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
 
2014-01-18 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.
 
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