N2 to Death

Ekklesian

Ekklesian

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
4,780
Reaction score
1,052
Points
113
Location
Western Hemisphere
From the comments: 'Good to see some execution method experimentation going on before the Nuremberg 2.0 trials start!'

Should execution be painless?

Murderer Scheduled to Be Executed With Unconventional Method Triggers Death Penalty Debate https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_...th-penalty-debate-5481468?utm_source=andshare

Alabama could become the first state to execute a prisoner by forcing him to breathe in pure nitrogen, a novel method that has never been used.​
​
...​
​
Proponents of the execution method say that it would likely be painless. However, opponents have said it’s essentially a form of experimentation on people.​
 
.
If the state is going to have the right to end someone's life, why not just put them "to sleep" like we do to Rover. (I'm not referring to the current lethal injection method)
I will never forget putting my dog-son to sleep. I wasn't prepared how quick it was and I cried unexpectedly (at 30 something). But he did not suffer and was gone in an instant.
It seems like that would be the most humane way to end someone's life - if we are going to allow the state to have this right.
.
 
I've always been partial to execution by the same method your victim died.
 
I don't care what method a state chooses to execute a criminal. Someone is going to complain. I think it's a bunch of bunk trying to execute a criminal "painlessly" or "humanely". Capitol punishment is not humane regardless of method.

I find many of those who complain about methods aren't concerned with humanity; they just want to place as many roadblocks as possible which prohibit capitol punishment.

I also noticed most opponents of capitol punishment aren't bothered by abortion.
 
abcaines said:
I don't care what method a state chooses to execute a criminal. Someone is going to complain. I think it's a bunch of bunk trying to execute a criminal "painlessly" or "humanely". Capitol punishment is not humane regardless of method.

I find many of those who complain about methods aren't concerned with humanity; they just want to place as many roadblocks as possible which prohibit capitol punishment.

I also noticed most opponents of capitol punishment aren't bothered by abortion.
Click to expand...

.
As for me, I'm not complaining - just wondering. And I'm certainly against abortion.

I don't see the point in capital punishment the way we do it - allowng the criminal to live another 30 years, his crime long out of the memory of the public.

I think that if we are going to employ capital punishment that it ought to be swift and immediate (or relatively so) so that the public sees the consequences for such actions. I understand that's wishful thinking with appeals and all but that's what I think.
.
 
Ekklesian said:
From the comments: 'Good to see some execution method experimentation going on before the Nuremberg 2.0 trials start!'

Should execution be painless?

Murderer Scheduled to Be Executed With Unconventional Method Triggers Death Penalty Debate https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_...th-penalty-debate-5481468?utm_source=andshare

Alabama could become the first state to execute a prisoner by forcing him to breathe in pure nitrogen, a novel method that has never been used.​
​
...​
​
Proponents of the execution method say that it would likely be painless. However, opponents have said it’s essentially a form of experimentation on people.​
Click to expand...
No, the sword was given to the state, and that was certainly not painless.
 
Bob Jones V said:
No, the sword was given to the state, and that was certainly not painless.
Click to expand...

But there's no reason that modern capital punishment can't be painless. It's supposed to be justice, not revenge. The state shouldn't be in the business of making convicts suffer.
 
Gringo said:
I think that if we are going to employ capital punishment that it ought to be swift and immediate (or relatively so) so that the public sees the consequences for such actions. I understand that's wishful thinking with appeals and all but that's what I think.
Click to expand...

Appeals are good. The severity of the punishment should entail extra care to ensure that it is merited--especially when it's irreversible. There's a legal maxim that says it's better to let ten guilty men go free than let one innocent man be convicted. I'd say, similarly, that I'd rather see ten death sentences be commuted than one wrongly administered.

But once the appeals have been exhausted and the criminal's guilt is beyond question, I agree with you that capital punishment should be administered swiftly. Give the convict six months or a year to say goodbye to his family and get his affairs and his soul in order, then execute the justice he is due.
 
Ransom said:
But there's no reason that modern capital punishment can't be painless. It's supposed to be justice, not revenge. The state shouldn't be in the business of making convicts suffer.
Click to expand...
I don't mean purposeful suffering, but I also don't think we need to make it painless like we do for a beloved pet.
 
I think the electric chair was barbaric. (Just throwing that in there.) It's second only to burning.

You know, love isn't painless either, accepting and refusing to retaliate when abused or offended by one's enemies.

Under the law, death sentences were painful, but not torturous.

Now that righteousness and peace have kissed each other, I think the measures we take to ease one's passing into Judgement a ministry of Christ.
 
Bob Jones V said:
I don't mean purposeful suffering, but I also don't think we need to make it painless like we do for a beloved pet.
Click to expand...

And why do you make death painless for a beloved pet?

If we will deliberately ease the suffering of an animal, which does not bear the image of God, I think the least we can do is the same for a human being, which does.
 
Ransom said:
And why do you make death painless for a beloved pet?

If we will deliberately ease the suffering of an animal, which does not bear the image of God, I think the least we can do is the same for a human being, which does.
Click to expand...
I don't care about the suffering of a criminal who deserves the death penalty.
 
Ekklesian said:
From the comments: 'Good to see some execution method experimentation going on before the Nuremberg 2.0 trials start!'

Should execution be painless?

Murderer Scheduled to Be Executed With Unconventional Method Triggers Death Penalty Debate https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_...th-penalty-debate-5481468?utm_source=andshare

Alabama could become the first state to execute a prisoner by forcing him to breathe in pure nitrogen, a novel method that has never been used.​
​
...​
​
Proponents of the execution method say that it would likely be painless. However, opponents have said it’s essentially a form of experimentation on people.​
Click to expand...
i think a lot of hardhat divers would say that a dreamy euphoric death by way of nitrogen narcosis is way too easy for people who have committed cold blooded murder.... ....i know the diver i am related to would say that.... ....but on the other hand for a beloved pet who has does nothing wrong to anyone... yet has to be put down.. then it;s a very good way....

i am a strong believer in making the punishment fit the crime.... and with regard to it being another human with the death sentence on his head i would say someone who has done things deemed worthy of death by todays standards abandoned his humanity a long time ago.... it takes a lot to earn a death sentence these days..... maybe not in some other countries but certainly in this one......
 
Ransom said:
Let me rephrase my point.

I don't care if your stupid dog suffers. Why should I?
Click to expand...
Well then. I care for my pet (I actually don't have one), but I do not care for a criminal who deserves the death penalty. I am not talking about a parking ticket, but a murderer. Why should I care about their suffering? They did not care about the person they murdered.
 
aleshanee said:
i think a lot of hardhat divers would say that a dreamy euphoric death by way of nitrogen narcosis is way too easy for people who have committed cold blooded murder.... ....i know the diver i am related to would say that.... ....but on the other hand for a beloved pet who has does nothing wrong to anyone... yet has to be put down.. then it;s a very good way....

i am a strong believer in making the punishment fit the crime.... and with regard to it being another human with the death sentence on his head i would say someone who has done things deemed worthy of death by todays standards abandoned his humanity a long time ago.... it takes a lot to earn a death sentence these days..... maybe not in some other countries but certainly in this one......
Click to expand...
I agree in principle.

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth is equitable justice. It's prescribed in the law .

But what one must keep in mind is the truth of the fact that when one sins, it is only against God, and no other : Psalm 51:4

This earth only is where any human has a claim. Once the soul has been dispatched to the Supreme Judge, any argument is moot.

And I would say the argument against a painless death penalty ignores that fact, with The added aggravation of not trusting God to judge righteously thereafter.
 
Ekklesian said:
I agree in principle.

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth is equitable justice. It's prescribed in the law .

But what one must keep in mind is the truth of the fact that when one sins, it is only against God, and no other : Psalm 51:4

This earth only is where any human has a claim. Once the soul has been dispatched to the Supreme Judge, any argument is moot.

And I would say the argument against a painless death penalty ignores that fact, with The added aggravation of not trusting God to judge righteously thereafter.
Click to expand...
i have heard psalm 51 argued many different ways..... some say davids words in verse 4 apply to all people everywhere.... others says david was speaking strictly for himself in verse 4... and that he was speaking as a king of israel....

when nathan told david about the wrong some unnamed man had done against another concerning cooking and eating the mans pet lamb... ... david orderd that man to pay restitution... and said "surely he shall die"..... not even realizing nathan was talking about him..... ..... but as king of israel every life of every person in israel was in davids hand.... and he knew that.... . there was no mortal human above david that could hold him to account for a crime... or punish him for anything.... so in truth davids sin.. (or crime)... was against God alone because only God could hold him accountable.....

but leaders do not have that kind of free hand over the populace in our times or in our country..... even a king or president can be arrested and tried for murder if he kills another person.... ..and if that was the case and they ..or any other citizen... are found guilty they would not be punished for their sins against God only... or for their sins against God at all.... . they would be punished for the murder of another human being... ....

and nowhere in scripture does it say that a person found guilty in an earthly court of a crime against another person should be given an easy sentence or a painless death if found guilty of a crime worthy of a death sentence.... even the thief on the cross that accepted Christ admitted he was receiving the just sentence for his crime..... and there are very few.. if any... forms of execution more painful than crucifixion....

there are other scholarly interpretations of psalm 51-4.... most say david was saying he sinned against God alone because he was acknowlegding that God had forbidden all mankind to do the things he had done.... it was Gods laws david had broken.... and he was acknowlging God had a right to judge him how ever He saw fit... and that Gods judgement would be justified and correct whatever it was...... but i know of no interpretation that absolves david of the sins he committed against uriah and bathsheba and others who he forced to become involved in his scheme..... or any that claim what david did was not a sin against them at all.. ...and that he owed them no recompense or that they deserved no justice in return.... ...
 
Last edited:
aleshanee said:
i have heard psalm 51 argued many different ways..... some say davids words in verse 4 apply to all people everywhere.... others says david was speaking strictly for himself in verse 4... and that he was speaking as a king of israel....

when nathan told david about the wrong some unnamed man had done against another concerning cooking and eating the mans pet lamb... ... david orderd that man to pay restitution... and said "surely he shall die"..... not even realizing nathan was talking about him..... ..... but as king of israel every life of every person in israel was in davids hand.... and he knew that.... . there was no mortal human above david that could hold him to account for a crime... or punish him for anything.... so in truth davids sin.. (or crime)... was against God alone because only God could hold him accountable.....

but leaders do not have that kind of free hand over the populace in our times or in our country..... even a king or president can be arrested and tried for murder if he kills another person.... ..and if that was the case and they ..or any other citizen... are found guilty they would not be punished for their sins against God only... or for their sins against God at all.... . they would be punished for the murder of another human being... ....

and nowhere in scripture does it say that a person found guilty in an earthly court of a crime against another person should be given an easy sentence or a painless death if found guilty of a crime worthy of a death sentence.... even the thief on the cross that accepted Christ admitted he was receiving the just sentence for his crime..... and there are very few.. if any... forms of execution more painful than crucifixion....

there are other scholarly interpretations of psalm 51-4.... most say david was saying he sinned against God alone because he was acknowlegding that God had forbidden all mankind to do the things he had done.... it was Gods laws david had broken.... and he was acknowlging God had a right to judge him how ever He saw fit... and that Gods judgement would be justified and correct whatever it was...... but i know of no interpretation that absolves david of the sins he committed against uriah and bathsheba and others who he forced to become involved in his scheme..... or any that claim what david did was not a sin against them at all.. ...and that he owed them no recompense or that they deserved no justice in return.... ...
Click to expand...
I didn't mean that no one had to be punished. Our sins against God do injury and damage to others, and we owe a debt to them. But when justice is administered, we have to understand that we can take no satisfaction in it for ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top