Kled wrote 1.26M is some bullshit excuse. I think they should just bring back firing squads. One bullet, less than a $1.00 for the government to waste on such worthless trash.

How do you know if the store clerk suffered before his death? You don't. He could've been shot in the **** kidney bleeding out. Slow horrible death, which is what this inmate got in return.

My opinion on that is that it doesn't even matter if they lit someone on fire. I mean, would I have any real sympathy for them? Honestly, probably not, but we don't need even more suffering in the world when it isn't needed. It is a justice system after all. Justice is not revenge. The death penalty also affects innocent people as well. I mean, if you're ok with innocent people sometimes getting killed like that for no reason... I just know I'm not ok with it.

Death for a death, shit happens. Didn't wanna go to jail or be killed, don't kill someone else.

KyloCrux wrote Death for a death, shit happens. Didn't wanna go to jail or be killed, don't kill someone else.

You're a psychopath and luckily our founding fathers were trying to protect us from people like you with the 8th amendment, which this clearly violated.

Dead penalty should be abolished in my opinion. I could write a thousand paragraph essay on why it's wrong but I don't think that I need to since the majority of people also agree that forcefully taking someone else's life in return for them killing someone, is revenge as opposed to justice.

Personally, I think inmates that have committed horrible crimes should be given the option to choose whether they live in prison or if they would prefer be executed.

In reference to the article, that's extremely messed up. A bullet to the head would be cheaper, faster and more humane than spending that much time in agony.

that's dark

Whoa, this article is not biased at all.

He's a convicted murderer, and had a slow death. I don't see a problem with it.

If he ever was innocent, yes that would suck. They were going to kill him regardless though, so we will never know.

Halo wrote Whoa, this article is not biased at all.

He's a convicted murderer, and had a slow death. I don't see a problem with it.

If he ever was innocent, yes that would suck. They were going to kill him regardless though, so we will never know.

Please refer to the George Carlin video I posted on the previous page.
If you're OK with torturing people to death then why not make it a bit more entertaining to satisfy that primal urge for revenge?

Let's start crucifying death row inmates instead.

The point here isn't whether or not he deserved to be killed slowly or quickly. The point here is that the constitution protects every citizen from cruel and unusual punishment.

If you dont consider this cruel and unusual then why not start burning people at the stake again?

Consider that these are the definitions of the word cruel:

1.Willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2.Enjoying the pain or distress of others:
the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3.Causing or marked by great pain or distress:

and these are the definitions of the word unusual:
1. Not habitually or commonly occurring or done:
2. Remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others

I think this fits both of those definitions. If you want to say that the constitution shouldn't be this strict in regards to the death penalty then you can, but right now as it stands this is an unconstitutional way to execute someone.

Personally the guillotine seems to be a more guaranteed way of death I guess. I believe in rehabilitating prisoners but at the same time some people honestly don't deserve the chance to be rehabilitated and I could care less what happens to them. 1st degree rape/sexual assault and murder should all be under the death penalty

Ahab wrote

Halo wrote Whoa, this article is not biased at all.

He's a convicted murderer, and had a slow death. I don't see a problem with it.

If he ever was innocent, yes that would suck. They were going to kill him regardless though, so we will never know.

Please refer to the George Carlin video I posted on the previous page.
If you're OK with torturing people to death then why not make it a bit more entertaining to satisfy that primal urge for revenge?

Let's start crucifying death row inmates instead.

The point here isn't whether or not he deserved to be killed slowly or quickly. The point here is that the constitution protects every citizen from cruel and unusual punishment.

If you dont consider this cruel and unusual then why not start burning people at the stake again?

Consider that these are the definitions of the word cruel:

1.Willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2.Enjoying the pain or distress of others:
the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3.Causing or marked by great pain or distress:

and these are the definitions of the word unusual:
1. Not habitually or commonly occurring or done:
2. Remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others

I think this fits both of those definitions. If you want to say that the constitution shouldn't be this strict in regards to the death penalty then you can, but right now as it stands this is an unconstitutional way to execute someone.

Ah, im a fan of George Carlin and believe what he was saying was for comedic purposes although he's not wrong sometimes. Anyways, I'm a fan of the death penalty. However a line should be drawn, I'm not saying we should start burning people or dismembering them (example) either, I'm just saying that I don't care if someone (a convicted murderer) happened to die because of an error due to a botch in the drug used in the execution process.

Should midazolam continued to be used for executions? I don't know it's not my call. However the drugs definition states "Can cause paranoid or suicidal ideation and impair memory, judgment, and coordination. Combining with other substances, particularly alcohol, can slow breathing and possibly lead to death." when being used as a controlled substance. If everything goes as expected, it doesn't sound like it's too bad if someone were to die by it.

Halo wrote Whoa, this article is not biased at all.

He's a convicted murderer, and had a slow death. I don't see a problem with it.

If he ever was innocent, yes that would suck. They were going to kill him regardless though, so we will never know.

The eighth amendment of the constitution prohibits shit like this. That's the problem.
We're no better than the murderer if you think this is ok.