Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15842)	6/28/2002 3:20:44 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

(1) Because the USSC says lethal injection is not torture? That's an argument you, as an attorney, should appreciate. It's the only one that counts legally, right? The USSC is fallible. They have said at one point or another that slavery is ok, and plenty of times they have completely flip-flopped on issues. Assuming they are right begs the question of what you believe the law should be, and why. As an attorney, the last thing I appreciate is an argument based on blind obedience to a court that (a) may have been wrong; and (b) may have been talking about something entirely different anyways. (2) Because the intent in a legal execution is to produce death as quickly and painlessly as possible. The intent in torture is to produce as much pain as possible to achieve a desired, illegal end such as a coerced confession The idea behind lethal injection is to kill the person. The idea behind torture is to cause pain (whether it is to an illegal end depends on what law you choose to write and apply, so you are begging the question once again by trying to start with the answer). Yes, torture can be used to coerce a confession. It can also be used to gather evidence to prevent accomplices from committing other crimes against other innocents. It can be used for retribution if you believe in that sort of thing. Torture is not necessarily designed or intended to kill. So one could argue that it's better to let somebody live than it is to kill them. Yet letting them live is cruel and unusual and killing them is not. I was just wondering if you could explain to a dumb dog why that is necessarily so. Have a good weekend everybody, I am out of here for awhile......