Arguably the rewritten title is marginally less baity, in which case it would be ok according to the rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
And then add euthanasia to the mix. I think euthanasia should be legal. It comes from my own battles with MS and my immobility issues. If I get paralyzed, I would rather choose euthanasia, personally.
That is incorrect. The right answer is absolutely if there is no uncertainty and then realizing there has never been a murder in all recorded history where the standard of no uncertainty is met to the level required on the timeline it takes to convict someone and to ban it.
In general, when will the US stop considering acceptable that... you cannot lie to the police, but the police can lie to you?
When will everyone believe that making someone take the blame in exchange for a shorter time in jail is beneficial to society at large... when the real perpetrator walks away unscathed, and a innocent is jailed for something he didn't even commit?
If a person did not commit a crime and if their strategic best choice is pleading guilty for the crime that has x% probability of receiving death penalty, it says something about the whole process.
Safer is a bit of a misnomer here. Nothing is safe about being executed. If your goal is to die as quick & painless as possible, then let's poll those that have been executed... oh wait, we can't.
Statistically, there has been a lot less failed executions from firing squads, but is it cause it is more predictable, or because there have been issues obtaining drugs for lethal injection, lack of medical professionals willing to assist, lack of training, etc. Are there vast differences in statistics, even among the states that have death penalties? If so, then isn't saying it is "safer" overly broad, when in fact it depends which states you're referring to?
We know even in a "not botched" lethal injection with the usual cocktail the sedation is often not effective and the paralyzing agent is only useful to hide that fact the sedation isn't working (and even counteracts the sedation).
Readit News
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The only humane form of execution (if there is such a thing) is nitrogen asphyxiation, with the long drop being second in my opinion.
It’s repugnant and a sign of a sick society.
States killing 18 year olds who got drafted and never did a thing wrong in their short lives is more acceptable than states killing serial killers?
So, the one we all live in (and have always lived in)
Dead Comment
Bernie Madoff should have hung on Wall Street. Dylan Roof should have hung in front of the state capital building.
It is not repugnant, it is a signal of what behavior will and will not be tolerated.
We don't have to live in a society with rampant crime. We choose it.
When will everyone believe that making someone take the blame in exchange for a shorter time in jail is beneficial to society at large... when the real perpetrator walks away unscathed, and a innocent is jailed for something he didn't even commit?
If a person did not commit a crime and if their strategic best choice is pleading guilty for the crime that has x% probability of receiving death penalty, it says something about the whole process.
Statistically, there has been a lot less failed executions from firing squads, but is it cause it is more predictable, or because there have been issues obtaining drugs for lethal injection, lack of medical professionals willing to assist, lack of training, etc. Are there vast differences in statistics, even among the states that have death penalties? If so, then isn't saying it is "safer" overly broad, when in fact it depends which states you're referring to?
I would say these all extremely relevant factors that you would want to take into account in assessing "safety".