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  
•       •       •

7637 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2014 at 9:28 PM (47 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 07:27:03 PM  
Carlin had this covered 20 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI
 
2014-01-18 07:34:19 PM  

red5ish: What Would Jesus Do?


Shoot people down with lightening bolts.
 
2014-01-18 07:54:21 PM  
As cost effective as having their cellmate shank them?
 
2014-01-18 07:55:22 PM  

Jgok: VOCSL5: I'm unaware of what current death penalty methods are.  I know about lethal injection, but is there anything else other than the firing squad as proposed?

Electrocution, gas chamber, and hanging... depending on the state. Those are the only ones that have been used in the past 20 years or so, AFAIK. Only two states allow hanging.


Go Washington! WEU!
 
2014-01-18 08:01:45 PM  

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

That's so clever. Never heard that one before.

Can you refute it? No? Oh, you're just mad that it's true, then. Carry on whining.

Because when people talk about it being a deterrent they are obviously referring to people who decide not to commit a crime because they're afraid of the death penalty. Then someone invariably chimes in with, "Well if they dead, they ain't gonna kill no other folk. They been deterrentized!" *SPIT* *TING*.


So you get to decide what people really mean so that reality fits your narrative? Must be nice living in that bubble.
 
2014-01-18 08:05:33 PM  

Mugato: Holding a convicted criminal against their will and incarcerating them is unavoidable, something has to keep them off the street.


Again, so you get to decide that "something has to keep them off the street", but reject the death penalty, which certainly accomplishes your stated goal. After all, SOMETHING has to keep them off the street, right? Don't bother to mention why a jaywalker or drug user MUST be kept off the street, though. Or why you think there's a difference between imposing life in prison on someone or killing them. They're the same thing, one is just a very expensive, cruel method which takes many years to complete the killing.
 
2014-01-18 08:05:54 PM  

untaken_name: Because when people talk about it being a deterrent they are obviously referring to people who decide not to commit a crime because they're afraid of the death penalty. Then someone invariably chimes in with, "Well if they dead, they ain't gonna kill no other folk. They been deterrentized!" *SPIT* *TING*.

So you get to decide what people really mean so that reality fits your narrative? Must be nice living in that bubble.


Well what else would people be talking about when they say that it's a deterrent?
 
2014-01-18 08:16:42 PM  

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


George Martin-like typing detected...
 
2014-01-18 08:17:24 PM  

Mugato: untaken_name: Because when people talk about it being a deterrent they are obviously referring to people who decide not to commit a crime because they're afraid of the death penalty. Then someone invariably chimes in with, "Well if they dead, they ain't gonna kill no other folk. They been deterrentized!" *SPIT* *TING*.

So you get to decide what people really mean so that reality fits your narrative? Must be nice living in that bubble.

Well what else would people be talking about when they say that it's a deterrent?


Good question, isn't it? Perhaps if you think about it for a really, really long time, the answer will come to you.
 
2014-01-18 08:18:25 PM  

Elzar: 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.

George Martin-like typing detected...


They do say that Farking is a hard day's night.
 
2014-01-18 08:31:20 PM  
Two things.

1.) After being in favor of the Death Penalty for quite a while, a couple years ago I more or less decided, keep it around basically for war criminals, serial killers, and anyone who visits Talos IV.  Everyone else who would otherwise receive it gets life in prison without parole.  That will should eliminate any of the innocent people getting executed.

2.) I'm still somewhat baffled at the apparent inability to knock people completely out before they die in some lethal injections.
 
2014-01-18 09:32:31 PM  

Mugato: mksmith: You don't get the death sentence for credit card fraud. You get it for certain very limited cases of First Degree Murder.

I think they've been over this earlier in the thread. The problems arise because of all the people on death row who were found innocent, the implication being that innocent people have been put to death.


I agree, far too many people have been executed whom it was later proved did not do what they were accused and convicted of. That's my objection to less than-absolute-proof in death penalty cases.

However, there are also those cases where there is no doubt whatever that the accused did the deed. That's a different matter entirely. Why should the taxpayers shell out a hundred grand a year, or whatever it is, to support that guy for the rest of his life? Get him out of the world and be done with it.

And that people think that it's ok for the State to commit murder in the name of vengeance but you obviously don't have a problem with that.

I don't think you grasp the definition of "murder." If you think the state cannot lawfully kill people, then you'd better just disband the armed forces, because every enemy killed in war would be an act of murder.
 
2014-01-18 09:41:36 PM  

mksmith: I don't think you grasp the definition of "murder." If you think the state cannot lawfully kill people, then you'd better just disband the armed forces, because every enemy killed in war would be an act of murder.


We don't strap helpless people to tables at a predetermined time and kill them in war either, at least we're not supposed to.
 
2014-01-18 09:42:12 PM  

Bucky Katt: Carlin had this covered 20 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI


Not bad, but I prefer this one. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw
 
2014-01-18 11:26:17 PM  

miss diminutive: 4) I don't feel the state has the right to end the life of one of its citizens


Then you would take away guns from policemen? They serve no other purpose.
 
2014-01-18 11:29:57 PM  

Alien Robot: miss diminutive: 4) I don't feel the state has the right to end the life of one of its citizens  Then you would take away guns from policemen? They serve no other purpose.


Well, statistically, far more innocent people have been killed by their own government and police forces than by random thugs and back-alley boogeymen.  Yes, you have to look outside the USA to back up a statement like that, but it's not as if we're genetically different from the Russians and Africans and Chinese and Central/South Americans that the statement unequivocally applies to.
 
2014-01-19 12:48:19 AM  
I'm ok with firing squads
 
2014-01-19 01:54:12 AM  
If the death penalty was an effective deterrent, nobody would be sentenced to it, as they would have been deterred from committing the crimes that carry it as a penalty.
 
2014-01-19 06:39:18 AM  

Jorn the Younger: If the death penalty was an effective deterrent, nobody would be sentenced to it, as they would have been deterred from committing the crimes that carry it as a penalty.


It was never meant to be a deterrent. Capital punishment is society's revenge, and always has been. No point in pretending otherwise. And I have no problem with that, personally -- if there's absolutely no doubt as to guilt. I also see no purpose in postponing the sentence for decades while appeals are filed in court after court -- if there's absolutely no doubt as to guilt. It should be carried out within 30 days. Get it over with.

If society decides to do away with capital punishment entirely, fine. That's certainly an arguable ethical position. But as long as we've got it, let's not sugar-coat the process.
 
Displayed 19 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 »
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