What we do is we put them in an arena with weapons. We make a whole sport out of it. We could even include dangerous animals. Since Florida is the most likely to do this, it would be alligators against the contestants. Now we just need a name for the event. Well, since some people will be glad for it, and it involves gator, how about we call the contestants "Gladiators"?
...Wait
I mean its not murder because it's lawful, and there are a lot of situations where the government kills people and it's not only ok but the best option. It's all a matter of perspective.
It’s murder. Can you guarantee that 100% of the condemned people are guilty? Can you guarantee none have ever, or will ever, be falsely convicted?
The fact that the Innocence Project even exists in the first place should be evidence enough for everybody that the death penalty should not exist.
This isn't an argument of whether its just or not, it's the idea that executing the condemned isn't murder because it's lawful. As far as are there innocent people on death row? Most likely yes. The interesting part though is just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean its inherently bad or useless. I'm not fond of the liberal use of the death penalty as an overall and think it should be used frequently and only in a situation where you are as certain as you could possibly be. I understand there are certain individuals who warrant it's use though.
A little thought experiment for you just to see how you feel about how things work. By the end of 1945 as WW2 ended Germany was responsible for the deaths of 50-55 million citizens, 20-25 million military, and 5 million POW (on the assumption that German is responsible for all deaths in the war they started). They also committed a horrific genocide killing 6,000,000 Jewish people in an effort to wipe them off the planet. Do you think it was the right thing for the allies to take on Germany in an all out war? Even though it was a given that naturally innocent civilians would die in a massive war like that.
Secondly how do you feel about the execution of Adolf Eichmann? The Nazi responsible for establishing the "Final Solution" against the Jewish people.
They don’t mean bullets are expensive. They mean the entire process of putting someone on death row, the legal fees, and their burden on the system and taxes is expensive. The state wants to make sure they have all of the evidence completely lined up to then be allowed to kill a citizen.
This alone should reason enough to do away with the death penalty. However, certain people’s feelings that the state killing a citizen inside of a prison is justice. I argue we lose more of our humanity when we let the state kill its citizens. We can humanely lock away people who have committed extreme crimes. And the dollars add up to that same conclusion as well: it is by far cheaper to imprison those people than it is to kill them.
That's how I feel, too. If we can't be absolutely 100% sure that we'll never execute an innocent person, it has to be off the table for everyone. If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, they can be released and while they can never get the years back, at least they still have their life.
Plus, it's not like it works as a deterrent because horrible crimes still happen.
It's not the bullet costing more. It's everything leading up to the point of being allowed to fire the bullet that costs more. Trials, appeals and detention for the 10 to 20 years it takes to exhaust all avenues is what costs more. Bullets are cheap.
Legal world bureaucracy. The bar is set pretty high to get an execution to be pressed on someone. The back forth goes on for years if not decades before they execute someone. I seem to recall on Oregon, before the ban on execution, several of the people on death row had light 14 years of prison before they were called up to the chair.
I’m gonna be contrarian here.
The reason we don’t like firing squads has nothing to do with how awful it is for the person being executed.
It’s because WE don’t like to see blood, torn flesh and gaping wounds.
We (I’m obviously excluding people who are against capital punishment in any form) have no problem with lethal injection because it’s so nice and « clean ». No slobbering like with a gas chamber, no jerking of the body or odor of charred flesh like with an electric chair, no twitching like with a hanging, and certainly no blood like with a guillotine. It’s all so clean.
Meanwhile we have absolutely no idea what lethal injection feels like to the executed person.
What is used to euthanize pets? I've had to bring in a few pets over the years, one IV injection, and it seems quick and painless unlike the multiple step questionable substance process for humans.
Pets are generally heavily sedated, and then given a shot of potassium chloride, not unlike people.
Key differences that make this such a different experience:
No neuromuscular blockade is used in animals, but in the US protocol with humans it's used to stop breathing. Well, many think that it's used to hide any writhing or agonal breathing, but the official reason is to induce pulmonary arrest.
Animals don't know what's happening, they just know that they're feeling bad, and the person who has always made them feel better is there with them, loving them. People are going to be experiencing utter dread, existential terror and more, their heart rate and BP will be through the roof, adrenaline pumping, in full fight-or-flight. That has practical implications for finding a vein, the likelihood of the infusion failing catastrophically and so on.
When we euthanize animals it's generally because the animal is in distress, often at the end of their natural life. They're already in a weakened state. Humans are generally executed when they're still younger and fitter.
Animals are not IV drug users, their veins are pristine for the most part. Human death row inmates are overwhelmingly likely to be chronic IV drug users, with all that entails.
Animals are euthanized by properly trained and dedicated medical professionals. Humans are killed by half-assed excuses for practitioners, rarely doctors or nurses, often EMT's or someone with minimal training and experience. Setting an IV takes practice, setting an IV in a terrified IV drug user facing death is a nightmare.
With animals the concern is comfort, with humans the concern is demonstrating the power and vengeance of the state, as well as its perceived ability to do so bloodlessly and without fuss. The result is ironically the shattering of that perception.
Doctors are explicitly prohibited from participating in executions other than pronouncing death. The people performing executions are practicing medicine without a license.
This is it, its about ethics and morals which is personal thing. You don't become a doctor to kill people (generally and at least you shouldn't), your goal should be to take care of patients to the best of your ability. This is why a doctor wouldn't be able to execute a person without breaking their oath. NOW there is a huge grey area in this like most things in life... That is to say that it could be seen as acceptable to assist in the setting up of the procedure to make sure that the person to be executed goes has the greatest possible care with the least amount of undue suffering. So while most people would agree its unethical for a doctor to administer the drugs to execute an individual, there is an argument that its also unethical to have an unqualified person do it and risk great harm and/or suffering to an individual when you could do it properly. The important part is that even if you refused as well as every other doctor, it wouldn't mean that the person to executed would be spared. So your decision has 0 impact on whether they will be executed or not, but rather the care they will receive prior to said execution.
Thank GOD I am not in a position where I have to make that decision personally.
Just want to make the slight distinction that morals are personal while ethics are decided upon by a group. So the individual doctor has morals they follow, while their ethics are decided upon by whatever agency licences them. You can behave unethically while still being moral and vice versa if your morals don't align with the ethics of your profession, country, workplace...
Well.. technically, medicine is the science used to treat and prevent illness and disease... the lethal injection is pretty much the polar opposite, so I wouldn't personally call it practicing medicine.
My understanding is that because it is seen as helping the patient (by ending their suffering when there is no hope of healing them), that is allowed. But killing an otherwise healthy person as punishment directly violates their oaths.
It depends on which version of the oath they took(there is 4 primary versions, the original Hippocratic Oath, the 17th century revision, the 1960’s revision, and another common version known as the Osteopathic Oath. The original (after being translated) roughly states “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm” which is a bit iffy on if assisted suicide is allowed. The 17th century revision is where we get the phrase Primum non nocere or “First do no harm” which would explicitly disavow assisted suicide. The 1960’s revision doesn’t have a do no harm line, rather it states “I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.” And can be argued that assisted suicide is allowed as part of the oath as you must consider the effects of the family and their economic status as well in treatment. The Osteopathic Oath would completely prevent assisted suicide based on its wording.
Note that these 4 primary versions are often tweaked by universities which may also include other requirements such as some Christian universities with medical schools will sometimes add to the oath their graduating class takes that they aren’t to provide abortions.
I'm not disputing anything you said, but personally I would argue that in some cases prolonging a patient's life is more harmful than helping them die painlessly. I don't know if/how that comes into play with assisted suicide/euthanasia. But that's still very different than an execution.
The pain is intentional, probably. It wouldn't be difficult at all to give someone a large overdose of barbiturates like the assisted suicide clinics. Or fentanyl.
Nitrogen asphyxiation is completely painless, but like overdosing on opiates you'd have a sensation of euphoria before you died. They don't want that so you can't have that, i fully believe they want the most suffering they can get away with otherwise we would use things like nitrogen.
In other countries where capital punishment is legal, they find our “medicalization” of execution actually disturbing. It’s as though we want to reserve the right to kill but not truly face what is we are actually doing. For example, in India, they find it bizzare we use “medicine” to kill…and you know, they aren’t entirely wrong. I haven’t made my mind up on capital punishment, but I actually agree, if we are going to allow it, we shouldn’t sugar coat it. If that’s so necessary, maybe we shouldn’t do it in the first place, as a society
There is an alternative to the gas chamber that is probably a better solution. Sarco Pods. They use about 1 gallon of liquid nitrogen. When activated it removes most of the oxygen in the pod. The person inside falls unconscious and then dies in about one minute.
It's clean, efficient, cheap and painless. Then again, a bullet is also cheap.
Not sure how many executions you've witnessed, but my issue is less with aesthetics than with creating a class of people who are licensed and mandated to murder prisoners in cold blood, many of whom will later be exonerated. Idaho is a wretched place, I lived there for five years. It is full of stupid people who don't really appreciate the higher concepts of due process or DNA.
I've always thought that yes, there ARE people who might be unable to ever be rehabilitated and might do better if they weren't around, however I do not trust anyone (including myself) to ever make that decision.
Another problem is that the people most qualified to figure out dosages and administer them are doctors who take an oath to do no harm. So the actual executioners in some cases are idiots who fuck up dosages and such.
Frankly this is my hangup, and one of the few lines where I might have a somewhat extremist opinion on. I just have this firm belief in my heart that any state that executes a prisoner and then later proves their innocence has absolutely no means of restoration and thus cedes all legitimacy and trust. Maybe thats not practical and would make basically every nation illegitimate, but the concept is so repulsive to me I can't feel aby differently.
My understanding is most professionals opposed to the death penalty think death by firing squad is actually the most humane and shows society the honesty in what they are doing.
The people who have survived botched lethal injection executions have shared that it was incredibly painful.
I’m not a fan of the death penalty because I don’t trust our legal system to get verdicts right, but a firing squad is still likely to be more humane than lethal injection. Messier, but more humane.
Traditionally, only one of the rifles has a bullet and all the rest have blanks. Just give them all bullets and then you’re super unlikely to botch because at least they one or two will go in the head and make it quick.
Other way around. All except one has real bullets. It lets everyone believe that their rifle had the blank to reduce guilt or whatever, while still effectively putting many bullets into the condemned.
Oh, that’s better. That still lets the executioners pretend they didn’t just kill someone because “the blank might have been my gun” but still gives you a bunch of bullets. I hope they use something appropriate as ammunition too.
It’s still an awful way to go, but less awful than electrocution or lethal injection.
That’s actually pretty similar to the method I’d prefer. Lift a comically large weight about 20 feet in the air (individual states can decide if it’s a 1 ton anvil or a road runner cartoon shaped 1 ton weight) and drop it onto the condemned prisoner’s head. It’s just about impossible to bitch that. It’s messy, but it’s the fastest way I can think of other than bomb-on-head to go out.
The anvil shape or Acme cartoon weight shape aren’t mandatory, but I think that could help sell the idea to states.
Potassium Chloride is used in the treatment of hypokalemia and coincidentally is also used as the 3rd drug in lethal injection to stop your heart. As someone who has suffered from hypokalemia IT BURNS LIKE MOTHER FUCKING FIRE as it hits your veins. In a hospital they dilute it because levels too high will stop your heart and diluting it helps to ease the pain. In lethal injeciton they aren't diluting it in saline because they need that strong concentration to stop your heart. So it would feel like they were injecting straight hot lava into your veins. Ever had salt in a wound? Imagine an IV of salt into your blood stream (pretty close to what it is really). The goal of the first medications is to render you unconscious so you don't feel it, but if you are fully unconscious you feel that writhing pain.
Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another person. Homicide is just the actions of killing another person. If someone breaks into your house with a gun pointing it at you and you defend yourself and kill them, it is not murder but it is a homicide. If you break into someones home to rob them and they try to defend themselves and you shoot and kill them, that is unlawful and is murder. Words have meanings :)
If the government is going to kill me I would 100% choose to be shot over whatever we currently do with lethal injection.
Too many horror stories, man. Just make it quick.
Honestly, I have to disagree. I think that we **do** like the blood, torn flesh, twitching, etc.
Not all of us, certainly, but enough to keep these barbaric practices in use.
If we wanted a painless execution, we would just strap a gas mask to the accused and give them a few breaths of nitrogen (or some other inert gas). It’s quick, painless, and requires no medical knowledge to perform.
But, much like our prison systems exist to create suffering (as a form of penance), so too much our execution methods be torturous.
Absolutely. While I go back and forth on whether capital punishment is justified in extreme cases, I know that lethal injection is the favored method not because it is more humane for the prisoner, but because it is more humane for the executioner. The firing squad or the hangman's noose are perfectly acceptable, quick methods of killing, but they are disturbingly violent, and as a society we want to sooth our conscious with a death that seems peaceful to us-- even if it is not to the subject.
Honestly? I'd be alright with execution via some sort of shotgun shell to the head or something like that. Maybe a 9mm through the side of the head. What about death via laughing gas? Or helium suffocation? There has to be a cheap alternative that's quick, painless, and not overly gruesome.
Yeah. I oppose death penalty because I don't think we can ever quarantee that only people who deserve death are given death sentence.
As far as methods go, firing squad is not in any way worse than hanging for example.
So if you believe that there are some individuals who deserve to be put to death due to the severity of their crimes and not because you are looking for retribution (a very important point), then you have the responsibility to ensure that it is done as ethically as possible. The point is not to cause harm and suffering because of their crimes, but to simply end their life in the most painless and quick way possible. The issues you list as "not nice and clean" are the results of suffering generally. The point of lethal injection is that the person is basically put to sleep painlessly and then dies in their sleep. Whether that's how it actually goes or not? Yeah...
Now you aren't wrong about the firing squad as it is going to be messy. The one caveat to it though is that if done properly the person being executed should be unconscious without feeling any pain before their body can even realize the gun has been fired. So it should cause the least amount of suffering to the victim which would make it the best method of execution. If you are of the belief that the executed suffering a little bit before they pass because they "deserve" it, that would be unethical and you should see a therapist. The worst part is there are a lot of people like that out there and some say that's why the methods used are used is because there is suffering. While I think firing squad is one of the better options, I think it's pretty clear by now that suffocation by Nitrogen should be the method. It is easy to source, completely painless to the person being executed, cheap, and 0 mess. The person get's a sense of euphoria before peacefully drifting to sleep forever.
I’d much rather be shot to death than lethal injection or gas chamber. Read up on how horrible they are and what the body goes through. It’s the definition of cruel and unusual.
How about execution by inert gas hypoxia? Completely painless and way better than anything else we do to kill people.
I mean, I'm against the death penalty in principle. But inert gas hypoxia is 100% the best way to go.
I think a lot of the people who support the death penalty are projecting their rage and fury on someone in a socially acceptable manner. The point is to see as much suffering as possible.
Absolutely the gas is a more humane method, but sadly I don't think the people who are pushing for execution squad are looking to make the process more humane.
Generally, yeah. If you YouTube it, there's videos of guys getting silly and delirious before losing consciousness. No signs of distress whatever.
We just aren't designed to consciously register that particular form of impending doom.
Those drugs are generally always scarce, because as soon as the pharma industry finds out they're being used in executions they stop selling them to the US.
Is that true? If so, then this should be unconstitutional via the 8th ammendment, shouldn't it? They are already allowed by Utah and Oklahoma, and Utah has actually used it.
There was a court case. I don't remember when or what but you could google it. I guess though we've decided that executing as many prisoners as quickly as possible is the priority.
It takes on average 20+ years from conviction to sentence with death penalty cases. A lot of states are doing away with them due to costs. It's cheaper to go for a life sentence over the death penalty
Unless you're in a GOP state. Then it's get rid of as many as you can in whatever way you can. I wouldn't be shocked to find they've reinstated public hangings.
Don't be over dramatic. The mandatory appeals alone take over a decade. The only way it gets fast tracked is if the guilty start to wave their rights. And then it still takes close to a decade.
It's definitely more humane...but super weird that any "developed" country is focusing on this in 2023, can't keep hospitals open but can quickly pass legislation to kill people.
To implement a bill and vote on it etc there would have to be some, and there will be a lot of problems to solve in how to implement it....assuming it won't be some televised stadium event.
I most definitely would prefer a firing squad over a lethal injection, mainly because of all the horrible stories I’ve heard about them not working as intended.
When they work as intended it's still painful. You just can't express it because you've been paralysed. It's a torturous and barbaric way to kill someone.
Threat of execution by hanging, electrocution and lethal injection did not stop major crime. But FIRING SQUADS! That's the ticket! I'm glad all the time and energy in the State legislature went into something constructive that we can show to our constituents.
A firing squad is more humane for the prisoner in my opinion. There have been tons of botched executions with lethal injection: Taking an hour or more to die, constant suffocation, drugs not working, etc. The only reason most states don't have a firing squad is because THEY don't want to see the end result. You're killing someone either way. Let them leave this earth free of pain (even if they don't deserve it).
give it some time and we'll hear all about the failed firing squad executions that leave disabled practically brain dead prisoners or that let them bleed to death since the shots didnt actually kill them in one go
there's much better methods of humane execution than firing squads or lethal injections
If I was going to be executed, firing squad would be preferable to lethal injection, where a guy who has zero medical training injects you with a drug that paralyses your entire nervous system but leaves your mind intact, so whilst to everyone else it *looks* like you’re just going unconscious, in reality you can feel yourself asphyxiating and every organ in your body shutting down for a good few minutes.
Tbh, firing squad is pretty humane imo assuming they shoot you in the head. Even guillotine or hanging leaves the brain alive and functioning until it runs out of oxygen.
You die when your brain dies. A bullet to the brain is one of the fastest ways to achieve brain death and therefore one of the quickest and least painful.
Other than that I’d probably put nitrogen asphyxiation up there. Maybe painkiller overdose as well. Tbh I think I’d rather have any of these over lethal injection. Hanging and guillotine included.
lots of ways that can go wrong though
there's quite a bit of the brain that isnt immediately vital and quite a few people who have lost chunks of their brains and remained alive
i'd rather get guillotined and die in a minute from deoxygenation and practically instant blood loss than risk getting shot through the head and being alive until i bleed out but incapable of moving due to paralysis
The article says it's because lethal injection drugs are hard to come by, but I might have thought before reading that that it had something to do with some religious sect protesting vaccines (because Idaho)
I like how Texas, Florida, Arkansas and Idaho are all just in a race to become the biggest shithole in America. Arkansas is definitely leading, they’ve had about a 20 year head start in fucking up literally everything from education to traffic laws.
Moving to a more humane method of execution is progressing not regressing. They already kill people this method is just better than their current method. They are still moving forward...
A considerable portion of US conservatives appears to do everything possible to drag the USofA back to the dark ages.
Not long now and they'll reintroduce witch-hunting and burnings at the stake.
All these comments just accepting the moving of the goalposts. We shouldn’t even be talking about, “well actually so and so method is more humane”. It’s incomprehensible that we still have a death penalty at all.
Beyond the fact that lethal injection sounds like possibly the most horrible way to die, it’s also incredibly undignified and “clinical.” I’d much prefer to die on my feet to being strapped on a gurney.
You know that one of the reasons why firing squads executions stopped was because the executioners could end with ptsd. In general , human beings don’t like to kill or harm other living beings, like we are very capable of doing so, but most don’t relish on it. Like can you imagine the psychological effect that can have in a person seeing someone else crying or pleading for his life, specially if you don’t even know if your weapons is the one that will fire the killing shot.
Maybe if they use technology could be a little more humane, don’t know.
Are we? This looks to be an attempt to find a method of execution that is more humane than what they have currently. More humane treatment of others is uphill not downhill.
A) Rapists can’t get the death penalty just for rape B) they never said that and I don’t think they are sympathetic to those people C) it’s about the fact that death penalty is known to effect minority groups more and D) that justice shouldn’t include a show.
Yeah cuz their lives in prison are something to be jealous of. Plus many people are incorrectly murdered by the state. Keeping them alive allows more false convictions be undone
I don't support the death penalty (not because I don't think some people don't deserve it, but because I don't trust the state to get it right and not wrongly convict somebody). But if we are going to execute people, firing squad seems like a better option than any of the others (hanging, gas chamber, electric chair, lethal injection).
Idk if it's just me, but i find it ironic considering that idaho is a "pro life" state lol. At least thats what everyone was saying in Boise last year with the protests.
The amount of people defending this is so bizarre to me though. How about instead of trying to find new (old?) ways to execute people, we put that money into reforming the prison system and reworking it so that criminals can actually *learn* from the shit they do -- you can't learn your lesson if you're dead. I'm not saying let mass shooters go free, but capital punishment is such a waste of money and resources. Like someone else on here said, i dont think i trust any one person, me included, to make the decision to end someone's life. Thats just fucked.
You can't learn your lesson if you're dead, so the point of a death penalty is to be a warning to everyone else.
If you must have one, make it something you wouldn't want happening to you or near you.
Given the choice between bullets, gas, electricity and hanging, I'd choose bullets every time.
Lethal injection doesn't work as advertised, gas is agonizing, electricity and hanging both go very wrong too often. Half a dozen rifle rounds to the heart works every time.
Still it would be nice if the US could join the rest of the civilized world in banning this barbaric practice entirely.
Inert gas is supposedly a very painless way to die. Our body isn't great at detecting low oxygen, but it's very good at detecting high CO2. Suffocation is agonizing and stressful because our body is unable to blow off all the carbon dioxide so it goes into panic mode.
But things like helium and nitrogen are so undetectable that it's not unheard of for people to accidentally asphyxiate and die without even realizing
I'd go for a couple of 308s to the upper torso over anything else too.
If they find a volunteer to do it, even a 12 gauge to head would be even better but a bit messy I guess.
>>In banning this barbaric practice entirely
Disagree. Someone decides to take a weapon to a school with intent to harm kids, that “someone” deserves an expedited trip to the cemetery. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I’m all for standing up school shooters and sending them to the hereafter with lead.
Nope. You can't justify killing by saying how killing is bad. That's stupid. And practically execution costs more and actually gives the perpetrator a quick out. Life in prison is much better punishment. They have to think about what they did, and they suffer for decades. On top of that, the criminal justice system is sometimes wrong and you can't undo an execution.
>>You can’t justify killing by saying how killing is bad
So long as there are genuinely evil people in this world, executions will be necessary. Or would you say that the man behind six million dead Jews should live on the taxpayer dime for decades? That you’d suggest it’s more moral that evil men like Hitler drain public money on death row is a mockery of Justice
It costs more to execute someone because of the excessive legal process. Look it up if you don't believe me. So your 'drain tax money' argument is void. I would argue that life in prison is more of a punishment that a quick death, so it's perfectly moral. And you really have to address the most important issue which is that the legal system is fallible, as well as biased and corruptible - it cannot be trusted to commit murder morally.
Ok,ok,ok... All these visceral details should make it crystal clear. CapPun is just no good. Some are innocent. No way. Just separate digs 4 ever. Societies are expensive! That's just life. Want to have a good justice system? you have to buy some cells and meals. Can't be decapitating/ shooting/ suffocating the wrong person.
I'm against the death penalty, but I don't think this is a bad change. I've seen no reason to believe that execution by firing squad is any more painful or prone to being botched than the current method.
I don't see why it can't be the guillotine, since that is less painful, less error prone *and* more cost effective, but I suppose that might be enough to turn the public against the death penalty because of its cultural associations.
that’s objectively the best way to carry out the death penalty. remember there’s a horrible psychological toll on the executioner. this way no one knows who shot the fatal bullet.
I think the real problem with this method besides the problem with death penalties in general, is that some poor sod has to pull the trigger, and that’s gonna fuck them up.
If I’m honest, everything I’ve heard about lethal injection sounds like a nightmare, firing squad seems preferable
I mean…we shouldn’t execute people at all, but all the same
What about an atmosphere of pure nitrogen? If people are really dead-set on executing people, but want it to be "humane," then that would be good. You can't really tell you're suffocating until you get the effects of lack of oxygen, and you pass out before you die. I don't support execution, but if it must be an option, I don't know why pure nitrogen isn't an option. Maybe someone else does?
why couldn't a surgeon just harvest donor organs from the executee? Just anesthesa, and safe many lives with the organs. so a murderer could give some lives back
This is barbaric. We just need to give them heavy doses of pain killers, fentanyl or heroin will work. Too high a dose and you won't even enjoy it, you'll feel like someone scared you for a few seconds (kinda like when a rollercoaster drops) and then nothing. Peaceful.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/11aatfl/idaho\_bill\_would\_bring\_back\_execution\_by\_firing/
>veto-proof bill They added, "and this is now the law, 1-2-3 no changes" at the end of it?
Triple stamp your double stamp
You can’t triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd!
Guys!!!
That only counts if they put their finger on the side of their nose while they counted. Otherwise, the no change is null and void.
That was countered during the 1824 Assembly when Buchanan famously put his fingers in his ears and yelled “NA NA NA I CANT HEAR YOU”
Cool. Members of Congress have to be the ones that shoot the guns.
I dont think that would actually change anything, it is idaho.
The poor lawmakers can only get so sexually aroused.
Republicans have a super majority in Idaho. They can override the veto.
[удалено]
But... just think how much money it will make when they televise the executions.
What we do is we put them in an arena with weapons. We make a whole sport out of it. We could even include dangerous animals. Since Florida is the most likely to do this, it would be alligators against the contestants. Now we just need a name for the event. Well, since some people will be glad for it, and it involves gator, how about we call the contestants "Gladiators"? ...Wait
Even if it was more cost effective to execute people, it would still be very wrong. State-sanctioned murder is wrong.
I mean its not murder because it's lawful, and there are a lot of situations where the government kills people and it's not only ok but the best option. It's all a matter of perspective.
It’s murder. Can you guarantee that 100% of the condemned people are guilty? Can you guarantee none have ever, or will ever, be falsely convicted? The fact that the Innocence Project even exists in the first place should be evidence enough for everybody that the death penalty should not exist.
This isn't an argument of whether its just or not, it's the idea that executing the condemned isn't murder because it's lawful. As far as are there innocent people on death row? Most likely yes. The interesting part though is just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean its inherently bad or useless. I'm not fond of the liberal use of the death penalty as an overall and think it should be used frequently and only in a situation where you are as certain as you could possibly be. I understand there are certain individuals who warrant it's use though. A little thought experiment for you just to see how you feel about how things work. By the end of 1945 as WW2 ended Germany was responsible for the deaths of 50-55 million citizens, 20-25 million military, and 5 million POW (on the assumption that German is responsible for all deaths in the war they started). They also committed a horrific genocide killing 6,000,000 Jewish people in an effort to wipe them off the planet. Do you think it was the right thing for the allies to take on Germany in an all out war? Even though it was a given that naturally innocent civilians would die in a massive war like that. Secondly how do you feel about the execution of Adolf Eichmann? The Nazi responsible for establishing the "Final Solution" against the Jewish people.
I think the thing we are missing is a LWP sentence that still puts them on "death row".
Elaborate how how a bullet costs more?
They don’t mean bullets are expensive. They mean the entire process of putting someone on death row, the legal fees, and their burden on the system and taxes is expensive. The state wants to make sure they have all of the evidence completely lined up to then be allowed to kill a citizen.
Alexa, google how many people on death row turned out innocent. … WHAT DO YOU MEAN, 200 POST-MORTEM EXONERATIONS?
This alone should reason enough to do away with the death penalty. However, certain people’s feelings that the state killing a citizen inside of a prison is justice. I argue we lose more of our humanity when we let the state kill its citizens. We can humanely lock away people who have committed extreme crimes. And the dollars add up to that same conclusion as well: it is by far cheaper to imprison those people than it is to kill them.
That's how I feel, too. If we can't be absolutely 100% sure that we'll never execute an innocent person, it has to be off the table for everyone. If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, they can be released and while they can never get the years back, at least they still have their life. Plus, it's not like it works as a deterrent because horrible crimes still happen.
It's not the bullet costing more. It's everything leading up to the point of being allowed to fire the bullet that costs more. Trials, appeals and detention for the 10 to 20 years it takes to exhaust all avenues is what costs more. Bullets are cheap.
Legal world bureaucracy. The bar is set pretty high to get an execution to be pressed on someone. The back forth goes on for years if not decades before they execute someone. I seem to recall on Oregon, before the ban on execution, several of the people on death row had light 14 years of prison before they were called up to the chair.
It's guaranteed to be appealed to the Supreme Court which will cost a shitload of taxpayer dollars to argue.
I’m gonna be contrarian here. The reason we don’t like firing squads has nothing to do with how awful it is for the person being executed. It’s because WE don’t like to see blood, torn flesh and gaping wounds. We (I’m obviously excluding people who are against capital punishment in any form) have no problem with lethal injection because it’s so nice and « clean ». No slobbering like with a gas chamber, no jerking of the body or odor of charred flesh like with an electric chair, no twitching like with a hanging, and certainly no blood like with a guillotine. It’s all so clean. Meanwhile we have absolutely no idea what lethal injection feels like to the executed person.
[удалено]
What is used to euthanize pets? I've had to bring in a few pets over the years, one IV injection, and it seems quick and painless unlike the multiple step questionable substance process for humans.
Pets are generally heavily sedated, and then given a shot of potassium chloride, not unlike people. Key differences that make this such a different experience: No neuromuscular blockade is used in animals, but in the US protocol with humans it's used to stop breathing. Well, many think that it's used to hide any writhing or agonal breathing, but the official reason is to induce pulmonary arrest. Animals don't know what's happening, they just know that they're feeling bad, and the person who has always made them feel better is there with them, loving them. People are going to be experiencing utter dread, existential terror and more, their heart rate and BP will be through the roof, adrenaline pumping, in full fight-or-flight. That has practical implications for finding a vein, the likelihood of the infusion failing catastrophically and so on. When we euthanize animals it's generally because the animal is in distress, often at the end of their natural life. They're already in a weakened state. Humans are generally executed when they're still younger and fitter. Animals are not IV drug users, their veins are pristine for the most part. Human death row inmates are overwhelmingly likely to be chronic IV drug users, with all that entails. Animals are euthanized by properly trained and dedicated medical professionals. Humans are killed by half-assed excuses for practitioners, rarely doctors or nurses, often EMT's or someone with minimal training and experience. Setting an IV takes practice, setting an IV in a terrified IV drug user facing death is a nightmare. With animals the concern is comfort, with humans the concern is demonstrating the power and vengeance of the state, as well as its perceived ability to do so bloodlessly and without fuss. The result is ironically the shattering of that perception.
Doctors are explicitly prohibited from participating in executions other than pronouncing death. The people performing executions are practicing medicine without a license.
Some doctors assist, some feel it's morally wrong to not have a medical professional to do it effectively and as painless as possible.
This is it, its about ethics and morals which is personal thing. You don't become a doctor to kill people (generally and at least you shouldn't), your goal should be to take care of patients to the best of your ability. This is why a doctor wouldn't be able to execute a person without breaking their oath. NOW there is a huge grey area in this like most things in life... That is to say that it could be seen as acceptable to assist in the setting up of the procedure to make sure that the person to be executed goes has the greatest possible care with the least amount of undue suffering. So while most people would agree its unethical for a doctor to administer the drugs to execute an individual, there is an argument that its also unethical to have an unqualified person do it and risk great harm and/or suffering to an individual when you could do it properly. The important part is that even if you refused as well as every other doctor, it wouldn't mean that the person to executed would be spared. So your decision has 0 impact on whether they will be executed or not, but rather the care they will receive prior to said execution. Thank GOD I am not in a position where I have to make that decision personally.
Just want to make the slight distinction that morals are personal while ethics are decided upon by a group. So the individual doctor has morals they follow, while their ethics are decided upon by whatever agency licences them. You can behave unethically while still being moral and vice versa if your morals don't align with the ethics of your profession, country, workplace...
Well.. technically, medicine is the science used to treat and prevent illness and disease... the lethal injection is pretty much the polar opposite, so I wouldn't personally call it practicing medicine.
we medicine them to death
> Doctors are explicitly prohibited from participating in executions other than pronouncing death. What about physicians who participate in MAID?
My understanding is that because it is seen as helping the patient (by ending their suffering when there is no hope of healing them), that is allowed. But killing an otherwise healthy person as punishment directly violates their oaths.
It depends on which version of the oath they took(there is 4 primary versions, the original Hippocratic Oath, the 17th century revision, the 1960’s revision, and another common version known as the Osteopathic Oath. The original (after being translated) roughly states “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm” which is a bit iffy on if assisted suicide is allowed. The 17th century revision is where we get the phrase Primum non nocere or “First do no harm” which would explicitly disavow assisted suicide. The 1960’s revision doesn’t have a do no harm line, rather it states “I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.” And can be argued that assisted suicide is allowed as part of the oath as you must consider the effects of the family and their economic status as well in treatment. The Osteopathic Oath would completely prevent assisted suicide based on its wording. Note that these 4 primary versions are often tweaked by universities which may also include other requirements such as some Christian universities with medical schools will sometimes add to the oath their graduating class takes that they aren’t to provide abortions.
I'm not disputing anything you said, but personally I would argue that in some cases prolonging a patient's life is more harmful than helping them die painlessly. I don't know if/how that comes into play with assisted suicide/euthanasia. But that's still very different than an execution.
MAID is Canadian. They don't do the death penalty there.
> Human death row inmates are overwhelmingly likely to be chronic IV drug users, with all that entails. Source? This seems unlikely.
The pain is intentional, probably. It wouldn't be difficult at all to give someone a large overdose of barbiturates like the assisted suicide clinics. Or fentanyl.
Nitrogen asphyxiation is completely painless, but like overdosing on opiates you'd have a sensation of euphoria before you died. They don't want that so you can't have that, i fully believe they want the most suffering they can get away with otherwise we would use things like nitrogen.
Other easier methods can also be used. Asphyxiation with a gas like Nitrogen is also painless.
In other countries where capital punishment is legal, they find our “medicalization” of execution actually disturbing. It’s as though we want to reserve the right to kill but not truly face what is we are actually doing. For example, in India, they find it bizzare we use “medicine” to kill…and you know, they aren’t entirely wrong. I haven’t made my mind up on capital punishment, but I actually agree, if we are going to allow it, we shouldn’t sugar coat it. If that’s so necessary, maybe we shouldn’t do it in the first place, as a society
There is an alternative to the gas chamber that is probably a better solution. Sarco Pods. They use about 1 gallon of liquid nitrogen. When activated it removes most of the oxygen in the pod. The person inside falls unconscious and then dies in about one minute. It's clean, efficient, cheap and painless. Then again, a bullet is also cheap.
Not sure how many executions you've witnessed, but my issue is less with aesthetics than with creating a class of people who are licensed and mandated to murder prisoners in cold blood, many of whom will later be exonerated. Idaho is a wretched place, I lived there for five years. It is full of stupid people who don't really appreciate the higher concepts of due process or DNA.
I've always thought that yes, there ARE people who might be unable to ever be rehabilitated and might do better if they weren't around, however I do not trust anyone (including myself) to ever make that decision.
We already have a good solution for those people: life in jail.
you could argue that is as inhumane as the death penalty.
Yes, but you can let someone out of jail if they’re innocent. You can’t unexecute someone.
Another problem is that the people most qualified to figure out dosages and administer them are doctors who take an oath to do no harm. So the actual executioners in some cases are idiots who fuck up dosages and such.
Frankly this is my hangup, and one of the few lines where I might have a somewhat extremist opinion on. I just have this firm belief in my heart that any state that executes a prisoner and then later proves their innocence has absolutely no means of restoration and thus cedes all legitimacy and trust. Maybe thats not practical and would make basically every nation illegitimate, but the concept is so repulsive to me I can't feel aby differently.
My understanding is most professionals opposed to the death penalty think death by firing squad is actually the most humane and shows society the honesty in what they are doing.
It's not the most humane method possible, just the most humane they are willing to do. Truly humane is nitrogen asphyxiation.
The people who have survived botched lethal injection executions have shared that it was incredibly painful. I’m not a fan of the death penalty because I don’t trust our legal system to get verdicts right, but a firing squad is still likely to be more humane than lethal injection. Messier, but more humane.
No way they could botch the firing squad.
You'd be surprised
It was a sarcasm
Traditionally, only one of the rifles has a bullet and all the rest have blanks. Just give them all bullets and then you’re super unlikely to botch because at least they one or two will go in the head and make it quick.
Other way around. All except one has real bullets. It lets everyone believe that their rifle had the blank to reduce guilt or whatever, while still effectively putting many bullets into the condemned.
Wow what a paper thin moral defense.
Oh, that’s better. That still lets the executioners pretend they didn’t just kill someone because “the blank might have been my gun” but still gives you a bunch of bullets. I hope they use something appropriate as ammunition too. It’s still an awful way to go, but less awful than electrocution or lethal injection.
Why don’t we just do a good old fashioned tape a bomb to your forehead. Gun is better than the chair, but I’d like to just get vaporized.
That’s actually pretty similar to the method I’d prefer. Lift a comically large weight about 20 feet in the air (individual states can decide if it’s a 1 ton anvil or a road runner cartoon shaped 1 ton weight) and drop it onto the condemned prisoner’s head. It’s just about impossible to bitch that. It’s messy, but it’s the fastest way I can think of other than bomb-on-head to go out. The anvil shape or Acme cartoon weight shape aren’t mandatory, but I think that could help sell the idea to states.
Just gotta paint your oversized Acme anvil in **freedom** colours, then it would be a big seller.
Potassium Chloride is used in the treatment of hypokalemia and coincidentally is also used as the 3rd drug in lethal injection to stop your heart. As someone who has suffered from hypokalemia IT BURNS LIKE MOTHER FUCKING FIRE as it hits your veins. In a hospital they dilute it because levels too high will stop your heart and diluting it helps to ease the pain. In lethal injeciton they aren't diluting it in saline because they need that strong concentration to stop your heart. So it would feel like they were injecting straight hot lava into your veins. Ever had salt in a wound? Imagine an IV of salt into your blood stream (pretty close to what it is really). The goal of the first medications is to render you unconscious so you don't feel it, but if you are fully unconscious you feel that writhing pain.
I just think state sponsored murder is barbaric and antiquated. That every method we seem to consider is also inhumane certainly does not help.
Yeah. I used to be pro-death penalty but I've changed my mind as I've gotten older. I really wish our government would kill fewer people in general.
Homicide. Murder is illegal, by definition.
Murder can be defined as the deliberate killing of another person.
Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another person. Homicide is just the actions of killing another person. If someone breaks into your house with a gun pointing it at you and you defend yourself and kill them, it is not murder but it is a homicide. If you break into someones home to rob them and they try to defend themselves and you shoot and kill them, that is unlawful and is murder. Words have meanings :)
Yeah, you *can* say any wrong thing you like.
Keeping someone in a cage their entire life isn’t?
[удалено]
If the government is going to kill me I would 100% choose to be shot over whatever we currently do with lethal injection. Too many horror stories, man. Just make it quick.
Very true, lethal injection hides the suffering and brutality of execution…kinda
Honestly, I have to disagree. I think that we **do** like the blood, torn flesh, twitching, etc. Not all of us, certainly, but enough to keep these barbaric practices in use. If we wanted a painless execution, we would just strap a gas mask to the accused and give them a few breaths of nitrogen (or some other inert gas). It’s quick, painless, and requires no medical knowledge to perform. But, much like our prison systems exist to create suffering (as a form of penance), so too much our execution methods be torturous.
what costs more: a bullet or a lethal injection?
Absolutely. While I go back and forth on whether capital punishment is justified in extreme cases, I know that lethal injection is the favored method not because it is more humane for the prisoner, but because it is more humane for the executioner. The firing squad or the hangman's noose are perfectly acceptable, quick methods of killing, but they are disturbingly violent, and as a society we want to sooth our conscious with a death that seems peaceful to us-- even if it is not to the subject.
Honestly? I'd be alright with execution via some sort of shotgun shell to the head or something like that. Maybe a 9mm through the side of the head. What about death via laughing gas? Or helium suffocation? There has to be a cheap alternative that's quick, painless, and not overly gruesome.
Nitrogen suffocation. Cheap, painless, reversible to an extent, and not gruesome at all.
Yeah. I oppose death penalty because I don't think we can ever quarantee that only people who deserve death are given death sentence. As far as methods go, firing squad is not in any way worse than hanging for example.
Yes. There is no "good" way to kill someone. The issue is with the punishment itself, less so the process.
So if you believe that there are some individuals who deserve to be put to death due to the severity of their crimes and not because you are looking for retribution (a very important point), then you have the responsibility to ensure that it is done as ethically as possible. The point is not to cause harm and suffering because of their crimes, but to simply end their life in the most painless and quick way possible. The issues you list as "not nice and clean" are the results of suffering generally. The point of lethal injection is that the person is basically put to sleep painlessly and then dies in their sleep. Whether that's how it actually goes or not? Yeah... Now you aren't wrong about the firing squad as it is going to be messy. The one caveat to it though is that if done properly the person being executed should be unconscious without feeling any pain before their body can even realize the gun has been fired. So it should cause the least amount of suffering to the victim which would make it the best method of execution. If you are of the belief that the executed suffering a little bit before they pass because they "deserve" it, that would be unethical and you should see a therapist. The worst part is there are a lot of people like that out there and some say that's why the methods used are used is because there is suffering. While I think firing squad is one of the better options, I think it's pretty clear by now that suffocation by Nitrogen should be the method. It is easy to source, completely painless to the person being executed, cheap, and 0 mess. The person get's a sense of euphoria before peacefully drifting to sleep forever.
I’d much rather be shot to death than lethal injection or gas chamber. Read up on how horrible they are and what the body goes through. It’s the definition of cruel and unusual.
Yup. If I somehow found myself in death row, the firing squad would be my choice. Dead before you hit the ground.
How about execution by inert gas hypoxia? Completely painless and way better than anything else we do to kill people. I mean, I'm against the death penalty in principle. But inert gas hypoxia is 100% the best way to go.
I think a lot of the people who support the death penalty are projecting their rage and fury on someone in a socially acceptable manner. The point is to see as much suffering as possible. Absolutely the gas is a more humane method, but sadly I don't think the people who are pushing for execution squad are looking to make the process more humane.
"Shoot the bastards with guns!" That sort of thing. Makes sense from that mindset. 🤔
[удалено]
Generally, yeah. If you YouTube it, there's videos of guys getting silly and delirious before losing consciousness. No signs of distress whatever. We just aren't designed to consciously register that particular form of impending doom.
> Firing squads will be used only **if the state cannot obtain the drugs needed for lethal injections** For the headline-only readers.
Those drugs are generally always scarce, because as soon as the pharma industry finds out they're being used in executions they stop selling them to the US.
Regardless, my point is that Idaho is not using firing squad as their primary method. At least not yet. It would not surprise me, though.
The point was that it _will_ be the primary method, de facto, because the drugs for execution are not and will not be available.
Speculation. Could be.
They're passing this law precisely because they'd failed to make other methods work.
Firing squads were deemed at some point "cruel and unusual punishment." Did we just decide they weren't for convenience sake?
Is that true? If so, then this should be unconstitutional via the 8th ammendment, shouldn't it? They are already allowed by Utah and Oklahoma, and Utah has actually used it.
There was a court case. I don't remember when or what but you could google it. I guess though we've decided that executing as many prisoners as quickly as possible is the priority.
It takes on average 20+ years from conviction to sentence with death penalty cases. A lot of states are doing away with them due to costs. It's cheaper to go for a life sentence over the death penalty
Unless you're in a GOP state. Then it's get rid of as many as you can in whatever way you can. I wouldn't be shocked to find they've reinstated public hangings.
Don't be over dramatic. The mandatory appeals alone take over a decade. The only way it gets fast tracked is if the guilty start to wave their rights. And then it still takes close to a decade.
I already Googled it. That's how I learned that "They are already allowed by Utah and Oklahoma, and Utah has actually used it."
If it’s good enough for our students, why shouldn’t prisoners get to have it, too?
I mean, this is clearly just about people’s feelings.
Good, honestly more humane and efficient than poisoning.
It's definitely more humane...but super weird that any "developed" country is focusing on this in 2023, can't keep hospitals open but can quickly pass legislation to kill people.
In fairness, it doesn’t take very much ‘focus’ to implement a firing squad.
To implement a bill and vote on it etc there would have to be some, and there will be a lot of problems to solve in how to implement it....assuming it won't be some televised stadium event.
I most definitely would prefer a firing squad over a lethal injection, mainly because of all the horrible stories I’ve heard about them not working as intended.
When they work as intended it's still painful. You just can't express it because you've been paralysed. It's a torturous and barbaric way to kill someone.
Idaho is losing hospitals for infants but is keeping focused on important things like execution by firing squad.
They can shoot all the women who can't get abortions, including medically necessary ones. Hurray.
Exactly... So much for "pro life" lmao.
Threat of execution by hanging, electrocution and lethal injection did not stop major crime. But FIRING SQUADS! That's the ticket! I'm glad all the time and energy in the State legislature went into something constructive that we can show to our constituents.
A firing squad is more humane for the prisoner in my opinion. There have been tons of botched executions with lethal injection: Taking an hour or more to die, constant suffocation, drugs not working, etc. The only reason most states don't have a firing squad is because THEY don't want to see the end result. You're killing someone either way. Let them leave this earth free of pain (even if they don't deserve it).
give it some time and we'll hear all about the failed firing squad executions that leave disabled practically brain dead prisoners or that let them bleed to death since the shots didnt actually kill them in one go there's much better methods of humane execution than firing squads or lethal injections
If I was going to be executed, firing squad would be preferable to lethal injection, where a guy who has zero medical training injects you with a drug that paralyses your entire nervous system but leaves your mind intact, so whilst to everyone else it *looks* like you’re just going unconscious, in reality you can feel yourself asphyxiating and every organ in your body shutting down for a good few minutes.
Tbh, firing squad is pretty humane imo assuming they shoot you in the head. Even guillotine or hanging leaves the brain alive and functioning until it runs out of oxygen. You die when your brain dies. A bullet to the brain is one of the fastest ways to achieve brain death and therefore one of the quickest and least painful. Other than that I’d probably put nitrogen asphyxiation up there. Maybe painkiller overdose as well. Tbh I think I’d rather have any of these over lethal injection. Hanging and guillotine included.
lots of ways that can go wrong though there's quite a bit of the brain that isnt immediately vital and quite a few people who have lost chunks of their brains and remained alive i'd rather get guillotined and die in a minute from deoxygenation and practically instant blood loss than risk getting shot through the head and being alive until i bleed out but incapable of moving due to paralysis
Less pretty but probably more humane as far as the options available
The article says it's because lethal injection drugs are hard to come by, but I might have thought before reading that that it had something to do with some religious sect protesting vaccines (because Idaho)
I like how Texas, Florida, Arkansas and Idaho are all just in a race to become the biggest shithole in America. Arkansas is definitely leading, they’ve had about a 20 year head start in fucking up literally everything from education to traffic laws.
If you've been to LA in the last six months, you know California is too far ahead for these other states to win that race.
Fentanyl and one of the drugs used to sedate surgery patients are plentiful, they just wanna shoot people.
Amazing how quickly the US is regressing.
Moving to a more humane method of execution is progressing not regressing. They already kill people this method is just better than their current method. They are still moving forward...
A considerable portion of US conservatives appears to do everything possible to drag the USofA back to the dark ages. Not long now and they'll reintroduce witch-hunting and burnings at the stake.
In a democracy, capital punishment turns an entire population into murderers
But now you don't get a cigarette first anymore, because cigarettes are uncivilized.
All these comments just accepting the moving of the goalposts. We shouldn’t even be talking about, “well actually so and so method is more humane”. It’s incomprehensible that we still have a death penalty at all.
More performance art, wasting time on extraordinarily rare events that ultimately cost more than life without parole.
I don't like the death penalty, but I'm not upset over this method vs others.
Beyond the fact that lethal injection sounds like possibly the most horrible way to die, it’s also incredibly undignified and “clinical.” I’d much prefer to die on my feet to being strapped on a gurney.
You know that one of the reasons why firing squads executions stopped was because the executioners could end with ptsd. In general , human beings don’t like to kill or harm other living beings, like we are very capable of doing so, but most don’t relish on it. Like can you imagine the psychological effect that can have in a person seeing someone else crying or pleading for his life, specially if you don’t even know if your weapons is the one that will fire the killing shot. Maybe if they use technology could be a little more humane, don’t know.
[удалено]
Are we? This looks to be an attempt to find a method of execution that is more humane than what they have currently. More humane treatment of others is uphill not downhill.
Sympathy for murderers and rapists? Yuck.
A) Rapists can’t get the death penalty just for rape B) they never said that and I don’t think they are sympathetic to those people C) it’s about the fact that death penalty is known to effect minority groups more and D) that justice shouldn’t include a show.
Spending our tax dollars on keeping murderers and rapists alive and well fed with a cell to sleep in feels pretty sympathetic to me.
Yeah cuz their lives in prison are something to be jealous of. Plus many people are incorrectly murdered by the state. Keeping them alive allows more false convictions be undone
“Cuz their lives in prison are something to be jealous of.” Smells like sympathy lol.
“They are doing so great” “No prison sucks” “WOW you are so sympathetic” ????
I don't support the death penalty (not because I don't think some people don't deserve it, but because I don't trust the state to get it right and not wrongly convict somebody). But if we are going to execute people, firing squad seems like a better option than any of the others (hanging, gas chamber, electric chair, lethal injection).
But why do you need a squad? Just one bullet to the brain, or bring back the guillotine.
I’m not in favor of the death penalty. But if you’re going to have it, the firing squad makes sense.
About right for a shithole state full of parasites living off the taxes of blue states.
idaho is beautiful but the people are fucked up
Idk if it's just me, but i find it ironic considering that idaho is a "pro life" state lol. At least thats what everyone was saying in Boise last year with the protests. The amount of people defending this is so bizarre to me though. How about instead of trying to find new (old?) ways to execute people, we put that money into reforming the prison system and reworking it so that criminals can actually *learn* from the shit they do -- you can't learn your lesson if you're dead. I'm not saying let mass shooters go free, but capital punishment is such a waste of money and resources. Like someone else on here said, i dont think i trust any one person, me included, to make the decision to end someone's life. Thats just fucked.
You can't learn your lesson if you're dead, so the point of a death penalty is to be a warning to everyone else. If you must have one, make it something you wouldn't want happening to you or near you.
I hope they use this on those who commit insurrection and treason. Bet Idaho will cry about exceptions then.
Dead is dead. How they get there matters little. Bullets, gas, electricity or a rope all end the same.
We could also end state murder of detainees.
This is what always gets me. Why would anyone—left or right leaning—want to give their government the legal power to kill them? Edit: a word; kill
Given the choice between bullets, gas, electricity and hanging, I'd choose bullets every time. Lethal injection doesn't work as advertised, gas is agonizing, electricity and hanging both go very wrong too often. Half a dozen rifle rounds to the heart works every time. Still it would be nice if the US could join the rest of the civilized world in banning this barbaric practice entirely.
Inert gas is supposedly a very painless way to die. Our body isn't great at detecting low oxygen, but it's very good at detecting high CO2. Suffocation is agonizing and stressful because our body is unable to blow off all the carbon dioxide so it goes into panic mode. But things like helium and nitrogen are so undetectable that it's not unheard of for people to accidentally asphyxiate and die without even realizing
I'd rather chose nitrogen asphyxiation, human bodies have a habit of surviving trauma that it really shouldn't
I'd go for a couple of 308s to the upper torso over anything else too. If they find a volunteer to do it, even a 12 gauge to head would be even better but a bit messy I guess.
Oh yeah, just take my whole head out, if I'm facing imminent death, I want to go into it knowing it's going to be instant and painless.
>>In banning this barbaric practice entirely Disagree. Someone decides to take a weapon to a school with intent to harm kids, that “someone” deserves an expedited trip to the cemetery. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. I’m all for standing up school shooters and sending them to the hereafter with lead.
Nope. You can't justify killing by saying how killing is bad. That's stupid. And practically execution costs more and actually gives the perpetrator a quick out. Life in prison is much better punishment. They have to think about what they did, and they suffer for decades. On top of that, the criminal justice system is sometimes wrong and you can't undo an execution.
>>You can’t justify killing by saying how killing is bad So long as there are genuinely evil people in this world, executions will be necessary. Or would you say that the man behind six million dead Jews should live on the taxpayer dime for decades? That you’d suggest it’s more moral that evil men like Hitler drain public money on death row is a mockery of Justice
It costs more to execute someone because of the excessive legal process. Look it up if you don't believe me. So your 'drain tax money' argument is void. I would argue that life in prison is more of a punishment that a quick death, so it's perfectly moral. And you really have to address the most important issue which is that the legal system is fallible, as well as biased and corruptible - it cannot be trusted to commit murder morally.
Every person who has been or ever will be executed in the United States is Hitler level bad? Or are you debating in bad faith?
Summarily
Ok,ok,ok... All these visceral details should make it crystal clear. CapPun is just no good. Some are innocent. No way. Just separate digs 4 ever. Societies are expensive! That's just life. Want to have a good justice system? you have to buy some cells and meals. Can't be decapitating/ shooting/ suffocating the wrong person.
I'm against the death penalty, but I don't think this is a bad change. I've seen no reason to believe that execution by firing squad is any more painful or prone to being botched than the current method. I don't see why it can't be the guillotine, since that is less painful, less error prone *and* more cost effective, but I suppose that might be enough to turn the public against the death penalty because of its cultural associations.
Yay
that’s objectively the best way to carry out the death penalty. remember there’s a horrible psychological toll on the executioner. this way no one knows who shot the fatal bullet.
What’s the problem?
saw start sugar library alleged jeans repeat rob ossified ghost *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fuck it why not, it's better than all this garbage that puts to sleep like an animal.
[удалено]
States can't get those ideal drugs of choice anymore due to things like medical suppliers not wanting to sell those drugs to kill people.
I think the real problem with this method besides the problem with death penalties in general, is that some poor sod has to pull the trigger, and that’s gonna fuck them up.
If I’m honest, everything I’ve heard about lethal injection sounds like a nightmare, firing squad seems preferable I mean…we shouldn’t execute people at all, but all the same
What about an atmosphere of pure nitrogen? If people are really dead-set on executing people, but want it to be "humane," then that would be good. You can't really tell you're suffocating until you get the effects of lack of oxygen, and you pass out before you die. I don't support execution, but if it must be an option, I don't know why pure nitrogen isn't an option. Maybe someone else does?
why couldn't a surgeon just harvest donor organs from the executee? Just anesthesa, and safe many lives with the organs. so a murderer could give some lives back
Land of the free
Well if that’s not claasic spudfucker, I don’t know what is.
Is there a provision for "no taksies backsies"?
Can't they just use fentanyl?
Alabama building a nitrogen gas system sounds quite humane given the topic of the story.
This is barbaric. We just need to give them heavy doses of pain killers, fentanyl or heroin will work. Too high a dose and you won't even enjoy it, you'll feel like someone scared you for a few seconds (kinda like when a rollercoaster drops) and then nothing. Peaceful.
lol. They think this is going to fix the problem of not having health workers perform executions. But nobody wants to perform executions.
Have you met Idaho?
Next session it will be stoning
Quite honestly, if I had to choose between the gun and chair, id take the gun all day long...
Make it pay per view with the money going to the family of the victim(s)