Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What a load of crap. Why are only murderers supposed to get pain free death?

As a physician I've made this same argument numerous times.

A few observations:

I believe the Hippocratic Oath binds most of us on this issue, although I'm not against capital punishment.

I'm sure they could find an abortion doc to participate in administering the cocktail of death.

Why not go back to firing squads with random blanks and multiple shooters?

Life in prison is an upgrade to their free lives for some heinous murderers so it needn't be an option.

Fine, start up the electric chair's, gallows and firing squads again to take care of business.. I don't care how they die just as long as they're dead in the end. The more it hurts them the better I feel about it..

How would anyone but the dead themselves know what's painful and what's not?

I dont undertand this practicle vs principal stuff.

The Lord said to see if a man be for or against Him.

I'm for killing killers. Torturers and child killers should get the bad crap until they beg for death carried out by any manner.

Just guessing here but...


I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

Real quick and extremely inarticulate. I think the State has a moral right to capitol punishment, absolutely.

However with our adversarial justice system I don't think it is always carried out in a just manner. Prosecutors are not rewarded for dismissing charges, but for winning. Also the State, in most cases, can afford a better legal case and investigation, than your average defendant. This is true for all cases, not just capitol one. However, we can release those who we discover are later found to be innocent.

Now I'm not naive, most on death row are guilty. However as we've seen with recent DNA testing, a significant few are not. But there needs to be a higher bar than 'reasonable doubt' in capital cases. I don't know what that is, though.

That's what I meant by being against it on practical grounds, not principle.