Author Topic: What the hell? This state can be awesome sometimes...firing squad? (Read 37630 times)

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas · « **Reply #25 on:** January 27, 2009, 04:19:06 PM »

Quote from: The Viking on January 27, 2009, 04:01:08 PM

Vogon poetry?

Marnoot · « **Reply #26 on:** January 27, 2009, 04:51:14 PM »

Quote from: Waitone on January 27, 2009, 03:54:21 PM

Utah has provisions for firing squads as a method of execution. Last time it was used was Gary Mark Gilmore's execution in the 70's. It was his choice.

We should be concerned over the psychological well-being of the executioner. Everything else is irrelevant.

Actually the last time it was used here (Utah) was 1995 for John Albert Taylor. The state then outlawed it in 2004. Taylor reportedly wanted the firing squad specifically because it is a circus and he wanted to make things more difficult for the state.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #27 on:** January 27, 2009, 05:00:55 PM »

1500 folks volunteered to be on gilmores squad. got a couple good books on him.

French G. · « **Reply #28 on:** January 27, 2009, 05:30:42 PM »

Quote

This bill provides for death by firing squad for causing the death of another by the use of a firearm, while engaged in the commission of a felony.

In other news today, man convicted of felony manslaughter after shooting a youth that had entered his home. Firing squad footage of this criminal coming up on news at 11!

There are already enough places in the world where defending yourself will make you subject to prosecution. I'm pretty tired of the NRA hang 'em high enforce all gun laws, no guns for felons shtick. Pretty soon spitting on the sidewalk will be a felony and there are already plenty of immoral gun laws on the books.

erictank · « **Reply #29 on:** January 27, 2009, 08:54:16 PM »

Quote from: The Viking on January 27, 2009, 12:38:13 PM

"Would you like to know more?"

Blast you for saying what I was thinking before I could get here!

Quote from: The Viking on January 27, 2009, 04:01:08 PM

Vogon poetry?

The Eighth Amendment DOES prohibit "cruel and unusual punishment", you know...

Manedwolf · « **Reply #30 on:** January 27, 2009, 09:13:12 PM »

Quote from: French G. on January 27, 2009, 05:30:42 PM

In other news today, man convicted of felony manslaughter after shooting a youth that had entered his home. Firing squad footage of this criminal coming up on news at 11!

There are already enough places in the world where defending yourself will make you subject to prosecution. I'm pretty tired of the NRA hang 'em high enforce all gun laws, no guns for felons shtick. Pretty soon spitting on the sidewalk will be a felony and there are already plenty of immoral gun laws on the books.

I am pretty sure they're thinking more in terms of the lowlife from MA who pointblank shot a bicycle cop in the head.

Beagle · « **Reply #31 on:** January 27, 2009, 09:14:51 PM »

IMO it is only acceptable to kill in the immediate defense of innocent life. Capital punishment doesn't meet that standard.

At any rate, at least a dozen folks have been absolutely exonerated by DNA and released from death row. The execution of innocents is too high a price to pay for any "deterrent effect" created by capital punishment.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #32 on:** January 27, 2009, 09:17:58 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 09:14:51 PM

IMO it is only acceptable to kill in the immediate defense of innocent life. Capital punishment doesn't meet that standard.

At any rate, at least a dozen folks have been absolutely exonerated by DNA and released from death row. The execution of innocents is too high a price to pay for any "deterrent effect" created by capital punishment.

Disagree. You go look up the details of Michael Addison's murder of Officer Michael Briggs in Manchester, NH, and tell me that that lowlife didn't deserve two rounds to the head immediately following the guilty verdict.

Beagle · « **Reply #33 on:** January 27, 2009, 09:34:58 PM »

Sure. But killing him doesn't do anything -- except perhaps satisfy a need for revenge -- that isn't accomplished by life imprisonment. And considering that innocent people are almost certainly put to death by the state, one has to wonder what is the acceptable ratio. One "oops!" for every hundred instances of revenge? Two? Ten?

On a slightly unrelated note, I am always surprised when conservatives -- ostensibly supporters of small government -- are usually the ones pushing the hardest for granting the state one of the highest powers imaginable. Just another strange bedfellow, suppose.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #34 on:** January 27, 2009, 09:52:27 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 09:34:58 PM

Sure. But killing him doesn't do anything -- except perhaps satisfy a need for revenge -- that isn't accomplished by life imprisonment. And considering that innocent people are almost certainly put to death by the state, one has to wonder what is the acceptable ratio. One "oops!" for every hundred instances of revenge? Two? Ten?

On a slightly unrelated note, I am always surprised when conservatives -- ostensibly supporters of small government -- are usually the ones pushing the hardest for granting the state one of the highest powers imaginable. Just another strange bedfellow, suppose.

No.

It's deletion, instead of wasting taxpayer money to keep it alive for however many years it lives, because it can't ever be allowed to be inflicted on society.

Beagle · « **Reply #35 on:** January 27, 2009, 09:54:31 PM »

It costs more to kill them than it does to keep them alive. One can argue whether it should be so, but it remains fact.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #36 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:40:47 PM »

And considering that innocent people are almost certainly put to death by the state, one has to wonder what is the acceptable ratio. One "oops!" for every hundred instances of revenge?

who do you think should be on that list. i've got one and a possible. i'm curious who else folks think we fried that were innocent

roo_ster · « **Reply #37 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:45:42 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 09:34:58 PM

Sure. But killing him doesn't do anything -- except perhaps satisfy a need for revenge -- that isn't accomplished by life imprisonment. And considering that innocent people are almost certainly put to death by the state, one has to wonder what is the acceptable ratio. One "oops!" for every hundred instances of revenge? Two? Ten?

On a slightly unrelated note, I am always surprised when conservatives -- ostensibly supporters of small government -- are usually the ones pushing the hardest for granting the state one of the highest powers imaginable. Just another strange bedfellow, suppose.

What & how we punish shows what we value, to a good extent. Making the price of murder one's life indicates we value innocent human life more than those who imprison them for a while and then let them out on furlough.

Also, "life imprisonment" still allows a lot of shenanigans to be performed by hte lifer, who has nothing to lose in a non-death-penalty state.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #38 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:49:57 PM »

Quote from: jfruser on January 27, 2009, 10:45:42 PM

What & how we punish shows what we value, to a good extent. Making the price of murder one's life indicates we value innocent human life more than those who imprison them for a while and then let them out on furlough.

True that. I support the death penalty because I place a very high value on innocent life.

Beagle · « **Reply #39 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:52:38 PM »

Quote

who do you think should be on that list. i've got one and a possible. i'm curious who else folks think we fried that were innocent

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1935

Tough case to make, at any rate. Everyone knows that there are no guilty men in prison, and everyone's got a sob story. I personally can't say for a fact that anyone has been wrongfully put to death. I base the argument upon the absolute fact that many death row inmates have been released based upon essentially infallible DNA evidence. It must then follow that prior to DNA evidence, innocent men were put to death.

Beagle · « **Reply #40 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:54:02 PM »

Quote

What & how we punish shows what we value, to a good extent.

Then it must also be true that our values include occasionally killing an innocent person.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #41 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:57:19 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 10:54:02 PM

Then it must also be true that our values include occasionally killing an innocent person.

I disagree. With all of the court trials and appeals and more trials and still more appeals associated with death penalty cases, I think that it just doesn't happen these days.

Beagle · « **Reply #42 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:01:37 PM »

I think you owe it to yourself to undertake a very thorough investigation of that opinion. You may be surprised at the results.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #43 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:05:06 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 11:01:37 PM

I think you owe it to yourself to undertake a very thorough investigation of that opinion. You may be surprised at the results.

What makes you think I haven't?

I think you owe it to yourself to not make baseless assumptions around here. Disagreement with your opinion is not an indication of ignorance. APS is not a place where you can get away with that kind of stuff.

Beagle · « **Reply #44 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:09:22 PM »

Your belief that no innocent man could possibly be condemned to death. There is simply to much contrary evidence for that belief.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #45 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:17:56 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 09:14:51 PM

The execution of innocents is too high a price to pay for any "deterrent effect" created by capital punishment.

Deterrence is secondary to justice. When the state fails to execute the murderer, justice is denied.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #46 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:18:20 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 10:52:38 PM

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1935

Tough case to make, at any rate. Everyone knows that there are no guilty men in prison, and everyone's got a sob story. I personally can't say for a fact that anyone has been wrongfully put to death. I base the argument upon the absolute fact that many death row inmates have been released based upon essentially infallible DNA evidence. It must then follow that prior to DNA evidence, innocent men were put to death.

you gotta look at some of the anti capital punishment folks stuff witha jaundiced eye. a good example is the guy in texas that they have a s a poster child on the innocence project site. they assert his innocence in the rape murder but strangly enough over look his 2 previous rape charges as well as the fact that a piece torn from the dead girls panty hose was found in the trash at his home as well as hairs torn from her head (roots attached were found in his truck and cell phone records place him where the body was found on the day of the murder. and he swears he was nowhere near there. they believe their cause is just and have an agenda too.

i think we've done at least one woman wrongfully and i have some questions about ronald keith coleman

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #47 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:19:29 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 11:09:22 PM

Your belief that no innocent man could possibly be condemned to death. There is simply to much contrary evidence for that belief.

Name all of this contrary evidence.

Beagle · « **Reply #48 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:21:45 PM »

Pass. "I think you owe it to yourself to undertake a very thorough investigation, etc., etc."

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #49 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:22:51 PM »

Quote from: Beagle on January 27, 2009, 11:21:45 PM

Pass. I think you owe it to yourself to undertake a very thorough investigation of that opinion. You may be surprised at the results.

Ok then.

Welcome to APS.

News:

Author Topic: What the hell? This state can be awesome sometimes...firing squad? (Read 37630 times)