Choosing death penalty by firing squad because it's safer
pbs.org
pbs.org
The only humane form of execution (if there is such a thing) is nitrogen asphyxiation, with the long drop being second in my opinion.
> "The only humane form of execution…is nitrogen asphyxiation"
> "Despite state claims that it would be a painless death, witnesses reported Mr. Smith shook, convulsed, writhed, and gasped for minutes until he was pronounced dead at least 22 minutes after the execution began, though just how long it took is unknown since Alabama closed the execution curtain before the official time of death."
It was the original argument for the guillotine (which have been in use in France until the abolition of death penalty), but it didn't account for malfunctions which could get very dirty very fast …
It’s repugnant and a sign of a sick society.
Bernie Madoff should have hung on Wall Street. Dylan Roof should have hung in front of the state capital building.
It is not repugnant, it is a signal of what behavior will and will not be tolerated.
We don't have to live in a society with rampant crime. We choose it.
This isn't a trick question. It's not okay to say, well, ideally there should be none. I'm asking right now since you think we should be hanging people in the public square.
The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death. So there's no bright line for anything that we can point to and say that's how you do it.
It is also not okay to say that they exhausted all avenues of the justice system available to them and unfortunately it didn't work and them's the breaks kid.
So how many innocent people is it okay to put to death?
Unfortunately, the governments and law enforcement community's answer to this problem will not be "may be we need to reconsider our laws". It will most likely be "then let's make sure we have more information to determine the truth i.e. more surveillance".
https://nextcloud.projectftm.com/index.php/s/CarollaLieDetec...
I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
You don't need to and shouldn't apply it to all murders.
Furthermore, anyone guilty of rape should be castrated
> I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
I’d recommend you re-read their comment and then try to reconcile these statements. In particular, pay special attention to this part:
> The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death.
In the form I would accept, it would be used on people convicted of heinous crimes, some of which will be innocent, with the effect that fewer heinous crimes occur.
You cannot give years back to an innocent prisoner any more than you can give life back to an innocent executee.
There is a cost to any action, including inaction. There is a cost to not executing justice (which is what capital punishment is, in the case of the guilty: justice); there is a cost in doing injustice.
So, the one we all live in (and have always lived in)
States killing 18 year olds who got drafted and never did a thing wrong in their short lives is more acceptable than states killing serial killers?
You're right, I can't believe we never thought about just not drafting anyone!
1. The state isn't sending the soldier to die, it's sending them to fight. They may die, but dying isn't the purpose. The state would very much prefer them to not die, in fact.
2. Nothing bad happens if we just don't kill the serial killer.
This isnt about utopianism at all.
And no, you can't justify death penalty because some people "get out on a technicality". Innocent people end up in jail on technicality too.
I think the person you were responding to had a more utilitarian view. When war happens, the death of conscripted young people is unavoidable. It's kill or be killed. We prefer wars not to happen, and people not to die, but it's not a choice.
Killing a serial killer who has already been apprehended is a choice. And it's here that we can actually start weighting options and see what is better for the society, bringing up possibilities of wrongful convictions, Blackstone's ratios and second order effects of the death penalty.
As far as serial killers go, that's a really bad example because there were several high-profile cases historically of people executed instead of the serial killer who actually committed the murder - for example, Aleksandr Kravchenko was executed for a murder committed by Andrei Chikatilo (who would eventually also be executed). Or how about Timothy Evans? So it's not like this is an option that comes free of innocent suffering, either (I should also note that the people who actually carry out the execution later learning that they killed an innocent is also not exactly great).
When will everyone believe that making someone take the blame in exchange for a shorter time in jail is beneficial to society at large... when the real perpetrator walks away unscathed, and a innocent is jailed for something he didn't even commit?
If a person did not commit a crime and if their strategic best choice is pleading guilty for the crime that has x% probability of receiving death penalty, it says something about the whole process.
I think I am against it in general. I am undecided.
Statistically, there has been a lot less failed executions from firing squads, but is it cause it is more predictable, or because there have been issues obtaining drugs for lethal injection, lack of medical professionals willing to assist, lack of training, etc. Are there vast differences in statistics, even among the states that have death penalties? If so, then isn't saying it is "safer" overly broad, when in fact it depends which states you're referring to?
I would say these all extremely relevant factors that you would want to take into account in assessing "safety".