Utah becomes only state in America to approve death by firing squad

[master_shake_]

How about we just execute people who are 100% guilty. Meaning DNA, caught on camera doing it, admitting to it, etc? Would you be ok in those circumstances?

that there is an orgy of evidence happens maybe once in a lifetime.

 

[Zorba]

If deterrence is the goal, then executions need to be as public as possible.

I'm ok with the death penalty in principle, but am against it for practical and political reasons:
1. too many wrongful convictions by overzealous and unethical DAs
2. I don't trust the government with the authority to kill its citizens for any reason.
Both of which stem from the fact that in the event of a mistake there's no undoing death.


If you're going to have a death penalty though; you need to do it right: gas chamber filled with inert gas such as helium or nitrogen (e.g not cyanide)

This is exactly what I was going to post. Way too many innocent people are put to death. And the application of the death penalty is obviously biased against the poor/black.

I think spending your life in a tiny cell is just as good as a deterrent as the DP, because people either A) Don't think they will be caught B) Don't care about the consequences at the time C) Spending your life in a maximum security prison sucks too.

 

[Zorba]

that there is an orgy of evidence happens maybe once in a lifetime.

And when it does happen, the defendant will plead out in exchange for no death penalty.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

that there is an orgy of evidence happens maybe once in a lifetime.

I think people are thinking of things like Aurora or Sandy Hook or the Norway shooting spree when they talk about crimes where there's no doubt the perpetrator is guilty of seriously heinous acts. But like you said, these crimes are exceedingly rare. How do you craft the death penalty to specifically cover such a small percentage of cases? And why bother, since in every one of those cases the perpetrator was off their tit and the death penalty won't deter a lunatic from being crazy? I've always been pro-death penalty, but it's costlier than a life sentence, it's not generally a deterrent to heinous crimes, and it's been used on people who were proven innocent after the state killed them... so, yeah, what exactly is the benefit again? It seems to exist solely to satisfy a vengeful bloodlust, and that's not a great reason to pass legislation.

 

[Ackmed]

So not only are you really stupid, but a liar as well. Which is typical for death penalty supporters. Probably something with how they are raised, I guess garbage in, garbage out.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean it is right. Please provide proof where I lied about wanting innocent people executed. If you're going to make silly statements like that, then back them up.

Your ignorant blanket statement about death penalty supporters is pretty laughable, judging them by one decision. Only you are right and nobody else!!!! So funny.

 

[brycejones]

There isn't, we already had a thread on this not long ago.

You at least learned that much.

 

[CitizenKain]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean it is right. Please provide proof where I lied about wanting innocent people executed. If you're going to make silly statements like that, then back them up.

Your ignorant blanket statement about death penalty supporters is pretty laughable, judging them by one decision. Only you are right and nobody else!!!! So funny.

And then IF an appeal is warranted then they deserve that. I do not want innocent people executed. But silly appeals that take over 20 years? C'mon now, that is just stupid.Once the verdict is in and appeals are used, do it.

Right there. You say you don't want innocent people executed, then at the same time say to hurry the process up. Can't have both. So, you want to speed up the process, but that means limiting appeals, which means people have less chance to prove their innocence. Let me know if this is going too fast for you.

This is in the news now: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...tor-who-sent-an-innocent-to-death-row/388496/
Glen Ford was on death row for 30 years before being found innocent. Now, if someone like you had their way, he would have been dead 29 years ago. What would you say about that? Shit happens? Oh well?
Death Penalty supporters should be nervous about stories like that, but I never see that. Instead they just ignore it and continue screaming how we need to kill more people faster.

 

[Jaskalas]

1: Executions should be limited to cases of absolute certainty. A higher standard beyond reasonable doubt.
2: There should be a standard appeal process that expedites the proceedings after conviction and sentencing. 5 years max.
3: Method should be as swift and humane as possible.

I do not think firing squad counts, and I fully reject it under today's standard of reasonable doubt.

 

[Genx87]

How about we just execute people who are 100% guilty. Meaning DNA, caught on camera doing it, admitting to it, etc? Would you be ok in those circumstances?

If this was fantasy land you may have a point. In the real world proving 100% guilt is nearly impossible. In fact we aren't even close.

 

[Jaskalas]

that there is an orgy of evidence happens maybe once in a lifetime.

Really? I'll submit four that meet the standard I'm imagining.

Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan
Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Theater shooter James Holmes
Mass shooter Jared Lee Loughner

 

[glenn1]

That flaw cant be fixed. So yes I am fine with them all living in confinement for the rest of their lives.

Until it's decided that's not longer acceptable either, which is the next argument. Not to mention that it kinda removes any reason for criminals to show restraint at all - why not kill the potential witnesses or prison guard if it doesn't worsen the severity of the sentence anyway? What are you going to do, give them a second or third sentence of life without parole?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Really? I'll submit four that meet the standard I'm imagining.

Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan
Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Theater shooter James Holmes
Mass shooter Jared Lee Loughner

Those happened in four different jurisdictions, so the point is still valid; the type of crime that would be covered by the death penalty you envision is so unusual that a state might only see one example every 50 years or more. That's a very specific and extremely rare set of circumstances to write legislation for. And the death penalty wouldn't have been a deterrent in a single one of those cases, so it's not a preventative measure, it's strictly punitive. That's all well and good after the fact, but if it's not actually going to prevent horrible things from happening, should the state be killing people?

 

[Genx87]

Until it's decided that's not longer acceptable either, which is the next argument. Not to mention that it kinda removes any reason for criminals to show restraint at all - why not kill the potential witnesses or prison guard if it doesn't worsen the severity of the sentence anyway? What are you going to do, give them a second or third sentence of life without parole?

3 strike laws are idiotic. It is the zero tolerance of criminal law. Im fine with violent offenders being tossed away for good. If somebody commits a non-violent offense 3 times and is tossed away for good? That is just stupid.

 

[echo4747]

If a state is going to have a death penalty there has to be a method. The firing squad is no more gruesome than the lethal injection, electric chair or hanging. I personally don't have a problem with it, but I feel that the bar should be set rather higher for proof at conviction. The thing that I do have an issue with is the years and years of lingering on death row. That should end.

Agree completely.

 

[Blackjack200]

Wonder if the forum software allows for a minimum post requirement before starting new threads in ATPN. Hit and run OP, probably a pseudonym here.

 

[irishScott]

It's disgusting that the Death Penalty still exists in this age. I don't care what the Criminal has been found guilty of, there is no need for the DP. It doesn't deter anything and all too often it merely kills innocent people who were railroaded by the system.

There should be a high standard of evidence needed to invoke it to prevent said railroading. Beyond that I don't see the issue. It saves money and can possibly serve as a deterrent. Right not it certainly doesn't do either as being on "death row" means you've still got years or decades of appeals to live through.

 

[fskimospy]

There should be a high standard of evidence needed to invoke it to prevent said railroading. Beyond that I don't see the issue. It saves money and can possibly serve as a deterrent. Right not it certainly doesn't do either as being on "death row" means you've still got years or decades of appeals to live through.

I think the first half of your post and the second half are in conflict.

It doesn't save money because of the high standard of evidence. You can't have both.

 

[Jhhnn]

There should be a high standard of evidence needed to invoke it to prevent said railroading. Beyond that I don't see the issue. It saves money and can possibly serve as a deterrent. Right not it certainly doesn't do either as being on "death row" means you've still got years or decades of appeals to live through.

Why bother, other than for the sake of vengeance?

"Possibly serve as a deterrent" is the death penalty equivalent of reefer madness. It's mere assertion of what you want to believe- aka Bullshit.

As it is, the death penalty *does not save money* & the chances of that changing are as close to zero as it gets. Death penalty opponents will continue to make every appeal possible regardless of the guilt or innocence of their client while contributing to an overload on the legal system. They won't show nearly the same zeal if the death penalty went away.

As taxpayers, we should oppose the death penalty simply because it costs a lot more than keeping a prisoner until he dies on the inside & the real world difference to us is basically non-existent.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am OK with the death penalty. I don't agree with torturing criminals though.

Nonetheless, if Americans want a long drawn out torturous execution - push for it. Let's see how far the tortured execution campaign will get you.

Also, how do you handle a situation where you torture someone who was convicted for murder/rape, they are executed and years later it turns out they were innocent? That person was not only wrongly executed, but they were tortured in the process as well. That's pretty fucked up.

What then? Will the people pushing for tortured executions carry some of the responsibility? Of course not. And that is why they amount to nothing more than keyboard mashers and the real people are leading this nation.

 

[irishScott]

I think the first half of your post and the second half are in conflict.

It doesn't save money because of the high standard of evidence. You can't have both.

High standard of evidence and endless appeals process are two very different things. If there's no new evidence to present and no debate over the nature of the evidence then appealing is just reinventing the wheel multiple times and a pure stalling tactic.

 

[fskimospy]

High standard of evidence and endless appeals process are two very different things. If there's no new evidence to present and no debate over the nature of the evidence then appealing is just reinventing the wheel multiple times and a pure stalling tactic.

Yeah but there almost always is, hence all the appeals.

 

[irishScott]

Why bother, other than for the sake of vengeance?

"Possibly serve as a deterrent" is the death penalty equivalent of reefer madness. It's mere assertion of what you want to believe- aka Bullshit.

As it is, the death penalty *does not save money* & the chances of that changing are as close to zero as it gets. Death penalty opponents will continue to make every appeal possible regardless of the guilt or innocence of their client while contributing to an overload on the legal system. They won't show nearly the same zeal if the death penalty went away.

As taxpayers, we should oppose the death penalty simply because it costs a lot more than keeping a prisoner until he dies on the inside & the real world difference to us is basically non-existent.

Yes it is an assertion of what I believe, which is why I qualified it with "possibly".

As for the cost of the death penalty, so because the current system is inefficient we should just abolish it? Were I in charge I would substantially limit the appeals process in the face of a high standard of evidence, among other measures. It's probably never going to happen as you say, but saying "well the system sucks, so get rid of it and things will suck less!" is rather fallacious. I'm sure society would get by just fine without the death penalty, I just think it'd be better with an efficient death penalty.

 

[irishScott]

Yeah but there almost always is, hence all the appeals.

Well we can debate what the "high standard" should be all day, but even if only an extreme minority meet it it would be worth it IMO. Obviously lowering the standard too far won't work, we're not going to solve criminality by killing all the criminals. The idea is to publicly demonstrate swift, decisive and final action on the part of the justice system and to save the taxpayers money.

 

[fskimospy]

Well we can debate what the "high standard" should be all day, but even if only an extreme minority meet it it would be worth it IMO. Obviously lowering the standard too far won't work, we're not going to solve criminality by killing all the criminals. The idea is to publicly demonstrate swift, decisive and final action on the part of the justice system and to save the taxpayers money.

You could save the taxpayers even more money by doing away with the death penalty altogether though, so if saving money is your justification it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The idea is to publicly demonstrate swift, decisive and final action on the part of the justice system and to save the taxpayers money.

Which it demonstrably does not do. But you gotta spend money to make money, right?