That pre-supposes that one would feel guilt for being an executioner, even if the killing was government-sanctioned, so none of the execution squad would be certain they were they actual person to end a life. In a similar manner, there have been times when multiple switches were used in electric chair executions with not all switches being active so, again, who actually did end a life would always be a bit in doubt.
These days, I am convinced there are people who would not only gladly participate in an executions squad, they’d be eager to do so and be quite proud of killing a fellow human being. So no need to be coy, give everyone on the squad live ammo.
This is a silly practice. Anyone who’s ever fired a rifle knows that the recoil from a blank round is nothing like the recoil from a ball round.
Moreover, even if you weren’t actually the one who fired the fatal shot, your participation was a required part of the protocol, so you’re as culpable as if you did.
Yet still, I thought the “tradition” was one bullet would be a blank (dunno if it’s possible to know/not know if you fired a blank) yet the shooters were left with some kind of “maybe it wasn’t me” notion.
Exactly. Victims and the loved ones of victims are entitled to give victim impact statements to the court, but they’re the last persons qualified to make objective decisions about fair punishment.
Why wouldn’t someone choose lethal injection over a firing squad? Without reading this thread, I would’ve chosen either other option over getting shot.
To my understanding, because it’s been botched so many times. Plus, the refusal of drug companies to provide drugs for lethal injection worsens the potential for a botched execution due to expired or inferior drugs being used. And the electric chair has its own issues, where death may be prolonged and far from instantaneous as intended.
As I said, the whole system is just incredibly barbaric.
I am mildly against the death penalty myself, largely due to discussions on this very message board, but this argument has always fallen flat with me. The individual executed was given a trial where the state had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they committed a murder. This is far more consideration than the victim received. You might as well say we should aspire to a higher standard than the behavior of a convicted criminal when we incarcerate someone for kidnapping.
The behaviour of a criminal doesn’t reflect the values of our society, but the way that our institutions treat them absolutely does reflect our values. No amount of legalistic mumbo-jumbo can ever excuse barbarism.
Besides the considerable moral issues surrounding the death penalty, I also take exception to “beyond a shadow of a doubt” …
I’ve heard it explained as “the Government should not be in the business of killing its citizens”. Whether or not the criminal deserved to die isn’t relevant.
Because the people administering it aren’t doctors who are trained in how to render you completely unconscious before adding drugs that will stop your heart and lungs. They’re some corrections employee who volunteered or was nominated to do the job. So it can be botched, and has been, with people NOT being unconscious while suffocating or experiencing massive coronaries. Sometimes taking 10 or even 20 minutes to die.
I think that was the intention originally, and IF these things were done by an actual, experienced, competent anesthesiologist it would go as planned. But so far as I know no anesthesiologist, who devoted more than a decade to learning how to safely administer these drugs in the interests of keeping people alive and helping to heal, has any interest in using those skills to kill people.