Inhumane behaviour

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"It was over pretty quickly," said Cheryl Worsley, a local radio reporter. "It was cleaner than I expected. It was fast. But he moved. He moved a little bit, and to some degree that bothers me."

Sigh.

Are there really still people in the 'educated west' who don't understand that a corpse can still twitch about?

I'd be curious about her stance on the death penalty.

 

[Ashles]

From what I've read, they keep calling it something other than a blank. It's supposed to give the same recoil, but obviously not shoot a bullet. Not sure how that works.

I've always wondered this.

Surely anything that provides recoil is to some extent a bullet.

Unless it's made of something that instantly dissipates, in which case wouldn't they notice that?

I know it's not exactly the point of the OP but I've always wondered how anyone experienced enough with a gun to be part of a firing squad would not know whether they fired a live round or not.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I would think, if I was to be one of the shooters, That it would be a way for me to rationalize what I did by convincing myself that I was the one that shot the blank. . A psychological out.

I think I addressed your explanation a few posts ago. Here it is again:

This is not what is happening here. There will be five shooters. One of the shooters will fire a blank. There is an 80% chance that any one shooter will shoot a live round. Since the all shooters volunteered, why go through the procedure of one gun firing a blank?

To reiterate:
(1) The shooters are volunteers. They know what they are being asked to do and have agreed to do it. They shouldn't be looking for a psychological out.
(2) There is an 80% chance that any one shooter will fire a live round. Thus the expectation for any one shooter is that they probably fired a live round.

 

[Suddenly]

I think I addressed your explanation a few posts ago. Here it is again:


To reiterate:
(1) The shooters are volunteers. They know what they are being asked to do and have agreed to do it. They shouldn't be looking for a psychological out.
(2) There is an 80% chance that any one shooter will fire a live round. Thus the expectation for any one shooter is that they probably fired a live round.

(1) Some volunteer and then later in life have unexpected psychological issues with killing someone.

(2) Some doubt, diffusion of responsibility, etc.

 

[Mycroft]

(2) There is an 80% chance that any one shooter will fire a live round. Thus the expectation for any one shooter is that they probably fired a live round.

I wonder why, if they think this is necessary, they wouldn't have 10 shooters and have 6 of them fire the wax rounds. That way each individual knows they probably didn't fire a live round.

 

[dudalb]

I think if he really wants to be shot then they should not shoot him. Lock him up till he dies.

I have no problem with that.
The thing is EJ seemed to ignore exactly WHY the guy was being shot in his rush to portray Americans as a bunch of barbarians.

 

[dudalb]

I think the difference is sympathy for the future victims. Some people would prefer a murderer be stopped, rather than continue their life in prison murdering other inmates and guards, or being released and murdering innocent/productive people.
Whereas some don't care how many people are murdered as long as it's not someone they care about, and as long as they're innocent.
"Three innocent women raped and murdered by a guy? Well, that's the breaks. What? You want to actually stop the guy? You inhuman monster! Life is precious!"
It lets them feel good that they "gave him another chance," and doesn't concern them that giving him that "chance" will result in numerous innocent people permanently losing their chance.
Personally I think all murder convicts should be released to the custody of the sentencing judge after release. If you're comfortable leaving your wife and children with him, then he can out. Most judges (and rich white liberals) know it's not their neighborhood the murderer will be hitting up, he'll just be killing some poor black people, so who cares, eh?

One of the problems I have with a lot of Death Penalty opponents is that they put the murderer and the victim on the same moral level. I find that to be very disturbing.

 

[Suddenly]

One of the problems I have with a lot of Death Penalty opponents is that they put the murderer and the victim on the same moral level. I find that to be very disturbing.

The position that the death penalty is an absolute moral wrong is silly.

If a small and poor society winds up with a vicious murderer on its hands and they can't afford to imprison him and such, what are they supposed to do? Just let him go?

As it stands now in the US there is no real practical reason for the death penalty. We are rightly concerned nearly to the point of paranoia of possibly killing an innocent person... well... maybe not Texas.

The result is the cost of the trial and appeals usually exceeds the cost of the a non-death trial and lifetime imprisonment. California almost never kills anyone and would save a ton of money were they just to quit the whole silly business. I ran across a statistic once that said four times as many death row inmates die of natural causes as are executed.

 

[rbanks1]

I've always wondered this.

Surely anything that provides recoil is to some extent a bullet.

Unless it's made of something that instantly dissipates, in which case wouldn't they notice that?

I know it's not exactly the point of the OP but I've always wondered how anyone experienced enough with a gun to be part of a firing squad would not know whether they fired a live round or not.

Generally, such "dummy" rounds are loaded with a reduced powder load, and a bullet cast from parrafin wax is seated into the neck of the brass shell. Sometimes a small block of wax is pushed down onto the open mouth of the case to force a plug of wax into the case, basically achieving the same effect

The wax bullet method has some problems in that the bullet is still nowhere near the density or weight of an actual copper jacketed lead bullet, so the "simulated" recoil is there, but it's light. If a shooter is familiar with the particular caliber and type of rifle they could most likely tell it was a wax bullet. A light loaded wax bullet will inflict a nasty welt, and could penetrate the human body at extremely close range, however the range used in the firing squad protocol in Utah is enough to make a wax bullet non-lethal.


rbanks1

 

[Dr. Keith]

The position that the death penalty is an absolute moral wrong is silly.

If a small and poor society winds up with a vicious murderer on its hands and they can't afford to imprison him and such, what are they supposed to do? Just let him go?

As it stands now in the US there is no real practical reason for the death penalty. We are rightly concerned nearly to the point of paranoia of possibly killing an innocent person... well... maybe not Texas.

The result is the cost of the trial and appeals usually exceeds the cost of the a non-death trial and lifetime imprisonment. California almost never kills anyone and would save a ton of money were they just to quit the whole silly business. I ran across a statistic once that said four times as many death row inmates die of natural causes as are executed.

Exactly. I have two problems with the death penalty:

1. Not equitably applied in our current court system.

2. Too expensive.

As a tax payer I don't want to pay the extra legal fees required to kill someone and as a citizen I don't want to support a system that metes out its most extreme punishment in a biased manner. Furthermore, that inherent inequity in our system means too many innocent people are convicted.

The two are completely related: if you could solve the first you could reduce the second. But since we can't solve the first I would prefer we not spend the money trying to act like it wasn't a factor in each individual case.

Besides, once we legalize marijuana we will have a lot of prison beds to fill.

 

[Monza]

I have a cunning plan, Baldrick. I shall request execution by firing squad, and as the date approaches, I shall file an appeal stating that it's cruel and unusual, thereby dragging the process out for years more. I'll die of natural causes before this is through!

Several years later

What do you mean, "the appeal was denied"?

Actually, Blackadder was sentenced to execution by firing squad. When asked for his last request, he requested that the marksmen aim about four feet above his head.

 

[Region Rat]

I'd have to go with what Curly said once when the Three Stooges were to be executed but offered the choice of their manner of death. He said "old age".

Executioner (or some such authority figure): "Do you want to be burned at the stake or have your head chopped off?"

Curly: : "I wanna be burned at the stake."

Moe: "Why do you want to be burned at the stake?"

Curly: "Because a hot stake is better than a cold chop any day, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk."

Moe: "You numbskull." <Eyepoke, head slap, stomach punch, uppercut to forehead>

 

[Brian-M]

Exactly. I have two problems with the death penalty:

1. Not equitably applied in our current court system.

2. Too expensive.

As a tax payer I don't want to pay the extra legal fees required to kill someone and as a citizen I don't want to support a system that metes out its most extreme punishment in a biased manner. Furthermore, that inherent inequity in our system means too many innocent people are convicted.

The first reason is a problem with th judicial system, not with the death penalty itself. And the second reason is not necessarily valid.

If the execution were done in a quick and timely manner after conviction (with a reasonably adequate delay for an appeal to be lodged or new evidence to be uncovered), then it would be vastly cheaper than life imprisonment.

I think the biggest (and possibly only) real argument against the death penalty is the risk of execution of people who don't deserve it, such as innocent people convicted for a crime they didn't commit, or people sentenced to death penalty due to a misperception of the nature of their crime (for example, killing in self defense or accidental killing, being mistaken for premeditated murder).

This alone is reason enough not to employ the death penalty in societies capable of imprisoning people for life. And I think there are very, very few situations short of premeditated murder where the death penalty could ever be justified.

 

[Jungle Jim]

BTW. I believe E.J. Armstrong is from the Netherlands. Why all the references to England when discussing the threads he starts?

I just realized I made an error. I mixed up E.J. Armstrong and 9/11-investigator. My apologizes to all concerned.

 

[dtugg]

I just realized I made an error. I mixed up E.J. Armstrong and 9/11-investigator. My apologizes to all concerned.

LOL. EJ, how does the fact that you got mixed up with a neo-nazi Holocaust denier feel?

 

[rwguinn]

I'm not trying to convince anyone. That's clearly impossible. I'm merely expressing my opinion.

I'm sorry if you think that's "snide", I'll try to be more direct. No matter how despicable the crime, the response dehumanises and degrades the society responding.

Rolfe.

Yeah.
We have people who rush into burning building on the verge of collapse to rescue folk, while all you guys do is stand around arguing whether a rope is strong enough for a civilian while the victim dies in agony. In plain sight of the "rescuers"
When will YOU grow up?

 

[Beerina]

I'm thinking death-by-MRSA.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm a Canadian. I wish my country had the moral courage to kill Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson.

Instead we give them 3 square meals a day, a roof over there heads, a cot upon which they're free to jerk off to memories of their crimes and we even give them "faint hope" of being able to kill again.

Wanna bash my country next, EJ?

(If it helps, Canada is also a staunch ally of Israel)

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Hang on a second. This was the condemned man's request? To be shot by firing squad? It's not bloodlust on the part of the executioners then, but the condemned man!

I'd much rather be shot than getting the chair, a rope or a 'painless injection.'

I would definitely go for firing squad were I going to be executed and had a choice.

 

[The Painter]

His posts suggest he lives in Scotland.

I have to say the idea of an execution by firing squad in the USA in the 21st century turns my stomach, irrespective of the crime committed. Not that it's any worse than other methods of execution, in fact it's probably better, but the dehumanising bloodlust expressed by both the potential executioniers and some posters in this thread are sickening.

You kind of expect this behaviour from places like Saudi Arabia, but from the USA - maybe one day you people will grow up.

Rolfe.

It's this kind of British arrogance that turns my stomach.

PS. Rolfe, didn't you say you are a veterinarian? How many animals did you put down (KILL) last year? Is it your blood-lust for killing puppies? There is nothing more inhumane than taking a cute little puppy and killing it. It is the beginning of all our inhumanities.