Log in

No account? Create an account
Jennifer E. Thomas
...... .:::.:.:

It's almost like there are these periods where our relationship is smooth and steady, and then there are times when it's like standing on the edge of this gorgeous, wonderful waterfall and just letting yourself drop, knowing that there's a safe pool of water ready to catch you at bottom. You take the plunge and you're in wayyyy over your head, but oh man, it's exhilarating, it's breathtaking, it's just incredible and you feel better than you ever have before and the water is cool and refreshing and exactly what you needed.

Sam is my waterfall.

- LJ entry from 8/2005


Every Human Has Rights

Website Analytics

December 2017
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Jennifer E. Thomas [userpic]
Lethal injection

I was just reading about how Ohio is switching to a one drug form of lethal injection, thinking it will be more "humane".

I say again, killing people is not humane. Killing by government is still killing.

I am pro life. That means I love them all, not just the fetuses. Not just the nice guys. Nobody should be killed. And Christians forgive.

And anybody who has ever held their panicking, crying dog in their arms while the vet administered a lethal injection to it is well aware that those animals still suffer.

At least Bear did.

Borderline symptom of the day: thoughtfulthoughtful

Alright then.

Is it exactly as humane than, say, hacking their head off with an axe while the convict's family and friends are forced to watch? Or drowning them in a vat of boiling water? Or flaying their skin from their bones? Or something similar?

There is no way to kill someone and be nice to them at the same time.

You have confused being nice with being humane. You are also under the impression that the only person to whom the execution must be "humane" is the condemned. Please revisit your assumptions.

I don't regard the death penalty as in any way "humane" to anyone. Please revisit your assumptions also.

You can regard it as inhumane and that's fine, but my point is that there's degrees to such a thing. If the state has decided that they're going to kill prisoners for certain classes of crimes, the voters can figure out if they want to change that or not. BUT UNTIL THEN, there's ways to do it that are more humane (or less inhumane if you insist) than others.

Do you think that the feelings of the condemned's family don't matter? Or his friends? The feelings of the victim's family and friends? That of the prosecutor, whose job it is to obtain a conviction and whose actions sent this person here? I don't know about you, but I would be far more disturbed by a state execution that seemed cruel and sadistic than one that showed some degree of sensitivity.

America's founding fathers recognized the importance of humane punishment, enough to import England's prohibition against such things when they drafted the Constitution. The United Nations felt it important enough to include in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now if you want to come back and say "well it also declares a right to life", that's fine, but that's sidestepping the point that I made. Read more on this topic here.

If it makes you feel better to try and throw words back at me, you go right ahead and try. I hope it makes you feel better.

If it makes you feel better to try and throw words back at me, you go right ahead and try. I hope it makes you feel better.

Nah, not interested. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours.

I would like you to note, though, that not all of Jenn's readers live in the USA, and not all of them live in a country that has the death penalty.

That's fine, but the original article talks about Ohio, which is in America. Not every American state has it either. More here.

Whatever. Have a nice life.