Executions

[dmarsh8]

Out of morbid curiosity, what exactly was the common and ordinary (read "Constitutionally acceptable") method of implementing the death penalty used 200 years ago in our great land?? I'm sure it simply could NOT have been hanging, as that has apparently been deemed to be cruel and unusual. And thus every historical execution lawfully carried out this way MUST have been illegal and done by a corrupt regime, according to some here...

On a side note, why would it be a violation of a person's 8th Amendment rights to have a "death by hanging" sentence carried out after the full due process of the law has been completed? If hanging is so horrifying to watch, don't freaking watch it! If it ends in death for the person sentenced, then I guess it was pretty successful, huh? When I think of cruel and unusual, I recall horror stories where someone was skinned alive, or buried alive in an ant hill, or any of the classic medieval torture methods that could take days to kill someone. Hanging resulting in death a few minutes later than normal? Awww, shucks. Pity the poor convicted murderer/rapist/whatever. NOT.

And while I'm at it, I would like for someone, anyone, to show me a valid and verified legal system implemented by humans that has NEVER made a significant mistake. With sources and references, ironclad historical data to back it all up. I will wait patiently for this impossibility to happen. I will also, however, go on with my life with the realization that EVERY judicial system will ALWAYS make some errors in some way simply because it has humans involved in it. I will trust our judicial system...not blindly, and certainly not always happily...to make the best possible decision in life/death situations based on all the modern fact gathering and analysis available at the time, and with the full consideration of due process protecting the accused from "kangaroo court" type decisions. And by "due process" I am referring to the right to appeal a misguided sentencing to a higher court, where a better analysis of the facts has a realistic shot at changing the verdict. I do NOT however support the idea of "chasing jackalopes" by trying every single strategy in every single higher court possible in the hope that eventually one judge will ignore the preponderance of evidence and somehow miraculously deem the accused to be wrongfully convicted decades after the original decision was handed down.

On the other hand, what exactly is the point of one life sentence, let alone multiple life sentences being handed down? I have always believed that if the court sees no possibility of the accused ever returning to society in a productive & rehabilitated manner, then a simple application of short rope/long fall would remove that individual from society without placing further burdens on everyone else in that society.

Of course, I'm positive that someone on here (not naming names and all that) will have a truly wonderful and eloquently worded argument as to why I'm despicably and utterly wrong.

This ^^ Especially the highlighted part. Rep sent.

When the criminal's guilt undeniable, they should be done away with quickly. Quite frankly, whatever is fastest,most surprising,and cheapest.
Oh and I'm not interested in watching. "It worked-Justice is served" is all I need to know.
If they are going to be in prison/jail then they do not need any luxuries whatsoever. Last I checked they are supposed to be paying a debt to society, not being catered to and pacified. Along with the absence of privileges maybe
they should be up at 05:00, make their own food & take out their own trash,wash their own clothes by hand, along with any other chore that can be thought of while they are incarcerated. As many as possible should be sent out to work in the community for at least ten hours a day. Lights out 22:00 and wake up and do it again. This is just a short
list lacking details, but a decent start.
Cruel and unusual won't happen in our sissy society so no worries there. Of course, that is up for interpretation anyway,
because a belt or smack on a child's rear used to be normal, however many now consider that cruel too.
Funny how the pacifism and lack of punishment in the home is the same mindset expected to be mirrored in a correctional facility. Ironic correlation IMHO. We wouldn't want a prisoner to be uncomfortable.
Oh, I did a paper on capital punishment and the like a long time ago too and the parts of the world where they cut they're arm off for stealing or killed you for taking a life if driving while intoxicated had miraculously low crime rates and very very few repeat offenders. Go figure.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

At least one politico in Utah is figuring the correct answer is bringing back the firing squad. I don't see anything cruel or unusual in hanging or shooting, I'd figure that's how it was done when the Constitution was written, and hanging and shooting haven't gotten any crueler over the years and could still be done in the usual fashion.

Utah lawmaker proposes bringing back firing squads for executions | Fox News

Utah already has a tradition of execution by firing squad, with five police officers using .30-caliber Winchester rifles to execute Ronnie Lee Gardner in 2010, the last execution by rifle to be held in the state.

 

[dmarsh8]

At least one politico in Utah is figuring the correct answer is bringing back the firing squad. I don't see anything cruel or unusual in hanging or shooting, I'd figure that's how it was done when the Constitution was written, and hanging and shooting haven't gotten any crueler over the years and could still be done in the usual fashion.

Utah lawmaker proposes bringing back firing squads for executions | Fox News

Me either. Those both get my vote. The latter being my first ranking choice. Since the article brought up
the possibility of a miss, it's still faster to just reload or have an extra gun/shooter ready than to rope up twice.

 

[ModernGunner]

Companies producing lethal injection drugs are kept secret because lunatics that made death threats to employees and management of those companies, when the manufacturer is known. So, they ARE kept secret, and SHOULD BE kept secret.

Firing squad or hanging work. However, whatever method is used, don't care as long as the scumbag is dead.

I don't endorse revenge, but I don't care about them 'suffering', either.

After the death penalty is sentenced, the convict should get ONE appeal, and it must be completed in, say 180 calendar days. No 'endless' appeals, no '20 years on death row'.

Someone mentioned "25% are later found not guilty". Haven't seen ANY such factual data, and numbers are ALWAYS thrown out at ever-increasing percentages to pursue the liberal agenda. So, 25% is highly specious and highly doubtful. Especially with modern forensics.

NOR should the convict get the benefit of 'future technology'. They committed the crime in 'X era' then they should be subjected to and allowed ONLY the technology of the era in which they perpetrated the crime. They should NOT get to wait decades for some new technology to come along, and have their case endlessly reviewed.

Death penalty and 'immediate' execution saves the taxpayers an undue burden, and that is taking care of said convict for 40 - 50+ years for no justifiable reason.

Speedy trial and swift justice. That's all that's required, or should be.

 

[Denny347]

Out of morbid curiosity, what exactly was the common and ordinary (read "Constitutionally acceptable") method of implementing the death penalty used 200 years ago in our great land?? I'm sure it simply could NOT have been hanging, as that has apparently been deemed to be cruel and unusual. And thus every historical execution lawfully carried out this way MUST have been illegal and done by a corrupt regime, according to some here...

On a side note, why would it be a violation of a person's 8th Amendment rights to have a "death by hanging" sentence carried out after the full due process of the law has been completed? If hanging is so horrifying to watch, don't freaking watch it! If it ends in death for the person sentenced, then I guess it was pretty successful, huh? When I think of cruel and unusual, I recall horror stories where someone was skinned alive, or buried alive in an ant hill, or any of the classic medieval torture methods that could take days to kill someone. Hanging resulting in death a few minutes later than normal? Awww, shucks. Pity the poor convicted murderer/rapist/whatever. NOT.

And while I'm at it, I would like for someone, anyone, to show me a valid and verified legal system implemented by humans that has NEVER made a significant mistake. With sources and references, ironclad historical data to back it all up. I will wait patiently for this impossibility to happen. I will also, however, go on with my life with the realization that EVERY judicial system will ALWAYS make some errors in some way simply because it has humans involved in it. I will trust our judicial system...not blindly, and certainly not always happily...to make the best possible decision in life/death situations based on all the modern fact gathering and analysis available at the time, and with the full consideration of due process protecting the accused from "kangaroo court" type decisions. And by "due process" I am referring to the right to appeal a misguided sentencing to a higher court, where a better analysis of the facts has a realistic shot at changing the verdict. I do NOT however support the idea of "chasing jackalopes" by trying every single strategy in every single higher court possible in the hope that eventually one judge will ignore the preponderance of evidence and somehow miraculously deem the accused to be wrongfully convicted decades after the original decision was handed down.

On the other hand, what exactly is the point of one life sentence, let alone multiple life sentences being handed down? I have always believed that if the court sees no possibility of the accused ever returning to society in a productive & rehabilitated manner, then a simple application of short rope/long fall would remove that individual from society without placing further burdens on everyone else in that society.

Of course, I'm positive that someone on here (not naming names and all that) will have a truly wonderful and eloquently worded argument as to why I'm despicably and utterly wrong.

There is nothing "simple" with the death penalty. There are many checks and balances because we cannot correct it when we get it wrong...and we get it wrong...quite often. How many innocents are we comfortable with getting executed just so we can speed up the process? I have no answers but the questions give me pause. The Innocence Project - The Innocent and the Death Penalty

 

[Kutnupe14]

The death penalty, should either be eliminated, or meet a federally mandated criteria. If anybody does X, then they get the needle, bullet, rope, night in bed with Rosanne Barr, no questions asked.

 

[rambone]

Oh, I did a paper on capital punishment and the like a long time ago too and the parts of the world where they cut they're arm off for stealing or killed you for taking a life if driving while intoxicated had miraculously low crime rates and very very few repeat offenders. Go figure.

Was your paper called, "The Effects of Tyranny on Crime Rates" ?

"Mutilation and You: How Taliban Justice Could Solve America's Crime Problem" ?

After the death penalty is sentenced, the convict should get ONE appeal, and it must be completed in, say 180 calendar days. No 'endless' appeals, no '20 years on death row'.

NOR should the convict get the benefit of 'future technology'. They committed the crime in 'X era' then they should be subjected to and allowed ONLY the technology of the era in which they perpetrated the crime. They should NOT get to wait decades for some new technology to come along, and have their case endlessly reviewed.

Why? Why on earth would you want that? The only people you'd be harming are the innocent ones.

Yeah... lets pretend DNA doesn't exist so the government can execute more innocent people. WTF.

Death penalty and 'immediate' execution saves the taxpayers an undue burden, and that is taking care of said convict for 40 - 50+ years for no justifiable reason.

Speedy trial and swift justice. That's all that's required, or should be.

You shouldn't confuse sentencing with justice. When they get it wrong, its called "injustice." But hey, we gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, right?

 

[rockhopper46038]

I have no compunctions over putting to death a person guilty of heinous acts. I don't think the 8th Amendment is a barrier to capital punishment. Irrefutable guilt in cases where the death penalty is truly applicable should have sentence carried out as soon after sentencing as is practicable.

I am concerned by the demonstrated fact that our flawed judicial system doesn't always get the answer right.

 

[JS1911]

There is nothing "simple" with the death penalty. There are many checks and balances because we cannot correct it when we get it wrong...and we get it wrong...quite often. How many innocents are we comfortable with getting executed just so we can speed up the process? I have no answers but the questions give me pause. The Innocence Project - The Innocent and the Death Penalty

If the whole "Spilling Innocent Blood" nonsense is the only reason you can come up with, I have news for you. A few wrongfully executed people aren't exactly the only innocent deaths that this country has on it's hands. I for one have only one problem with the death penalty, it takes too long to execute scumbags who deserve it.

 

[dmarsh8]

Was your paper called, "The Effects of Tyranny on Crime Rates" ?

"Mutilation and You: How Taliban Justice Could Solve America's Crime Problem" ?




Why? Why on earth would you want that? The only people you'd be harming are the innocent ones.

Yeah... lets pretend DNA doesn't exist so the government can execute more innocent people. WTF.




You shouldn't confuse sentencing with justice. When they get it wrong, its called "injustice." But hey, we gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, right?

No, it was simply whether or not strict punishment, especially capital was a deterrent. When it actually gets used enough as it should be yes, it is. I agree with JS1911 it takes to long to carry it out here. People know they can get off the hook too easily.

 

[Denny347]

If the whole "Spilling Innocent Blood" nonsense is the only reason you can come up with, I have news for you. A few wrongfully executed people aren't exactly the only innocent deaths that this country has on it's hands. I for one have only one problem with the death penalty, it takes too long to execute scumbags who deserve it.

Ok, you may be right, but does that make it ok? Is that not a good reason? What if it was your family that was innocent and executed? It's a serious issue. I'm sorry you see it as "nonsense".

 

[jamil]

No, it was simply whether or not strict punishment, especially capital was a deterrent. When it actually gets used enough as it should be yes, it is. I agree with JS1911 it takes to long to carry it out here. People know they can get off the hook too easily.

Sheesh, so the value of innocent life reduces to nonsense. Killing bad people is so important for justice that killing a few good ones in the process is unfortunate but necessary. Eh, that's a noble thing, I guess. I'm sure if you were wrongly accused you'd stand up and take one for the team justice.

 

[dmarsh8]

Where did I say anything about killing innocent people was necessary!

 

[Destro]

Why? Why on earth would you want that? The only people you'd be harming are the innocent ones.

Yeah... lets pretend DNA doesn't exist so the government can execute more innocent people. WTF.

one of the rare moments Rambone and I are on the same page

 

[jamil]

Where did I say anything about killing innocent people was necessary!

I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote JS1911 because his post seemed to imply that.

one of the rare moments Rambone and I are on the same page

Frankly I'm astonished. I was thinking somewhere planets must be aligned because I agree with both you and rambone in the same thread.

 

[dmarsh8]

I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote JS1911 because his post seemed to imply that.



Frankly I'm astonished. I was thinking somewhere planets must be aligned because I agree with both you and rambone in the same thread.

No prob.

 

[MisterChester]

I am for the death penalty in principle. However, leaving it open means there is a chance someone can be executed while not actually being guilty as opposed to being determined guilty.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What if it was your family that was innocent and executed?

What if its your family that's victimized by the wrongly acquitted who is released to commit more crimes?

Yes, the accused have rights. Yes, taking a man's life is nothing to be taken lightly. However, there is more potential tragedies here than solely wrongful execution. Murdered, crippled, or raped inmates and prison guards forced to continue to interact with the incurably violent, the potential victims in our society if the offender is released, etc.

 

[Denny347]

What if its your family that's victimized by the wrongly acquitted who is released to commit more crimes?

Yes, the accused have rights. Yes, taking a man's life is nothing to be taken lightly. However, there is more potential tragedies here than solely wrongful execution. Murdered, crippled, or raped inmates and prison guards forced to continue to interact with the incurably violent, the potential victims in our society if the offender is released, etc.

I commented earlier in this thread that I'd likely want blood if I or someone I loved fell victim to a capitol crime. It's a normal human response, is that right though? I really don't have an answer, just questions. Wrongly acquitted? Why were they acquitted? Crappy case? Poor police work? Bad prosecutors? Jury nullification? That doesn't really have much to do with the death penalty. For a few death penalty cases, guilt is unquestionable. However, the vast majority of the cases is where innocent people are being sent to death row. How do we prevent innocent people from being executed? I dono. Is there an acceptable number? Some here say yes. These are honest questions that I have. Look, I arrest bad guys all the time and I like to think I'm "tough of crime" but I have my concerns. Is life in prison w/o parole not justice? Is maximum security 23hrs a day in a cell not punishment. They are separated from society. If they get out, then they would have not been eligible for death anyway.

 

[MisterChester]

Life in prison without parole is probably the best punishment for the worst crimes. Believe it or not, prison is somewhere reasonable people don't want to be. "But the state pays for the food and keeps them alive blah blah" I hear often, well that is true it is still much worse than the roach hotel. I'd see the point of that argument once people start lining up outside banks to rob them.