Firing Squads Gaining Traction

[BehindBlueI's]

Very mixed on this one.

Is any system flawless.

We have aggressive LEO/Prosecutors that will run with a "Bird in hand" right or wrong. Not all of course but they are out there. This will not change so mistakes will be made.

With new technology and DNA the mistakes will be fewer.

With no real punishment for repeat violent offenders what would we do. What should we do.

An aggressive prosecutor still has to convince a judge or jury.

For those who want a 100% system, it ain't out there. It's "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that's where the bar has been for as long as any of us have been breathing.

You want to talk about the innocents who get caught up in the system? That's fair and should absolutely be part of the discussion. That's not the whole story, though. It's real easy to judge in a vacuum and never consider what happens if the other side of the coin shows. In the real world, people get out and create new victims. If you want to pull on heart strings about you or your loved ones, play that one too. Who gets to be this guys next victim when he gets out? When the parole board figures he's a good bet to unleash on society again? When a computer glitch lets him out? Let's say he stays in prison. You think people aren't victimized in prisons? Guards aren't assaulted and sometimes killed? Other prisoners aren't assaulted and sometimes killed? So what do you do? Solitary for decades without hope of release or human interaction? That's more humane than death?

If it was easy, we'd have already figured it out, but don't pretend you aren't creating a hazard to innocents by not using the death penalty.

 

[Kutnupe14]

An aggressive prosecutor still has to convince a judge or jury.

For those who want a 100% system, it ain't out there. It's "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that's where the bar has been for as long as any of us have been breathing.

You want to talk about the innocents who get caught up in the system? That's fair and should absolutely be part of the discussion. That's not the whole story, though. It's real easy to judge in a vacuum and never consider what happens if the other side of the coin shows. In the real world, people get out and create new victims. If you want to pull on heart strings about you or your loved ones, play that one too. Who gets to be this guys next victim when he gets out? When the parole board figures he's a good bet to unleash on society again? When a computer glitch lets him out? Let's say he stays in prison. You think people aren't victimized in prisons? Guards aren't assaulted and sometimes killed? Other prisoners aren't assaulted and sometimes killed? So what do you do? Solitary for decades without hope of release or human interaction? That's more humane than death?

If it was easy, we'd have already figured it out, but don't pretend you aren't creating a hazard to innocents by not using the death penalty.

This is the "for the greater good" argument. The death penalty has absolutely no purpose. It's not used uniformly, it's not a deterrent, it doesn't save money. it doesn't make people safer.

 

[churchmouse]

An aggressive prosecutor still has to convince a judge or jury.

For those who want a 100% system, it ain't out there. It's "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that's where the bar has been for as long as any of us have been breathing.

You want to talk about the innocents who get caught up in the system? That's fair and should absolutely be part of the discussion. That's not the whole story, though. It's real easy to judge in a vacuum and never consider what happens if the other side of the coin shows. In the real world, people get out and create new victims. If you want to pull on heart strings about you or your loved ones, play that one too. Who gets to be this guys next victim when he gets out? When the parole board figures he's a good bet to unleash on society again? When a computer glitch lets him out? Let's say he stays in prison. You think people aren't victimized in prisons? Guards aren't assaulted and sometimes killed? Other prisoners aren't assaulted and sometimes killed? So what do you do? Solitary for decades without hope of release or human interaction? That's more humane than death?

If it was easy, we'd have already figured it out, but don't pretend you aren't creating a hazard to innocents by not using the death penalty.

And that is why I asked the question.....what do we do to fix this.
I believe that any system will have cracks in it and someone is going to fall through them.
My reference to aggressive prosecution is aimed only at those who care only about the marks in the "W" column. Not at all aimed at the entire group as I am not one that bashes.
There is the old saying I got from my dad when he realized I was punished for something I did not do (happened a lot with my dad) "Maybe you did not do this but I am sure you have done something"
Does that fit. For some carer criminals yes it does. The recidivism rate is horrible. Those who repeat have no intention of reforming/conforming to our way of life. Just is not going to happen. It is all they know.
If we have to build more/larger holding facility's so be it. Either that or start ending these rabid dogs. JMHO and I feel deeply about it.

 

[churchmouse]

This is the "for the greater good" argument. The death penalty has absolutely no purpose. It's not used uniformly, it's not a deterrent, it doesn't save money. it doesn't make people safer.

If properly used it would greatly reduce the "Repeat" offender rates and yes, people would be safer.
A 2 or 3 time violent felon is not going to "Change" his way of life. Just like I am not changing mine. It is all I know. To change would require great effort and a repeat felon is not going to spend the energy. Just is not going to happen.
How many repeat violent offenders mend their ways. I am not sure how to research those statistics and may not feel they are actually un-doctored anyway.

People feel strongly on this subject and they should.

 

[jblomenberg16]

If properly used it would greatly reduce the "Repeat" offender rates and yes, people would be safer.
A 2 or 3 time violent felon is not going to "Change" his way of life. Just like I am not changing mine. It is all I know. To change would require great effort and a repeat felon is not going to spend the energy. Just is not going to happen.
How many repeat violent offenders mend their ways. I am not sure how to research those statistics and may not feel they are actually un-doctored anyway.

People feel strongly on this subject and they should.

Bingo. I think we've learned that using the prison system as a method to "reform" individuals doesn't work. Short prison stints for minor crimes serve as a relevant punishment as well as deterrent. However, the longer sentences, such as life w/o parole, or capital punishment are used to keep certain criminals out of society in general. It also should have the effect of being a deterrent. The reality is that it does little to deter many of the individuals that actually do the crimes that warrant it.

I would highly doubt that any of these serial killers, violent felons, etc. had a rational debate in their head to determine that the crime was worth the time. So that comes back to the other intent of such sentences...to keep those individuals out of society.

 

[malern28us]

You dont need medication. An air embolus works well, and costs nothing.

 

[Amishman44]

I have mixed feelings on it. I guess for me it would depend on how heinous the crime was. People that rape, torture and then kill, I have no sympathy for. Go ahead and shoot them, inject them or use whatever means necessary. I could care less if they suffer, I'm sure they did not care about the suffering of their victims.

I'm similar with regards to those who 'torture' their victims through rape, etc. It's amazing how much damage they can do to another individual...but yet holler for their own protection and 'rights' later!

 

[Jeremy1066]

I'm confused. Is this a thread about the use of a firing squad vs other current methods or a thread debating the death penalty in general?

A couple thoughts in no particular order:
1) Incarceration until death is usually less expensive than the current death sentence system which takes decades to carry out anyway (if you are worried about cost)
2) In our attempt to kill someone in a nice way, it takes longer and is probably more terrifying and painful than a firing squad (if you are worried about suffering)
3) With current methods, someone is directly responsible for the death of the inmate and they know it. With a firing squad, you leave one rifle with a dummy round and nobody knows who was responsible (if you are worried about executioner's guilt)

As a side note, after WWII Hermann Göring requested a firing squad as it was more "respectful" than the hanging that he was sentenced to. (although he ultimately saw neither)

So assuming that the death penalty is not going away, where are the downfalls of using a firing squad?

 

[Bfish]

I wrote papers about the death penalty in college probably 6 years ago or so... If things have not changed there were a couple of states left in the United States where you could choose death by firing squad. However, it seems that the cheapest and odd as it sounds "most humane" is death by hanging.

 

[wesnellans]

What happened to thou shall not kill.

In the original Hebrew (and nearly all translations save KJV) the phrase is more accurately put "Thou shalt not murder".

It was an admonishment against unlawful killing.

Capital punishment is NOT forbidden.

 

[Alamo]

I would be happy with beheading by sword (I don't fault the Saudis for their method, just for their legal system to get to that point). Less complicated than the whole lethal drug rigamarole.

Or strap'em down in a dentist chair, secure his head to the head rest, have a little hole in it for the air-driven captured bolt (or .22) to pass through into the brain stem, press the button, done. Then you can give the body to the family in one piece.

But firing squad's ok too. Just seems more dramatic and complicated than necessary.

 

[Jeremy1066]

I wrote papers about the death penalty in college probably 6 years ago or so... If things have not changed there were a couple of states left in the United States where you could choose death by firing squad. However, it seems that the cheapest and odd as it sounds "most humane" is death by hanging.

Except for lots of cases where the neck wasn't broke and the condemned instead strangled to death.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Except for lots of cases where the neck wasn't broke and the condemned instead strangled to death.

Or their head popped off.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If properly used it would greatly reduce the "Repeat" offender rates and yes, people would be safer.
A 2 or 3 time violent felon is not going to "Change" his way of life. Just like I am not changing mine. It is all I know. To change would require great effort and a repeat felon is not going to spend the energy. Just is not going to happen.
How many repeat violent offenders mend their ways. I am not sure how to research those statistics and may not feel they are actually un-doctored anyway.

People feel strongly on this subject and they should.

What is a violent felon? If youre talking about people that take other people's lives, then I personally don't think they should ever see the light of day again. Obviously, that would end the "repeat" part. I talking about people who commit violent crimes in which a person isn't killed, then I don't see how the DP applies, as I don't think they should be subject to it.

 

[Compatriot G]

One thing to consider is the human aspect of executions. No matter what the form, another human being pulls the trigger, places the noose and trips the trap door, flips the switch on the chair, triggers the guillotine, injects the drugs or uses the sword or knife to behead the guilty party. That is something to consider.

My daughter did a report in college on the Nazi "Einsatzgruppen". These were the troops that followed the Nazis into Russia and rounded up the Jews and other "undesirables" and executed them. Their experiences led to the "Final Solution". The Nazis found that executing thousands of people by firearms was expensive and used too much ammo. The biggest thing was the psychological toll on the troops. Even Nazis had problems with repeatedly shooting women, children and old men.

Perhaps we need to use technology to remove as much of the human element as possible. Maybe we need to build a robot that is armed. Design it to zero in on the heart of one to be executed and then fire after it has acquired the target. The only human involvement would be bringing the robot out, loading ammunition and turning it on. While it would still require some human intervention, it would be less than some of the other methods.

Just a thought.

 

[churchmouse]

What is a violent felon? If youre talking about people that take other people's lives, then I personally don't think they should ever see the light of day again. Obviously, that would end the "repeat" part. I talking about people who commit violent crimes in which a person isn't killed, then I don't see how the DP applies, as I don't think they should be subject to it.

I see your point and as I stated earlier in the thread.....everyone has deep seated emotions and opinions on this subject. I see it through my eyes and lifes experiences as you do through yours.
So life with out parole is the answer.
To me anyone doing serious harm to another person outside of self defense is violent or has violent tendency's..To do this repeatedly shows a dangerous pattern of behavior and these people need to locked away for ever or put down. This is just my personal opinion.

 

[BE Mike]

Actually as an alternative to a firing squad, the weapon(s) could be mounted in a fixture and sighted with laser(s). The sentenced criminal could then be securely strapped to a chair, bed or other furnishing and the weapon(s) could be fired remotely by means of a randomly timed device. The projectiles could be propelled by compressed air. The subject could be placed in an unzipped body bag prior to execution and the bag secured after the sentence is carried out. I would think that engineers could work out the specific details in short order.

 

[HoughMade]

....We're discussing legal punishments, not religious prohibitions.

He isn't discussing religious prohibitions either...he's just trolling.

...but back to the subject at hand.

Some people will do whatever they can to show that the 4 rules are old fashioned.

 

[Dim Mak]

I see some bleeding hearts here... Meh!

 

[churchmouse]

I see some bleeding hearts here... Meh!

So, set us all straight. Do not just slam a thread and run/hide. Step up.....