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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
clyph: And yet, in spite of all that, we still send an alarming number of innocent people to death row.
DrPainMD: slayer199: Hey, it worked for Gary Gilmore.Oddly enough, exactly 37 years ago today.
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.
Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.
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.
BuckTurgidson: Oldiron_79: Death Whisper:That is the main reason I think liberals are like Hitler lever sociopaths and evil.WAT?
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.
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."
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.
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?
whatshisname: How about death by "Here's 60 Xanax"? Cheap, painless, efficient.
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...
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.
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.
White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.
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.
BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.
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.
Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 24 2017 22:06:34
Runtime: 0.701 sec (701 ms)