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.

(The Raw Story)   In an attempt to satisfy America's blood lust, two states propose death by firing squad because it's "cost effective". Pay Per View rights still to be determined   (rawstory.com) divider line 569
    More: Scary, executed by firing squad, Missouri, lethal injection, gas chambers  
•       •       •

7619 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2014 at 9:28 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



569 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-17 08:54:24 PM
"We've been told lethal injection is so barbaric that the drug companies would rather not manufacture the drugs anymore.

"So we'll just switch to firing squads."
 
2014-01-17 09:03:54 PM
What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.
 
2014-01-17 09:17:28 PM
People are completely inured to seeing innocent men, women and children dead on the street in ongoing war footage.  Seeing people they feel deserve to be dead instead might actually be less psychologically farked up.

And depending on the son-to-be-deceased, PPV might be quite profitable indeed.
 
2014-01-17 09:23:02 PM
imageshack.com

Would you like to know more?
 
2014-01-17 09:24:40 PM
"Let's do it"
 
2014-01-17 09:25:21 PM
Hey, it worked for Gary Gilmore.
 
2014-01-17 09:28:37 PM
I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...
 
2014-01-17 09:30:59 PM
Any one want to play hang man?
 
2014-01-17 09:31:45 PM
How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?
 
2014-01-17 09:33:51 PM
I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.
 
2014-01-17 09:34:17 PM
Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.
 
2014-01-17 09:34:42 PM
I think the states should consider allowing people to bid to be on the firing squads.
 
2014-01-17 09:35:36 PM

mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?


Well if you wind up a lifer in general pop you will die a nice slow AIDS/Hep C death even if your lawyers eventually prove your innocence. Id rather get any current form of execution than waste away from full blown AIDS.
 
2014-01-17 09:36:17 PM

doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.


Hanging by long drop is better. As long as you don't mess up the drop, the person gets knocked out and strangles to death quietly, plus the family gets a nice intact body to bury. If the drop is too long, no problem with the decapitation, the person still won't feel it (scientists believe; I think no one has thought  to attach electrodes on the brain of the condemned to measure that yet), it's only if the drop is too short will be the problem with a slow death. It's better than drugs which when they were "alright" just paralyzed the person but they still felt death oncoming. Plus it's cheaper to have a noose than the swordsman not cutting all the way through on the first try.
 
2014-01-17 09:36:37 PM

doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.


If I had to choose, it'd be hanged, drawn and quartered, this way you leave them with a choice of what to make for dinner.
 
2014-01-17 09:36:43 PM
In 2014 you'd think we'd have devised some way of snuffing someone out instantly.
Kind of dated but what about those machines that jam a bolt into steak's heads? That seems pretty instantaneous.
 
2014-01-17 09:36:48 PM
If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.
 
2014-01-17 09:36:51 PM
High velocity bullet to the head, turning the brain to jam, happens faster than can be perceived by the brain in question. Thus we know it is painless. The chemical route was iffy, couldn't say with veracity the death was painless.

If you think they can't find volunteers in the lawkeeping profession then you haven't met many cops. That failing, use death row inmates to pull the triggers.
 
2014-01-17 09:37:13 PM
I'm okay with this, if the jury that convicts the defendant becomes the firing squad. Then jurors might actually take their responsibility over the life and death of others seriously.
 
2014-01-17 09:37:15 PM
government taxing and giving poor people food stamps? this is an attack on our freedoms!
government taxing and killing sometimes innocent people? USA USA USA
 
2014-01-17 09:37:32 PM
This state still has an electric chair even though injection is the primary means, so I guess they'll just have to fire up old sparky.
 
2014-01-17 09:37:35 PM
No you can't have a last cigarette, it might kill you.
 
2014-01-17 09:38:16 PM

White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.


Helium would be funnier.
 
2014-01-17 09:38:27 PM
The for profit prison system is disgusting and the United States should be ashamed with itself.
 
2014-01-17 09:38:29 PM

untaken_name: I'm okay with this, if the jury that convicts the defendant becomes the firing squad. Then jurors might actually take their responsibility over the life and death of others seriously.


Oh, and also, if the defendant is later exonerated by physical evidence, the firing squad/jury members all get shot.
 
2014-01-17 09:38:30 PM
I'd buy that for a dollar.
 
2014-01-17 09:39:05 PM

mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?


It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.
 
2014-01-17 09:39:15 PM
Isn't ammo expensive?
 
2014-01-17 09:39:16 PM
Sweet, Running Man will be on soon?!
 
2014-01-17 09:39:18 PM
I vote Snu Snu!
 
2014-01-17 09:39:27 PM

White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen helium isn't an option.


And give 'em a chance to say some final words. It'd be hilarious.
 
2014-01-17 09:39:40 PM

hoodiowithtudio: Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.


I took a knife in the hand once and didn't even feel a thing from the cut.  It just felt like someone had pushed a hard object against my hand.  Well, I didn't feel the cut at least until a well meaning partner declared "Oh crap, there's a knife in your hand" and pulled it out.  Felt it then.

Moral of the story:  Don't have a guy standing next to the axeman ready to tell you that your head is off.
 
2014-01-17 09:40:07 PM

MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.


It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.
 
2014-01-17 09:41:07 PM
...or the state could just stop killing citizens, like the entire rest of modern civilization.
 
2014-01-17 09:41:32 PM

fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...


It takes too long.

Seriously, someone asked that question in CA a while back, and the response was essentially that it takes 30-45 minutes to kill someone painlessly via anaesthetic OD, and that's too difficult for the witnesses to sit through.
 
2014-01-17 09:41:53 PM

debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.


How much does being chased to death by naked female roller skaters cost?
 
2014-01-17 09:42:06 PM
Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.
 
2014-01-17 09:42:54 PM

fusillade762: debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.

How much does being chased to death by naked female roller skaters cost?


Well, from the quotes I've received, WAY too much. Who do they think can afford it? Geez.
 
2014-01-17 09:43:28 PM
www.movievillains.com
 
2014-01-17 09:43:30 PM
Sign me up. We get videos of the victims being assaulted and murdered all the time, and for free. I'd love to pay to witness the retribution.
 
2014-01-17 09:43:45 PM
Just wrap a few sticks of dynamite around their head, and light 'em off....Guarantee it would be so fast, no pain..
 
2014-01-17 09:44:03 PM
I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.
 
2014-01-17 09:44:11 PM

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

It takes too long.

Seriously, someone asked that question in CA a while back, and the response was essentially that it takes 30-45 minutes to kill someone painlessly via anaesthetic OD, and that's too difficult for the witnesses to sit through.


WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN WITNESSES?!?
 
2014-01-17 09:44:23 PM

debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.


I prefer the victims family gets to choose...
 
2014-01-17 09:45:29 PM

mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?


This has been my biggest argument against the death penalty.  You can't undo it, you can't fix it, you can't pay restitution...and more than a few innocent people have had their convictions overturned (140 since 1973).  One innocent person being put to death is one too many.

The other argument is that it's MORE expensive to execute someone than it is to give them life in prison.

TBH, life in prison seems like a harsher sentence.
 
2014-01-17 09:45:29 PM
MNF halftime hangings
 
2014-01-17 09:45:53 PM

untaken_name: MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.

It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.


Or even their first crime if it turns out that they were innocent.
 
2014-01-17 09:46:09 PM
Frankly, I think I'd take firing squad over lethal injection.

/for me, personally
//not that I'd be up for the death penalty for any reason
///except that one thing
////but there's not enough evidence to convict
//or is there?
 
2014-01-17 09:46:18 PM

fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...


A big honking shot of morphine might be (too) quick, and it would almost certainly be painless.

/see also the fact that the gas used in gas chamber executions is almost never 100% nitrogen, which would eventually make the condemned painlessly fall asleep and then succumb to hypoxia
//alsøsee also the electric chair, which was wasn't ruled unconstitutional until after a guy put to death that way was killed instantly due to faulty wiring when they flipped the switch
///alsøalsøsee also hanging, which if done properly breaks the condemned's neck and kills him instantly, but is only used in Delaware
////Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?
 
2014-01-17 09:46:32 PM
Even though I think the state should not be given the authority to kill a citizen (too much potential for abuse and making mistakes you can't rectify) I'd take firing squad myself.  However, I would prefer not to do the stupid thing where they shoot you in the heart...  shotgun at close range through the brain pan would be best.
 
2014-01-17 09:46:35 PM

Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.


Hanging is probably the cheapest. About 6 feet of rope is what a buck maybe 2.

It was the prefered way of eleminating top Gnatzis after the war.
 
2014-01-17 09:46:49 PM

White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.



Came here to say this.  It's cheap, painless, and won't harm anyone else if the gas chamber leaks.  When you asphyxiate from carbon dioxide your body detects it and freaks out, but other inert gasses like helium and nitrogen just make you drift away.
 
2014-01-17 09:47:44 PM
sp1.yimg.com
 
2014-01-17 09:48:07 PM

Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.


No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?
 
2014-01-17 09:48:34 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: [www.movievillains.com image 240x156]


It's getting there : /
 
2014-01-17 09:49:30 PM

untaken_name: It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.


That's so clever. Never heard that one before.
 
2014-01-17 09:49:50 PM

fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...


Too simple. That's basically what we do for dogs and cats. But... yeah. We're farked up.
 
2014-01-17 09:50:00 PM
Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.
 
2014-01-17 09:50:49 PM
Good to see the "Christian" conservatives in this country so determined to murder captives.

I propose free WWJD bracelets for people who volunteer to be on the firing squad.
 
2014-01-17 09:50:52 PM

jso2897: No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?


Actually no.  I'd have to poke around for the statistics but I recall that the biggest deterrent is perceived likelihood of being caught and punished.  Severity of punishment ranks fairly low on the list.
 
2014-01-17 09:50:57 PM
Is getting shot to death cruel? Would you want to put your sick mother down that way? Is it an unusual punishment? Oklahoma is the only state in which it is currently available as a secondary execution method.  A small number of inmates in Utah, which banned it in 2004, are grandfathered in. The federal and military systems have ended it. Against this tide, I think states seeking to re-legalize this form of execution will face Eighth Amendment challenges. Especially if many years pass since the last such execution.
 
2014-01-17 09:51:09 PM

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

It takes too long.

Seriously, someone asked that question in CA a while back, and the response was essentially that it takes 30-45 minutes to kill someone painlessly via anaesthetic OD, and that's too difficult for the witnesses to sit through.


So use anesthesia to render someone unconscious/asleep, then use one of the 30,000 guillotines the government bought and is storing in Montana to behead them. They're asleep, they won't feel a thing. :)

//yes, I know it's an urban legend. :)
 
2014-01-17 09:51:42 PM
Wait a second.

Part of the problem is that they do not get the drugs, but they confiscate tons of drugs yearly.

Give them some K then a  Heroin OD.

How friggin hard is this?
 
2014-01-17 09:52:20 PM
blogs.westword.com
 
2014-01-17 09:52:48 PM

AgentPothead: The for profit prison system death penalty is disgusting and the United States should be ashamed with itself.


Why should the Justice system be involved in revenge at all? It's barbaric. And the only way it's cheaper than life imprisonment is if they remove some of the legal barriers...which would lead to more innocents being killed by the State.
 
2014-01-17 09:54:24 PM

debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.


"Son of a b***h! The bastard picked old age! It's within budget too!"
 
2014-01-17 09:54:34 PM
Why is there a choice for the prisoner? Is this some sort of fancy restaurant menu? Is death by great white shark and option?

While we are at it, isn't Nitrogen Hypoxia fairly painless?
 
2014-01-17 09:55:46 PM
Would you rather dey was pushed outta windas?

/bunker
 
2014-01-17 09:55:53 PM

chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.


Yup that was the beef with firing squads.

Long drop hangings are probably the most humane method ever devised your brain stem is severed between the skull and C1 you are out like a light switch before you even know you hit bottom. They largely went out of style because hanging was prefered method in lynchings also an improper non drop hanging where a person is choked out is not paticularly humane.
 
2014-01-17 09:56:56 PM

jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.


What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.
 
2014-01-17 09:57:04 PM
Good job Missouri, now shorten the stay in jail to 5 years before sentence handed out.

Next we can give pruning sheers to gaurds to remove the testicles of rapists and child molesters.

/dna and confession or other solid evidence of murder, rape and child molestation should be required for severe penalties as these
//women rapists or child molesters can have the red hot poker treatment
///stop the bullcrap of proven guilty in court but probably actually innocent so treat all criminals as innocent victims
 
2014-01-17 09:57:19 PM

Click Click D'oh: hoodiowithtudio: Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.

I took a knife in the hand once and didn't even feel a thing from the cut.  It just felt like someone had pushed a hard object against my hand.  Well, I didn't feel the cut at least until a well meaning partner declared "Oh crap, there's a knife in your hand" and pulled it out.  Felt it then.

Moral of the story:  Don't have a guy standing next to the axeman ready to tell you that your head is off.


You want Walter Shobchak there to say, "Nothing is f*cked, dude, nothing is f*cked."
 
2014-01-17 09:57:21 PM

chasd00: Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.


Yeah, Severian did seem to go off the deep end for a while.
 
2014-01-17 09:57:22 PM
Hey, Friendo--stand still.  Do it "No Country For Old Men" style.  Pop...........done.  One CO2 canister, one gas hose, and one of those thingys they use to kill cattle.

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty but I have to admit there are times when I don't oppose it.  Life without parole is far more miserable punishment than death.
 
2014-01-17 09:58:00 PM
It's funny to me when someone who's fiscally conservative is pro-war, pro-death penalty, and against letting people (especially the government) decide when to pull the plug on the brain dead. The first two are fiscally wasteful ways to kill someone, the last is a fiscally wasteful way to keep them alive.
 
2014-01-17 09:58:33 PM

doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.


I actually do think we should let people choose the method of their execution.  I'd probably go for lethal injection over firing squad, but only if I could get them to agree not to strap me down to a table.  Couldn't I just sit in a nice LA-Z-Boy recliner and watch porn while they inject me?

What's amazing to me is that we're perfectly fine with euthanizing pets but still think somehow we can't do lethal injection to criminals humanely.

I think I said that a day or two ago in another thread.  Fark that.  If some mass murderer suffers for about 10 minutes while he is executed I'm not too worried about it.  I'm much more concerned that pets that are euthanized don't suffer.

If it's good enough for your cat or your dog it's good enough for a murderer.
 
2014-01-17 09:59:14 PM

hoodiowithtudio: Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.


memecrunch.com


Execution should be incredibly painful because we shouldn't be executing anyone that doesn't deserve an incredibly painful death.  Making it painless just would just serve to assuage our collective guilt if we execute the wrong person.  Screw that!  If we execute the wrong person we should feel horrible about it.  We should be AFRAID of executing the wrong person.  We should be DAMN SURE we got the right guy before we execute him and the way to do that is to make it a horrible painful spectacle... like a piranha tank!
 
2014-01-17 09:59:24 PM

Mercutio74: jso2897: No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Actually no.  I'd have to poke around for the statistics but I recall that the biggest deterrent is perceived likelihood of being caught and punished.  Severity of punishment ranks fairly low on the list.


Perhaps - but, right or wrong,  most death penalty advocates don't believe that. They believe that a fear of death serves as a deterrent to a potential criminal.
And, assuming that the death penaly DOES deter crime (if only for the sake of argument) one would, I think, have to concede that vulgar, brutal, public executions would serve that purpose far better than sterile, bowdlerized, private ones.
If we are going to do this thing, lets do it up right. Go big or go home, I always say.
 
2014-01-17 09:59:38 PM

jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.


I think they should lose their citizenship.  Would you like to know more?
 
2014-01-17 10:00:25 PM

jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?


Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.
 
2014-01-17 10:01:38 PM

Oldiron_79: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

Yup that was the beef with firing squads.

Long drop hangings are probably the most humane method ever devised your brain stem is severed between the skull and C1 you are out like a light switch before you even know you hit bottom. They largely went out of style because hanging was prefered method in lynchings also an improper non drop hanging where a person is choked out is not paticularly humane.


Sometimes it's hard to calculate the drop necessary or weight needed to add.  Too little and the prisoner strangles to death, too much and the head comes off.
 
2014-01-17 10:02:14 PM

doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.


^^This.  We kill people the same way we put down dogs now.  We can make pretty sure that a person is killed practically instantaneously with a well-placed bullet or a strong rope.  I'm personally not a supporter of capital punishment, but if we're going to have it, then for fark sake let's not botch it.
 
2014-01-17 10:02:25 PM

gfid: If it's good enough for your cat or your dog it's good enough for a murderer.


good enough for a person convicted of murder who was too poor to afford anything but a public defender.
 
2014-01-17 10:02:43 PM
If you start from the assumption that the criminal justice system actually works and the state has a right to kill citizens, then why not firing squads? Cheap and effective. Even easier would be the "kneel next to your grave, gun to the back of the head" method. There's nothing wrong with firing squads that isn't wrong with the entire concept of imperfect (to say it generously) governments killing people.
 
2014-01-17 10:03:31 PM

TheWhoppah: Execution should be incredibly painful because we shouldn't be executing anyone that doesn't deserve an incredibly painful death.


No. The justice system should be impartial. It should not be about retribution. If the society allows a death sentence, it should be carried out as dispassionately as issuing a speeding ticket. Retribution is for vendettas, feuds and other medieval forms of one-upmanship.
 
2014-01-17 10:04:20 PM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: "We've been told lethal injection is so barbaric that the drug companies would rather not manufacture the drugs anymore.

"So we'll just switch to firing squads."


0/10

You murder somebody, you die.

Firing squads are efficient.

/kill the bastards
//or not
///torn on the subject
////Still hard core Right Wing
//or not


//f*hk it.   Cookie recipies?
 
2014-01-17 10:05:09 PM

theorellior: It should not be about retribution.


An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine, 1795
 
2014-01-17 10:06:19 PM
I am surprised by the number of Farkers who would like to be hung. I already am.
 
2014-01-17 10:06:30 PM

That Guy Jeff: then why not firing squads?


As previously mentioned, it takes a tremendous toll on the executioners. Now, if they designed robots to fire the guns, then that wouldn't be an issue.

/don't support the death penalty
//just sayin
 
2014-01-17 10:06:48 PM
I still say that head choppin is the best way. We need to be manufacturing high tech guillotines.
 
2014-01-17 10:07:06 PM

theorellior: TheWhoppah: Execution should be incredibly painful because we shouldn't be executing anyone that doesn't deserve an incredibly painful death.

No. The justice system should be impartial. It should not be about retribution. If the society allows a death sentence, it should be carried out as dispassionately as issuing a speeding ticket. Retribution is for vendettas, feuds and other medieval forms of one-upmanship.


Justice can't exist without vengeance.  The justice system is a means of providing impartial vengeance.  Society has a right to choose whatever method it wants to demonstrate its disgust with murderers.
 
2014-01-17 10:07:16 PM

MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.


It's been shown that people who are executed do not commit more crimes
 
2014-01-17 10:08:50 PM
An industrial sized meat grinder would be perfect:

www.crossfittemecula.com
 
2014-01-17 10:09:33 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.

What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.


After the invention of long-drop hanging and the guillotine, nothing that has been done to make execution more humane has been any real improvement. The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.
Anyway, the idea shouldn't be to make the DP more humane. We are KILLING PEOPLE.
Can we please stop bullshiating ourslves about what it is we are doing?
We should do it on prime time TV, too. early enough that children will be watching. There's hardly any point if we don't have our kids watch, and benefit from the important moral lesson we are providing them.
 
2014-01-17 10:09:48 PM

MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.


For social control purposes, the death penalty doesn't work any better than a sentence of ten years in prison would. Even if the death penalty were swift and certain, it would deter farkall. The people who do that shiat either think they have an angle which will prevent them from getting caught, or they're too farking crazy to control themselves, or too dumb to think that far ahead. 10 years in the joint is unpleasant enough that even people with the moral character of John Yoo would still opt not to commit murder in order to avoid it.
 
2014-01-17 10:10:04 PM
If I were to be executed and given the choice of the method I would not choose beheading, I'm too afraid that the brain survives long enough to feel the pain. I want something that instantly destroy the brain.  I used to think of some kind of high velocity press but in a recent thread someone suggested explosives. Another option would be to instantly cook the brain with a very intense burst of microwave radiation.

Gunshot to the head might work but it is not 100% sure.

In any case I saw a documentary (don't remember where) where they were looking for a 100% humane way to kill people and found one (I don't remember what it was though, some gas I think), but they discovered that pro death penalty politicians aren't very interested in a method where there is no chance that the accused will not to suffer.
 
2014-01-17 10:10:23 PM

TheWhoppah: The justice system


America does not nor has it ever had a justice system.

We have a legal system, which is society's way of containing and preventing a justice system from arising.

Justice is kind of like fire. In very controlled settings, it can be a great boon. But you let it get free and:

msnbcmedia.msn.com
 
2014-01-17 10:10:35 PM

chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.


First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.
 
2014-01-17 10:11:11 PM

doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.


Damn, that was beautifully said, and so true and more people should realize that.
 
2014-01-17 10:12:33 PM
I'm not seeing the problem.  In fact, the series I'm reading at the moment has our future society having implemented an "eye for an eye" policy with regards to capital crimes.  So, if you kill a person with two shots to the chest and then one to the stomach, leaving them to bleed out...you get the same exact shots, then get left to bleed out.  Run over someone with a car?  You get run over with a car.  Rape a person before you murder them?  You get raped before you're killed the same way.

I'm in favor of that.  Talk about a deterrent.

No, I have no problem with the death penalty.  The only problem I have is with using the death penalty without IRREFUTABLE evidence...video, dozens of close witnesses without any contradictions, an in-court confession (none of that signed statement bullshiat), etc.  There are too many false convictions based on circumstantial and eyewitness testimony and he-said-she-said nonsense to impose death without better evidence.
 
2014-01-17 10:13:56 PM

miss diminutive: That Guy Jeff: then why not firing squads?

As previously mentioned, it takes a tremendous toll on the executioners. Now, if they designed robots to fire the guns, then that wouldn't be an issue.

/don't support the death penalty
//just sayin


Not trying to troll --- but why not?
Mutherfarker kills a family  member and he gets life at 10's of thousands of dollars per year!?
Kill him. Get him off the payroll. Murdering SOB

/again not trolling.
 
2014-01-17 10:14:05 PM
Lets just not give them flu shots!

or maybe it's give them flu shots....

which ones bad again? I can't keep up...
 
2014-01-17 10:14:58 PM

miss diminutive: [imageshack.com image 635x345]

Would you like to know more?


In fairness, dude would have a far less painful death than that poor bastard in Ohio.

/seriously contemplating a relocation to Toronto, manufacturing is in just as much of a glut for skilled workers there as Minneapolis, at least from what I've heard.
 
2014-01-17 10:15:22 PM
Since the death penalty will never be abolished in the US, and since the only execution methods which are currently or will ever be available are specifically designed to be neither quick nor painless, why not just have death row inmates be burned at the stake?

I guarantee the current USSC lineup would rule it (5-4, of course) to be hunky-dory since it isn't both cruel AND unusual -- it is sufficiently "usual" that there is a term for that method of execution.
 
2014-01-17 10:15:33 PM

TheWhoppah: hoodiowithtudio: Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.

[memecrunch.com image 625x770]


Execution should be incredibly painful because we shouldn't be executing anyone that doesn't deserve an incredibly painful death.  Making it painless just would just serve to assuage our collective guilt if we execute the wrong person.  Screw that!  If we execute the wrong person we should feel horrible about it.  We should be AFRAID of executing the wrong person.  We should be DAMN SURE we got the right guy before we execute him and the way to do that is to make it a horrible painful spectacle... like a piranha tank!


NOW I know why I had you farkied as sociopath.
 
2014-01-17 10:15:46 PM
Build a 50m high wall around 100 sq miles of nuclear test ground and let them fend for themselves.
 
2014-01-17 10:15:53 PM
Headso:good enough for a person convicted of murder who was too poor to afford anything but a public defender.

Stop living in the past.  Have you ever heard that it costs a million dollars to execute someone?  Do you know why?  Do you suppose they just drop a pallet of money on the condemned man's head?
www.rawstory.com
No, the reason it costs a million dollars is because people facing the death penalty don't get just any old overworked public defender.  They don't get a tax lawyer or real-estate attorney either.  When the death penalty is involved you get a criminal law specialist that has to be specifically qualified for death penalty cases AND has agreed to take such cases.  The attorney is given any resources required to prepare the defense including investigators, access to private forensic lab testing to double-check the claims from the government lab, psychologists, criminologists or whatever expert witness is reasonably necessary.  Then, if convicted and sentenced to die, the defendant gets automatic appeals paid for by the State and the appeals go up through the state system and then through the federal system.
 
2014-01-17 10:16:28 PM

jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.

What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.

After the invention of long-drop hanging and the guillotine, nothing that has been done to make execution more humane has been any real improvement. The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.
Anyway, the idea shouldn't be to make the DP more humane. We are KILLING PEOPLE.
Can we please stop bullshiating ourslves about what it is we are doing?
We should do it on prime time TV, too. early enough that children will be watching. There's hardly any point if we don't have our kids watch, and benefit from the important moral lesson we are providing them.


Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..
/Do not want.
 
2014-01-17 10:16:42 PM
Would a guillotine not be the most humane execution?
 
2014-01-17 10:16:47 PM

jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?


Hey now. It worked for the bankers didn't it?
 
2014-01-17 10:17:15 PM
Other than the mess why can't we have some sort of chair and harness we can strap the condemned to that lines up a perfect shot to the brain. The whole point of firing squads is you throw a couple blanks in so nobody knows who killed the person. But it wouldn't be too hard to rig something up that lines the shot up perfectly and can be triggered at the push of a button.
 
2014-01-17 10:17:19 PM

jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.

What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.

After the invention of long-drop hanging and the guillotine, nothing that has been done to make execution more humane has been any real improvement. The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.
Anyway, the idea shouldn't be to make the DP more humane. We are KILLING PEOPLE.
Can we please stop bullshiating ourslves about what it is we are doing?
We should do it on prime time TV, too. early enough that children will be watching. There's hardly any point if we don't have our kids watch, and benefit from the important moral lesson we are providing them.


While I support the DP I think its retarded that we try and pretend its better to invent new machines to do it or X method is more or less cruel than Y method short of something intentionally slow and painful like crucifiction.
 
2014-01-17 10:17:30 PM

bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.


Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.
 
2014-01-17 10:18:35 PM

noblewolf: debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.

I prefer the victims family gets to choose...


This mental exercise is always entertaining, and in no way repetitive or predictable.

/"Why a spoon?"
/"Because it'll hurt more, you twit!"
 
2014-01-17 10:19:10 PM

GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.


Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.
 
2014-01-17 10:19:24 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Damn, that was beautifully said, and so true and more people should realize that.


Damn right, I do have to tip my fedora to that.

/worked as a PI for attorneys, earned the fedora
 
2014-01-17 10:19:32 PM

doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.


Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.
 
2014-01-17 10:19:48 PM

JRoo: White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.

Helium would be funnier.



Warden :  "Do you have any last words?"

The Condemned :  "This house is clean."
 
2014-01-17 10:19:51 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: And depending on the son-to-be-deceased


Is that a "dog whistle" kinda thing?
 
2014-01-17 10:19:58 PM

bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.


theinfosphere.org
 
2014-01-17 10:20:26 PM

jso2897: The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.


What we need is some redundancy in the system.  Put them in the electric chairs, give them lethal injection and shoot them in an oxygen-less room all at the same time.

Sell videotapes

Profit?
 
2014-01-17 10:20:28 PM
Mercutio74:  I would prefer not to do the stupid thing where they shoot you in the heart...  shotgun at close range through the brain pan would be best.
You call it capital punishment, I call that my retirement plan.
 
2014-01-17 10:20:31 PM

DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.


Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.
 
2014-01-17 10:20:51 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.

What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.

After the invention of long-drop hanging and the guillotine, nothing that has been done to make execution more humane has been any real improvement. The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.
Anyway, the idea shouldn't be to make the DP more humane. We are KILLING PEOPLE.
Can we please stop bullshiating ourslves about what it is we are doing?
We should do it on prime time TV, too. early enough that children will be watching. There's hardly any point if we don't have our kids watch, and benefit from the important moral lesson we are providing them.

Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..
/Do not want.


What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.
 
2014-01-17 10:21:24 PM

bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.


Maybe we could make those robotic weapons controls available to kids playing xbox or their ps4 for a fee of course cause yea it's America and someones gotta make money
 
2014-01-17 10:22:00 PM
Read the story sure that Utah was one of the states.  Surprised, mostly because when Utah put the first dude to resume America's love affair with the death penalty, they did it by firing squad.

Missouri's bill allows a state official to select "a five-person firing squad consisting of licensed peace officers" to serve on the firing squad.  Why do they have to restrict it to cops?  Why can't John Q. Public have some fun?
 
2014-01-17 10:22:10 PM
Toss 'em out of an airplane with no parachute.  Death would come quickly so there wouldn't be a lot of pain but there would be a couple of minutes of mental anguish on the way down.
 
2014-01-17 10:22:38 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Maybe we could make those robotic weapons controls available to kids playing xbox or their ps4 for a fee of course cause yea it's America and someones gotta make money


It'd like Ender's Game but with hormonal and biatchy preteens.
 
2014-01-17 10:22:45 PM

gfid: jso2897: The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.

What we need is some redundancy in the system.  Put them in the electric chairs, give them lethal injection and shoot them in an oxygen-less room all at the same time.

Sell videotapes

Profit?


We could make it a reality show, and call it "American Rasputin".
 
2014-01-17 10:22:57 PM

Odoriferous Queef: miss diminutive: That Guy Jeff: then why not firing squads?

As previously mentioned, it takes a tremendous toll on the executioners. Now, if they designed robots to fire the guns, then that wouldn't be an issue.

/don't support the death penalty
//just sayin

Not trying to troll --- but why not?
Mutherfarker kills a family  member and he gets life at 10's of thousands of dollars per year!?
Kill him. Get him off the payroll. Murdering SOB

/again not trolling.


1) it's not a deterrent
2) There's a chance (and depending on the race, religion and socio-economic status of the convicted - a higher chance) of executing an innocent person
3) All the appeals and legal fees don't make execution all that cheaper than incarceration (depending on the length of time and age of the convicted, of course)
4) I don't feel the state has the right to end the life of one of its citizens

I get the emotional aspect, though. If someone murdered a member of my family or a close friend I'd want to see them dead too. Which is why I shouldn't be the one to make the decision.
 
2014-01-17 10:23:28 PM

jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.


And you are exactly the kind of guy I would hate to see in office for that sentiment.

/Never worked any death penalty cases, but having worked CI cases you would have been an absolute nightmare
//Worked enough CI cases to know that you farkers do it for political reasons
///Fark you
 
2014-01-17 10:23:38 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.


Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.
 
2014-01-17 10:24:42 PM

TheWhoppah: Toss 'em out of an airplane with no parachute.  Death would come quickly so there wouldn't be a lot of pain but there would be a couple of minutes of mental anguish on the way down.


People have lived through that.  What do you do then, scrape up what's left, take them back up and toss 'em out again?
 
2014-01-17 10:24:50 PM

jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.


You'd make a perfect Army grunt.
 
2014-01-17 10:24:53 PM
The number of sociopaths in this thread is somewhat unnerving.
 
2014-01-17 10:24:57 PM
Why? Why should the state be in the business of killing its citizens.  It costs more that life imprisonment (Fox News). It does not give closure (Washington Post). In fact, "closure" is a made up term, an "empirically dubious concepts" (Susan Bandes,  University of Chicago Law School). Wouldn't it be simpler to just assert that killing is wrong?
 
2014-01-17 10:25:08 PM

miss diminutive: That Guy Jeff: then why not firing squads?

As previously mentioned, it takes a tremendous toll on the executioners. Now, if they designed robots to fire the guns, then that wouldn't be an issue.

/don't support the death penalty
//just sayin


Hrm. Too bad I moved out of Texas - that sounds like an excellent weekend project! It's not like it would be hard to make a machine fire a gun periodically under certain circumstances...
 
2014-01-17 10:25:15 PM
Shoot straight you bastards! Don't make a mess of it!
 
2014-01-17 10:25:22 PM

TheWhoppah: Headso:good enough for a person convicted of murder who was too poor to afford anything but a public defender.

Stop living in the past.  Have you ever heard that it costs a million dollars to execute someone?  Do you know why?  Do you suppose they just drop a pallet of money on the condemned man's head?
[www.rawstory.com image 300x200]
No, the reason it costs a million dollars is because people facing the death penalty don't get just any old overworked public defender.  They don't get a tax lawyer or real-estate attorney either.  When the death penalty is involved you get a criminal law specialist that has to be specifically qualified for death penalty cases AND has agreed to take such cases.  The attorney is given any resources required to prepare the defense including investigators, access to private forensic lab testing to double-check the claims from the government lab, psychologists, criminologists or whatever expert witness is reasonably necessary.  Then, if convicted and sentenced to die, the defendant gets automatic appeals paid for by the State and the appeals go up through the state system and then through the federal system.


Well it's nice that you have full faith in the government to do things properly to the point that you let them kill American citizens but my faith in them stops at handing out social services to poor people. I don't believe this is one area of life where money has no impact on the outcome, considering the demographics of the people killed by the state that seems to be true.
 
2014-01-17 10:25:26 PM

DubtodaIll: Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.

Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.


And preventing such crap from happening is how we progress as a society.

Read the Ender series again, how did that turn out for Ender?
 
2014-01-17 10:26:08 PM

Mugato: The number of sociopaths in this thread is somewhat unnerving.


They're all so very tough.
 
2014-01-17 10:26:18 PM

insertsnarkyusername: Other than the mess why can't we have some sort of chair and harness we can strap the condemned to that lines up a perfect shot to the brain. The whole point of firing squads is you throw a couple blanks in so nobody knows who killed the person. But it wouldn't be too hard to rig something up that lines the shot up perfectly and can be triggered at the push of a button.


Someone has to push the button. Your system would have to have 4 or 5 buttons (one real and the rest duds) and 4 or 5 people to press those buttons in unison.

And then you're back at Square One, only with the added cost of setting up a button-activated bullet-firing machine to replace the already-bought-and-paid-for rifles.
 
2014-01-17 10:26:30 PM
Hanging is more humane as at the instant of drop, the cervical spine snaps causing the spinal cord to sever and the death be instantaneous so it meets the supreme court's admonition that the means of execution be not cruel and it will meet the court's rule that it not be unusual as hanging is done around the world.  So there you go...neither cruel nor unusual...done in one!
 
2014-01-17 10:26:37 PM

theknuckler_33: Frankly, I think I'd take firing squad over lethal injection.

/for me, personally


There is a lot of maneuvering around by the firing squad and other officials that would tend to unnerve one in the final minutes. YouTube has several versions of the execution of German General Anton Dostler in 1946 by US Army firing squad. (Definitely NOT safe for work or the queasy...search for and watch at your own risk.)

As for me, if we are to retain capitol punishment, let's find out what the Chinese use in their organ harvesting wagons. No sense in wasting potentially good organs for the thousands that need transplants by blowing big holes in the convicted, or stretching their necks, poisoning their organs with poisonous gas, of deep-fat frying them. Know what I mean, man?
 
2014-01-17 10:27:00 PM

jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.


Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.
 
2014-01-17 10:27:11 PM

DubtodaIll: Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.

Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.


True, I'm just giving the primary reason as to why firing squads aren't used anymore.  Imagine signing up for something where all your told is that your going to kill terrorists and then find out you've killed hundreds of innocent civilians.  That would hit me pretty hard IMO.
 
2014-01-17 10:27:13 PM
Why not a 100 ton press?  The condemned will be mashed to jelly before they can register any pain.

Unless they're Terminators.


/ then fark 'em.
 
2014-01-17 10:27:29 PM

GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.


Not necessarily. Robots on Mars can drive by themselves, a robotic gun can shoot by it self. Though, I'm not sure how many people would be comfortable with that. Still, it'd be fairly simple to distinguish between the guards and the prisoner. There are a number of ways you could automate the process. Again though, the biggest problem would be the comfort zone with giving a robot the ability to fire on its own.

If you aren't comfortable doing that though, you could put three people in a room. Have them all press the button, there would be no way to tell which one pressed the button.
 
2014-01-17 10:27:39 PM

iq_in_binary: jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.

And you are exactly the kind of guy I would hate to see in office for that sentiment.

/Never worked any death penalty cases, but having worked CI cases you would have been an absolute nightmare
//Worked enough CI cases to know that you farkers do it for political reasons
///Fark you


If I wa ere arrogant enough to imagine that I actually knew anything about you, who you are, or what you believe, I probably wouldn't like you either. So neener, neener, neener.
Also dirty words to sound tough.
 
2014-01-17 10:27:47 PM
In India, the Brits would tie the perp to the barrel of a cannon then fire it. Alternatively, guilty party dies in exactly the same manner as the victim. An eye for an eye, as in The Bible.
 
2014-01-17 10:27:53 PM

iq_in_binary: DubtodaIll: Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.

Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.

And preventing such crap from happening is how we progress as a society.

Read the Ender series again, how did that turn out for Ender?


You really think there's anything we can ever do to escape from the darkest parts of our nature? Best we can do it seek justice and balance. And yes, taking the life of someone who has taken a life in cold blood is balance.
 
2014-01-17 10:27:58 PM

GrailOfThunder: TheWhoppah: Toss 'em out of an airplane with no parachute.  Death would come quickly so there wouldn't be a lot of pain but there would be a couple of minutes of mental anguish on the way down.

People have lived through that.  What do you do then, scrape up what's left, take them back up and toss 'em out again?


Or just leave them to die of exposure.  They prolly ain't walkin' too far.
 
2014-01-17 10:28:37 PM
static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-01-17 10:28:51 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.

You'd make a perfect Army grunt.


You'd make a perfect hat-check clerk at an ice rink.
 
2014-01-17 10:29:32 PM

King Something: Since the death penalty will never be abolished in the US, and since the only execution methods which are currently or will ever be available are specifically designed to be neither quick nor painless, why not just have death row inmates be burned at the stake?

I guarantee the current USSC lineup would rule it (5-4, of course) to be hunky-dory since it isn't both cruel AND unusual -- it is sufficiently "usual" that there is a term for that method of execution.


But then the EPA would step in and some dickless bureaucrat would step in and the fines would be a killer.

media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-17 10:29:35 PM

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n _1 507003.html
 
2014-01-17 10:30:44 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Benevolent Misanthrope: And depending on the son-to-be-deceased

Is that a "dog whistle" kinda thing?


Crap.  Typo.  SOON-to-be-deceased.
 
2014-01-17 10:30:44 PM

jso2897: What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.


Well the show Cops and America Most Wanted were a bit scary to me. Public executions on tv with networks trying to get you to watch their live coverage, way overboard and well Texas is a good example of why we shouldn't have a death penalty.
 
2014-01-17 10:30:53 PM

Poutine Breath: An eye for an eye, as in The Bible.


We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we are inclined to say: 'It serves him right.' That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless. - Mr. Graham, Canadian House of Parliament 1914
 
2014-01-17 10:31:07 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.

You'd make a perfect Army grunt.

You'd make a perfect hat-check clerk at an ice rink.


uh... o... okay...
 
2014-01-17 10:31:43 PM
What Would Jesus Do?
 
2014-01-17 10:32:14 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Well the show Cops and America Most Wanted were a bit scary to me. Public executions on tv with networks trying to get you to watch their live coverage, way overboard and well Texas is a good example of why we shouldn't have a death penalty.


Reality TV replaced public executions.
 
2014-01-17 10:33:57 PM

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.


Not relevant. I am talking about the conscious pushing forward of executions in order to obtain political capitol and curry public favor.
We already know that if we execute people, a few innocent people will die - it is collateral damage. It's part of the package.
 
2014-01-17 10:34:13 PM

Oldiron_79: Hanging is probably the cheapest. About 6 feet of rope is what a buck maybe 2.

It was the prefered way of eleminating top Gnatzis after the war.


What kind of sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that the convicted Nazi war criminals were hanged by the best of the best executioners, giving them basically the cleanest death that can be arranged under the circumstances, but 70 years later some guy in Texas (that nobody is even sure did anything) gets a needle stuck in his arm and a dose of whatever cocktail the state managed to procure from drug companies.

I'm not a proponent of capital punishment to begin with, but it's in an incredibly farked up state in the US.
 
2014-01-17 10:35:02 PM

BlackMtnMan: Just wrap a few sticks of dynamite around their head, and light 'em off....Guarantee it would be so fast, no pain..


While we're at it, let's remove the dividing glass separating the defendant from the witnesses and put up a 'Splash Zone' sign for
the first couple of rows...

:)
 
2014-01-17 10:35:08 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.

You'd make a perfect Army grunt.

You'd make a perfect hat-check clerk at an ice rink.

uh... o... okay...


Made as much sense as what you said, and had as much basis in fact. :D
 
2014-01-17 10:35:17 PM
Either use nitrogen asphyxiation or dope up the condemned to the point where he doesn't know and doesn't care where he is then put him in front of a firing squad or in a guillotine.
 
2014-01-17 10:35:49 PM

DubtodaIll: And yes, taking the life of someone who has taken a life in cold blood is balance.


Strapping someone to a gurney or chair and killing them is pre-meditated murder, there's no way around it. So that is balance I guess, if we want the State to be no better than the accused.
 
2014-01-17 10:35:53 PM

BigLuca: Oldiron_79: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

Yup that was the beef with firing squads.

Long drop hangings are probably the most humane method ever devised your brain stem is severed between the skull and C1 you are out like a light switch before you even know you hit bottom. They largely went out of style because hanging was prefered method in lynchings also an improper non drop hanging where a person is choked out is not paticularly humane.

Sometimes it's hard to calculate the drop necessary or weight needed to add.  Too little and the prisoner strangles to death, too much and the head comes off.


Well that may have been an issue in the 1800s when some illitterate cleetus with no info on what was needed was winging it but there are plenty of charts on how much weight and drop are proper since like before 1900.

Hell Wiki even has the British Official table of drops including both the 1888-1913 one and the post 1913

14 stone hangee gets 5'5" on post 1913 or 8' on pre 1913

8 stone hangee gets 8' on post 1913 or 10' on pre 1913

Etc
 
2014-01-17 10:35:58 PM
If they would ever televise it then I think my favorite method of execution would be by Phalanx CIWS.
 
2014-01-17 10:36:43 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n _1 507003.html


Yeah OK maybe.  Deluna is one that might have been actually innocent.  How did you get that?  Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.  Texas has instituted a bunch of reforms since DeLuna though... I doubt that could happen today.
 
2014-01-17 10:37:12 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.

You'd make a perfect Army grunt.

You'd make a perfect hat-check clerk at an ice rink.

uh... o... okay...

Made as much sense as what you said, and had as much basis in fact. :D


I like you.
 
2014-01-17 10:37:40 PM

GrailOfThunder: TheWhoppah: Toss 'em out of an airplane with no parachute.  Death would come quickly so there wouldn't be a lot of pain but there would be a couple of minutes of mental anguish on the way down.

People have lived through that.  What do you do then, scrape up what's left, take them back up and toss 'em out again?


Actually, in that case the idea would be to just leave them there. The general majority of people who've fallen out of an airplane with no parachute and lived to tell the tale had been medevac'd from the landing site and taken to a hospital.

If you try to execute a prisoner this way and he survives the fall/sudden stop, then exposure to the elements, gangrene and/or hungry bears would finish the job. Or if the drop is done over the ocean and the prisoner survives the impact, then hypothermia, drowning or sharks would get the credit.

/per my earlier post that SCOTUS would give the 5-4 okay to burning at the stake, they probably would rule 9-0 that this method isn't kosher since it's both cruel and unusual
 
2014-01-17 10:38:34 PM

miss diminutive: Odoriferous Queef: miss diminutive: That Guy Jeff: then why not firing squads?

As previously mentioned, it takes a tremendous toll on the executioners. Now, if they designed robots to fire the guns, then that wouldn't be an issue.

/don't support the death penalty
//just sayin

Not trying to troll --- but why not?
Mutherfarker kills a family  member and he gets life at 10's of thousands of dollars per year!?
Kill him. Get him off the payroll. Murdering SOB

/again not trolling.

1) it's not a deterrent
2) There's a chance (and depending on the race, religion and socio-economic status of the convicted - a higher chance) of executing an innocent person
3) All the appeals and legal fees don't make execution all that cheaper than incarceration (depending on the length of time and age of the convicted, of course)
4) I don't feel the state has the right to end the life of one of its citizens

I get the emotional aspect, though. If someone murdered a member of my family or a close friend I'd want to see them dead too. Which is why I shouldn't be the one to make the decision.


What we will do is take a poll and everyone who is against the death penalty can pay for the murder's  incarnation.
All of us for the death penalty will pay for the bullet.

Problem solved.

/Game set match.
 
2014-01-17 10:38:38 PM

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n _1 507003.html

Yeah OK maybe.  Deluna is one that might have been actually innocent.  How did you get that?  Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.  Texas has instituted a bunch of reforms since DeLuna though... I doubt that could happen today.


So sad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States
 
2014-01-17 10:38:48 PM

TheWhoppah: Toss 'em out of an airplane with no parachute.  Death would come quickly so there wouldn't be a lot of pain but there would be a couple of minutes of mental anguish on the way down.


I bet Taco Bell would be all over that as an advertiser.
 
2014-01-17 10:39:51 PM

Mugato: DubtodaIll: And yes, taking the life of someone who has taken a life in cold blood is balance.

Strapping someone to a gurney or chair and killing them is pre-meditated murder, there's no way around it. So that is balance I guess, if we want the State to be no better than the accused.


It's not a stretch that the state isn't better than the accused in a number of cases. Humans are noble when they can afford to be. We're downright nasty when we need to be, and dealing with murderers is a nasty business. I think the fact that we have large scale complex debate on the subject at all goes to show the "progression of society" that seems to be so important. It certainly is a recent development that there would be a long drawn out process to decide whether to end a murderers life or not. It's not like we're running out of people on Earth anyway.
 
2014-01-17 10:40:41 PM

doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.


I like this
 
2014-01-17 10:41:52 PM

MFAWG: I think the states should consider allowing people to bid to be on the firing squads.


Your one handed typing is impressive, but consider counseling.
 
2014-01-17 10:41:59 PM

jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

Not relevant. I am talking about the conscious pushing forward of executions in order to obtain political capitol and curry public favor.
We already know that if we execute people, a few innocent people will die - it is collateral damage. It's part of the package.


So you were accusing Texas without any facts to back up your accusation?  Can we get the [IRONIC] tag on your last post?  At least Everybody Poops had an answer.
 
2014-01-17 10:42:17 PM
Wow.  Bunch of big-talking state-sponsored murder nuts in this thread.
 
2014-01-17 10:42:28 PM

Poutine Breath: An eye for an eye, as in The Bible  the Code of Hammurabi.


Where do you think God got that idea from?
 
2014-01-17 10:43:25 PM

red5ish: What Would Jesus Do?


Kill them all and let his daddy sort them out?

I don't really know, I'm just making a wild guess.
 
2014-01-17 10:43:37 PM
pissnmoan: I'm generally opposed to the death penalty but I have to admit there are times when I don't oppose it.  Life without parole is far more miserable punishment than death.

Not necessarily. I have a cousin who served 30 years for 1st degree before being paroled 2 years ago, largely at the request of his brother, who now employs him. "John" hated prison, but has really struggled with life outside. If it weren't for the sex and the booze I honestly think he'd rather be back in...no job worries, no rent to make, none of the monitoring BS. Just three squares and a cot, with plenty of unstructured exercise in the yard, lots of time to play cards, read or watch TV.
 
2014-01-17 10:43:43 PM

DubtodaIll: iq_in_binary: DubtodaIll: Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.

Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.

And preventing such crap from happening is how we progress as a society.

Read the Ender series again, how did that turn out for Ender?

You really think there's anything we can ever do to escape from the darkest parts of our nature? Best we can do it seek justice and balance. And yes, taking the life of someone who has taken a life in cold blood is balance.


I've actually had a few successes. Several of them close relation. I got fired from my last job because of my successful lobbying for Obama. My ultimate higher ups were not happy to hear I made $400 on the election on intrade. I made them hundreds of thousands but they were happy to fire me over his winning. Laid off the whole trail of temps actually, the day before thanksgiving. Yeah, fark you all. And yet, I'm well employed now
 
2014-01-17 10:43:48 PM
Gun lust. And Missouri thinks of itself as pro-life.
 
2014-01-17 10:43:57 PM

Oldiron_79: BigLuca: Oldiron_79: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

Yup that was the beef with firing squads.

Long drop hangings are probably the most humane method ever devised your brain stem is severed between the skull and C1 you are out like a light switch before you even know you hit bottom. They largely went out of style because hanging was prefered method in lynchings also an improper non drop hanging where a person is choked out is not paticularly humane.

Sometimes it's hard to calculate the drop necessary or weight needed to add.  Too little and the prisoner strangles to death, too much and the head comes off.

Well that may have been an issue in the 1800s when some illitterate cleetus with no info on what was needed was winging it but there are plenty of charts on how much weight and drop are proper since like before 1900.

Hell Wiki even has the British Official table of drops including both the 1888-1913 one and the post 1913

14 stone hangee gets 5'5" on post 1913 or 8' on pre 1913

8 stone hangee gets 8' on post 1913 or 10' on pre 1913

Etc


If I were going to be executed, I would choose long-drop over any method I know of. Lethal injection seems to be barely disguised torure, and thee electric hair and gas are far worse. Shooting and beheading are not instantaneous.
With log-drop, death actually takes a few minutes - but uncosciousness is instantaneous if it is successful (botched, of course, any method can be horrific).
I mean, this is all based on the premise that we are going to be executing people - killing them. It's what it is, and if you don't like it, don't advocate doing it.
 
2014-01-17 10:44:04 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: So sad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States


The basic question-does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants "deserve" to die?-cannot be answered in the affirmative. It is not simply that this Court has allowed vague aggravating circumstances to be employed, relevant mitigating evidence to be disregarded, and vital judicial review to be blocked. The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution. - Justice Blackmun, Callins v. Collins, 1994

I'm pulling these quotes from this post, which is a reply to the standard "well they did something heinous" defense of the death penalty. I'm not a lawyer, but I find this gentlemen's arguments reasonable and insightful.
 
2014-01-17 10:44:42 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n _1 507003.html

Yeah OK maybe.  Deluna is one that might have been actually innocent.  How did you get that?  Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.  Texas has instituted a bunch of reforms since DeLuna though... I doubt that could happen today.

So sad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States


Yeah, thanks but any list that starts with Cameron Todd Willingham is complete bullshiat.
 
2014-01-17 10:44:49 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.

You'd make a perfect Army grunt.

You'd make a perfect hat-check clerk at an ice rink.

uh... o... okay...

Made as much sense as what you said, and had as much basis in fact. :D

I like you.


Let's not go crazy here.
 
2014-01-17 10:45:06 PM

costermonger: Oldiron_79: Hanging is probably the cheapest. About 6 feet of rope is what a buck maybe 2.

It was the prefered way of eleminating top Gnatzis after the war.

What kind of sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that the convicted Nazi war criminals were hanged by the best of the best executioners, giving them basically the cleanest death that can be arranged under the circumstances, but 70 years later some guy in Texas (that nobody is even sure did anything) gets a needle stuck in his arm and a dose of whatever cocktail the state managed to procure from drug companies.

I'm not a proponent of capital punishment to begin with, but it's in an incredibly farked up state in the US.


Yeah I was disappoint when the video of Saddam's execution was leaked and it was obvious that his executioner was skilled. You can hear his neck snap like a twig when he hits bottom so he never even realized he hit bottom. I was hoping a war criminal that gassed his own people would choke and do the hangmans dance
 
2014-01-17 10:45:59 PM

JRoo: White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.

Helium would be funnier.


I'd go out yelling "What a world!..What a world!" at the top of my shrill witchiest voice.

They'd have nightmares for years.
 
2014-01-17 10:47:13 PM

jso2897: Lethal injection seems to be barely disguised torure, and thee electric hair and gas are far worse.


holisticmindtherapies.com
 
2014-01-17 10:47:45 PM
If I had a choice, from what I have heard, I would choose firing squad or freezing to death. But that is just what I have heard. It seems those five to seven large caliber bullets really do the trick.
 
2014-01-17 10:48:18 PM

fusillade762: debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.

How much does being chased to death by naked female roller skaters cost?


You know, Coke Zero really hurts when it's snorted out the nose.
 
2014-01-17 10:48:43 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Almost Everybody Poops: So sad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States

The basic question-does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants "deserve" to die?-cannot be answered in the affirmative. It is not simply that this Court has allowed vague aggravating circumstances to be employed, relevant mitigating evidence to be disregarded, and vital judicial review to be blocked. The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution. - Justice Blackmun, Callins v. Collins, 1994

I'm pulling these quotes from this post, which is a reply to the standard "well they did something heinous" defense of the death penalty. I'm not a lawyer, but I find this gentlemen's arguments reasonable and insightful.


I'm mostly anti-death penalty but I agree that it is up to opinion on whether or not they "deserve" it.  For example would it be better for Ted Bundy to spend life in prison on the taxpayers' dime rather than execute him? I'll read your links since you tend to have interesting and informative sources.
 
2014-01-17 10:48:48 PM
the legal system is basically a gym where wealth inequality works out.
 
2014-01-17 10:48:52 PM
I fully support the right to choose one's method of execution to the point I believe most people would choose execution absent conviction of anything, which would solve many, many problems,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLctf4o6feQ&feature=youtube_gdata_pla ye r

NSFW
 
2014-01-17 10:49:43 PM
In other words we're becoming more like China everyday and they more like us
 
2014-01-17 10:50:22 PM

TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

Not relevant. I am talking about the conscious pushing forward of executions in order to obtain political capitol and curry public favor.
We already know that if we execute people, a few innocent people will die - it is collateral damage. It's part of the package.

So you were accusing Texas without any facts to back up your accusation?  Can we get the [IRONIC] tag on your last post?  At least Everybody Poops had an answer.


I don't really know what the fark you are talking about. I accused no one of anything. Tin-foil-hat maggie made some remark about executions being used as a bread and circuses type spectacle to garner favor with the populace, and I made the refernce to Texas as an example of where we might be heading in that regard. I myself never asserted that Texas has executed anybody innocent (does anyone really think they never have?) and it is not germaine or relevant to what I was saying.
Get it?
 
2014-01-17 10:50:23 PM

TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.


That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.
 
2014-01-17 10:50:30 PM

TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

Not relevant. I am talking about the conscious pushing forward of executions in order to obtain political capitol and curry public favor.
We already know that if we execute people, a few innocent people will die - it is collateral damage. It's part of the package.

So you were accusing Texas without any facts to back up your accusation?  Can we get the [IRONIC] tag on your last post?  At least Everybody Poops had an answer.


TIL any list starting out with something you disagree with automatically nullifies every source.

Do me a favor and argue about the others as well, else you're just moving the goalposts.
 
2014-01-17 10:50:59 PM
After all, we have plenty of guns now.

My how we've grown as a nation.

Gary Gilmore would be proud.
 
2014-01-17 10:51:07 PM

Mensan: I am surprised by the number of Farkers who would like to be hung. I already am.


It's because the majority of Farkers are not well-hung already, you see.
 
2014-01-17 10:51:32 PM

TheWhoppah: jso2897: Lethal injection seems to be barely disguised torure, and thee electric hair and gas are far worse.

[holisticmindtherapies.com image 193x167]


And the electric gas is REALLY bad.
 
2014-01-17 10:51:54 PM

TheWhoppah: Yeah, thanks but any list that starts with Cameron Todd Willingham is complete bullshiat.


Meant my above reply to be to this post.
 
2014-01-17 10:52:13 PM

iq_in_binary: DubtodaIll: iq_in_binary: DubtodaIll: Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.

Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.

And preventing such crap from happening is how we progress as a society.

Read the Ender series again, how did that turn out for Ender?

You really think there's anything we can ever do to escape from the darkest parts of our nature? Best we can do it seek justice and balance. And yes, taking the life of someone who has taken a life in cold blood is balance.

I've actually had a few successes. Several of them close relation. I got fired from my last job because of my successful lobbying for Obama. My ultimate higher ups were not happy to hear I made $400 on the election on intrade. I made them hundreds of thousands but they were happy to fire me over his winning. Laid off the whole trail of temps actually, the day before thanksgiving. Yeah, fark you all. And yet, I'm well employed now


Sounds like you didn't like it there anyway. A bit of a non-sequitur though so I'm at a loss for what the point of being fired for gambling on an election and then probably blabbing about it to everyone including strangers debating the morality of state executions.
 
2014-01-17 10:52:23 PM

noblewolf: debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.

I prefer the victims family gets to choose...


I think the victim's family should have nothing to do with the trial, sentencing, or execution. Court should be about justice and law, not retribution and revenge. The victim's family should be banned from being involved with cases, talking about them on the news, whatever. Let's at least pretend like we've advanced a little beyond monkeys and keep bullshiat emotions out of this.
 
2014-01-17 10:52:42 PM
Use a steam roller.  It is basically impossible to botch and infinitely reusable.

www.designer-daily.com
 
2014-01-17 10:52:51 PM
Why not go full on Thai-style firing squad while we're at it? Oh, you're not familiar? Well:
The prisoner to be executed was tied to a wooden cross, hands pinned in a prayerful position (wai), and facing a wall; behind him (or occasionally, as in today's post, her), a screen; behind the screen... a mounted automatic rifle that would discharge a burst of up to 15 bullets into the vicinity of the heart, generally terminating life immediately.

Bolded because it didn't work one time. You can read all the gory details here (consider it NSFW to be safe).
 
2014-01-17 10:52:53 PM
We should wait til we get 12 guys on death row and give 'em skates, a grenade puck and hockey stycx with razors in the blade and throw 'em on the ice rink.

We could call it "Sudden Death Overtime Penalty"
 
2014-01-17 10:53:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.

How much does being chased to death by naked female roller skaters cost?

You know, Coke Zero really hurts when it's snorted out the nose.


Don't drink soda but damn I had forgotten about that.
 
2014-01-17 10:53:55 PM

TheWhoppah: Use a steam roller.  It is basically impossible to botch and infinitely reusable.

[www.designer-daily.com image 450x342]


I think you'd really want to go head first, tho. Quicker.
 
2014-01-17 10:54:06 PM
The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.
 
2014-01-17 10:54:44 PM

tonguedepressor: We should wait til we get 12 guys on death row and give 'em skates, a grenade puck and hockey stycx with razors in the blade and throw 'em on the ice rink.

We could call it "Sudden Death Overtime Penalty"


BONUS MURDER!
 
2014-01-17 10:54:54 PM

C18H27NO3: In 2014 you'd think we'd have devised some way of snuffing someone out instantly.
Kind of dated but what about those machines that jam a bolt into steak's heads? That seems pretty instantaneous.


It's a solvable problem but there is very little overlap between the people who could come up with such a method and those who would make use of it.

AgentPothead: The for profit prison system is disgusting and the United States should be ashamed with itself.


It is and it should be eliminated (executed?) but it seems like the death penalty would be something the for-profits would be against since it eliminates a lifelong payment source. Maybe if they made the price to perform an execution great than that charged for the day to day cost over the expected life of the prisoner. As far as I know executions currently are still all performed by the state rather than a contractor.
 
2014-01-17 10:55:45 PM
I'm in favor of mirror execution.

Rape and stab someone (like the recent Ohio guy), you get a broomhandle to the ass and stabbed until you die.

However, with the world today, killers don't fear death and end up killing themselves.  They don't want to rot in prison, and they don't want to wait until they're an old man to die, they just do it immediately.
 
2014-01-17 10:56:33 PM

serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.


By the way, Founding Fathers, old chums - how the f**k are we supposed to forge law out of subjective terms like "cruel" or "unusual"?
 
2014-01-17 10:57:06 PM

MemeSlave: Shoot straight you bastards! Don't make a mess of it!


I came here to say this, but now everything is ok.
 
2014-01-17 10:57:49 PM

jso2897: Oldiron_79: BigLuca: Oldiron_79: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

Yup that was the beef with firing squads.

Long drop hangings are probably the most humane method ever devised your brain stem is severed between the skull and C1 you are out like a light switch before you even know you hit bottom. They largely went out of style because hanging was prefered method in lynchings also an improper non drop hanging where a person is choked out is not paticularly humane.

Sometimes it's hard to calculate the drop necessary or weight needed to add.  Too little and the prisoner strangles to death, too much and the head comes off.

Well that may have been an issue in the 1800s when some illitterate cleetus with no info on what was needed was winging it but there are plenty of charts on how much weight and drop are proper since like before 1900.

Hell Wiki even has the British Official table of drops including both the 1888-1913 one and the post 1913

14 stone hangee gets 5'5" on post 1913 or 8' on pre 1913

8 stone hangee gets 8' on post 1913 or 10' on pre 1913

Etc

If I were going to be executed, I would choose long-drop over any method I know of. Lethal injection seems to be barely disguised torure, and thee electric hair and gas are far worse. Shooting and beheading are not instantaneous.
With log-drop, death actually takes a few minutes - but uncosciousness is instantaneous if it is successful (botched, of course, any method can be horrific).
I mean, this is all based on the premise that we are going to be executing people - killing them. It's what it is, and if you don't like it, don't advocate doing it.


Yeah if I HAD to be executed by a common legal method long drop hanging would be my pick.
 
2014-01-17 10:59:12 PM

jso2897: serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.

By the way, Founding Fathers, old chums - how the f**k are we supposed to forge law out of subjective terms like "cruel" or "unusual"?


The brilliance of the constitution is the perfection of it vagueness to allow for a continuing debate of how to run things. Setting things it stone will always get broken. Words an ideas however bend willingly to whomever it able to wield them with proficiency.
 
2014-01-17 10:59:24 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: I'm in favor of mirror execution.

Rape and stab someone (like the recent Ohio guy), you get a broomhandle to the ass and stabbed until you die.

However, with the world today, killers don't fear death and end up killing themselves.  They don't want to rot in prison, and they don't want to wait until they're an old man to die, they just do it immediately.


Certain types surely tend to - mass killers ,domestic killers, and spree killers do it a lot. Those who kill in the commission of property crimes do so far less often, and gang and contract killers, almost never.
 
2014-01-17 11:00:25 PM
jesus there is some farking damaged people on this site
 
2014-01-17 11:01:33 PM

jso2897: If I were going to be executed, I would choose long-drop over any method I know of. Lethal injection seems to be barely disguised torure, and thee electric hair and gas are far worse. Shooting and beheading are not instantaneous.
With log-drop, death actually takes a few minutes - but uncosciousness is instantaneous if it is successful (botched, of course, any method can be horrific).
I mean, this is all based on the premise that we are going to be executing people - killing them. It's what it is, and if you don't like it, don't advocate doing it.


Well, like a friend of mine who is a nurse told me there's really no good way to die.  The appeal of lethal injection is there's a belief that you just sort of fall asleep.  I don't know how true that is, but it sounds alright.  With hanging or firing squad or beheading you're going to have those minutes of anticipation.  The actual death may be quick, but the thought of what will soon happen is torture in and of itself.  I suppose you suffer the anticipation either way.

I don;t have a problem with executing certain people if we're sure they're did what they're accused of but   The exoneration of a number of death row felons should bring attention to the fact that there are probably people serving 5-10-20 years or life who aren't really guilty.

It's usually just the death penalty cases that get the attetion.
 
2014-01-17 11:01:53 PM
How about Gallagher hammer to the head? First three rows of witnesses would be provided plastic sheeting, of course.
 
2014-01-17 11:01:55 PM
Anti gun liberal here.


I'm ok with this. Bullets are cheap. I'd rather get shot than have lethal injection, anyway.
 
2014-01-17 11:02:30 PM

DubtodaIll: jso2897: serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.

By the way, Founding Fathers, old chums - how the f**k are we supposed to forge law out of subjective terms like "cruel" or "unusual"?

The brilliance of the constitution is the perfection of it vagueness to allow for a continuing debate of how to run things. Setting things it stone will always get broken. Words an ideas however bend willingly to whomever it able to wield them with proficiency.


Tru dat. You can't really run a civilized, enlightened society without some wiggle room. A certain amount of rabbinical quibbling is probably healthy for our little primate brains. However, in moments of frustration, one sometimes, unrealistically, wishes for simplicity.
 
2014-01-17 11:03:01 PM
Why not just force them to watch two seasons of "Girls?"
 
2014-01-17 11:03:21 PM

SuperNinjaToad: In other words we're becoming more like China everyday and they more like us


Not really, executions are actually down across the board in the US. Mainly because of costs, and btw the biggest cost isn't the execution. The biggest cost is making sure they have the right person. Legally it can take years to sort out. Which is why its cheaper to commit someone to life in prison than it is to execute them.

Meanwhile in China they executed probably 1000 people alone last year. In the US? Just 43.
 
2014-01-17 11:03:47 PM
I don't know if we should use firing squads, we might give the rest of the world the impression we have a thing for guns.
 
2014-01-17 11:03:55 PM
If you use firing squads, you'd better make sure they keep up their target practice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzDCH_MGQXI
 
2014-01-17 11:05:06 PM

JosephFinn: TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.

That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.


Lets consider Willingham's own explanation for what happened:  I was napping in the back room with Amber when she woke me up yelling about the smoke so I got up and left out the front door.

Three year old Amber's body was found under the covers in the back bedroom.  The path from the back bedroom to the front door would have taken him past the room where the twin infants were sleeping.  Their bodies were found in that room.

So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"
 
2014-01-17 11:05:12 PM

LoneVVolf: How about Gallagher hammer to the head? First three rows of witnesses would be provided plastic sheeting, of course.


Man you the one should be on brain detail.
 
2014-01-17 11:06:07 PM
honestly though, why even a bullet?  Use one of those hydraulic guns they use to kill cattle with.  Then just hose it down (or not, it's not like we're worried about infection) before the next guy.
 
2014-01-17 11:06:51 PM

Gyrfalcon: Mensan: I am surprised by the number of Farkers who would like to be hung. I already am.

It's because the majority of Farkers are not well-hung already, you see.


I don't know I seen some impressive members here and some with talents I didn't thing possible.
 
2014-01-17 11:07:15 PM

Heraclitus: After all, we have plenty of guns now.

My how we've grown as a nation.

Gary Gilmore would be proud.


Fun fact -- January 17th, 1977, 37 years ago, was the date of Gary Gilmore's execution.
 
2014-01-17 11:07:33 PM

serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.


At the time it was written, people were beheaded, drawn and quartered and boiled in oil.  A officers death was by hanging or firing squad.
 
2014-01-17 11:07:34 PM

doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.


Generally it for the family and witnesses. The condemned is pretty much paralysed so they can't move while the chemicals burn out their veins so it is considered a humane for them to watch.

Basically they are a bunch of pussies who want to see the execution but can't stand the good old days of blood splattering everywhere.
 
2014-01-17 11:07:36 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: "Let's do it"

/gg

Came here to say this.
 
2014-01-17 11:07:44 PM

jso2897: DubtodaIll: jso2897: serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.

By the way, Founding Fathers, old chums - how the f**k are we supposed to forge law out of subjective terms like "cruel" or "unusual"?

The brilliance of the constitution is the perfection of it vagueness to allow for a continuing debate of how to run things. Setting things it stone will always get broken. Words an ideas however bend willingly to whomever it able to wield them with proficiency.

Tru dat. You can't really run a civilized, enlightened society without some wiggle room. A certain amount of rabbinical quibbling is probably healthy for our little primate brains. However, in moments of frustration, one sometimes, unrealistically, wishes for simplicity.


And under our law, you're free to do so! Wish that is! Carry on citizen! However, the more you search for simplicity in this world the more complexity you will always find. In fact, it's only by discovering the complete complexity of a thing that you are able to produce a simple elegant solution.
 
2014-01-17 11:08:05 PM

Mazzic518: jesus there is some farking damaged people on this site


Hello, I'm an ambassador. If you have any issues with your Fark visa, I can help!
 
2014-01-17 11:08:47 PM

gfid: jso2897: If I were going to be executed, I would choose long-drop over any method I know of. Lethal injection seems to be barely disguised torure, and thee electric hair and gas are far worse. Shooting and beheading are not instantaneous.
With log-drop, death actually takes a few minutes - but uncosciousness is instantaneous if it is successful (botched, of course, any method can be horrific).
I mean, this is all based on the premise that we are going to be executing people - killing them. It's what it is, and if you don't like it, don't advocate doing it.

Well, like a friend of mine who is a nurse told me there's really no good way to die.  The appeal of lethal injection is there's a belief that you just sort of fall asleep.  I don't know how true that is, but it sounds alright.  With hanging or firing squad or beheading you're going to have those minutes of anticipation.  The actual death may be quick, but the thought of what will soon happen is torture in and of itself.  I suppose you suffer the anticipation either way.

I don;t have a problem with executing certain people if we're sure they're did what they're accused of but   The exoneration of a number of death row felons should bring attention to the fact that there are probably people serving 5-10-20 years or life who aren't really guilty.


Well, that's the thing, though. If we are going to have the death penalty, there IS going to be some collateral damage.
We have one of the better justice systems in the world, but it's far from perfect. No one who knows anything about human beings or the systems they create could possibly believe that we never have or never will execute any innocent people.
It's a statistical probability so low it's not worth discussing.
The execution of a minsicule number of innocent people is an inescapable cost of the death penalty. Hopefully, it's value to society outweighs that - that's the theory anyway, or so I'm told.
 
2014-01-17 11:09:04 PM
I think they should have to die under the same kind of circumstances and the way that their victims died.  Unfortunately, we can only do this once if there are multiple victims.
 
2014-01-17 11:11:56 PM
We should use these people for drug trials.  Let them do something useful for once in their lives.
 
2014-01-17 11:12:44 PM

DubtodaIll: jso2897: DubtodaIll: jso2897: serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.

By the way, Founding Fathers, old chums - how the f**k are we supposed to forge law out of subjective terms like "cruel" or "unusual"?

The brilliance of the constitution is the perfection of it vagueness to allow for a continuing debate of how to run things. Setting things it stone will always get broken. Words an ideas however bend willingly to whomever it able to wield them with proficiency.

Tru dat. You can't really run a civilized, enlightened society without some wiggle room. A certain amount of rabbinical quibbling is probably healthy for our little primate brains. However, in moments of frustration, one sometimes, unrealistically, wishes for simplicity.

And under our law, you're free to do so! Wish that is! Carry on citizen! However, the more you search for simplicity in this world the more complexity you will always find. In fact, it's only by discovering the complete complexity of a thing that you are able to produce a simple elegant solution.


Yes, so it appears. Still, the desire for simplicity is universal - the desire to see the world reduced to a suimple, easily comprehended equation is just human nature - and it's made Rupert Murdoch a very wealthy man.
 
2014-01-17 11:14:22 PM

jso2897: DubtodaIll: jso2897: DubtodaIll: jso2897: serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.

By the way, Founding Fathers, old chums - how the f**k are we supposed to forge law out of subjective terms like "cruel" or "unusual"?

The brilliance of the constitution is the perfection of it vagueness to allow for a continuing debate of how to run things. Setting things it stone will always get broken. Words an ideas however bend willingly to whomever it able to wield them with proficiency.

Tru dat. You can't really run a civilized, enlightened society without some wiggle room. A certain amount of rabbinical quibbling is probably healthy for our little primate brains. However, in moments of frustration, one sometimes, unrealistically, wishes for simplicity.

And under our law, you're free to do so! Wish that is! Carry on citizen! However, the more you search for simplicity in this world the more complexity you will always find. In fact, it's only by discovering the complete complexity of a thing that you are able to produce a simple elegant solution.

Yes, so it appears. Still, the desire for simplicity is universal - the desire to see the world reduced to a suimple, easily comprehended equation is just human nature - and it's made Rupert Murdoch a very wealthy man.


There's no business like showbusiness.
 
2014-01-17 11:14:27 PM

gfid: It's usually just the death penalty cases that get the attetion.


The reason that Life Without Parole is cheaper than the Death Penalty is that we spend a million dollars on lawyers and investigators and forensic labs and psychologist and the like to make sure we've got the right guy and that he really does deserve to die and that he poses a continuing threat if not executed.  For LWOP we just give them a public defender and then throw away the key.  There are certainly many many TIMES as many innocents serving LWOP parole than on death row.  The system guarantees that.
 
2014-01-17 11:15:48 PM

oukewldave: We should use these people for drug trials.  Let them do something useful for once in their lives.


If we didn't poison them with lethal injections they could be organ donors.
 
2014-01-17 11:16:44 PM

fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...


Or an insulin overdose.
 
2014-01-17 11:17:05 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Mazzic518: jesus there is some farking damaged people on this site

Hello, I'm an ambassador. If you have any issues with your Fark visa, I can help!


I cancelled mine when this cesspool started circling the drain
 
2014-01-17 11:17:09 PM

limeyfellow: doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.

Generally it for the family and witnesses. The condemned is pretty much paralysed so they can't move while the chemicals burn out their veins so it is considered a humane for them to watch.

Basically they are a bunch of pussies who want to see the execution but can't stand the good old days of blood splattering everywhere.


That's what I would like to change. Go back to the old ways. Make executions public affairs - put them on TV.
Let the public see what is really on the end of that long media spoon. I think they'd benefit from it.
 
2014-01-17 11:17:11 PM
I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.
 
2014-01-17 11:17:24 PM
These guys must not watch much TV. Firing squads never seem to get it right.


"Ready, aim..."

"Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Stop the execution!"



img74.imageshack.us

 
2014-01-17 11:17:24 PM
I don't have a problem with the death penalty, per se. But I do have a problem with the system, because the prosecution's incentive is a conviction, not to seek the truth, and death is final.  I'm not willing to put single person to death without 150% assurance that they are guilty.  Anyone who is will to crack a few eggs to make that omelet needs to volunteer themselves to be put to death to show all of us that it's worth it.

I like the solution they had in the movie "Minority Report", where they warehouse the condemned, unconscious for as long as their normal life would be.  If, during that time, innocence is proven, bippity boppity, wake them up and they can go home with some nice parting gifts from the state. If they reach 90 years without reprieve...uh-oh...trash compactor for grampa freezer burn.
 
2014-01-17 11:18:16 PM

acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.


That guy executed earlier this week in Ohio was given a big honking shot of morphine and a couple handfuls of benzos.
 
2014-01-17 11:21:11 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.


I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.
 
2014-01-17 11:21:18 PM
I have to say the blood lust in this thread is a bit disturbing. o.o You can call it justice as many times as you want, but admit you guys would get a sort of sick satisfaction. Especially those of you calling for an eye for an eye as fair punishment.

Its proven that the death penalty is more expensive, doesn't deter such crimes, but eh there is nothing rational about the death penalty. Its taking a life and calling it justice, and then people feeling good that someone is dead.
 
2014-01-17 11:21:27 PM

bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.


Someone still has to press the button to send the fire command to the robot. How is that different?
 
2014-01-17 11:22:04 PM

TheWhoppah: gfid: It's usually just the death penalty cases that get the attetion.

The reason that Life Without Parole is cheaper than the Death Penalty is that we spend a million dollars on lawyers and investigators and forensic labs and psychologist and the like to make sure we've got the right guy and that he really does deserve to die and that he poses a continuing threat if not executed.  For LWOP we just give them a public defender and then throw away the key.  There are certainly many many TIMES as many innocents serving LWOP parole than on death row.  The system guarantees that.


This plus people doing life murder non viloent inmates in for like dealing pot or cheating on taxes in prison. More inmates are murdered by other inmates in our prison system than are executed by the state

So even if every last person executed by the state was innocent more people innocent of murder are killed by lifers in prison than are killed by the state.
 
2014-01-17 11:22:32 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.


Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

 
2014-01-17 11:23:21 PM

TheWhoppah: acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.

That guy executed earlier this week in Ohio was given a big honking shot of morphine and a couple handfuls of benzos.


That is the preferred method for end of life in hospice and elderly care. I did delivery for a pharmacy for a stretch and when someone is certainly near the end they will often times be ordered a "death kit" (that's what the pharmacist called it because they were on prescribed weeks before someone inevitably passed) which was a box of highly concentrated morphine and a number of other 'comforting' sedatives and painkillers so that terminally ill people can pass in peace.
 
2014-01-17 11:23:51 PM

TheWhoppah: JosephFinn: TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.

That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.

Lets consider Willingham's own explanation for what happened:  I was napping in the back room with Amber when she woke me up yelling about the smoke so I got up and left out the front door.

Three year old Amber's body was found under the covers in the back bedroom.  The path from the back bedroom to the front door would have taken him past the room where the twin infants were sleeping.  Their bodies were found in that room.

So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"


That would be nice, if the version you have there was anything even close to the accounts of what happened that night and later on.
 
2014-01-17 11:24:05 PM
The best solution...

img.fark.net

Plus bonus, we'd finally be able to go without hearing New Yorkers talk about how awesome New York City is.
 
2014-01-17 11:24:29 PM

wildcardjack: High velocity bullet to the head, turning the brain to jam, happens faster than can be perceived by the brain in question. Thus we know it is painless. The chemical route was iffy, couldn't say with veracity the death was painless.


We don't want painless. We want bloodless. We don't want to admit we're killing someone.
 
2014-01-17 11:24:31 PM

untaken_name: I'm okay with this, if the jury that convicts the defendant becomes the firing squad. Then jurors might actually take their responsibility over the life and death of others seriously.


What if they've never fired a gun?  Are you OK with them hitting a surface off of which the bullet can ricochet?
 
2014-01-17 11:25:23 PM
Here's the problem:

We've just had a big debate in CA about compassionate release for elderly inmates and resentencing for juveniles who got life without parole who have been resentenced to life WITH parole. The op-ed comments, almost without exception, were about the victims' families: "Why should those [insert epithet here] be allowed to have compassion or hope, when they displayed none towards their victims?"

In one case, the man was in his 80's, dying of terminal cancer, and the debate was whether he should be allowed to die at home (he did not make it). In the second, the kid had been an accomplice to a robbery/murder at age 17, and got life without; he's now in his 30's and a model prisoner and was resentenced to life with on new constitutional grounds. And yet in both cases, the hue&cry was about how unfair it was to the FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS that these men get any kind of consideration.

Proving merely that, in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims. An 80-year old cancer patient who killed his victim decades ago--nobody writing in about that case knew or cared one iota about the family until it looked like the killer might get out; then suddenly it was all about "why should he get the compassion he didn't show his victim?" A 17-year old kid helped murder a woman and has spent his young adulthood paying for that crime--nobody writing in gave a rat's ass about the victim's family until he was given the option of MAYBE getting out of prison someday. Then suddenly they are pitiful victims themselves, and he's a cold heartless thug who deserves to rot in prison.

Capital cases are about vengeance for the families. If that's our motive, fine; but let's stop pretending it's about anything else. It's not about cost-effectiveness, or we would simply imprison them (it's proven to be cheaper). It's not about deterrence or we would abandon execution completely (it's been proven not to be any kind of deterrent). It's not even about taking dangerous elements out of society (or we would execute all of them because life without is stupid if that's the goal). It's about making the families and friends of the victims feel better, and society by proxy. It is, in fact, about vengeance. So why pretend it's anything else? Let's admit it and move on.
 
2014-01-17 11:25:32 PM

Oldiron_79: TheWhoppah: gfid: It's usually just the death penalty cases that get the attetion.

The reason that Life Without Parole is cheaper than the Death Penalty is that we spend a million dollars on lawyers and investigators and forensic labs and psychologist and the like to make sure we've got the right guy and that he really does deserve to die and that he poses a continuing threat if not executed.  For LWOP we just give them a public defender and then throw away the key.  There are certainly many many TIMES as many innocents serving LWOP parole than on death row.  The system guarantees that.

This plus people doing life murder non viloent inmates in for like dealing pot or cheating on taxes in prison. More inmates are murdered by other inmates in our prison system than are executed by the state

So even if every last person executed by the state was innocent more people innocent of murder are killed by lifers in prison than are killed by the state.


More death row inmates die of old age than are executed by the state. More death row inmates fatally overdose on illicitly obtained drugs than are executed by the state. Death Row seem to mainly be a record company.
 
2014-01-17 11:27:35 PM

doglover: And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword.


You know that it sometimes took them several tries to get it right, don'y you?
 
2014-01-17 11:28:13 PM

Mugato: The number of sociopaths in this thread is somewhat unnerving.


Hybristophilia.
 
2014-01-17 11:29:06 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.

Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.


Well, that was argumentative, and he can defend it if he wants - but I still haven't heard him assert that he doesn't think any innocent people ever have or will get executed. And, him having given no overt signs of being an utter imbecile, I am not prepared to conclude that he believes that.
 
2014-01-17 11:29:21 PM
What happened to good old "death by your inmate"?
While they wait for their time, let them kill these whos time has come. Cheap and effective. Ecological. Humane.
/ I am jocking, of course.
//On another hand, why not?
 
2014-01-17 11:30:37 PM

ransack.: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to press the button to send the fire command to the robot. How is that different?


Three reasons. 1: At least its more accurate than a human, humans can fark up. 2: Not necessarily, you can automate the process easily. A robot car can drive it self on mars and a gun in comparison is a very simple thing. Especially a robotic gun. The biggest problem would be the comfort zone in giving a robot that ability, but there are numerous safety features you could build in to the robot gun.

3: You could have one switch to prime the weapon, and a safety pin on the weapon it self, pull the pin and then the guard walks away. Once the room is cleared of everyone but the prisoner, a button/switch is activated that powers up the weapon. Anyway, really it would be a very simple matter. There would be numerous ways to automate the process and safely.

Though if you aren't comfortable with that. You can introduce three humans to the equation. Three people go into a room, they all press a button and neither of them knows which one actually pushed the button to kill the prisoner.
 
2014-01-17 11:34:13 PM

greylion: What happened to good old "death by your inmate"?
While they wait for their time, let them kill these whos time has come. Cheap and effective. Ecological. Humane.
/ I am jocking, of course.
//On another hand, why not?


If the death penalty was an available option in Wisconsin, Jeffrey Dahmer would probably still be alive so your point has merit.
 
2014-01-17 11:34:22 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.

Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

Well, that was argumentative, and he can defend it if he wants - but I still haven't heard him assert that he doesn't think any innocent people ever have or will get executed. And, him having given no overt signs of being an utter imbecile, I am not prepared to conclude that he believes that.


Agreed, that's why I gave him a chance to defend himself.  However, he chose to flee rather than back up his assertion.
 
2014-01-17 11:35:04 PM
Just do it the old fashioned way circa 500-1500ev only make it public, on TV, use really good, expensive microphones for audio quality. Maybe a laugh track to amuse whichever party is in control. Heck, sample the shiat for techno unza-unza. Just bring your own filter masks if attending live because it can be a bit stinky.
 
2014-01-17 11:37:05 PM

bbfreak: I have to say the blood lust in this thread is a bit disturbing. o.o You can call it justice as many times as you want, but admit you guys would get a sort of sick satisfaction. Especially those of you calling for an eye for an eye as fair punishment.

Its proven that the death penalty is more expensive, doesn't deter such crimes, but eh there is nothing rational about the death penalty. Its taking a life and calling it justice, and then people feeling good that someone is dead.


The sick satisfaction of seeing people like this never able to kill again?:

1) Police: Man Who Killed 5 In MN Kills Again Behind Bars

2) John Charles McCluskey faces the death penalty after being found guilty of 20 counts in the shooting deaths of Gary and Linda Haas. McCluskey was one of three inmates, all convicted killers, who escaped from a contract prison in Kingman, Ariz

Okay.

The sick satisfaction of seeing the murder rate go down as executions go up?

Okay.
 
2014-01-17 11:37:25 PM

TheWhoppah: JosephFinn: TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.

That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.

Lets consider Willingham's own explanation for what happened:  I was napping in the back room with Amber when she woke me up yelling about the smoke so I got up and left out the front door.

Three year old Amber's body was found under the covers in the back bedroom.  The path from the back bedroom to the front door would have taken him past the room where the twin infants were sleeping.  Their bodies were found in that room.

So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"


I'm not as sure about that case as you are.  I think it was Frontline that I watched (can't remember for sure).  There were some serious questions raised and that fire investigator might not have been as smart as he claimed to be.

I remain unconvinced of his guilt.  I'm not convinced he's not guilty, but that's a far cry from being ready to execute someone.

I'm not sure when our court system changed from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to " plenty of forensic evidence".

If you have a source for different documentary material that makes him appear really guilty, I'd take a look at it.
 
2014-01-17 11:37:42 PM

Gyrfalcon: Here's the problem:

We've just had a big debate in CA about compassionate release for elderly inmates and resentencing for juveniles who got life without parole who have been resentenced to life WITH parole. The op-ed comments, almost without exception, were about the victims' families: "Why should those [insert epithet here] be allowed to have compassion or hope, when they displayed none towards their victims?"

In one case, the man was in his 80's, dying of terminal cancer, and the debate was whether he should be allowed to die at home (he did not make it). In the second, the kid had been an accomplice to a robbery/murder at age 17, and got life without; he's now in his 30's and a model prisoner and was resentenced to life with on new constitutional grounds. And yet in both cases, the hue&cry was about how unfair it was to the FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS that these men get any kind of consideration.

Proving merely that, in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims. An 80-year old cancer patient who killed his victim decades ago--nobody writing in about that case knew or cared one iota about the family until it looked like the killer might get out; then suddenly it was all about "why should he get the compassion he didn't show his victim?" A 17-year old kid helped murder a woman and has spent his young adulthood paying for that crime--nobody writing in gave a rat's ass about the victim's family until he was given the option of MAYBE getting out of prison someday. Then suddenly they are pitiful victims themselves, and he's a cold heartless thug who deserves to rot in prison.

Capital cases are about vengeance for the families. If that's our motive, fine; but let's stop pretending it's about anything else. It's not about cost-effectiveness, or we would simply imprison them (it's proven to be cheaper). It's not about deterrence or we would abandon execution completely (it's been proven ...


That's my problem with this. I don't have any huge problem with the death penalty. It's an anachronism, but far from the only one we entertain in this country. It doesn't bother me that we do it, or even that we do it for the reasons that we do it.
It just bugs me that we have to be so Goddamned phoney and self-deluded and dishonest about it.
Let's call it what it is: we are killing people. We are killing them because they are bad, and we hate them. Let's quit trying to make some kind of f**king teaparty or cotillion ball out of it.
 
2014-01-17 11:38:14 PM
Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.
 
2014-01-17 11:41:23 PM

cman: Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.


Helium is too expensive and short of supply for that.
 
2014-01-17 11:41:42 PM
@JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.
 
2014-01-17 11:43:29 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: cman: Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.

Helium is too expensive and short of supply for that.


And anyway, what if he woke up and started talking in that high voice and everybody cracked up laughing? That would make it kind of awkward.
 
2014-01-17 11:43:42 PM
How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.
 
2014-01-17 11:43:52 PM
What I find sick is the relentless advocacy for murderers. So this piece of sh•t snorted a few times during his execution? Took a long time? Poor thing. I wonder what sounds his pregnant victim made as she was being stabbed to death.
 
2014-01-17 11:44:02 PM

TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.


If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.
 
2014-01-17 11:44:45 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: cman: Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.

Helium is too expensive and short of supply for that.

And anyway, what if he woke up and started talking in that high voice and everybody cracked up laughing? That would make it kind of awkward.


Dunno about that, there's nothing more hysterical than dying while people are laughing at you.
 
2014-01-17 11:45:00 PM

Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.


As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.
 
2014-01-17 11:45:02 PM
If death row inmates got to choose their own method of execution like the guy in that Monty Python skit, I wonder how many would make the same choice he did: being chased through town by a screaming army of beautiful, naked women until they finally chase him over the edge of a cliff.
 
2014-01-17 11:45:19 PM

rev. dave: How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.


Now, that's just crazy talk.
 
2014-01-17 11:46:35 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.


I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.
 
2014-01-17 11:49:02 PM
To hell with the firing squad.  The point of the firing squad is that you're not supposed to know who fired the fatal bullet because one of the guns is loaded with a blank.  It is my view that the condemned should be put to death with a single bullet fired by the governor of the state.  If you can't take personal responsibility for killing someone, you shouldn't do it.  And if the condemned is later exonerated, the governor should suffer the same fate.
 
2014-01-17 11:49:08 PM

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.


What if you, i dunno, ignored that and read further to other, completely unrelated cases?  Should I just cite the cited sources or are you too afraid to admit you're wrong?
 
2014-01-17 11:49:24 PM
Here in Wisconsin there's been no capital punishment, per the state constitution, since statehood in 1848. Seems to be working out fine, even Republicans don't try to instate it. It's one of those issues that once you finally get over the hump, so to speak, there's very rarely any going back. The NH legislature is debating abolition now, but even then they haven't executed anybody since 1939. The fact that we have so many examples of American states, nevermind other Western nations, with no death penalty should cut heavily against the argument that it is any sort of necessity.
 
2014-01-17 11:50:09 PM

jso2897: rev. dave: How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.

Now, that's just crazy talk.


Bunch of bloodthirsty Farkers need to chill out some.
 
2014-01-17 11:51:05 PM

acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.



As a Type I diabetic, let me just say this is one of the most cruel, painful deaths I can imagine.
 
2014-01-17 11:51:35 PM

WraithSama: If death row inmates got to choose their own method of execution like the guy in that Monty Python skit, I wonder how many would make the same choice he did: being chased through town by a screaming army of beautiful, naked women until they finally chase him over the edge of a cliff.


Still can't figure out why he was running..
 
2014-01-17 11:52:00 PM

WraithSama: If death row inmates got to choose their own method of execution like the guy in that Monty Python skit, I wonder how many would make the same choice he did: being chased through town by a screaming army of beautiful, naked women until they finally chase him over the edge of a cliff.


They were topless, not naked. And they had crash helmets. That was the nice way of going out, not the awesome way....friggin' prudes.
 
2014-01-17 11:52:02 PM

jso2897: rev. dave: How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.

Now, that's just crazy talk.


Yes it is.

Back in the good old days, a horse thief was hung. There were very few horse thieves. I think we should do the same for car jackers.  Jack a car .... you die.

God I love Texas.

/half ass trolling.
//may have a point.
///death is a wonderful deterrent.
 
2014-01-17 11:52:58 PM

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.


Seriously, you said to give "one" example of an innocent person being executed in Texas, I gave you a source and you were like "okay, yeah, but that's kinda disputed". I then give you link to a number of other innocent executions and you're all like "but I didn't agree with the first one! which you cited in your original post! therefore INVALID!"

Man up and admit your wrong or at least try to defend your argument.
 
2014-01-17 11:53:07 PM

slayer199: Hey, it worked for Gary Gilmore.


Oddly enough, exactly 37 years ago today.
 
2014-01-17 11:54:08 PM

gfid: TheWhoppah: So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"

I'm not as sure about that case as you are.  I think it was Frontline that I watched (can't remember for sure).  There were some serious questions raised and that fire investigator might not have been as smart as he claimed to be.

I remain unconvinced of his guilt.  I'm not convinced he's not guilty, but that's a far cry from being ready to execute someone.

I'm not sure when our court system changed from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to " plenty of forensic evidence".


There was a Frontline story and it was no better than Fox News.  Nobody tunes in to a story with a headline like "Guilty Man Punished" so if you want real rating go with "Innocent Man Executed" because that will draw attention and, as Madonna can tell you, there is no such thing as bad publicity.  The Beylor report, upon which the innocence claims are based, does not say Willingham was innocent.  It also does not say the fire was not arson.  It says that SOME of the evidence that was viewed as 100% proof of arson has since been found to also occur in non-arson fires.  There were about two dozen clues of arson and the Beylor report said that about half of them might also happen in non-arson fires.  Thats all it says.  The remainder of the OMG-Innocent story was pure sensationalism.  Beylor didn't even bother to interview the fire marshall that actually spend 3 days sifting through the ashes and who, by the way, has the same credentials as Beylor and still says even to this day that even in light of the development in the field of arson investigation that there was more than enough evidence of arson to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2014-01-17 11:54:33 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: People are completely inured to seeing innocent men, women and children dead on the street in ongoing war footage.  Seeing people they feel deserve to be dead instead might actually be less psychologically farked up.

And depending on the son-to-be-deceased, PPV might be quite profitable indeed.


If we are going to do that then we might have a legitimate discussion about a hunger games style tournament where the winners sentence becomes life without parole.

As far as the topic about the humanity of the death penalty. I support it in cases of extreme brutality. However the suffering of the victim is what gets someone the death penalty. It has no bearing on the method of execution. You can support the rights of the victim and support quick and painless deaths for the condemned. The two are not mutually exclusive. There is no good logical reason to make somebody suffer needlessly as it accomplishes nothing. Everybody forgets we have a justice system and not a vengeance system
 
2014-01-17 11:55:16 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.

What if you, i dunno, ignored that and read further to other, completely unrelated cases?  Should I just cite the cited sources or are you too afraid to admit you're wrong?


You have another once from Texas besides Deluna and Willingham?  I granted you Deluna, did you miss that?
 
2014-01-17 11:56:15 PM
If I had to pick a common execution method for myself: Long drop hanging

If I got to pick a common execution method for someone that killed someone I know: gas chamber

If I had to pick ANY execution for myself : farked to death by endless supply of hot nymphos

If I got to pick ANY execution for someone that killed somone I know: me cuffing thier wrists to ankles and ass raping the farker till the bastage bleeds to death from it. Bite the pillow Im going in dry.
 
2014-01-17 11:56:56 PM

TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.


Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.
 
2014-01-18 12:00:31 AM

theorellior: chasd00: Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

Yeah, Severian did seem to go off the deep end for a while.


Was it the executions, or was it the inadvertent miracles and/or eating the flesh and memories of the woman whose torture he ended prematurely?

/haven't read that in decades
 
2014-01-18 12:00:37 AM
Look we got a ton little crappy islands in the pacific that our protection and territory because of WWII. We can just ship them all there. We don't have to kill them but we don't have to provide for their care either. Everybody wins. Right to lifers and death penalty enthusiasts. Certain death island.
 
2014-01-18 12:00:45 AM

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.

What if you, i dunno, ignored that and read further to other, completely unrelated cases?  Should I just cite the cited sources or are you too afraid to admit you're wrong?

You have another once from Texas besides Deluna and Willingham?  I granted you Deluna, did you miss that?


I did not see the Deluna reference and I apologize for that, I retract my previous accusations.
 
2014-01-18 12:01:29 AM
I don't see what the big deal is. Just this morning I read an article about how some scum-fark took 20-something minutes to die and how various human-rights groups were pissing and moaning about "cruel and unusual punishment" (this guy was condemned for raping and murdering a pregnant newly-wed back in 1989, by the way). Anyway, a bullet to the brain is about as humane (not to mention fool-proof) as it gets. Given the choice, that's how *I* would want to be executed. The only problem I forsee with instituting death-by-firing-squad as the norm, would be reliably securing willing firing-squads.
 
2014-01-18 12:03:02 AM

jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.


The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.
 
2014-01-18 12:03:43 AM
(continued)Of course, you could always do the one-bullet-is-a-blank thing... That way nobody on said firing squad would know for sure that they were actually responsible for the execution. I imagine this would probably go a long way with alleviating any feelings of guilt the executioners might grapple with.
 
2014-01-18 12:04:12 AM

jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.


I heard an interview on the radio today with the family of a rapist and murderer who was executed by lethal injection. Things didn't go as planned and he suffered for 20 minutes. I couldn't really find much sympathy.
 
2014-01-18 12:04:19 AM

AbortionsForAll: I don't see what the big deal is. Just this morning I read an article about how some scum-fark took 20-something minutes to die and how various human-rights groups were pissing and moaning about "cruel and unusual punishment" (this guy was condemned for raping and murdering a pregnant newly-wed back in 1989, by the way). Anyway, a bullet to the brain is about as humane (not to mention fool-proof) as it gets. Given the choice, that's how *I* would want to be executed. The only problem I forsee with instituting death-by-firing-squad as the norm, would be reliably securing willing firing-squads.


Just have every caveman in This thread demanding unnecessary torture do it people who want the man to suffer should be forced to do it themselves instead of playing ITG behind a computer screen
 
2014-01-18 12:05:31 AM

AbortionsForAll: (continued)Of course, you could always do the one-bullet-is-a-blank thing... That way nobody on said firing squad would know for sure that they were actually responsible for the execution. I imagine this would probably go a long way with alleviating any feelings of guilt the executioners might grapple with.


I disagree if you sign up for the firing squad you should have that guilt with you. It's easy to demand suffering from behind a computer screen
 
2014-01-18 12:05:41 AM

Salmon: Isn't ammo expensive?


Thanks Obama
 
2014-01-18 12:06:28 AM

TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.

The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.


Are you under the impression that I'm arguing with you? You already submitted the argument for revenge, and I already accepted it. You made the best and only argument for revenge that can be made the first time - you needn't reiterate or elaborate upon it.
 
2014-01-18 12:09:05 AM

jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.

The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

Are you under the impression that I'm arguing with you? You already submitted the argument for revenge, and I already accepted it. You made the best and only argument for revenge that can be made the first time - you needn't reiterate or elaborate upon it.


No, I was on a roll.  This is a human rights issue damnit!  We demand the right to execute killers.  Even babies less than 1 year old understand revenge.  It is fundamental to the human condition!
 
2014-01-18 12:10:08 AM

Churchill2004: acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.

As a Type I diabetic, let me just say this is one of the most cruel, painful deaths I can imagine.


I thought it just knocked you out? I saw a Law & Order episode once...
 
2014-01-18 12:10:32 AM

Warlordtrooper: AbortionsForAll: I don't see what the big deal is. Just this morning I read an article about how some scum-fark took 20-something minutes to die and how various human-rights groups were pissing and moaning about "cruel and unusual punishment" (this guy was condemned for raping and murdering a pregnant newly-wed back in 1989, by the way). Anyway, a bullet to the brain is about as humane (not to mention fool-proof) as it gets. Given the choice, that's how *I* would want to be executed. The only problem I forsee with instituting death-by-firing-squad as the norm, would be reliably securing willing firing-squads.

Just have every caveman in This thread demanding unnecessary torture do it people who want the man to suffer should be forced to do it themselves instead of playing ITG behind a computer screen


Hence my proposal that executions be public, televised, and performed by citizen-executioners who are selected by draft. The only way out would be claiming conscientious objector status. Any citizen who supported the DP could live with the knowledge that someday he or she might get to be the lucky citizen who trips that trapdoor.
 
2014-01-18 12:10:57 AM

jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.

The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

Are you under the impression that I'm arguing with you? You already submitted the argument for revenge, and I already accepted it. You made the best and only argument for revenge that can be made the first time - you needn't reiterate or elaborate upon it.


I think he was just adding upon your point, not arguing.

"Justice" is a very subjective term.  Should the killer suffer the same method of death as the killed? That's a very difficult question that has thousands of answers.

I don't disagree with you necessarily, just that it's a very controversial topic that can be debated until the world ends.
 
2014-01-18 12:11:35 AM
If nobody else has claimed it...i would like to be executed by marijuana OD, my crazy uncle says it could happen!
 
2014-01-18 12:12:28 AM
Oldiron_79:

If I got to pick ANY execution for someone that killed somone I know: me cuffing thier wrists to ankles and ass raping the farker till the bastage bleeds to death from it. Bite the pillow Im going in dry.

This isn't really about the Capital Punishment issue is it..
 
2014-01-18 12:12:35 AM

TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.

The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

Are you under the impression that I'm arguing with you? You already submitted the argument for revenge, and I already accepted it. You made the best and only argument for revenge that can be made the first time - you needn't reiterate or elaborate upon it.

No, I was on a roll.  This is a human rights issue damnit!  We demand the right to execute killers.  Even babies less than 1 year old understand revenge.  It is fundamental to the human condition!


A roll? Well, never mind, then. Carry on! :D
 
2014-01-18 12:13:51 AM

Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.

The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

Are you under the impression that I'm arguing with you? You already submitted the argument for revenge, and I already accepted it. You made the best and only argument for revenge that can be made the first time - you needn't reiterate or elaborate upon it.

I think he was just adding upon your point, not arguing.

"Justice" is a very subjective term.  Should the killer suffer the same method of death as the killed? That's a very difficult question that has thousands of answers.

I don't disagree with you necessarily, just that it's a very controversial topic that can be debated until the world e ...


That was addressed to Whoppah. i know you don't think I'm arguing with you.
 
2014-01-18 12:14:35 AM

whatshisname: I heard an interview on the radio today with the family of a rapist and murderer who was executed by lethal injection. Things didn't go as planned and he suffered for 20 minutes. I couldn't really find much sympathy.


Another example of the anti-death-penalty activists controlling the message.  There is no way that guy "suffered for 20 minutes" on a massive overdose of hydromorphone.  That isn't even possible.  His body made some Teri Schivo noise but that is not suffering.  Plus they first gave him a metric asston of Versed (midazolam) so he was out light a light within seconds.
 
2014-01-18 12:15:01 AM
Warlordtrooper: You're trying awfully hard to put words into other people's mouths. I, at least, was specifically talking about *avoiding* "unnecessary suffering". We're talking methods for humanely (without pain) executing people who have been convicted of society's most heinously unforgivable crimes. I'm not gonna sit here and try to change the mind of an ultra-liberal bleeding-heart who doesn't think that brutal rapists and murderers warrant execution, but I will step in (in my defense) when someone is twisting my statements in order to help his own sissy agenda. Wouldn't it be nice if you or someone you loved was brutally torture-farked then murdered? I'd love to see what you think about capital punishment then.As for the avoiding-guilt for the firing-squad thing... We could always set up a robotic/automatic rig to pull the trigger instead. Would that make you happy? Afterall, with a computerized & automatic targeting system, we could be absolutely sure that the correct area of the brain is instantly destroyed with zero margin of error (or close enough that it doesn't matter).
 
2014-01-18 12:15:05 AM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.

As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.

Now there you go. I like people when they're honest.
And I think we should go back to doing capital punishment the right way, that those people might truly get the revenge they crave. Let's drop all this "decorum" crap and give them their revenge.
They need to hear twanging ropes and snapping necks. They need to see protruding tongues and bulging eyeballs. They need to smell fresh shiat and piss. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.
I'm all about revenge.

The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

Are you under the impression that I'm arguing with you? You already submitted the argument for revenge, and I already accepted it. You made the best and only argument for revenge that can be made the first time - you needn't reiterate or elaborate upon it.

I think he was just adding upon your point, not arguing.

"Justice" is a very subjective term.  Should the killer suffer the same method of death as the killed? That's a very difficult question that has thousands of answers.

I don't disagree with you necessarily, just that it's a very controversial topic that can be d ...


Hmph, WELL FINE!
 
2014-01-18 12:15:34 AM

tonguedepressor: Oldiron_79:

If I got to pick ANY execution for someone that killed somone I know: me cuffing thier wrists to ankles and ass raping the farker till the bastage bleeds to death from it. Bite the pillow Im going in dry.

This isn't really about the Capital Punishment issue is it..


He likes dry ass rape?
 
2014-01-18 12:17:10 AM
Hmmmm, I have the rope, now I just need to find a really tall tree....
 
2014-01-18 12:17:46 AM
TheWhoppah:
The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

you know, that's an interesting take on it. for what it's worth, the biggest thing I have against the death penalty is the general incompetence of our professional justice system. maybe we could have a special class of guilty, like caught on camera showing ID with grandma confirmation murder, and then we just defenestrate the SOB.
 
2014-01-18 12:19:26 AM

Bigdogdaddy: tonguedepressor: Oldiron_79:

If I got to pick ANY execution for someone that killed somone I know: me cuffing thier wrists to ankles and ass raping the farker till the bastage bleeds to death from it. Bite the pillow Im going in dry.

This isn't really about the Capital Punishment issue is it..

He likes dry ass rape?


Bring out the Gimp
 
2014-01-18 12:19:56 AM
Medical experiments. Yup. Replace mice with murderers. Those that survive get their sentence reduced to life.
 
2014-01-18 12:20:17 AM

Robin Hoodie: TheWhoppah:
The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

you know, that's an interesting take on it. for what it's worth, the biggest thing I have against the death penalty is the general incompetence of our professional justice system. maybe we could have a special class of guilty, like caught on camera showing ID with grandma confirmation murder, and then we just defenestrate the SOB.


The burden of proof should be Beyond Any Doubt for death penalty cases.
 
2014-01-18 12:20:30 AM

Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.

What if you, i dunno, ignored that and read further to other, completely unrelated cases?  Should I just cite the cited sources or are you too afraid to admit you're wrong?


Note how TheWhoppah never cites any actual articles, studies or evidence.  Says the New Yorker article was "refuted" but doesn't cite anything.  Says the Beyler (that's Dr. Craig Beyler, not "Beylor") report does not support the conclusions, but does not cite any evidence against it.  Basically, it's just repeating the bad science that was used to murder Willingham.
 
2014-01-18 12:21:50 AM

fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...


1. Let's fund terrorists/terrorist states!
2. Morphine is a hellova good time to waste on "people" who don't deserve it, having had it myself.

You can do painful without cruel and unusual. And should.
 
2014-01-18 12:22:58 AM
I just want to say... Almost Everybody Poops... I love your nick. It's great. I hope one day you can find it in your heart to impregnate me so that I might bear your offspring!
 
2014-01-18 12:23:30 AM

AbortionsForAll: I, at least, was specifically talking about *avoiding* "unnecessary suffering". We're talking methods for humanely (without pain) executing people who have been convicted of society's most heinously unforgivable crimes.


Why should it be pain free?  If we really believe the dude did something so heinously unforgivable that he must be executed shouldn't it hurt?  Seems like making it pain-free means we don't trust that we're killing the right fella... and in that case we shouldn't be killing him at all, even painlessly.
 
2014-01-18 12:25:00 AM

TheWhoppah: gfid: TheWhoppah: So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"

I'm not as sure about that case as you are.  I think it was Frontline that I watched (can't remember for sure).  There were some serious questions raised and that fire investigator might not have been as smart as he claimed to be.

I remain unconvinced of his guilt.  I'm not convinced he's not guilty, but that's a far cry from being ready to execute someone.

I'm not sure when our court system changed from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to " plenty of forensic evidence".

There was a Frontline story and it was no better than Fox News.  Nobody tunes in to a story with a headline like "Guilty Man Punished" so if you want real rating ...


I'm still not seeing any actual sources.  I didn't sit on the jury or hear all the evidence, but the mere fact that questionable evidence was used in the prosecution is a problem in my opinion.
 
2014-01-18 12:25:06 AM
TheWhoppah: Well personally, I'm all for torturing certain brutal inhuman monsters straight to death, but let's be realistic... Most women won't go for that shiat (even the ones that are for capital punishment in general).
 
2014-01-18 12:26:31 AM
And the whole pain-free angle has nothing to do with doubt as to wether the correct party is being punished. It has to do with the fact that innocent people might not necessarily get off on torturing someone (even if they deserve it). You're reaching.
 
2014-01-18 12:26:40 AM
Forget the death penalty AND life imprisonment.  We need to reinstate exile.  We need a new Australia to send them to.

"Oh, you want to murder everyone you see?  That's fine, but we have some rules here, so you'll have to take that somewhere else.  Goodbye."
 
2014-01-18 12:27:28 AM

fusillade762: Churchill2004: acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.

As a Type I diabetic, let me just say this is one of the most cruel, painful deaths I can imagine.

I thought it just knocked you out? I saw a Law & Order episode once...


Hypoglycemia is extremely uncomfortable. If you ever see such a person (either a diabetic or just hypoglycemic) cramming chocolate bars or chugging a sugary soda, that's why. It's to get rid of that feeling ASAP. And that's at manageable, diabetic levels, where a low would be in the range of a blood glucose reading of 40-70 (normal is 80 to 120) If you want to execute somebody, Law & Order style (I saw that episode, too), you're talking about effectively lowering their blood sugar to zero. In other words, every single cell in your body would be starving for energy, as you likely convulsed violently. It's like asphyxiation for the entire body. You'd eventually lose consciousness, but it's not at all a painless manner of death or something you could simply sleep through unless otherwise sedated.
 
2014-01-18 12:27:29 AM
Works for me.

So long as never a soul is wrongly sent back to its maker.
 
2014-01-18 12:29:25 AM
www.horrorphile.net
Approves.
 
2014-01-18 12:30:25 AM

JosephFinn: Note how TheWhoppah never cites any actual articles, studies or evidence.  Says the New Yorker article was "refuted" but doesn't cite anything.  Says the Beyler (that's Dr. Craig Beyler, not "Beylor") report does not support the conclusions, but does not cite any evidence against it.  Basically, it's just repeating the bad science that was used to murder Willingham.


Just read the Beylor report for yourself instead of taking anyone's word about it.  It doesn't show ANY EVIDENCE that the fire was not arson.  All Beyler did was look at the old photos, read the official report, and point out that some clues that, at the time, were believed to only happen in arson fires are now known to happen (uncommonly) in non-arson fires.  The report doesn't even refute all of the forensic evidence, only some of it.  Baylor didn't even bother to interview the actual fire marshal.  The report was bought and paid for by anti-death penalty advocates.  Beyler is a whore of the courts, an expert that will testify for whichever side is paying his bills.
 
2014-01-18 12:30:44 AM

moeburn: We need a new Australia to send them to.


Why? We already have the regular one.
 
2014-01-18 12:31:39 AM

TheWhoppah: Robin Hoodie: TheWhoppah:
The right to seek revenge is a basic human right.  We cede that right to the government because primate amateur revenge is not uniform and prone to horrible mistakes.  The government uses professional police, judges, jailors and executioners that, by law, must not have any personal stake in the incident as victims or witnesses, and none of their family can be involved either.  We trade our natural born right to seek revenge for professional grade justice.  Any justice system that fails to execute killers has failed in its most fundamental duty... unless it is a justice system for pussies.

you know, that's an interesting take on it. for what it's worth, the biggest thing I have against the death penalty is the general incompetence of our professional justice system. maybe we could have a special class of guilty, like caught on camera showing ID with grandma confirmation murder, and then we just defenestrate the SOB.

The burden of proof should be Beyond Any Doubt for death penalty cases.


I don't think our system of justice can be required to demand that rigorous a burden, just as a technical matter of law.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard our system uses in criminal matters, and I'm not sure yiou could require a higher one exclusively in only capital cases.
 
2014-01-18 12:33:11 AM

doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.


Ironically, the least painful ways to kill someone are; hanging, guillotine, and firing squad.  However, since these are also the most gruesome to watch, despite being near instantaneous,  we as a society prefer, slower, more pleasant to watch ways of killing someone.  That way those doing the killing can feel better about themselves, while the accused spends his last moments on earth in a whole lot of silent pain.
 
2014-01-18 12:36:49 AM

TheWhoppah: It doesn't show ANY EVIDENCE that the fire was not arson.


Usually it's up to the prosecution to show ANY EVIDENCE that a crime was committed.  It's not supposed to be up to the defense to prove innocence.
 
2014-01-18 12:37:00 AM

TheWhoppah: JosephFinn: Note how TheWhoppah never cites any actual articles, studies or evidence.  Says the New Yorker article was "refuted" but doesn't cite anything.  Says the Beyler (that's Dr. Craig Beyler, not "Beylor") report does not support the conclusions, but does not cite any evidence against it.  Basically, it's just repeating the bad science that was used to murder Willingham.

Just read the Beylor report for yourself instead of taking anyone's word about it.  It doesn't show ANY EVIDENCE that the fire was not arson.  All Beyler did was look at the old photos, read the official report, and point out that some clues that, at the time, were believed to only happen in arson fires are now known to happen (uncommonly) in non-arson fires.  The report doesn't even refute all of the forensic evidence, only some of it.  Baylor didn't even bother to interview the actual fire marshal.  The report was bought and paid for by anti-death penalty advocates.  Beyler is a whore of the courts, an expert that will testify for whichever side is paying his bills.


Wow. The mental gymnastics are strong with this one.
Just reading what you wrote lends reasonable doubt to the state's case that it was arson that caused the fire...you said yourself that there were clues used at trial that have since been proven to not be associated with arson fires. That right there is reasonable doubt.

Are you the discredited fire marshal in question by chance?
 
2014-01-18 12:39:19 AM

JosephFinn: Note how TheWhoppah never cites any actual articles, studies or evidence. Says the New Yorker article was "refuted" but doesn't cite anything. Says the Beyler (that's Dr. Craig Beyler, not "Beylor") report does not support the conclusions, but does not cite any evidence against it. Basically, it's just repeating the bad science that was used to murder Willingham.


Saying, "the Beylor report" is a pretty common way to discuss something attached to someone; the Warren Commission, the Brady bill, etc. Nothing wrong there, and no need to whinge because he didn't use the man's full name and courtesy title.
 
2014-01-18 12:42:04 AM

Some Coke Drinking Guy: doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.

Ironically, the least painful ways to kill someone are; hanging, guillotine, and firing squad.  However, since these are also the most gruesome to watch, despite being near instantaneous,  we as a society prefer, slower, more pleasant to watch ways of killing someone.  That way those doing the killing can feel better about themselves, while the accused spends his last moments on earth in a whole lot of silent pain.


Yup
 
2014-01-18 12:45:12 AM

gfid: I didn't sit on the jury or hear all the evidence, but the mere fact that questionable evidence was used in the prosecution is a problem in my opinion.


Of course it is a problem but it was not enough doubt to overturn the verdict on appeal nor to win clemency from the Governor.  (big shocker, rick perry ha!)
The Fire Marshall testified to 20 "clues of arson" found in the rubble.
In the years after the fire, arson science discovered that it was possible that about half of those clues could also happen in non-arson fires.
So that takes us from 20 clues of arson down to 10 plus another 10 clues that are probably arson.
Plus eyewitness neighbors to him peering in the windows all around the house before any smoke or flames were seen.
Plus the half dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter.
Plus his inconsistent story explaining how he just got up and left all three kids in the house without even trying to save them.
Plus no evidence of smoke inhalation, not a single singed hair.
Plus his behavior with regard to the firemen.
Plus his confession in the jail (this one is not reliable)
Plus his later confession to his wife (post conviction)

So no, the science was not as firm as they believed it to be at the time but there was more than enough evidence of guilt that he burned his three children alive.  Anti-death penalty advocates need another poster child.  If Willingham is the best you can do then you've already lost.  Try Carlos DeLuna... much more likely to have been innocent... problem here is that reforms are already in place to keep that from happening again so not so much thunder.
 
2014-01-18 12:45:31 AM

insertsnarkyusername: Other than the mess why can't we have some sort of chair and harness we can strap the condemned to that lines up a perfect shot to the brain. The whole point of firing squads is you throw a couple blanks in so nobody knows who killed the person. But it wouldn't be too hard to rig something up that lines the shot up perfectly and can be triggered at the push of a button.


Someone still has to push that button.
 
2014-01-18 12:47:08 AM

jso2897: The burden of proof should be Beyond Any Doubt for death penalty cases.

I don't think our system of justice can be required to demand that rigorous a burden, just as a technical matter of law.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard our system uses in criminal matters, and I'm not sure yiou could require a higher one exclusively in only capital cases.


If I was supreme ruler it would be changed to Beyond Any Doubt and then I would set the judicial policy wonks on figuring out how to justify it.
 
2014-01-18 12:50:48 AM
It blows my mind that people who are in favor of execution will wring their hands over the "humanity" of the exact method. To me, the enormity of ending a life completely overwhelms any piddling details about the amount of temporary suffering that's incidentally inflicted.

If I knew I were going to die tomorrow, 99.9999% of my distress would be due to the fact that my life is about to be over and at most 0.0001% due to concern about the possible painfulness of the process.
 
2014-01-18 12:51:05 AM
See, reading over this thread is why we have the 8th Amd. restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the capital punishment debate at all. I realize some people are being (semi) facetious; some are trolling; and some just don't know what they are talking about--but that's the point. "I think murderers should get the same treatment they gave their victims! Yeah! Torture the shiat out of them!" So--if all they did was painlessly shoot someone, then they themselves get painlessly shot? "No, no, I want them to suffer for what they did!"

The reason the Framers (and society in general) took execution and punishment away from the rabble and gave it to the more or less impartial State is because of the Farker above who would want to ass-rape a murderer to death if he could; or who were upset Saddam died quickly. It's to prevent wonderful torture-executions like that of Robert-Francois Damiens in  1757, who was on the day of his execution tortured with red-hot pincers, burned with molten lead, sulfur and boiling oil, quartered between four horses after his joints were partially severed by an axe, and then (reportedly) burned alive. It took four hours. His crime was attempted regicide.

Now, some may argue that we are not monarchist France; but really, if someone were given the option of "how should the man who murdered your child die?" do you think they would not opt for such treatment, no matter how comparatively painless the child's death was? Or that many would agree with them? Or that the four-hour spectacle would be well-attended on PPV? Notwithstanding the fact that it would do nothing to deter or prevent child-murderers in the future?
 
2014-01-18 12:52:08 AM

TheWhoppah: The Fire Marshall testified to 20 "clues of arson" found in the rubble.
In the years after the fire, arson science discovered that it was possible that about half of those clues could also happen in non-arson fires.
So that takes us from 20 clues of arson down to 10 plus another 10 clues that are probably arson.
Plus eyewitness neighbors to him peering in the windows all around the house before any smoke or flames were seen.
Plus the half dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter.
Plus his inconsistent story explaining how he just got up and left all three kids in the house without even trying to save them.
Plus no evidence of smoke inhalation, not a single singed hair.
Plus his behavior with regard to the firemen.
Plus his confession in the jail (this one is not reliable)
Plus his later confession to his wife (post conviction)


So you're just going to resort to repeating the things that have already been shown to be wrong, eh?  OK, good luck with that.  Not sure why you;re so hot to see people get murdered by the state, but have fun with your blood lust.
 
2014-01-18 12:53:03 AM
 
2014-01-18 12:54:00 AM

TheWhoppah: No, the reason it costs a million dollars is because people facing the death penalty don't get just any old overworked public defender. They don't get a tax lawyer or real-estate attorney either. When the death penalty is involved you get a criminal law specialist that has to be specifically qualified for death penalty cases AND has agreed to take such cases. The attorney is given any resources required to prepare the defense including investigators, access to private forensic lab testing to double-check the claims from the government lab, psychologists, criminologists or whatever expert witness is reasonably necessary. Then, if convicted and sentenced to die, the defendant gets automatic appeals paid for by the State and the appeals go up through the state system and then through the federal system.


And yet, in spite of all that, we still send an alarming number of innocent people to death row.
 
2014-01-18 12:55:33 AM

gfid: TheWhoppah: It doesn't show ANY EVIDENCE that the fire was not arson.

Usually it's up to the prosecution to show ANY EVIDENCE that a crime was committed.  It's not supposed to be up to the defense to prove innocence.


You might have a point if the Beyler report had anything to do with the actual defense or prosecution.  It didn't.  It was commissioned by anti-death penalty advocated a decade after the trial.  In other words, the author was PAID to come to a specific conclusion.

You do not have a constitutional right not to be convicted if you are innocent.  You have a constitutional right to a trial.  He got his trial and he was convicted.  Yes some of the evidence that was 100% certainly arson was later proven to be 90% likely arson but that wasn't the only evidence raised at trial and the appeals court said there was enough evidence remaining to sustain the conviction.  That is due process.
 
2014-01-18 12:57:39 AM

untaken_name: MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.

It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.


We had about a dozen dead people from a monster named Kenneth Allen McDuff. This guy killed three people, was sentenced to death, the courts tossed the death penalty, he somehow got released -- and became one of Texas' most notorious serial killers. I knew the sister of one of his later victims. This guy was guilty as sin the first time around and not executing him meant a lot of other innocent people never were able to see old age. Indeed, he committed his first murder after prison within three days of release.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff
 
2014-01-18 12:59:50 AM
ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-18 12:59:54 AM

Skyrmion: It blows my mind that people who are in favor of execution will wring their hands over the "humanity" of the exact method. To me, the enormity of ending a life completely overwhelms any piddling details about the amount of temporary suffering that's incidentally inflicted.

If I knew I were going to die tomorrow, 99.9999% of my distress would be due to the fact that my life is about to be over and at most 0.0001% due to concern about the possible painfulness of the process.


Yeah short of something intentionally slow and painful like burning at the stake or crucifiction etc it should be irrelevent the exact method used.

Either you think life is too precious to kill anyone for any reason or you think killing productive members of society is a legitimate reason to end someones life.
 
2014-01-18 01:02:43 AM

clyph: And yet, in spite of all that, we still send an alarming number of innocent people to death row.


Just because they are sent to death row does not mean they are ultimately executed.  Death penalty cases are poured over with a fine-toothed comb and the innocent ones are taken off death row.  It is sexy work to exhortation a death row inmate.  You are much MUCH more likely to find innocent men serving Life sentences... hardly anyone cares about them.  Some people in this thread even said Life Without Parole is worse than death.
 
2014-01-18 01:02:59 AM
Say what you want about the death penalty, it isn't some wussy penalty like suck-ass hockey's boxes.

No, knowing that you're going to die and just when has got to be the ultimate time-out.
 
2014-01-18 01:04:40 AM

Death Whisper:


That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.

Way I see it thinking DP and abortion are both right, both wrong, or dp right and abortion wrong are all legitimate positions but abortion right and dp wrong is like you should be locked in a sanitarium and given a frontal lobotomy level insane.
 
2014-01-18 01:05:30 AM

DrPainMD: slayer199: Hey, it worked for Gary Gilmore.

Oddly enough, exactly 37 years ago today.


Wow...  and a total accident on my part.  I just remember Gilmore wanted death by firing squad...it was a big deal in the 70's (I think I was 11 or 12 at the time).
 
2014-01-18 01:06:27 AM

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

It takes too long.

Seriously, someone asked that question in CA a while back, and the response was essentially that it takes 30-45 minutes to kill someone painlessly via anaesthetic OD, and that's too difficult for the witnesses to sit through.


Meh.  If they want to watch a man die, they can wait 30 minutes.

or, have them walk in 25 minutes after the injection.
 
2014-01-18 01:07:13 AM

Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:

That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.


WAT?
 
2014-01-18 01:08:21 AM
What the hell does this have to do with abortion?  A fetus is not any more human than a tumor.  Human DNA doesn't make you special.  Being a sentient individual is the sweet spot.  Apes should qualify before a fetus.  Killers lose the right be be considered human by their own actions... so executing a killer is not like killing a real human.
 
2014-01-18 01:08:30 AM
How about death by "Here's 60 Xanax"? Cheap, painless, efficient.
 
2014-01-18 01:08:30 AM
How about we crush them slowly between two giant steel plates that move closer and closer together at about a millimetre per minute.

We can broadcast the ongoing psychological and physical torture of a human being slowly flattened on live TV.

Just think about that experience. The knowing what was coming and the inevitable hours of growing confinement and restriction before your body finally starts to be crushed at a snails pace. I'm sure the screaming, pleading and begging would be illuminating. Especially when it comes from the wrongfully convicted.

It would all be such a great farking detterent, don't you guys think? I'm sure it would do wonders for our society.
 
2014-01-18 01:08:59 AM
The cost of material or method used to put someone to death is completely insignificant. It's the years, sometimes decades, of litigation and appeals and motions that eat up the taxpayers money.
 
2014-01-18 01:10:45 AM

Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:

That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.

Way I see it thinking DP and abortion are both right, both wrong, or dp right and abortion wrong are all legitimate positions but abortion right and dp wrong is like you should be locked in a sanitarium and given a frontal lobotomy level insane.


Convicts are fully sentient human beings, fetuses aren't.  That's all there is to it.

I'd be no more inclined to make terminating a fetus illegal than I would be to make killing (say) a frog illegal. Especially one early in term.
 
2014-01-18 01:11:41 AM
unitedcats.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-18 01:12:04 AM

BuckTurgidson: Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:

That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.

WAT?


You obviously missed Death Whisper's pic
 
2014-01-18 01:12:45 AM

DubtodaIll: jso2897: serial_crusher: The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.

By the way, Founding Fathers, old chums - how the f**k are we supposed to forge law out of subjective terms like "cruel" or "unusual"?

The brilliance of the constitution is the perfection of it vagueness to allow for a continuing debate of how to run things. Setting things it stone will always get broken. Words an ideas however bend willingly to whomever it able to wield them with proficiency.


I recently heard a short piece on Radiolab where they discussed this very point.  It seems that James Madison, author of the "Virginia Plan" that served as the basis for debate in the development of the U.S. Constitution, initially despaired over the inability of the delegates to agree on specific language for contentious issues, e.g., the balance of power between the federal gov't. and state gov'ts.  Over time, he changed his mind, viewing the ambiguity as not only a way to get the Constitution ratified, but to promote continuing debate on the issues most important to citizens at any given time.

I wish the SCOTUS would read Madison's correspondence that shows his shift in thinking.
 
2014-01-18 01:13:20 AM

moeburn: Forget the death penalty AND life imprisonment.  We need to reinstate exile.  We need a new Australia to send them to.

"Oh, you want to murder everyone you see?  That's fine, but we have some rules here, so you'll have to take that somewhere else.  Goodbye."


I vote for Washington D.C. Just put up a big wall around it first.
 
2014-01-18 01:13:49 AM

GhostFish: How about we crush them slowly between two giant steel plates that move closer and closer together at about a millimetre per minute.

We can broadcast the ongoing psychological and physical torture of a human being slowly flattened on live TV.

Just think about that experience. The knowing what was coming and the inevitable hours of growing confinement and restriction before your body finally starts to be crushed at a snails pace. I'm sure the screaming, pleading and begging would be illuminating. Especially when it comes from the wrongfully convicted.

It would all be such a great farking detterent, don't you guys think? I'm sure it would do wonders for our society.


Not really. Way too slow and boring to make good TV. You gotta fit it into half-hour block at most, maybe have them eaten by starving mice or something.
 
2014-01-18 01:14:03 AM

Gyrfalcon: See, reading over this thread is why we have the 8th Amd. restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the capital punishment debate at all. I realize some people are being (semi) facetious; some are trolling; and some just don't know what they are talking about--but that's the point. "I think murderers should get the same treatment they gave their victims! Yeah! Torture the shiat out of them!" So--if all they did was painlessly shoot someone, then they themselves get painlessly shot? "No, no, I want them to suffer for what they did!"

The reason the Framers (and society in general) took execution and punishment away from the rabble and gave it to the more or less impartial State is because of the Farker above who would want to ass-rape a murderer to death if he could; or who were upset Saddam died quickly. It's to prevent wonderful torture-executions like that of Robert-Francois Damiens in  1757, who was on the day of his execution tortured with red-hot pincers, burned with molten lead, sulfur and boiling oil, quartered between four horses after his joints were partially severed by an axe, and then (reportedly) burned alive. It took four hours. His crime was attempted regicide.

Now, some may argue that we are not monarchist France; but really, if someone were given the option of "how should the man who murdered your child die?" do you think they would not opt for such treatment, no matter how comparatively painless the child's death was? Or that many would agree with them? Or that the four-hour spectacle would be well-attended on PPV? Notwithstanding the fact that it would do nothing to deter or prevent child-murderers in the future?


What I've been thinking about the past few minutes meshes with that somewhat. It would seem to me that the message being sent by inflicting capital punishment is "you have proven that you, and by extension your kind, are not worthy to live among us. We erase your existence, because we are better than you." And there are hordes of those who are all to eager to show that they are just as bad as, if not worse than the condemned in their desire to inflict suffering.
 
2014-01-18 01:14:53 AM
"...too eager..."
 
2014-01-18 01:15:03 AM
I like how none of the politicians stop to wonder if people are going by WANT to be on a firing squad... "Fark 'em, as long as I get that coveted 'Tough on crime' vote, right?". I think the people who try to campaign based on how they think people should be killed should be the ones who have to do the killing... Just like ChickenHawks can't push for war if they have no skin in the game.

Also, as has been mentioned, we have WAY too many death row cases being overturned to be putting in a WalMart of Capital Punishment Lane right now, IMHO...
 
2014-01-18 01:15:51 AM

Skyrmion: GhostFish: How about we crush them slowly between two giant steel plates that move closer and closer together at about a millimetre per minute.

We can broadcast the ongoing psychological and physical torture of a human being slowly flattened on live TV.

Just think about that experience. The knowing what was coming and the inevitable hours of growing confinement and restriction before your body finally starts to be crushed at a snails pace. I'm sure the screaming, pleading and begging would be illuminating. Especially when it comes from the wrongfully convicted.

It would all be such a great farking detterent, don't you guys think? I'm sure it would do wonders for our society.

Not really. Way too slow and boring to make good TV. You gotta fit it into half-hour block at most, maybe have them eaten by starving mice or something.


Dude, that's animal cruelty.
 
2014-01-18 01:20:18 AM

whatshisname: How about death by "Here's 60 Xanax"? Cheap, painless, efficient.


You'd think so but the anti-death penalty pussies were fussing earlier this week about a guy executed with a huge overdose of Versed (a benzo stronger than Xanax) together with an overdose of hydromorphone, which is itself like 8x stronger than morphine... and mixing benzos and opiates compounds the effects.  This execution method was basically like prepping someone for surgery but they left out the breathing tube so he suffered respiratory collapse and died... but it was painless you can count on that.
 
2014-01-18 01:28:05 AM

BuckTurgidson: Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:

That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.

WAT?


At least one of them is probably a troll, and the other (maybe both) is/are an idiot who believe(s) that anything after conception is a person.  Seems ridiculous, but you have to consider it when taken alongside all the other retarded bullshait they believe out of their little book of fairy tales.  Ironically, even the Bible doesn't consider life to have started until the baby starts breathing ("Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" Genesis 2:7), but you can't expect these morons to read their own book, now can you?
 
2014-01-18 01:28:13 AM

untaken_name: MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.

It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.


That's assuming if course that they committed a crime in the first place...
 
2014-01-18 01:29:01 AM
if you are a scumbag piece of shiat, i hope you suffer as much as possible.

/if i am convicted of something i didn't do, i am perfectly happy to be painfully executed, as long as the real scumbags suffer the same fate.
 
2014-01-18 01:29:27 AM

Mikey1969: untaken_name: MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.

It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.

That's assuming if course that they committed a crime in the first place...


Well, they certainly won't now.  Potential problem: Solved.
 
2014-01-18 01:29:39 AM

whatshisname: How about death by "Here's 60 Xanax"? Cheap, painless, efficient.


You can't really OD on Xanax by itself. Some people have taken upwards of 2,000mg of Xanax in an attempt to overdose, only to wind up sleeping for 3 days.

If you mix it with other drugs (or alcohol) though, your chances (of dying) skyrocket.
 
2014-01-18 01:31:46 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: People are completely inured to seeing innocent men, women and children dead on the street in ongoing war footage.  Seeing people they feel deserve to be dead instead might actually be less psychologically farked up.


...of course, half the time, those two groups of people overlap.
 
2014-01-18 01:32:05 AM
I have always thought that the death penalty should not serve as a deterrent, but as a way of removing people from society. Those found, beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, should be killed as quick and painlessly as possible. Those not subject to death should serve there time and be rehabilitated to successfully rejoin society. The death penalty isn't about killing people to feel better about yourself, it is about removing someone not fit to live with others. No one should approve of torture, like other inmates(child molestors) being raped by other inmates). People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.
 
2014-01-18 01:32:52 AM

Emposter: Mikey1969: untaken_name: MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.

It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.

That's assuming if course that they committed a crime in the first place...

Well, they certainly won't now.  Potential problem: Solved.


I think they are establishing the first precrime unit next month, too...
 
2014-01-18 01:36:36 AM

Gyrfalcon: See, reading over this thread is why we have the 8th Amd. restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the capital punishment debate at all. I realize some people are being (semi) facetious; some are trolling; and some just don't know what they are talking about--but that's the point. "I think murderers should get the same treatment they gave their victims! Yeah! Torture the shiat out of them!" So--if all they did was painlessly shoot someone, then they themselves get painlessly shot? "No, no, I want them to suffer for what they did!"

The reason the Framers (and society in general) took execution and punishment away from the rabble and gave it to the more or less impartial State is because of the Farker above who would want to ass-rape a murderer to death if he could; or who were upset Saddam died quickly. It's to prevent wonderful torture-executions like that of Robert-Francois Damiens in  1757, who was on the day of his execution tortured with red-hot pincers, burned with molten lead, sulfur and boiling oil, quartered between four horses after his joints were partially severed by an axe, and then (reportedly) burned alive. It took four hours. His crime was attempted regicide.

Now, some may argue that we are not monarchist France; but really, if someone were given the option of "how should the man who murdered your child die?" do you think they would not opt for such treatment, no matter how comparatively painless the child's death was? Or that many would agree with them? Or that the four-hour spectacle would be well-attended on PPV? Notwithstanding the fact that it would do nothing to deter or prevent child-murderers in the future?


sorry, tl;dr

defective monkeys deserve no quarter, or mercy. kill them in the most painful way.
 
2014-01-18 01:36:39 AM
The feeling of suffocation is caused by a build up of carbon dioxide. Without that build up, people peacefully die in an oxygen deprived environment. This is why "suicide bags" are so popular in Japan: its quick and painless.

Why not build "nitrogen chambers" to replace gas chambers and other forms of execution? Instead of poison gas, the chamber is flooded with nitrogen. The condemned peacefully asphyxiates. Its cheap, safe, and humane.
 
2014-01-18 01:36:50 AM
I believe in the death penalty in theory. There are people so damaged and vicious that there is no point in keeping them alive. Put them down quickly, painlessly and dispassionately.

But in practice, I can't support it. Our system is far to flawed and the motivations to distorted. There are monsters who deserve to die but when you have dozens of people exonerated from death row, it seems we're not very good at sorting them out.

One thing that's really struck me in reading some accounts in depth, like The Executioners Song and the Cameron Todd Willingham case is the motivations of the people involved. It doesn't seem to be justice or even vengeance, but rather pride, image and politics. And at least a bit of sociopathy.

The best deterrent is a decent job and economic security.
 
2014-01-18 01:37:47 AM
0.tqn.com
crisisboom.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-18 01:38:39 AM

White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.


Why not pure nitrous? Seems like the perfect way to go out.
 
2014-01-18 01:40:42 AM
Force the condemned to watch "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo" episodes with a gun by his side. He'll take care of things himself.
 
2014-01-18 01:41:33 AM

Lamberts Ho Man: I believe in the death penalty in theory. There are people so damaged and vicious that there is no point in keeping them alive. Put them down quickly, painlessly and dispassionately.

But in practice, I can't support it. Our system is far to flawed and the motivations to distorted. There are monsters who deserve to die but when you have dozens of people exonerated from death row, it seems we're not very good at sorting them out.

One thing that's really struck me in reading some accounts in depth, like The Executioners Song and the Cameron Todd Willingham case is the motivations of the people involved. It doesn't seem to be justice or even vengeance, but rather pride, image and politics. And at least a bit of sociopathy.

The best deterrent is a decent job and economic security.


yes, of course.
but it is too late to be idealistic about it.

if there is a god, he will reconcile our mistakes.
if we are all just talking monkeys, who cares how we die? oblivion waits for us all.
 
2014-01-18 01:42:36 AM

BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.


Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?
 
2014-01-18 01:43:42 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Force the condemned to watch "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo" episodes with a gun by his side. He'll take care of things himself.


Forced honey boo boo watching is like burning at the stake level cruel.
 
2014-01-18 01:44:50 AM

Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?


richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.
 
2014-01-18 01:46:47 AM

Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.


In practice, it generally costs more to execute someone then it does to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their life.
 
2014-01-18 01:46:56 AM

Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.


The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.
 
2014-01-18 01:48:55 AM

fusillade762: debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.

How much does being chased to death by naked female roller skaters cost?


userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2014-01-18 01:51:12 AM

Prophet of Loss: The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.


So that makes one.
 
2014-01-18 01:51:41 AM

Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?


Be honest.  If you knew you would never be released.  0% chance of EVER getting out.  Which would you favor for yourself?

Not that the prisoner's preference should be the deciding factor here...with regards to life imprisonment, society is better off with the death penalty, rather than a multi-decade money-sink with no purpose.
 
2014-01-18 01:55:08 AM

Skyrmion: Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.

In practice, it generally costs more to execute someone then it does to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their life.


it cost the iraqi goverment less than $100k to convict and execute saddam hussein.

our system is broken.
cops can beat kelly thomas on camera for almost 10 minutes until they murdered him, and get off scott free,
where is the justice?
 
2014-01-18 01:55:20 AM
Lots of good comments to quote, but I can't type well enough to keep up. As a person who been shocked by electricity a couple of thousands(?) times over more than 30 years (who counts?), and almost electrocuted twice ( a person can only be electrocuted once), once before I can remember (under 3yrs. of age), and once when I was in my thirties as a experienced electrician (accidents can happen), I can say with some authority imho death by electrocution only looks painful. It is really painless but not very comfortable, for you can think as clear as a bell and figure out how to react if you can (sure being strapped down would limit your reaction). Time seems to slow down, or thinking speeds up, you feel each cycle of  vibration, but your pretty much paralyzed for the most part, yet there is really no pain.

I like the comment above about doing ten years in prison, more for serious crimes, five years minimum for any lesser crime. I know for fact after 5+ years in prison, you will not screw up again, or you would deserve life in prison if not death penaty.

Firing squad to the head may be most humane way of death, robot or not. Anything other than good drugs would be inhumane imho, loose your head still may allow you to think for more than a few seconds, maybe up to a minute, after it happens. But death penalty as a deterrent dose not work for people who become suicidal, and want to go out taking all they can with them.
 
2014-01-18 01:59:05 AM

Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.

The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.


just because the police are incompetent and corrupt, that is not a reason to excuse abject evil when we find it.
.
 
2014-01-18 02:02:40 AM

JosephFinn: So you're just going to resort to repeating the things that have already been shown to be wrong, eh? OK, good luck with that. Not sure why you;re so hot to see people get murdered by the state, but have fun with your blood lust.


Careful. If you dare to call out right-wingers on this site, you can and will attract the attention of the mods, no matter how long you've been a member. He's already admitted to approving of the murder of Carlos DeLuna, who was unmistakably murdered by the state. Vengeance, vengeance uber alles!
 
2014-01-18 02:03:17 AM

Death Whisper: [ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com image 640x404]


Abortion: I believe the rights of a woman to her body trump any rights a non-born baby has. I certainly don't believe the state has any right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body just to save the life of a potential human being. Nor do I believe the state has any right to dictate the doctor-patient relationship, yet that is what anti-abortion laws do in many red states. There is also the fact that an non-born is not a citizen, thus the state has not right to protect a non-citizen. Again, the rights of the adult female trump the rights of a non-born.

Capital Punishment: I believe that one wrongful death is too many, and capital punishment is nothing more than sanctioned murder. I believe we need to be better than such people, and we do that by not killing them. I also value the life of a born human being, even if they are by all intents and purposes a terrible human being. Taking a life is not something to be done lightly.

Then there are the economics of the death penalty. It costs more than life in prison because its costly to make sure you don't execute the wrong person (even still they get it wrong). Nor has it proven to be a credible deterrent. Which makes sense, people kill for a lot of reasons but they are most assuredly not thinking rationally when they do so. So why would they think of the consequences of their actions? Humans are pretty poor at judging the consequences of their actions.

True, murder rate and crime is going down but there is no proof that this is because of capital punishment.
 
2014-01-18 02:04:46 AM

Popular Opinion: Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.

The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.

just because the police are incompetent and corrupt, that is not a reason to excuse abject evil when we find it.
.


The take away is: we cannot rely on our justice system to not execute innocent people. Unless your one of the those tools who says "men, need to break a few eggs ..."
 
2014-01-18 02:06:02 AM
The DEA seizes thousands of pounds of heroin and illegal prescriptions including pain killers each year.  Why not recycle that material rather than destroying it and utilize it for executions.  I am sure we can find the pure materials and then give a sufficient dose that would kill 50 elephants.   Or in the alternative, allow the death row inmates the opportunity to have as much drugs as they wish and they can take care of things themselves (one of the downsides is many would commit horrible acts to be guaranteed drugs for life).
 
2014-01-18 02:06:34 AM

bbfreak: Death Whisper: [ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com image 640x404]

Abortion: I believe the rights of a woman to her body trump any rights a non-born baby has. I certainly don't believe the state has any right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body just to save the life of a potential human being. Nor do I believe the state has any right to dictate the doctor-patient relationship, yet that is what anti-abortion laws do in many red states. There is also the fact that an non-born is not a citizen, thus the state has not right to protect a non-citizen. Again, the rights of the adult female trump the rights of a non-born.

Capital Punishment: I believe that one wrongful death is too many, and capital punishment is nothing more than sanctioned murder. I believe we need to be better than such people, and we do that by not killing them. I also value the life of a born human being, even if they are by all intents and purposes a terrible human being. Taking a life is not something to be done lightly.

Then there are the economics of the death penalty. It costs more than life in prison because its costly to make sure you don't execute the wrong person (even still they get it wrong). Nor has it proven to be a credible deterrent. Which makes sense, people kill for a lot of reasons but they are most assuredly not thinking rationally when they do so. So why would they think of the consequences of their actions? Humans are pretty poor at judging the consequences of their actions.

True, murder rate and crime is going down but there is no proof that this is because of capital punishment.


dead murderers cannot kill anyone else.
do you know how many convicted murderers have killed again after they were convicted?

one would be too many.
 
2014-01-18 02:08:30 AM

Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.

The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.

just because the police are incompetent and corrupt, that is not a reason to excuse abject evil when we find it.
.

The take away is: we cannot rely on our justice system to not execute innocent people. Unless your one of the those tools who says "men, need to break a few eggs ..."


basically, yes.
do you realize how many completely innocent people we have murdered in this war on terrorism?
 
2014-01-18 02:09:00 AM

Popular Opinion: Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.

The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.

just because the police are incompetent and corrupt, that is not a reason to excuse abject evil when we find it.
.

The take away is: we cannot rely on our justice system to not execute innocent people. Unless your one of the those tools who says "men, need to break a few eggs ..."

basically, yes.
do you realize how many completely innocent people we have murdered in this war on terrorism?


So that makes it right?
 
2014-01-18 02:10:12 AM
There are problems with the death penalty in many states, but there should be a federal standard. You have someone on video going into a 7-11 and shooting the clerk dead - death penalty. Barring the video was digitally faked, it should not take X million dollars for the government to remove this guy from society. A serial rapist with 5 women having matching DNA evidence - death penalty. There is a federal "standard" for all sorts of crap in the US, why not for the death penalty?
 
2014-01-18 02:11:16 AM
I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is.
 
2014-01-18 02:12:34 AM

Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Prophet of Loss: Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.

The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.

just because the police are incompetent and corrupt, that is not a reason to excuse abject evil when we find it.
.

The take away is: we cannot rely on our justice system to not execute innocent people. Unless your one of the those tools who says "men, need to break a few eggs ..."

basically, yes.
do you realize how many completely innocent people we have murdered in this war on terrorism?

So that makes it right?


of course not.
this is the reality we live with.

are you planning to overthrow the government because they are murdering innocent brown people?
so why are you upset that we are killing rapists and child molesters?
 
2014-01-18 02:17:47 AM

Frederf: I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is.


Well guillotine and firing squad are like the patron saints of humane but gruesome.
 
2014-01-18 02:21:32 AM
Also why do so many people assume that anyone for capital punishment is in it for the "blood lust" The death penalty is not about deterrent but removal of waste. I do not want people to suffer. If they go to jail they should not be subject to any abuse physical or sexual from other inmates. The goal should be to address whatever issue led them to commit their crime and if this can be fixed to have them reenter society. It is NOT ok to rape women, to murder innocents, to sexually abuse children. If there is enough evidence through DNA and video then that person should be removed from society. Your life is not greater than anyone elses.
 
2014-01-18 02:27:32 AM
what is more cruel?
life in prison for something you didn't do, or quiet oblivion?
 
2014-01-18 02:27:53 AM

stewbert: White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.

Why not pure nitrous? Seems like the perfect way to go out.



You mean nitrous oxide?  It's more expensive, but it'd work the same way.

I'm all for oxygen deficient atmosphere for execution.  Unconscious in seconds, coma in less than 20, death in under a minute.  No mess, no fuss.

N2, the quicker picker upper!

If I was gonna end my life, I'd take my gas mask from work, find an inert gas canister like helium and say night night.
 
2014-01-18 02:29:11 AM

Franco: island


I don't understand why this isn't done, either.  It doesn't even need to be a desert island or other hostile place.  Hell, set aside one of the Florida Keys.  Punishment consists of being handed a backpack with some food, water, and toiletries, and being left on the island with all of the other nasty sorts who were exiled there.
 
2014-01-18 02:31:25 AM
Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.
 
2014-01-18 02:33:37 AM

Terrible Old Man: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

1. Let's fund terrorists/terrorist states!


Sure, with the 40-50 executions performed in the US every year they'll be rolling in dough.
 
2014-01-18 02:34:48 AM

Popular Opinion: basically, yes.
do you realize how many completely innocent people we have murdered in this war on terrorism?


We are all very impressed by how much you want to murder innocent people. Truly, for your efforts on behalf of killing the innocent, you must be a paragon of humanity.
 
2014-01-18 02:36:06 AM

BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.


being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.
 
2014-01-18 02:37:48 AM

captainktainer: Popular Opinion: basically, yes.
do you realize how many completely innocent people we have murdered in this war on terrorism?

We are all very impressed by how much you want to murder innocent people. Truly, for your efforts on behalf of killing the innocent, you must be a paragon of humanity.


so you are planning to overthrow the evil regime? good for you and good luck with that.
 
2014-01-18 02:41:01 AM

Popular Opinion: being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.


Popular Opinion: so you are planning to overthrow the evil regime? good for you and good luck with that.


All that matters to you is killing people in as gruesome a way as possible. I congratulate you on fellating the Fark.com mods. May you reap what you sow.
 
2014-01-18 02:43:35 AM

captainktainer: Popular Opinion: being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

Popular Opinion: so you are planning to overthrow the evil regime? good for you and good luck with that.

All that matters to you is killing people in as gruesome a way as possible. I congratulate you on fellating the Fark.com mods. May you reap what you sow.


i have no idea what you mean by that,
if you want be the champion for the ariel castros of this planet, you are much more sick than i am, and perhaps as sick as those that you defend,
 
2014-01-18 02:50:13 AM

Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.


How abou a clean humane execution(like hanging or firing squad) if you just strait up killed your victim(s)

and some insanely gruesome shiat if you tortured/dismemberd/raped etc your victim(s), Im talking something medieval like breaking on the wheel or burning at the stake or being skinned alive
 
2014-01-18 02:52:19 AM
Once again, politicians show us that to indulge your most depraved appetites, you just need a great campaign manager.
 
2014-01-18 02:54:25 AM

Oldiron_79: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

How abou a clean humane execution(like hanging or firing squad) if you just strait up killed your victim(s)

and some insanely gruesome shiat if you tortured/dismemberd/raped etc your victim(s), Im talking something medieval like breaking on the wheel or burning at the stake or being skinned alive


i'm good with that.
do unto others as you would have done unto you.
religious bullpoop aside, i believe you deserve no more or less than the consideration you gave to your victims.
 
2014-01-18 02:54:40 AM

Emposter: BuckTurgidson: Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:

That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.

WAT?

At least one of them is probably a troll, and the other (maybe both) is/are an idiot who believe(s) that anything after conception is a person.  Seems ridiculous, but you have to consider it when taken alongside all the other retarded bullshait they believe out of their little book of fairy tales.  Ironically, even the Bible doesn't consider life to have started until the baby starts breathing ("Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" Genesis 2:7), but you can't expect these morons to read their own book, now can you?


Considering their standards for "life", and what the Bible says (as quoted above), shouldn't they ALSO consider dust to be alive? I mean, if a fetus is a person (or a "pre-person") then by the Bible's own Word, dust is literally the exact same thing as a fetus; It's something that has the potential to become a person and possess a soul. I would think, since it's mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the Bible, that Christians would be bending over backwards to consider all "dust of the ground" to be sacred. I mean, the LORD God didn't form a man from a fetus... He formed a man from the dust of the ground. The LORD God didn't breathe life into a fetus... He breathed life into a man formed from dust.

With all this in mind, I can't understand why there's not an anti-Hoover group that's at least as large as the anti-abortion group of Christians. I'd think the Catholic Church would have declared brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners and dustbusters to be the tools of the Devil.
 
2014-01-18 02:54:43 AM
When do you know if a society has gone so far down the wrong path that it can never come back from it?
 
2014-01-18 02:56:54 AM

Phil Moskowitz: When do you know if a society has gone so far down the wrong path that it can never come back from it?


when bill clinton can remain president, or when the cops can get away with murdering kelly thomas.
 
2014-01-18 02:59:16 AM
We have the death penalty because it makes us feel good to see the "deserving" getting what they "deserve", simple as that. This country is full of sociopaths if you think about it.
 
2014-01-18 03:00:58 AM
"Take a step or two forward, lads. It will be easier that way."
 
2014-01-18 03:02:09 AM

themindiswatching: We have the death penalty because it makes us feel good to see the "deserving" getting what they "deserve", simple as that. This country is full of sociopaths if you think about it.


considering we have murdered hundred of thousands of people who were no threat to us, in the name of "freedom" or "national security" you are probably right.
 
2014-01-18 03:02:20 AM
Why kill anyone. Just a thought.
 
2014-01-18 03:04:18 AM

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Why kill anyone. Just a thought.


if a man was raping your 3 year old daughter, and was about to stab her, you would watch?
yeah, right.

get real.
 
2014-01-18 03:05:14 AM
images.sodahead.com
Seriously though, if capital punishment was a deterrent to crime then states who have adopted the death penalty should have lower incidences of crime and that is NOT the case. In the end killing people unnecessarily is sadistic and revenge oriented. As despicable as child rapists and murderers are, nobody deserves to have their one and only life ended. It diminishes society, it brings us down to their level, and it accomplishes nothing.
 
2014-01-18 03:05:17 AM

Emposter: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

Be honest.  If you knew you would never be released.  0% chance of EVER getting out.  Which would you favor for yourself?


Easiest question I've ever answered: Life imprisonment.
 
2014-01-18 03:07:21 AM

ZeroCorpse: Emposter: BuckTurgidson: Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:

That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.

WAT?

At least one of them is probably a troll, and the other (maybe both) is/are an idiot who believe(s) that anything after conception is a person.  Seems ridiculous, but you have to consider it when taken alongside all the other retarded bullshait they believe out of their little book of fairy tales.  Ironically, even the Bible doesn't consider life to have started until the baby starts breathing ("Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" Genesis 2:7), but you can't expect these morons to read their own book, now can you?

Considering their standards for "life", and what the Bible says (as quoted above), shouldn't they ALSO consider dust to be alive? I mean, if a fetus is a person (or a "pre-person") then by the Bible's own Word, dust is literally the exact same thing as a fetus; It's something that has the potential to become a person and possess a soul. I would think, since it's mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the Bible, that Christians would be bending over backwards to consider all "dust of the ground" to be sacred. I mean, the LORD God didn't form a man from a fetus... He formed a man from the dust of the ground. The LORD God didn't breathe life into a fetus... He breathed life into a man formed from dust.

With all this in mind, I can't understand why there's not an anti-Hoover group that's at least as large as the anti-abortion group of Christians. I'd think the Catholic Church would have declared brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners and dustbusters to be the tools of the Devil.


I wish I'd thought of this as a kid...

Mom: Clean your room!
Me:  Sorry, no can do, that's genocide.
 
2014-01-18 03:07:41 AM

x1v16: [images.sodahead.com image 290x290]
Seriously though, if capital punishment was a deterrent to crime then states who have adopted the death penalty should have lower incidences of crime and that is NOT the case. In the end killing people unnecessarily is sadistic and revenge oriented. As despicable as child rapists and murderers are, nobody deserves to have their one and only life ended. It diminishes society, it brings us down to their level, and it accomplishes nothing.


i have never heard of a case where an executed murdered killed anyone.
but convicted murderers have killed lots of people when they weren't executed.
 
2014-01-18 03:09:49 AM
Also, since 1973 about 130 people have been released from death row for wrongful convictions and in 2003 alone 10 were released due to dna evidence exonerating them. You cannot ensure that innocent people sometimes get executed, it is inevitable. The only way to prevent the execution of innocents is to stop all executions. Then, if anyone is ever found innocent they still have decades of years of their lives they can get back what was taken from them.
 
2014-01-18 03:12:08 AM

Skyrmion: Emposter: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

Be honest.  If you knew you would never be released.  0% chance of EVER getting out.  Which would you favor for yourself?

Easiest question I've ever answered: Life imprisonment.


Interesting.  I like to think I'd have the courage to end it, but I'm a bit of a coward, so I suspect I'd just live in endless misery and boredom, completely void of any hope for a better tomorrow...a kind of living death, I imagine.
 
2014-01-18 03:16:28 AM

x1v16: Also, since 1973 about 130 people have been released from death row for wrongful convictions and in 2003 alone 10 were released due to dna evidence exonerating them. You cannot ensure that innocent people sometimes get executed, it is inevitable. The only way to prevent the execution of innocents is to stop all executions. Then, if anyone is ever found innocent they still have decades of years of their lives they can get back what was taken from them.


because the police and justice system are incompetent or worse.
the idea of putting the sick and depraved down is not wrong.
do not excuse evil for because we trust the wrong people to find and punish them.
instead, punish those that abuse the power to administer justice
you cannot give back what was taken.
have you ever heard or police or prosecutors going to jail for wrongly convicting anyone?
start there.
 
2014-01-18 03:23:39 AM

Popular Opinion: Gyrfalcon: See, reading over this thread is why we have the 8th Amd. restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the capital punishment debate at all. I realize some people are being (semi) facetious; some are trolling; and some just don't know what they are talking about--but that's the point. "I think murderers should get the same treatment they gave their victims! Yeah! Torture the shiat out of them!" So--if all they did was painlessly shoot someone, then they themselves get painlessly shot? "No, no, I want them to suffer for what they did!"

The reason the Framers (and society in general) took execution and punishment away from the rabble and gave it to the more or less impartial State is because of the Farker above who would want to ass-rape a murderer to death if he could; or who were upset Saddam died quickly. It's to prevent wonderful torture-executions like that of Robert-Francois Damiens in  1757, who was on the day of his execution tortured with red-hot pincers, burned with molten lead, sulfur and boiling oil, quartered between four horses after his joints were partially severed by an axe, and then (reportedly) burned alive. It took four hours. His crime was attempted regicide.

Now, some may argue that we are not monarchist France; but really, if someone were given the option of "how should the man who murdered your child die?" do you think they would not opt for such treatment, no matter how comparatively painless the child's death was? Or that many would agree with them? Or that the four-hour spectacle would be well-attended on PPV? Notwithstanding the fact that it would do nothing to deter or prevent child-murderers in the future?

sorry, tl;dr

defective monkeys deserve no quarter, or mercy. kill them in the most painful way.


Gee, that's too bad, that you thought it was too long. Because based on your posts in this later part of the thread, Damiens' fate is just what you would prefer. Even you, if you were wrongly accused, tried and convicted of a crime. You would really prefer to be tortured with burning irons, burned with boiling lead, sulphur and acid, and quartered alive by horses over a four-hour period, all the time knowing you were innocent of any charges, so long as a guilty person was also going to die at some point later in history?

Excuse me, I need to get a snorkel. The shiat is so deep in here, I can't keep my head above it any longer. I mean, you can try to troll me, but you should read what I write first. Nobody is ever going to believe that you'd actually be okay with this kind of treatment if you were innocent, and say "I'm good with that." And if YOU believe it, you're twice an idiot.
 
2014-01-18 03:25:05 AM

x1v16: You cannot ensure that innocent people sometimes get executed, it is inevitable. The only way to prevent the execution of innocents is to stop all executions.


Of course you can (or so close as to be equivalent).  As I discussed way upthread, require clear, verified video evidence of the actual crime as it happened with full facial footage of the defendant, or an in court confession, with lawyer, after being advised that the death penalty is being pursued, or MAYBE 100% consistent eyewitness testimony from dozens of independent eyewitnesses of the actual act from close range (maybe not that, I really don't like eyewitness testimony).  No DP based on just a few eyewitnesses, or circumstantial cases, and REALLY not based on he said she said crap.  Even if you get a conviction, no DP.

Just because our shiatty justice system DOESN'T keep innocents from being executed doesn't mean it can't.
 
2014-01-18 03:25:43 AM

whatshisname: How about death by "Here's 60 Xanax"? Cheap, painless, efficient.


Well, considering that it's virtually impossible to lethally OD on Xanax, that wouldn't be a very good option if death is your ultimate goal. Go ahead and try eating a bottle of Xanax. You might sleep for 4 days, but you'll wake up (you might not feel so hot when you do though). Last I read, and admittedly this was a while ago, they had not yet nailed down the human LD50 for Xanax (maybe even any benzodiazepines).

If you really want to kill someone with Xanax, you'll first have to get them addicted to a very large daily dose over a long period of time, then suddenly cease administering the drug. The withdrawal probably will be lethal due to the seizures and various effects on the circulatory system, depending on the length of use and relative daily dosage.

NOTE: I am not a doctor, but I will be happy to play doctor upon request.
 
2014-01-18 03:29:15 AM

Emposter: Skyrmion: Emposter: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

Be honest.  If you knew you would never be released.  0% chance of EVER getting out.  Which would you favor for yourself?

Easiest question I've ever answered: Life imprisonment.

Interesting.  I like to think I'd have the courage to end it, but I'm a bit of a coward, so I suspect I'd just live in endless misery and boredom, completely void of any hope for a better tomorrow...a kind of living death, I imagine.


It seems to be a psychological fact that humans always overestimate the effect that changing circumstances would have on their happiness.

Some studies have shown that people who win the lottery and people who suffer debilitating spine injuries are actually not much different in happiness a year out from the event.

I think the reality is that if you were tossed into prison, you'd probably feel awful for a while, then get over it and get accustomed to your new life inside.
 
2014-01-18 03:30:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: Popular Opinion: Gyrfalcon: See, reading over this thread is why we have the 8th Amd. restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the capital punishment debate at all. I realize some people are being (semi) facetious; some are trolling; and some just don't know what they are talking about--but that's the point. "I think murderers should get the same treatment they gave their victims! Yeah! Torture the shiat out of them!" So--if all they did was painlessly shoot someone, then they themselves get painlessly shot? "No, no, I want them to suffer for what they did!"

The reason the Framers (and society in general) took execution and punishment away from the rabble and gave it to the more or less impartial State is because of the Farker above who would want to ass-rape a murderer to death if he could; or who were upset Saddam died quickly. It's to prevent wonderful torture-executions like that of Robert-Francois Damiens in  1757, who was on the day of his execution tortured with red-hot pincers, burned with molten lead, sulfur and boiling oil, quartered between four horses after his joints were partially severed by an axe, and then (reportedly) burned alive. It took four hours. His crime was attempted regicide.

Now, some may argue that we are not monarchist France; but really, if someone were given the option of "how should the man who murdered your child die?" do you think they would not opt for such treatment, no matter how comparatively painless the child's death was? Or that many would agree with them? Or that the four-hour spectacle would be well-attended on PPV? Notwithstanding the fact that it would do nothing to deter or prevent child-murderers in the future?

sorry, tl;dr

defective monkeys deserve no quarter, or mercy. kill them in the most painful way.

Gee, that's too bad, that you thought it was too long. Because based on your posts in this later part of the thread, Damiens' fate is just what you would prefer. Even you, if you were wrongly accused, tri ...


i'm sure it is hard to believe, but yes, i would happily suffer knowing it meant that the real bad people were punished accordingly. it is a risk i am willing to take if that would be true.
unfortunately, the real world shows us that the evil prevail and the police victimize the innocent.
it is a bummer for sure.
 
2014-01-18 03:30:15 AM

x1v16: [images.sodahead.com image 290x290]
Seriously though, if capital punishment was a deterrent to crime then states who have adopted the death penalty should have lower incidences of crime and that is NOT the case. In the end killing people unnecessarily is sadistic and revenge oriented. As despicable as child rapists and murderers are, nobody deserves to have their one and only life ended. It diminishes society, it brings us down to their level, and it accomplishes nothing.

Capital punishment has nothing to do with deterring crime. It has to do with exacting society's (and the victim's) righteous vengeance on the condemned along with depriving the condemned of the remainder of his/her life (after all, he probably murdered other people in order to get on death row in the first place). In addition, the world is a better (and safer) place when dangerously inhuman pieces of shiat are evicted from it.

 
2014-01-18 03:39:53 AM

Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.


You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?
 
2014-01-18 03:42:10 AM

Gyrfalcon: Popular Opinion: Gyrfalcon: See, reading over this thread is why we have the 8th Amd. restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the capital punishment debate at all. I realize some people are being (semi) facetious; some are trolling; and some just don't know what they are talking about--but that's the point. "I think murderers should get the same treatment they gave their victims! Yeah! Torture the shiat out of them!" So--if all they did was painlessly shoot someone, then they themselves get painlessly shot? "No, no, I want them to suffer for what they did!"

The reason the Framers (and society in general) took execution and punishment away from the rabble and gave it to the more or less impartial State is because of the Farker above who would want to ass-rape a murderer to death if he could; or who were upset Saddam died quickly. It's to prevent wonderful torture-executions like that of Robert-Francois Damiens in  1757, who was on the day of his execution tortured with red-hot pincers, burned with molten lead, sulfur and boiling oil, quartered between four horses after his joints were partially severed by an axe, and then (reportedly) burned alive. It took four hours. His crime was attempted regicide.

Now, some may argue that we are not monarchist France; but really, if someone were given the option of "how should the man who murdered your child die?" do you think they would not opt for such treatment, no matter how comparatively painless the child's death was? Or that many would agree with them? Or that the four-hour spectacle would be well-attended on PPV? Notwithstanding the fact that it would do nothing to deter or prevent child-murderers in the future?

sorry, tl;dr

defective monkeys deserve no quarter, or mercy. kill them in the most painful way.

Gee, that's too bad, that you thought it was too long. Because based on your posts in this later part of the thread, Damiens' fate is just what you would prefer. Even you, if you were wrongly accused, tri ...


perhaps it is difficult for a gyrl to understand, but a man who is unwilling to make the ultimate sacrifices for the values and ideals he believes in is not a man.
 
2014-01-18 03:43:28 AM

Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?


maybe you should ask all your hooker friends.
 
2014-01-18 03:46:11 AM

Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?


do you know how i know you never served (honorably) in the military?
 
2014-01-18 03:51:30 AM

King Something: ///alsøalsøsee also hanging, which if done properly breaks the condemned's neck and kills him instantly, but is only used in Delaware


Iowa had the gallows till 1961. Last time we executed anybody, he swung.
 
2014-01-18 03:55:05 AM

Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?

do you know how i know you never served (honorably) in the military?


Oh, so you have been equating dying in the service of your country and the death penalty. Cute
 
2014-01-18 03:58:58 AM

Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?

do you know how i know you never served (honorably) in the military?

Oh, so you have been equating dying in the service of your country and the death penalty. Cute


not that the army doesn't need cooks and nurses. you have proven my point.
 
2014-01-18 04:05:58 AM

Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?

do you know how i know you never served (honorably) in the military?

Oh, so you have been equating dying in the service of your country and the death penalty. Cute

not that the army doesn't need cooks and nurses. you have proven my point.


???

Aside from that making no farking sense at all, think giving alleged enemies of the US (or wherever) excruciating deaths is hororable? That's a pretty twisted take on honor. It's actually pretty farking sick. Did you get all pissy when Sarge told you that, no, you couldn't keep the ears?
 
2014-01-18 04:09:23 AM

TheWhoppah: gfid: TheWhoppah: It doesn't show ANY EVIDENCE that the fire was not arson.

Usually it's up to the prosecution to show ANY EVIDENCE that a crime was committed.  It's not supposed to be up to the defense to prove innocence.

You might have a point if the Beyler report had anything to do with the actual defense or prosecution.  It didn't.  It was commissioned by anti-death penalty advocated a decade after the trial.  In other words, the author was PAID to come to a specific conclusion.

You do not have a constitutional right not to be convicted if you are innocent.  You have a constitutional right to a trial.  He got his trial and he was convicted.  Yes some of the evidence that was 100% certainly arson was later proven to be 90% likely arson but that wasn't the only evidence raised at trial and the appeals court said there was enough evidence remaining to sustain the conviction.  That is due process.


I'm no constitutional scholar or anything, but I think you do.    That doesn't mean those rights never get violated, but you have the right to a fair trial.If you're innocent, a fair trial would not find you guilty. My state doesn't put too many people on death row.  The few that are on it probably deserve it, but more than likely they'll die of old age.  However 2 people who were convicted of murder and were serving life were exonerated.  I'm not talking just raised enough doubt, I mean fully exonerated as in  they didn't do it

In both cases it appears police and prosecutors targeted the first person they saw as suspects and built the case around their idea of what may have happened and besides, they could "solve" a murder even if their solution was BS.  They both served years in prison.

Just pray your wife or daughter or son doesn't get murdered and one of the cops gets a gleam in their eye and decides you're the most likely suspect when in fact you had nothing to do with it and are in shock over the loss of a loved one.


You might think you deserve a fair trial about that time.
 
2014-01-18 04:12:39 AM

forgotmydamnusername: MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.

For social control purposes, the death penalty doesn't work any better than a sentence of ten years in prison would. Even if the death penalty were swift and certain, it would deter farkall. The people who do that shiat either think they have an angle which will prevent them from getting caught, or they're too farking crazy to control themselves, or too dumb to think that far ahead. 10 years in the joint is unpleasant enough that even people with the moral character of John Yoo would still opt not to commit murder in order to avoid it.


THIS. Punishment as deterrent works with diminishing results.
 
2014-01-18 04:25:03 AM

slayer199: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

This has been my biggest argument against the death penalty.  You can't undo it, you can't fix it, you can't pay restitution...and more than a few innocent people have had their convictions overturned (140 since 1973).  One innocent person being put to death is one too many.

The other argument is that it's MORE expensive to execute someone than it is to give them life in prison.

TBH, life in prison seems like a harsher sentence.


Texas converted me from pro-death penalty to against it.  They don't consider possible innocence to be a reason to stay an execution.  I'm absolutely serious.  A judge said that since the man was legally convicted of the crime, it was perfectly legal to execute him despite new evidence that might prove his innocence.  I would settle for only Texas not being allowed to execute.  All the other states take extra steps to prevent potentially innocent people. Texas, however, put in a fast track.
 
2014-01-18 04:33:17 AM
You bleeding heart morons who think that we should let murderers and perpetrators of heinous crimes live are completely irrational.Society is best served by culling the bastards that harm others.

Yeah, an innocent might sneak through the cracks.  That's sad.  Boo farking hoo.  If there's life after death, then death isn't the end.  If you believe in God, then you
believe that this life is just a blip on an infinite timeline, and that it's eternity that matters.

If there isn't a God, or a life after death (as most Farkers claim to believe), then who gives a fark?  We're just lumps of meat anyhow, and we should do what's expedient to protect the living from those who are potentially dangerous.
 
2014-01-18 04:34:14 AM

BigLuca: Oldiron_79: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

Yup that was the beef with firing squads.

Long drop hangings are probably the most humane method ever devised your brain stem is severed between the skull and C1 you are out like a light switch before you even know you hit bottom. They largely went out of style because hanging was prefered method in lynchings also an improper non drop hanging where a person is choked out is not paticularly humane.

Sometimes it's hard to calculate the drop necessary or weight needed to add.  Too little and the prisoner strangles to death, too much and the head comes off.


Not really.  The science of it is well understood.  Saddam Hussain lost his head because they based their calculations on his weight months before the execution.  He ate like a pig while awaiting the big day and put on lots of weight.  Side note, the executioner for the Nazi war criminals used too short of a drop.  There has been speculation that he did it on purpose.  Given who they were, I am unable to find any sympathy for their suffering.
 
2014-01-18 04:36:35 AM
How about heroin overdose?
 
2014-01-18 04:36:39 AM

slayer199: TBH, life in prison seems like a harsher sentence


Oh, so we should take convicted people who are potentially innocent and lock them in a box for 70 years, and THAT is more humane?
 
2014-01-18 04:40:18 AM

MFAWG: I think the states should consider allowing people to bid to be on the firing squads.


Close. "Raffle." More money from the rubes.
 
2014-01-18 04:40:26 AM

Stone Meadow: As for me, if we are to retain capitol punishment, let's find out what the Chinese use in their organ harvesting wagons.


If you are going to harvest organs, then you want to stick to hanging or decapitation.  All the other methods ruin the organs.
 
2014-01-18 04:41:45 AM

untaken_name: I'm okay with this, if the jury that convicts the defendant becomes the firing squad. Then jurors might actually take their responsibility over the life and death of others seriously.

Oh, and also, if the defendant is later exonerated by physical evidence, the firing squad/jury members all get shot.


notsureifserious.jpg

It's not the jurors' jobs to sentence. If they feel that the evidence yields proof "beyond reasonable doubt," then it's their duty to proclaim the person guilty. Likewise, if there is reasonable doubt, it's their duty to proclaim innocence.
 
2014-01-18 04:44:49 AM

untaken_name: I'm okay with this, if the jury that convicts the defendant becomes the firing squad. Then jurors might actually take their responsibility over the life and death of others seriously.


How do you filter out the psychos who'll vote for death simply to get the chance to pull that trigger?

chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.


Some of them.  I remember reading about the dude who does the executions in Saudi Arabia by sword or axe, depending on factors.  It was even a family business.

TheWhoppah: No, the reason it costs a million dollars is because people facing the death penalty don't get just any old overworked public defender. They don't get a tax lawyer or real-estate attorney either. When the death penalty is involved you get a criminal law specialist that has to be specifically qualified for death penalty cases AND has agreed to take such cases. The attorney is given any resources required to prepare the defense including investigators, access to private forensic lab testing to double-check the claims from the government lab, psychologists, criminologists or whatever expert witness is reasonably necessary. Then, if convicted and sentenced to die, the defendant gets automatic appeals paid for by the State and the appeals go up through the state system and then through the federal system.


And this is the reason why, if I'm ever to be tried to for murder, I'd almost rather it be a death penalty case.

dopirt: Why? Why should the state be in the business of killing its citizens.  It costs more that life imprisonment (Fox News). It does not give closure (Washington Post). In fact, "closure" is a made up term, an "empirically dubious concepts" (Susan Bandes,  University of Chicago Law School). Wouldn't it be simpler to just assert that killing is wrong?


That's the thing, 'killing' isn't always wrong.  Personally I'm for a more restricted death penalty, but I'd still be for it being an option.  Depending on mood, I'll say things like '3+ or deliberate torture in addition to murder', or 'Joker clause; when there's good odds that a given convict will reoffend, murdering or crippling somebody else even if confined in a maximum security prison', IE he's 'just that dangerous'.

My ballpark figure for the number executed each year under my rules would be 'less than 10 for the whole USA'.  Sometimes cost factors into it less than you might think.  Often those 'life in prison' estimates only consider average prisoner costs - not maximum security some of these types have to be kept in.  It doesn't consider the medical costs for an aging prisoner.  Cancer treatments, dialysis, and such can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

cman: Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.



Nitrogen, readily available at any industrial gases location, hell, they even make machines that filter it out of the air for filling tires with.  Really, you only need to remove the O2 and CO2.  No need to 'knock them out', restrain them more than locking them in the air-tight room, etc...  If any given owner gets prissy you simply change where you get your canisters from.

x1v16: Then, if anyone is ever found innocent they still have decades of years of their lives they can get back what was taken from them.


The problem you have here is that many states vigorously oppose DNA testing of evidence from before DNA testing was available, and it often takes 'death penalty case' to get them to actually allow it(much less pay for it!).  As such, if you're sentenced to life w/o parole in prison for rape/murder for a crime you didn't do you're actually LESS likely to get out of prison alive than if you're sentenced to death.
 
2014-01-18 04:46:07 AM

Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?

do you know how i know you never served (honorably) in the military?

Oh, so you have been equating dying in the service of your country and the death penalty. Cute

not that the army doesn't need cooks and nurses. you have proven my point.

???

Aside from that making no farking sense at all, think giving alleged enemies of the US (or wherever) excruciating deaths is hororable? That's a pretty twisted take on honor. It's actually pretty farking sick. Did you get all pissy when Sarge told you that, no, you couldn't keep the ears?


Why are even responding to someone who is so obviously either one hundred percent stupid or trolling you?
 
2014-01-18 04:48:49 AM
Wow, this thread got dark
 
2014-01-18 04:49:02 AM

OgreMagi: BigLuca: Oldiron_79: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

Yup that was the beef with firing squads.

Long drop hangings are probably the most humane method ever devised your brain stem is severed between the skull and C1 you are out like a light switch before you even know you hit bottom. They largely went out of style because hanging was prefered method in lynchings also an improper non drop hanging where a person is choked out is not paticularly humane.

Sometimes it's hard to calculate the drop necessary or weight needed to add.  Too little and the prisoner strangles to death, too much and the head comes off.

Not really.  The science of it is well understood.  Saddam Hussain lost his head because they based their calculations on his weight months before the execution.  He ate like a pig while awaiting the big day and put on lots of weight.  Side note, the executioner for the Nazi war criminals used too short of a drop.  There has been speculation that he did it on purpose.  Given who they were, I am unable to find any sympathy for their suffering.


Lol whut, Saddam didnt lose his head(although others have for the very reason you mentioned)

Rippentrop was the only Nüremburg execution Im aware of that dangled and choked out the rest snapped. Where they used one gallows for all of them and Im assuming he was the lightest of them the rope that was right for everyone else was too short for him. Given that he was one of the most directly involved in final solution I dont have a single fark to give about him dangling.
 
2014-01-18 04:50:33 AM

miss diminutive: Wow, this thread got dark


So, business as usual for Fark?
 
2014-01-18 04:50:33 AM

OgreMagi: Stone Meadow: As for me, if we are to retain capitol punishment, let's find out what the Chinese use in their organ harvesting wagons.

If you are going to harvest organs, then you want to stick to hanging or decapitation.  All the other methods ruin the organs.


Firing squad if you go for a headshot.
 
2014-01-18 04:55:28 AM

efgeise: miss diminutive: Wow, this thread got dark

So, business as usual for Fark?


I guess so...
 
2014-01-18 04:58:31 AM

miss diminutive: Wow, this thread got dark


As a troll who rode this thread for all it was worth that makes me proud.
 
2014-01-18 05:02:52 AM

miss diminutive: efgeise: miss diminutive: Wow, this thread got dark

So, business as usual for Fark?

I guess so...


A little depressing at times, I know.
 
2014-01-18 05:04:02 AM

efgeise: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: Yes this is dog: Popular Opinion: BelKimi: Frederf " I think capital punishment should be humane but gruesome. Let us not sanitize taking of life and pretend it's something it's not. It's dangerous to make killing too easy and clean not to be considered for what it is"

Whether capital punishment is gruesome or not should have not bearing on the situation - it should be quick and painless. Capital punishment is what it is - the removal of a life from our society. As long as the person receiving it doesn't suffer unnecessarily I don't care how they die, lightening strike, headsman, gas chamber, whatever. Whether you kill the person yourself or have to push a button to kill them it is the same.

being a spiteful and sick individual, i would prefer torture and excruciating death (for those that deserve it).
i would be a happy martyr if i was wrongly convicted, knowing that real scumbags had the same fate.

You have said this twice now, and it is one of the most retarded things that I've read. I mean, if they had 'the real scumbags' why would you still need to die? Just to prove a point? Holy farking shiat, that is mind numbingly stupid to say, really.

/You probably have a 'the hooker gave me the money back' story, don't you?

do you know how i know you never served (honorably) in the military?

Oh, so you have been equating dying in the service of your country and the death penalty. Cute

not that the army doesn't need cooks and nurses. you have proven my point.

???

Aside from that making no farking sense at all, think giving alleged enemies of the US (or wherever) excruciating deaths is hororable? That's a pretty twisted take on honor. It's actually pretty farking sick. Did you get all pissy when Sarge told you that, no, you couldn't keep the ears?

Why are even responding to someone who is so obviously either one hundred percent stupid or trolling you?


Is "It's 4 in the morning" a good excuse?

/You're spot on, though. I'll stop.
 
2014-01-18 05:22:43 AM

x1v16: [images.sodahead.com image 290x290]
Seriously though, if capital punishment was a deterrent to crime then states who have adopted the death penalty should have lower incidences of crime and that is NOT the case. In the end killing people unnecessarily is sadistic and revenge oriented. As despicable as child rapists and murderers are, nobody deserves to have their one and only life ended. It diminishes society, it brings us down to their level, and it accomplishes nothing.


I don't think it's a deterrent. I also don't see it as a matter of revenge. Simply put, that person is not going to commit that crime again.

IMO, someone who commits murder has abrogated their right to live. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about crimes of passion or involuntary manslaughter here. I'm talking about deliberate, premeditated murder, tried in court and appealed as far up the chain as the accused wants to take it. It's not revenge, it's not punishment, it's simply eliminating a threat to the general public. The execution should be carried out humanely, should be done as soon as possible after the final appeal, and the sentenced should be given his choice of execution methods (within reason). Firing squad is fine with me, it's more humane than lethal injection. Executions should also be private... no spectacle, no filming, no pictures, no family members of the victim.

/and I'm a liberal
 
2014-01-18 05:27:41 AM
We need to make it as expensive as possible to show how civilized we are.
 
2014-01-18 06:37:14 AM
How about:

No death penalty
Free assisted suicide (e.g. 'exit bag') for anyone serving a life sentence who requests it

No costly appeals, no worry over cruel and unusual punishment (in the context of executions anyway), no executioner's trauma and likely a lot more dead convicts than you'd have with a death penalty and suicide prevention.

/and it might help pave the way for public suicide booths
 
2014-01-18 06:47:13 AM

Noam Chimpsky: We need to make it as expensive as possible to show how civilized we are.


Exactly. We have embraced lethal injection, not because it is more humane than more conventinal methods, but because it is emotionally sterile - it turns killing into a medical procedure.
This somehow is supposed to make us feel better about it - which I don't get.
It doesn't make me feel any different about it one way or the other.
 
2014-01-18 06:49:21 AM

Gyrfalcon: See, reading over this thread is why we have the 8th Amd. restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the capital punishment debate at all. I realize some people are being (semi) facetious; some are trolling; and some just don't know what they are talking about--but that's the point. "I think murderers should get the same treatment they gave their victims! Yeah! Torture the shiat out of them!" So--if all they did was painlessly shoot someone, then they themselves get painlessly shot? "No, no, I want them to suffer for what they did!"

The reason the Framers (and society in general) took execution and punishment away from the rabble and gave it to the more or less impartial State is because of the Farker above who would want to ass-rape a murderer to death if he could; or who were upset Saddam died quickly. It's to prevent wonderful torture-executions like that of Robert-Francois Damiens in  1757, who was on the day of his execution tortured with red-hot pincers, burned with molten lead, sulfur and boiling oil, quartered between four horses after his joints were partially severed by an axe, and then (reportedly) burned alive. It took four hours. His crime was attempted regicide.

Now, some may argue that we are not monarchist France; but really, if someone were given the option of "how should the man who murdered your child die?" do you think they would not opt for such treatment, no matter how comparatively painless the child's death was? Or that many would agree with them? Or that the four-hour spectacle would be well-attended on PPV? Notwithstanding the fact that it would do nothing to deter or prevent child-murderers in the future?


I think most of the people are just yammering and don't really want a long, slow torture.  They are getting tired of seeing people like this guy getting away with murder and just want something to make them feel like somoene is doing something about it.

upload.wikimedia.org

What he did to the witnesses as he crossexamined them (which was his constitutional right) was none the less a form or torture all over again.
 
2014-01-18 07:02:07 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-18 07:06:39 AM
Lethal injection is barbaric. If we insist on killing people it's rather obvious to all there are a bevy of painless quick ways to get the desired results. The best way is simply to give a sedative in the final meal, let them nap and then gas them with helium. There's no fear of imminent demise, no pain, and the cost is under a hundred bucks.
 
2014-01-18 07:15:31 AM

AbortionsForAll: Warlordtrooper: You're trying awfully hard to put words into other people's mouths. I, at least, was specifically talking about *avoiding* "unnecessary suffering". We're talking methods for humanely (without pain) executing people who have been convicted of society's most heinously unforgivable crimes. I'm not gonna sit here and try to change the mind of an ultra-liberal bleeding-heart who doesn't think that brutal rapists and murderers warrant execution, but I will step in (in my defense) when someone is twisting my statements in order to help his own sissy agenda. Wouldn't it be nice if you or someone you loved was brutally torture-farked then murdered? I'd love to see what you think about capital punishment then.As for the avoiding-guilt for the firing-squad thing... We could always set up a robotic/automatic rig to pull the trigger instead. Would that make you happy? Afterall, with a computerized & automatic targeting system, we could be absolutely sure that the correct area of the brain is instantly destroyed with zero margin of error (or close enough that it doesn't matter).


I do support the death penalty. What I'm against is society regressing into a bunch of savages with bloodlust
 
2014-01-18 07:17:24 AM
The execution needs to be unpredictable. What fear is there in knowing that you will be fed and clothed and housed until a certain day, and then you will see death in what is promised to be an humane manner? Any number of cancer patients would be relieved to know they had a finite yet predictable number of well maintained and healthy years left.

It would make for especially amusing nap-times to tell them that they are sometimes roused roughly for a final walk just as they get off to a fitful sleep. But not always.
 
2014-01-18 07:31:36 AM

Occam's Nailfile: You bleeding heart morons who think that we should let murderers and perpetrators of heinous crimes live are completely irrational.Society is best served by culling the bastards that harm others.

Yeah, an innocent might sneak through the cracks.  That's sad.  Boo farking hoo.  If there's life after death, then death isn't the end.  If you believe in God, then youbelieve that this life is just a blip on an infinite timeline, and that it's eternity that matters.

If there isn't a God, or a life after death (as most Farkers claim to believe), then who gives a fark?  We're just lumps of meat anyhow, and we should do what's expedient to protect the living from those who are potentially dangerous.


The only way that makes any sense is if you culled them before they could reproduce, or, if they have progeny, to kill them as well.

If you're gonna go there, go all the way, or go home.
 
2014-01-18 08:04:48 AM
I don't think I'm against the death penalty, but I think the threshold should be "beyond ANY doubt", rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required for a conviction.
 
2014-01-18 08:23:58 AM
Put them in a cage and hang it on a high wall.
 
2014-01-18 08:28:15 AM
Deep down I'm conflicted. I kind of believe that no one has the right to take the life of another, no matter what circumstance. No matter how "necessary" it is deemed, killing another person is always, in my view, "wrong," and essentially a failure of problem solving.

On the other hand, there's a lot of people draining society that I feel would just be better off put to death rather than sitting around in some prison for 80 years. I'm not all about that whole "make them suffer" thing. I'm more about "let's move on and not waste our time and money."

/massive moral inner conflict on certain issues
 
2014-01-18 08:32:37 AM

Wyalt Derp: I don't think I'm against the death penalty, but I think the threshold should be "beyond ANY doubt", rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required for a conviction.


That would effectively ban the death penalty.
 
2014-01-18 08:42:05 AM

Wyalt Derp: I don't think I'm against the death penalty, but I think the threshold should be "beyond ANY doubt", rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required for a conviction.


So, effectively, you're against the death penalty.
 
2014-01-18 08:46:45 AM
ITT: Internet tough guys.
 
2014-01-18 08:51:51 AM

GreatPenguin: ITT: Internet tough guys.


I tried turning on the filter, but it didn't work.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-18 08:53:59 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-18 08:54:44 AM

MrEricSir: mcnguyen: How about we figure out why we send so many innocent people to death row before we start arguing about the best way to kill them?

It's always bizarre when people in this country claim that the death penalty is a "deterrent." Given our track record, it seems the death penalty would have to be a deterrent against being found guilty in court.


Personally, I've never believed that it is a deterrent. I do, however, believe that there are crimes so heinous as to preclude any hope of rehabilitation or meaningful punishment and to therefore make it best for everyone involved if the perpetrator is not alive anymore. I suspect that the people who commit these crimes are wired such that they cannot be deterred.

That said, I'm also skeptical of the state's ability to identify those people, and believe the death penalty should be severely restricted to cases that are not only very grave but very, very obvious.
 
2014-01-18 09:01:07 AM

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

It takes too long.

Seriously, someone asked that question in CA a while back, and the response was essentially that it takes 30-45 minutes to kill someone painlessly via anaesthetic OD, and that's too difficult for the witnesses to sit through.


Because taking someone else's life shouldn't be difficult to sit through.

... This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2014-01-18 09:06:27 AM

Stone Meadow: Not necessarily. I have a cousin who served 30 years for 1st degree before being paroled 2 years ago, largely at the request of his brother, who now employs him. "John" hated prison, but has really struggled with life outside.


It's almost as if being in a structured reality where somebody else controls where you are at every minute of the day 24/7 for 30 years has a psychological impact on that person.
 
2014-01-18 09:06:38 AM

jso2897: Wyalt Derp: I don't think I'm against the death penalty, but I think the threshold should be "beyond ANY doubt", rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required for a conviction.

That would effectively ban the death penalty.


Yeah, people always say that when it's pointed out that there are innocent people on death row, "Just be 100% sure". Easier said than done.
 
2014-01-18 09:33:04 AM
acandidworld.files.wordpress.com
You are now dead.
 
2014-01-18 09:36:17 AM

doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.


PTSD for members of the squad.
 
2014-01-18 09:39:23 AM
untaken_name: It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.

Having been completely undeterred from committing the crime which landed them on death row.
 
2014-01-18 10:20:06 AM

orbister: untaken_name: It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.

Having been completely undeterred from committing the crime which landed them on death row.


That's why I'm for abolishing the judicial system entirely.  It does nothing to prevent the crime that already happened.
 
2014-01-18 10:22:53 AM

lennavan: orbister: untaken_name: It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.

Having been completely undeterred from committing the crime which landed them on death row.

That's why I'm for abolishing the judicial system entirely.  It does nothing to prevent the crime that already happened.


Sounds good. Think of all the money that could then be spent on prevention and education if we gave it up.
 
2014-01-18 10:26:52 AM

Occam's Nailfile: Oh, so we should take convicted people who are potentially innocent and lock them in a box for 70 years, and THAT is more humane?


No silly.  But it's pretty clear that innocent people are convicted and if you put them to death, there's no going back.  At least with a life sentence, they can get restitution.
 
2014-01-18 10:31:58 AM
"You might have killed someone, so we are definitely going to kill you." And, this is civilized? How is this supposed to solve anything?
 
2014-01-18 10:43:03 AM

StoPPeRmobile: lennavan: orbister: untaken_name: It's a pretty effective deterrent, actually. The people who are put to death are completely deterred from ever committing another crime.

Having been completely undeterred from committing the crime which landed them on death row.

That's why I'm for abolishing the judicial system entirely.  It does nothing to prevent the crime that already happened.

Sounds good. Think of all the money that could then be spent on prevention and education if we gave it up.


The best part is any budget shortfalls that come up, we could just go rob a bank.
 
2014-01-18 10:47:30 AM

OgreMagi: Stone Meadow: As for me, if we are to retain capitol punishment, let's find out what the Chinese use in their organ harvesting wagons.

If you are going to harvest organs, then you want to stick to hanging or decapitation.  All the other methods ruin the organs.


You may be correct, but it looks like the Chinese use standard lethal injections. I thought that would ruin the major organs...maybe not. In any case, there has been so much international condemnation of the practice that it won't work here, politically. Really, the answer is lab-grown organs using the patient's own cells.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death -v an-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html
 
2014-01-18 10:50:17 AM

pueblonative: Stone Meadow: Not necessarily. I have a cousin who served 30 years for 1st degree before being paroled 2 years ago, largely at the request of his brother, who now employs him. "John" hated prison, but has really struggled with life outside.

It's almost as if being in a structured reality where somebody else controls where you are at every minute of the day 24/7 for 30 years has a psychological impact on that person.


No doubt true, which is why I wrote that life without parole is probably not the 'torture' one frequently reads of. People simply (yeah, not so 'simply') adapt to it over time, and being inside becomes the new normal. No surprise there.
 
2014-01-18 10:50:43 AM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: "You might have killed someone, so we are definitely going to kill you." And, this is civilized? How is this supposed to solve anything?


Well, the way you phrased it was stupid.  Let me rephrase your question to reflect an actual scenario that actually happened:

"You definitely found a pregnant lady, tried to rape her vaginally but since she was eight months pregnant it was hard to get to so you anally raped her instead and then stabbed her to death.  We know this because you were convicted on the evidence and then later you actually admitted it to us AND we later tested DNA evidence matching you to the crime.  And this is civilized?  How is this supposed to solve anything?"

It helps solve her fianceé left behind sleeping at night rather than imagining that asshole watching Cable TV and eating three square meals a day while the bodies of your unborn child and fianceé rot 6 feet under the ground.
 
2014-01-18 10:57:26 AM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: "We've been told lethal injection is so barbaric that the drug companies would rather not manufacture the drugs anymore.

"So we'll just switch to firing squads."


Richard Dawson unavailable for comment.
 
2014-01-18 11:02:19 AM

Stone Meadow: pueblonative: Stone Meadow: Not necessarily. I have a cousin who served 30 years for 1st degree before being paroled 2 years ago, largely at the request of his brother, who now employs him. "John" hated prison, but has really struggled with life outside.

It's almost as if being in a structured reality where somebody else controls where you are at every minute of the day 24/7 for 30 years has a psychological impact on that person.

No doubt true, which is why I wrote that life without parole is probably not the 'torture' one frequently reads of. People simply (yeah, not so 'simply') adapt to it over time, and being inside becomes the new normal. No surprise there.


People also adapt to being in a dysfunctional family and being abused as well, so you may want to