Kentucky and Death Penalty

[Gerald Tarrant]

I'm expecting some flaming becasue of misuse of this particular method in the past, but why not the Guillotine? My understanding of it was that it was carefully designed to be as humane an execution system as possible. Furthermore American's current aversion for all things French (except trampolines) might make them more loathe to apply a death penalty; if you had to use something French.

A possible complication: My quick googling came up with a few instances (some apocryphal and some carefully recorded) of decapitated heads actually performing what looked like focused, intelligent actions. But I don't know how commonplace that sort of thing is. Obviously if there is still awareness after decapitation, then the system sucks.

I suppose a possible solution would be giving the condemned general anesthesia, or putting them completely under. Although that would seem to answer most objections about painful executions, not just the worry about the Guillotine.

[CmdrWilkens]

The Guillotine kills the body but the brain has blood and can, and often enough does, continue to operate for a brief period after decapitation if the brain is sufficiently resistant to shock which the adrenaline high of being on the chopping block will do. Also, in reference to my earlier point about not blowing the bodies up, its a highly unneccessarry burden on the famalies, they didn't commit a crime so forcing them to have a closed casket funeral seeks rather petty.

[CmdrWilkens]

There's something here that's missing that nobody's brought up: concern for the executioners.

A firing squad is supremely superior to all the other alternatives in this regard. They can load seven guns with blanks, and have one with a bullet. Or three with bullets, however many is necessary. If all eight are marksmen, at point blank range, there will be minsicule chance of miss. They just got to pick a gun that it's hard to tell if you're shooting a live round or not, and ready. Even if it's easy to tell (I don't know I've never fired a gun) there's a psychological factor: maybe it wasn't his bullet that killed the guy, and maybe he heard wrong.

Then nobody has to go around their whole lives thinking that they killed a man. A hood works for hiding the identity of the executioner from the public, but the executioner still has to live with himself. I remember a news article with an executioner who retired, and they were having trouble finding people for the job. I sure wouldn't want to be the guy who hangs people for a living, and I especially wouldn't want to be the guy digging in someone's arm to stick in a needle.

Doctors will be loathe to go around killing people involuntarily with lethal injection. So the injection is administered by substandard people. But it's a lot easier to find eight reservists to form a firing squad to kill a serial rapist or mass murderer, and they will never even know if it was their bullet that killed the guy (or if their gun even fired a bullet.)

Okay as a starter any decently trained marksman can tell the difference between a blank and a live round so throw that idea out. Second unless you are putting the rifle at the base of the skull it can go wrong and even in that case with a single round it can ricochet off the skull in odd directions not causing death instantly. If you step back to administer and maybe aim for the hear (which is hwo a firing squad was normally done) then you have the real chance of having to wait until the coup de grace. Moreover in all of these circumstances (especially if we were to adopt Marina's sujestion of an immediate coup de grace) you are going to seriously fuck up the body. I don't see the point in hurting the surviving family any more than you have to so damaging the body (and in the case of a coup de grace probably forcing a closed casket funeral) just doesn't sit well with me.

[Mr Bean]

Speaking of Firing squad concerns, can we not eliminate the problem by simply using a bigger bullet?

Yes if a .223 might occasionally not cause death, why not compensate by using larger rounds such as the classic .30-06? Or overcompensate and use .50cal anti-material rounds?

If death is instant, does it matter if the funeral must be closed coffin?

[Flagg]

The Guillotine kills the body but the brain has blood and can, and often enough does, continue to operate for a brief period after decapitation if the brain is sufficiently resistant to shock which the adrenaline high of being on the chopping block will do. Also, in reference to my earlier point about not blowing the bodies up, its a highly unneccessarry burden on the famalies, they didn't commit a crime so forcing them to have a closed casket funeral seeks rather petty.

Just put them out before doing it.

[Mr Bean]

Back onto the other point.

I simply can not accept Flagg's position, that because one day we might kill an innocent person, we must never kill anyone. That's a moral, rather than a logical position. Or do you not accept Flagg that there exists people who are a danger to others forever?

Let me give you a current politican example, Wayne Dumond the serial rapist who was released by Huckabee when he was a governer, Mr Dumond after being released went on to rape again, but started killing his victims so they could not testify against him.

The physical evidence him was overwhelming, both DNA, fingerprint and eyewitness saw him in the area. We know he will rape if he's ever let out, and he will kill if you let him. Can you support letting such a dangerous psychopathy live? Knowing the danger he poses to society at large?

As I said, locking him in jail for the rest of his life is STILL a death sentence, just one that's going to take forty years to carry out.

[Flagg]

Back onto the other point.

I simply can not accept Flagg's position, that because one day we might kill an innocent person, we must never kill anyone. That's a moral, rather than a logical position. Or do you not accept Flagg that there exists people who are a danger to others forever?

Let me give you a current politican example, Wayne Dumond the serial rapist who was released by Huckabee when he was a governer, Mr Dumond after being released went on to rape again, but started killing his victims so they could not testify against him.

The physical evidence him was overwhelming, both DNA, fingerprint and eyewitness saw him in the area. We know he will rape if he's ever let out, and he will kill if you let him. Can you support letting such a dangerous psychopathy live? Knowing the danger he poses to society at large?

As I said, locking him in jail for the rest of his life is STILL a death sentence, just one that's going to take forty years to carry out.

I guess we're all under a death sentence, then.

I'd rather let a thousand of those fuckers rot in supermax where they can't harm society, than kill a single wrongly convicted person.

[Mr Bean]

I'd rather let a thousand of those fuckers rot in supermax where they can't harm society, than kill a single wrongly convicted person.

Because of your moral position you are fundamentally incapable of debating the death penalty issue. Since you are so terrified of killing an innocent man, you can not get beyond that initial point to get into the internals of the method, type and crimes worthy of death penalty.
By your own statement, a thousand for one innocent man. Is there a point where you would accept it? Ten thousand for one innocent man? Ten million?

Or am I correct in judging your position that because we don't live in a perfect world it's impossible or us to execute anyone, anytime anywhere because we might possibly execute an innocent person ever?

That's an totally ridged moral principle if true. And totally inappropriate for intelligent debate.

[brianeyci]

Okay as a starter any decently trained marksman can tell the difference between a blank and a live round so throw that idea out. Second unless you are putting the rifle at the base of the skull it can go wrong and even in that case with a single round it can ricochet off the skull in odd directions not causing death instantly. If you step back to administer and maybe aim for the hear (which is hwo a firing squad was normally done) then you have the real chance of having to wait until the coup de grace. Moreover in all of these circumstances (especially if we were to adopt Marina's sujestion of an immediate coup de grace) you are going to seriously fuck up the body. I don't see the point in hurting the surviving family any more than you have to so damaging the body (and in the case of a coup de grace probably forcing a closed casket funeral) just doesn't sit well with me.

Well nobody says it's perfect. If blanks don't work, then load up with eight bullets. I don't have the source handy, but I distinctly remember reading somewhere about the psychology of firing squads, and the idea is it's a lot easier to kill someone as a group and have a lot less guilt about it than kill someone by yourself.

The point about executioner's guilt is still valid, and I don't see how the idea that it's not perfect ruins the merits of a firing squad. Hangings can be fucked up too, and injection especially can fuck up. Unless you say hanging and injection fuck up less than firing squad, I don't see the point. Most of the objection to a firing squad I see is because it's a military death, supposedly only for soldiers and rapists and murderers somehow don't deserve it.

Out of the ten or twenty important things fucking up the body is way down there. Number one is probably painless death, number two fast death, number three least chance of fuckup, etc., etc. Blowing up the body with high explosives I can counter without closed casket... someone has to go in the concrete pit and get out all the guts, the bones, it is disgusting... I sure wouldn't want to be the person picking up the pieces.

[Darth Wong]

The problem I have with the "death penalty can't be allowed because we routinely put the wrong guy in prison and let him rot for the rest of his life" argument is that seems to undervalue the horror of putting someone in prison for decades or the rest of his life for a crime he did not commit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem I have with the "death penalty can't be allowed because we routinely put the wrong guy in prison and let him rot for the rest of his life" argument is that seems to undervalue the horror of putting someone in prison for decades or the rest of his life for a crime he did not commit.

I'd prefer a bullet myself.

[Flagg]

I'd rather let a thousand of those fuckers rot in supermax where they can't harm society, than kill a single wrongly convicted person.

Because of your moral position you are fundamentally incapable of debating the death penalty issue. Since you are so terrified of killing an innocent man, you can not get beyond that initial point to get into the internals of the method, type and crimes worthy of death penalty.
By your own statement, a thousand for one innocent man. Is there a point where you would accept it? Ten thousand for one innocent man? Ten million?

Or am I correct in judging your position that because we don't live in a perfect world it's impossible or us to execute anyone, anytime anywhere because we might possibly execute an innocent person ever?

That's an totally ridged moral principle if true. And totally inappropriate for intelligent debate.

That is my ridged moral principal, but I'm willing to discuss methods and crimes for which execution could be used. In fact, I have been.

[Flagg]

The problem I have with the "death penalty can't be allowed because we routinely put the wrong guy in prison and let him rot for the rest of his life" argument is that seems to undervalue the horror of putting someone in prison for decades or the rest of his life for a crime he did not commit.

I'd prefer a bullet myself.

Suicide is always a solution.

[Rye]

The problem I have with the "death penalty can't be allowed because we routinely put the wrong guy in prison and let him rot for the rest of his life" argument is that seems to undervalue the horror of putting someone in prison for decades or the rest of his life for a crime he did not commit.

I don't agree there. If you're alive, you at least have the ability to appeal. I would rather Stofsk live now and get out later than die now and stay dead forever, for instance.

[Anguirus]

Because of your moral position you are fundamentally incapable of debating the death penalty issue.

No, he's just incapable of agreeing with you. There's a subtle difference.

I myself am not sure if in our society today the death penalty can be applied fairly. As a result, I am currently opposed to the death penalty. I don't consider the execution of the undeniably guilty to be immoral in principle, but right now I believe it is immoral in practice. Of course, our prison system is horribly fucked up in more ways than just that.

[Mr Bean]

If you can not approve of the use of the death penalty in any sitatuion due to the issue you might kill an innocent man, I say, that fundmental assumptions colors your thinking on the issue to such a degree that true intelligent debate is not possible because every issue, be it of how "Kind" it is to the prisoners, the cost, the standards of evidence and such all assume that you intend to use the death penalty at some point.

Which is why I'm making the statement that if you do not accept the use of the death penalty as necessary in some cases, the any further debate on the subject on your part is meaningless.

Can you honestly argue between lethal injection and a firing squad when you've set your moral standard is that neither is acceptable? Is not your moral position such that even discussion of method's and standards such a betrayal of that position?


In short let me state it this way.

If I say to you, that I do not believe the death penalty is an acceptable punishment under any circumstances no matter the crime.

And then go on to state that I prefer execution method Y over execution method Z... despite my earlier statement of no where no how?

How does it logically follow?

[CmdrWilkens]

Speaking of Firing squad concerns, can we not eliminate the problem by simply using a bigger bullet?

Yes if a .223 might occasionally not cause death, why not compensate by using larger rounds such as the classic .30-06? Or overcompensate and use .50cal anti-material rounds?

If death is instant, does it matter if the funeral must be closed coffin?

Yes it matters, at least in my view, because its an unneccessarry evil upon the family if we can find a way to do it which is a) painless, and b) non obvious. Simply put if we could find a way to get lethal injection to work or to get the gas chamber to work painlessly then it is the way to go because it spares the offender's family any excessive hardship. They committed no crime yet we blithefully speak of execution methods which could deny them closure and I would rather prefer not to cause any additional suffering outside of the neccessarry minimum.

[Rye]

If you can not approve of the use of the death penalty in any sitatuion due to the issue you might kill an innocent man, I say, that fundmental assumptions colors your thinking on the issue to such a degree that true intelligent debate is not possible because every issue, be it of how "Kind" it is to the prisoners, the cost, the standards of evidence and such all assume that you intend to use the death penalty at some point.

Imprisoning someone forever will protect society as well as killing them early on, assuming no exonerating evidence has ever been found. They'll still die in custody.

If exonerating evidence is found, imprisoning them till the natural end of their lives will make it more likely they're not dead by the time it is discovered.

If I say to you, that I do not believe the death penalty is an acceptable punishment under any circumstances no matter the crime.

And then go on to state that I prefer execution method Y over execution method Z... despite my earlier statement of no where no how?

How does it logically follow?

Least harm inflicted. Each case can be weighed to see which causes more harm.

[Gerald Tarrant]

If you can not approve of the use of the death penalty in any sitatuion due to the issue you might kill an innocent man, I say, that fundmental assumptions colors your thinking on the issue to such a degree that true intelligent debate is not possible because every issue, be it of how "Kind" it is to the prisoners, the cost, the standards of evidence and such all assume that you intend to use the death penalty at some point.

Which is why I'm making the statement that if you do not accept the use of the death penalty as necessary in some cases, the any further debate on the subject on your part is meaningless.

Can you honestly argue between lethal injection and a firing squad when you've set your moral standard is that neither is acceptable? Is not your moral position such that even discussion of method's and standards such a betrayal of that position?


In short let me state it this way.

If I say to you, that I do not believe the death penalty is an acceptable punishment under any circumstances no matter the crime.

And then go on to state that I prefer execution method Y over execution method Z... despite my earlier statement of no where no how?

How does it logically follow?

I disagree with the above. Flagg's position makes perfect sense to me. He's opposed to the Death Penalty in principle, but the abolishment of the death penalty isn't going to happen in the near future. So instead of removing himself from the debate entirely, he moves on to another worthwhile goal: minimizing suffering.

This is analogous to a change I've recently seen in animal rights goals. My impression of them was that PETA was the driving foce, and that their entire position was vegetarian/vegan or bust. Recently they've gotten a little more savvy by going for smaller goals, like humanely killed meat, and getting veal and foie gras banned. They're probably still opposed to "exploitation" (read eating) of animals, but if it's going to happen anyway, well why not do it as humanely as possible.

Back to Flagg, his position seems very simple. He doesn't want the death penalty, because current standards are in his view not sufficient to guarantee guilt. Executions won't realistically be stopped anytime soon, so given that his first position is unattainable, his next goal of minimizing suffering is completely reasonable, as illustrated in a response to Cmdr Wilkens discussing problems with the guillotine.

The Guillotine kills the body but the brain has blood and can, and often enough does, continue to operate for a brief period after decapitation if the brain is sufficiently resistant to shock which the adrenaline high of being on the chopping block will do. Also, in reference to my earlier point about not blowing the bodies up, its a highly unneccessarry burden on the famalies, they didn't commit a crime so forcing them to have a closed casket funeral seeks rather petty.

Just put them out before doing it.

Incidentally, his solution could probably make plenty of execution methods acceptable again, since the prisoners won't be conscious to feel pain. Although his solution does suggest something even simpler: anesthesia, and then cause an Air Embolism. That would deal with CmdrWilkens concerns for the families of the departed.

[Knife]

If you can not approve of the use of the death penalty in any sitatuion due to the issue you might kill an innocent man, I say, that fundmental assumptions colors your thinking on the issue to such a degree that true intelligent debate is not possible because every issue, be it of how "Kind" it is to the prisoners, the cost, the standards of evidence and such all assume that you intend to use the death penalty at some point.

Imprisoning someone forever will protect society as well as killing them early on, assuming no exonerating evidence has ever been found. They'll still die in custody.

How ever your position totally skips over the 'harm' in imprisoning someone for decades. Yes, dead is dead; but 'rotting in prison' could be viewed as decades of mental if not physical torture.

Which is less harm?

[Darth Wong]

The problem I have with the "death penalty can't be allowed because we routinely put the wrong guy in prison and let him rot for the rest of his life" argument is that seems to undervalue the horror of putting someone in prison for decades or the rest of his life for a crime he did not commit.

I don't agree there. If you're alive, you at least have the ability to appeal. I would rather Stofsk live now and get out later than die now and stay dead forever, for instance.

You're missing the point. I often hear people saying things like "OK, but for death penalty cases, it should be impossible to convict without physical evidence" or "OK, but there should be a higher standard of evidence for death penalty cases". Why shouldn't there be such stringent requirements for all murder cases? It seems to me that by acting as if it's no big deal to put someone in prison as opposed to killing him, we give ourselves an excuse not to actively prosecute and crush those in the legal system who try to railroad suspects.

In short, to answer your particular example, I would rather live in a world where real evidence was demanded before securing a conviction in the first place, so that a guy like Stofsk would not have to choose between jail or execution; he would never have gone to jail in the first place.

[Flagg]

In short let me state it this way.

If I say to you, that I do not believe the death penalty is an acceptable punishment under any circumstances no matter the crime.

And then go on to state that I prefer execution method Y over execution method Z... despite my earlier statement of no where no how?

How does it logically follow?

Wait, are you retarded? Because I don't agree with the death penalty, I therefore shouldn't prefer that if the death penalty is still applied (despite my strong moral opposition to it) then be done so in the most humane and effective manner possible?

And my logic is flawed?

[Rye]

How ever your position totally skips over the 'harm' in imprisoning someone for decades. Yes, dead is dead; but 'rotting in prison' could be viewed as decades of mental if not physical torture.

Which is less harm?

If prison is actually worse than a death sentence, then your prisons are unconscienably evil. If you were unable to change that situation, and a death sentence would probably better for people, then prisoners ought to get some sort of "Escape From New York" type option where they are killed and incinerated rather than go to prison.

You're missing the point. I often hear people saying things like "OK, but for death penalty cases, it should be impossible to convict without physical evidence" or "OK, but there should be a higher standard of evidence for death penalty cases". Why shouldn't there be such stringent requirements for all murder cases? It seems to me that by acting as if it's no big deal to put someone in prison as opposed to killing him, we give ourselves an excuse not to actively prosecute and crush those in the legal system who try to railroad suspects.

I agree with all of that. I also think that if a judge and jury do fuck up, they ought to be charged with manslaughter (in the case of the death penalty) or some form of negligence laws with jailtime as a real possibility in response. Maybe when their own asses are on the line in the legal system, they'd be more prepared to judge things appropriately.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I agree with all of that. I also think that if a judge and jury do fuck up, they ought to be charged with manslaughter (in the case of the death penalty) or some form of negligence laws with jailtime as a real possibility in response. Maybe when their own asses are on the line in the legal system, they'd be more prepared to judge things appropriately.

Only if they were truly negligent. Just because someone was found guilty doesn't meant the jury or the judge fucked up.

I agree with your basic idea though. If it is found that someone was negligent they should have to pay a heavy price.

[eyl]

You're missing the point. I often hear people saying things like "OK, but for death penalty cases, it should be impossible to convict without physical evidence" or "OK, but there should be a higher standard of evidence for death penalty cases". Why shouldn't there be such stringent requirements for all murder cases? It seems to me that by acting as if it's no big deal to put someone in prison as opposed to killing him, we give ourselves an excuse not to actively prosecute and crush those in the legal system who try to railroad suspects.

In short, to answer your particular example, I would rather live in a world where real evidence was demanded before securing a conviction in the first place, so that a guy like Stofsk would not have to choose between jail or execution; he would never have gone to jail in the first place.

The problem is that criminals aren't always considerate enough to leave physical evidence.

Requiring more stringent evidence inevitably means more guilty people will not be convicted. So it's a question of where you draw the line between the risk of freeing too many criminals versus the risk of convicting too many innocent people.

In the case of the death penalty, you want that line closer to the "more people freed"* end of the spectrum because there's no opportunity for correction in case it turns out the defendent was innnocent.

*Though you could have different standards for verdict and sentencing; i.e., you might find someone guilty, but the death penalty could not be a sentencing option unless the evidence was of a grade higher than tht needed for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.