Choosing death penalty by firing squad because it's safer(pbs.org)
pbs.org
Choosing death penalty by firing squad because it's safer
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/south-carolina-executes-convicted-murderer-by-firing-squad
66 comments
What's up with the title's editorialization? The original title is “South Carolina executes convicted murderer by firing squad”
Arguably the rewritten title is marginally less baity, in which case it would be ok according to the rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
...by his choice, which is the really interesting part.
They gave him three options though and chose this out of fear that the other methods would essentially torture him.
The only humane form of execution (if there is such a thing) is nitrogen asphyxiation, with the long drop being second in my opinion.
The only humane form of execution (if there is such a thing) is nitrogen asphyxiation, with the long drop being second in my opinion.
> "The only humane form of execution…is nitrogen asphyxiation"
> "Despite state claims that it would be a painless death, witnesses reported Mr. Smith shook, convulsed, writhed, and gasped for minutes until he was pronounced dead at least 22 minutes after the execution began, though just how long it took is unknown since Alabama closed the execution curtain before the official time of death."
> The only humane form of execution (if there is such a thing) is nitrogen asphyxiation,
It was the original argument for the guillotine (which have been in use in France until the abolition of death penalty), but it didn't account for malfunctions which could get very dirty very fast …
It was the original argument for the guillotine (which have been in use in France until the abolition of death penalty), but it didn't account for malfunctions which could get very dirty very fast …
…does he think it’s “safer”?
Reading this makes me wonder, should a man who plead guilty be executed?
Should anyone be executed? Should the state have the power to kill its own citizens, outside of war?
It’s repugnant and a sign of a sick society.
It’s repugnant and a sign of a sick society.
>Should the state have the power to kill its own citizens, outside of war?
States killing 18 year olds who got drafted and never did a thing wrong in their short lives is more acceptable than states killing serial killers?
States killing 18 year olds who got drafted and never did a thing wrong in their short lives is more acceptable than states killing serial killers?
> States killing 18 year olds who got drafted and never did a thing wrong
You're right, I can't believe we never thought about just not drafting anyone!
You're right, I can't believe we never thought about just not drafting anyone!
We think about that all the time but drafts will be a fact of life as long as war exists and many countries have compulsory service. Even in the case of the volunteer, it is OK for a state to kill a solider who volunteered but not a serial killer?
It's not a given, actually. Drafts and levies are a recurring theme in military, but it's not a constant, and much of historic warfare was done by what we today would call "professional soldiers", without any conscripts. A lot depends on how warfare looks - conscripting, especially during wartime gets you lots of bodies, but not particularly willing ones, and they won't be eager learners. If your doctrine is what Russians are doing right now in Ukraine, sure, you will eventually need a draft then. If it's more high-tech, maybe not so much.
As far as serial killers go, that's a really bad example because there were several high-profile cases historically of people executed instead of the serial killer who actually committed the murder - for example, Aleksandr Kravchenko was executed for a murder committed by Andrei Chikatilo (who would eventually also be executed). Or how about Timothy Evans? So it's not like this is an option that comes free of innocent suffering, either (I should also note that the people who actually carry out the execution later learning that they killed an innocent is also not exactly great).
As far as serial killers go, that's a really bad example because there were several high-profile cases historically of people executed instead of the serial killer who actually committed the murder - for example, Aleksandr Kravchenko was executed for a murder committed by Andrei Chikatilo (who would eventually also be executed). Or how about Timothy Evans? So it's not like this is an option that comes free of innocent suffering, either (I should also note that the people who actually carry out the execution later learning that they killed an innocent is also not exactly great).
Yes, because of two reasons:
1. The state isn't sending the soldier to die, it's sending them to fight. They may die, but dying isn't the purpose. The state would very much prefer them to not die, in fact.
2. Nothing bad happens if we just don't kill the serial killer.
1. The state isn't sending the soldier to die, it's sending them to fight. They may die, but dying isn't the purpose. The state would very much prefer them to not die, in fact.
2. Nothing bad happens if we just don't kill the serial killer.
The "state" does not have a preference, states are conflicted by nature. Probably would not take much effort to find examples of serial killers who were not killed doing something bad, killing another inmate, killing a guard, getting out on a technicality, etc, etc, etc. Yes, if we lived in a utopia things would be perfect and you would not be ignoring the point.
I can't help but notice that your definition of "utopia" includes people never disagreeing with you.
And no, you can't justify death penalty because some people "get out on a technicality". Innocent people end up in jail on technicality too.
And no, you can't justify death penalty because some people "get out on a technicality". Innocent people end up in jail on technicality too.
My definition of utopia allows for disagreement, my issue was with his methods, avoiding the original point and not the disagreement. I never tried to justify anything, at most I expressed a preference for killing serial killers over having wars.
Why? Because killing serial killers is good, and having war is bad?
I think the person you were responding to had a more utilitarian view. When war happens, the death of conscripted young people is unavoidable. It's kill or be killed. We prefer wars not to happen, and people not to die, but it's not a choice.
Killing a serial killer who has already been apprehended is a choice. And it's here that we can actually start weighting options and see what is better for the society, bringing up possibilities of wrongful convictions, Blackstone's ratios and second order effects of the death penalty.
I think the person you were responding to had a more utilitarian view. When war happens, the death of conscripted young people is unavoidable. It's kill or be killed. We prefer wars not to happen, and people not to die, but it's not a choice.
Killing a serial killer who has already been apprehended is a choice. And it's here that we can actually start weighting options and see what is better for the society, bringing up possibilities of wrongful convictions, Blackstone's ratios and second order effects of the death penalty.
I made no such judgement, just sort of but not really implied that I would rather serial killers die than random people and then admitted it in a purely intellectual pie in the sky sort of way—killing serial killers will not end war. Plenty of examples in history when a draft was used in times other than kill or be killed, when it was political. It is ok for the state to kill its citizens for political reasons but only when those political reasons are war? At what point does civil unrest become civil war? When that line is crossed the killings suddenly become OK? What if it were treason instead of murder and the execution of that traitor could help mitigate civil war and far more death? That comment opened a massive can of worms, it is more complicated than ideals and what we would like.
States exhibit preferences all the time. It'd also true that states are often conflicted but so are people.
This isnt about utopianism at all.
This isnt about utopianism at all.
And then add euthanasia to the mix. I think euthanasia should be legal. It comes from my own battles with MS and my immobility issues. If I get paralyzed, I would rather choose euthanasia, personally.
It's certainly a weird world where we kill those who want to stay alive, and find every excuse to stop those who want to die from doing so.
That is incorrect. The right answer is absolutely if there is no uncertainty and then realizing there has never been a murder in all recorded history where the standard of no uncertainty is met to the level required on the timeline it takes to convict someone and to ban it.
Should humans kill each other?
> it's repugnant and a sign of a sick society
So, the one we all live in (and have always lived in)
So, the one we all live in (and have always lived in)
The entire Council of Europe, i.e., until also recently including also Russia, have agreed to abolish the death penalty during peacetime, with this being mostly implemented in practice.
fallous(5)
Yes. I am for public and prominent capital punishment of heinous crimes.
Bernie Madoff should have hung on Wall Street. Dylan Roof should have hung in front of the state capital building.
It is not repugnant, it is a signal of what behavior will and will not be tolerated.
We don't have to live in a society with rampant crime. We choose it.
Bernie Madoff should have hung on Wall Street. Dylan Roof should have hung in front of the state capital building.
It is not repugnant, it is a signal of what behavior will and will not be tolerated.
We don't have to live in a society with rampant crime. We choose it.
How many innocent people is it okay to put to death? You'll note that I'm not saying that either of the examples that you gave are innocent people, but innocent people are put to death, so: how many?
This isn't a trick question. It's not okay to say, well, ideally there should be none. I'm asking right now since you think we should be hanging people in the public square.
The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death. So there's no bright line for anything that we can point to and say that's how you do it.
It is also not okay to say that they exhausted all avenues of the justice system available to them and unfortunately it didn't work and them's the breaks kid.
So how many innocent people is it okay to put to death?
This isn't a trick question. It's not okay to say, well, ideally there should be none. I'm asking right now since you think we should be hanging people in the public square.
The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death. So there's no bright line for anything that we can point to and say that's how you do it.
It is also not okay to say that they exhausted all avenues of the justice system available to them and unfortunately it didn't work and them's the breaks kid.
So how many innocent people is it okay to put to death?
> The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death.
Unfortunately, the governments and law enforcement community's answer to this problem will not be "may be we need to reconsider our laws". It will most likely be "then let's make sure we have more information to determine the truth i.e. more surveillance".
Unfortunately, the governments and law enforcement community's answer to this problem will not be "may be we need to reconsider our laws". It will most likely be "then let's make sure we have more information to determine the truth i.e. more surveillance".
I know, were that it weren't necessary. Adam Carolla said there should be a way to make a lie detector where if you fail it 3 times or 10 times or whatever, that's it, jail. I just pulled a sample from my transcripts, from 2003:
https://nextcloud.projectftm.com/index.php/s/CarollaLieDetec...
https://nextcloud.projectftm.com/index.php/s/CarollaLieDetec...
How many innocent people is it okay to put into prison?
You cannot give years back to an innocent prisoner any more than you can give life back to an innocent executee.
There is a cost to any action, including inaction. There is a cost to not executing justice (which is what capital punishment is, in the case of the guilty: justice); there is a cost in doing injustice.
You cannot give years back to an innocent prisoner any more than you can give life back to an innocent executee.
There is a cost to any action, including inaction. There is a cost to not executing justice (which is what capital punishment is, in the case of the guilty: justice); there is a cost in doing injustice.
An innocent prisoner years later can at least be compensated monetarily and try to get a life. Sure, it's not perfect, but at least it's something. A corpse is pretty final, though, and there's no recourse.
It is not ok to put any innocent people to death and it is also not ok to live in an unsafe society.
I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
You don't need to and shouldn't apply it to all murders.
Furthermore, anyone guilty of rape should be castrated
I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
You don't need to and shouldn't apply it to all murders.
Furthermore, anyone guilty of rape should be castrated
> It is not ok to put any innocent people to death
> I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
I’d recommend you re-read their comment and then try to reconcile these statements. In particular, pay special attention to this part:
> The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death.
> I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
I’d recommend you re-read their comment and then try to reconcile these statements. In particular, pay special attention to this part:
> The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death.
"It's not ok" is a value judgement. I am not implying that a death penalty means bad things never happen. I support death penalty because I value an orderly and safe society more.
In the form I would accept, it would be used on people convicted of heinous crimes, some of which will be innocent, with the effect that fewer heinous crimes occur.
In the form I would accept, it would be used on people convicted of heinous crimes, some of which will be innocent, with the effect that fewer heinous crimes occur.
'Pleaing guilt' means 'taking the blame'. It is not a proof of guilt.
So the answer to your question should be: no.
In general, when will the US stop considering acceptable that... you cannot lie to the police, but the police can lie to you?
When will everyone believe that making someone take the blame in exchange for a shorter time in jail is beneficial to society at large... when the real perpetrator walks away unscathed, and a innocent is jailed for something he didn't even commit?
When will everyone believe that making someone take the blame in exchange for a shorter time in jail is beneficial to society at large... when the real perpetrator walks away unscathed, and a innocent is jailed for something he didn't even commit?
I'd say the main thing is police should show how all leads have been followed, the investigation followed a logical and evidence based approach and all evidence handed to defence.
You can lie to the police, no? It is not a crime per se.
In, like, an interview situation, no, you won't get an additional charge. I am not a lawyer but. It is a crime to lie to federal agents, specifically the FBI. I'm not sure about the rest. And if you do light of the police, it'll be held against you. But even if you don't lie to the police, it'll be held against you. So, you know, just don't say anything. Except "lawyer, please."
Pleading guilty has nothing to do with remorse or repentance. It's a legal thing. It is a strategic choice.
> It is a strategic choice.
If a person did not commit a crime and if their strategic best choice is pleading guilty for the crime that has x% probability of receiving death penalty, it says something about the whole process.
If a person did not commit a crime and if their strategic best choice is pleading guilty for the crime that has x% probability of receiving death penalty, it says something about the whole process.
Yes that scenario sucks. Death penalty itself should be trial only with a super high standard of evidence.
I think I am against it in general. I am undecided.
I think I am against it in general. I am undecided.
What do executions have to do with remorse or repentance?
Safer is a bit of a misnomer here. Nothing is safe about being executed. If your goal is to die as quick & painless as possible, then let's poll those that have been executed... oh wait, we can't.
Statistically, there has been a lot less failed executions from firing squads, but is it cause it is more predictable, or because there have been issues obtaining drugs for lethal injection, lack of medical professionals willing to assist, lack of training, etc. Are there vast differences in statistics, even among the states that have death penalties? If so, then isn't saying it is "safer" overly broad, when in fact it depends which states you're referring to?
Statistically, there has been a lot less failed executions from firing squads, but is it cause it is more predictable, or because there have been issues obtaining drugs for lethal injection, lack of medical professionals willing to assist, lack of training, etc. Are there vast differences in statistics, even among the states that have death penalties? If so, then isn't saying it is "safer" overly broad, when in fact it depends which states you're referring to?
> issues obtaining drugs for lethal injection, lack of medical professionals willing to assist, lack of training, etc
I would say these all extremely relevant factors that you would want to take into account in assessing "safety".
I would say these all extremely relevant factors that you would want to take into account in assessing "safety".
We know even in a "not botched" lethal injection with the usual cocktail the sedation is often not effective and the paralyzing agent is only useful to hide that fact the sedation isn't working (and even counteracts the sedation).