Utah state legislators approve firing squads

[Imperializt Russia]

I wasn't really paying attention, nuclear disarmament is a touchy subject for me.

[Benuty]

A nigh-infinitely more sensible and appropriate move would be to commute any capital sentences to life and abolish the death penalty entirely.

You can keep all the money I've just saved you, Utah. Name a road after me, if you must.

It's incredible that a country that claims to be progressive and part of the first world, still uses capital punishment.

Given the US still has those who snip peoples foreskins off because of generations of conditioning about masturbation being unclean lets not just them too harshly (this is just one of many issues).

[United Marxist Nations]

A nigh-infinitely more sensible and appropriate move would be to commute any capital sentences to life and abolish the death penalty entirely.

You can keep all the money I've just saved you, Utah. Name a road after me, if you must.

It's incredible that a country that claims to be progressive and part of the first world, still uses capital punishment.

Japan also still uses it, and is clearly part of the first world; it is not dependent on level of economic development.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's incredible that a country that claims to be progressive and part of the first world, still uses capital punishment.

Japan also still uses it, and is clearly part of the first world; it is not dependent on level of economic development.

Expressing my incredulity and judging aren't the same thing.

[New Werpland]

That's the point right there, people who find it acceptable to kill someone and have no mental issues blocking their vision, deserve death, people like that put their own self interest over someone's life. It's not only the psychopaths who deserve the death penalty, but most often gang leaders or hired killers, people who find the act of killing others an acceptable means to get their ends.

Is this not an accurate description of the death penalty too? A government just has a legal authority and the monopoly of violence, but if those are your cases against murderers, they could just as well be held against executioners.

No not really, there are many fundamental differences between executioners and murderers. And of course Government has the right to take away lives, as long as it is a justified punishment for the person in question.

[Valica]

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

And yet it's still cheaper.

Funny world, isn't it?

If you think executing one person via firing squad, electrocution, or injection costs more than feeding/housing them for >20 years, you aren't worth debating with.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Is this not an accurate description of the death penalty too? A government just has a legal authority and the monopoly of violence, but if those are your cases against murderers, they could just as well be held against executioners.

No not really, there are many fundamental differences between executioners and murderers. And of course Government has the right to take away lives, as long as it is a justified punishment for the person in question.

The government has no such right. 'Right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness', I seem to remember from some document or other. A government has no such right. Any government that kills outside of an active war situation or an immediate threat to life is violation of basic rights. It never is a justified punishment.

And what are those differences, exactly? I would like to hear some fundemental difference between a murderer and an executioner. Something that works every time, seperates every murderer from every executioner. As you said, someone who kills because he puts his self interest above that of someone else. That is exactly what a state does when it executes someone. They just wrote it into law, and a lot of people agreed. But in principle it is exactly the same thing, one is just institutionalised.

[Fartsniffage]

And yet it's still cheaper.

Funny world, isn't it?

If you think executing one person via firing squad, electrocution, or injection costs more than feeding/housing them for >20 years, you aren't worth debating with.

And yet it's true. The only way you could make it cheaper is to remove some of the legal protections afforded to those sentenced to death.

So which bits would you strip out?

[Camelza]

I wasn't really paying attention, nuclear disarmament is a touchy subject for me.

I see. Nevertheless, I don't advocate for nuclear disarmament, I simply tried to use it as a (false as it seems) comparisson of taxes going to a somewhat unpopular, but necessary department in order to support my point that life in prison is prefarable to the death penalty even though some people consider it more costly(even if it isn't more expensive that the death penalty in reality).

[Galloism]

No not really, there are many fundamental differences between executioners and murderers. And of course Government has the right to take away lives, as long as it is a justified punishment for the person in question.

The government has no such right. 'Right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness', I seem to remember from some document or other. A government has no such right. Any government that kills outside of an active war situation or an immediate threat to life is violation of basic rights. It never is a justified punishment.

I'm no fan of capital punishment, but this argument is particularly bad for two reasons.

1) The declaration of independence is not the law of the land, and never has been.

2) If we viewed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inviolable, we would not be able to imprison anyone ever, as that takes away both liberty and, effectively, the pursuit of happiness.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

If you think executing one person via firing squad, electrocution, or injection costs more than feeding/housing them for >20 years, you aren't worth debating with.

And yet it's true. The only way you could make it cheaper is to remove some of the legal protections afforded to those sentenced to death.

So which bits would you strip out?

The right to a fair trial. If someone is accused of a crime worthy of execution, they should just be executed outright. *heavy nodding*

Which reminds me, haven't you committed double homicide recently?

[The Nihilistic view]

Well I would choose a firing squad over being injected.

[Yukonastan]

Well I would choose a firing squad over being injected.

Messy, though quick.

[Valica]

If you think executing one person via firing squad, electrocution, or injection costs more than feeding/housing them for >20 years, you aren't worth debating with.

And yet it's true. The only way you could make it cheaper is to remove some of the legal protections afforded to those sentenced to death.

So which bits would you strip out?

The legal bits aren't execution.

I am referring to the actual act of execution, because the definition of execution is taking someone's life.
Being in court isn't part of execution.

From the time they sit in the chair to the time they are dragged out costs the state less money than feeding them for 20 years.

[Aethrys]

No not really, there are many fundamental differences between executioners and murderers. And of course Government has the right to take away lives, as long as it is a justified punishment for the person in question.

The government has no such right. 'Right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness', I seem to remember from some document or other. A government has no such right. Any government that kills outside of an active war situation or an immediate threat to life is violation of basic rights. It never is a justified punishment.

And what are those differences, exactly? I would like to hear some fundemental difference between a murderer and an executioner. Something that works every time, seperates every murderer from every executioner. As you said, someone who kills because he puts his self interest above that of someone else. That is exactly what a state does when it executes someone. They just wrote it into law, and a lot of people agreed. But in principle it is exactly the same thing, one is just institutionalised.

Except the executioner is putting the needs of Society over those of the criminal, not just their own. So that's really not the same at all.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The government has no such right. 'Right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness', I seem to remember from some document or other. A government has no such right. Any government that kills outside of an active war situation or an immediate threat to life is violation of basic rights. It never is a justified punishment.

I'm no fan of capital punishment, but this argument is particularly bad for two reasons.

1) The declaration of independence is not the law of the land, and never has been.

2) If we viewed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inviolable, we would not be able to imprison anyone ever, as that takes away both liberty and, effectively, the pursuit of happiness.

Ah, but it's not just in the decleration of independence. Right to life is one of those basic rights as written in the universal decleration of human rights, a document that holds authority over constitutional law. Besides, the right to liberty can be restricted without removing it entirely. The right to life, not so much. You either life or you don't, that's pretty binary. But there can be degrees in how much we take away liberty without taking it fully.

[Yukonastan]

And yet it's true. The only way you could make it cheaper is to remove some of the legal protections afforded to those sentenced to death.

So which bits would you strip out?

The legal bits aren't execution.

I am referring to the actual act of execution, because the definition of execution is taking someone's life.
Being in court isn't part of execution.

From the time they sit in the chair to the time they are dragged out costs the state less money than feeding them for 20 years.

There's still massive amounts of money poured into the legal process to get permission for 10$ of bullets and 25$ of cleaning equipment to be used to deal with that guy over there that raped and killed five underage girls, has pleaded guilty as charged, and has requested, and been denied, several appeals. Such is the irony of America's legal system.

[The Nihilistic view]

Well I would choose a firing squad over being injected.

Messy, though quick.

I'd be dead so mess is not really a problem. It's got to beat 20-30 minuets of Agony and then finding out it did not work.

[Galloism]

I'm no fan of capital punishment, but this argument is particularly bad for two reasons.

1) The declaration of independence is not the law of the land, and never has been.

2) If we viewed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inviolable, we would not be able to imprison anyone ever, as that takes away both liberty and, effectively, the pursuit of happiness.

Ah, but it's not just in the decleration of independence. Right to life is one of those basic rights as written in the universal decleration of human rights, a document that holds authority over constitutional law. Besides, the right to liberty can be restricted without removing it entirely. The right to life, not so much. You either life or you don't, that's pretty binary. But there can be degrees in how much we take away liberty without taking it fully.

The Universal Declartion of Human Rights is a declaration and not a treaty, so technically it has no legal effect aside from defining terms in other treaties.

In addition, even if it were, treaties do not override the constitution.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The government has no such right. 'Right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness', I seem to remember from some document or other. A government has no such right. Any government that kills outside of an active war situation or an immediate threat to life is violation of basic rights. It never is a justified punishment.

And what are those differences, exactly? I would like to hear some fundemental difference between a murderer and an executioner. Something that works every time, seperates every murderer from every executioner. As you said, someone who kills because he puts his self interest above that of someone else. That is exactly what a state does when it executes someone. They just wrote it into law, and a lot of people agreed. But in principle it is exactly the same thing, one is just institutionalised.

Except the executioner is putting the needs of Society over those of the criminal, not just their own. So that's really not the same at all.

It's a grander scale, yes, but when a state, a government, sentences someone to die by law, they are putting their need above fundemental rights of others. While this should be possible to some degree, taking away the right to life is a bit too much for my taste. Why not lock them away forever? Would be cheaper, too.

[Ifreann]

And yet it's still cheaper.

Funny world, isn't it?

If you think executing one person via firing squad, electrocution, or injection costs more than feeding/housing them for >20 years, you aren't worth debating with.

If you are counting the cost of execution as only the cost of firing a gun, throwing a lever, or pressing down on a syringe then you are being entirely too disingenuous to debate with.

[Camelza]

The government has no such right. 'Right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness', I seem to remember from some document or other. A government has no such right. Any government that kills outside of an active war situation or an immediate threat to life is violation of basic rights. It never is a justified punishment.

I'm no fan of capital punishment, but this argument is particularly bad for two reasons.

1) The declaration of independence is not the law of the land, and never has been.

2) If we viewed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inviolable, we would not be able to imprison anyone ever, as that takes away both liberty and, effectively, the pursuit of happiness.

Indeed you're right, the declaration of independence is not the law of the land. However the law of the land isn't always about justice and what is morally correct, is it now?
As such the death penalty shoulb be labelled as right, or wrong, not having as a basis pieces of paper, but schouls of philosophical thought.
According to the one I follow, the mere possibility of executing an innocent person is unacceptable and the very thought of taking away the life of any human who doesn't pose a direct threat, is simply an act of vengeance that causes more harm than it does happiness. However, many others have a different opinion on the matter, care to share yours?

[Ifreann]

The legal bits aren't execution.

I am referring to the actual act of execution, because the definition of execution is taking someone's life.
Being in court isn't part of execution.

From the time they sit in the chair to the time they are dragged out costs the state less money than feeding them for 20 years.

There's still massive amounts of money poured into the legal process to get permission for 10$ of bullets and 25$ of cleaning equipment to be used to deal with that guy over there that raped and killed five underage girls, has pleaded guilty as charged, and has requested, and been denied, several appeals. Such is the irony of America's legal system.

That's not irony.

[Yukonastan]

There's still massive amounts of money poured into the legal process to get permission for 10$ of bullets and 25$ of cleaning equipment to be used to deal with that guy over there that raped and killed five underage girls, has pleaded guilty as charged, and has requested, and been denied, several appeals. Such is the irony of America's legal system.

That's not irony.

The guy admits he's guilty, agrees that death is probably the best sentence, and AFTERWARDS .gov still spends FAR too much money on legal proceedings to get the execution approved.

Far easier to hand 'em a pistol and a bullet in an isolation cell. After they've been broken psychologically.

[Arkiasis]

Ahh good old family values and religion. They have sooooo much morality. 2 guys marrying each other. Abhorrent! Shooting someone who has a bag over their head who's defenseless in a chair. Fun for the whole family!