death penalty logic
im reading a new york times article about the methods by which states lethally inject those prisoners sentenced to death. the court case rests upon the notion that if the first of the three drugs administered does not work, the prisoner will be in serious pain. they also go into whether or not you have taken away someone's dignity by making them twitch with another drug. i just don't get how this is a factor at all when you've decided on the severest possible punishment. you are KILLING someone and you care if they are in pain? i mean, your full-blown ending their life. we want to kill you but we hope it doesn't hurt or cause you discomfort?? how could that make any sense? i know about "cruel and unusual punishment" being illegal and all that, but i just really do not understand this. i'm not going to get into where i stand on support for the death penalty, because i don't know that i can easily articulate it other than to say that it seems we make mistakes with regards to convictions. anyway, off to the DMv!!
and ONE MORE THING that doesn't make sense. why does the grammys have a best new artist award? what does that mean?? feist is nominated in that category and is not "new" unless you mean commercial recognition?? i don't know about the other candidates. ok, i don't know why im ranting about weird things today, but i am. :P
and ONE MORE THING that doesn't make sense. why does the grammys have a best new artist award? what does that mean?? feist is nominated in that category and is not "new" unless you mean commercial recognition?? i don't know about the other candidates. ok, i don't know why im ranting about weird things today, but i am. :P