Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   Wyoming lawmaker proposes replacing lethal injections with firing squads, because it's more exciting   (breitbart.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, lethal injection, lawmaker proposes, Wyoming lawmaker, Wyoming, death penalty, executed by firing squad  
•       •       •

479 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jan 2014 at 8:16 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-15 08:22:08 AM  
I think the article states that they're examining using firing squad instead of gas chamber when lethal injection isn't available. Of course, pharmaceutical companies aren't selling the drugs for lethal injection to prisons anymore according to the article, so...
 
2014-01-15 08:22:54 AM  
fta "The expense of building a gas chamber I think would be prohibitive when you consider how many people would be executed by it, and even the cost of gallows."

Just kill lots and lots of people, then you can spread the cost out.
 
2014-01-15 08:23:37 AM  
Ack. I made the mistake of reading the comments and now I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
 
2014-01-15 08:23:52 AM  
My god...the comments...
 
2014-01-15 08:26:18 AM  
All things considered, a firing squad is a more humane form of execution than lethal injection. It's quick and the condemned dies quickly.

Lethal injection is made up of a cocktail of drugs that knocks you out for a few minutes, paralyzes you and another one that stops your heart and lungs. However, the drug that knocks the condemned out initially isn't always reliable and it's possible (or even likely) that the condemned is conscious and aware when the drug that is designed to stop the heart takes effect - meaning they might be awake and conscious through an induced heart attack that kills them.
 
2014-01-15 08:26:23 AM  
Bunch of pussies. Use real punishment if you are going to go backwards:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-15 08:37:06 AM  
let's bring these back. fun for the whole family.
 
2014-01-15 08:38:15 AM  
I'd probably rather be executed via fire squad then any other method. It just seems like a more honorable way to go out.
 
2014-01-15 08:39:01 AM  
www.trunews.com
 
2014-01-15 08:40:30 AM  
I can't understand how it is that we don't trust the government to properly administer a health insurance plan, but we're more than happy to give them the power to execute citizens.
 
2014-01-15 08:40:40 AM  

some_beer_drinker: [www.trunews.com image 580x435]


Fun fact, the last person the French guillotined was in 1977
 
2014-01-15 08:48:01 AM  
I have SEEN police at the shooting range. No thanks.

You know how long it would take to die from 8 misses, one shot to the shoulder and one to the thigh?
 
2014-01-15 08:50:01 AM  

SpectroBoy: I have SEEN police at the shooting range. No thanks.

You know how long it would take to die from 8 misses, one shot to the shoulder and one to the thigh?


We might as well get storm troopers to do it
 
2014-01-15 09:03:42 AM  
Then for more excitement and some state revenue, sell lottery tickets where winners get to take the shot.
 
2014-01-15 09:07:23 AM  

Frank N Stein: some_beer_drinker: [www.trunews.com image 580x435]

Fun fact, the last person the French guillotined was in 1977


It is probably one of the quickest execution methods out there, and was originally developed as a more humane execution alternative to a human with an axe/sword (which would usually take a few blows).  It also makes a big public spectacle, which, if the death penalty was supposed to be a real deterrent for crime, it should really be.


/Personally against the death penalty
//But if you're going to do it, go all in
 
2014-01-15 09:10:44 AM  
I don't understand why they don't use nitrogen to asphyxiate the condemned if they want a painless end. It's cheap, readily available, and non-toxic.
 
2014-01-15 09:14:08 AM  

SpectroBoy: I have SEEN police at the shooting range. No thanks.

You know how long it would take to die from 8 misses, one shot to the shoulder and one to the thigh?


An actual firing squad would probably use rifles instead of handguns.  A lot more accurate.
 
2014-01-15 09:19:27 AM  
What a firing squad, made up of Wyoming politicians, might look like.

blogs.independent.co.uk
Of course, the Cheney Variant, includes lawyers, both prosecutors and defense.
 
2014-01-15 09:20:31 AM  
"I consider frankly the gas chamber to be cruel and unusual, so I went with firing squad because they also have it in Utah."

Uhm... Goddammit.
 
2014-01-15 09:31:00 AM  
Simple solution....get one of the executioners from Saudi Arabia and instead of using a 'normal' sword for be-headings have them  use an authentic samurai sword...that would cut through bone like butter. The executioner would be happy as well as they'd be killing an infidel.
 
2014-01-15 09:31:36 AM  

Bontesla: "I consider frankly the gas chamber to be cruel and unusual, so I went with firing squad because they also have it in Utah."

Uhm... Goddammit.


fun fact: they have it in utah mainly because mormons believe in a concept called blood atonement.
 
2014-01-15 09:36:31 AM  
As long as it is one of multiple choices I don't see the problem. Freedom, right!? I'd rather not see anyone executed but thems the breaks.
 
2014-01-15 09:50:52 AM  
Do we really need a daily reminder how uncivilized the US society really is? We barely got running water to our citizens.
 
2014-01-15 10:07:07 AM  

Arkanaut: SpectroBoy: I have SEEN police at the shooting range. No thanks.

You know how long it would take to die from 8 misses, one shot to the shoulder and one to the thigh?

An actual firing squad would probably use rifles instead of handguns.  A lot more accurate.


I was talking about cops with rifles.  At the outdoor range.Where most "civilians" were out shooting them using only handguns.

All the regulars look forward to cops on their "time to re qualify" visit. High entertainment in many cases.
 
2014-01-15 10:31:50 AM  

BitwiseShift: What a firing squad, made up of Wyoming politicians, might look like.

[blogs.independent.co.uk image 150x150]
Of course, the Cheney Variant, includes lawyers, both prosecutors and defense.


You say that like it's a bad thing. Circular firing squads made up of politicians and lawyers sounds like a hell of a good start.
 
2014-01-15 10:43:28 AM  

RexTalionis: All things considered, a firing squad is a more humane form of execution than lethal injection. It's quick and the condemned dies quickly.

Lethal injection is made up of a cocktail of drugs that knocks you out for a few minutes, paralyzes you and another one that stops your heart and lungs. However, the drug that knocks the condemned out initially isn't always reliable and it's possible (or even likely) that the condemned is conscious and aware when the drug that is designed to stop the heart takes effect - meaning they might be awake and conscious through an induced heart attack that kills them.


They might be conscious through the lead-induced cardiac event from the firing squad as well. Just saying.

I lean more to the "let the punishment fit the crime" school of thought, so I think true justice would be to execute each murderer in exactly the same way they killed their victims.
 
2014-01-15 10:43:39 AM  

hinten: Do we really need a daily reminder how uncivilized the US society really is? We barely got running water to our citizens.


the water is flowing it just tastes like licorice and will give you massive diarrhea if you live in WVA
 
2014-01-15 10:47:32 AM  
Just join the LAPD.
 
2014-01-15 11:09:48 AM  

apoptotic: Ack. I made the mistake of reading the comments and now I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


OneTimed: My god...the comments...


Yeah...um...because of you two I actually clicked on the article (I'd sooner click stormfront, tbh) because I was curious.  For whatever reason, they don't want to load for me.  I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing...
 
2014-01-15 11:30:03 AM  

Befuddled: I don't understand why they don't use nitrogen to asphyxiate the condemned if they want a painless end. It's cheap, readily available, and non-toxic.


This. Oxygen displacement is supposedly completely painless too, so I don't see why we don...oh, wait...
 
2014-01-15 11:41:37 AM  
We'd need neither one if lawmakers would just farking resign.
 
2014-01-15 12:30:48 PM  

GhostFish: Or considering the imperfect nature of the legal system, how about we just do away with the death penalty altogether so that we can stop with the occasional executions of innocent people?

It doesn't seem to me that any margin of error should be acceptable here, and I don't understand how anyone could disagree.


Well, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

If we're dead set on the death penalty, how about dropping a 50 ton weight from about 100 feet up? That should be pretty much instantaneous and painless, not to mention Pay-Per-View ready.
 
2014-01-15 01:03:12 PM  

Befuddled: I don't understand why they don't use nitrogen to asphyxiate the condemned if they want a painless end. It's cheap, readily available, and non-toxic.


There was a BBC documentary on this subject a while back and when the conclusions were presented to one of the death penalty advocates here in the US they responded that we shouldn't use nitrogen precisely because it is painless and because you go out in a euphoric state.  To him, the fact that the condemned suffers as they die is a feature, not a bug.  I agree that nitrogen asphyixation is probably the most humane method.
 
2014-01-15 01:29:01 PM  
to me the death penalty is good and should be used. But only in cases where there is no chance that the person was not guilty.

For example lets say you have 2 people commit the same crime. say a mass shooting.

person 1. all eye witness, no videos, person has time to get away. police have to gather lots of stuff and put the puzzle together.  For this person no death penalty should be even though of as there is room for error.

person 2.  loots of video of person doing it. doesn't get away(is arrested on site with all weapons on him), find stuff at his house showing he planned it all out and stuff.  Death penalty should be for this as there is no way that there is a way this guy didn't do it.

As for a way to do it.  Very powerful gun bout 2 inch form the persons head.  Aimed at a instance kill zone.  Fast and painless.
 
2014-01-15 01:33:47 PM  

Stile4aly: Befuddled: I don't understand why they don't use nitrogen to asphyxiate the condemned if they want a painless end. It's cheap, readily available, and non-toxic.

There was a BBC documentary on this subject a while back and when the conclusions were presented to one of the death penalty advocates here in the US they responded that we shouldn't use nitrogen precisely because it is painless and because you go out in a euphoric state.  To him, the fact that the condemned suffers as they die is a feature, not a bug.  I agree that nitrogen asphyixation is probably the most humane method.


What about Helium? Thier last words were be a lot more entertaining to listen to.
 
2014-01-15 01:35:15 PM  

some_beer_drinker: [www.trunews.com image 580x435]


This.  It would be cost effective because we need to buy these anyhow to deal with bankers and wall street.

Seriously though you don't need a whole firing squad.  You just need one man with one gun directly to the side of the condemned with one quick bullet to the head.  Instant, painless(because you instantly shred the brain which allowed their ability to feel pain), yet you should be able to keep the skull pretty enough for an open casket.  You can also preserve all their organs for donation to extend other people's lives.

A firing squad involves uncertain points of entry for the bullets.  They will probably hit in the torso rather than head, death will not be instant, and sure as hell will be painful.

Also if we are talking about the death penalty as a deterrent, the current way we go about it is worthless.  People do not have much of a reaction to mere statistics - our brain was not evolved that way.  We do have a reaction to faces, and to seeing things.  That is what makes it real to us.  The whole Casey Anthony thing was proof enough of that.  People who never gave much thought to millions of children dying last year certainly teared up for one little girl.  It is because they showcased her picture up everywhere.

Our executions need to be a public affair again as they once where in the village square.  In those days everyone saw it take place, and they understood that could happen to them if they murdered someone.  But merely reading about someone being executed in a 2 paragraph newspaper (that few read) article on page 5 does nothing... just a statistic.  It does not "make you think."  You will probably forget about the matter before lunch.

Executions should be televised.  Hell they could make a tasteless reality TV show out of it.  It couldn't be worse that what we have now.

hinten: Do we really need a daily reminder how uncivilized the US society really is? We barely got running water to our citizens.


Don't you think the CEO of that chemical company is living proof that we need a death penalty?  I feel people who carelessly or maliciously cause that much damage to the environment should be subject to it.

GhostFish: Or considering the imperfect nature of the legal system, how about we just do away with the death penalty altogether so that we can stop with the occasional executions of innocent people?

It doesn't seem to me that any margin of error should be acceptable here, and I don't understand how anyone could disagree.


I don't agree with getting rid of the death penalty, but I do agree with eliminating the margin of error.  In the case that a prosecutor wishes to ask for the death penalty, they should have a much, much higher standard of proof.  That is, they should have ABSOLUTE proof.  There should literally be no possibility of innocence.  If the evidence does not meet that standard, then they should only be allowed to sentence to life in prison.

When I say absolute proof, I would not accept having only witness testimony.  I would require something like video evidence paired with DNA evidence, for example.  Maybe if that is too strict, multiple eye witnesses paired with DNA evidence.  We do have the medical technology to scan a witnesses brain while they testify so we would know if they are lying, and we should use it in this case.  Even if the accused confesses, they should do so while being scanned to make sure their confession is authentic.

I would not support using such a think in ordinary criminal prosecutions - it could be said to be too invasive.  But we are talking about executions here, and the sentence is final.

I understand that an absolute burden of proof would make executions far more rare... good.  1 innocent person executed is 1 innocent person too many.  I think executions can serve a purpose for society, I do not feel they are "uncivilized" as many do, but I do not accept that innocent people should be allowed to die.  Our current implementation of it is far too flawed and useless, so a major overhaul is well overdue.

Also I do not see the point of having 10-20 years on death row.  I really do not.  Allow them their appeals, and once those are expired, just end it the next day.  There is no reason to shove them into a cell for years only waiting to die and I cannot see any possible good coming of it.

Really though if you have a absolute burden of proof, I don't see any reason for so many appeals (which are very expensive for the taxpayer and less necessary with higher burdens of proof).  Let them have 1 appeal - to mitigate the danger of possibly having a bad/incompetent/corrupt judge/jury in the first trial.  If the court of appeals rules that the evidence meets the "absolute proof" standard, then end it already.
 
2014-01-15 02:41:48 PM  

bk3k: When I say absolute proof, I would not accept having only witness testimony. I would require something like video evidence paired with DNA evidence, for example. Maybe if that is too strict, multiple eye witnesses paired with DNA evidence. We do have the medical technology to scan a witnesses brain while they testify so we would know if they are lying, and we should use it in this case. Even if the accused confesses, they should do so while being scanned to make sure their confession is authentic.


You watch too much TV.
 
2014-01-15 02:42:36 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I can't understand how it is that we don't trust the government to properly administer a health insurance plan, but we're more than happy to give them the power to execute citizens.


That's a silly question.  Only minorities get arrested.  Would I trust the government with my money?  Hell no.  Would I trust them to kill some successful and attractive African Americans?  Sure, why not.
 
2014-01-15 03:24:54 PM  

bk3k: Seriously though you don't need a whole firing squad.  You just need one man with one gun directly to the side of the condemned with one quick bullet to the head.


There are good reasons they use an entire squad.

First, it shows that this is a group decision not a single person killing you in revenge or anger. (PR reason)

Second, there is less chance of failure due to a misfire, poor aim, second thoughts, etc.

Third, you do not want to be TOO close to the person being killed or you will be covered in their blood which may be diseased.

Fourth (debatable), the story goes that one of the rifles is loaded with a blank. That allows all of the men on firing squad duty to hope that they were not actually the killer.

that las one might be a myth. not sure.
 
2014-01-15 03:28:40 PM  

itsdan: bk3k: When I say absolute proof, I would not accept having only witness testimony. I would require something like video evidence paired with DNA evidence, for example. Maybe if that is too strict, multiple eye witnesses paired with DNA evidence. We do have the medical technology to scan a witnesses brain while they testify so we would know if they are lying, and we should use it in this case. Even if the accused confesses, they should do so while being scanned to make sure their confession is authentic.

You watch too much TV.


Not really.  Functional MRI scans have reached the point of being effective lie detectors and you can even reverse engineer low resolution visual images from an fMRI.  These scans can even tell the difference between real memories and imagined events, so if I imagine that I went to Venice the fMRI can tell the difference between that imagination (no matter how vivid) and the actual memory of being in Venice.  Before too long, it will reach the point where you can ask a subject if they were at the murder location and their brain will give you a picture of them pulling the trigger.  This raises some interesting 5th amendment issues, because you have a right not to self incriminate and yet this process would be able to make a near absolute determination as to the guilt or innocence of a person.
 
2014-01-15 04:41:52 PM  

OneTimed: My god...the comments...


what i find amazing is that the lot of them are probably self described anti "big govt" types

but bigger authority can the govt have besides the power to execute it's own citizens?

conservatives are also sadists.
 
2014-01-15 07:56:45 PM  
The idea of using lethal injection or the gas chamber because you don't want to hurt the feelings of the condemned is just nuts. +1 on firing squads.

That being said, I opposed capital punishment on the grounds that I don't trust the government to be competent at anything it does. Too many people on death row have been freed by The Innocence Project for me to trust the authorities. The death sentence can take 20-30 years and cost the people million$$. Better to have Life Without Parole, much less $$, the condemned are warehoused for relatively little cost, and if new evidence comes to light or prosecutorial or judicial misconduct is found, the condemn can be 'brought back to life'. While there are costs to feed and house the inmates, a single miscreant can cause over $500,000/year in total societal costs, the $30,000 some claim to warehouse them seems like a bargain. 8 shooters firing .308 rounds at $0.75/round is even cheaper.
 
2014-01-15 10:55:26 PM  
Just another gun nut that can't wait to shoot people.
 
2014-01-16 01:05:31 AM  

FlashHarry: Bontesla: "I consider frankly the gas chamber to be cruel and unusual, so I went with firing squad because they also have it in Utah."

Uhm... Goddammit.

fun fact: they have it in utah mainly because mormons believe in a concept called blood atonement.


Utah actually banned firing squads in 2004, however anyone sentenced before that may still choose the option (three remain who are eligible).

Oklahoma is the only state that has not banned firing squads.

Thing is, any state that sticks its neck out to try a currently unusual form of capital punishment is already violating half that "cruel and unusual" thing, so you can bet it'll get tied up in court.
 
2014-01-16 02:31:37 AM  

RexTalionis: All things considered, a firing squad is a more humane form of execution than lethal injection. It's quick and the condemned dies quickly.

Lethal injection is made up of a cocktail of drugs that knocks you out for a few minutes, paralyzes you and another one that stops your heart and lungs. However, the drug that knocks the condemned out initially isn't always reliable and it's possible (or even likely) that the condemned is conscious and aware when the drug that is designed to stop the heart takes effect - meaning they might be awake and conscious through an induced heart attack that kills them.


I fail to see a problem here.  If we're gong to have a death penalty, why try to candy coat it and make people think it's humane?
 
2014-01-16 02:34:11 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I can't understand how it is that we don't trust the government to properly administer a health insurance plan, but we're more than happy to give them the power to execute citizens.


Becaues "death panels" are sometimes OK and other times are now.
 
2014-01-16 12:46:40 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: RexTalionis: All things considered, a firing squad is a more humane form of execution than lethal injection. It's quick and the condemned dies quickly.

Lethal injection is made up of a cocktail of drugs that knocks you out for a few minutes, paralyzes you and another one that stops your heart and lungs. However, the drug that knocks the condemned out initially isn't always reliable and it's possible (or even likely) that the condemned is conscious and aware when the drug that is designed to stop the heart takes effect - meaning they might be awake and conscious through an induced heart attack that kills them.

I fail to see a problem here.  If we're gong to have a death penalty, why try to candy coat it and make people think it's humane?


Because if we purport to be morally superior to the people who committed crimes which warrant death in the name of justice and not revenge, then our interest should be in causing that death as humanely as possible.  It's the same reason that when we put an animal down we give them a painless shot instead of beating them to death.
 
2014-01-16 01:53:06 PM  
Just curious here.  Of those opposed to the death penalty here, how many feel that crime (including rape and murder) is essentially the result of "inequity" in Society and a more "just" society wouldn't have such crimes?

/Personally opposed for purely for fiscal reasons
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report