Utah state legislators approve firing squads

[Ifreann]

Let's also not forget that the death penalty is not actually expensive. It's the appeals process/Hindenburg-level overinflated legal fees that are expensive.

Those appeals are part of the death penalty, so it actually is expensive.

Also, don't forget that although lethal injection actually has a fail rate, albeit low, firing squad has never been ineffective in the history of its usage as a method of humane execution (and no, for you chuckle-hippies, that's not an oxymoron).

Well what do you mean by "ineffective"? That the person being executed didn't die? Or that they didn't die right away?

---

I am opposed to capital punishment, but if you're going to have it, I'd say that the advantages of lethal injection over firing squad are largely cosmetic, and ultimately more to help us feel better about executing people than to make the experience more humane for the condemned.

Indeed, lethal injection is little more than cosmetically better. I'd rather see the execution by guillotine myself if executions are to be continued.

Why do you want to subject the witnesses and prison staff to the sight of someone's head being chopped off?

[Imperializt Russia]

>doesn't support death penalty
>must be anarchist

The fuck.

Cute, but no. I'm not saying they are one-for-one. That being said after some thought, I can't think of any reason an Anarchist would be in favor of a state-proscribed execution.

Probably because you know fucking jack about anarchist theory, I'm guessing.

[Zakuvia]

Well what do you mean by "ineffective"? That the person being executed didn't die? Or that they didn't die right away?

---

Indeed, lethal injection is little more than cosmetically better. I'd rather see the execution by guillotine myself if executions are to be continued.

Why do you want to subject the witnesses and prison staff to the sight of someone's head being chopped off?

As to the first, there are instances where lethal injection has either failed, or been grossly incompetently engaged, resulting in visual 'suffering'. Though I do personally support a death penalty, I don't feel that torture is acceptable. Again, there is a difference in spite of some peoples kneejerk moralizing. Firing squads have not had incidents of people 'getting winged' and suffering through it or the rest.

As to the second, supposing we were to attempt to modernize execution via guillotine, which I don't agree with, there are many ways in which a setup could be found that eliminates the 'mess' of it. Also, adjustible glass exists that could be fogged or blacked out while the actual execution is taking place.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well what do you mean by "ineffective"? That the person being executed didn't die? Or that they didn't die right away?

---

Why do you want to subject the witnesses and prison staff to the sight of someone's head being chopped off?

As to the first, there are instances where lethal injection has either failed, or been grossly incompetently engaged, resulting in visual 'suffering'. Though I do personally support a death penalty, I don't feel that torture is acceptable. Again, there is a difference in spite of some peoples kneejerk moralizing. Firing squads have not had incidents of people 'getting winged' and suffering through it or the rest.

As to the second, supposing we were to attempt to modernize execution via guillotine, which I don't agree with, there are many ways in which a setup could be found that eliminates the 'mess' of it. Also, adjustible glass exists that could be fogged or blacked out while the actual execution is taking place.

Then why bother having the viewing?

[Ifreann]

Well what do you mean by "ineffective"? That the person being executed didn't die? Or that they didn't die right away?

---

Why do you want to subject the witnesses and prison staff to the sight of someone's head being chopped off?

As to the first, there are instances where lethal injection has either failed, or been grossly incompetently engaged, resulting in visual 'suffering'. Though I do personally support a death penalty, I don't feel that torture is acceptable. Again, there is a difference in spite of some peoples kneejerk moralizing. Firing squads have not had incidents of people 'getting winged' and suffering through it or the rest.

Never? I find that very hard to believe.

As to the second, supposing we were to attempt to modernize execution via guillotine, which I don't agree with, there are many ways in which a setup could be found that eliminates the 'mess' of it.

I'm not sure how you can possibly decapitate someone with any mess.

Also, adjustible glass exists that could be fogged or blacked out while the actual execution is taking place.

Making it impossible to witness the execution.

[Zakuvia]

As to the first, there are instances where lethal injection has either failed, or been grossly incompetently engaged, resulting in visual 'suffering'. Though I do personally support a death penalty, I don't feel that torture is acceptable. Again, there is a difference in spite of some peoples kneejerk moralizing. Firing squads have not had incidents of people 'getting winged' and suffering through it or the rest.

Never? I find that very hard to believe.

As to the second, supposing we were to attempt to modernize execution via guillotine, which I don't agree with, there are many ways in which a setup could be found that eliminates the 'mess' of it.

I'm not sure how you can possibly decapitate someone with any mess.

Also, adjustible glass exists that could be fogged or blacked out while the actual execution is taking place.

Making it impossible to witness the execution.

When I say 'mess' I'm referring to what the audience sees. It could be set up so that the face is visible before a partition comes down that makes the head not visible before the apparatus comes down, so that the viewers only see from the shoulders down, etc. Again, I don't support this whatsoever, but I'm just making the point that a less visibly gruesome means exists when you apply some thought.

Actually, I never understood the concept of the viewing apart from offering closure to some family members. I don't think I could do it, in spite of my views on the act itself. It's not an issue of not buying what I'm selling, I just don't think I, as a victim's family member/loved one, could watch that, regardless of the means. I'd frankly be happy with the coroner's report.

As far as Anarchist theory? I completely admit to knowing nothing about the full bore tenets of it. But again, what Anarchist would support a state-sponsored execution?

[Altruistic Paladins]

Go Utah! Since the companies that make the painless drugs stopped making them, we need to go to the next best thing. A bullet in certain places will end your life immediately and painlessly.

Headshots are nonfatal 10% of the time.

Ooh, this sounds like a job for statistics. Okay, then think of bullets as powers. The nonfatal statistic (which I think may have been referring to the total of head shot injuries rather than limited to just executions [which have far different circumstances than gunfights, hunting accidents, or misfires], assuming you got it from Matpat's video on head shots [I say "may" because he never said what studies he used for that bit]) could be brought down by changing the power from one to two and thus bringing it below the point of statistical significance.

If one-fifth of statistical significance is too much, then it could be cubed and then you'd be one-five-fiftieth of statistical significance, the power of four bullets bringing it to one five-hundredth of statistical significance, and so and so forth.

Oh god, that is sounding like a really dark statistics class. It's not quite at Beaver Ridge Elementary School math class levels of dark context for math questions at least.

"1. Wenseslao Moguel was subject to an attempted execution by a government firing squad in México due to support of Pancho Villa. In total, ten bullets hit his cranium and presumed dead, but El Fusilado survived. Assuming that P = 1% where P = assumed chance of surviving a head shot, state the probability of the event. You have until the end of this song to answer the question after you start the song, and don't look up the Game Theory episode on head shots to get the answer."

[Page]

I am opposed to capital punishment, but if you're going to have it, I'd say that the advantages of lethal injection over firing squad are largely cosmetic, and ultimately more to help us feel better about executing people than to make the experience more humane for the condemned.

Making the experience humane for those employed to carry it out is also a concern. Also those who'll be witnessing it, and those who'll be cleaning up afterwards.

Why wouldn't there be Americans that can be found who delight in performing execution? Its clear half this country's cops get their rocks off on murdering innocent people, so finding someone to execute a supposedly guilty person couldn't be that hard.

[Greater Americania]

It's a well established fact that executing someone in the US costs a lot more than keeping them in prison for life. Not because of the cost of actually killing them, so the cheapness or otherwise of bullets is irrelevant, but because of the cost of the several appeals necessary before the sentence can be carried out.

Unless you're arguing to reform the appeals process to eliminate these barriers, I fail to see how this is a relevant argument against the death penalty.

"We liberals have made this difficult to conduct, so therefore conducting this is wrong."

[Butballs]

I have arguments supporting, and attacking capital punishment

But for the most part, it's unneeded, and stupid.

[New Werpland]

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.

Really, do I need to spell this out to say letter by letter? In the situations in which I support the death penalty (which are the cases in which the death penalty are applied in most countries anyway), the government has the right to take away a life. I'm not saying government=god and can kill whomever they want, I'm saying that when someone goes out and murders someone to take their money or whatever, the state not only should be able to, but must carry out justice and execute this murderer.

A murderer goes out and murders someone, an executioner (in the moral state) executes someone who is not innocent and went out taking away the lives of people who did nothing.

[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.

Really, do I need to spell this out to say letter by letter? In the situations in which I support the death penalty (which are the cases in which the death penalty are applied in most countries anyway), the government has the right to take away a life. I'm not saying government=god and can kill whomever they want, I'm saying that when someone goes out and murders someone to take their money or whatever, the state not only should be able to, but must carry out justice and execute this murderer.

A murderer goes out and murders someone, an executioner (in the moral state) executes someone who is not innocent and went out taking away the lives of people who did nothing.

Well, you are wrong. Most modern states have abolished the death penalty. So, saying that a government taking a life is normal practise is just wrong. The US is one of the few western states to execute prisoners.

Anyway, morally, again, there is little difference. The state has the possibility to put someone in prison for life instead of execution. Now, is it right to kill when imprisonment is possible? I think not. Why would execution be preferable?

[Ifreann]

Making the experience humane for those employed to carry it out is also a concern. Also those who'll be witnessing it, and those who'll be cleaning up afterwards.

Why wouldn't there be Americans that can be found who delight in performing execution? Its clear half this country's cops get their rocks off on murdering innocent people, so finding someone to execute a supposedly guilty person couldn't be that hard.

Would you really want to hire someone who delights in executing people for any position involving the use of firearms?

---

It's a well established fact that executing someone in the US costs a lot more than keeping them in prison for life. Not because of the cost of actually killing them, so the cheapness or otherwise of bullets is irrelevant, but because of the cost of the several appeals necessary before the sentence can be carried out.

Unless you're arguing to reform the appeals process to eliminate these barriers, I fail to see how this is a relevant argument against the death penalty.

It's not an argument against the death penalty, I'm just pointing it out for people who seem to be unaware of it.

"We liberals have made this difficult to conduct, so therefore conducting this is wrong."

I wouldn't know how true it is to attribute it to liberals exclusively, but if you want to say that conservatives would make it easier to execute people for crimes they didn't commit then be my guest .

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Unless you're arguing to reform the appeals process to eliminate these barriers, I fail to see how this is a relevant argument against the death penalty.

"We liberals have made this difficult to conduct, so therefore conducting this is wrong."

You're right. We should just have the bailiff cap them in the head the second the verdict comes down from the judge.

[Ifreann]

Unless you're arguing to reform the appeals process to eliminate these barriers, I fail to see how this is a relevant argument against the death penalty.

"We liberals have made this difficult to conduct, so therefore conducting this is wrong."

You're right. We should just have the bailiff cap them in the head the second the verdict comes down from the judge.

Have a whole trial first? It'd be easier to just let the police execute suspects.

[Greater Americania]

I wouldn't know how true it is to attribute it to liberals exclusively, but if you want to say that conservatives would make it easier to execute people for crimes they didn't commit then be my guest .

Well executing people perhaps 100 years ago wasn't nearly as difficult as it is today, which means somewhere along the line people started putting up barriers to make it more difficult. I'm generally assuming that people who believe in the death penalty are less likely to be the ones who try to do this, so that only leaves one group of people in particular as the reason for this trend.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

It's a well established fact that executing someone in the US costs a lot more than keeping them in prison for life. Not because of the cost of actually killing them, so the cheapness or otherwise of bullets is irrelevant, but because of the cost of the several appeals necessary before the sentence can be carried out.

Unless you're arguing to reform the appeals process to eliminate these barriers, I fail to see how this is a relevant argument against the death penalty.

"We liberals have made this difficult to conduct, so therefore conducting this is wrong."

Liberals think a conduct is wrong, so we have to make it as difficult as possible. Is that not normal behavior?

[Greater Americania]

You're right. We should just have the bailiff cap them in the head the second the verdict comes down from the judge.

Perhaps not, but having them sit around in prison for 15-20 years before the sentence is carried out doesn't really make much sense either.

Liberals think a conduct is wrong, so we have to make it as difficult as possible. Is that not normal behavior?

Exactly, this is my point. Thank you.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You're right. We should just have the bailiff cap them in the head the second the verdict comes down from the judge.

Perhaps not, but having them sit around in prison for 15-20 years before the sentence is carried out doesn't really make much sense either.

Liberals think a conduct is wrong, so we have to make it as difficult as possible. Is that not normal behavior?

Exactly, this is my point. Thank you.

How is that your point?

[New Werpland]

Really, do I need to spell this out to say letter by letter? In the situations in which I support the death penalty (which are the cases in which the death penalty are applied in most countries anyway), the government has the right to take away a life. I'm not saying government=god and can kill whomever they want, I'm saying that when someone goes out and murders someone to take their money or whatever, the state not only should be able to, but must carry out justice and execute this murderer.

A murderer goes out and murders someone, an executioner (in the moral state) executes someone who is not innocent and went out taking away the lives of people who did nothing.

Anyway, morally, again, there is little difference. The state has the possibility to put someone in prison for life instead of execution. Now, is it right to kill when imprisonment is possible? I think not. Why would execution be preferable?

Is it really so evil to give someone an punishment that equals in extremity the crime they know they have committed?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Anyway, morally, again, there is little difference. The state has the possibility to put someone in prison for life instead of execution. Now, is it right to kill when imprisonment is possible? I think not. Why would execution be preferable?

Is it really so evil to give someone an punishment that equals in extremity the crime they know they have committed?

Well, yeah. That's not what criminal law is about. Criminal law is not about petty vengeance, it's about correction and prevention. Correction is pretty hard when someone's dead.

[Fartsniffage]

Anyway, morally, again, there is little difference. The state has the possibility to put someone in prison for life instead of execution. Now, is it right to kill when imprisonment is possible? I think not. Why would execution be preferable?

Is it really so evil to give someone an punishment that equals in extremity the crime they know they have committed?

This is a brilliant idea. Want to volunteer for the prison rape team? You know, so we can do the eye for an eye thing properly?

[Greater Americania]

How is that your point?

See Ifreann's post challenging my claim that liberals have made obtaining the death penalty more difficult in an attempt to stop it from happening as much.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

How is that your point?

See Ifreann's post challenging my claim that liberals have made obtaining the death penalty more difficult in an attempt to stop it from happening as much.

Oh, yeah, that. Well, that is easily solved. It wasn't liberals but common sense that made that appeals process so big. Because executing innocents is pretty gruesome to even think about. And Ifreann never challenged that claim. He countered it, quite effectively, by saying that trying to make execution easier is not exactly wanted

[United Russian Soviet States]

It is best to abolish the death penalty.