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  
•       •       •

7630 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2014 at 9:28 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report