DC Sniper Execution Date Set -- 10 November

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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.

Well, oftentimes a firing squad's work was finished off by a round to the head, so it seemed reasonable to equate the two. Also in Washington State the condemned can request hanging as an option instead of lethal injection, so it's not completely phased out. I think that in our effort to clinicize the execution process we've eliminated the innate value of human life. Essentially by executing someone we've made the choice that a person cannot function in our society ever, and is completely irredeemable, and there is no discernable social utility in keeping them alive. Nonetheless they are still human beings, deserving of the same respect and dignity we attempt to show to everyone else in society, so, up until the moment of death they need to be ethically treated. And that ethical treatment to me includes considerations to their psychological health. The grotesque overtones of Nazi mass murder in the lethal injection process, the medicalization of the execution and the resulting suffering it entails, are unacceptable in that context. Giving them a coherent psychological framework in which to face their own deaths with some contentment and composure is infinitely preferable.

[Raesene]

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.

All execution methods can be botched, you'll not find one that is completely foolproof (or proof against an executioner being gruesome on purpose).

[General Zod]

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.

You're lying, but feel free to keep pretending your initial response was anything other than a piss poor attack on my logic that you got called on.

[Raesene]

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.

You're lying, but feel free to keep pretending your initial response was anything other than a piss poor attack on my logic that you got called on.

Added an edit to the post you referred - the 'you' was meant to be more general than you personally. The variability of interpreting a response to a threat to society still stands, though.

[General Zod]

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.

You're lying, but feel free to keep pretending your initial response was anything other than a piss poor attack on my logic that you got called on.

Added an edit to the post you referred - the 'you' was meant to be more general than you personally. The variability of interpreting a response to a threat to society still stands, though.

Backpedal faster.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty on principle. It does not meet the goals I think a criminal justice system ought to have, or the principles we as a civilized people should espouse. Those being the rehabilitation of criminals to the best of our ability, even if we can never release them. We should try to do some actual good, to relieve suffering and bring about a positive outcome rather than inflict more pain.

In keeping with this principle I think that organ and tissue harvest (after being put into a medical coma) should be something those sentenced to life in prison should be able to choose at any point in their imprisonment, but that should be their decision not ours. As it allows the offender to choose to save lives in atonement for his crime, by giving his own. Balancing the scales and bringing about the maximum possible benefit to society.

Needless to say the execution of someone as reprehensible as the DC sniper still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Serafina]

All execution methods can be botched, you'll not find one that is completely foolproof (or proof against an executioner being gruesome on purpose).

The Guillotine is pretty foolproof. Unless given no maintenance, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will chop of the head instantly. Which means a fast, painles death.

Sure, it's a bloody mess - but frankly, i don't give a damn about some people sensitivities - they do not have to watch it.

[Raesene]

[...]
Backpedal faster.

Ok, continue to feel offended then - shows deep inside you you know you are wrong

[Raesene]

All execution methods can be botched, you'll not find one that is completely foolproof (or proof against an executioner being gruesome on purpose).

The Guillotine is pretty foolproof. Unless given no maintenance, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will chop of the head instantly. Which means a fast, painles death.

Sure, it's a bloody mess - but frankly, i don't give a damn about some people sensitivities - they do not have to watch it.

Faking a technical difficulty while the delinquent is on the board shouldn't be difficult. Very similar to the showing the instruments before starting the torture.

"Bloody mess" ?

[General Zod]

[...]
Backpedal faster.

Ok, continue to feel offended then - shows deep inside you you know you are wrong

Kindly go choke on my cock, you dishonest shitlicker. My post was perfectly clear for anyone who didn't have their head so far up their own goddamned ass they're incapable of admitting they were too fucking stupid to read it entirely.

[Simon_Jester]

All execution methods can be botched, you'll not find one that is completely foolproof (or proof against an executioner being gruesome on purpose).

Yes. The firing squad is unusual in that it has a standard procedure (the guy with the pistol) in case it gets botched. Many other methods of execution (including lethal injection) do not include any backup process for killing someone quickly if they're in the process of dying slowly.

On the other hand, you can go a long way out of your way to foolproof methods that involve massive lethal trauma by making the machine ridiculously over-the-top, to the point where it inflicts many times lethal damage. A heavy enough guillotine will behead you, a powerful enough electric chair will kill you, and if I put enough guys in the firing squad you will die fast.

The executioner can theoretically do their job wrong and give you a much harder death in any of those cases, but there's no way to escape that. So if you're committed to execution at all, at least use a method that admits of the possibility of a quick death rather than a slow one, and one whose failure modes are predictable and can be avoided by good technique. Poisoning doesn't qualify.

[Serafina]

All execution methods can be botched, you'll not find one that is completely foolproof (or proof against an executioner being gruesome on purpose).

The Guillotine is pretty foolproof. Unless given no maintenance, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will chop of the head instantly. Which means a fast, painles death.

Sure, it's a bloody mess - but frankly, i don't give a damn about some people sensitivities - they do not have to watch it.

Faking a technical difficulty while the delinquent is on the board shouldn't be difficult. Very similar to the showing the instruments before starting the torture.

So, your point is "well, if they want to torture him, they can do regardless of the execution method used"?
Of course they can.
The point is: You can mess up a lot with the injection unintentionally.
The odds of messing up a guillotine-execution are way smaller - and you can test it before usage, too.

"Bloody mess" ?

Pun intended

[Julhelm]

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.

Why murderers and not rapists and other offenders who callously fuck others up for life?

[General Zod]

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.

Why murderers and not rapists and other offenders who callously fuck others up for life?

Let me know when you find someone who's managed to recover from murder.

[Azazal]

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.

Well, oftentimes a firing squad's work was finished off by a round to the head, so it seemed reasonable to equate the two. Also in Washington State the condemned can request hanging as an option instead of lethal injection, so it's not completely phased out. I think that in our effort to clinicize the execution process we've eliminated the innate value of human life. Essentially by executing someone we've made the choice that a person cannot function in our society ever, and is completely irredeemable, and there is no discernable social utility in keeping them alive. Nonetheless they are still human beings, deserving of the same respect and dignity we attempt to show to everyone else in society, so, up until the moment of death they need to be ethically treated. And that ethical treatment to me includes considerations to their psychological health. The grotesque overtones of Nazi mass murder in the lethal injection process, the medicalization of the execution and the resulting suffering it entails, are unacceptable in that context. Giving them a coherent psychological framework in which to face their own deaths with some contentment and composure is infinitely preferable.

Fair enough, and I agree with you on those points. That's why I brought up the nitrogen asphyxiation, it is a more humane form of execution from what I have read. The condemned does not suffer, they simply pass out and their body stops working. From the state's side, there can be multiple valves turned at once by multiple people, with only on actually flooding the chamber with nitrogen, much like blanks in a firing squad, no one truly knows who performed the execution that way.

[Julhelm]

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.

Why murderers and not rapists and other offenders who callously fuck others up for life?

Let me know when you find someone who's managed to recover from murder.

What does recovery have to do with capital punishment?

IMO capital punishment should be dealt out depending on how savage or sadistic a crime is. It's a hell of a difference between blowing someone away with a bullet to the head as compared to 'just' torturing someone for a few hours and then let them live, to give just an example.

[Master of Ossus]

I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty on principle. It does not meet the goals I think a criminal justice system ought to have, or the principles we as a civilized people should espouse. Those being the rehabilitation of criminals to the best of our ability, even if we can never release them. We should try to do some actual good, to relieve suffering and bring about a positive outcome rather than inflict more pain.

How does rehabilitating someone who can never be rehabilitated to the point that we can release them do any "actual good" or "relieve suffering and bring about a positive outcome?" Isn't it just needlessly costly?

[General Zod]

What does recovery have to do with capital punishment?

IMO capital punishment should be dealt out depending on how savage or sadistic a crime is. It's a hell of a difference between blowing someone away with a bullet to the head as compared to 'just' torturing someone for a few hours and then let them live, to give just an example.

Savagery is subjective and open to a very wide range of interpretation; murder is not. Frankly it's the only objective standard for how to measure whether an act is suitable for capitol punishment. Otherwise they can rot in prison for life.

[Julhelm]

What does recovery have to do with capital punishment?

IMO capital punishment should be dealt out depending on how savage or sadistic a crime is. It's a hell of a difference between blowing someone away with a bullet to the head as compared to 'just' torturing someone for a few hours and then let them live, to give just an example.

Savagery is subjective and open to a very wide range of interpretation; murder is not. Frankly it's the only objective standard for how to measure whether an act is suitable for capitol punishment. Otherwise they can rot in prison for life.

What possible purpose does rotting in prison for life serve that capital punishment doesn't do much cheaper and more effective? If all we want to do is remove someone permanently surely executing them as quick as possible is the cheaper and more efficient way? Prison terms should only serve the purpose of rehabilitation, and should thus be reserved for criminals that stand a reasonable chance of being rehabilitated.

[Serafina]

What does recovery have to do with capital punishment?

IMO capital punishment should be dealt out depending on how savage or sadistic a crime is. It's a hell of a difference between blowing someone away with a bullet to the head as compared to 'just' torturing someone for a few hours and then let them live, to give just an example.

Savagery is subjective and open to a very wide range of interpretation; murder is not. Frankly it's the only objective standard for how to measure whether an act is suitable for capitol punishment. Otherwise they can rot in prison for life.

What possible purpose does rotting in prison for life serve that capital punishment doesn't do much cheaper and more effective? If all we want to do is remove someone permanently surely executing them as quick as possible is the cheaper and more efficient way? Prison terms should only serve the purpose of rehabilitation, and should thus be reserved for criminals that stand a reasonable chance of being rehabilitated.

According to some studies (no, i do not have them at hand), capital punishment is acutally more expensive than prison for life.

The reasons were:
-A second trial is required, increasing costs significantly
-Special facilites are required
-The execution itself is expensive

and propably more i forgot.

Besides, money is hardly an argument you can use to KILL a human being.
Seriously, thats fucked up.

[Lord of the Abyss]

All execution methods can be botched, you'll not find one that is completely foolproof (or proof against an executioner being gruesome on purpose).

The Guillotine is pretty foolproof. Unless given no maintenance, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will chop of the head instantly. Which means a fast, painles death.

I understand that it's been debated ever since it was invented whether or not it's painless. It's at least possible that the person remains conscious for a short time, like someone whose heart stops beating will.

Not that I support the death penalty; but if we really want to kill someone painlessly it seems to me that a high powered gun to the brain would do it; something powerful enough to destroy the brain between one thought and the next.

[General Zod]

What possible purpose does rotting in prison for life serve that capital punishment doesn't do much cheaper and more effective? If all we want to do is remove someone permanently surely executing them as quick as possible is the cheaper and more efficient way? Prison terms should only serve the purpose of rehabilitation, and should thus be reserved for criminals that stand a reasonable chance of being rehabilitated.

Life in prison is cheaper than executing someone, at least in any civilized first world country. So if you're going to allow executions then you have to have some kind of objective standard for them, or what's the point of pretending you have a justice system? There's also absolutely no reason prisons can't serve a dual purpose of punishment and rehabilitation.

[Julhelm]

If executing someone is more expensive, then the system is obviously broken. If you're going to execute someone you might as well do it with a bullet in the alley behind the courthouse. How would that be less civilized than keeping someone for tens of years and then slowly killing them with an excruciatingly slow method? A humane death should be as quick as possible (and by virtue of being quick also very cheap).

[Samuel]

Besides, money is hardly an argument you can use to KILL a human being.

Why? What do you think keeps people alive?

Life in prison is cheaper than executing someone, at least in any civilized first world country.

Only because there are different standards for the two.

There's also absolutely no reason prisons can't serve a dual purpose of punishment and rehabilitation.

Because the two are contradictory.

[General Zod]

If executing someone is more expensive, then the system is obviously broken. If you're going to execute someone you might as well do it with a bullet in the alley behind the courthouse. How would that be less civilized than keeping someone for tens of years and then slowly killing them with an excruciatingly slow method? A humane death should be as quick as possible (and by virtue of being quick also very cheap).

It's not the method that's expensive. It's the investigation, the retrials, and appeals involved. You aren't going to just up and execute someone after a single guilty verdict without giving them the chance to appeal.