standards in the first place?  Is it because they're all damp-eyed 
> liberals, was it done to make wars easier to end - so that there wasn't a 
> running blood-feud forever afterwards between warring parties because of 
> various atrocities committed by each side, or was it because parties who 
> drew up the rules were trying to create a more civilised world where it's 
> not OK for everyone to just act like animals?

Laws of war evolved, just as mankind engaging in warfare evolved.
Some might argue "devolved", as the age of chivalry was replaced by the 
massed blood letting of civilian populations from all sides - "Acting 
like animals", as you put it.

Do you really think FDR & Churchill were very worried about "what kind 
of a people they were and be seen to be" by dumping 10,000's of tons of 
high explosives and incendiary bombs on millions of defenseless old 
folks, woman and children ?
Was Hitler worried about how people might perceive him by some of his 
well known dastardly actions ?

The short answer to both is NO, they were not.

So when did these standards of behavior in warfare take root ?
Must have been post WW2, for sure.
But wait, Korea was pretty dirty. So was Vietnam - And in between, 
French & British were fighting their own dirty wars at various 
locations, so were many other nations.
You think the French were worried about Geneva in Algeria ?
Hell no, they fought dirty as hell, complete with kidnappings & mass 
reprisal executions.
Don't tell me that WW2 at least brought a sense of noble enlightenment 
to battling parties.

So this point of civilized enlightenment you are vaguely referring to, I 
am not really seeing it.
Our actions are guided by circumstances, not some kind of iron clad, 
universal understanding.
Was true for our fathers, is true for us today.
We may agree that "this line should never be crossed", it may be a great 
idea, but in practice, the line will be crossed if any national 
authority perceives it would further their ends to do so.

>>>>> The awareness of immediately impending death for any length of time is 
>>>>> a factor legally in how much suffering is involved in the process of 
>>>>> dying. If that applies to compensation it surely applies to execution.
>>>> I still don't get it, within context of the topic at hand.
>>>> Who and what legally recognizes lethal injections as protracted 
>>>> suffering ?
>>>>
>>> Not lethal injection.  As far as I can tell it's probably not a horrible 
>>> way to go.  I've had one of the drugs put into me, and sometimes you feel 
>>> it as pins and needles all over (including a pins and needles in your 
>>> hearing, like a building roaring sound), then a point of instant 
>>> unconciousness.  You only realise you've become unconcious when you wake 
>>> up.  Another way - probably the way it's experienced in ececutions 
>>> because it seems to be when the drug is given a bit faster - you feel a 
>>> building ringing in your head until it reaches a level that begins to be 
>>> uncomfortable, then you wake up. If you weren't to wake up you probably 
>>> wouldn't be aware of any particular last moment.
>>>
>>> What's protracted suffering is being exposed to the final part of the 
>>> process for a long period of time.
>> Well, this case was apparently an exception, you are picking it apart to 
>> condemn all lethal injections as inhumane now ?
> 
> I thought I'd given a very long "no" when I was talking about what an 
> injection of sodium pentothal felt like.  Nitrogen gas poisoning is an even 
> better way to go.  I don't think lethal injection is inhumane if you must 
> kill someone.  What I think is inhumane is to stretch out for hours, and if 
> necessary repeat, the killing process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Wasn't supposed to happen like that, that goes without saying ,,, So now 
>> you make a case to end all state executions, on the grounds that they 
>> might conceivably be botched also ?
> 
> No, it WAS supposed to happen like that.   In Ohio the rules on executions 
> were changed so that prison staff could take as long as they needed to 
> prepare the prisoner, even if it took hours.

I don't know the finer details of the various states.
Since my state does not have it, its not even an area of great interest 
for me.
If the liberal courts and governments now seated in most areas find the 
general practices tolerable, I'm not sure I would argue otherwise.

Of course, if you are "dead set" against the death penalty period, then 
thats another matter.

> You and people following this thread would probably find this interesting:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do9VLZCHlN0
> 
> "How to kill a human being", a BBC "Horizon" programme.  It's the search for 
> the 'best' way to execute someone.
> 
> 
> TWP
> 
> 
>

"TWP"  wrote ...

[snips]

>> While your worrying about what we can do to help them, others of their 
>> ilk would like nothing better than to break in your home, rape your 
>> daughter, steal everything they can carry away, and leave you dying in a 
>> pool of your own blood.
>
> It's not about helping the criminals, it's a standard that you judge 
> yourself by, or how others judge you and your brand of civilisation by. 
> It's what kind of a people you want to be and be seen to be.
>
> OK, if you were dealing with an enemy soldier who had surrendered, and was 
> unarmed, would you shoot him right there or take him prisoner?   As I 
> understand it, the custom and probably the law of war is to take a 
> prisoner.

That's simply, "do unto others as you'd have done to yourself", and quite a 
solid basis for an ethical standard.

Importantly, the perspective is on treating people how you'd like to be 
treated, not treating others as they may treat you; that's what puts one on 
higher moral ground. The difference between rising out of the gutter and 
stepping down into it.

If it's about setting higher standards, improving society and civilisation; 
where you lead by example. You cannot do that when descending to, and 
equalling, the lowest level.

That's why capital and corporal punishment is so wrong, it's doing the same 
harm as they do with a rather hollow excuse of 'it's okay when the good guys 
do it for the right reasons'. That's simple excuse making, false 
justification, moral relativism.

Then there's a layer on top; that 'they' might not care about making 
mistakes, not caring who gets hurt or suffers through those mistakes, but 
'we' do; and if 'we' do, capital punishment, if a mistake, is one which 
cannot ever be rectified. It stands to logic then that those better than the 
criminals will oppose capital punishment, and will be opposed to punishments 
designed to create harm and hurt.

We might not agree on everything, but we seem to be in agreement on the 
fundamentals. And without a solid moral foundation you don't have much.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:0BWsm.80608$OO7.45@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
> [snips]
>
>>> While your worrying about what we can do to help them, others of their 
>>> ilk would like nothing better than to break in your home, rape your 
>>> daughter, steal everything they can carry away, and leave you dying in a 
>>> pool of your own blood.
>>
>> It's not about helping the criminals, it's a standard that you judge 
>> yourself by, or how others judge you and your brand of civilisation by. 
>> It's what kind of a people you want to be and be seen to be.
>>
>> OK, if you were dealing with an enemy soldier who had surrendered, and 
>> was unarmed, would you shoot him right there or take him prisoner?   As I 
>> understand it, the custom and probably the law of war is to take a 
>> prisoner.
>
> That's simply, "do unto others as you'd have done to yourself", and quite 
> a solid basis for an ethical standard.
>

I think it goes beyond that.  I think it goes to honour, which is something 
that peoples from all corners of the Earth have recognised sooner or later. 
It's having nothing that will bring shame to you and your decendants. 
Inflicting harm or suffering on someone who is helpless is seen as a type of 
cowardice in Western civilisation, right down to it being seen as 
dishonourable to hit girls or someone with glasses.  There are other 
cultural honour systems, but ours seems to centre around moral and physical 
courage above most things.

Taking two hours to kill someone only to give up after 18 attempts and tell 
them you'll try again in a few days is dishonourable.  It's playing with the 
moment of someone's death - an additional punishment not mandated by the 
courts, in the full knowledge that they and probably their family will 
suffer as a consequence.  The trouble is, "no man is an island" - if you 
diminish the value of one person you end up diminishing the value of 
everyone.  If it's OK to make someone suffer because 'they deserve it', 
pretty soon it's OK to let people starve because 'they're lazy' or 'their 
family had too many children'.  Sooner or later it's OK to let someone die 
of untreated cancer because 'they smoked for 20 years' or 'they let 
themselves get fat'.

There's something fundamentally dangerous about letting people decide the 
value of people they don't know or who have no connection with, or are 
vulnerable to being victims of political or media propaganda, and no,  I'm 
not thinking specifically of criminals,  It's unsafe to become a society 
that decides to make any undesirable element of society suffer.  Remember 
the lesson from history of the Nazis (again).   You don't have to become a 
sucker, you don't have to not punish people who do harm or not expect better 
of people who take from others by their actions, but you can't assume the 
right to diminish someone else.  It comes with an eventual cost.



> Importantly, the perspective is on treating people how you'd like to be 
> treated, not treating others as they may treat you; that's what puts one 
> on higher moral ground. The difference between rising out of the gutter 
> and stepping down into it.
>
> If it's about setting higher standards, improving society and 
> civilisation; where you lead by example. You cannot do that when 
> descending to, and equalling, the lowest level.
>
> That's why capital and corporal punishment is so wrong, it's doing the 
> same harm as they do with a rather hollow excuse of 'it's okay when the 
> good guys do it for the right reasons'. That's simple excuse making, false 
> justification, moral relativism.
>
> Then there's a layer on top; that 'they' might not care about making 
> mistakes, not caring who gets hurt or suffers through those mistakes, but 
> 'we' do; and if 'we' do, capital punishment, if a mistake, is one which 
> cannot ever be rectified. It stands to logic then that those better than 
> the criminals will oppose capital punishment, and will be opposed to 
> punishments designed to create harm and hurt.
>


> We might not agree on everything, but we seem to be in agreement on the 
> fundamentals. And without a solid moral foundation you don't have much.

I think we usually agree on these kinds of things.

TWP

Ohio Rapist-Killer's Execution Delayed 10 Days By U.S. Judge

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/ohio_rapistkillers_execution_d.html

....U.S. District Judge Gregory Frost accepted the request of Broom's 
lawyers for a temporary injunction to delay the execution for at least ten 
days from Friday. The judge scheduled a hearing for a preliminary injunction 
on Sept. 28.

So there won't be another attempt to execute Broom as scheduled on Tuesday.

(more)



I still wouldn't sell him life insurance.  They'll get their nerve back.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:0BWsm.80608$OO7.45@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>> [snips]
>>
>>>> While your worrying about what we can do to help them, others of their 
>>>> ilk would like nothing better than to break in your home, rape your 
>>>> daughter, steal everything they can carry away, and leave you dying in 
>>>> a pool of your own blood.
>>>
>>> It's not about helping the criminals, it's a standard that you judge 
>>> yourself by, or how others judge you and your brand of civilisation by. 
>>> It's what kind of a people you want to be and be seen to be.
>>>
>>> OK, if you were dealing with an enemy soldier who had surrendered, and 
>>> was unarmed, would you shoot him right there or take him prisoner?   As 
>>> I understand it, the custom and probably the law of war is to take a 
>>> prisoner.
>>
>> That's simply, "do unto others as you'd have done to yourself", and quite 
>> a solid basis for an ethical standard.
>>
>
> I think it goes beyond that.

True, but that's the very basic of the principle IMO. Strip away all other 
arguments and you can't get below, 'I wouldn't want to have it done to me, 
so where is any justification to do it to others'.

Breaking that tennet is a good guide to spotting hypocrites; 'it's okay to 
attack some but not okay should they attack me'.


> I think it goes to honour, which is something that peoples from all 
> corners of the Earth have recognised sooner or later. It's having nothing 
> that will bring shame to you and your decendants. Inflicting harm or 
> suffering on someone who is helpless is seen as a type of cowardice in 
> Western civilisation,

Not by all members of such western civilisations though, and not necessarily 
by any particular western society collectively at times, even in modern 
times.


> right down to it being seen as dishonourable to hit girls or someone with 
> glasses.

True, the instinct ( applying cultural standards we are taught and adopt ) 
is against that, but it's not an absolute. As with all things there's a 'for 
a greater good' argument. The default is however "don't".

There's also the hypocrisy of some within a civilisation while arguing 'it's 
wrong to hit girls', would equally say 'but it's okay if they are black, 
Hispanic, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, American, Iranian, etc'; usually 
justified by their colour, ethnicity, religion or other 'difference' making 
them sub-human or some reason whereby normal standards of honour do not 
apply in those cases.

I've never really understood the argument, 'it's wrong to hit girls ... but 
okay to hit blokes'. That seems simply arbitrary standards. 'It's okay to 
hit someone coming at you with a knife, but not okay to hit someone simply 
walking down the street', seems a much more rational position, and takes out 
the gender and other discriminatory issues. That's embodied within UK Law 
that any attack or defence, no matter how justified, must be minimal and 
reasonable, aggression without just cause is wrong.


> There are other cultural honour systems, but ours seems to centre around 
> moral and physical courage above most things.

Perhaps the biggest differentiator is how one responds when wronged, and 
that also applies within different western cultures as observed in opposing 
views on corporal punishment.

And also ( and within western culture again ) how one responds to a call to 
war; whether with reluctance and regret or with a desire to slay one's 
enemy. Whether defensive war should be to stop the attack or to crush the 
attackers.

How one does behave in war reflects the honour you mentioned earlier, though 
there are many who would say that killing is honourable in such situations. 
I think it is certainly easier to say killing and harm when unnecessary or 
when there are alternatives is dishonourable. Killing the wrong people and 
killing innocents is dishonourable - which is why those doing such killings 
invent other 'soft terms' for it so it doesn't seem so.

But then we are into the argument over what is justified, unjustified, 
necessary or unnecessary, reasonable or not; terrorist or freedom fighter, 
coward or hero, is dictated by one's own views not another's.


> I think we usually agree on these kinds of things.

Most honourable and decent people would ;-)