Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
So it's a form of self-expression now? That makes it all right.
China is just a bit more expressive than other nations. Settle down, people.
So it's a form of self-expression now? That makes it all right.
China is just a bit more expressive than other nations. Settle down, people.
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
Mechanic: So what's the problem?
Driver: I think it's the rear suspension -- the folks riding in the back say it's killing them.
Mr. "I understand every word in the absolutely most literal sense possible when its to my benefit" strikes again.
If someone said, "◊◊◊◊ you!", you'd think they're inviting you to have an affair with them.
AmateurScientist
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 5,268
Man, two previous posts have already quoted and responded to this, but neither of them took the obvious route.
I think we may have found a job for BigFig.
AS
...by performing a particularly horrific act?
Why not simply throw them to the lions? Bread and circuses?
JamesDillon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,631
The depressing thing is, I bet it could be the next big reality TV hit.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Horrific act for you but it's a punishment for us.
That would be against [SIZE=-1]the eighth amendment.[/SIZE]
The van, truck, or whatever you want to call it is somewhat 'horrifying' because it is so expedient. Death on wheels...have a seat, we'll be right over.
I find it odd that I have read many many times that the organs of lethal injection 'subjects' are unusable for toxicity reasons, yet the article (as well as several posters here) have brought it up as a possible reason for this new 'expediancy'. Use of different chemicals shouldn't be a possibility, since if the article is to be believed they use the same methods and chemical mix as is used in the US.
I find it odd that I have read many many times that the organs of lethal injection 'subjects' are unusable for toxicity reasons, yet the article (as well as several posters here) have brought it up as a possible reason for this new 'expediancy'. Use of different chemicals shouldn't be a possibility, since if the article is to be believed they use the same methods and chemical mix as is used in the US.
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
Previously they used firing squads, which where even mroe mobile.
Hmm...figured for the firing squad, they'd take you somewhere rather than have them 'mobile'. Cheaper to have a couple of guys in a van than a 'squad', but I also thought that the preferred method was a shot to the back of the head by one executioner.
/irrelevant warning
I'd still take a firing squad or a bullet in the brain over a chamber of horrors.
/irrelevant warning
I'd still take a firing squad or a bullet in the brain over a chamber of horrors.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
I'll comment later. Right now, I think I need to throw up.
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
Surely a mobile system can be financially viable at a lower frequency of occurence than permanent structures?
For example a mobile library covering a large number of towns as opposed to each bearing the cost of building their own.
Maybe it is those countries (I suspect including China) who have high enough frequency of executions to merit permanent, dedicated centres that we should worry about?
No, it doesn't. The 8th Amendment says:
Not a word on not throwing people to the lions.
"Cruel and unusual punishment" is most definitely up for interpretation. It is not some uninterpretable 11th Commandment.
There is nothing in the Founding Papers - the Holy Trinity of the United Stated of America - that prevents criminals from being thrown to the lions.
I think so.
If you want a certain kind of punishment for other people, the very least you should do is have the guts to see it carried out.
The above requires the question, What do you believe constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as defined in the 8th amendment?
Santa
Would this apply to the prison system too? What if I do not have a desire to view a prison or visit a prison; should I then hold the position that prisons not be used?
Does this logic apply to other things as well? Perhaps I do not wish to watch surgery performed; should I then be opposed to surgery because I choose not to witness it? Am I a hypocrite for supporting surgery whilst not wishing to bear witness to it?
Santa