• Utah lawmaker proposes firing squad executions for death row inmates
    129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jacen;44852552]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.[/QUOTE] You're thinking of executioner axes, guillotines were made to stop that.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;44853361] 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. [/QUOTE] Law and justice should not be revenge. Ever. That's why feelings of victims should not be taken into account.
[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] Most pro-capital punishment people I know feel that human life is so valuable that death is the only truly just consequence for taking it away from someone.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;44853400]Law and justice should not be revenge. Ever. That's why feelings of victims should not be taken into account.[/QUOTE] The effects on and feelings of the victims should always be taken into account. Justice is based off of fairness and the effects of the crime as well, you know. Also, and Facepunch seems to have a very difficult time understanding this, retributive justice is not revenge; revenge is entirely personal and emotional, retributive justice is entirely impartial and not based off emotions but what is considered appropriate based off rationally scaled measurements (and there's all kinds of retributive theories surrounding what measurement criteria should be used, but they all follow the same chain of thought for the most part).
Put them into nuclear flash chambers, blink of an eye and they are gone, burned into the wall. (no pun intended)
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;44853545]The effects on and feelings of the victims should always be taken into account. Justice is based off of fairness and the effects of the crime as well, you know. Also, and Facepunch seems to have a very difficult time understanding this, retributive justice is not revenge; revenge is entirely personal and emotional, retributive justice is entirely impartial and not based off emotions but what is considered appropriate based off rationally scaled measurements (and there's all kinds of retributive theories surrounding what measurement criteria should be used, but they all follow the same chain of thought for the most part).[/QUOTE] Pretty sure retributive justice is just revenge guy. "Oh you stole this from that guy? Well to make him feel better you're going to a small cage, we're not going to help you or anything, but he'll feel better about the whole thing.", when the victim might not actually feel better depending on the circumstances. The victim should not have a say in the punishment, their only role is evidence for prosecution, their personal feelings about the event are completely useless for such a thing, instead we sentence based on the perceived severity of the crime to society (lets ignore outliers like piracy, that's fucked). If we change the sentencing because the victim is all "eh whatevs" or "holy fuck I'll kill you" it stops being a fair system.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;44853545]The effects on and feelings of the victims should always be taken into account. Justice is based off of fairness and the effects of the crime as well, you know. Also, and Facepunch seems to have a very difficult time understanding this, retributive justice is not revenge; revenge is entirely personal and emotional, retributive justice is entirely impartial and not based off emotions but what is considered appropriate based off rationally scaled measurements (and there's all kinds of retributive theories surrounding what measurement criteria should be used, but they all follow the same chain of thought for the most part).[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but "peaceful death is unfair to victims" goes into feel good revenge bullshit category.
I've always wondered how the American justice system manages to gather the absolute evidence required to carry these irreversible executions. It must be great being omniscient. All this talk about compassion or making the victims feel better is nil if the punishment can't be lifted. Like anything else, justice can make mistakes, and I'd rather make mistakes that I can correct if given the choice.
[QUOTE=sgman91;412]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] Wait, so me disputing a meaning of a word, doesn't make it a disputed, even though I bring up a valid point? What kind of logic is that?
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44853800]Wait, so me disputing a meaning of a word, doesn't make it a disputed, even though I bring up a valid point? What kind of logic is that?[/QUOTE] No, your disputing the word is meaningless. Even if you're right about the definition of 'humane' you've proven nothing about the validity of capital punishment.
[Quote=gman91;44853868]No, your disputing the word is meaningless. Even if you're right about the definition of 'humane' you've proven nothing about the validity of capital punishment.[/QUOTE] Sure I have. By proving the fact that there is no humane execution, it Attacks the foundational argument that there are humane executions, and since humane executions are the only way to legally execute someone in some states, the validity of the execution comes under scrutiny.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44853616]Pretty sure retributive justice is just revenge guy. "Oh you stole this from that guy? Well to make him feel better you're going to a small cage, we're not going to help you or anything, but he'll feel better about the whole thing.", when the victim might not actually feel better depending on the circumstances.[/quote] And you'd be wrong. Retributive justice is impersonally based off of the measured proportionality of the crime by the justice system; it is not emotional nor personal, which is what it would have to be in order to be revenge. Also, that's not an example of retributive justice because it involves basing the sentence entirely off of the goal of assuaging the feelings of the victims (there's other factors that must be considered as well), it's a really, really shitty example of reparative justice (so shitty it barely just constitutes an example of reparative justice). [QUOTE=hexpunK;44853616]The victim should not have a say in the punishment,[/quote] No one is saying they should, only that the impact of the crime on them personally should be taken into some consideration when sentencing is being made to fulfill justice's fundamental element of fairness. [QUOTE=hexpunK;44853616]their only role is evidence for prosecution, their personal feelings about the event are completely useless for such a thing,[/quote] Uh, no. Their feelings are entirely relevant as evidence to fairness. Their feelings answer questions like: "How did this crime impact them personally?" "What's a fair sentence in relation to those who were affected by this crime?" Etc. [QUOTE=hexpunK;44853616]instead we sentence based on the perceived severity of the crime to society (lets ignore outliers like piracy, that's fucked).[/quote] Again, no. The severity of the crime to society is taken into account, but the severity of the crime in relation to its victims is also taken into account (for fairness' sake). [QUOTE=hexpunK;44853616]If we change the sentencing because the victim is all "eh whatevs" or "holy fuck I'll kill you" it stops being a fair system.[/QUOTE] Stop. No one is asking for the system to be changed. This is about what revenge is, what retributive justice is, and how they are different from each other (and they [i]are[/i] different)-- nothing else.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44853995]By proving the fact that there is no humane execution,[/QUOTE] You haven't proven this. All you've done is state your personal opinion that capital punishment isn't humane.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44854211]You haven't proven this.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;44853868]No, your disputing the word is meaningless.[B] Even if you're right [/B]about the definition of 'humane' [B]you've proven nothing[/B] about the validity of capital punishment.[/QUOTE] I was replying to your argument that i wouldn't have proven anything if i had proved it or not. By proving is not, "I've proved the fact", It's "If I was right..". In fact, you've not offered much in the way of an argument, at all.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44854282]I was replying to your argument that i wouldn't have proven anything if i had proved it or not. By proving is not, "I've proved the fact", It's "If I was right.."[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Would you mind rephrasing? As a side note: the only legal usage of the word humane that I can find relates to the killing of animals and how it must be done in a way that minimizes pain. ([URL]http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/humane-slaughter-act/[/URL]) ([URL]http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/humane/[/URL]) As per this legal definition the death penalty would seem more humane since it causes less absolute pain and suffering than a life sentance. [editline]19th May 2014[/editline] I'm not even sure what your argument is. This is what it seems to be: 1) The death sentence shows less compassion than a life sentence. 2) Anything that shows less compassion than something else is less humane. 3) The death sentence shows less compassion than a life sentence. 4) Therefore the death sentence is less humane than a life sentence. 5) Anything that is less humane is unacceptable. 6) therefore the death sentence is unacceptable. Is this correct? If so, then releasing the prisoner would be more humane than forcing them to spend time in jail. So we should therefore release all criminals because it is more humane.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44854296]I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Would you mind rephrasing? As a side note: the only legal usage of the word humane that I can find relates to the killing of animals and how it must be done in a way that minimizes pain. ([URL]http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/humane-slaughter-act/[/URL]) ([URL]http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/humane/[/URL]) As per this legal definition the death penalty would seem more humane since it causes less absolute pain and suffering than a life sentance.[/QUOTE] The definition itself is the problem, by minimizing pain, you're only putting a bandage on the situation. Minimalism of pain itself is a flawed statement. And who are you to quantify human suffering? What if the inmates biggest fear is death? Would that not qualify as suffering? And the term you use is in relation to animals, to whom we have no data regarding consciousness, or quantifiable pain. You are referring to men the same as cattle with that definition. What I was saying is "by proving that" isn't equal to "because I proved" you misunderstood that as referring to me being correct, when I was just saying that If I had proved my definition correct, there would be no humane punishment. [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;44854296]I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Would you mind rephrasing? As a side note: the only legal usage of the word humane that I can find relates to the killing of animals and how it must be done in a way that minimizes pain. ([URL]http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/humane-slaughter-act/[/URL]) ([URL]http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/humane/[/URL]) As per this legal definition the death penalty would seem more humane since it causes less absolute pain and suffering than a life sentance. [editline]19th May 2014[/editline] I'm not even sure what your argument is. This is what it seems to be: 1) The death sentence shows less compassion than a life sentence. 2) Anything that shows less compassion than something else is less humane. 3) The death sentence shows less compassion than a life sentence. 4) Therefore the death sentence is less humane than a life sentence. 5) Anything that is less humane is unacceptable. 6) therefore the death sentence is unacceptable. Is this correct? If so, then releasing the prisoner would be more humane than forcing them to spend time in jail. So we should therefore release all criminals because it is more humane.[/QUOTE] You are still incorrect. The death sentence itself is inhumane, not the fact that they are imprisoned. The inhumanely disposal of prisoners is inhumane, not the prison sentence.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44854469]You are still incorrect. The death sentence itself is inhumane, not the fact that they are imprisoned. The inhumanely disposal of prisoners is inhumane, not the prison sentence.[/QUOTE] Can you tell me which number, specifically, is incorrect and how you would change it to make it correctly spell out your argument? I honestly have no idea what the basis of your argument is at the moment. If you have no qualls with the way that I've presented your argument, then it logically follows that any consequence which is less compassionate than some other consequence would always be unacceptable. So, since releasing the prisoner is more compassionate than giving them prison time it would be unacceptable to give them prison time.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44854522]Can you tell me which number, specifically, is incorrect and how you would change it to make it correctly spell out your argument? I honestly have no idea what the basis of your argument is at the moment. If you have no qualls with the way that I've presented your argument, then it logically follows that any consequence which is less compassionate than some other consequence would always be unacceptable. So, since releasing the prisoner is more compassionate than giving them prison time it would be unacceptable to give them prison time.[/QUOTE] That is also incorrect. I never said it was unacceptable for there to be a prison sentence, nor did I say that it was unacceptable for the death penalty to exist, just that there is no form of humane execution.
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in general, but I really, really dislike the idea of firing squads. Even if you have 9 guys with blanks and a tenth guy with a bullet, each and every one of those people is going to live with the fact that they may have killed someone. Just imagine how fucking awful you'd feel if you later learned that the person you might've killed was acquitted as innocent. Especially when firing squads are determined like juries, I'm completely against them. Acting on a jury will not cause significant emotional trauma like shooting someone, or even believing that you shot someone, can cause. It might be a more "humane" method of death for the one being executed, but it's not very fun for the firing squad.
What ever happened to death by hanging?
Here's my question: Why don't they use painkiller O.D. as a method of execution? What systems fails and how painful is it when you pump someone full of enough medical-grade painkillers to end their life?
I didn't read all these posts, but did anyone mention the one experiment where a guy was brought into a room and was continuously asked to do simple tasks as he became poisoned or deprived of something. In the end, he had no idea he was in any danger and thought he answered all the questions right. I think it had something to do with deep sea diving and high pressure possibly. Although time consuming and probably a resource hog, wouldn't that be a pretty humane way to kill someone?
[QUOTE=Mebit;44849934]Zero degrees of fairness cannot equal more than zero degrees of fairness. There is nothing civil about execution. Nothing humane about killing a human who by that point (In jail) is not a danger to society. This is just a means for a stone-age system of death to continue. Having lost family to others, absolutely I feel anger, hate and understand where it comes from. But death does not bring back my family members.[/QUOTE] I agree, but if I had to choose I'd prefer the firing squad. [editline]19th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;44854605]I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in general, but I really, really dislike the idea of firing squads. Even if you have 9 guys with blanks and a tenth guy with a bullet, each and every one of those people is going to live with the fact that they may have killed someone. Just imagine how fucking awful you'd feel if you later learned that the person you might've killed was acquitted as innocent. Especially when firing squads are determined like juries, I'm completely against them. Acting on a jury will not cause significant emotional trauma like shooting someone, or even believing that you shot someone, can cause. It might be a more "humane" method of death for the one being executed, but it's not very fun for the firing squad.[/QUOTE] Well then I guess you could just quit your job.
[QUOTE=omggrass;44852051]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.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me that's my worst nightmare
Since we're slightly on the topic of proposing methods of execution, here's an idea I had not too long ago when thinking of painless execution methods. [img]http://i.imgur.com/gL8fs8W.jpg[/img] In the diagram above, an individual would be in a room inbetween two plates mounted to air-compressed pistons. At the flick of a switch, the pistons would launch toward his or her head, destroying it instantly before any pain can be registered. Not that it would [I]ever[/I] be implemented, but I thought it was an interesting concept.
[QUOTE=Quark:;44862805]Since we're slightly on the topic of proposing methods of execution, here's an idea I had not too long ago when thinking of painless execution methods. [img]http://i.imgur.com/gL8fs8W.jpg[/img] In the diagram above, an individual would be in a room inbetween two plates mounted to air-compressed pistons. At the flick of a switch, the pistons would launch toward his or her head, destroying it instantly before any pain can be registered. Not that it would [I]ever[/I] be implemented, but I thought it was an interesting concept.[/QUOTE] If you want the room painted red I suppose it's an interesting idea, yeah.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44853446]Most pro-capital punishment people I know feel that human life is so valuable that death is the only truly just consequence for taking it away from someone.[/QUOTE] Almost every argument I've heard about pro death penalty makes it sound like retributive justice, some sort of moral duty to rid the world of evil doers and general cost efficiency arguments. I've never heard an argument from the sanctity of life for pro death penalty [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ewitwins;44854713]Here's my question: Why don't they use painkiller O.D. as a method of execution? What systems fails and how painful is it when you pump someone full of enough medical-grade painkillers to end their life?[/QUOTE] Because that shit sucks and you're conscious or can be conscious of a sorts during the whole thing and it is frankly fucking agonizing. You go into seizures and have massive breathing issues depending on what kind of drug we're talking about.
[QUOTE=Quark:;44862805]Since we're slightly on the topic of proposing methods of execution, here's an idea I had not too long ago when thinking of painless execution methods. In the diagram above, an individual would be in a room inbetween two plates mounted to air-compressed pistons. At the flick of a switch, the pistons would launch toward his or her head, destroying it instantly before any pain can be registered. Not that it would [I]ever[/I] be implemented, but I thought it was an interesting concept.[/QUOTE] Humane methods of execution aren't about being painless. They're about making death sentences more palatable for the audience. Remember the dry sponge scene from the Green Mile? Everyone was keen to see the guy suffering, but they couldn't handle it once the smoke and the smell got to them. Getting your brains splattered all over the room is a really gruesome way to go; it's also real hard to clean up. Lethal injection is apparently painless, there's no gore, and it looks rather peaceful. Since there are some obstacles to that, the next execution option is 'death by naked chase'. The only exceptions to this would be relatively flat states (looking at you, Kansas), but Utah has a good supply of nudes and canyons, so it's a nice place for that.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfsMMVgIToA[/media] relevant
[QUOTE=Quark:;44862805]Since we're slightly on the topic of proposing methods of execution, here's an idea I had not too long ago when thinking of painless execution methods. [img]http://i.imgur.com/gL8fs8W.jpg[/img] In the diagram above, an individual would be in a room inbetween two plates mounted to air-compressed pistons. At the flick of a switch, the pistons would launch toward his or her head, destroying it instantly before any pain can be registered. Not that it would [I]ever[/I] be implemented, but I thought it was an interesting concept.[/QUOTE] how about high-energy proton collider. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski[/url] stuck his head in for about 1 second b4 it shut down and it had already blown a hole in his head, how about we just position a person's heart over that and they die instantly having their chest blown out
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.