Executions should be by firing squad, federal appeals court judge says(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Executions should be by firing squad, federal appeals court judge says
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na-nn-arizona-execution-kozinski-20140723-story.html
33 comments
We're in surprising company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_co...
Studies* show that it doesn't deter crime and isn't cost-effective. What's our rationale?
Does prison time deter murders? I'm guessing no, considering the death penalty apparently doesn't. Does that mean should we not send murders to prison?
My rationale for supporting the death penalty is justice. If you, with malice and forethought end the life of another human being, you don't deserve to live.
In practice, there issues with it, but I don't think it should be written off completely, just held to the highest burden of proof provided by the law.
My rationale for supporting the death penalty is justice. If you, with malice and forethought end the life of another human being, you don't deserve to live.
In practice, there issues with it, but I don't think it should be written off completely, just held to the highest burden of proof provided by the law.
The death penalty does deter murders, just not any more than a long prison term. And a long prison term doesn't deter crime much more than a medium length prison term. The thing that deters crime most dramatically is a high perceived likelihood of being caught. If we moved money away from killing people and into improved policing, we might wind up with less crime.
Should we send murderers to prison at all? Of course - it deters crime (and murder is an awfully important kind of crime to deter). Should we send murderers to prison for so long that the marginal increase in deterrence is tiny? Maybe, maybe not - that depends on just what the increase is, just what the costs are, just what the recidivism rate is, and how these things change over time.
Should we send murderers to prison at all? Of course - it deters crime (and murder is an awfully important kind of crime to deter). Should we send murderers to prison for so long that the marginal increase in deterrence is tiny? Maybe, maybe not - that depends on just what the increase is, just what the costs are, just what the recidivism rate is, and how these things change over time.
If the idea is to prevent pain, there are many simple methods. Heroin overdose? Carbon monoxide?
I'm theoretically OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes, but in practice I oppose it -- the chance of a false positive is way above zero with the current legal system.
I'm theoretically OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes, but in practice I oppose it -- the chance of a false positive is way above zero with the current legal system.
Watch this video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w
Basically, they brought a guy close to deadly hypoxia (lack of O2). Throughout the process they asked him to perform basic tasks to test brain function. Toward the end they asked him to push a button to end the procedure. They told him that not pushing the button would result in his death (don't worry, he doesn't die). The hypoxia basically resulted in his brain not being able to discern his imminent death and he wouldn't push the button.
This was discussed as a means of "civilized" death penalty since the victim didn't realize their fate at the last moments of their life. Arguments against it is that perhaps the victim should know they are going to die.
Basically, they brought a guy close to deadly hypoxia (lack of O2). Throughout the process they asked him to perform basic tasks to test brain function. Toward the end they asked him to push a button to end the procedure. They told him that not pushing the button would result in his death (don't worry, he doesn't die). The hypoxia basically resulted in his brain not being able to discern his imminent death and he wouldn't push the button.
This was discussed as a means of "civilized" death penalty since the victim didn't realize their fate at the last moments of their life. Arguments against it is that perhaps the victim should know they are going to die.
The only problem with the 'solution' of abolishing the death penalty is that it makes the real issue (false conviction) easier to ignore, while there will still be innocent people who have to suffer a horrible fate, (life imprisonment not substantially better than death,) for a crime they did not commit.
At least the people wrongfully convicted to life in prison have a chance (sometimes) to prove their innocence. Such an opportunity is obviously lost if one is executed. Executions are not helping to reduce false convictions. They might add a bit more media attention, but should innocent people die for that? Seems preposterous to me.
If what you are saying is true, why do some of the people on trial for heinous crimes push for a death penalty offense? They say that it is the only way for them to get a good attorney or an appeal, and avoid a life wasted in prison. Are they wrong?
What cases are you referring to? I've never heard anything like this. Even if such cases exist, it still doesn't justify murdering people because the state is incapable of doling out justice.
I'm not sure if that is valid justification enough to avoid abolishing the death penalty, but I think it does touch on a concern I have with the "life imprisonment is cheaper anyway" argument.
The reason generally cited for the higher cost of executing somebody is the lengthy appeals process. Why is it that this makes executions more expensive than life in prison? Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal? Unless they are actually guilty, either possibility is problematic. In the first case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are giving up on justice. In the second case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are being denied justice.
One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?
The reason generally cited for the higher cost of executing somebody is the lengthy appeals process. Why is it that this makes executions more expensive than life in prison? Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal? Unless they are actually guilty, either possibility is problematic. In the first case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are giving up on justice. In the second case, that means that innocent people sentenced to life are being denied justice.
One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?
>"I'm not sure if that is valid justification enough to avoid abolishing the death penalty, but I think it does touch on a concern I have with the "life imprisonment is cheaper anyway" argument."
I agree completely with these points.
>"Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal?"
This is what many criminal defense attorneys say, and the reason that some defendants prefer a charge which carries the death penalty to one which has a life imprisonment sentence.
>"One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?"
This is a clearer statement of one of my ill-expressed thoughts.
I agree completely with these points.
>"Do people sentenced to life have fewer appeals? If so, why? Do they simply choose to appeal less, or are they not afforded as many opportunities to appeal?"
This is what many criminal defense attorneys say, and the reason that some defendants prefer a charge which carries the death penalty to one which has a life imprisonment sentence.
>"One of the other common criticisms of executions are that they are final; finding out that somebody was innocent after killing them is useless to that person. However if for some reason people sentenced to life are receiving fewer opportunities to be found innocent since it seems less important or time-critical, are we seeing any real benefit?"
This is a clearer statement of one of my ill-expressed thoughts.
If the idea were a painless "clean looking" death, then a tank of nitrogen, a rubber tube, and a mask are all that you would need. Painless, cheap, effective, and could be administered by anybody so you don't need a nurse to insert the needle. You could pull the nitrogen straight from the air at the facility so you wouldn't even have chemical supply issues (not that local welding gas supply companies would face international pressure to refuse shipments anyway...)
That executions are not done that way is all the proof that I need to say that executions are not currently designed to be painless. They are designed to appear clean, but specifically designed to torture.
That executions are not done that way is all the proof that I need to say that executions are not currently designed to be painless. They are designed to appear clean, but specifically designed to torture.
How can a modern society still think it is ok to carry out the death penalty?
Stupidity like this belongs in the Middle Ages, not our times.
Stupidity like this belongs in the Middle Ages, not our times.
Read about some of the crimes committed by those on death row. Then look the victim's families in the face and tell them that the perpetrator deserves to live.
...and removal of emotion from sentencing is precisely why we have independent judges and juries in the more civilized parts of the world.
The application of justice must be blind and impartial in order to approach being just.
The application of justice must be blind and impartial in order to approach being just.
Why not something like a guillotine? Properly designed and maintained, I doubt you'd get much in the way of botched executions and it's probably the fastest death you're likely to get. Combine it with some sedation if it's decided that decapitating a conscious person is cruel and unusual.
"I personally think we should go to the guillotine, but shooting is probably the right way to go," Kozinski said.
Yes, I was wondering why the guillotine isn't acceptable.
I would guess the main reason is that it would be too gruesome for anyone watching the execution. Also, decapitation seems almost like desecrating the condemned person's corpse, which might be considered a cruel and unusual punishment even for someone considered to be deserving of the death penalty.
I think some religions object to dismemberment.
And some religions advocate stoning to death. That doesn't make either position correct. Religion should be left out of these kinds of discussions, among many others, but sadly isn't. Let's not do anything at all, that way we'll offend less people.
Yes and some religions object to the death penalty?
There is some ambiguity as to whether guillotine is actually completely instant or painless: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1172/does-the-head-...
A bullet to the heart is going to be as fast of a death as you can get. Only a few seconds for unconsciousness to hit because of loss of blood pressure, and with hydrostatic shock[1], it can be even faster.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
It's good time to remind Americans that civilized countries don't have the death penalty.
Ah yes, the define-civilized-to-exclude-the-US argument.
As far as law goes, that's a quite accurate.
I don't understand why any form of execution -- lethal injection, firing squad, guillotine, or any other -- isn't preceded by a hearty dose of morphine.
Remind me again why execution is a valid punishment? And if you think it's valid, isn't reducing pain by morphine as you say going against the reasoning for being a valid punishment?
Punishments are about a combination of rehabilitation, disincentivization and reducing or eliminating harm to society at large. In cases of capital punishment, the chances of rehabilitation is considered to be effectively zero, so the other two factors are emphasized.
Perhaps because the perpetrator's victims didn't get a "hearty dose of morphine" when they were shot, stabbed, raped, buried alive, burned alive or tortured.
Punitive measures aren't about revenge,
How American.