You've seen this I hope?
http://www.theonion.com/video/ohio-replaces-lethal-injection-with-humane-new-hea,36077/

Well this is one of those things where the ninny courts have gotten involved ruling most of the best methods of execution cruel and unusual.

So they have created the problem in order for their preferred solution, which is no executions at all, be the only option.
I think that is called begging the question.

Firing squad is still legal in some states. I would be in favor of it, and if someone ever was convicted, and sentenced to death for murdering a family member, would volunteer to be on it.

However, even an idiot can tell the difference between a blank, and a real round in the chamber, so I would know for sure whether I had shot the SOB or not.

Of course if you want to make executions bloody in the hope that it will expose it for what it is, and deter the government from doing it at all, maybe, by the same token, we should be filming abortions, and posting them on the internet.

Bringing up drone strikes, another one of those examples of 'don't want to get my hands dirty actually shooting bad guys' ,

ThIs is one of the reasons they are so morally questionable. Not only is there going to be collateral damage, but it is cowardly to take out your enemy in a drone strike, unless you are involved in a real up close and personal boots on the ground, shooting war.

In any other situation, is is basically an extra judicial summary execution.

For my money, Judge Kozinski is about the only good thing to come out of Bucharest besides my Dad, aunts and grandma.

How can a vet put my cat to sleep in a min and we can't euthanize a murderer?

@ CatherineM -

Prhaps because the private sector is generally far more efficient than government. ;)

"Perhaps"; d'oh!

"The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or ten large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time. There are plenty of people employed by the state who can pull the trigger and have the training to aim true.

You wouldn't need riflemen. You could build a machine that holds rifle ammunition and sends the bullets to a spot downrange. Somewhere between the muzzles and the spot, sit the condemned.

Note well: I don't think the State should have the right to remove someone from existence. If killing is wrong, it's wrong. Period.

However, even an idiot can tell the difference between a blank, and a real round in the chamber, so I would know for sure whether I had shot the SOB or not. -- Isab at July 24, 2014 10:04 AM

When firing squads were more routine they had the armorer pull the bullet out of the cartridge and replacing it with a wax seal on 6 of the bullets.

Then he would load the rifles. Then the seven shooters would come in and select the rifle they were going to use randomly. Then after they fired they would leave the round chambered and return it to the armory. So effectively the shooters wouldn't know who fired the kill shot.

Seven rounds going into one person would effectively rip a body in half.

I always find it amusing that the people who argue against the death penalty and war are usually the same who argue the loudest for abortion. So killing a fetus is okay dokay but it's offensive when murderers (read: someone who TOOK a life) are being killed? So, human life only has value when it's convenient and when it fits a specific agenda?

Either taking a life is wrong or it isn't. I'm amazed that anyone can justify one and not the other without also recognizing their own hypocrisy.

"Of course if you want to make executions bloody in the hope that it will expose it for what it is, and deter the government from doing it at all, maybe, by the same token, we should be filming abortions, and posting them on the internet."

Brilliant. Of course that would never happen because it would expose all of those things for what they really are and that doesn't fit the narrative.

Amy, see last week's blog post— They Didn't So Much Ban The Death Penalty In CA As They DId Protest It Taking So Damn Long To Kill People. We value life highly in the civilized world, so there's always going to be lots of paperwork before an execution.

I mean, you understand full well that if executions are bloodier, they'll be more fiercely opposed by the man on the street.

Is that your end game? It's a laudable position, quite possibly the most ethical one. But I don't see why you can't be frank about it.

> If killing is wrong, it's wrong. Period.

Killing is not wrong, per se. There plenty of times when it's the most, or only, moral response. Murder is wrong.

And I hate the thing where people put "period" at the end. It's not convincing, or demonstrative of rhetorical seriousness... It's just pompous. If you're so gosh-darned certain that you're right, you shouldn't be so desperate to foreclose discussion. (More here.)

> Seven rounds going into one person would
> effectively rip a body in half.

Well gosh, when you put like that....

And I hate the thing where people put "period" at the end.

Cry me a river.

> even an idiot can tell the difference between
> a blank, and a real round in the chamber, so
> I would know for sure whether I had shot
> the SOB or not.

If I remember the moral calculus of this discussion, the point of one blank round in the firing squad is not that any single shootist would get it, it's that any of them might, and thus needn't feel especially responsible for the killing. War is full of math like that; your lucky day, or not.

I've noticed the same thing as Sabrina. Just as an example from my newsfeed today. Lady is vegan and big-time PETA fan. Must not ever eat or harm animals. We're evil for wanting to stop all the illegal children from pouring across the border. The death penalty is cruel and inhumane. Then my body, my choice, prochoice and how dare my employer not cover abortions or governments try to limit it for any reason. Ummm.....okay. Unborn babies have no value and don't deserve to live, but criminals and animals are far more important and have value?

Crid... semantics.

Killing is not wrong, per se. There plenty of times when it's the most, or only, moral response.

I actualy agree with you on that. Killing in self-defense or even in war is actually justified, in my opinion.

My point, despite my arguably incorrect use of the word "killing", is still clear.

The bleeding heart Liberals and their followers will use the "value of human life" argument all day long when they are talking about war, gun control, and the death penalty but cannot see the hypocricy in their arguing FOR more government money to go to places like Planned Parenthood for free abortions. Basically, they're saying government sanctioned genocide is NOT okay, unless the end result makes my life more conveient because YAY NO BABY!

You know what... I didn't say killing. I'm sorry, Crid. I'm so damn tired I can't even recognize my own posts anymore.

Yeah but still, lay off a little huh? Again, semantics.

"When firing squads were more routine they had the armorer pull the bullet out of the cartridge and replacing it with a wax seal on 6 of the bullets"

And you are wrong. A wax seal in a rifle cartridge has no recoil impulse.
A bullet leaving the cartridge through the barrel of a rifle or a pistol will generate a substantial recoil impulse otherwise known as 'kick'

Anyone who had trained with a rifle would instantly know that they were one of the one(s) with the wax seal or that they had fired a real bullet.

So it was all a Potemkin show for rubes like you, who know nothing about firearms.

The only purpose it would serve is that the six guys with blanks wouldn't know who had the live round that killed the guy. The shooter himself would always know.

I would support eliminating the death penalty if life imprisonment meant life imprisonment; not prison time until a group of unelected, unknown, unaccoutable members of a parole board decided to grant freedom to murderers. I can't remember who did the research but something like one third or more of murders are committed by people who have killed before and been released from prison. That means for every three killers paroled the state is condeming some innocent person to death.

The absurdity of parole is exlemplefied here in Ohio where a man was given multiple life sentances. Sounds good until you learn that he would be eligible for parole in 10 years.

> Yeah but still, lay off a little huh?

No.

> Again, semantics.

No.

> My point, despite my arguably incorrect use
> of the word "killing", is still clear.

No.

People used to say "Follow the money", because of that movie.

But it's better to say follow the language... Because language will cue you into a culture really quickly, telling you where people are preparing to make allowances for malfeasance, or where they themselves expect to be forgiven.

Our lil' muffin Daniels is grown man offering (proudly) rigid ideas about right and wrong. If he doesn't carry a conscious distinction between killing and murder in his head as he discusses this, he darned well oughta.

…Because he wants to be taken seriously, right? He said what he meant, and he said with repetitive pedantry: "If killing is wrong, it's wrong." Nonetheless, we soon get the full teen sarcasm of "Cry me a river."



Huh?

Me?

I'm against capital punishment. A few years ago, Hitchens knocked out an essay demonstrating that atrocities like Arizona and Oklahoma and Tookie Williams in California are to be expected... In a civilized society, executions will always be seedy and degrading for everyone involved.

So I'm against it.

But not by much: Mostly, I want my fellows to recognize that some misconduct is so bad that it should disqualify you from all of civilization's privileges... Every last one of them. People who doubt that aren't seeing the misconduct for what it is, either because they're too prissy to register the horror or because they don't want to play rhetorical hardball... It's cowardice, either way.


This is a serious and nuanced topic. It deserves thoughtful and straightforward language... The kind where you can't smirk about "semantics" when your position is discounted.

"I would support eliminating the death penalty if life imprisonment meant life imprisonment;"

Okay. What do you do with the prisoner who's been sentenced to "true life" and has nothing to lose?

"Hey, why don't I shank that guard?" "Hey, why don't I rape and murder that cute prison librarian? What are they going to do with me; give me double-secret life in prison?"

(My own belief: I think there are some people who have committed crimes so heinous that they have forfeited the right to live, and I believe the death penalty is justified in those cases. I also have serious qualms about the way we currently implement the death penalty, and about the justice system in general, but I don't want to hijack Ms. Alkon's blog.)

For more on the inherent seediness of it, consider:

> Seven rounds going into one person would
> effectively rip a body in half.

Is this really the kind of thing we want people talking about for fun?

> Posted by: Dwight Brown at July 24, 2014 2:43 PM

☑

I'm only for the death penalty if it's used against idiots who say things like "bleeding heart liberals" or "fascist conservatives."

They're too dumb to live. Fry 'em.

As far as abortion is concerned, let's have more abortions, safer abortions, cheaper abortions, free contraception, and sex ed beginning at age 10 around the world, especially in religious countries.

The firing squad is unnecessary. As the Mob taught us, a .22 to the back of the head is quite effective. Attach a .22 pistol to helmet with a hole in it, and put on the prisoner's head, strap him to the gurney, and electrically fire the weapon. Poof, done.

My prefered solution is a nice cup of hemlock tea, perhaps to be served after the last meal. Not bloody, not particularly horrible, but you could have a reporter interview the unfortunate soul, and he could tell us how it feels, as did another victim, Socrates.

If that's not bloody enough, we could go for the spectacle of the condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Would require some horses, so maybe just going way old school and hang him from the tree of woe. Crucify him.

Wikipedia has pages for both of those...

What do you do with the prisoner who's been sentenced to "true life" and has nothing to lose?

Put them in a super max facility. No contact unless they're shackled hand and foot, and then only if they need medical attention.

Someone would call that cruel and unusual. I don't, it gives them time to think on their situation. No getting out except in a body bag.

And if they actually are unjustly imprisoned[*] they can be released, and cells can be reserved for the person(s) who committed misconduct in the case.

[*] prisons are just full of innocent people. Just ask them.

> let's have more abortions, safer abortions,
> cheaper abortions...

Favorite sarcasm from National Lampoon (or was it Spy?): "Anonymous abortion should be freely available in high school nurse's office."

Can't we just have the condemned fight to the death for our amusement?

I mean, we already have mercenaries fighting our foreign adventures for us, and the Senate does not suit up for the battle.

Let's go whole-prosciutto Roman-empire-decline on this while we can!

Executions are like dry cleaning. The courts are constantly saying 'You are doing it wrong.' or 'You can't do that anymore.' But they never tell you how you can do it.

Right, Ben, but that's what we want, right?

Courts aren't supposed to tell us what's intended, only if were doing it right.

(At least, that was the model up until Roe v. Wade…)

And what if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered. Would you guys still oppose the death penalty if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered?

I would support eliminating the death penalty if life imprisonment meant life imprisonment…. ~ Posted by: Jay at July 24, 2014 2:34 PM

What do you do when the brutal murderer escapes and kills someone new? What do you tell the loved ones of his next victim about your moral stance on the death penalty then?

What do you tell them about the odds being stacked against the murderer being able to escape from the super max prison and how it wasn't supposed to be able to happen?

How do you stay on the moral high ground when the brutal murderer slips his shackles and murders a guard or a prison employee?

The death penalty is disgusting and barbaric ... and sometimes necessary.

The purpose of the firing squad, as I understand it, is so no one on it can be quite sure whether they killed the guy. ~ Amy

According to Wikipedia:

"Usually, all members of the group are instructed to fire simultaneously, thus preventing both disruption of the process by a single member and identification of the member who fired the lethal shot."

and

"For military servicemen, the firing squad is symbolic. The condemned soldier is executed by a group of his peers indicating that he is found guilty by the entire group."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad

Tiresome.

Essentially, we are at the point where, if you are not successful at defending yourself with deadly force, the State will not follow through for you, in fact providing your killer with three hots and a cot no matter what for the rest of his life.

We pretend that there are no human animals, that the "time out" can be more effective on a two-legged beast than on a loud four-year-old.

And there are those who are trying to strip you of the capability of self-defense, too. Sheep cannot stand to be alone.

> Sheep cannot stand to be alone.

Yes. This, and things like it, are said so often that it's turning into a principle.

Listen, is there any particular reason for the United States to have taken such an enormous step to the left in the last ten years except that so many voters were lulled into complacency in the 1990's, and came to assume that safety and comfort were mere policy problems? I can't see any other grand sociological forces at work.

And the places where liberalism churns most reliably —academe and Hollywood— are famous for echo-chamber isolation.

People in those places don't merely think they have the duty to trust their department heads (or studio chiefs) for political insight...

They think they have the right to trust others that way... which is far worse.

The think they should be encouraged to see which way the wind is blowing, at least locally, before speaking about right and wrong.

> Let's go whole-prosciutto Roman-empire-
> decline on this while we can!

On melon?

(Sorry, it was an appetizer in Santa Monica fuckdate restaurants in the '90s.)

(The pork, not the decadence.)

I find it interesting that so many people who don't trust the state on anything trust the state to wisely administer the most final form of justice there is.

"On melon?"

Not on my melon. Wait, is that a ham-hatted compliment that I missed?

> many people who don't trust the state on
> anything trust the state to wisely administer
> the most final form of justice

Well, we've seen that our government is a jealous government: Thou shalt have no sources of charity, decency, or righteousness beyond your 'public servants'.

But yeah... Private-sector initiatives for redress of mortal grievance are strongly discouraged.

Specifically, you can't pay a drifter to frost your Tostitos-fattened ex-wife.

You two got a problem with that?