Correlation between Anti-Gun v Anti Death Penalty Views

I don't think this is true. Executions used to be public. Also, there was a recent execution in Arizona that took nearly two hours. The state and the the victim's family seem perfectly fine with that, and the reaction I've read in my places on the internet indicates that many people agree. There seems to be a large segment of the population who would be perfectly okay with getting rid of the eight amendment. That's what I thought. Now can you back up your feelings with something more substantive?

It was the second such event and got a lot of publicity over here. It was reported in a way which was similar to reports of floggings and stonings in less developed countries. I was wondering how Americans thought about it and whether they even knew.The 'problems' have been caused because the US got its drugs from the EU who have now banned their sale to states that use them in inhuman ways. They are now experimenting with new drugs and getting it wrong.

Personally I am against the death penalty -- in practice it costs more than life in prison AND it is not a reversible process in case later evidence\review shows the person is innocent of that crime. There are too many cases of reversed decisions not to consider this as wanton murder of innocent people.The evidence also shows that it has little impact on reducing murders (especially murders of passion).Education has shown reduced recidivism, but has been defunded by GOP jealous of prisoners getting better education than they had ().But, IF I HAD to kill someone, I can think of several methods that would result in death:They all start with anesthetizing the victim into a state of unconsciousness or induced coma (and one could add happy hallucinogenics if one wanted):

1. no additional life support -- the body will dehydrate and die of starvation,
2. death by surgery -- remove organs for transplant into people that need them (heart, kidneys, livers, etc),
3. death by exsanguination -- drain the body of blood, or
4. death by freezing -- freeze until heart and lung stop (see uniform determination of death)

Off the top of my head.Enjoy ... if that is your kind of 'thing' ...

Now that is an interesting one.
My immediate reaction is to recoil in horror and dismiss the idea as barbarically immoral.But let's say we have a mass murderer whose guilt we can be as certain of as is possible. Harvesting their organs could save the lives of many innocent people.Would it be immoral to save those lives in this way?
I have to say I think it would be immoral. I would not advocate it.But this is possibly the closest I can think of to a situation where the death penalty might be able to make a valid moral case.Anyway - An interesting notion.

Interesting, yes. The topic of punishing people in this way has been the subject of science fiction. (The Jigsaw Man). But in my opinion, the idea that criminals forfeit their rights to their organs is ultimately a horrifying equation. I don't think this makes the death penalty more moral, but it would make it more attractive.ABE:We've actually had three botched executions all attributable to the use of new combinations of drugs used as lethal injections. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NoNukes writes: Assuming the death penalty never disappears, what if we allowed the criminal to choose this option?I, personally, would want to abolish the death penalty, but if it still has to exist?

Now let's say we have a perfectly innocent person with healthy organs. Would harvesting those organs to save 4 other people be moral?No?
So allowing 4 people to die to save one life is moral?

Monty python classic.
Don't click if your easily grossed out! Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

If you must have the death penalty, I think you should get rid of the pretense that it's done "humanely".It should be done with a teaspoon. And the ones who support it - e.g. the victim's family - should be the ones to do it.

How about we take all the guns in the country and lock them up in a giant city like new york along with all violent criminals and let them dispatch themselves?Ridding the country of both guns and criminals.We could put cameras all over the place and have a fantastic reality show to boot.We could call it....Escape from New York!
Oh its been done? Rats.

It can be. No. I don't think it would.

And the larger issue would be ensuring that the party was guilty rather than the possessor of wanted organs ... it would open up a slippery slope of people being found guilty in order to supply organs.Look at how our prison system has been corrupted already by for profit corporations and then consider how easy it could be to "upgrade" a prisoner to death sentence due to inappropriate behavior in prison rather than stuffing them into solitary confinement ...... I thought it was the most horrid idea. Which is why I believe lethal injections are immoral. Perhaps we should ask the executioners to find a method that they would accept being used on themselves if it was ever warrented: the golden rule eh?Enjoy

There is no issue with this. I see no difference between this and my own decision to be an organ donor. I believe that the Death penalty grafted onto some kind of involuntary organ donor program would inevitably become a new kind of evil that's even worse than the current state of affairs.

It might also lead to a state interest in reducing the number of appeals so we get the organs while the donor is still young and hale. Thus enhancing the chance of executing the innocent.

Indeed. And new medical procedures that would benefit rich old people by using materials from young poor people.Very dangerous precedent.For the record, my preference of the lot was freezing.