killing someone is a messy business. I don’t see any problem with making it visual. If we make it to clinical we may detach ourselves from what we are actually are doing. Perhaps the death penalty should be more grusume as to alert us as to the severaty of this punishment as well as to serve as a deternant.
From what I have heard (I guess from all the dead folks) the firing squad is more ‘humane’ then old sparky.
I also like the idea that the condemed gets to chose - sort of a confirmation of free will (as the scumbag had free will when he commited the crime), and at a basic level respect for humanity.
In a separate room? sitting in a chair? That sounds just as cold and clinical as lethal injection. I was imagining a traditional Foreign Legion-style shooting (with the blindfold, cigarette, and everything).
Not really. Several of Shodan’s examples involved men who either killed while they were in prison or killed after escaping from prison. Life without parole would not prevent either of those possibilities.
Who really gives a shit if the death penalty is aneffective deterrent against crime. Beats the hell out of supporting the bastard for the rest of his life. And yes! Some people deserve to die for their crimes. We shouldn’t worry about how humane the method is. Quick and foolproof is Ok by me. Firing squad is a good one.
Is it even worthwhile to debate the substantive merits of the death penalty if it procedurally cannot be implemented in a non-arbitrary manner?
I urge you, if you want to learn more about how the modern death penalty works in practice, to take a gander at Texas Defender Service’s reports, available at this site.
Looking at crime statistics for the U.S. clearly shows that the DP is not a deterrent. Also, just about everything I’ve read say that the DP costs the taxpayers more than life imprisonment.
And it’s a Q.E.D. in this thread that most people who are pro the DP, are out for revenge. Why not say that outright and show some intellectual honesty?
And why not look into why there are so many violent crimes and try to do something about the cause. Executing a murderer will not give life back to the person who was murdered. Going to the source of why the murder took place, might’ve saved that person.
The DP only takes care of the symptoms, as does life in prison.
Monkey, you’ll note that my original post about the “rabid dog” analogy pointed out several flaws with it. Canvasshoes took exception to one of those flaws, and I defended it. There are plenty more flaws with the analogy: most specifically, we have an infrastructure that can keep murderers from killing innocent people, if we’ll use it.
Given the huge number of innocent people freed from death row with the current appeals process, the consequences of shortcutting the appeals process are too appalling to contemplate.