• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

From the state that watches the most porn

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
Utah May Bring Back the Firing Squad

In Utah, where nine inmates are on death row, their would-be executioners face an obstacle. To kill them by lethal injection, they need a cocktail of drugs. But a European campaign to stop one of those drugs from reaching U.S. executioners has worked well enough to create a shortage. And alternative cocktails have malfunctioned.

Thus the response of the Utah State Senate. On Tuesday, it voted to legalize executions by firing squad if the state is short on lethal-injection drugs. "Republican Rep. Paul Ray touted the measure as being a more humane form of execution," AP reports. "Ray argued that a team of trained marksmen is faster and more humane than the drawn-out deaths that have occurred in botched lethal injections."

it's what jesus would want

In fact, Utah killed Ronnie Lee Gardner by firing squad in 2010.

sorry, but this is just barbaric and it boggles my mind that this is still happening in the 21st century.

my god, they really do want to take us back to the 1800s.
 
I'm totally against the death penalty but if we have to discuss methods, while grisly, I always thought the guillotine would be most humane to the victim. Quick and painless. I could be wrong but never studied the idea.
 
I'm totally against the death penalty but if we have to discuss methods, while grisly, I always thought the guillotine would be most humane to the victim. Quick and painless. I could be wrong but never studied the idea.

Seconded on all counts.
 
my god, they really do want to take us back to the 1800s.

I'm totally against the death penalty but if we have to discuss methods, while grisly, I always thought the guillotine would be most humane to the victim.

Coincidentally, beheading was a choice available to Utah death-penalty prisoners from 1851 to 1888. No one ever chose it, though, so they withdrew it.
 
I dunno, it strikes me that firing squad is more humane than injection. Injection takes a while to hook up, etc, and reports seem to suggest that it is hardly painless. Firing squad has always struck me as less cruel.
 
I'm totally against the death penalty but if we have to discuss methods, while grisly, I always thought the guillotine would be most humane to the victim. Quick and painless. I could be wrong but never studied the idea.
While effective and painless, some may have a problem with such a mutilation.

It is a bit odd, talking about "humane" ways of execution.

I think we should let the free market decide.
 
I see 3 sub-issues here:
1) Is firing squad actually any more painful?
My guess is no.

2) Regardless of #1, do prisoners freak out more and suffer more mental distress thinking about that method?
My guess is maybe (Keith's point speaks to this), but probably not enough to qualify as illegally cruel while injections are not.


3) Is firing squad more up front and honest about the fact we are executing a person (rather than giving them what looks like loving euthanasia), thus good as a way to keep us in check in our executions?
My guess is probably. The fact that it feels "brutal" despite being no more painful is related to the very real "gory" nature of it, but that is more an effect upon us than the prisoner. And maybe that unpleasantness is a good thing. Executions should be experienced as very unpleasant by the executioner, even when "justified".

So, I lean toward thinking that firing squads might be acceptable or even better than injection.
 
2) Regardless of #1, do prisoners freak out more and suffer more mental distress thinking about that method?
The only information i have on that is that this method wasn't chosen.
I have no idea if anyone was 'freaked' about the idea of a beheading, or if people in the 19th century were just more likely to believe they needed full bodily integrity when they stood before God?
I remember one English king ordered that his beheaded skull be sewn up inside his body so he'd be able to find it on Judgment Day.
 
I see 3 sub-issues here:
1) Is firing squad actually any more painful?
My guess is no.
For the shooter? Killing someone isn't exactly easy on the psyche.
But it would be easier on a rifleman than on a medical professional tasked with overseeing the injection. There's no Smith And Wesson Oath to do no harm....
 
For the shooter? Killing someone isn't exactly easy on the psyche.

I always thought that's why they used a squad, so no individual shooter would bear full responsibility for the death.

And I always heard that one rifle was loaded with a blank, so no one could be certain they actually shot the condemned at all...
 
I always thought that's why they used a squad, so no individual shooter would bear full responsibility for the death.

And I always heard that one rifle was loaded with a blank, so no one could be certain they actually shot the condemned at all...

The bloodthirstyness of those who vigorously endorse the death penalty know no bounds...except that they have to coexist with those who oppose it. I am quite sure there are people who would like to see the death of a thousand cuts if they could have it. I feel the problem with our criminal justice system is mainly the notion that justice is revenge. This system of revenge is all but blind to the crimes of the extremely wealthy among us and we certainly do not apply that kind of "justice" to our national leaders who have in fact murdered millions in unjust wars and foreign intrigue.

There is little question in my mind that those who find themselves eleigible for state execution are invariably simply those murderers who cannot afford the defenses afforded those with impunity. In my opinion we should not be discussing methods for state executions of murderers without at the same time questioning the lack of prosecution of the major serial murderers in our and other cultures. If the State gets its way, all that happens is a few of the less well defended usually poor killers get executed. Far better to expand the prosecutions to the WORST CASES NUMERICALLY AND IN TERMS OF THE VIOLENCE THEY REPRESENT and back away from this crazy need to kill the poorer and weaker offenders.
 
Actually, given the recent fuck ups, it can be argued that the firing squad is more humane than the lethal injection.

What I don't get is why they aim at the heart and not the head.

What are Utahns, ancient egyptians?

Oh...wait.
 
Too much pomp and ceremony about the execution. Just pump their cell full of carbon monoxide during the night, job done.
 
I always thought that's why they used a squad, so no individual shooter would bear full responsibility for the death.

And I always heard that one rifle was loaded with a blank, so no one could be certain they actually shot the condemned at all...

Anyone who is familiar with his rifle can tell the difference between firing a real round and a blank. When the US Army used a firing squad for execution, there were no blank cartridges.
 
After watching a few seasons of Spartacus on Netflix, I'd prefer to see more people executed ad gladium.
 
I remember one English king ordered that his beheaded skull be sewn up inside his body so he'd be able to find it on Judgment Day.

I would have ordered them not to behead me.

That was actually his last request, and they all had a good laugh, as if no one had ever heard that joke, before. Finally, someone spoke and said, "Seriously, your Majesty. Tell us what your really want and we'll get on with this."
 
Actually, given the recent fuck ups, it can be argued that the firing squad is more humane than the lethal injection.

What I don't get is why they aim at the heart and not the head.

What are Utahns, ancient egyptians?

Oh...wait.

They gotta look good in the casket.;)

If they can be buried with a peaceful look on their face, then everybody goes home happy, assured that our "justice" is "humane."
 
Back
Top Bottom