And now comes the progressive state of Utah (motto: Proudly Dragging Ourselves into the 18th Century) with its abomination - the firing squad. Not only are we miles behind most of the rest of the civilized world by still having capital punishment, but we resort to the blood punishment mentality of the most primitive of people. We have to spill blood to avenge the foul deeds the criminals committed. And think of all the rhetoric about the “crazy muslims and their primitive ways of punishment.” We sanitize ours, but we’re no better. We’re worse - we pretend to be superior. How can a country like this ever have valid moral leadership in the world?
C’mon CC, 490 posts and no inkling a cite should be provided?
Utah executes people?
Utah is a country?
CC, surely you’re not suggesting that we’re just as bad as those crazy bloodletting Muslims, are you?
My apologies if I misunderstand your point.
I myself am pretty vehemently anti-death penalty. That said, Utah gives the condemned a choice between lethal injection and firing squad.
The fact that they provide a choice makes their version of the death penalty more humane, in my opinion, than the version which only allows execution by lethal injection.
Keep your eye on the ball here. The problem isn’t those primitive bloodthirsty savages in Utah. The problem is that our country still has a death penalty at all.
Oh: Cite for Utah’s use of the firing squad, and Cite for a Great Debates discussion of the reasons Utah allows the firing squad.
Daniel
I agree with CC.
I’ve noticed there are a lot of people in ‘The BBQ Pit’ who throw around phrases like “This woman deserves to die” or “We should string that guy up with barbed wire”, but you never see any of these people start a thread in ‘Great Debates’ explaining why they believe the death penalty is actually effective. Why can’t these people make an intelligent case for their position? What are they afraid of??
I thought that in the Mormon religion one who spilled the blood of another had to have his own blood spilled or he was denied admission into heaven.
Therefore, the fact that Utah offers execution by firing squad is actually more humane and less barbaric than if it didn’t offer that option because it allows the criminal to go to heaven. To kill the criminal in any other way would send him straight to hell for eternity (according to the Mormons; YRMV).
And please, sweet Jeebus, please make sure everyone notices that I use the phrases “crazy bloodletting Muslims” and “primitive bloodthirsty savages” and “sweet Jeebus” and “Amen” ironically.
Amen.
Daniel
"We’re gonna off you for the crime you comitted. Please check one of the following options:
0 Firing Squad
0 Lethal Injection"
For fuck’s sake, let’s re-introduce “drawing and quartering”, shall we? As long as we’re leaping back a few centuries, let’s go hog fuckin’ wild.
Apart from severe crimes of war in the Mengele vein (and then only carried out shortly thereafter), there is absolutely no valid excuse for the death penalty in a moden society. It’s barbaric, period. Methods are merely semantics, but the difference between a lethal shot and a fucking firing squad is telling nonetheless. It indicates not a sense of justice, but a desire for blood.
I’m sure that’s what Christ meant, all right. :rolleyes:
I’m sort of a for the death penalty. I think in obvious cases (such as colin fergusin) it should be implemented. I am all for torturing, belittling, spitting on, drawing and quartering, etc, these sick fucks as much the next guy, but in reality the death penalty doesn’t really work. The reality I’m talking about is the current one where a criminal can walk free on a technicality, an innocent can rot away in a cell for decades, and anything in between.
So again, I would be for it under a different justice system, but that day will never happen.
Maybe I’m not understanding you, but why is it telling?
Mind you, I don’t want to be executed. If I had to be, however, I’d far prefer a firing squad to a lethal injection, if it were going to happen: needles freak me out, the idea of a slow, medically-administered death freaks me out, and I have a curiosity as to what it feels like to be shot.
As long as both deaths are relatively painless and relatively instantaneous, I don’t see any significant difference between them, except for the consciences of the survivors. In that respect, shooting may be better: if you’re going to kill someone, don’t pretend you’re performing a medical procedure.
Get rid of the death penalty, absolutely. It’s horrific, unjust, and inexcusable – I’m right there with you. But there’s no need to single out firing squads as any worse than any other means of performing executions.
Daniel
I think the death penalty would be more effective as a deterrent if there wasn’t 20+ years between sentencing and execution.
I can understand appeals, but let’s not drag them out for decades.
Choices do not make the death penalty better or worse, they simply make it…uh, uh…more choiceful.
What we need to do is get rid of the death penalty in the US; we did it once, via the SC, why not again.
What the heck does effective have to do with it? I mean, it is pretty clear no punishment method is effective, look at recidivism rates. By this insane arguement we should just close down the criminal justice system and let them all move in with you. How about this:
Assumptions:
Inmate has commited crime deserving life in prison (i.e. they are too dangerous to let out, like child molestors, wife beaters and rapist).
Arguement for Death:
- Prisoner pose a life safety risk to guards.
- It cost money to keep someone in prison.
- The money comes from tax payers.
- I don’t want to pay taxes to keep a criminal locked up for 60 years, I would rather my money go to cancer research, education, etc.
Solution:
The death penalty for any crime deserving life in prison.
I’d disagree that the death penalty, in and of itself, is barabaric. My reasoning would best be described, I suppose, as the “rabid dog” argument.
It used to be that when a domesticated animal contracted rabies, you put it down. There wasn’t a cure for the animal, and it would continue to be a danger to others if you let it live. There are some criminals that are going to be hopeleesly recidivist and “incurable” (I’m thinking of truly hopeless cases like Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer). Since rehabilitation is impossible with some murderers, why not go ahead and put down these “rabid dogs”?
Just for the record, I am against the way the death penalty is currently practiced in the U.S. and I support a moratorium. The system is hopelessly biased against poor blacks, there have been far too many overturned convictions (better to scrap it than to execute even one innocent man), and the insanity defense keeps many of the “rabid dogs” off the table anyway.
I’m against the death penalty, but if you’re going to do it, it think it’s only right that the recipient of said penalty gets to choose. Personally, I’d choose the needle, but maybe these guys want to make a point. It’s obviously having an effect!
How about as a deterrent? I’m not suggesting that shortly before anyone commits a crime of passion they’ll stop and think “Now wait, I could be put to death for this.” But I do think that most of us have pre-determined how we might react in different circumstances and I gotta believe this weighs heavy on the choice most of us would make.
They don’t sentence people to death for just anything. These are the worst of the worst. My guess would be many have killed more than once and showed no remorse. Should we let them be a continued threat to inmates that committed lesser offences? To the jail staff? Should we have to continue to pay heavily as a society when they’ve chosen to slaughter some among us?
It’s not our malice that put them where they are. They knew the rules going in and it’s the choice THEY made.
I’ve always felt that if it’s not a sufficient deterrent to be scared off by the idea of being shot to death by the arresting officer, the chance of being caught, arrested, charged, tried, found guilty, and then maybe get executed years later probably isn’t too much of a deterrent, either. I would hazard a guess that many more people die during the pursuit/arrest process than from due process, and if that’s not scary enough, a death penalty isn’t going to make it much scarier.
Interesting, but the analogy is faulty:
- There’s still no cure for rabies. (That’s not a fault in the analogy, I just wanted to point it out
)
- A rabid animal is in great suffering. Killing it ends the suffering.
- An animal showing signs of rabies will die very soon anyway. Killing it only shortens its life slightly.
- We do not have an infrastructure in place that can offer a reasonable chance to keep a live rabid animal from spreading its lethal disease. Killing it prevents it from spreading the disease.
On the other hand, murderers aren’t necessarily in great suffering, so killing a criminal isn’t necessarily merciful. A condemned criminal might live for a very long time if not executed, so it’s a significant shortening of lifespan. And we can generally keep murderers locked away, so that they don’t spread suffering.
The last point is probably the strongest: we can’t guarantee thata killer won’t strike again, even if they strike in prison. However, it seems to me we can come pretty close: how many prison guards and non-death-row prisoners are killed by death row prisoners every year in the US?
Daniel
Hows the crime in China?
For execution they take you out to a field, shoot you in the head, and charge the family for the bullet.
Turn around from trial to death is usually a few weeks.