Utah lawmaker proposes firing squad executions for death row inmates
129 replies, posted
If I were to be executed I'd prefer heroine or some other opiate OD. Or atleast be under the influence of it under the act of my killing.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;44850896]So what you're telling me is that in your opinion there is no such thing as humane and that shooting a man and beating him to death are all in all the same thing, despite the fact people can feel pain.
hu·mane adjective \hyü-ˈmān, yü-\
: kind or gentle to people or animals
Full Definition of HUMANE
1
: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
The consideration referred to in the definition provided can be found in the choice to allow someone less suffrage by offering another means of execution. Your above statement regarding humane killing is verbally false.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but you've proved yourself wrong. How does killing someone show compassion, or sympathy for that matter? Is it less painful than being tortured to death? If you use that as a method for measurement, you're still equating human life to suffering, of which you cannot know. There is no being humane in sanctioned execution.
What would truly be humane in this matter is letting the prisoner live out his days in prison, and die there, without direct execution. That way it's not curbing the prisoners natural life directly. That would be humane, not murder.
Why don't we just make them inhale a tank of helium? You suffocate them to death and they feel no pain because the human body can't tell the difference between helium and oxygen.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44850837]Well to argue that point, there is no humane way of killing, only what is defined as humane by a populance. Its like saying there's a humane way of torture. It's an oxymoron.[/QUOTE]
Definitions are not arguments. Humane is an ultimately relative word anyway. It's only relevant when being compared to something else and in the sphere of a specific time and culture.
[QUOTE=meppers;44851080]Why don't we just make them inhale a tank of helium? You suffocate them to death and they feel no pain because the human body can't tell the difference between helium and oxygen.[/QUOTE]
Because the planet is running out of helium, and helium is very useful for those who desire MRIs and similar things. We can do the exact same thing with nitrogen and it's identical, though - totally painless and that, you just go hypoxic and die. Or just not kill people.
Stuff like this really just makes me contemplate whether we're going forwards or backwards in terms of progression.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44851066]I'm sorry but you've proved yourself wrong. How does killing someone show compassion, or sympathy for that matter? [/quote] The fact that a less painful method is available shows some degree of compassion ergo it is to some degree representative of the concept that is humane. Arguing this point further would be to continue driving a half-assed point, especially when the word you used is clearly defined. [quote] Is it less painful than being tortured to death? If you use that as a method for measurement, you're still equating human life to suffering, of which you cannot know. There is no being humane in sanctioned execution. [/quote] Shooting someone and him dying near-instantly has to be less painful than flogging him to his demise. As for the rest of that statement, I don't recall typing existentialist banter.
[quote] What would truly be humane in this matter is letting the prisoner live out his days in prison, and die there, without direct execution. That way it's not curbing the prisoners natural life directly. That would be humane, not murder.[/QUOTE] The article here deals with alternate methods to executions, I have no interest in giving my opinion on executions and i'm not sure how you managed to think I was or why you are volunteering yours.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;44849845]One shot in the back of the head and done[/QUOTE]
A firing squad doesn't shoot someone in the back of the head. You have to realize the people in the firing squad probably don't like the feeling of shooting and killing a man even if it's their job or not.
I am pretty sure the way it's done here is only 1 person is given a loaded gun, and they are randomly chosen. The rest fire a blank shot. They are all told to aim in the exact specific spot towards the heart I think. This way the person who actually killed the prisoner with a rifle can't tell if they were responsible or not and this relieves somewhat of the stress and weight of people apart of the firing squad.
The thing is a lot of prisoners in Utah want to be killed with a firing squad because they feel like it's more honorable than dieing from lethal injection.
Why did these go out of style anyways ?
[t]http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/guy2.jpg[/t]
ITT: people confusing "quick" with "humane"
I can see why people think this is barbaric, it is, but is there really a HUGE issue? Humans are vengeful by nature, so if you were a member of a family where another family member was murdered, having the murderer executed could provide some form of relief, definitely wont make a lost family member okay, but is better than nothing. It also provides closure, since even if you know the murderer is in jail, having him dead means there is a 0% chance they can ever hurt you again, it's a flawed logic for sure but even so if it makes you feel better then its definitely worth it.
Also that example above was just an example, I don't agree with it but it was the easiest way I could think of showing my point. I totally agree with an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and rehabilitation especially, so I don't think at all someone who murdered just one person should receive the death penalty. But someone who has willingly murdered multiple people for an insane reason who also can absolutely not be rehabilitated and the evidence proves it's 100% chance it was them, then the death penalty should be used for the exact reasons above.
The death penalty IS barbaric, since it's just fulfilling humans primal nature of being vengeful and providing closure even when the logic doesn't make sense, but we can't currently fix that problem so I see the death penalty an option to make the victims feel slightly better, so long as the person who committed the crime [I]really[/I] deserves it and it is 100% sure to be them. The only people who don't get helped by this are people who don't agree with the murderer getting executed (in which case you most definitely aren't going to lose sleep over it) or the family members of the family (but there are always risks when having a child, even microscopically small ones as this one). In either case, a life is something to be taken very seriously, but if it can help the victims by even the smallest amount, it's worth it if the sacrifice is someone who gave up their rights many times over and cannot be helped. This is just my opinion on the matter.
“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”
[Quote=sgman91;44851102]Definitions are not arguments. Humane is an ultimately relative word anyway. It's only relevant when being compared to something else and in the sphere of a specific time and culture.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-definitional-argument[/url]
They are, in fact, arguments. You could write a research paper based on words in the opening paragraphs of the Constitution. There is no Humane way of killing something.
[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;44851760]“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”[/QUOTE]
I think that is probibly the best idea yet.
[QUOTE=kaskade700;44851443]Why did these go out of style anyways ?
[t]http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/guy2.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Partially because people realized that a clean-slice decapitation like the guillotine produces doesn't immediately kill the victim. The heads are still aware after it drops upon them and they only die from lack of oxygenation many seconds (sometimes minutes) later.
Consider me misanthropic, but I find it fair. Because a bullet is cheap.
It only bothers me that nobody thinks about these 5 officers that will have to gun down a human being. They will be the victims as killing people is really bad for a day job. So bad it might lead to them being on the other side of the deal one day.
most humane way in my opinion is non-reactive gas chambers. pump a room full of nitrogen and you'll find yourself not feeling the pain of suffocation and giddily falling asleep to death. in most cases you won't even realize you're dieing.
They should use nitrogen if they really want to continue this practice. Fall asleep fast, never wake up.
edit: oh wow same time as the above post
Snip
I would support the death penalty if the inmate was given a choice.
If they chose it themselves I would have no issue with it what so ever but saying there is a "humane" way to execute someone is stupid.
[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;44849795]Too Dramatic.[/QUOTE]
Killing someone should be dramatic. They're taking away someone's life.
I dislike the death penalty though, so the faster that this primitive way of punishment is removed from our society the better.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;44852031]Because a bullet is cheap.[/QUOTE]
yes the method of disposing of people should be decided by economic value that's not creepy at all
[QUOTE=The Duke;44851962]Partially because people realized that a clean-slice decapitation like the guillotine produces doesn't immediately kill the victim. The heads are still aware after it drops upon them and they only die from lack of oxygenation many seconds (sometimes minutes) later.[/QUOTE]
That, and the fact that they never really kept them well sharpened, or even sharpened them at all. The executioners would sometimes have to drop the blade multiple times because it didn't cut all the way through on the first try.
I'm sure a creative engineer with a special disposition towards the macabre could find all sorts of ways to end somebody's life cheaply, instantaneously, and efficiently with the push of a button, messily and otherwise, and as impersonally as possible. Killing somebody isn't hard, after all. But, ideally, we'd just stop butchering our prisoners.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44850411]I was just about to reference this! Not only did he survive the firing squad, but he survived the coup de grace afterward where someone put a gun right to his head to make sure he would die.[/QUOTE]
These were some real shitty shooters.
Why not just do public drawing and quartering? If you're going to execute people, why not go for the other supposed "benefits" besides punishment? I don't see why people who are pro-execution would be against it being public.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44851818][URL]http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-definitional-argument[/URL]
They are, in fact, arguments. You could write a research paper based on words in the opening paragraphs of the Constitution. There is no Humane way of killing something.[/QUOTE]
That's an argument about a disputed definition of a word. That's not what matters here. You are using the definition of the word "humane" as an argument as to why this is bad. That's not a valid line of argumentation.
Even if you're right about the definition of the word humane you've proven nothing about the validity of capital punishment because you haven't proven that capital punishment is in fact objectively inhumane.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44852802]Why not just do public drawing and quartering? If you're going to execute people, why not go for the other supposed "benefits" besides punishment? I don't see why people who are pro-execution would be against it being public.[/QUOTE]
I think you would be unpleasantly surprised how big percentage of pro-execution folks would be okay with public execution.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44853269]I think you would be unpleasantly surprised how big percentage of pro-execution folks would be okay with public execution.[/QUOTE]
Do you have evidence for that very strong claim?
Going by the definitions of humane given prior, there is no way of executing someone humanely. You can do it in less inhumane but trying to suggest you can be compassionate in killing someone is just ridiculous (with the exception of voluntary euthanasia).
To anyone talking about cost, by putting them to death you've already thrown so much money into the prosecution that the cost of execution is a drop in the ocean.
Also you can't be sure that someone is guilty, only pretty sure, and given that some people will die for crimes they did not commit, would any average death penalty suporter still support it if it was them or their parent on death row? Most accept it happening because they expect it won't be them, which is just bullshit.
Having watched the documentary on the previous page, the other problem is that some see making the death less painful as unfair on their victims.
Sorry if there are spelling errors or just this hard to read. It was written on a laggy android.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.