Pike survived a lethal injection execution on Wednesday. She was sentenced to death for the 1995 killing of her classmate, Colleen Slemmer.
Christa Pike, the woman who survived an execution attempt in Tennessee earlier this week, is on a ventilator as she receives care in the hospital, her lawyers said in a new statement Friday.
“Christa remains critically ill and is receiving medical care for the devastating effects of Wednesday night’s events,” the lawyers’ statement said. “She is critically ill, unconscious, intubated and receiving breathing assistance through a ventilator.”
The statement said she is being treated for “the serious effects of the pentobarbital administered during the execution attempt, including significant injuries to both arms.”
No it isn’t - see “accidental” (unintentional) release.
So the incompetence of prisons is what makes you in favor of executing people?
No. The possibility of a murderer, who tortures and kills people for fun, escaping and torturing and murdering even more people makes me to consider it for the worst of the worst.
99.999% of all incarcerated can be rehabilitated - sure, some might never understand why it was wrong to kill, but at the very least you can get to a point where they won’t do it again - given the appropriate treatment and effort.
It’s the remaining 0.001% - the once a decade psychopaths, the Dahmers, the Lecters, and so on - whom are not rehabilitable, whom cannot even be in a regular prison, who require isolation and constant watch, who cannot be allowed even the chance of escaping.
Why? Because I value the multitudes of lives of the potential victims over the singular life of someone who clearly doesn’t care about others’.
So you say ‘no’, but you explain ‘yes’.
The rest of your fiction doesn’t hold water either. You will never be able to separate the 99.999% from the 0.001% with a 100% of certainty. I for one think a girl that committed a gruesome murder at the age of 18 has at least a non-zero percent chance of rehabilitation.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, and it’s showing.
And I think I very specifically pulled her example out as someone who CAN be rehabilitated. She doesn’t deserve the death penalty, arguably not even the life sentence (probably 20 years would be fair).
Prison should not be about punishing someone for what they did, but to ensure that 1, they don’t do it again once released 2, they understand why what they did was wrong.
Therefore the death sentence should only be applicable to those who have committed an egregious enough crime AND have proven to be impossible to rehabilitate.
But please let’s continue nitpicking because that’s totally going to resolve this debate…
I disagree with you, but I disagree more with the people who are downvoting you for sharing your opinion.
You’re engaging in conversation and debate respectfully, and people shouldn’t be downvoting you for that.
It’s because they’re arguing from a position of emotion, not facts.
That may be why you’re downvoting, but I’d wager most people are downvoting because they disagree with what that person is saying. Besides, do you downvote arguments you agree with when they aren’t backed by factual evidence? Do you think the others do too?
And it shouldn’t matter if their arguments come from emotion rather than facts – shouldn’t discussions of ethical matters take subjective things like emotion into consideration? They’re engaging and contributing to discussion in good faith. Downvoting that kind of stuff is how we end up creating circle jerks and groupthink.
They’ve lost the benefit of my doubt by now. I wasn’t generally downvoting them until then.
In what universe is “hey maybe we should prevent preventable deaths” an argument from a position of emotion?
downvoting is just expressing a disagreement then? Is it disrespectful to express than an opinion is wrong using the tools this platform is built around? really strange way of thinking
The “netiquette” for platforms with these kinds of functions has been that downvotes are for comments that don’t contribute to discussion, are rule-breaking, needlessly adversarial, etc.
It makes sense, because downvoting hides comments from other readers. Doing that to respectful contributors who you disagree with will turn this into a platform filled with circle jerks and groupthink.
I disagree, so I downvoted.