States Consider Firing Squad as Alternative to Lethal Injection

Wall Street Journal ^ | Jan 28, 2014 | Jacob Gershman

[Jim Noble]

I think the “modern” attempts to prettify judicial executions (beginning with the electric chair, but including also the gas chamber and now medical execution) have made the problem worse.

Despite the understandable feeling that the deed should involve a high-speed cordless drill or hot oil, the fact is that society demands and will continue to demand that the execution be fast and not associated with anger or savagery on the part of the executioner.

Long drop hanging or mechanical beheading both accomplish these necessary criteria, a firing squad may or may not.

[PapaNew]

You’re babbling on. Clarify what you’re saying if it’s not either/or.

[PapaNew]

Society can make punishment as it sees fit

Yup - but doesn't make it right.

Execution is not only justified but required to prevent terrible crimes

Nope, execution is unjust and overhauling the penal/justice system to keep dangerous criminals separated from society prevents re-occurrence.

[dfwgator]

I would go for doing away with the death penalty if we sent all criminals to a remote prison in Alaska.

[NorthMountain]

Again, read what I wrote. Do not read into what I wrote. At no point did I exclude the possibility of incarcerating some criminals, to protect society from their probable future crimes.

In effect, you accused me of committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. You did so incorrectly. The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that some criminals should be released immediately, some criminals should be incarcerated for an indefinite time (while they are persuaded somehow not to offend again), and that some criminals must simply be killed, as they are certain to re-offend or cannot be trusted not to reoffend. Furthermore, the decision (release, incarcerate, kill) has nothing to do with the severity of the offense and everything to do with the probability of recidivism.

I don't accept that conclusion; I also don't accept your premise that punishment is forbidden. I have examined your line of reasoning and rejected it.

Is that clear enough for you?

[PapaNew]

Is that clear enough for you?

Your statements about incarceration versus death are hard to follow.

You're clear about not rejecting punishment but you're not clear why (is double jeopardy OK with you, do you say that punishment is not double jeopardy, etc., etc.).

It's OK, man, don't worry about it. Have a good day.

[NorthMountain]

I reject the notion that punishment is double jeopardy. But even if I stipulate, for discussion, that for whatever reason "protection from future repeat criminal acts" is the only reason for sentencing a convicted criminal, killing the criminal is not excluded. Re-read #142.

[bert]

You are very wrong.

Your new order thinking is what is wrong with America and responsible for the deplorable state of affairs.

[PapaNew]

Nice assertion. No supporting reasoning based on what I have said.

[PapaNew]

The death penalty is another attempt, like Obamacare but for different reasons, to do the wrong thing the right way. The reason they can't find the right way to execute prisoners is there really is no right way to do the wrong thing.

But for the grace and mercy of God go you and I. Many if not most of the time these were themselves victims in their early life. These should be reasons to pause, but are not the most dispositive, definitive reasons to cease unjust capital punishment.

- People think the death penalty serves justice because it's an "eye for an eye." Fair enough except for one problem: Somebody has already paid "an eye for an eye" for those criminals and their heinous acts, so unjust double jeopardy is in play here.
- What about the victims and their family? Countless personal and professional examples testify to the fact that there is only one way victims of savagery can recover from the hurt and angst of victimization: forgiveness. Revenge feels good for awhile but does not relieve the pain.
- What about society? You lock up dangerous criminals to protect society.
- What about the cost? Oh, OK well I guess there is such thing as killing for convenience, but let's take another tack which hits directly at our medieval penal system: prisoners should be productive and at least pay their way in prison.

[turducken]

they can't find the right way to execute prisoners

Oh BS there are half dozen "right ways" to execute a prisoner starting with the gallows.

[PapaNew]

The death penalty is another attempt, like Obamacare but for different reasons, to do the wrong thing the right way. The reason they can't find the right way to execute prisoners is there really is no right way to do the wrong thing.

But for the grace and mercy of God go you and I. Many if not most of the time these were themselves victims in their early life. These should be reasons to pause, but are not the most dispositive, definitive reasons to cease unjust capital punishment.

- People think the death penalty serves justice because it's an "eye for an eye." Fair enough except for one problem: Somebody has already paid "an eye for an eye" for those criminals and their heinous acts, so unjust double jeopardy is in play here.
- What about the victims and their family? Countless personal and professional examples testify to the fact that there is only one way victims of savagery can recover from the hurt and angst of victimization: forgiveness. Revenge feels good for awhile but does not relieve the pain.
- What about society? You lock up dangerous criminals to protect society.
- What about the cost? Oh, OK well I guess there is such thing as killing for convenience, but let's take another tack which hits directly at our medieval penal system: prisoners should be productive and at least pay their way in prison.

[bert]

None required.

The facts are self evident

[PapaNew]

But your reasoning is not. Flat assertions are no argument.