DC Sniper Execution Date Set -- 10 November

[General Zod]

Ahh, I love Madame Guillotine, too. It is definitely the most preferred method of execution, save firing squad, but that should be reserved for more honourable sorts of people. I have ethical issues with lethal injection which mean I can't really support anyone being executed by that method, since it's basically obscenely cruel and contrary to human dignity and the person being executed is, well, still a person.

What's so honourable about a firing squad?

I'm more puzzled at the idea that someone who deserves the death penalty can be considered "honorable".

[Raesene]

Ahh, I love Madame Guillotine, too. It is definitely the most preferred method of execution, save firing squad, but that should be reserved for more honourable sorts of people. I have ethical issues with lethal injection which mean I can't really support anyone being executed by that method, since it's basically obscenely cruel and contrary to human dignity and the person being executed is, well, still a person.

What's so honourable about a firing squad?

Preferred method for a soldier, as he had to face death by a bullet on the battlefield anyway. Similar to beheadings by sword, the preserve of noblemen, because they too as men of the military and honour should be executed by a weapon and not by a tool (like an axe). I always wondered why they didn't use harsher penalties for noblemen, after all, they were more trusted and supposed to be extra-loyal, so as a king I'd feel more betrayed (an more thus vengeful) by a noble's crime than that of a commoner.

[Serafina]

Preferred method for a soldier, as he had to face death by a bullet on the battlefield anyway. Similar to beheadings by sword, the preserve of noblemen, because they too as men of the military and honour should be executed by a weapon and not by a tool (like an axe). I always wondered why they didn't use harsher penalties for noblemen, after all, they were more trusted and supposed to be extra-loyal, so as a king I'd feel more betrayed (an more thus vengeful) by a noble's crime than that of a commoner.

If you don't the other nobles will be pissed. Simple as that.

[Azazal]

Tough man rhetoric aside, the reason why beheading, bullet to the brain,etc are not used is that they do come into conflict with the 8th amendment. Of course depending on your point of view, the death penalty is a violation of the 8th amendment on it's own, let alone what mean are used to carry out the execution.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Tough man rhetoric aside, the reason why beheading, bullet to the brain,etc are not used is that they do come into conflict with the 8th amendment. Of course depending on your point of view, the death penalty is a violation of the 8th amendment on it's own, let alone what mean are used to carry out the execution.

They have never been ruled to come into contact with the 8th Amendment, and firing squad is in fact still legal in two states. You're simply making an assumption based on your own squeamish biases. It is MUCH more cruel to strap someone down to a chair, spend more than an hour prodding their arms with needles to find a vein, and then give them one drug which often doesn't, in fact, put them to sleep as it should, and then give them a second which paralyzes them, so that often (since the first drug is demonstrated to often not work), leave them alive, awake, aware, and completely paralyzed, and then finally a third drug which kills them. The process can take hours, and it is obscene, horrific, and a systematic mental and physical torture of the condemned, whereas the guillotine or the firing squad ends life within seconds or minute at most, is quick, and is accompanied by a certain ceremony and ritual which allows the condemned a more psychologically balanced state on death (that being, after all, the purpose of ceremony and ritual) -- and also, importantly, the executors as well.

[Raesene]

Preferred method for a soldier, as he had to face death by a bullet on the battlefield anyway. Similar to beheadings by sword, the preserve of noblemen, because they too as men of the military and honour should be executed by a weapon and not by a tool (like an axe). I always wondered why they didn't use harsher penalties for noblemen, after all, they were more trusted and supposed to be extra-loyal, so as a king I'd feel more betrayed (an more thus vengeful) by a noble's crime than that of a commoner.

If you don't the other nobles will be pissed. Simple as that.

True, but after showing them I'd execute even a noble in the 'hang, draw, and quarter'-style, I'm not sure they'd dare to oppose me...

Regarding the OP, being the soft european that I am I'd lock him up for life instead of executing him. In his case, life would mean life, because no sane governor would ever pardon him, even if he would become a born-again christian. He could produce paper bags to keep himself occupied in his cell until his death by natural causes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ahh, I love Madame Guillotine, too. It is definitely the most preferred method of execution, save firing squad, but that should be reserved for more honourable sorts of people. I have ethical issues with lethal injection which mean I can't really support anyone being executed by that method, since it's basically obscenely cruel and contrary to human dignity and the person being executed is, well, still a person.

What's so honourable about a firing squad?

There is a socially and psychologically redemptive process around the ritual and ceremony of the firing squad. Essentially the firing squad allows the individual to face their death in a fashion which few people have the ability to, anymore, not surrounded by machines and tubes but standing on their feet and composed, with an offer of solace in the systematic procedure which gives room to play for courage and various gestures of dignity. This is psychologically relevant to the human being, which thrives on end-of-life ritualism. And then you're bled out a very short period of time and at worst then killed quickly by a finishing shot from the officer commanding. In contrast, lethal injection is systematic mental and physical torture of the condemned, as I've outlined above.

[Mr Bean]

What's so honourable about a firing squad?

It's a social thing. Some cultures believe the firing squad more honest or a better way to die than hanging or some other method.
But as has come up in the past, why in Xenu's name don't we use good old fashion Morphine overdose to put people down? Instead we have a fancy chemical concoction that is easy to mess up and leave someone a quadriplegic for life instead of dead.

[Serafina]

They have never been ruled to come into contact with the 8th Amendment, and firing squad is in fact still legal in two states. You're simply making an assumption based on your own squeamish biases. It is MUCH more cruel to strap someone down to a chair, spend more than an hour prodding their arms with needles to find a vein, and then give them one drug which often doesn't, in fact, put them to sleep as it should, and then give them a second which paralyzes them, so that often (since the first drug is demonstrated to often not work), leave them alive, awake, aware, and completely paralyzed, and then finally a third drug which kills them. The process can take hours, and it is obscene, horrific, and a systematic mental and physical torture of the condemned, whereas the guillotine or the firing squad ends life within seconds or minute at most, is quick, and is accompanied by a certain ceremony and ritual which allows the condemned a more psychologically balanced state on death (that being, after all, the purpose of ceremony and ritual) -- and also, importantly, the executors as well.

Plus, it's way cheaper.

Hey, if you want to murder murderers, at least be pragmatic about it.
If you are fond of killing criminals, there really is no reason to be afraid of a little blood.

Regarding the OP, being the soft european that I am I'd lock him up for life instead of executing him. In his case, life would mean life, because no sane governor would ever pardon him, even if he would become a born-again christian. He could produce paper bags to keep himself occupied in his cell until his death by natural causes.

It has nothing to do with being soft. It' simply morally wrong to kill a human being if you have another choice.
You DO have another choice with someone you already caught and imprisoned. Killing him is just petty.

True, but after showing them I'd execute even a noble in the 'hang, draw, and quarter'-style, I'm not sure they'd dare to oppose me...

Medieval balance of power was often quite delicate. And disgracing even a convicted nobleman is simply uneeded provocation - you do not gain anything, but you may loose a lot.

But as has come up in the past, why in Xenu's name don't we use good old fashion Morphine overdose to put people down?

Because drugs are evil

[General Zod]

What's so honourable about a firing squad?

It's a social thing. Some cultures believe the firing squad more honest or a better way to die than hanging or some other method.
But as has come up in the past, why in Xenu's name don't we use good old fashion Morphine overdose to put people down? Instead we have a fancy chemical concoction that is easy to mess up and leave someone a quadriplegic for life instead of dead.

Based on what? A mixture of drugs is the best way to ensure someone stays dead rather than relying on morphine, which some people could have unusually high tolerances to.

[Raesene]

Regarding the OP, being the soft european that I am I'd lock him up for life instead of executing him. In his case, life would mean life, because no sane governor would ever pardon him, even if he would become a born-again christian. He could produce paper bags to keep himself occupied in his cell until his death by natural causes.

It has nothing to do with being soft. It' simply morally wrong to kill a human being if you have another choice.
You DO have another choice with someone you already caught and imprisoned. Killing him is just petty.

I know, I was playing with the cliche of the European being soft on criminals by not having the death penalty to show how tough they are. As in my opinion an error in judgment can never be excluded completely, I wouldn't want to use an absolutely irreversible penalty. I agree, it's pure vengeance, because it's killing someone who can't defend (as in fight for his life, not the legal sense) himself.

True, but after showing them I'd execute even a noble in the 'hang, draw, and quarter'-style, I'm not sure they'd dare to oppose me...

Medieval balance of power was often quite delicate. And disgracing even a convicted nobleman is simply uneeded provocation - you do not gain anything, but you may loose a lot.

Perhaps, but after an uprising a medieval king doesn't have to feel merciful.

[General Zod]

I know, I was playing with the cliche of the European being soft on criminals by not having the death penalty to show how tough they are. As in my opinion an error in judgment can never be excluded completely, I wouldn't want to use an absolutely irreversible penalty. I agree, it's pure vengeance, because it's killing someone who can't defend (as in fight for his life, not the legal sense) himself.

There's also the fact you're removing a significant danger to society. The death penalty is the surest way to guarantee that they aren't going to kill anyone else.

[Raesene]

I know, I was playing with the cliche of the European being soft on criminals by not having the death penalty to show how tough they are. As in my opinion an error in judgment can never be excluded completely, I wouldn't want to use an absolutely irreversible penalty. I agree, it's pure vengeance, because it's killing someone who can't defend (as in fight for his life, not the legal sense) himself.

There's also the fact you're removing a significant danger to society. The death penalty is the surest way to guarantee that they aren't going to kill anyone else.

By that logic, you could execute every criminal to prevent repeat offenders. Having a criminal locked away safely doesn't expose the society to any danger anymore.

[General Zod]

By that logic, you could execute every criminal to prevent repeat offenders. Having a criminal locked away safely doesn't expose the society to any danger anymore.

Except for the fact that I was specifically referring to murderers/mass murderers, as that's the only crime I support use of the death penalty for. Which just might be why I said "kill" as opposed to "harm" in my post. But thanks for the hilarity anyway.

[Azazal]

Tough man rhetoric aside, the reason why beheading, bullet to the brain,etc are not used is that they do come into conflict with the 8th amendment. Of course depending on your point of view, the death penalty is a violation of the 8th amendment on it's own, let alone what mean are used to carry out the execution.

They have never been ruled to come into contact with the 8th Amendment, and firing squad is in fact still legal in two states. You're simply making an assumption based on your own squeamish biases.

What squeamish bias? Do a search here and you'll see that I have supported the death sentence, and that and I still do when the crime is so heinous that no other punishment is acceptable. As for beheading, and other more visceral forms of execution, why do you think they are not used? Do you think that maybe as a society we have gone beyond the more barbaric forms of execution, a contradiction I know. Look at hanging, when done right, it breaks the condemn's neck, so death is painless, and yet it is no longer used in the US. Hell, in many cases the weights were off and a hanging became a beheading. Yet hanging has been phased out for other means that are seen as more humane, and dedicated beheading was not added to the list. Also I like how you jumped from bullet to the back of the head = firing squad, nice.

It is MUCH more cruel to strap someone down to a chair, spend more than an hour prodding their arms with needles to find a vein, and then give them one drug which often doesn't, in fact, put them to sleep as it should, and then give them a second which paralyzes them, so that often (since the first drug is demonstrated to often not work), leave them alive, awake, aware, and completely paralyzed, and then finally a third drug which kills them. The process can take hours, and it is obscene, horrific, and a systematic mental and physical torture of the condemned, whereas the guillotine or the firing squad ends life within seconds or minute at most, is quick, and is accompanied by a certain ceremony and ritual which allows the condemned a more psychologically balanced state on death (that being, after all, the purpose of ceremony and ritual) -- and also, importantly, the executors as well.

Which is what I was covering with the 2nd sentence of my post.

[Raesene]

By that logic, you could execute every criminal to prevent repeat offenders. Having a criminal locked away safely doesn't expose the society to any danger anymore.

Except for the fact that I was specifically referring to murderers/mass murderers, as that's the only crime I support use of the death penalty for. Which just might be why I said "kill" as opposed to "harm" in my post. But thanks for the hilarity anyway.

I know what you wrote, but don't you think others might (or do ?) ask for a longer list of crimes punishable by death ? Not everybody would draw the line where you did.

[General Zod]

By that logic, you could execute every criminal to prevent repeat offenders. Having a criminal locked away safely doesn't expose the society to any danger anymore.

Except for the fact that I was specifically referring to murderers/mass murderers, as that's the only crime I support use of the death penalty for. Which just might be why I said "kill" as opposed to "harm" in my post. But thanks for the hilarity anyway.

I know what you wrote, but don't you think others might (or do ?) ask for a longer list of crimes punishable by death ? Not everybody would draw the line where you did.

Who cares? You were addressing my opinion on it, not what other people think. Your point was a flat out bullshit distortion.

[PeZook]

Perhaps, but after an uprising a medieval king doesn't have to feel merciful.

I would think the idea is to prevent uprisings in the first place, since they tend to leave the countryside a charred ruin, your people dead, displaced and starving and your outside enemies fresh, primed and ready to come knocking.

Or, I guess we could say medieval rulers were all bloody idiots who had no idea how to handle the politics of their own kingdoms, hence why they didn't use harsh punishment for nobles.

Whichever sounds better, I guess.

Ahh, I love Madame Guillotine, too. It is definitely the most preferred method of execution, save firing squad, but that should be reserved for more honourable sorts of people. I have ethical issues with lethal injection which mean I can't really support anyone being executed by that method, since it's basically obscenely cruel and contrary to human dignity and the person being executed is, well, still a person.

It seems the gillotine was considered evil and inumane not as much because it was new, but because it made executions very easy. You have to admit, it's more than a little scary when you can execute people in an efficient, industrial fashion by simply lining them up in front of the machine. Doesn't help that mass executions was what it is best known for.

Same with shot to the back of the head, which is pretty much the most painless way to kill there is, except for the fact that it was historically used for mass murder, which makes a lot of people kind of squeamish.

[Samuel]

As for beheading, and other more visceral forms of execution, why do you think they are not used? Do you think that maybe as a society we have gone beyond the more barbaric forms of execution, a contradiction I know. Look at hanging, when done right, it breaks the condemn's neck, so death is painless, and yet it is no longer used in the US. Hell, in many cases the weights were off and a hanging became a beheading. Yet hanging has been phased out for other means that are seen as more humane, and dedicated beheading was not added to the list.

Because the majority of our population is no longer rural and so no longer comes into regula contact with blood? Calling something barbaric is funny in this context given the lethal injection can screw up and cause a person to suffocate to death.

Basically we have people who want to be "tough on crime", but don't want to take responsibility for what that entails. Because the decision in the first place was a gut decision and so expecting consistency is a lost cause.

[Master of Ossus]

Regarding the OP, being the soft european that I am I'd lock him up for life instead of executing him. In his case, life would mean life, because no sane governor would ever pardon him, even if he would become a born-again christian. He could produce paper bags to keep himself occupied in his cell until his death by natural causes.

Bullshit. Being a soft European you'd let him go as soon as it was discovered he was slowly dying.

[Raesene]

[... had to remove a part because I can't quote more than three times within each other]

Except for the fact that I was specifically referring to murderers/mass murderers, as that's the only crime I support use of the death penalty for. Which just might be why I said "kill" as opposed to "harm" in my post. But thanks for the hilarity anyway.

I know what you wrote, but don't you think others might (or do ?) ask for a longer list of crimes punishable by death ? Not everybody would draw the line where you did.

Who cares? You were addressing my opinion on it, not what other people think. Your point was a flat out bullshit distortion.

You were stating

There's also the fact you're removing a significant danger to society. The death penalty is the surest way to guarantee that they aren't going to kill anyone else.

So yes, you were putting the significant danger to murder; but only in your second part. Your first sentence, the one about removing a danger to society, is pretty open to various definitions of dangers to society. You might find your limit ok, I don't, and I don't expect us to find common ground on this topic. I'd propose we skip this tangent.

[General Zod]

So yes, you were putting the significant danger to murder; but only in your second part. Your first sentence, the one about removing a danger to society, is pretty open to various definitions of dangers to society. You might find your limit ok, I don't, and I don't expect us to find common ground on this topic. I'd propose we skip this tangent.

In other words you're a nitpicking dipshit because I didn't bother making the entire thing a single runon sentence. Fuck off please.

[Elfdart]

Preferred method for a soldier, as he had to face death by a bullet on the battlefield anyway. Similar to beheadings by sword, the preserve of noblemen, because they too as men of the military and honour should be executed by a weapon and not by a tool (like an axe). I always wondered why they didn't use harsher penalties for noblemen, after all, they were more trusted and supposed to be extra-loyal, so as a king I'd feel more betrayed (an more thus vengeful) by a noble's crime than that of a commoner.

In other words, sentimental bullshit.

If you want the state to engage in outdated sentimental kitsch, why not have a government holiday in honor of Johnny Mathis?

[Simon_Jester]

I agree with Zeon; if you're willing to execute people at all you should be willing to do it quickly and with a bit of ceremony, rather than an inch at a time strapped to a gurney in a bare room.

If you want to call it sentimental bullshit I suppose you can; I don't really care. It comes down to two possibilities:

1)You care about not being cruel to the person you're planning to kill.
In this case, having them take an hour to go from health to death isn't a good thing.

2)You don't care about being cruel to the person you're planning to kill.
In that case, why are you going with some half-assed version of a torturous death like being strapped to a table? Why not feed them into a microtome half a millimeter at a time, or some other hideous ghoulish crap that will make everyone wonder what the difference between an executioner and a serial killer is?

Personally, I adopt option (1), because I think that's a much saner way to think about life and death.

[Raesene]

So yes, you were putting the significant danger to murder; but only in your second part. Your first sentence, the one about removing a danger to society, is pretty open to various definitions of dangers to society. You might find your limit ok, I don't, and I don't expect us to find common ground on this topic. I'd propose we skip this tangent.

In other words you're a nitpicking dipshit because I didn't bother making the entire thing a single runon sentence. Fuck off please.

If you see my response as an attack on your, tough luck for you. I pointed out others might enlarge the number death sentences by enhancing your personal definition of 'threat to society'. That could happen even if you'd have put it into a single sentence.

EDIT: maybe I should have put 'someone' instead of 'you' in my response to your post. It was not directed against you directly.as you made your point of view clear with the second sentence.