First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Utah becomes only state in America to approve death by firing squad.
29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/25/15
I don't know, to be honest, I don't even agree with the death penalty, but I guess shooting would be okay..
37315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15 , edited 3/25/15

gvblackmoon wrote:

For those that don't know this is done with a machine there is only one person who sets off the timer to trigger the weapons. This used to be done with strings and springs to trigger the weapons. Either way it is cruel and inhuman they aim center mass, and is a waste of money. Vengeance which is what this is don't bullshit yourself about it it is justified murder cost more money.

Appeals take time and cost money lots of it. This means you end up with an execution that takes decades and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if it goes all the way to the supreme court. That doesn't even begin to cover the execution of innocent men and women or folks that are incompetent and aren't culpable for their actions through other reasons such as insanity or mental deficient aren't smart enough to know even right from wrong.

Throwing them in jail and just feeding them until the die of old age cost less and over the long run would actually gives system a chance to correct for those that have been railroaded by the system. Don't tell me it doesn't happen it does. Bunch of cases recently got over turned because of the fact they people accused turned out to be innocent.

The drugs used for lethal injection are no long available on the market in this country no one makes them anymore the states that use this are currently running out this is why we have seen botched injection executions the new drug mix couldn't do th job. So the states that use capital punishment are looking into the history books for humane means of execution there aren't any.


In the long run, executions are cheaper than life imprisonment. You still have the same appeals process going on, and once all appeals have been exhausted, you still have to house and feed the scum, and then there's long term medical care... Life term prisoners get old, and they need medical care. That adds to the costs.

17873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 3/25/15
Is anyone really surprised? Come on it's Utah the most fuck crazy state in the union
15406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Empire of Walker
Offline
Posted 3/25/15
ANYONE in favor of this has a screw loose, probably several. I'm also willing to bet that nobody involved in the writing of this law has ever seen someone shot to death. I hope you know what your asking for.

That said, Nemoskull said it best. In terms of efficient, painless and cost effective executions a high caliber bullet to the back of the head can't be beat. Death faster than the nerves are capable of sending a pain signal, probably before you even hear the shot. Someone here said use a small caliber so they can have the dignity of an open casket funeral, your shooting someone in the head, dignity is irrelevant at that point.
27242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15 , edited 3/25/15

ghostwarrior88 wrote:

ANYONE in favor of this has a screw loose, probably several. I'm also willing to bet that nobody involved in the writing of this law has ever seen someone shot to death. I hope you know what your asking for.

That said, Nemoskull said it best. In terms of efficient, painless and cost effective executions a high caliber bullet to the back of the head can't be beat. Death faster than the nerves are capable of sending a pain signal, probably before you even hear the shot. Someone here said use a small caliber so they can have the dignity of an open casket funeral, your shooting someone in the head, dignity is irrelevant at that point.


Dignity is still relevant to a degree. Otherwise, ANY method that inflicts quick death is permissible. This is obviously not something that most people who are in favor of the death sentence are in favor of. A sledgehammer wielded by a powerful person can be used as a method of execution. It is quick, reliable, cheap, environmentally friendly, etc. But we do not think this method should be used. Explosives kill quickly, as do great weights and heavy machinery (like a jet turbine).

The goal is a humane execution, and this is what separates modern capital punishment from medieval capital punishment. Reasonably preserving bodily integrity and personal dignity is, indeed, not more important than than actually carrying out the sentence but they are still important considerations. Just because they matter less does not mean they do not matter at all.

I do agree that a quick and painless death should be prioritized but preserving personal dignity is necessary even if for no other reason than to prevent the public by going crazy over it. Even if we do not consider out own humanity, it is good public policy and the additional cost of doing so is minimal. This is not about personal values and my own take on death. Public policy is important. If it was solely up to me, I'd go with any quick and painless method.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/25/15

DeadlyOats wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

For those that don't know this is done with a machine there is only one person who sets off the timer to trigger the weapons. This used to be done with strings and springs to trigger the weapons. Either way it is cruel and inhuman they aim center mass, and is a waste of money. Vengeance which is what this is don't bullshit yourself about it it is justified murder cost more money.

Appeals take time and cost money lots of it. This means you end up with an execution that takes decades and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if it goes all the way to the supreme court. That doesn't even begin to cover the execution of innocent men and women or folks that are incompetent and aren't culpable for their actions through other reasons such as insanity or mental deficient aren't smart enough to know even right from wrong.

Throwing them in jail and just feeding them until the die of old age cost less and over the long run would actually gives system a chance to correct for those that have been railroaded by the system. Don't tell me it doesn't happen it does. Bunch of cases recently got over turned because of the fact they people accused turned out to be innocent.

The drugs used for lethal injection are no long available on the market in this country no one makes them anymore the states that use this are currently running out this is why we have seen botched injection executions the new drug mix couldn't do th job. So the states that use capital punishment are looking into the history books for humane means of execution there aren't any.


In the long run, executions are cheaper than life imprisonment. You still have the same appeals process going on, and once all appeals have been exhausted, you still have to house and feed the scum, and then there's long term medical care... Life term prisoners get old, and they need medical care. That adds to the costs.



The average time for appeals so you know is 15 years from start to finish so which cost more? Not all prisoners are scum as you put it there have been several cases recently where the person executed was not mentally competent to even stand trial or there was enough evidence that it was clear the person was more than likely innocent.

Sure there are appeals new evidence gets found the case gets reexamined these things happen but what you don't get is the automatic appeal because of the death penalty. It short circuits that process and makes it harder for those that are guilty to actually gain sympathy for their appeal. It also makes it easier for those that are innocent to actually get more resources towards proving their innocences because they aren't being sucked up by guilty parties.

Once they get old enough you pardon them out and stick them in a home they aren't going anywhere they are just waiting to die at that point, Washington state has already done this several times with lifers. They aren't a threat to anyone and they are dieing of old age, so why are you keeping them in prison they will be watched and are at an age where life is over and they know it. Works out well because it doesn't cost the prison system anything at that point.

2841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Houston, Tx
Offline
Posted 3/25/15
Sounds glorious.

Are they worried it being a sin to commit an act of murder?
51209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


It has already been proven that a person who is guillotined is conscious for a while afterward. The guillotine also decapitates the criminal, which can be a disturbing sight. I don't consider the guillotine to be humane but my idea of humane is quick, painless, somewhat dignified. You don't strip people naked and shoot them in the head. You don't chop their heads off knowing they will be conscious. THAT would not be humane.


I don't think people who vouch for executions are in the position to say what's humane or not... Whether it's quick and painless or long and painful, when you've decided to take someone's life for revenge or money (which are basically what executions are), you have no right to call what you're doing humane. No matter how you look at it, there's no reason why anyone should be executed as opposed to just being locked up for the rest of their lives. If someone committed such an atrocious crime that a puppy dies whenever their name is spoken, let that person reflect on what they did in an isolated area where they can do no harm.

Executions are generally just to appease a few people who feel they've been wronged by the criminal. They serve no purpose other than emotional satisfaction. The only rare exception should be if someone is so dangerous that they still pose a threat to the public even in jail. In that case, It would make sense to execute the person.


If a person must be killed by the state, the method used should be reliable, quick, painless, and somewhat dignified.


The problem I have with this sentence is that I don't believe anyone should be killed by the state. It doesn't matter how many sweat words you use to make it sound better. You're still killing someone for your own selfish purpose, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise. At that point, you're no better than the criminal you're executing. I could keep arguing about this, but I've already learned from the previous thread about execution. There's no way to convince someone who supports the death penalty to change their views overnight. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but I guess someone who's already blind can't see that.


This is why I think it would be a better idea not to use experimental drug cocktails that may or may not cause several minutes of agony. The injection seems favored merely because it causes no visible damage to the outer body. I do not think a small amount of outward damage is humiliating or barbaric, so I am in favor of using anesthesia and hypnotic drugs (reliable methods of putting a person under), then executing them with a reliable physical method, such as bleeding out or destroying the brain.


Notice how I said I would prefer to be lethality injected as oppose to shot by firing squad if the injection doesn't get botched. Obviously it'll feel like torture if done incorrectly. Besides, how is making a mess out of someone's brain better than a quiet and peaceful (again, assuming it doesn't get botched) death? I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your reasoning sounds confusing. If you have access to anesthesia, can't you just give that to a person and give them an injection after they're asleep? What you described is basically putting them to sleep and making a needless mess out of them and saying that's better. I don't see how this makes sense.


uncletim wrote:

Is anyone really surprised? Come on it's Utah the most fuck crazy state in the union


That's a weird way to spell "Texas."
15406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Empire of Walker
Offline
Posted 3/25/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


ghostwarrior88 wrote:

ANYONE in favor of this has a screw loose, probably several. I'm also willing to bet that nobody involved in the writing of this law has ever seen someone shot to death. I hope you know what your asking for.

That said, Nemoskull said it best. In terms of efficient, painless and cost effective executions a high caliber bullet to the back of the head can't be beat. Death faster than the nerves are capable of sending a pain signal, probably before you even hear the shot. Someone here said use a small caliber so they can have the dignity of an open casket funeral, your shooting someone in the head, dignity is irrelevant at that point.


Dignity is still relevant to a degree. Otherwise, ANY method that inflicts quick death is permissible. This is obviously not something that most people who are in favor of the death sentence are in favor of. A sledgehammer wielded by a powerful person can be used as a method of execution. It is quick, reliable, cheap, environmentally friendly, etc. But we do not think this method should be used.

The goal is a humane execution, and this is what separates modern capital punishment from medieval capital punishment. Reasonably preserving bodily integrity and personal dignity is, indeed, not more important than than actually carrying out the sentence but they are still important considerations. Just because they matter less does not mean they do not matter at all.


We'll compromise, let's dig a pit and fill it with bears. That way recovering the body is impossible, problem solved.

Traditional firing squad comes from the military and is conducted by a squad blindfolding the dead man and binding his hands and escorting them to the stand on the execution ground. The squad of 9-11 soldiers stand on-line with the individual a set distance away. The Master of Ceremonies will state the crimes and ask the convicted if they have any final words. Following, the MoC will order the squad to take aim with their rifles and fire center mass. There is a lot more to the ceremony than that, but death by firing squad is a barbaric act. I'm going off the assumption that no way would something like that be acceptable, however your still advocating shooting a person to death.
27242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15

PhantomGundam wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


It has already been proven that a person who is guillotined is conscious for a while afterward. The guillotine also decapitates the criminal, which can be a disturbing sight. I don't consider the guillotine to be humane but my idea of humane is quick, painless, somewhat dignified. You don't strip people naked and shoot them in the head. You don't chop their heads off knowing they will be conscious. THAT would not be humane.


I don't think people who vouch for executions are in the position to say what's humane or not... Whether it's quick and painless or long and painful, when you've decided to take someone's life for revenge or money (which are basically what executions are), you have no right to call what you're doing humane. No matter how you look at it, there's no reason why anyone should be executed as opposed to just being locked up for the rest of their lives. If someone committed such an atrocious crime that a puppy dies whenever their name is spoken, let that person reflect on what they did in an isolated area where they can do no harm.

Executions are generally just to appease a few people who feel they've been wronged by the criminal. They serve no purpose other than emotional satisfaction. The only rare exception should be if someone is so dangerous that they still pose a threat to the public even in jail. In that case, It would make sense to execute the person.


If a person must be killed by the state, the method used should be reliable, quick, painless, and somewhat dignified.


The problem I have with this sentence is that I don't believe anyone should be killed by the state. It doesn't matter how many sweat words you use to make it sound better. You're still killing someone for your own selfish purpose, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise. At that point, you're no better than the criminal you're executing. I could keep arguing about this, but I've already learned from the previous thread about execution. There's no way to convince someone who supports the death penalty to change their views overnight. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but I guess someone who's already blind can't see that.


This is why I think it would be a better idea not to use experimental drug cocktails that may or may not cause several minutes of agony. The injection seems favored merely because it causes no visible damage to the outer body. I do not think a small amount of outward damage is humiliating or barbaric, so I am in favor of using anesthesia and hypnotic drugs (reliable methods of putting a person under), then executing them with a reliable physical method, such as bleeding out or destroying the brain.


Notice how I said I would prefer to be lethality injected as oppose to shot by firing squad if the injection doesn't get botched. Obviously it'll feel like torture if done incorrectly. Besides, how is making a mess out of someone's brain better than a quiet and peaceful (again, assuming it doesn't get botched) death? I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your reasoning sounds confusing. If you have access to anesthesia, can't you just give that to a person and give them an injection after they're asleep? What you described is basically putting them to sleep and making a needless mess out of them and saying that's better. I don't see how this makes sense.


uncletim wrote:

Is anyone really surprised? Come on it's Utah the most fuck crazy state in the union


That's a weird way to spell "Texas."


Most of this is too high up in the metaphorical funnel. This topic, to me, is not about the death penalty in and of itself but about how this method adequately or inadequately addresses the concerns of inflicting death in capital punishment.

Yes, some methods are more likely to be botched than others, so I advocate using the most reliable methods in execution. However, there are also countervailing factors to consider, such as personal dignity and painlessness. I could say, for instance, that killing is terrible no matter what, including the killing of animals that are not human, but that is of little relevance and of little help.

Now that the penalty is allowed and is used, I merely contemplate the most reasonable and balanced ways to inflict death in capital punishment. You are free to address the morality of killing elsewhere but this is not what I am addressing.

27242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15 , edited 3/25/15

ghostwarrior88 wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


ghostwarrior88 wrote:

ANYONE in favor of this has a screw loose, probably several. I'm also willing to bet that nobody involved in the writing of this law has ever seen someone shot to death. I hope you know what your asking for.

That said, Nemoskull said it best. In terms of efficient, painless and cost effective executions a high caliber bullet to the back of the head can't be beat. Death faster than the nerves are capable of sending a pain signal, probably before you even hear the shot. Someone here said use a small caliber so they can have the dignity of an open casket funeral, your shooting someone in the head, dignity is irrelevant at that point.


Dignity is still relevant to a degree. Otherwise, ANY method that inflicts quick death is permissible. This is obviously not something that most people who are in favor of the death sentence are in favor of. A sledgehammer wielded by a powerful person can be used as a method of execution. It is quick, reliable, cheap, environmentally friendly, etc. But we do not think this method should be used.

The goal is a humane execution, and this is what separates modern capital punishment from medieval capital punishment. Reasonably preserving bodily integrity and personal dignity is, indeed, not more important than than actually carrying out the sentence but they are still important considerations. Just because they matter less does not mean they do not matter at all.


We'll compromise, let's dig a pit and fill it with bears. That way recovering the body is impossible, problem solved.

Traditional firing squad comes from the military and is conducted by a squad blindfolding the dead man and binding his hands and escorting them to the stand on the execution ground. The squad of 9-11 soldiers stand on-line with the individual a set distance away. The Master of Ceremonies will state the crimes and ask the convicted if they have any final words. Following, the MoC will order the squad to take aim with their rifles and fire center mass. There is a lot more to the ceremony than that, but death by firing squad is a barbaric act. I'm going off the assumption that no way would something like that be acceptable, however your still advocating shooting a person to death.

Then if you can suggest a reliable, quick, cost-effective, dignified way to carry out capital punishment, I am all ears. The point is to strike a balance, not to come up with a perfect solution that probably doesn't exist. I get where you're coming from, though.
51209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

Most of this is too high up in the metaphorical funnel. This topic, to me, is not about the death penalty in and of itself but about how this method adequately or inadequately addresses the concerns of inflicting death in capital punishment.

Yes, some methods are more likely to be botched than others, so I advocate using the most reliable methods in execution. However, there are also countervailing factors to consider, such as personal dignity and painlessness. I could say, for instance, that killing is terrible no matter what, including the killing of animals that are not human, but that is of little relevance and of little help.

Now that the penalty is allowed and is used, I merely contemplate the most reasonable and balanced ways to inflict death in capital punishment. You are free to address the morality of killing elsewhere but this is not what I am addressing.



So what you're saying is, even if you're against the death penalty, you won't try opposing it just because it's already legal? Please tell me I misunderstood that. There's no way I can believe someone would advocate for a practice they don't like just because it already exist.
27242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15

PhantomGundam wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

Most of this is too high up in the metaphorical funnel. This topic, to me, is not about the death penalty in and of itself but about how this method adequately or inadequately addresses the concerns of inflicting death in capital punishment.

Yes, some methods are more likely to be botched than others, so I advocate using the most reliable methods in execution. However, there are also countervailing factors to consider, such as personal dignity and painlessness. I could say, for instance, that killing is terrible no matter what, including the killing of animals that are not human, but that is of little relevance and of little help.

Now that the penalty is allowed and is used, I merely contemplate the most reasonable and balanced ways to inflict death in capital punishment. You are free to address the morality of killing elsewhere but this is not what I am addressing.



So what you're saying is, even if you're against the death penalty, you won't try opposing it just because it's already legal? Please tell me I misunderstood that. There's no way I can believe someone would advocate for a practice they don't like just because it already exist.


That is not what I said. i think you misunderstand. You are still too high up in the funnel.

21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/25/15
This should go right about here to show the cost of this. Folks really don't understand the cost per year of a death penalty appeal. Or eventhe cost of the original case.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
51209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/25/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

Most of this is too high up in the metaphorical funnel. This topic, to me, is not about the death penalty in and of itself but about how this method adequately or inadequately addresses the concerns of inflicting death in capital punishment.

Yes, some methods are more likely to be botched than others, so I advocate using the most reliable methods in execution. However, there are also countervailing factors to consider, such as personal dignity and painlessness. I could say, for instance, that killing is terrible no matter what, including the killing of animals that are not human, but that is of little relevance and of little help.

Now that the penalty is allowed and is used, I merely contemplate the most reasonable and balanced ways to inflict death in capital punishment. You are free to address the morality of killing elsewhere but this is not what I am addressing.



So what you're saying is, even if you're against the death penalty, you won't try opposing it just because it's already legal? Please tell me I misunderstood that. There's no way I can believe someone would advocate for a practice they don't like just because it already exist.


That is not what I said. i think you misunderstand. You are still too high up in the funnel.



Then would you mind explaining? That's what I got out of your post. Especially that last part:

Now that the penalty is allowed and is used, I merely contemplate the most reasonable and balanced ways to inflict death in capital punishment.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.