Arizona execution lasts almost 2 hours

[they don't love you like i love you]

Are these things becoming more common, or was it always like this and no one cared until recently?

Becoming more common due to lower quality drugs used.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Capital punishment is not done with malice.  That's the critical distinction between murder and manslaughter.  Intending ahead of time that your malicious act will definitely result in death is the usual distinction between first- and second-degree murder.

OK, but how is capital punishment not done with malice? I imagine you'll say it's being done in the positive interest of society, but towards the person being executed, it seems pretty malicious.

I don't see, on a moral level, why it matters whether the person has been convicted of a crime, as to whether killing him should be regarded as malicious.

Malice requires evil intent.  As long as it not done spitefully or meanfully, an execution need not be malicious.

If someone kills me because they want my watch, they may have no malice toward me, but does that stop it from being murder?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Capital punishment is not done with malice.  That's the critical distinction between murder and manslaughter.  Intending ahead of time that your malicious act will definitely result in death is the usual distinction between first- and second-degree murder.

OK, but how is capital punishment not done with malice? I imagine you'll say it's being done in the positive interest of society, but towards the person being executed, it seems pretty malicious.

I don't see, on a moral level, why it matters whether the person has been convicted of a crime, as to whether killing him should be regarded as malicious.

Malice requires evil intent.  As long as it not done spitefully or meanfully, an execution need not be malicious.

If someone kills me because they want my watch, they may have no malice toward me, but does that stop it from being murder?

Even without any physical injury inflicted, theft for personal gain is malice by any rational definition of the word.  Malice need not involve hate.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Are these things becoming more common, or was it always like this and no one cared until recently?

This seems to be more common for injection based methods.  But Harry, Ole Sparky had plenty of flaws, it just wasn't covered in the 24 hour news cycle since it didn't exist back in the days of the chair.

[Simfan34]

Are these things becoming more common, or was it always like this and no one cared until recently?

This seems to be more common for injection based methods.  But Harry, Ole Sparky had plenty of flaws, it just wasn't covered in the 24 hour news cycle since it didn't exist back in the days of the chair.

Foreign providers of the the poisons (?) that go into the cocktails, often EU-based, have increasingly refused to provide them to US prison authorities due to their opposition to capital punishment, resulting in an increase in the usage of ersatz combinations that have unpredictable results.

[MaxQue]

Well, guess what?

The death penalty states could get together and build a chemical plant to produce those death drugs. It would create jobs, too. But it's easier to complain about Europe and use bad drugs instead.

If those states think than they can't build it because it's "socialism", perhaps they can reach the conclusion than the market is opposed to death penalty and to obey the market, like they usually do on other issues.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Capital punishment is not done with malice.  That's the critical distinction between murder and manslaughter.  Intending ahead of time that your malicious act will definitely result in death is the usual distinction between first- and second-degree murder.

OK, but how is capital punishment not done with malice? I imagine you'll say it's being done in the positive interest of society, but towards the person being executed, it seems pretty malicious.

I don't see, on a moral level, why it matters whether the person has been convicted of a crime, as to whether killing him should be regarded as malicious.

Malice requires evil intent.  As long as it not done spitefully or meanfully, an execution need not be malicious.

If someone kills me because they want my watch, they may have no malice toward me, but does that stop it from being murder?

Even without any physical injury inflicted, theft for personal gain is malice by any rational definition of the word.  Malice need not involve hate.

What then is a rational definition for malice?   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Capital punishment is not done with malice.  That's the critical distinction between murder and manslaughter.  Intending ahead of time that your malicious act will definitely result in death is the usual distinction between first- and second-degree murder.

OK, but how is capital punishment not done with malice? I imagine you'll say it's being done in the positive interest of society, but towards the person being executed, it seems pretty malicious.

I don't see, on a moral level, why it matters whether the person has been convicted of a crime, as to whether killing him should be regarded as malicious.

Malice requires evil intent.  As long as it not done spitefully or meanfully, an execution need not be malicious.

If someone kills me because they want my watch, they may have no malice toward me, but does that stop it from being murder?

Even without any physical injury inflicted, theft for personal gain is malice by any rational definition of the word.  Malice need not involve hate.

What then is a rational definition for malice?   

"Malice requires evil intent."  If you want a definition without using the e-word, then a good one would be: "Malice occurs when an action is taken primarily or solely for personal gain without consideration of harm that may be done to another by that action."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Capital punishment is not done with malice.  That's the critical distinction between murder and manslaughter.  Intending ahead of time that your malicious act will definitely result in death is the usual distinction between first- and second-degree murder.

OK, but how is capital punishment not done with malice? I imagine you'll say it's being done in the positive interest of society, but towards the person being executed, it seems pretty malicious.

I don't see, on a moral level, why it matters whether the person has been convicted of a crime, as to whether killing him should be regarded as malicious.

Malice requires evil intent.  As long as it not done spitefully or meanfully, an execution need not be malicious.

If someone kills me because they want my watch, they may have no malice toward me, but does that stop it from being murder?

Even without any physical injury inflicted, theft for personal gain is malice by any rational definition of the word.  Malice need not involve hate.

What then is a rational definition for malice?   

"Malice requires evil intent."  If you want a definition without using the e-word, then a good one would be: "Malice occurs when an action is taken primarily or solely for personal gain without consideration of harm that may be done to another by that action."

Except that leaves out hatred, not to mention terrorism that one could argue might be for some disinterested cause or even a noble goal - but if you kill some random person for it should still be considered murder.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, as I already stated and as used in law, malice need not involve hate.  Now if you want to talk about how the word is used commonly, malice and hate are synonyms, but not in legal jargon, and we're talking law here.

[Franzl]

Why should the legal definition of malice be relevant in whether I consider executions to be murder? I'm not a lawyer and have no interest in being one.

[© tweed]

Yes. What argument is there against the guillotine over lethal injection?

it's more aesthetically offensive.  lethal injection lacks gore and therefore feels more civilized.

[bullmoose88]

Why should the legal definition of malice be relevant in whether I consider executions to be murder? I'm not a lawyer and have no interest in being one.

The yogi berra I haven't been following the thread answer: Arguably the term "murder" is a term of art, and one of its elements is malice (or malice a forethought, badger, correct me). So when the term murder is used, it's not unreasonable, and actually highly predictable to expect a discussion on malice.

[Franzl]

Why should the legal definition of malice be relevant in whether I consider executions to be murder? I'm not a lawyer and have no interest in being one.

The yogi berra I haven't been following the thread answer: Arguably the term "murder" is a term of art, and one of its elements is malice (or malice a forethought, badger, correct me). So when the term murder is used, it's not unreasonable, and actually highly predictable to expect a discussion on malice.

Sure, but I think we've demonstrated that we feel malice is certainly involved, fulfilling the definition of murder. It's obviously not a legal argument, as we otherwise wouldn't be having this debate about executions in 2014 if there were a legal case to be made.

[bullmoose88]

Why should the legal definition of malice be relevant in whether I consider executions to be murder? I'm not a lawyer and have no interest in being one.

The yogi berra I haven't been following the thread answer: Arguably the term "murder" is a term of art, and one of its elements is malice (or malice a forethought, badger, correct me). So when the term murder is used, it's not unreasonable, and actually highly predictable to expect a discussion on malice.

Sure, but I think we've demonstrated that we feel malice is certainly involved, fulfilling the definition of murder. It's obviously not a legal argument, as we otherwise wouldn't be having this debate about executions in 2014 if there were a legal case to be made.

Well yeah, as for the legal argument (and I realize the pitfall here), it can't be murder as it's not the unlawful killing of another person. For better or worse, it's lawful.

I mean, justice has a retributive/deterrent element, a rehabilitative element, and a protective element.  In my view, I doubt the data supports (and suspect it shows otherwise) that the death penalty discourages serious/capital crimes. It certainly does fulfill the eye for an eye aspect, when used.  I don't think these much rehabilitating first degree murderers-whether they're LwoP or on death row.

Does the death penalty really protect society from what risk there is of the offender killing again?  Perhaps like in the killing of the guard example Ernest provided. But how often does that really happen? Does it justify the extra costs? Are extra costs justified in and of themselves as some murders are truly worse than others? For the more anti state types out there not on board with the antidp movement, do you trust the state with this power? Especially when there seem to be errors aplenty? 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Think of it in a criminal law lecture... you're acting in a deliberate fashion to end a person's life. It doesn't matter about the passion or hatred you feel for the person. You have the intent to kill them and then you perform the Act. It doesn't even satisfy the grounds for manslaughter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps like in the killing of the guard example Ernest provided.

Actually, I didn't provide that.  I have made mention in past threads of the case of Pee Wee Gaskins, tho that involved the killing of another inmate rather than of a guard.

[bullmoose88]

Perhaps like in the killing of the guard example Ernest provided.

Actually, I didn't provide that.  I have made mention in past threads of the case of Pee Wee Gaskins, tho that involved the killing of another inmate rather than of a guard.

Whoopsie Goldberg.

(Sorry)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, as I already stated and as used in law, malice need not involve hate.  Now if you want to talk about how the word is used commonly, malice and hate are synonyms, but not in legal jargon, and we're talking law here.

If someone deliberately kills me (and not in self-defense) I just don't get why whether it's considered murder should depend on whether the killer has "malice" or not.

[© tweed]

Yeah, as I already stated and as used in law, malice need not involve hate.  Now if you want to talk about how the word is used commonly, malice and hate are synonyms, but not in legal jargon, and we're talking law here.

If someone deliberately kills me (and not in self-defense) I just don't get why whether it's considered murder should depend on whether the killer has "malice" or not.

murder is a moral category.