Utah counts down to firing squad execution

[Poisonshady313]

In your opinion, Some states and in many parts of the world people are not slaughtered.

For many reasons it is better to NOT execute people. :yes:

Why do I find that most of the people I disagree with in this thread have a habit of using words or phrases they don't understand?

Do you know what the word slaughter means?

And please... tell me why it is better to not execute people... and try not to re-hash the same arguments that have been going on for the past ten or so pages.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

There are no data trends. That's the point. There is not enough data to support a meaningful conclusion.

The Death Penalty Information Center puts out some bogus charts about death penalty states having higher murder rates than non-death penalty states, as if we're supposed to believe that the death penalty encourages murderous behavior.... not accounting for the fact that some states with outrageous murder rates might have used the death penalty only once in the past 34 years (New Mexico), while a state that has executed over 400 people in the same time span has a significantly lower murder rate (Texas).

And the fact that Michigan and Alaska (both non-death penalty states) have higher murder rates than Texas (the only state worth mentioning simply because it is the one that executes more people than 31 death penalty states combined... and there are 35 death penalty states.) is an interesting figure that death penalty opponents like to ignore. The only thing it really proves is that their claim is bogus.


I'm not about to claim that the data supports deterrence... because it doesn't. The death penalty simply isn't used enough in this country to have a meaningful impact on society.

But to claim the opposite... that the death penalty accounts for higher murder rates (or at least that non-death penalty accounts for lower murder rates) is dishonest and absurd.

Hmm. So basically it all comes down to what one's beliefs are about the death penalty, whether it is justice vs. cruelty?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hmm. So basically it all comes down to what one's beliefs are about the death penalty, whether it is justice vs. cruelty?

I guess.

There's a point where people try too hard to be better than others that they end up shooting themselves in their own foot.... when in the interest of love and brotherhood, you extend your arms to embrace someone as a friend, and all you've really done is expose yourself to being punched, kicked, stabbed, or shot.


The point where we don't want to hold people accountable for their crimes, because crime becomes just another form of "expression" and law enforcement becomes the "tyranny" trying to stifle expression.

Where we can get outraged when the State executes someone who ought to be put to death by lethal injection or firing squad... but we share no similar outrage when a guy rapes, tortures, mutilates, and murders a young girl after forcing her to witness the murder of the rest of her family. Sure, we'll get a little sad... but he didn't do anything wrong, he was just misunderstood.

I don't buy it. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and when bad people do bad things, they incur undesirable consequences. When good people do bad things, they incur undesirable consequences, but hopefully they can learn from it. Like getting a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 45. But at some point, a criminal crosses the point of no return, and all he's doing in prison is taking up space and eating food that good, hardworking, tax-paying people pay for.

There is something to be said about the punishment fitting the crime.

Now, I am NOT talking about "eye for an eye"... Just because Andrea Yates should be put to death doesn't mean I think we should drown her in a bathtub. Nor do I believe for a moment that murderers who rape their victims should in turn be raped.

But when your disregard for human life and for the laws of the nation/state that you live in enable you to commit capital offenses, you are no longer worthy to be a member of society. As a person who is neither innocent nor law abiding, a capital offender has forfeited the things which innocent and law abiding people enjoy... freedom, property, the pursuit of happiness, and life itself.

 

[Sunstone]

Even if the death penalty were an effective deterrent, it still would not be wise to give the state power of life and death over its citizens.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Even if the death penalty were an effective deterrent, it still would not be wise to give the state power of life and death over its citizens.

We give the state the power to imprison people... and according to a lot of the conversation over the course of the last few pages, is that any different?

 

[Sententia]

Why do I find that most of the people I disagree with in this thread have a habit of using words or phrases they don't understand?

Do you know what the word slaughter means?

LOL Amusing. So you obviously grasped what I meant and then ask me if I know what the word means? For what purpose?

[youtube]9QN1MP-QFcg[/youtube]
YouTube - sgt. slaughter GI Joe commercial

slaugh·ter   [slaw-ter] –noun
1. the killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., esp. for food.
2. the brutal or violent killing of a person.
3. the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.
–verb (used with object)
4.to kill or butcher (animals), esp. for food.
5.to kill in a brutal or violent manner.
6. to slay in great numbers; massacre.
7. Informal . to defeat thoroughly; trounce: They slaughtered our team.

He was shot 4 times in the chest. Is being shot in the chest not brutal or violent? If your going to pretend to be an authority on the english language there are numerous colleges that will offer you a major in the language.

Honestly if you understand what is being said then agree or disagree. I may actually make a mistake and spell things incorrectly from time to time but is this post being graded on grammar and spelling?

And please... tell me why it is better to not execute people... and try not to re-hash the same arguments that have been going on for the past ten or so pages.

Haven't I already? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2053015-post181.html

I don't buy it. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and when bad people do bad things, they incur undesirable consequences. When good people do bad things, they incur undesirable consequences, but hopefully they can learn from it. Like getting a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 45. But at some point, a criminal crosses the point of no return, and all he's doing in prison is taking up space and eating food that good, hardworking, tax-paying people pay for.

Speeding 60 in a 45 is not necessarily right or wrong. A speeding ticket serves as revenue for the state. Police consistently speed 15-20 miles per hour over every speed limit but will pull you over for doing the same. There is no morality in question here.

Nonetheless people who do get speeding tickets may learn not to speed but it hardly correlates with killing a person will teach that person anything. Legally killing a person will teach others about the type of society we live in though.

At some point you claim a criminal crosses the point of no return... This is your opinion. At some point you feel people just need to be killed. Your rationalization for why that is varies from time to time. This time you rationalize they are just taking up space... as if we have some critical dire shortage of space. Your second reason is they eat food other people have to pay for. Even at our ridiculous and overpriced prison system it is still cheaper to keep them in jail for life. (A lot cheaper)

When something happens that we find difficult to accept, then we will make up a logical reason why it has happened.
The target of rationalization is usually something that we have done, such as being unkind to another person. It may also be used when something happens independent of us which causes us discomfort, such as when a friend is unkind to us.
We rationalize to ourselves. We also find it very important to rationalize to other people, even those we do not know.

 

[Sunstone]

We give the state the power to imprison people... and according to a lot of the conversation over the course of the last few pages, is that any different?

Yes, there is a significant difference between giving the state the power to imprison -- which can be reversed -- and giving it the power of death -- which cannot be reversed.

 

[Poisonshady313]

LOL Amusing. So you obviously grasped what I meant and then ask me if I know what the word means? For what purpose?

Because in context the word "slaughter" wasn't exactly the most accurate you could have chosen.

He was shot 4 times in the chest. Is being shot in the chest not brutal or violent?

I don't think so.

Nonetheless people who do get speeding tickets may learn not to speed but it hardly correlates with killing a person will teach that person anything.
My point was there are crimes so heinous and egregious that there is no teaching them anything.

Legally killing a person will teach others about the type of society we live in though.

That you can't commit a capital offense and live to tell about it? I hope so.

At some point you claim a criminal crosses the point of no return... This is your opinion. At some point you feel people just need to be killed. Your rationalization for why that is varies from time to time. This time you rationalize they are just taking up space... as if we have some critical dire shortage of space. Your second reason is they eat food other people have to pay for. Even at our ridiculous and overpriced prison system it is still cheaper to keep them in jail for life. (A lot cheaper)

We're not at a shortage of oxygen, but I don't want a murderer wasting oxygen either. I have never asserted that taking up space was a main reason for executing murderers.

I don't want my tax dollars to go towards keeping murderers alive. I don't want murderers to be able to re-offend, and no, LWOP doesn't take care of that problem. I don't want inmates who murder prison guards, or perhaps even other inmates who might be doing time for non-violent crimes, to not be held accountable for their crimes by being given a sentence that's no different from what they've already got. (The idea of serving multiple life sentences is just plain stupid.)

I don't at all find this difficult to accept. Capital offenders have earned capital punishment. Apparently, it means something to you to feel otherwise. Good for you.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yes, there is a significant difference between giving the state the power to imprison -- which can be reversed -- and giving it the power of death -- which cannot be reversed.

Over the course of the last few pages, I've been talking about the fact that people are just as likely, if not more so, to be wrongly accused and die serving a life sentence than they are to be wrongly accused and be executed... because dead is dead, no matter how much time they were given to get out... and since abolishing the prison system altogether hasn't come up as a realistic or even desirable alternative, that risk is there.... which makes the power of imprisonment just as dangerous, if not more so, than the power of death.

 

[Sententia]

Because in context the word "slaughter" wasn't exactly the most accurate you could have chosen.

As I said my posts are not graded on grammar but you accused me of not understanding the word by revealing you did not understand it? Now a quick backpedal... Another word could have been better... :sad4:

I don't think so.

Being shot in the chest 4 times is violent, his death was caused by injurious or destructive force. You may or may not consider it brutal.

My point was there are crimes so heinous and egregious that there is no teaching them anything.

Says who? You may feel that their crimes deserve death. How do you correlate that because someone commits a crime that they are no longer capable of learning? Have you ever studied judicial systems? Psychology?

Your statement smacks of blind faith and ignorance.

That you can't commit a capital offense and live to tell about it? I hope so.

Mercy is for the Weak?

We're not at a shortage of oxygen, but I don't want a murderer wasting oxygen either. I have never asserted that taking up space was a main reason for executing murderers.

Nor did I say you did. I said this time your rationalizing with these reasons. You continue to rationalize. (To whom?)

I don't want my tax dollars to go towards keeping murderers alive. I don't want murderers to be able to re-offend, and no, LWOP doesn't take care of that problem. I don't want inmates who murder prison guards, or perhaps even other inmates who might be doing time for non-violent crimes, to not be held accountable for their crimes by being given a sentence that's no different from what they've already got. (The idea of serving multiple life sentences is just plain stupid.)

Aye. As I have said I am not sure Life in Prison works either. The Goal of prison in your eyes is to punish those that have wronged society. And depending on how bad they wronged society they could serve 1-100 years in jail or even be put to death. Quite barbaric and proven not to work.

It is not Justice. It is Vengeance. Vengeance is not a right. Vengeance means you can return a wrong done to you or to society by committing another wrong against the person who wronged you. Even my mom screamed at me as a child that two wrongs do not make a right.

I don't at all find this difficult to accept. Capital offenders have earned capital punishment. Apparently, it means something to you to feel otherwise. Good for you.

Here you might actually be making some internal progress. You are focusing on the punishment, which is a place to start I suppose. And yes... those that commit capital offenses in an ideal society should not be killed. It does not mean that to me.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I don't know ... I think a shot to the head is still the quickest, surest, and most humane way to end someone's life. It may not be as sexy as lethal injection, but the purpose of the injection seems better proven to induce a prettier death for the spectacle as opposed to the most efficient way of causing the least painless death.

And let's not forget the $$, or the fact that the condemned specifically requested for the firing squad. It was an option at the state level and under the state's police powers to grant -- seems justice-y enough.

 

[Sententia]

I don't know ... I think a shot to the head is still the quickest, surest, and most humane way to end someone's life. It may not be as sexy as lethal injection, but the purpose of the injection seems better proven to induce a prettier death for the spectacle as opposed to the most efficient way of causing the least painless death.

And let's not forget the $$, or the fact that the condemned specifically requested for the firing squad. It was an option at the state level and under the state's police powers to grant -- seems justice-y enough.

Should it have been under the state's power to grant?

If we blindly kill those who are judged to deserve it what have we learned about what caused said crimes?

If we have learned nothing and are attempting to deter crime by what is considered the ultimate deterrent and it is found to be largely ineffective then why continue such a course?

If you educated said individual instead of shooting them and they worked the remainder of their life time peacefully then your argument of not forgetting the $$ means what? It is known that is cheaper to have life in prison then the death penalty to begin with.

Your argument that he requested a firing squad means what? What were his other options? Apple pie? Was it church of england cake or death? I think he picked what he was advised would be the most likely to get out of. (Poorly advised?)

Also they didn't shoot him in the head. (Closed casket?)

The death penalty has failed us irreversibly 1 in 7 times. (And we may find out its even worse then that)

The US legal system favors the rich and punishes the poor.

IMHO Killing someone for their actions teaches us nothing about why they committed said actions and what might be done to remedy the problem to begin with. (To prevent future crimes with wisdom and education rather then with tom cruise pre-cogs for example.) The death penalty serves as a poor deterrent and is an attempt at vengeance rather then justice.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The death penalty has failed us irreversibly 1 in 7 times. (And we may find out its even worse then that)

I'd like to see you support that statement. Give me the names of 173 innocent people that this country has executed since 1976.

 

[Sententia]

I'd like to see you support that statement. Give me the names of 173 innocent people that this country has executed since 1976.

Hee hee... I think it is a fairly indefensible number. (How would some one calculate that it is currently 1 in 7...) Personally if even one of the people executed were later found to be innocent then that is reason enough to support abolishing such barbarism.

However if you are interested in how many innocent people are lawfully slain you are going to run into some difficulties.

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence once the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved *

One can not say for sure because once the person dies then that is that. No one is even normally looking at what circumstances there were that led up to the crime let alone trying to prove someone innocent who is now already dead. But if it was 1 in 7 would that be enough for you to consider abolishing the current vengeance system and embrace something a bit more progressive.

If anyone were to consider the results our justice system produces compared with other systems it would be clear as day that our system is reprehensible and broken. We need to focus on rehabilitation and not vengeance. Killing people is not the answer.

 

[Antifascist_Action]

It is disgusting that in this day and age, there are still firing squads as if it were the 1700's. The death penalty is nothing more than sanctioned murder, and the only nations which so freely engage in it are theocratic Islamofascist dictatorships or Stalinist or fascist dictatorships

The death penalty needs to be abolished in all but the most heinous of crimes (such as hate crimes), in my opinion.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It is disgusting that in this day and age, there are still firing squads as if it were the 1700's. The death penalty is nothing more than sanctioned murder, and the only nations which so freely engage in it are theocratic Islamofascist dictatorships or Stalinist or fascist dictatorships

The death penalty needs to be abolished in all but the most heinous of crimes (such as hate crimes), in my opinion.

Eh... you're a bit inconsistent, doncha think? You figure it's ok to engage in sanctioned murder comparable to Islamofascist dictatorships only sometimes?


Do you understand that the standard for what makes a capital crime a capital crime in the first place requires it to be "the most heinous of crimes"?


If I hang a noose on a tree in the yard of someone who I know is black (not to use it, but to scare the crap out of him), because he is black... that's a hate crime. I couldn't imagine executing someone for that.

Yet if Jimmy kidnaps, rapes, murders, and mutilates a 13 year old and her mother... all of a sudden the crime isn't heinous enough? Jimmy should be allowed to live?

Pick a side, bro... you're either for it or against it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's not the point. There's is a chance that more than 0 innocent people will die serving a life sentence.... just like there's a chance that more than 0 innocent people will be executed. And all that time given to attempt to secure one's release means nothing when an innocent man dies in prison.

Arrgh. Let's try this one more time.

Say you have two choices for a person's sentence:

- execution
- life in prison

Let's say that the full appeals process for either sentence takes 10 years (just to pull a number out of the air).

Now... there's a non-zero chance that the person was wrongfully convicted. There's also a chance that the person will have his conviction overturned and be released.

- let's call the probability that all this will happen within the first ten years of his sentence "P1".
- let's call the probability that this will happen after ten years but before his natural death "P2".

What's the probability that he'll be released if sentenced to be executed? P1.

What's the probability that he'll be released if sentenced to life in prison? P1 + P2.

Are you arguing that P2 is zero? Because that's the only way that the chances of a wrongful conviction being overturned would be the same for execution as for life imprisonment.

Given that there are more people serving life sentences in this country than there are on death row, the chance of a mistake leading to an innocent person dying while serving a life sentence is higher than the chance of a mistake leading to the execution of an innocent person.

Hmm. This seems to violate some basic principles of math, so I think you'll have to show how you came to that conclusion if you want me to accept it.

More innocent people have died as a result of murderers who should have been put to death re offending than as a result of having been executed. Saving those lives is certainly enough benefit. Executed murderers cannot re-offend.

Neither can a murderer who's physically separated from potential victims. You still need to justify that extra step of severity.

There is no option that doesn't allow this. I can go all over the place to find numbers of people being exonerated from death row... DPIC, Innocence Project, etc... How frequently are innocent lifers being exonerated? I know it happens... but how frequently?

I was talking about the moment of execution. At that point, the two alternatives diverge: one allows for some measure of correction in the case of error; the other allows none at all. Before that, the correction that capital punishment allows is also allowed by life imprisonment; it's common to both options, and therefore not a valid basis for choosing between them.

BTW - I thought you were arguing for shorter time periods between sentencing and execution, weren't you? It seems a bit disingenuous to me, then, to argue that the death penalty allows for wrongful convictions to be overturned when you're also arguing that the main mechanism that allows this to happen should be abandoned.

And when an innocent person dies after spending 50 years in prison, that cannot be rectified either.

Indeed, but there have been a significant number of cases where wrongfully convicted people have been found not guilty and released long after they would have been executed in a system with the death penalty.

A person who has committed a capital crime has forfeited all of his rights. All of them.

First off, since "capital crime" is defined in terms of capital punishment, it seems to me that you're making a bit of a circular argument. Really, what you're saying boils down to "people who are given the death penalty should get the death penalty because they've been given the death penalty".

Second, you're not addressing my point. While I disagree with the idea that any person could forfeit all of his rights, you still haven't argued your way to the conclusion you're suggesting. I'm asking you why the death penalty is a good idea. Just saying, effectively, "well, we're allowed to do it" doesn't answer the question. There are plenty of things we have the right to do that are still bonehead ideas.

Not all prisoners are violent. Not all prisoners are murderers. Heck... not all homicides are capital crimes (i.e. the husband who finds his wife in bed with another man, and kills them both).

And when a person in jail for stealing cars goes ahead and murders a prison guard... he has stepped into the category of "capital offender", and has earned capital punishment.

Cold comfort for the guard or his family who's killed by someone in jail for auto theft. You could've prevented it just by executing all the car thieves; why not do it? Hasn't the car thief forfeited his rights as well?

All people who commit capital crimes should be executed.

Define "capital crime". Are you just referring to local law?

Where I live, there are no capital crimes. Does this mean that nobody should be executed?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hee hee... I think it is a fairly indefensible number. (How would some one calculate that it is currently 1 in 7...) Personally if even one of the people executed were later found to be innocent then that is reason enough to support abolishing such barbarism.

Allowing murderers to live the remainder of their lives eating three hot meals a day, free from having to work or pay taxes... that's barbaric.


And I've already been over things like innocent people dying while serving life sentences. Sure, there weren't any chemicals involved... but innocent is innocent, and dead is dead... and given how infrequently the death penalty is used, an innocent person is more likely to die in prison rather than being executed. Do you support the abolition of the prison system altogether?

One can not say for sure because once the person dies then that is that. No one is even normally looking at what circumstances there were that led up to the crime let alone trying to prove someone innocent who is now already dead. But if it was 1 in 7 would that be enough for you to consider abolishing the current vengeance system and embrace something a bit more progressive.

If it were that sloppy and careless, yes. But I'm not convinced that even 10 in 1214 executions were wrongful.

No system is perfect. But the institution of capital punishment is pretty damn careful.

Less innocent people will be executed than will be killed by prisoners that reoffend, either because they've escaped, had their sentence commuted, been paroled, murdered in prison, etc. If you're comfortable with more innocent blood on your hands rather than less... I guess that's your problem. Personally, I'd rather put an end to a murderer's life so that he can have no more victims, in any way shape or form.

If anyone were to consider the results our justice system produces compared with other systems it would be clear as day that our system is reprehensible and broken. We need to focus on rehabilitation and not vengeance. Killing people is not the answer.

We're not talking about drug addicts or car thieves. We're talking about depraved individuals with no regard for human life or the rule of law. When they commit a capital offense, they've earned capital punishment.

 

[Sententia]

Allowing murderers to live the remainder of their lives eating three hot meals a day, free from having to work or pay taxes... that's barbaric.

Why? In Norway the max prison sentence is like 21 years. (There is a way you could end up living your life in prison its just highly improbable)

They focus primarily on rehabilitation. Look at your words... Allowing someone to live is barbaric. You seem to want to embrace vengeance. For what purpose?

And I've already been over things like innocent people dying while serving life sentences. Sure, there weren't any chemicals involved... but innocent is innocent, and dead is dead... and given how infrequently the death penalty is used, an innocent person is more likely to die in prison rather than being executed. Do you support the abolition of the prison system altogether?

Innocent people die of cancer too... Abolition of prison? No. Unfortunately we may have need of prisons. However we need to completely revamp prison.

Lets say a catholic priest rapes a boy. Somehow he ends up in court. The court sentences him to 20 years in prison. The priest ends up serving 16 years in an american prison.

When he gets out... He may clearly want to go back having no idea how to live in the normal world. He may still think raping boys is ok. He may be more of a danger to society having spent 16 years in an american prison. Society does not forgive him despite him serving his sentence. Society does not trust him despite having completed his sentence. The family of the boy and the boy himself may now possibly be living in fear.

What is the point of putting people into the american prison system?

If it were that sloppy and careless, yes. But I'm not convinced that even 10 in 1214 executions were wrongful.

No system is perfect. But the institution of capital punishment is pretty damn careful.

Less innocent people will be executed than will be killed by prisoners that reoffend, either because they've escaped, had their sentence commuted, been paroled, murdered in prison, etc. If you're comfortable with more innocent blood on your hands rather than less... I guess that's your problem.

Clearly that is not my position and I think you know that. Countries that focus on rehabilitating rather then vengeance see a much lower rate of criminals that reoffend. Imagine that... If you beat a dog with a stick it will learn to fear and fight. We are essentially putting 'criminal' offenders into hell on earth and forcing them to adapt to survive for X number of years. Then we pull em out and put them back on the street. If they reoffend we repeat the process until in some states we lock em up for life or just execute them. There is no attempt to rehabilitate or treat them with respect. In fact the american approach seems to be exactly the opposite.

Personally, I'd rather put an end to a murderer's life so that he can have no more victims, in any way shape or form.

Aye. I get that. You would rather murder a murderer then to see said murderer murder again. It doesn't address why the murderer decided to murder. It doesn't teach us anything to prevent future occurrences of murderers like this arising. It doesn't bring the dead back to life. It costs a ton a money and time.

We're not talking about drug addicts or car thieves. We're talking about depraved individuals with no regard for human life or the rule of law. When they commit a capital offense, they've earned capital punishment.

In your opinion. It doesn't solve anything. There is nothing to say they are depraved. How do you know they are depraved. Innocent people have been been legally slain and were they depraved?

So many assumptions. Did you know every witch put to death turned out not to be a minion of satan capable of dark magic?

In my opinion killing another human out of vengeance is wrong. There is clearly better ways to deal with these problems.

 

[Kerr]

In my opinion the death sentence should be banned all together. We are one of the few "Western" democratic nations who still execute people and it's a shame IMO.

I agree.