Nine months after Kenneth Smith’s botched lethal injection, state attorney general has asked for approval to kill him with nitrogen

Nine months after Kenneth Smith’s botched lethal injection, state attorney general has asked for approval to kill him with nitrogen

  • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 year ago

    Executions are generally set up so no one person is responsible for the person’s death. And they generally volunteer.

    Okay. Why not kill all those who might be the killer? If not, why allow the spreading of the responsibility? If two guys beat someone up and kill them, would you be as lenient, considering we don’t know which one actually killed them?

    How are they different from a war veteran that killed somebody during war?

    In war often there is no choice (at least if you’re defending - I don’t condone wars of aggression). With death row inmates we do have a choice! You understand the difference, right?

    • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
      25·
      1 year ago

      As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

      So you are ok sending the innocent to die, but refuse to condemn the guilty? I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        6·
        1 year ago

        As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

        So people killing people is okay if the right people kill the right people?

        So you are ok sending the innocent to die

        No, defending yourself is different from “sending the innocent to die”. If the choice is to die peacefully or to die fighting, the latter is the better option, since you might not die.

        but refuse to condemn the guilty?

        Where did I say anything about not condemning the guilty? Is killing other people the only way to satisfy your dismay for them, even if you’ll kill innocent people this way?

        I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

        Then why do states with the death penalty keep killing innocent people, even though this is supposedly already the standard? You’re the one who wants innocent people to die.