Utah state legislators approve firing squads

[Ifreann]

In this case; by suffering. The onset of hypoxia is not something that causes suffering, and nitrogen asphyxiation works by inducing hypoxia.

how do you measure suffering? Hanging is better in things that can actually be measured. Time to prepare the sentence (judging from the lack of injections), time to carry out the sentence and price.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atrociously disgusting behaviour (such as raping or murdering) justifies the killing of the perpetrator once he has been rendered unable to cause further harm (such as in being jailed).

Jailing, at least in the USA, isn't enough to stop a person from causing further harm. Else prison violence wouldn't exist.

Which is no justification for executing people, only cause to improve your shitty prisons.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Income inequality is another thing, you see, income inequality is a necessity for any community to function, provided it is not outrageous, and no western state has outrageous levels of income inequality. If you want outrageous levels of inequality, compare the average Chinese politician with the average Chinese worker, you'll find the inequality levels are in fact, at 'outrageous' levels, much higher than that of any western state.

Our income inequality is about the same as Russia's, among the worst in the world.

Wealth inequality, it turns out, has followed a spectacular U-shape evolution over the past 100 years. From the Great Depression in the 1930s through the late 1970s there was a substantial democratization of wealth. The trend then inverted, with the share of total household wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent increasing to 22 percent in 2012 from 7 percent in the late 1970s. The top 0.1 percent includes 160,000 families with total net assets of more than $20 million in 2012.

The problem is not the justice system though, nor is it a social problem at all. It's because the government won't let big companies fail during crises, if they just let big corporations fail, their wealth would go back into circulation. It's horrifying as a capitalist to see these big businesses propped up, big businesses NEED to fail if they can't prop themselves up, the economy MUST have a major downturn that is allowed to run its course if we ever wish for income inequality to fall. Bailing big business out makes things infinitely worse in the long run, and it makes recovery a thing that only big business will ever see.

[Uxupox]

how do you measure suffering? Hanging is better in things that can actually be measured. Time to prepare the sentence (judging from the lack of injections), time to carry out the sentence and price.



Jailing, at least in the USA, isn't enough to stop a person from causing further harm. Else prison violence wouldn't exist.

Which is no justification for executing people, only cause to improve your shitty prisons.

Why should we improve the prisons? We are not sending them to get a vacation.

[Lingerie Queendom]

This is NOT new, Utah has ALWAYS had firing squads as an option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gilmore

[Novorobo]

Which is no justification for executing people, only cause to improve your shitty prisons.

Why should we improve the prisons? We are not sending them to get a vacation.

If someone's idea of a vacation is getting to rape people, and they get to do that behind bars, then yes, you ARE sending them to get a vacation.

[Uxupox]

Why should we improve the prisons? We are not sending them to get a vacation.

If someone's idea of a vacation is getting to rape people, and they get to do that behind bars, then yes, you ARE sending them to get a vacation.

If they do actually try to rape/murder somebody while in prison then they should be confined to solitary 24/7.

[Valica]

There's no need for capital punishment.

It's expensive and barbarian.

You know what else is expensive? Feeding and housing someone with a life sentence.

[Novorobo]

If someone's idea of a vacation is getting to rape people, and they get to do that behind bars, then yes, you ARE sending them to get a vacation.

If they do actually try to rape/murder somebody while in prison then they should be confined to solitary 24/7.

In short, an idea that would improve the prisons. Many prisons in America don't do that, yet you compared doing something about that to "sending them to get a vacation."

[Ifreann]

Which is no justification for executing people, only cause to improve your shitty prisons.

Why should we improve the prisons? We are not sending them to get a vacation.

Because there is the ever-present possibility of those within your prisons, or any prison, being innocent of any crime. I'd also point out that even being rightly convicted of a crime does not remove all of one's rights, but somehow I can't imagine you care much about the rights of criminals.

[Vallermoore]

Murderers, if guilty, deserve death in my view, ASAP.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't subscribe to the idea that atrociously disgusting behaviour (such as raping or murdering) justifies the killing of the perpetrator once he has been rendered unable to cause further harm (such as in being jailed).

Exactly my opinion. The death sentence serves no other purpose other than to continue the ancient "an eye for an eye" code in the modern world, modern justice is above vengefull tactics and violent behaviour, at least it should be.

Why should further resources be devoted to their maintenance? What do they contribute to the mechanisms they draw their 'livelyhood' from?

Why is it ok for a legal system to make it easier to feed and clothe a criminal, a waste, for life, while people who are actually worth something starve in the streets?

Make legal fees cheaper, if that loses out on some talent? So be it.

[Camelza]

Exactly my opinion. The death sentence serves no other purpose other than to continue the ancient "an eye for an eye" code in the modern world, modern justice is above vengefull tactics and violent behaviour, at least it should be.

So I suppose people are not responsible for their actions?

They are. That's why the state and state mechanisms should not step down to a lower level as representants of people by using the death penalty.

[Camelza]

Exactly my opinion. The death sentence serves no other purpose other than to continue the ancient "an eye for an eye" code in the modern world, modern justice is above vengefull tactics and violent behaviour, at least it should be.

Why should further resources be devoted to their maintenance? What do they contribute to the mechanisms they draw their 'livelyhood' from?

Why is it ok for a legal system to make it easier to feed and clothe a criminal, a waste, for life, while people who are actually worth something starve in the streets?

Make legal fees cheaper, if that loses out on some talent? So be it.

It's a moral problem not an economic one.

[Prezelly]

Why should further resources be devoted to their maintenance? What do they contribute to the mechanisms they draw their 'livelyhood' from?

Why is it ok for a legal system to make it easier to feed and clothe a criminal, a waste, for life, while people who are actually worth something starve in the streets?

Make legal fees cheaper, if that loses out on some talent? So be it.

It's a moral problem not an economic one.

It is both moral and economic

[Camelza]

Which is no justification for executing people, only cause to improve your shitty prisons.

Why should we improve the prisons? We are not sending them to get a vacation.

Neither you send them there for vengeance, they're called correctional facilities for a reason. So, having institutions that resemble a hell on earth is not in line with the job these insitutions are there for in the first place.

[Camelza]

It's a moral problem not an economic one.

It is both moral and economic

Primarily it is a moral problem though.

[Prezelly]

It is both moral and economic

Primarily it is a moral problem though.

Not only moral as you said before. There is an economic side to it

[Yukonastan]

In this case; by suffering. The onset of hypoxia is not something that causes suffering, and nitrogen asphyxiation works by inducing hypoxia.

how do you measure suffering? Hanging is better in things that can actually be measured. Time to prepare the sentence (judging from the lack of injections), time to carry out the sentence and price.

Hanging can snap the neck, but that isn't instantly fatal. It's instant paralysis, but not instant death. Same with beheading. The head will live for a few seconds after being separated from the body. And a cut spinal cord is immense pain. This has been proven. And in my eyes, even if the person did something wrong that warrants his death, it doesn't warrant a painful and drawn-out death.

Nitrogen asphyxiation leaves no mess, causes no pain, and doesn't use harmful drugs, or causes the firing squad's members to have nightmares.

[Camelza]

Primarily it is a moral problem though.

Not only moral as you said before. There is an economic side to it

The slave debate had an economic side to it as well, but it was a primarily moral problem. To me personally only the moral part matters.

[Yukonastan]

It is both moral and economic

Primarily it is a moral problem though.

Executing someone in the USA is more expensive than letting 'em rot for life, actually.

That and when someone gets three consecutive death penalties and two life sentences, you know there's something wrong.

[The Emerald Legion]

Why should further resources be devoted to their maintenance? What do they contribute to the mechanisms they draw their 'livelyhood' from?

Why is it ok for a legal system to make it easier to feed and clothe a criminal, a waste, for life, while people who are actually worth something starve in the streets?

Make legal fees cheaper, if that loses out on some talent? So be it.

It's a moral problem not an economic one.

Precisely. How is it moral that one can, given resources, use it to support someone who is of no use to society, and has committed a wrong severe enough that people wish death upon them. When there are other more deserving individuals who are in need?

By choosing to save those who don't deserve it, you condemn those who do deserve support and assistance.

[Prezelly]

Not only moral as you said before. There is an economic side to it

The slave debate had an economic side to it as well, but it was a primarily moral problem. To me personally only the moral part matters.

The slave debate was economic to the south and moral to the north

[Camelza]

The slave debate had an economic side to it as well, but it was a primarily moral problem. To me personally only the moral part matters.

The slave debate was economic to the south and moral to the north

Yes and this is a very good example in which morality is far more important than economics.

It's a moral problem not an economic one.

Precisely. How is it moral that one can, given resources, use it to support someone who is of no use to society, and has committed a wrong severe enough that people wish death upon them. When there are other more deserving individuals who are in need?

By choosing to save those who don't deserve it, you condemn those who do deserve support and assistance.

A government can multitask. If your government spent less for nuclear warheads it could easily create a respectable welfare system.

[Aethrys]

Not only moral as you said before. There is an economic side to it

The slave debate had an economic side to it as well, but it was a primarily moral problem. To me personally only the moral part matters.

To some people, such as a utilitarianist, the economic side is also a moral one. For instance, I find it morally repulsive that friends and relatives of an individual who is murdered are forced to live with the knowledge that their tax dollars are going towards the upkeep of the murderer, in some cases for the rest of their life. Others may take issue with the fact that great expense is going towards keeping violent criminals alive while simultaneously things like education and welfare programs are going without.

[The Emerald Legion]

A government can multitask. If your government spent less for nuclear warheads it could easily create a respectable welfare system.

This is not an answer, it's a red herring. Nuclear warheads have nothing to do with this.