Firing Squad

[Gauthier]

If executions are used, the firing squad is among the most humane.

I'm pretty sure I'd prefer an injection. Though, not one of those American cocktails that does a terrible job.

In any case, I'm firmly against the death penalty.

Major pharmaceuticals refuse to sell to governments known for employing them in executions. Which results in the states with lethal injection having to employ questionable if not shoddy third-party pharmacies to compound the required drugs. Plus physicians refusing to break the Hippocratic Oath also means that doofs with next to no medical training are employed to administer the drugs, leading to frequent instances of slow, agonizing deaths for the condemned. Not that some people would find that disturbing unfortunately.

[Infected Mushroom]

That's a rather arbitrary and trivial counter argument.

Explain further.

The use of a machine allows for society and those involved in the execution to further distance themselves from the responsibility of ending someone's life. Blank cartridges and lethal injections do, as well.

so this concept you're advocating is similar to Ned Stark's ''the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword?''

there might be some merit then

[Pandeeria]

That's a rather arbitrary and trivial counter argument.

Explain further.

The use of a machine allows for society and those involved in the execution to further distance themselves from the responsibility of ending someone's life. Blank cartridges and lethal injections do, as well.

A machine would work better, and getting shot in the head from point blank range would be quicker then a firing squad.

It's not about trivialities like if someone can distance them self slightly further (unless you want the executioner to live with the guilt), it'd about efficiency.

Oh yes, sorry for forgetting something so important.

Anyways, as Marxi said, there are machines that do it. Perhaps have the person strapped down, have a (powerful) pistol to their head and then have six people press a button. However, only two of the six buttons will fire a bullet.

i'm sure with today's technology, they could engineer a completely functional model.

The issue would be, is it more or less humane than the present system with the chemicals? I'm no expert...

It would be mor humane then firing squad, more humane if the lethal injection isn't done right.

[Scomagia]

The use of a machine allows for society and those involved in the execution to further distance themselves from the responsibility of ending someone's life. Blank cartridges and lethal injections do, as well.

So, again, arbitrary and trivial.

In what way is that either arbitrary or trivial?

[Scomagia]

The use of a machine allows for society and those involved in the execution to further distance themselves from the responsibility of ending someone's life. Blank cartridges and lethal injections do, as well.

A machine would work better, and getting shot in the head from point blank range would be quicker then a firing squad.

It's not about trivialities like if someone can distance them self slightly further (unless you want the executioner to live with the guilt), it'd about efficiency.

i'm sure with today's technology, they could engineer a completely functional model.

The issue would be, is it more or less humane than the present system with the chemicals? I'm no expert...

It would be mor humane then firing squad, more humane if the lethal injection isn't done right.

I do want the executioner to live with the guilt. Fuck them. Society should live with the guilt, as well, which is why the executioners should be randomly selected.

[Dyakovo]

So, again, arbitrary and trivial.

In what way is that either arbitrary or trivial?

He doesn't agree with it.
*nods*

[United Marxist Nations]

So, again, arbitrary and trivial.

In what way is that either arbitrary or trivial?

Because the only purpose is to cause guilt.

[Pandeeria]

A machine would work better, and getting shot in the head from point blank range would be quicker then a firing squad.

It's not about trivialities like if someone can distance them self slightly further (unless you want the executioner to live with the guilt), it'd about efficiency.



It would be mor humane then firing squad, more humane if the lethal injection isn't done right.

I do want the executioner to live with the guilt. Fuck them. Society should live with the guilt, as well, which is why the executioners should be randomly selected.

What the fuck? You want them to live with that? Why?

Also, randomly making random people do it is just, strange and nonsensical. It seems like your stuck on this triviality.

[United Marxist Nations]

The use of a machine allows for society and those involved in the execution to further distance themselves from the responsibility of ending someone's life. Blank cartridges and lethal injections do, as well.

so this concept you're advocating is similar to Ned Stark's ''the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword?''

there might be some merit then

Why do you have to tie everything to Game of Thrones? Seriously, you tie literally everything to it, stop it.

[Ikania]

I don't see the purpose in more than one gun. Shoot him in the head. Not dead, shoot him again. No need for a big squad.

[Scomagia]

In what way is that either arbitrary or trivial?

Because the only purpose is to cause guilt.

It's cowardice to hide the nature of capital punishment behind machines, chemicals, and faceless executioners. Make all members of society over the age of majority responsible for carrying out the sentences.

[Infected Mushroom]

I do want the executioner to live with the guilt. Fuck them. Society should live with the guilt, as well, which is why the executioners should be randomly selected.

What the fuck? You want them to live with that? Why?

Also, randomly making random people do it is just, strange and nonsensical. It seems like your stuck on this triviality.

i agree...

Opposing the death penalty is fine, but saying ''well if it passes I want everyone to suffer as much as possible through guilt''

is a bit like sabotaging a group project once the rest of the group members have elected to follow a course of action over your initial preference. Its just... not very productive.

[United Marxist Nations]

Because the only purpose is to cause guilt.

It's cowardice to hide the nature of capital punishment behind machines, chemicals, and faceless executioners. Make all members of society over the age of majority responsible for carrying out the sentences.

Why? Just because you want to make people feel guilty; that's arbitrary and trivial.

[Scomagia]

I do want the executioner to live with the guilt. Fuck them. Society should live with the guilt, as well, which is why the executioners should be randomly selected.

What the fuck? You want them to live with that? Why?

Also, randomly making random people do it is just, strange and nonsensical. It seems like your stuck on this triviality.

Maybe because they're choosing to kill someone?

Making random people do it is a pretty sure-fire way of ending capital punishment. Somehow I doubt that most people in most First World societies could stomach the nature of capital punishment when they have to carry it out themselves.

[The Grim Reaper]

What the fuck? You want them to live with that? Why?

Also, randomly making random people do it is just, strange and nonsensical. It seems like your stuck on this triviality.

i agree...

Opposing the death penalty is fine, but saying ''well if it passes I want everyone to suffer as much as possible through guilt''

is a bit like sabotaging a group project once the rest of the group members have elected to follow a course of action over your initial preference. Its just... not very productive.

If their preference is going to a local prison and shooting people? Fuck yeah I'll sabotage that group project.

[Padnak]

Personally I'm a proponent of forced labour for criminals, so naturally it would make sense to not kill off a valuable worker and to instead work them to death

perfectly reasonable

I'm joking, but I do think that death by firing squad should be permissible in some cases.

[United Marxist Nations]

What the fuck? You want them to live with that? Why?

Also, randomly making random people do it is just, strange and nonsensical. It seems like your stuck on this triviality.

Maybe because they're choosing to kill someone?

Making random people do it is a pretty sure-fire way of ending capital punishment. Somehow I doubt that most people in most First World societies could stomach the nature of capital punishment when they have to carry it out themselves.

Roman Empire put that shit in goddamn ampitheaters and people paid money to watch it. It could have the opposite of the intended effect.

[Threlizdun]

I don't see the purpose in more than one gun. Shoot him in the head. Not dead, shoot him again. No need for a big squad.

Since only one person has the real bullet, it is supposed to prevent anyone from knowing who really killed the prisoner as a way to alleviate the guilt of killing someone. Basically, it's supposed to stop them from realizing "Holy shit I'm about to kill a human being! I can't do this! This is monstrous!" and backing down, as someone would be more apt to do on their own. Killing someone up close is hard, so they have to be a certain distance a way. Killing someone alone is also hard, so they use a group to create a more psychologically acceptable atmosphere for violence.

[Threlizdun]

Personally I'm a proponent of forced labour for criminals, so naturally it would make sense to not kill off a valuable worker and to instead work them to death

perfectly reasonable

I'm joking, but I do think that death by firing squad should be permissible in some cases.

So you acknowledge that the first proposal was monstrous but fail to see how the second one also is?

[The United Territories of Providence]

I'm not against the death penalty, but it should be instituted better. Because time and time again we find out the guy we killed was innocent. If we're going to kill someone, we should be absolutely certain we're killing the right person. That and it should be cost effective. Sometimes it costs more to kill a man than it does to house them for 30 years. The Firing Squad is cheap, humane, fast, and very effective. I don't like the death penalty, but if we're going to have it....might as well be practical.

[Padnak]

That brings up a good point...

Why don't we bring back gladiatorial games? We promise the winner freedom then we shoot them in the back of the head after its over and we've taken care of the problem and gotten some entertainment out of it

[Gingeska]

Firing squad is less expensive than many other methods.

[Pandeeria]

Maybe because they're choosing to kill someone?

Making random people do it is a pretty sure-fire way of ending capital punishment. Somehow I doubt that most people in most First World societies could stomach the nature of capital punishment when they have to carry it out themselves.

Roman Empire put that shit in goddamn ampitheaters and people paid money to watch it. It could have the opposite of the intended effect.

Im pretty sure some messed-up people would be jumping at the opportunity.

What the fuck? You want them to live with that? Why?

Also, randomly making random people do it is just, strange and nonsensical. It seems like your stuck on this triviality.

Maybe because they're choosing to kill someone?

Making random people do it is a pretty sure-fire way of ending capital punishment. Somehow I doubt that most people in most First World societies could stomach the nature of capital punishment when they have to carry it out themselves.

Making everyone else feel guilty doesn't really help to stop capital punishment. I'm guessing some people would be very happy to put a mass-killer to death.

[Padnak]

Personally I'm a proponent of forced labour for criminals, so naturally it would make sense to not kill off a valuable worker and to instead work them to death

perfectly reasonable

I'm joking, but I do think that death by firing squad should be permissible in some cases.

So you acknowledge that the first proposal was monstrous but fail to see how the second one also is?

Whats monstrous about it? If someone does something so horrible we're willing to kill them as punishment, we may as well do it humanely, so death by firing squad is the most reasonable option in that its a guaranteed instant and painless death.

I am also a proponent of forced labour for criminals, so take that as you will

[Threlizdun]

I'm not against the death penalty, but it should be instituted better. Because time and time again we find out the guy we killed was innocent. If we're going to kill someone, we should be absolutely certain we're killing the right person. That and it should be cost effective. Sometimes it costs more to kill a man than it does to house them for 30 years. The Firing Squad is cheap, humane, fast, and very effective. I don't like the death penalty, but if we're going to have it....might as well be practical.

Or we could just abolish the death penalty, since that would be cheaper and would ensure an innocent person never gets killed for a crime they didn't commit.

That brings up a good point...

Why don't we bring back gladiatorial games? We promise the winner freedom then we shoot them in the back of the head after its over and we've taken care of the problem and gotten some entertainment out of it

Both the logical problem that prisoners would learn it is a ruse and the ethical problem that those are fucking human beings and not toys.