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

(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  
•       •       •

7657 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2014 at 9:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



569 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 569 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report