Executed by nitrogen gas

Teknobry said:
A guilty plea usually gets a lesser sentence, hence why they plead. Otherwise they'd be no point.
Click to expand...
Ok so plead guilty to a crime with the death penalty? or dont... There's no lesser penalty... What am i missing here Die or die honestly?
 
Thekwango said:
i agree but that's not how it currently works.

you did yourself say 'don't want to be on death row don't murder anyone' but there are, as has been demonstrated over the years, plenty of folk on death row who didn't kill anyone.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree, but I think it's technically two different things which unfortunately lead to the same outcome :(
 
Thekwango said:
indeed, but your line isn't the nice and easily definined line you think it is.

don't get me wrong, there are certain crimes and criminals who should be straight into the fertilizer mix but while the death penalty exisits it is vital that there are people 'what about this and what about thatting' to try to prevent innocent people going to their deaths.
Click to expand...
yep yep i 100% agree.

But if the guy is on film killing a whoever and that's a death penalty crime in whatever state then it should be a formality. Investigate, get overwhelming evidence, no need for a jury even..

Im only advocating that there ARE crimes 100% that are absolutely undisputable to whom did them, im not saying kill em all and let god sort them out.

This case, the guy hired a couple of goons to kill his wife, they all got caught.. The guy is guilty. The guy should already be dead by their laws now they wanna gas him..... Well whatever. Honestly??? Who cares.... The death penalty is crazy and its mad that it still exists in the west.

Why dont we they do death by firing squad? make a machine with 10 guns in it and the guilty guy presses the button to start a random timer between 5 and 10 mins...
Plenty of time to cry and reflect on your stupid crime, cry maybe wee yourself... Sucks to be a murderer i guess.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
yep yep i 100% agree.

But if the guy is on film killing a whoever and that's a death penalty crime in whatever state then it should be a formality.
Click to expand...
but you also said that anyone admitting to their crime should be executed too - this is the grey area issue that isn't easy like you say. we're also in an age where deep fakes and ai could very easily 'manipulate' film/recording. so, again, saying it's nice and easy to work out who gets deaded by the state is quite clearly wrong.
 
Thekwango said:
but you also said that anyone admitting to their crime should be executed too - this is the grey area issue that isn't easy like you say. we're also in an age where deep fakes and ai could very easily 'manipulate' film/recording. so, again, saying it's nice and easy to work out who gets deaded by the state is quite clearly wrong.
Click to expand...
I dont think we`re there yet. But sure in the future cyberpunk 2077 it might be a reality for average people to kill their wives then deep fake it to look like the neighbour...
Why not sure...
Again ill emphasises its probably a pretty low number that are caught with a literal smoking gun and blood on their hands... thats a death penalty

USA 1582 executed, 196 innocent since 1973... Yeah its terrible i guess but i think the world has bigger problems.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
I dont think we`re there yet. But sure in the future cyberpunk 2077 it might be a reality for average people to kill their wives then deep fake it to look like the neighbour...
Why not sure...
Again ill emphasises its probably a pretty low number that are caught with a literal smoking gun and blood on their hands... thats a death penalty

USA 1582 executed, 196 innocent since 1973... Yeah it’s terrible i guess but i think the world has bigger problems.
Click to expand...
We’re not as far away from it as you think. You ever seen some of the quality of the video images used in criminal cases, not just murder trials? It’s usually relatively low quality cctv - it’s definitely possible to fake that sort of thing already. But that’s sort of by the by. I was just highlighting why you can’t decide to kill someone purely on video evidence or a confession. There still needs a trial, other evidence to be presented etc.

It’s not ‘easy’ as you originally stated to decide ‘x’ equals death as that rationale could still lead to innocent deaths.

For the families of the 196 innocent people killed by the state in America I imagine the worlds problems pale into insignificance for them. As I imagine it would for you too if someone you loved were wrongly convicted and executed.
 
Efour said:
Its really easy...
YOu kill the people that freely admit to their crimes (the nut jobs) or are caught red handed.
Everyone else you don't....
Click to expand...

That's really easy, yes. But it's not accurate.

i) Sometimes people confess to crimes they didn't commit.
ii) Sometimes people "caught red handed" are innocent.
iii) Sometimes it's useful to have people who are guilty confess, which wouldn't happen if the punishment was always to be killed. Tortured to death, probably, since that's what the loudest advocates of the death penalty want.

The idea that the death penalty will only be applied to people who are guilty is a fantasy. It's a denial of reality. Everyone who advocates the death penalty is advocating that some innocent people be executed. It's just that many of them pretend they're not, either lying or deluding themself.

We already have a system that shouldn't have anyone convicted unless it's absolutely proven that they're guilty. And it doesn't always work. Just ask Andrew Malkinson, for example. One of the "lucky" ones, since he eventually got a chance to prove his innocence.
 
Thekwango said:
story you linked doesn't have all that other info in it. would need to see that too as it sounds like the just didn't buy his blackout claims.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but there's loads of more info if you care to Google.
I know him quite well and he was a big burly rough arse rugby player when at around 19 he was brutally raped.
I only knew he was having blackouts, epilepsy and counseling for years but never knew why until the court appearance happened.
I was a bit annoyed with my wife because she had always known and kept it away from me but I constantly heard the stories of his blackouts, fits and being rushed to A&E all the time.
In prison he has been getting proper treatment and he's been a model prisoner but absolutely no excuse for what he did.
He also 100% accepts what he did, says he deserved what he got but he had no idea he did it.
We believe him because we know his history.
 
Last edited:
Thekwango said:
We’re not as far away from it as you think. You ever seen some of the quality of the video images used in criminal cases, not just murder trials? It’s usually relatively low quality cctv - it’s definitely possible to fake that sort of thing already. But that’s sort of by the by. I was just highlighting why you can’t decide to kill someone purely on video evidence or a confession. There still needs a trial, other evidence to be presented etc.

It’s not ‘easy’ as you originally stated to decide ‘x’ equals death as that rationale could still lead to innocent deaths.

For the families of the 196 innocent people killed by the state in America I imagine the worlds problems pale into insignificance for them. As I imagine it would for you too if someone you loved were wrongly convicted and executed.
Click to expand...
Oh stop playing on my heart strings boohoo lol.
If people are being convicted and the evidence is crap in the first place that is the fault of the courts and all involved.
Crap evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't even reach a punishment stage in a decent country with a decent trial system.
If you're gonna be doing life in prison/executed because the 8 pixels on the CCTV screen could be you then I'd be asking for a retrial.
How many cases is tampering with filmed evidence/fabrication of videos even a defence?
Sure in the future I'm sure it could go down that route but it's honestly fantasy for now and would have to be an extremely well planned crime on levels way above normal everyday crime.
 
Angilion said:
That's really easy, yes. But it's not accurate.

i) Sometimes people confess to crimes they didn't commit.
ii) Sometimes people "caught red handed" are innocent.
iii) Sometimes it's useful to have people who are guilty confess, which wouldn't happen if the punishment was always to be killed.
Click to expand...
You obviously know a lot more about the subject than me can you point me to examples of 1 and 2 that have resulted in the death penalty?
I can only guess that no.2 involves corrupt police officers with a grudge against the accused.
3 I'm not sure how we can change that. In reality. We are already struggling to believe people that do confess knowing they aren't guilty..
It's almost like there has to be a very thorough investigation and then only after all reasonable doubt can we convict people.
Then if you live in a backward land with a death penalty you get the punishment.

I guess I'm more hopeful the judicial process is without doubt and exaustive
 
Looking at this forthcoming nitrogen execution i didn't realise it was decided 11 to 1 NOT to impose the death penalty but this was overturned by judicial override.
judicial override was then forbidden but they wont impose the new rules retrospectively (the crime was back in the 80s) so it still stands

some case info
 
Last edited:
moon man said:
Looking at this forthcoming nitrogen execution i didn't realise it was decided 11 to 1 NOT to impose the death penalty but this was overturned by judicial override.
judicial override was then forbidden but they wont impose it retrospectively (the crime was back in the 80s) so it still stands

some case info
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read a similar thing elsewhere, to execute sounds a bit dodgy to me - I mean it looks as though the evidence shows that he was involved, however I think that a life sentence would have been more appropriate.

I don't support the death penalty, but if it's decided they're going to use it - I think it should only be reserved for the absolute worst crimes imaginable (child rape and murder, mass murder, terrorism etc) not murder for hire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom