kat |
Jun 17, 2006 03:41 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjordor
Because the Chinese government, in their official attempt to step up recognition of human rights, are making it easier to take a person's life. Their streamlining of a process to take someone's life is somehow promoting human rights?
Additionally, the Chinese government has never in practice shown any real concern for human rights, except when it might potentially benefit itself.
|
I hate to break it to you but all governments LIE. I'm sure a large mitigating factor behind mainstreaming lethal injections is for the booming foreign organ trade, not for any concern of human rights, despite what the offical statement is.
The Chinese government is fucked up, sure but that's hardly irony.
Quote:
More or less. Why the hell not? At least its something.
|
I think you missed my second bit.
Quote:
Ah, so I'm a bit old-fashioned. So sue me. That doesn't validate your claim that I am somehow stupid. References to the Nazi officers doesn't change a thing. Are you familiar with Seppuku? The purpose of it was for the man who had dishonored himself and his family to regain it by willingly enduring the suffering. In such fashion, his honor is partially restored for his brave deed. Granted this is not exactly an identical situation(the execution is being performed on me, as opposed to by me), but it is the purpose of the execution which matters, not who gets it. Additionally, I was selecting this in the context of the question posed to me, which limited me to two options.
|
You're right, it's a crappy comparison. First of all you have to consider the wildly different cultures they're coming from. Seppuku resolves the criminal and his family from the crime in the eyes of the culture. Firing squad, does not. Seppuku is an honorable concept because you killed yourself before the enemy gets you. A firing squad happens after the enemy captured you and was sometimes considered honorable BECAUSE it USED to be reserved for more esteemed executions (political heads, military etc.). Only because of that context was it even regarded with respect but firing squads have been used in countries for ages to execute common criminals so the esteem has all but gone to nill.
I don't think you can be old-fashioned, unless you're talking about the early 20th century. No one under 90 is that old fashioned. I can see you using the honor principle but it's a ridiculously highly idealized concept at best.
Why don't we add seppuku as a third option, just for you.
Quote:
Ah, well I did not know that. I am a bit skeptical about this, but I'll leave it at that. If this is true, then why is lethal injection promoted as "more humane" than any other methods?
|
I googled "lethal injection pain" and got 987,000 results, including news stories and medical reports. I don't know how you can really be skeptical, especially when something like pain during a chemically induced death is an abstract concept at best.
And lethal injection is considered more humane because they typically sedate the criminal before injecting them but statistics have showed that more than 40% of all executions in the US contain levels of anesthesia so low that they're practically worthless. It's the flaws that make it less humane than it should be. Also it's a lot less sensational in comparison of being hanged or being shot to death, when in actuality, those deaths may actually be quicker.
|