An Alabama inmate would be the test subject for the “experimental” execution method of nitrogen hypoxia, his lawyers argued, as they asked judges to deny the state’s request to carry out his death sentence using the new method.
In a Friday court filing, attorneys for Kenneth Eugene Smith asked the Alabama Supreme Court to reject the state attorney general’s request to set an execution date for Smith using the proposed new execution method. Nitrogen gas is authorized as an execution method in three states but it has never been used to put an inmate to death.
Smith’s attorneys argued the state has disclosed little information about how nitrogen executions would work, releasing only a redacted copy of the proposed protocol.
TL;DR: No, there are plenty of good reasons why the death penalty should exist. The problem isn’t the penalty, it’s the people pointing it at innocents because it’s harder to prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. THAT is what needs reform, not the penalty. Otherwise you’re successfully putting more people into slavery when they just shouldn’t be consuming resources anymore, period.
This person isn’t wrongfully convicted, he’s been fighting his death penalty for years. He quite literally confessed, and his confession drove the man responsible for the hiring (it was through a third party) to kill himself.
Yes yes yes, “but what ifs” are very nice for people that don’t actually want to make hard decisions. The bottom line is bad people exist and should be killed. This man doesn’t deserve rights beyond those afforded to people who are sentenced to death.
The expense of the death penalty is related to the trials that are held, almost always in opposition of the ruling. If you were to compare the actual cost of the penalty itself to the cost of keeping someone in slavery, you would find that the numbers don’t support you.
The reality is you don’t have a problem with the death penalty, you have a problem with the people proposing the death penalty because not enough preparation goes into it. Which is perfectly rational, because if they are not proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be guilty then the death penalty should simply not be on the table.
The problem isn’t the sentence, the problem is people not treating human lives with enough respect when giving the sentence. Both things can be true. Literally point to any fascist/ authoritarian and suddenly the death penality doesn’t seem so bad. No one cried for Bin Laden being obliterated, no one would cry for a convicted hitman being killed.
Three counter points:
Those are some wild statements you make. Yes I have a problem with the penalty bc I think it’s wrong, simple as that. But I live in a country where punishment is fundamentally based on the idea of rehabilitation. And that often even applies for murderers. So I think that’s part of why I’m so opposed to the death penalty.
I doubt we can convince each other from our standpoints. So all I can say is have a great day.
I have a problem with your ridiculously vague statement of
The bottom line is bad people exist and should be killed
What makes a bad person? That they committed a crime (which crime, how bad is bad), that they show no remorse, that they are incapable of change (were they born evil or a victim of circumstance)?
You only have to look at how quickly decisions of law are changing (roe v wade for better or worse, definitely worse) to realise deciding on life ending ‘justice’ based on a human court of due process (where even confessing can be flawed) is fundamentally flawed.
How does it impact your day to day if we choose to incarcerate them instead?
But also, a little extra compassion in life would do you zero harm.
Thats simply not true. I myself would very much rather have seen Bin Laden in Jail (and of course a due process beforehand), likewise Saddam or even Hitler…