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 141
    More: Scary, executed by firing squad, Missouri, lethal injection, gas chambers  
•       •       •

7608 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2014 at 9:28 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-17 09:31:45 PM
18 votes:
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?
2014-01-17 09:38:27 PM
11 votes:
The for profit prison system is disgusting and the United States should be ashamed with itself.
2014-01-17 09:37:13 PM
10 votes:
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.
2014-01-17 09:03:54 PM
10 votes:
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.
2014-01-17 09:45:29 PM
8 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 09:41:07 PM
8 votes:
...or the state could just stop killing citizens, like the entire rest of modern civilization.
2014-01-17 09:28:37 PM
8 votes:
I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...
2014-01-17 09:38:29 PM
5 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 11:07:34 PM
4 votes:

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.


Generally it for the family and witnesses. The condemned is pretty much paralysed so they can't move while the chemicals burn out their veins so it is considered a humane for them to watch.

Basically they are a bunch of pussies who want to see the execution but can't stand the good old days of blood splattering everywhere.
2014-01-17 10:03:31 PM
4 votes:

TheWhoppah: Execution should be incredibly painful because we shouldn't be executing anyone that doesn't deserve an incredibly painful death.


No. The justice system should be impartial. It should not be about retribution. If the society allows a death sentence, it should be carried out as dispassionately as issuing a speeding ticket. Retribution is for vendettas, feuds and other medieval forms of one-upmanship.
2014-01-17 10:00:25 PM
4 votes:

jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?


Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.
2014-01-17 09:50:49 PM
4 votes:
Good to see the "Christian" conservatives in this country so determined to murder captives.

I propose free WWJD bracelets for people who volunteer to be on the firing squad.
2014-01-17 09:45:53 PM
4 votes:

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.


Or even their first crime if it turns out that they were innocent.
2014-01-17 09:44:03 PM
4 votes:
I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.
2014-01-17 09:37:15 PM
4 votes:
government taxing and giving poor people food stamps? this is an attack on our freedoms!
government taxing and killing sometimes innocent people? USA USA USA
2014-01-17 09:23:02 PM
4 votes:
imageshack.com

Would you like to know more?
2014-01-18 01:37:47 AM
3 votes:
0.tqn.com
crisisboom.files.wordpress.com
2014-01-18 12:51:05 AM
3 votes:
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?
2014-01-17 11:25:23 PM
3 votes:
Here's the problem:

We've just had a big debate in CA about compassionate release for elderly inmates and resentencing for juveniles who got life without parole who have been resentenced to life WITH parole. The op-ed comments, almost without exception, were about the victims' families: "Why should those [insert epithet here] be allowed to have compassion or hope, when they displayed none towards their victims?"

In one case, the man was in his 80's, dying of terminal cancer, and the debate was whether he should be allowed to die at home (he did not make it). In the second, the kid had been an accomplice to a robbery/murder at age 17, and got life without; he's now in his 30's and a model prisoner and was resentenced to life with on new constitutional grounds. And yet in both cases, the hue&cry was about how unfair it was to the FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS that these men get any kind of consideration.

Proving merely that, in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims. An 80-year old cancer patient who killed his victim decades ago--nobody writing in about that case knew or cared one iota about the family until it looked like the killer might get out; then suddenly it was all about "why should he get the compassion he didn't show his victim?" A 17-year old kid helped murder a woman and has spent his young adulthood paying for that crime--nobody writing in gave a rat's ass about the victim's family until he was given the option of MAYBE getting out of prison someday. Then suddenly they are pitiful victims themselves, and he's a cold heartless thug who deserves to rot in prison.

Capital cases are about vengeance for the families. If that's our motive, fine; but let's stop pretending it's about anything else. It's not about cost-effectiveness, or we would simply imprison them (it's proven to be cheaper). It's not about deterrence or we would abandon execution completely (it's been proven not to be any kind of deterrent). It's not even about taking dangerous elements out of society (or we would execute all of them because life without is stupid if that's the goal). It's about making the families and friends of the victims feel better, and society by proxy. It is, in fact, about vengeance. So why pretend it's anything else? Let's admit it and move on.
2014-01-17 11:21:18 PM
3 votes:
I have to say the blood lust in this thread is a bit disturbing. o.o You can call it justice as many times as you want, but admit you guys would get a sort of sick satisfaction. Especially those of you calling for an eye for an eye as fair punishment.

Its proven that the death penalty is more expensive, doesn't deter such crimes, but eh there is nothing rational about the death penalty. Its taking a life and calling it justice, and then people feeling good that someone is dead.
2014-01-17 10:59:12 PM
3 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 10:48:48 PM
3 votes:
the legal system is basically a gym where wealth inequality works out.
2014-01-17 10:24:57 PM
3 votes:
Why? Why should the state be in the business of killing its citizens.  It costs more that life imprisonment (Fox News). It does not give closure (Washington Post). In fact, "closure" is a made up term, an "empirically dubious concepts" (Susan Bandes,  University of Chicago Law School). Wouldn't it be simpler to just assert that killing is wrong?
2014-01-17 10:16:28 PM
3 votes:

jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.

What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.

After the invention of long-drop hanging and the guillotine, nothing that has been done to make execution more humane has been any real improvement. The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.
Anyway, the idea shouldn't be to make the DP more humane. We are KILLING PEOPLE.
Can we please stop bullshiating ourslves about what it is we are doing?
We should do it on prime time TV, too. early enough that children will be watching. There's hardly any point if we don't have our kids watch, and benefit from the important moral lesson we are providing them.


Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..
/Do not want.
2014-01-17 10:15:22 PM
3 votes:
Since the death penalty will never be abolished in the US, and since the only execution methods which are currently or will ever be available are specifically designed to be neither quick nor painless, why not just have death row inmates be burned at the stake?

I guarantee the current USSC lineup would rule it (5-4, of course) to be hunky-dory since it isn't both cruel AND unusual -- it is sufficiently "usual" that there is a term for that method of execution.
2014-01-17 10:09:48 PM
3 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 09:52:48 PM
3 votes:

AgentPothead: The for profit prison system death penalty is disgusting and the United States should be ashamed with itself.


Why should the Justice system be involved in revenge at all? It's barbaric. And the only way it's cheaper than life imprisonment is if they remove some of the legal barriers...which would lead to more innocents being killed by the State.
2014-01-17 09:36:51 PM
3 votes:
High velocity bullet to the head, turning the brain to jam, happens faster than can be perceived by the brain in question. Thus we know it is painless. The chemical route was iffy, couldn't say with veracity the death was painless.

If you think they can't find volunteers in the lawkeeping profession then you haven't met many cops. That failing, use death row inmates to pull the triggers.
2014-01-17 09:33:51 PM
3 votes:
I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.
2014-01-17 09:17:28 PM
3 votes:
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.

And depending on the son-to-be-deceased, PPV might be quite profitable indeed.
2014-01-17 08:54:24 PM
3 votes:
"We've been told lethal injection is so barbaric that the drug companies would rather not manufacture the drugs anymore.

"So we'll just switch to firing squads."
2014-01-18 01:28:05 AM
2 votes:

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 01:11:41 AM
2 votes:
unitedcats.files.wordpress.com
2014-01-18 01:08:21 AM
2 votes:
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.
2014-01-17 11:17:24 PM
2 votes:
I don't have a problem with the death penalty, per se. But I do have a problem with the system, because the prosecution's incentive is a conviction, not to seek the truth, and death is final.  I'm not willing to put single person to death without 150% assurance that they are guilty.  Anyone who is will to crack a few eggs to make that omelet needs to volunteer themselves to be put to death to show all of us that it's worth it.

I like the solution they had in the movie "Minority Report", where they warehouse the condemned, unconscious for as long as their normal life would be.  If, during that time, innocence is proven, bippity boppity, wake them up and they can go home with some nice parting gifts from the state. If they reach 90 years without reprieve...uh-oh...trash compactor for grampa freezer burn.
2014-01-17 11:17:05 PM
2 votes:

AlwaysRightBoy: Mazzic518: jesus there is some farking damaged people on this site

Hello, I'm an ambassador. If you have any issues with your Fark visa, I can help!


I cancelled mine when this cesspool started circling the drain
2014-01-17 11:00:25 PM
2 votes:
jesus there is some farking damaged people on this site
2014-01-17 10:54:06 PM
2 votes:
The constitution prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment.  cruel and usual punishment is totally ok.
2014-01-17 10:52:23 PM
2 votes:

noblewolf: debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.

I prefer the victims family gets to choose...


I think the victim's family should have nothing to do with the trial, sentencing, or execution. Court should be about justice and law, not retribution and revenge. The victim's family should be banned from being involved with cases, talking about them on the news, whatever. Let's at least pretend like we've advanced a little beyond monkeys and keep bullshiat emotions out of this.
2014-01-17 10:50:30 PM
2 votes:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

Not relevant. I am talking about the conscious pushing forward of executions in order to obtain political capitol and curry public favor.
We already know that if we execute people, a few innocent people will die - it is collateral damage. It's part of the package.

So you were accusing Texas without any facts to back up your accusation?  Can we get the [IRONIC] tag on your last post?  At least Everybody Poops had an answer.


TIL any list starting out with something you disagree with automatically nullifies every source.

Do me a favor and argue about the others as well, else you're just moving the goalposts.
2014-01-17 10:44:04 PM
2 votes:

Almost Everybody Poops: So sad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States


The basic question-does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants "deserve" to die?-cannot be answered in the affirmative. It is not simply that this Court has allowed vague aggravating circumstances to be employed, relevant mitigating evidence to be disregarded, and vital judicial review to be blocked. The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution. - Justice Blackmun, Callins v. Collins, 1994

I'm pulling these quotes from this post, which is a reply to the standard "well they did something heinous" defense of the death penalty. I'm not a lawyer, but I find this gentlemen's arguments reasonable and insightful.
2014-01-17 10:43:48 PM
2 votes:
Gun lust. And Missouri thinks of itself as pro-life.
2014-01-17 10:41:52 PM
2 votes:

MFAWG: I think the states should consider allowing people to bid to be on the firing squads.


Your one handed typing is impressive, but consider counseling.
2014-01-17 10:35:49 PM
2 votes:

DubtodaIll: And yes, taking the life of someone who has taken a life in cold blood is balance.


Strapping someone to a gurney or chair and killing them is pre-meditated murder, there's no way around it. So that is balance I guess, if we want the State to be no better than the accused.
2014-01-17 10:29:35 PM
2 votes:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n _1 507003.html
2014-01-17 10:25:26 PM
2 votes:

DubtodaIll: Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.

Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.


And preventing such crap from happening is how we progress as a society.

Read the Ender series again, how did that turn out for Ender?
2014-01-17 10:25:22 PM
2 votes:

TheWhoppah: Headso:good enough for a person convicted of murder who was too poor to afford anything but a public defender.

Stop living in the past.  Have you ever heard that it costs a million dollars to execute someone?  Do you know why?  Do you suppose they just drop a pallet of money on the condemned man's head?
[www.rawstory.com image 300x200]
No, the reason it costs a million dollars is because people facing the death penalty don't get just any old overworked public defender.  They don't get a tax lawyer or real-estate attorney either.  When the death penalty is involved you get a criminal law specialist that has to be specifically qualified for death penalty cases AND has agreed to take such cases.  The attorney is given any resources required to prepare the defense including investigators, access to private forensic lab testing to double-check the claims from the government lab, psychologists, criminologists or whatever expert witness is reasonably necessary.  Then, if convicted and sentenced to die, the defendant gets automatic appeals paid for by the State and the appeals go up through the state system and then through the federal system.


Well it's nice that you have full faith in the government to do things properly to the point that you let them kill American citizens but my faith in them stops at handing out social services to poor people. I don't believe this is one area of life where money has no impact on the outcome, considering the demographics of the people killed by the state that seems to be true.
2014-01-17 10:25:15 PM
2 votes:
Shoot straight you bastards! Don't make a mess of it!
2014-01-17 10:24:53 PM
2 votes:
The number of sociopaths in this thread is somewhat unnerving.
2014-01-17 10:23:28 PM
2 votes:

jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.


And you are exactly the kind of guy I would hate to see in office for that sentiment.

/Never worked any death penalty cases, but having worked CI cases you would have been an absolute nightmare
//Worked enough CI cases to know that you farkers do it for political reasons
///Fark you
2014-01-17 10:22:57 PM
2 votes:

Odoriferous Queef: miss diminutive: That Guy Jeff: then why not firing squads?

As previously mentioned, it takes a tremendous toll on the executioners. Now, if they designed robots to fire the guns, then that wouldn't be an issue.

/don't support the death penalty
//just sayin

Not trying to troll --- but why not?
Mutherfarker kills a family  member and he gets life at 10's of thousands of dollars per year!?
Kill him. Get him off the payroll. Murdering SOB

/again not trolling.


1) it's not a deterrent
2) There's a chance (and depending on the race, religion and socio-economic status of the convicted - a higher chance) of executing an innocent person
3) All the appeals and legal fees don't make execution all that cheaper than incarceration (depending on the length of time and age of the convicted, of course)
4) I don't feel the state has the right to end the life of one of its citizens

I get the emotional aspect, though. If someone murdered a member of my family or a close friend I'd want to see them dead too. Which is why I shouldn't be the one to make the decision.
2014-01-17 10:15:53 PM
2 votes:
Headso:good enough for a person convicted of murder who was too poor to afford anything but a public defender.

Stop living in the past.  Have you ever heard that it costs a million dollars to execute someone?  Do you know why?  Do you suppose they just drop a pallet of money on the condemned man's head?
www.rawstory.com
No, the reason it costs a million dollars is because people facing the death penalty don't get just any old overworked public defender.  They don't get a tax lawyer or real-estate attorney either.  When the death penalty is involved you get a criminal law specialist that has to be specifically qualified for death penalty cases AND has agreed to take such cases.  The attorney is given any resources required to prepare the defense including investigators, access to private forensic lab testing to double-check the claims from the government lab, psychologists, criminologists or whatever expert witness is reasonably necessary.  Then, if convicted and sentenced to die, the defendant gets automatic appeals paid for by the State and the appeals go up through the state system and then through the federal system.
2014-01-17 10:12:33 PM
2 votes:
I'm not seeing the problem.  In fact, the series I'm reading at the moment has our future society having implemented an "eye for an eye" policy with regards to capital crimes.  So, if you kill a person with two shots to the chest and then one to the stomach, leaving them to bleed out...you get the same exact shots, then get left to bleed out.  Run over someone with a car?  You get run over with a car.  Rape a person before you murder them?  You get raped before you're killed the same way.

I'm in favor of that.  Talk about a deterrent.

No, I have no problem with the death penalty.  The only problem I have is with using the death penalty without IRREFUTABLE evidence...video, dozens of close witnesses without any contradictions, an in-court confession (none of that signed statement bullshiat), etc.  There are too many false convictions based on circumstantial and eyewitness testimony and he-said-she-said nonsense to impose death without better evidence.
2014-01-17 10:10:23 PM
2 votes:

TheWhoppah: The justice system


America does not nor has it ever had a justice system.

We have a legal system, which is society's way of containing and preventing a justice system from arising.

Justice is kind of like fire. In very controlled settings, it can be a great boon. But you let it get free and:

msnbcmedia.msn.com
2014-01-17 10:10:04 PM
2 votes:
If I were to be executed and given the choice of the method I would not choose beheading, I'm too afraid that the brain survives long enough to feel the pain. I want something that instantly destroy the brain.  I used to think of some kind of high velocity press but in a recent thread someone suggested explosives. Another option would be to instantly cook the brain with a very intense burst of microwave radiation.

Gunshot to the head might work but it is not 100% sure.

In any case I saw a documentary (don't remember where) where they were looking for a 100% humane way to kill people and found one (I don't remember what it was though, some gas I think), but they discovered that pro death penalty politicians aren't very interested in a method where there is no chance that the accused will not to suffer.
2014-01-17 10:05:09 PM
2 votes:

theorellior: It should not be about retribution.


An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine, 1795
2014-01-17 09:58:33 PM
2 votes:

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.


I actually do think we should let people choose the method of their execution.  I'd probably go for lethal injection over firing squad, but only if I could get them to agree not to strap me down to a table.  Couldn't I just sit in a nice LA-Z-Boy recliner and watch porn while they inject me?

What's amazing to me is that we're perfectly fine with euthanizing pets but still think somehow we can't do lethal injection to criminals humanely.

I think I said that a day or two ago in another thread.  Fark that.  If some mass murderer suffers for about 10 minutes while he is executed I'm not too worried about it.  I'm much more concerned that pets that are euthanized don't suffer.

If it's good enough for your cat or your dog it's good enough for a murderer.
2014-01-17 09:57:04 PM
2 votes:
Good job Missouri, now shorten the stay in jail to 5 years before sentence handed out.

Next we can give pruning sheers to gaurds to remove the testicles of rapists and child molesters.

/dna and confession or other solid evidence of murder, rape and child molestation should be required for severe penalties as these
//women rapists or child molesters can have the red hot poker treatment
///stop the bullcrap of proven guilty in court but probably actually innocent so treat all criminals as innocent victims
2014-01-17 09:50:52 PM
2 votes:

jso2897: No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?


Actually no.  I'd have to poke around for the statistics but I recall that the biggest deterrent is perceived likelihood of being caught and punished.  Severity of punishment ranks fairly low on the list.
2014-01-17 09:48:07 PM
2 votes:

Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.


No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?
2014-01-17 09:47:44 PM
2 votes:
sp1.yimg.com
2014-01-17 09:41:53 PM
2 votes:

debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.


How much does being chased to death by naked female roller skaters cost?
2014-01-17 09:41:32 PM
2 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 09:40:07 PM
2 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 09:39:16 PM
2 votes:
Sweet, Running Man will be on soon?!
2014-01-17 09:36:48 PM
2 votes:
If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.
2014-01-17 09:34:42 PM
2 votes:
I think the states should consider allowing people to bid to be on the firing squads.
2014-01-17 09:34:17 PM
2 votes:
Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.
2014-01-18 10:50:43 AM
1 votes:

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: "You might have killed someone, so we are definitely going to kill you." And, this is civilized? How is this supposed to solve anything?


Well, the way you phrased it was stupid.  Let me rephrase your question to reflect an actual scenario that actually happened:

"You definitely found a pregnant lady, tried to rape her vaginally but since she was eight months pregnant it was hard to get to so you anally raped her instead and then stabbed her to death.  We know this because you were convicted on the evidence and then later you actually admitted it to us AND we later tested DNA evidence matching you to the crime.  And this is civilized?  How is this supposed to solve anything?"

It helps solve her fianceé left behind sleeping at night rather than imagining that asshole watching Cable TV and eating three square meals a day while the bodies of your unborn child and fianceé rot 6 feet under the ground.
2014-01-18 03:46:11 AM
1 votes:

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 03:16:28 AM
1 votes:

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 02:59:16 AM
1 votes:
We have the death penalty because it makes us feel good to see the "deserving" getting what they "deserve", simple as that. This country is full of sociopaths if you think about it.
2014-01-18 02:56:54 AM
1 votes:

Phil Moskowitz: When do you know if a society has gone so far down the wrong path that it can never come back from it?


when bill clinton can remain president, or when the cops can get away with murdering kelly thomas.
2014-01-18 02:54:25 AM
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: 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.

How abou a clean humane execution(like hanging or firing squad) if you just strait up killed your victim(s)

and some insanely gruesome shiat if you tortured/dismemberd/raped etc your victim(s), Im talking something medieval like breaking on the wheel or burning at the stake or being skinned alive


i'm good with that.
do unto others as you would have done unto you.
religious bullpoop aside, i believe you deserve no more or less than the consideration you gave to your victims.
2014-01-18 02:43:35 AM
1 votes:

captainktainer: Popular Opinion: 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.

Popular Opinion: so you are planning to overthrow the evil regime? good for you and good luck with that.

All that matters to you is killing people in as gruesome a way as possible. I congratulate you on fellating the Fark.com mods. May you reap what you sow.


i have no idea what you mean by that,
if you want be the champion for the ariel castros of this planet, you are much more sick than i am, and perhaps as sick as those that you defend,
2014-01-18 02:37:48 AM
1 votes:

captainktainer: Popular Opinion: basically, yes.
do you realize how many completely innocent people we have murdered in this war on terrorism?

We are all very impressed by how much you want to murder innocent people. Truly, for your efforts on behalf of killing the innocent, you must be a paragon of humanity.


so you are planning to overthrow the evil regime? good for you and good luck with that.
2014-01-18 02:27:32 AM
1 votes:
what is more cruel?
life in prison for something you didn't do, or quiet oblivion?
2014-01-18 01:46:56 AM
1 votes:

Popular Opinion: Skyrmion: BelKimi: People should either be rehabilitated or killed, no middle ground.

Why do you favor the death penalty over life imprisonment?

richard ramirez, and admittd mass murderer, cost california over 20 million  dollars to keep alive in prison.
personally, i would have rather spent that money on the poor and needy.


The problem is for every Richard Ramirez, Texas executes a innocent mentally challenged man.
2014-01-18 01:43:42 AM
1 votes:

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.


Forced honey boo boo watching is like burning at the stake level cruel.
2014-01-18 01:40:42 AM
1 votes:
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 01:04:40 AM
1 votes:

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 12:54:00 AM
1 votes:

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 12:52:08 AM
1 votes:

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 12:37:00 AM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: 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.

Just read the Beylor report for yourself instead of taking anyone's word about it.  It doesn't show ANY EVIDENCE that the fire was not arson.  All Beyler did was look at the old photos, read the official report, and point out that some clues that, at the time, were believed to only happen in arson fires are now known to happen (uncommonly) in non-arson fires.  The report doesn't even refute all of the forensic evidence, only some of it.  Baylor didn't even bother to interview the actual fire marshal.  The report was bought and paid for by anti-death penalty advocates.  Beyler is a whore of the courts, an expert that will testify for whichever side is paying his bills.


Wow. The mental gymnastics are strong with this one.
Just reading what you wrote lends reasonable doubt to the state's case that it was arson that caused the fire...you said yourself that there were clues used at trial that have since been proven to not be associated with arson fires. That right there is reasonable doubt.

Are you the discredited fire marshal in question by chance?
2014-01-18 12:33:11 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-18 12:20:30 AM
1 votes:

Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.

What if you, i dunno, ignored that and read further to other, completely unrelated cases?  Should I just cite the cited sources or are you too afraid to admit you're wrong?


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.
2014-01-18 12:05:31 AM
1 votes:

AbortionsForAll: (continued)Of course, you could always do the one-bullet-is-a-blank thing... That way nobody on said firing squad would know for sure that they were actually responsible for the execution. I imagine this would probably go a long way with alleviating any feelings of guilt the executioners might grapple with.


I disagree if you sign up for the firing squad you should have that guilt with you. It's easy to demand suffering from behind a computer screen
2014-01-18 12:04:19 AM
1 votes:

AbortionsForAll: I don't see what the big deal is. Just this morning I read an article about how some scum-fark took 20-something minutes to die and how various human-rights groups were pissing and moaning about "cruel and unusual punishment" (this guy was condemned for raping and murdering a pregnant newly-wed back in 1989, by the way). Anyway, a bullet to the brain is about as humane (not to mention fool-proof) as it gets. Given the choice, that's how *I* would want to be executed. The only problem I forsee with instituting death-by-firing-squad as the norm, would be reliably securing willing firing-squads.


Just have every caveman in This thread demanding unnecessary torture do it people who want the man to suffer should be forced to do it themselves instead of playing ITG behind a computer screen
2014-01-17 11:52:58 PM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.


Seriously, you said to give "one" example of an innocent person being executed in Texas, I gave you a source and you were like "okay, yeah, but that's kinda disputed". I then give you link to a number of other innocent executions and you're all like "but I didn't agree with the first one! which you cited in your original post! therefore INVALID!"

Man up and admit your wrong or at least try to defend your argument.
2014-01-17 11:49:08 PM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.


What if you, i dunno, ignored that and read further to other, completely unrelated cases?  Should I just cite the cited sources or are you too afraid to admit you're wrong?
2014-01-17 11:49:02 PM
1 votes:
To hell with the firing squad.  The point of the firing squad is that you're not supposed to know who fired the fatal bullet because one of the guns is loaded with a blank.  It is my view that the condemned should be put to death with a single bullet fired by the governor of the state.  If you can't take personal responsibility for killing someone, you shouldn't do it.  And if the condemned is later exonerated, the governor should suffer the same fate.
2014-01-17 11:44:02 PM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.


If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.
2014-01-17 11:34:22 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.

Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

Well, that was argumentative, and he can defend it if he wants - but I still haven't heard him assert that he doesn't think any innocent people ever have or will get executed. And, him having given no overt signs of being an utter imbecile, I am not prepared to conclude that he believes that.


Agreed, that's why I gave him a chance to defend himself.  However, he chose to flee rather than back up his assertion.
2014-01-17 11:28:13 PM
1 votes:

Mugato: The number of sociopaths in this thread is somewhat unnerving.


Hybristophilia.
2014-01-17 11:23:51 PM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: JosephFinn: TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.

That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.

Lets consider Willingham's own explanation for what happened:  I was napping in the back room with Amber when she woke me up yelling about the smoke so I got up and left out the front door.

Three year old Amber's body was found under the covers in the back bedroom.  The path from the back bedroom to the front door would have taken him past the room where the twin infants were sleeping.  Their bodies were found in that room.

So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"


That would be nice, if the version you have there was anything even close to the accounts of what happened that night and later on.
2014-01-17 11:22:32 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.


Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

2014-01-17 11:17:11 PM
1 votes:
I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.
2014-01-17 11:05:12 PM
1 votes:

LoneVVolf: How about Gallagher hammer to the head? First three rows of witnesses would be provided plastic sheeting, of course.


Man you the one should be on brain detail.
2014-01-17 11:01:33 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: If I were going to be executed, I would choose long-drop over any method I know of. Lethal injection seems to be barely disguised torure, and thee electric hair and gas are far worse. Shooting and beheading are not instantaneous.
With log-drop, death actually takes a few minutes - but uncosciousness is instantaneous if it is successful (botched, of course, any method can be horrific).
I mean, this is all based on the premise that we are going to be executing people - killing them. It's what it is, and if you don't like it, don't advocate doing it.


Well, like a friend of mine who is a nurse told me there's really no good way to die.  The appeal of lethal injection is there's a belief that you just sort of fall asleep.  I don't know how true that is, but it sounds alright.  With hanging or firing squad or beheading you're going to have those minutes of anticipation.  The actual death may be quick, but the thought of what will soon happen is torture in and of itself.  I suppose you suffer the anticipation either way.

I don;t have a problem with executing certain people if we're sure they're did what they're accused of but   The exoneration of a number of death row felons should bring attention to the fact that there are probably people serving 5-10-20 years or life who aren't really guilty.

It's usually just the death penalty cases that get the attetion.
2014-01-17 10:52:51 PM
1 votes:
Why not go full on Thai-style firing squad while we're at it? Oh, you're not familiar? Well:
The prisoner to be executed was tied to a wooden cross, hands pinned in a prayerful position (wai), and facing a wall; behind him (or occasionally, as in today's post, her), a screen; behind the screen... a mounted automatic rifle that would discharge a burst of up to 15 bullets into the vicinity of the heart, generally terminating life immediately.

Bolded because it didn't work one time. You can read all the gory details here (consider it NSFW to be safe).
2014-01-17 10:50:23 PM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.


That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.
2014-01-17 10:49:43 PM
1 votes:
In other words we're becoming more like China everyday and they more like us
2014-01-17 10:48:43 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Almost Everybody Poops: So sad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States

The basic question-does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants "deserve" to die?-cannot be answered in the affirmative. It is not simply that this Court has allowed vague aggravating circumstances to be employed, relevant mitigating evidence to be disregarded, and vital judicial review to be blocked. The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution. - Justice Blackmun, Callins v. Collins, 1994

I'm pulling these quotes from this post, which is a reply to the standard "well they did something heinous" defense of the death penalty. I'm not a lawyer, but I find this gentlemen's arguments reasonable and insightful.


I'm mostly anti-death penalty but I agree that it is up to opinion on whether or not they "deserve" it.  For example would it be better for Ted Bundy to spend life in prison on the taxpayers' dime rather than execute him? I'll read your links since you tend to have interesting and informative sources.
2014-01-17 10:43:43 PM
1 votes:

DubtodaIll: iq_in_binary: DubtodaIll: Almost Everybody Poops: DubtodaIll: GrailOfThunder: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.

Why bother passing the buck? There are plenty if people who would gladly take tha job.

Because sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until much later.  IIRC there was an article awhile back where a drone operator was diagnosed with PTSD after he was told he had over 1500 confirmed kills.

Well life ain't all lollipops and it's a waste of time I bother telling people they can't choose to do something if they want to do it and it's something that needs doing anyway. Hardship is not tradgedy, it's life.

And preventing such crap from happening is how we progress as a society.

Read the Ender series again, how did that turn out for Ender?

You really think there's anything we can ever do to escape from the darkest parts of our nature? Best we can do it seek justice and balance. And yes, taking the life of someone who has taken a life in cold blood is balance.


I've actually had a few successes. Several of them close relation. I got fired from my last job because of my successful lobbying for Obama. My ultimate higher ups were not happy to hear I made $400 on the election on intrade. I made them hundreds of thousands but they were happy to fire me over his winning. Laid off the whole trail of temps actually, the day before thanksgiving. Yeah, fark you all. And yet, I'm well employed now
2014-01-17 10:42:17 PM
1 votes:
Wow.  Bunch of big-talking state-sponsored murder nuts in this thread.
2014-01-17 10:38:38 PM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n _1 507003.html

Yeah OK maybe.  Deluna is one that might have been actually innocent.  How did you get that?  Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.  Texas has instituted a bunch of reforms since DeLuna though... I doubt that could happen today.


So sad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States
2014-01-17 10:34:13 PM
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: Hanging is probably the cheapest. About 6 feet of rope is what a buck maybe 2.

It was the prefered way of eleminating top Gnatzis after the war.


What kind of sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that the convicted Nazi war criminals were hanged by the best of the best executioners, giving them basically the cleanest death that can be arranged under the circumstances, but 70 years later some guy in Texas (that nobody is even sure did anything) gets a needle stuck in his arm and a dose of whatever cocktail the state managed to procure from drug companies.

I'm not a proponent of capital punishment to begin with, but it's in an incredibly farked up state in the US.
2014-01-17 10:30:53 PM
1 votes:

Poutine Breath: An eye for an eye, as in The Bible.


We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we are inclined to say: 'It serves him right.' That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless. - Mr. Graham, Canadian House of Parliament 1914
2014-01-17 10:30:44 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.


Well the show Cops and America Most Wanted were a bit scary to me. Public executions on tv with networks trying to get you to watch their live coverage, way overboard and well Texas is a good example of why we shouldn't have a death penalty.
2014-01-17 10:24:50 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: doglover: jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?

Not really. The Romans were WAY into public executions, and they were so horrible 2000 years later people still worship a guy who got a relatively unremarkable one as the son of god for being stoic about it. Rome still had criminals.

The death penalty isn't really about deterrent or revenge or anything like that. Ideally it's because the person whom you are inhuming has done something that cannot be forgiven and cannot be reformed. Like a rabid dog, you put them down to protect everyone else as opposed to some kind of petty hate for the dog itself.

That's why you execute people as quickly and cleanly as possible, give them a last meal, and generally conduct yourself with decorum and composure during the whole thing. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of how an executioner should behave and why.

Don't mean shiat to me. If you're killing people, you're killing people. "Decorum" has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I guess we all have to pretend whatever helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand, if yiou don't belive in deterrence, then I guess it doesn't matter how you do it.
I certainl;y don't care.


You'd make a perfect Army grunt.
2014-01-17 10:20:51 PM
1 votes:

tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie: jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.

What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.

After the invention of long-drop hanging and the guillotine, nothing that has been done to make execution more humane has been any real improvement. The electric chair, gas, and poison are all unreliable and frequently fail horribly, with results far worse than anything the gallows or the guillotine can produce.
Anyway, the idea shouldn't be to make the DP more humane. We are KILLING PEOPLE.
Can we please stop bullshiating ourslves about what it is we are doing?
We should do it on prime time TV, too. early enough that children will be watching. There's hardly any point if we don't have our kids watch, and benefit from the important moral lesson we are providing them.

Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..
/Do not want.


What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.
2014-01-17 10:17:30 PM
1 votes:

bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.


Someone still has to push the button on the robot, though. Whoever pushes that button is still "responsible" for being the executioner.
2014-01-17 10:16:47 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: Johnsnownw: Why is this scary?

Screw firing squad...a noose or guillotine is just as effective...and cheaper.

No shiat. What we are engaged in is the lawful, ritual killing of human beings. Let's not insult our own intelligence by trying to pass it off as something civilized. The more brutal, public, and humiliating it is, the more likely we are to get that magic "deterrent" effect everybody is always talking about, amirite?


Hey now. It worked for the bankers didn't it?
2014-01-17 10:10:35 PM
1 votes:

chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.


First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.
2014-01-17 10:07:06 PM
1 votes:

theorellior: TheWhoppah: Execution should be incredibly painful because we shouldn't be executing anyone that doesn't deserve an incredibly painful death.

No. The justice system should be impartial. It should not be about retribution. If the society allows a death sentence, it should be carried out as dispassionately as issuing a speeding ticket. Retribution is for vendettas, feuds and other medieval forms of one-upmanship.


Justice can't exist without vengeance.  The justice system is a means of providing impartial vengeance.  Society has a right to choose whatever method it wants to demonstrate its disgust with murderers.
2014-01-17 10:06:48 PM
1 votes:
I still say that head choppin is the best way. We need to be manufacturing high tech guillotines.
2014-01-17 10:02:25 PM
1 votes:

gfid: If it's good enough for your cat or your dog it's good enough for a murderer.


good enough for a person convicted of murder who was too poor to afford anything but a public defender.
2014-01-17 10:01:38 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 09:59:14 PM
1 votes:

hoodiowithtudio: Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.


memecrunch.com


Execution should be incredibly painful because we shouldn't be executing anyone that doesn't deserve an incredibly painful death.  Making it painless just would just serve to assuage our collective guilt if we execute the wrong person.  Screw that!  If we execute the wrong person we should feel horrible about it.  We should be AFRAID of executing the wrong person.  We should be DAMN SURE we got the right guy before we execute him and the way to do that is to make it a horrible painful spectacle... like a piranha tank!
2014-01-17 09:58:00 PM
1 votes:
It's funny to me when someone who's fiscally conservative is pro-war, pro-death penalty, and against letting people (especially the government) decide when to pull the plug on the brain dead. The first two are fiscally wasteful ways to kill someone, the last is a fiscally wasteful way to keep them alive.
2014-01-17 09:56:56 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: I think we should use the most barbarous methods we can, within reason. Shooting, hanging, beheading and so on. And it should be public, and there should be TV cameras and no hoods or blinfolds on the condemned.
The people want blood? Fine, let's give it to them.
But if they don't even have the balls to behold what they demand with their own eyes - they shouldn't have it.

Also, executioners should be selected by random draft, and the penalty for refusing should be five years in the penitentiary*.
All citizens should live with the knowledge that as long as they allow that switch to exist, they may be called upon to pull it personally.
If people still want the death penalty then - fine, I'm with ya.

* That's what they used to give people for refusing the military draft.


What's wrong with the guillotine in it's day it was hailed as true equality. No mare drunk ax men missing the neck and well just build one and you don't have to pay for electricity for electric chairs or drugs for lethal injection even bullets for firing squads that lots of times miss vital areas of the criminal so they have to keep shooting.
2014-01-17 09:55:53 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 09:54:24 PM
1 votes:

debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.


"Son of a b***h! The bastard picked old age! It's within budget too!"
2014-01-17 09:51:09 PM
1 votes:

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.


So use anesthesia to render someone unconscious/asleep, then use one of the 30,000 guillotines the government bought and is storing in Montana to behead them. They're asleep, they won't feel a thing. :)

//yes, I know it's an urban legend. :)
2014-01-17 09:50:00 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-01-17 09:46:49 PM
1 votes:

White_Scarf_Syndrome: I still don't understand why breathing in pure nitrogen isn't an option.



Came here to say this.  It's cheap, painless, and won't harm anyone else if the gas chamber leaks.  When you asphyxiate from carbon dioxide your body detects it and freaks out, but other inert gasses like helium and nitrogen just make you drift away.
2014-01-17 09:46:32 PM
1 votes:
Even though I think the state should not be given the authority to kill a citizen (too much potential for abuse and making mistakes you can't rectify) I'd take firing squad myself.  However, I would prefer not to do the stupid thing where they shoot you in the heart...  shotgun at close range through the brain pan would be best.
2014-01-17 09:46:18 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...


A big honking shot of morphine might be (too) quick, and it would almost certainly be painless.

/see also the fact that the gas used in gas chamber executions is almost never 100% nitrogen, which would eventually make the condemned painlessly fall asleep and then succumb to hypoxia
//alsøsee also the electric chair, which was wasn't ruled unconstitutional until after a guy put to death that way was killed instantly due to faulty wiring when they flipped the switch
///alsøalsøsee also hanging, which if done properly breaks the condemned's neck and kills him instantly, but is only used in Delaware
////Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?
2014-01-17 09:46:09 PM
1 votes:
Frankly, I think I'd take firing squad over lethal injection.

/for me, personally
//not that I'd be up for the death penalty for any reason
///except that one thing
////but there's not enough evidence to convict
//or is there?
2014-01-17 09:45:29 PM
1 votes:
MNF halftime hangings
2014-01-17 09:44:23 PM
1 votes:

debug: If the inmate wants to choose death by firing squad, what's the problem?  We should kill them in whatever way they want, up to a pre-determined cost.


I prefer the victims family gets to choose...
2014-01-17 09:44:11 PM
1 votes:

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.


WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN WITNESSES?!?
2014-01-17 09:43:28 PM
1 votes:
www.movievillains.com
2014-01-17 09:39:40 PM
1 votes:

hoodiowithtudio: Here is my problem with beheading. Its got to be incredibly painful. Think about how bad it is after you get a paper cut. I can't imagine one's brain functions last more than seconds, but those have to be incredibly painful seconds.


I took a knife in the hand once and didn't even feel a thing from the cut.  It just felt like someone had pushed a hard object against my hand.  Well, I didn't feel the cut at least until a well meaning partner declared "Oh crap, there's a knife in your hand" and pulled it out.  Felt it then.

Moral of the story:  Don't have a guy standing next to the axeman ready to tell you that your head is off.
2014-01-17 09:39:15 PM
1 votes:
Isn't ammo expensive?
2014-01-17 09:39:05 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-17 09:37:35 PM
1 votes:
No you can't have a last cigarette, it might kill you.
2014-01-17 09:36:43 PM
1 votes:
In 2014 you'd think we'd have devised some way of snuffing someone out instantly.
Kind of dated but what about those machines that jam a bolt into steak's heads? That seems pretty instantaneous.
2014-01-17 09:36:17 PM
1 votes:

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.


Hanging by long drop is better. As long as you don't mess up the drop, the person gets knocked out and strangles to death quietly, plus the family gets a nice intact body to bury. If the drop is too long, no problem with the decapitation, the person still won't feel it (scientists believe; I think no one has thought  to attach electrodes on the brain of the condemned to measure that yet), it's only if the drop is too short will be the problem with a slow death. It's better than drugs which when they were "alright" just paralyzed the person but they still felt death oncoming. Plus it's cheaper to have a noose than the swordsman not cutting all the way through on the first try.
2014-01-17 09:35:36 PM
1 votes:

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?


Well if you wind up a lifer in general pop you will die a nice slow AIDS/Hep C death even if your lawyers eventually prove your innocence. Id rather get any current form of execution than waste away from full blown AIDS.
2014-01-17 09:24:40 PM
1 votes:
"Let's do it"
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report