I'm against the death penalty, but I dislike many of the arguments made by many who agree with me. My position is straightforward: I assert that the state should not have the power of life and death over its subjects. That's it. No need to address implementation details involving racism and cruelty and deterrence.<p>Really though, politics is the mindkiller[1] and this article isn't going to change anyone's position. I'm glad it will soon fall off the front page. (Even if it gets upvoted, I trust the moderators to bury it.)<p>1. <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/" rel="nofollow">http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/</a>
Not trolling - actually confused - why would you resuscitate a person you're attempting to kill? So you can kill them again later?<p>So much wrong with this. The death penalty to begin with, the "experimental" method of carrying out the execution, and the attempts to save his life - the whole thing is utterly mind-numbing.
I'm not expressing any opinion on the death penalty itself but I found it odd that his execution was "botched." The crime he was convicted of committing 15 years ago was a "botched" murder where the gun malfunctioned, leaving the victim injured and requiring some repair to his gun in order to finish the job.
I heard about this on NPR last week. Apparently a lot of states have been running out of the drug that is used in lethal injection and lawyers are actually able to postpone death sentences because of the fact that new drugs are not approved.<p>This news will not boast well for future States attorney's.
The inmate still died. It's almost double-talk to call it "botched" when you accidentally kill someone a different way than you were intending to kill them.