7 ms·

I think the death penalty shouldn't exist, but I find this fascination with all these Rube Goldberg style execution methods strange. Gas chambers, lethal inject

by jabl 8y ago

I think the death penalty shouldn't exist, but I find this fascination with all these Rube Goldberg style execution methods strange. Gas chambers, lethal injections, electrocution, and whatnot. If you're going to execute somebody, just put them up against a wall and shoot them, FFS. A firing squad has the benefit of being quite certain (accounts of botched executions are quite horrifying, IMHO), and cheap (prison guards already have guns and ammo, no need to procure and maintain some special execution apparatus).

Thiez 8y ago
Do you really want prison guards to get used to firing (to kill) on inmates? Besides, I imagine/hope that most of them wouldn't want to. Let's take inspiration from George R.R. Martin and have the judge who imposed the death penalty be on that squad.
- stordoff 8y ago
  Would it cause them to get used it? I see no reason you couldn't have an executioner, who isn't responsible for the day-to-day guarding, and in any case are there enough executions to get used to it?
- analog31 8y ago
  ... or the jury.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jabl 8y ago
  > Do you really want prison guards to get used to firing (to kill) on inmates? If not, why do they have guns in the first place then? Besides, I imagine a firing squad situation is quite different from an escape attempt, violent riot, or whatever situation that might otherwise warrant the use of firearms. > Besides, I imagine/hope that most of them wouldn't want to. I imagine that as well. But, I don't think making it comfortable on the executioner should be particularly high on the list of priorities. If nobody wants to be the person who pulls the trigger, presses the button, or whatever, then maybe it suggests we shouldn't have capital punishment in the first place? > Let's take inspiration from George R.R. Martin and have the judge who imposed the death penalty be on that squad. Awesome, I fully support that.
- lev99 8y ago
  I'm against following George R.R. Martin's lead, because I suspect it would cause different judges to sentence different punishments for similar trials given their own person aversion or attraction to killing. This would be equivalent of people being treated unequally by the law, which is against the equal protection clause of the fourteen amendment.
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    -I think your point is a valid (and good!) one, but I like - that is hardly an appropriate verb in this context - the concept. Perhaps any prosecutor seeking the death penalty in a case would have to join a pool of executioner's assistants? (Same for jurors and judges - unless you are willing to follow through on actually killing someone, you are barred from deciding on the matters of life and death?) In this way, their verdict on any particular case wouldn't make any difference (to them!) - they could be called upon to take part in the dirty details of an actual execution in any other case but the one they sat in on. The only problem I have with such a system, is that there's probably people out there who'd basically ask 'Cool, where do I sign up?', which is somewhat scary. The civilized thing, of course, would be to abolish it altogether. Capital punishment basically ensures that The System(tm) WILL murder innocents on occasion. As I like to ask proponents of the death penalty - what false positive rate is acceptable?
    - burfog 8y ago
      An interesting thing to ask about the false positive rate: What is the false positive rate on determining that there was a false positive? That is, we may decide that someone was wrongly convicted, but we may be wrong in that determination. It is also interesting to note that a "wrong" conviction seldom means that the person was a fine upstanding citizen. Often it means something like "convicted of the killing, but only provided the weapon" or "convicted of the killing, but was only trying to help a fellow gang member by disposing of the body". This sort of false positive isn't anywhere near as bad as what we commonly imagine to be the case, with a 100% innocent person being wrongly convicted.
      - 8y ago
mrighele 8y ago
An amount of people regularly die during sleep because of CO poisoning (for example because they used a broken stove for heating the room). Wouldn't a similar approach work for a death penalty? It seems so simple that probably I am missing something
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I remember hearing somewhere that a reason this isn't done is because it doesn't provide closure to victims and their families–which is supposedly something that the death penalty is supposed to achieve. You just see them go to sleep and die. By the way, I'd think that using something like Nitrogen is probably a better choice, being as it is inert and nontoxic, but just as good as an asphyxiant.
- clort 8y ago
  Yes. The problem with CO poisoning (or, Nitrogen) is that it is painless, and people actively resist that. Some people want it to be about retribution rather than justice.
  - qubex 8y ago
    And that, I think, is one of the best arguments one can make against the death penalty: it’s about revenge. The point of having a judicial process and the rule of law is (also) to prevent the aggrieved from acting out as their emotions dictate, because that’s generally against the interests of broader society (and amongst other things is how blood feuds start).
    - georgek 8y ago
      Interestingly enough, that's also a strong argument for the death penalty. We cede the right of private retribution and the state assumes that responsibility, carrying it out in a more structured and ostensibly fair way than mob justice. Historically, the state assuming the responsibility of giving citizens justice (including for capital crimes) was one of the key turning points in the rise of centralized rule and in Europe, the transition from the Middle Ages to early modern Europe. A great book that explores this topic is, 'The Faithful Executioner,' about a 16th century executioner in what is now Germany. I imagine people today may disagree about how important that still is.
duxup 8y ago
I also find it odd that these freaky methods are used ... if anything they seem more cruel and unusual than other alternatives.
greeneggs 8y ago
Utah has used firing squads for executions, the most recent was in 2010. Previous law allowed the inmate to choose the execution method, but now I think a firing squad is specified to be used if the lethal injection drugs are unavailable. > "There were five marksmen: They're all volunteers and they're police officer trained." > Of the five rifles, one is loaded with blanks so that no one knows for sure who fired the bullets. https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/397672199/utah-brings-back-firing-squad-executions-witnesses-recall-the-last-one https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/397672199/utah-brings-back-fi...
Jedi72 8y ago
Many dont realise this - in a firing squad only a few guys have live ammo, the rest are blanks. This is so that no one soldier knows for certain if he was the one responsible (and probably so that they actually aim for the victim). 100% agree with your sentiment.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  I never even held a gun, but, is the lack of recoil not obvious?
  - jabl 8y ago
    Yes, and no. If you fire a live round, and immediately after a blank (or vice versa) from the same gun, the difference is very easy to notice. But if there's more time between, or if you're not very familiar with the gun, it's more difficult. And, if you're standing there tasked with killing another person, an objective analysis of the recoil is perhaps easier said than done. In the end, I think it's more about plausible deniability on a psychological level than something you couldn't figure out if you wanted to.
- jabl 8y ago
  From what I've read, it's usually one person that has a blank, all others have live.
RichardCA 8y ago
When someone trains to be a Veterinarian, one of things they learn is how to put an animal down humanely. That same body of knowledge should exist for humans. Not knowing the difference between KCL and CH3CO2K - a vet would have their license revoked for this. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/08/446862121/oklahoma-used-the-wrong-drug-to-execute-charles-warner https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/08/446862121...

by jabl 8y ago

Thiez 8y ago

Do you really want prison guards to get used to firing (to kill) on inmates? Besides, I imagine/hope that most of them wouldn't want to. Let's take inspiration from George R.R. Martin and have the judge who imposed the death penalty be on that squad.

stordoff 8y ago
Would it cause them to get used it? I see no reason you couldn't have an executioner, who isn't responsible for the day-to-day guarding, and in any case are there enough executions to get used to it?
analog31 8y ago
... or the jury.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jabl 8y ago
> Do you really want prison guards to get used to firing (to kill) on inmates? If not, why do they have guns in the first place then? Besides, I imagine a firing squad situation is quite different from an escape attempt, violent riot, or whatever situation that might otherwise warrant the use of firearms. > Besides, I imagine/hope that most of them wouldn't want to. I imagine that as well. But, I don't think making it comfortable on the executioner should be particularly high on the list of priorities. If nobody wants to be the person who pulls the trigger, presses the button, or whatever, then maybe it suggests we shouldn't have capital punishment in the first place? > Let's take inspiration from George R.R. Martin and have the judge who imposed the death penalty be on that squad. Awesome, I fully support that.
lev99 8y ago
I'm against following George R.R. Martin's lead, because I suspect it would cause different judges to sentence different punishments for similar trials given their own person aversion or attraction to killing. This would be equivalent of people being treated unequally by the law, which is against the equal protection clause of the fourteen amendment.
- lb1lf 8y ago
  -I think your point is a valid (and good!) one, but I like - that is hardly an appropriate verb in this context - the concept. Perhaps any prosecutor seeking the death penalty in a case would have to join a pool of executioner's assistants? (Same for jurors and judges - unless you are willing to follow through on actually killing someone, you are barred from deciding on the matters of life and death?) In this way, their verdict on any particular case wouldn't make any difference (to them!) - they could be called upon to take part in the dirty details of an actual execution in any other case but the one they sat in on. The only problem I have with such a system, is that there's probably people out there who'd basically ask 'Cool, where do I sign up?', which is somewhat scary. The civilized thing, of course, would be to abolish it altogether. Capital punishment basically ensures that The System(tm) WILL murder innocents on occasion. As I like to ask proponents of the death penalty - what false positive rate is acceptable?
  - burfog 8y ago
    An interesting thing to ask about the false positive rate: What is the false positive rate on determining that there was a false positive? That is, we may decide that someone was wrongly convicted, but we may be wrong in that determination. It is also interesting to note that a "wrong" conviction seldom means that the person was a fine upstanding citizen. Often it means something like "convicted of the killing, but only provided the weapon" or "convicted of the killing, but was only trying to help a fellow gang member by disposing of the body". This sort of false positive isn't anywhere near as bad as what we commonly imagine to be the case, with a 100% innocent person being wrongly convicted.
    - 8y ago

mrighele 8y ago

An amount of people regularly die during sleep because of CO poisoning (for example because they used a broken stove for heating the room). Wouldn't a similar approach work for a death penalty? It seems so simple that probably I am missing something

saagarjha 8y ago
I remember hearing somewhere that a reason this isn't done is because it doesn't provide closure to victims and their families–which is supposedly something that the death penalty is supposed to achieve. You just see them go to sleep and die. By the way, I'd think that using something like Nitrogen is probably a better choice, being as it is inert and nontoxic, but just as good as an asphyxiant.
clort 8y ago
Yes. The problem with CO poisoning (or, Nitrogen) is that it is painless, and people actively resist that. Some people want it to be about retribution rather than justice.
- qubex 8y ago
  And that, I think, is one of the best arguments one can make against the death penalty: it’s about revenge. The point of having a judicial process and the rule of law is (also) to prevent the aggrieved from acting out as their emotions dictate, because that’s generally against the interests of broader society (and amongst other things is how blood feuds start).
  - georgek 8y ago
    Interestingly enough, that's also a strong argument for the death penalty. We cede the right of private retribution and the state assumes that responsibility, carrying it out in a more structured and ostensibly fair way than mob justice. Historically, the state assuming the responsibility of giving citizens justice (including for capital crimes) was one of the key turning points in the rise of centralized rule and in Europe, the transition from the Middle Ages to early modern Europe. A great book that explores this topic is, 'The Faithful Executioner,' about a 16th century executioner in what is now Germany. I imagine people today may disagree about how important that still is.

duxup 8y ago

I also find it odd that these freaky methods are used ... if anything they seem more cruel and unusual than other alternatives.

greeneggs 8y ago

Utah has used firing squads for executions, the most recent was in 2010. Previous law allowed the inmate to choose the execution method, but now I think a firing squad is specified to be used if the lethal injection drugs are unavailable. > "There were five marksmen: They're all volunteers and they're police officer trained." > Of the five rifles, one is loaded with blanks so that no one knows for sure who fired the bullets. https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/397672199/utah-brings-back-firing-squad-executions-witnesses-recall-the-last-one https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/397672199/utah-brings-back-fi...

Jedi72 8y ago

Many dont realise this - in a firing squad only a few guys have live ammo, the rest are blanks. This is so that no one soldier knows for certain if he was the one responsible (and probably so that they actually aim for the victim). 100% agree with your sentiment.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
I never even held a gun, but, is the lack of recoil not obvious?
- jabl 8y ago
  Yes, and no. If you fire a live round, and immediately after a blank (or vice versa) from the same gun, the difference is very easy to notice. But if there's more time between, or if you're not very familiar with the gun, it's more difficult. And, if you're standing there tasked with killing another person, an objective analysis of the recoil is perhaps easier said than done. In the end, I think it's more about plausible deniability on a psychological level than something you couldn't figure out if you wanted to.
jabl 8y ago
From what I've read, it's usually one person that has a blank, all others have live.

RichardCA 8y ago

When someone trains to be a Veterinarian, one of things they learn is how to put an animal down humanely. That same body of knowledge should exist for humans. Not knowing the difference between KCL and CH3CO2K - a vet would have their license revoked for this. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/08/446862121/oklahoma-used-the-wrong-drug-to-execute-charles-warner https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/08/446862121...