US Supreme Court rules inmate has 'no right to painless death'

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47780123

Since when does the justice mean painless and comfortable punishment? Fighting gangs in prison kind of rule it out. I feel like a convicted rapist and murderer should suffer before he/she dies.
Anyway, I’m glad the SCOTUS made this ruling - death penalty should be quick and swift.

 

I can only support the death penalty if it's for violent crime, immediately carried out after a single appeal, done with a 12 gauge buckshot shot to the temple, and attended by school field trips and the like for deterrence.

The system as it exists - expensive and painful methods, 20 years of appeals, etc - I cannot support.

 

How is a painful death at the hands of the state not the apex of cruel and unusual punishment?

 

How is a fast painful death "unusual?" Most people don't fear a fast, painful death. They fear a slow painful death across months, not a few seconds. Cruelty would be slowly beating him to death or work-starvation slowly putting him to death.

 

Can't get much crueler than killing a person painfully. The rest of the civilized world doesn't do it.

 

As opposed to the countries where the law dictates that being homosexual or committing adultery can be punished by being stoned to death?

Those who earned the sentence of the death penalty did not bother to consider the suffering of their own victims. Why should the state be legally obligated to show them any greater degree of consideration?

Here is an interesting concept. Do not murder someone else if you do not wish to suffer a painful death in turn. It is not that hard of a concept to abide by or understand.

 

Is that the new American standard - "at least we're not as bad as the worst murderous dictators!"

The Constitution is why. Read it. There's more there than the 2nd Amendment.

 

As a sovereign nation, the united states is well within its legal authority to put certain individuals to death for the crimes they have committed.

Irrelevant. Lethal injection or toxic gas, the end result will be death regardless, and it will occur within minutes. One will hardly be suffering for an interminable length of time regardless of which method is utilized.

When the united states constitution was ratified, hanging was still the primary form of execution, despite the fact a botched hanging would force the condemned to die from suffocation rather than their neck being snapped. If suffocation did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment then, it certainly does not now.

 

Let the victims family select.

 

I'm against it if it's more painful than what the victim suffered.

Murderers who shot their victim should be given the option of a firing squad.

(when it was completely not in self-defense and the victim did not have a gun)

 

In many parts of the Middle East, the perpetrator is tied to a pole and the family members are handed knives to stab the perpetrator.

 

I think gas is the most humane way, but that's just my personal opinion. Different condemned prisoners have different preferences. I'm really averse to needles.

I do think condemned prisoners should get some choices, unless it was a particularly brutal murder.

 

Ashamed to say I've seen too many of them. Unfortunately, it seems many have to take matters into their own hands with their lack of rule of law and/or judicial systems.

 

A lot of things were ok when the Constitution was ratified that aren't cool now. Try progressing with the rest of the world. The justice system that was in place in any country in 1788 isn't the practice today (in developed countries), for good reason.

 

The nation of Japan still practices hanging as a method of execution. Is the nation of Japan not a developed country?

 

Not in that regard.

 

Then if a nation does not qualify as being a so-called "developed country" based exclusively on whether or not it utilizes the death penalty to punish certain offenders, there are no true so-called "developed countries" to actually be found in the world.

 

Not in that regard I said.

 

Then present a list of just which nations do qualify as so-called "developed countries" so that the matter may actually be reviewed.

 

Ask the bastards’ victims.

 

US Supreme Court rules inmate has 'no right to painless death'

I doubt his victim had a painless death.

 

You're confused and unable to properly read. Not going to bother.

 

How can you say this with the understanding that innocent people get put to death on occasion?

Should the innocent suffer horrific pain and humiliation just to appease our conscious for someone who is guilty?

 

They need to take it further. That's a lot of wasted bodies. The death penalty should carry along with it full organ harvesting so they can pay back their debt to society and actually save lives instead of just having taken them.

 

Wishing pain on someone, regardless of the pain they caused others, is barbaric. Its an inhumane, entirely emotional response. Justice is served best by whichever means most efficiently removes his evil from society, not that which makes him suffer.

Im assuming injection is cheaper than gas. If thats true, then injection should be the method, and for that reason only.