Why is Electrocution still used in the U.S.?

Post Reply New Topic

Well...killing is never really “right,” either, regardless of context. The discussion regarding the d.p. is never about making death “ok.” For example: no country should expect to have to defend itself—other countries could just be peaceful. Or people could just not rob banks at all, much less hold hostages. It’s never necessary—you could chose to NOT defend yourself, for example. It is because unexpected things happen that threatens human life that makes homicide justifiable, such as with self defense and war, or even something like ectopic pregnancy. The fault for one’s own death in these situations is always borne by the one committing the crime or posing the threat.

Nobody is excusing murder. That's irrelevant to the discussion of the death penalty vs. alternative sanctions.

You still haven't argued for the position of the death penalty to the mentally ill/ret*d/psychotic/whatever.
All you say is "they committed murder, therefore DP".

But that's a statement, without an argument. There's NO LOGIC behind your statement. Only YOU stating an opinion.

On the other hand, I have provided several arguments AGAINST it. You haven't refuted ANY of my arguments, my logical deduction/reasoning.

You're not black and white in your thinking. You're being irrational, because you haven't provided ANY reasoning for WHY death penalty vs. alternative sanctions.

"They won't do it again" - that's a logical argument. But so is death penalty for theft. They won't steal again.
If you move on to stating "but murder is more serious" - but that's totally irrelevant to the argument of whether they'll repeat their offenses or not, because there are (A) Several other alternatives to the DP to prevent a serious crime from being repeated, and (B) you can always find a crime where nobody were killed which is - in-fact - worse than murder. Take a presiden'ts treason as an example. Or if the UK PM won't join the NATO forces in case of an attack on a NATO member and NATO decides to defend it.

Should they get the DP as well? Well, that's the logical reasoning if you claim seriousness as an argument for the death penalty.

Also, what is a serious crime is a SUBJECTIVE point of view. We're back to the original premise of YOU not arguing for your position, only stating what is, or what should be, not WHY it is or should be.

If it is not right or "ok", it should not be defended.

You don't think DP is right. Now then, why are you defending it?

Oh, but I did provide logic. The reasoning behind Western justice is “eye for an eye.” Lex talionis. It’s a system for establishing equivalence in punishing crimes. Put another way, “punishment must fit the crime.” The problem is you cannot place monetary value on a human life. You MUST require life for life in the case of murder, else justice fails. Lengthy sentences and abolishing the d.p. are the unreasonable solutions, not d.p.

And it DOES NOT MATTER if someone is mentally ret*d (to use your words). If they are guilty of murder, they must be put to death, and I’ve been clear about what murder is and what it is not. You might argue that the actions of the mentally ret*d are never deliberate or conscious and thus they are incapable of committing murder, but that’s only a matter of how murder is defined. If mentally ret*d are incapable of murder, then they don’t commit murder. It’s not logically possible if that is the case. IF being the operative word here. So if mentally ret*d people don’t commit murder, then they don’t get the d.p. But if they DO commit murder, as in mental retardation doesn’t prevent someone from planning and executing a voluntary, unjustifiable homicide, then there’s no reasonable excuse from putting that person to death, not even mental retardation.

Now...I also believe in due process and that such things must be decided at trial as to a person’s guilt. But murder is murder, and you cannot put a price on the priceless. Without requiring life for life, there can be no justice or compassion in murder cases. The mental ability of the murderer is completely irrelevant. If you want to save the life of a mentally ret*d person, then make sure he doesn’t kill people. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Huh? No death is ok. The death penalty is a necessity for punishing those who murder. I don’t get all orgasmic when people get executed by the state, nor do I get orgasmic when people are murdered. The DP exists because murder exists, not the other way around. For me to be ok with the death penalty would mean I approve of murder. I would rather that people just not kill other people at all. But as long as people DO commit murder, d.p. is a necessity.

That's not logical reasoning. You haven't provided an argument for the "eye for an eye"-justice.

"Punishment must fit the crime" - well, that's just your opinion. You haven't provided any logic to why this should be the case, nor whatever it means to "fit the crime", unless you literally state that if someone pokes out the eyes of another, the offender him/herself should have his/her eyes poked out.

But I hardly see this practiced anywhere else than in barbaric countries in some places in Africa and in the Middle East.

What punishment I think should fit the crime differs from yours.

- And so is defining the crime itself - in my opinion, the crime is not just about murder, it is about about a deliberate murder while being totally conscious and well aware of the consequences for both the victim and oneself + not being subject to any screwed sense of reality (ie. paranoia/hallucinations).

Ie. If you were not aware of comitting the crime, it's self-evident that you shouldn't be punished for it. Though, compulsory treatment for your unawareness should be part of your sentence.

What I'm trying to say is all you've been doing is say "murder is murder and there's only one punishment" without arguing why this should be the case. Why "eye for an eye"? How do you determine "the crime" and which punishment "fits the crime"?

So far, you've failed to answer any of these questions.

A necessity? How it is a necessity?

Food and drink is a necessity for survival.
Defending yourself from an attack, possibly with killing the attacker, can be a necessity.

But strapping someone completely defenseless in a chair and set him at fire... no, that cannot possibly be a necessity.
And whatever crime the inmate may have committed, is totally irrelevant for the question of necessity!

You're confusing your DESIRE to have a murderer executed with the word "necessity". There is a vast difference between what is necessary, and what is the desire.

The argument isn’t about whether lex talionis is an appropriate means to justice. Lex talionis is a fact of Western society. It is foundational to how we carry out justice. That is an established FACT. The argument then becomes whether the dp is a necessary or required feature of it. Logically, based on the assumption and FACT of lex talionis, because the underlying principle is that the punishment must fit the crime, then dp is necessary when murder is committed since there is no way to set a monetary equivalency for a person’s life. This principle only exists for the crime of murder specifically and not other forms or circumstances of homicide.

It’s not merely a matter of opinion, either. It’s objectively based and balances law and mercy. In the last two centuries there has been a push towards making incarceration about rehabilitating criminals and safely returning them to society. What is NOT objective is how justice has been applied unequally. Discriminatory laws based on race, for instance, have undeniably resulted in harm to individual along with inequities caused when politicians exploit victim classes for political gain. Nothing useful can come out of subjectively judging others on arbitrary factors such as skin color. Left alone, objective justice gets the job done.

You are also being completely unreasonable. I already mentioned that objective forms of justice do not literally exchange an eye for an eye since it is useless and absurd to try to replace a person’s eye with that of another. Objective justice attempts to establish an equivalency, typically in the form of money or, in ancient times, with labor. Valuations may vary throughout history, which is to be expected, but the attempt is made to correct whatever wrong has been done. I’ve heard that some countries have punished thieves by cutting off one hand. The problem, objectively speaking, is that dismemberment diminishes ones ability to be useful to society. Involuntary servitude for a reasonable period of time, on the other hand, is an appropriate punishment. For theft, all one needs to do is return the item that was stolen or the monetary value of it, either one, plus additional punitive damages WITHIN REASON. That may be paid through cash on hand or by loan, or through a direct arrangement with the victim, in which case he commits to labor in order to pay his debt. This of course is all supervised by representative council, may require trial before elders or a jury, and finalized by a judge. No objectively superior approach to justice exists.

Again...that leaves the problem of murder. The only objective value that can be exchanged for life is life itself. There is no possible monetary valuation for human life, hence it is inappropriate to set any artificial, subjective price.

It is not merely my opinion. It is human nature to expect reciprocity. If life has no value or has arbitrary value, then anyone can take life for any reason or even no reason. When a person commits murder, then he naturally forfeits his own life. He grants the world permission to kill him. We also know that with mob rule and nothing more than an unproven accusation, people have a lower expectation for survival. If laws and government did not exist, then people would reach an unspoken equilibrium that would prevent anyone from committing murder under fear of reprisal alone. Laws and government exist to establish law and order to lessen reasonable fears that any one given individual would have of being murdered, among other crimes, of course.

It is not a matter of opinion. It is the world as it exists. Not all societies think this way, and there are fairly miserable places to live in. It is often proven that if one feels his life is forfeit and he has nothing to lose, there is no reasonable argument against such a person committing murder. Most people value life more than that, so they’ll often bend to force if it means survival. Objective equivalence, on the other hand, merely codifies what already exists in the natural world and provides a means through which people can seek justice without fear of the mob.

Does setting someone on fire until they are dead effectively take a person’s life? Did the immolates person commit murder? Then the punishment is appropriate. The means of punishment is irrelevant when blood is required. Is it necessary to burn someone alive? Well...that depends. Are there objectively better methods for dp? That’s not really a question for me to answer. I don’t really care. I have no love for murderers that compels me to want them to live. There’s the religious question of whether I want them to go to hell for all eternity, which is no, but that is also irrelevant. There’s a question of whether I get giddy when someone dies. I don’t, but again, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Yes or no, did someone commit murder? Yes? Boil them in oil for all I care. If you want to show them mercy and use lethal injection, then do that. If the electric chair is all you have, then use that. Bullet to the head? Just remember to double-tap. Dead is dead. Doesn’t matter if someone is mentally ret*d or dresses like a bunny and hands out balloons to little children. Did he commit murder? That’s all that matters.

I don’t believe that murder is the only crime that should be punishable by death, but for the purpose of this discussion I’m keeping it there. It is possible that a crime could be equivalent to murder, such as attempted murder, and even sexual assault. It is not my purpose to wade into more complicated and nuanced territory.

Not an excuse. Now...if you cause death through indirect actions—suppose someone pushes you and you knock gramma down and she dies from a head injury, that is not murder. If you become drunk at a party and mow someone down on the highway, that might technically qualify as an accident even though your actions prior to were deliberate and conscious. You made the choice to become intoxicated, and it’s unreasonable to excuse an intoxicated person who chose to become intoxicated. If someone is unaware of anything, they aren’t likely to commit murder.

There’s a sort of myth about musicians and artists becoming creative while under the influence of pot or acid. The problem is that chemicals temporarily incapacitate the user making creative work extremely difficult. Memories of chemical use may inspire work while sober, but that isn’t the same thing. So it’s highly unlikely that an incapacitated person is going to commit murder while under the influence. It may be that someone uses drugs FOR THAT, or they act under murderous delusions. Angel Dust has turned some users into virtual supermen leading to their deaths at the hands of policemen trying to protect themselves. But use of PCP while altering one’s consciousness cannot excuse a person from the consequences of their actions. If I use acid or mescaline and imagine that I can fly off a tall building, my use of chemicals will not excuse me from death by falling. Likewise, nothing can excuse a murderer from the natural consequences of his actions. Claiming to be unconscious will not do for an excuse.

Negligence, wrongful death, and so on are handled differently because these are acts that may or may not have been deliberate, or may or may not have been conscious, willful acts. SOMETIMES they are and fit the definition of murder, which is something that must be proven. In other words, accidents happen, and there are degrees to which somethings might be preventable. That is NOT murder, nor should it carry the same penalty. Sometimes people cause their own deaths through means other than suicide after others have made reasonable efforts to prevent accidents. Again, not the same thing. Don’t go confusing the issue.

Then by the same logic I can also say that since there is no monetary equivalence of paying for a life, nor is there any moral or ethical equivalence for paying for a life.

A life taken is a life taken. And that's it. No need to pay a price, as nothing can compensate the taking of a life. Death penalty is no compensation. Whether you FEEL it is a compensation, that's merely a subjective opinion.

There is no moral or ethical reason for ending yet another life.



What should be the law and what is mercy, are entirely subjective matters of opinion.

You're not right just because you say so. Got that?

You have a subjective opinion, and please refrain from calling it an objective fact, as it is anything but objective.



You make the mistake known as Argumentum ad Antiquitatem - or appeal to tradition.

Just because this has been practiced for centuries doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Who says we should compensate at all? Why?

You continue to speak as if you can somehow put a price on a human life, whether that be in money or as labor - or death.

You can't. Someone ended a life, and that's it. There's no OBJECTIVE reason that necessitates the death penalty or any other compensation. We should feel sorry for the victims though, including those who've lost their loved ones to murder, and they should recieve help and support to cope with their lives.

Are there still any states that even use the electric chair?

Some people with mental illness have intrusive thoughts or voices forcing them to commit murder. They feel as if they have no other choice and acted against their own will, or acted in self-defense or didn't actually kill a human, but a non-human monster. Those mental illnesses and delusions are real, and it's measureable in brain scans and other methods of validation.

You completely ignore scientific facts, while claiming your subjective opinions on death penalty as a necessity is an objective fact, while it's definitely not.

South Carolina amongst several other states has recently made the electric chair the default method of execution.

Also, 2 were executed in the electric chair last year (2020).

I don't have much of a strong opinion one way or the other about capital punishment. But I do know that it's application is exclusively limited to much more severe classes of crime. We could just throw them in prison for 15 years to the rest of their lifetime, but people would also argue that is wasting money. And I know that some people value justice or just "doing something" more than empathy, especially for a very nasty criminal.

I remember that Springfield's state on "The Simpsons" did at least far back as the 90's.