Former Executioner Opposes Death Penalty

[Starets]

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4015348&page=1"]ABC News story[/url]

[jeffpugh]

Whoa...

[jeffpugh]

[quote]But the Hippocratic oath ("first, do no harm") ethically prohibits medical professionals from participating in executions.[/quote]

Good call...

[prose]

Interesting article.

[Justin86]

Talk about obvious bias. Calling him a "professional killer...from 1982 to 1999 he killed 62 people."

Yeah, that's not intended to put a bad taste in the readers mouth.

[XIX]

Good call Justin.

[Lil Red]

[quote]Corrections officials in the 36 states where the death penalty is legal have long faced the vexing challenge of having executions administered, or at the very least overseen, by trained medical professionals. [b]But the Hippocratic oath ("first, do no harm") ethically prohibits medical professionals from participating in executions. The American Medical Association recommends that doctors not participate in executions.[/b]

...

State attorneys reportedly told the judge that authorities in Missouri had sent certified letters to 298 qualified anesthesiologists who lived anywhere near the state's death chamber. They were turned down by every single one, according to a report in The New York Times.[/quote]

but it's okay for those same doctors to participate in abortions? just another instance where it's politically correct to be against the death penalty but not abortion.

[Lil Red]

i do think it makes a good point about the lethal injection of pets vs. humans, though.

[Lil Red]

[quote]After the death penalty was reinstated in Virginia, Givens noted, ruefully, "crime went up.''[/quote]

just because there is a correlation doesn't mean that one thing caused the other.

[jeffpugh]

[prose]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1436255' date='Dec 19 2007, 05:00 PM']Talk about obvious bias. Calling him a "professional killer...from 1982 to 1999 he killed 62 people."

Yeah, that's not intended to put a bad taste in the readers mouth. [/quote]

He [i]was[/i] a professional killer. He was paid to kill people. That makes him a professional killer. If they had said serial killer, then I would think they were skewed.

[-I---Love]

[quote name='prose' post='1436307' date='Dec 19 2007, 08:40 PM']He [i]was[/i] a professional killer. He was paid to kill people. That makes him a professional killer. If they had said serial killer, then I would think they were skewed.[/quote]

I would argue that that is incorrect. He was a professional executioner. A professional killer is someone in the mob, for instance. Yes, there is a difference. Precisely that the first are government sanctioned. Whether or not all the executions were in fact executions or wrongful murders is a different topic, and not this man's doing.

Just as we don't call a soldier a killer, because they aren't; we don't call executioners, killers, because they typically are not either.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1436286' date='Dec 19 2007, 05:47 PM'][quote]
After the death penalty was reinstated in Virginia, Givens noted, ruefully, "crime went up.''[/quote]
just because there is a correlation doesn't mean that one thing caused the other.
[/quote]
He thought that there was a correlation... look at the context:

[quote]When he took the job -- he said he was simply picked at the age of 30 by a superior at the Virginia penitentiary where he worked -- there was a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty and violent crime and murders were on the rise in Virginia, he said.

Givens said that at the time, he believed the death penalty was an effective deterrent, but said he no longer does.[/quote]A lot of people think that.

[jeffpugh]

It's probably as much of a deterrant for crime as Hell is for sin...

[dairygirl4u2c]

does anyone seriously dispute that it doens't deter? it seems all the professionals i've ever heard have said that it does not.

why would you want to kill someone just because they killed someone else? is that justice? how? did it bring the other person's life back?
maybe for people like saddam.

some people say you can't execute to deter, as taht's justifying the means, and only for justice. that seems backwards.

at a more general level. some people say you can't waterboard someone when millions of lives are at risk, but you can execute a dude cause he killed his wife's lover and wouldn't pose escape risk in prison. that seems even more backwards.

in fact, i'd argue execution usually is the immoral action, not waterboarding.

Edited December 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c