Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

States Consider Firing Squad as Alternative to Lethal Injection
Wall Street Journal ^ | Jan 28, 2014 | Jacob Gershman

Posted on 01/28/2014 12:56:48 PM PST by Second Amendment First

As death penalty states struggle to obtain drugs suitable for lethal injections, more old-fashioned methods of executing prisoners are getting another look.

Lawmakers in Missouri and Wyoming have introduced measures this month that would give their states an option to use firing squads — instead of lethal drugs — to carry out executions. Another bill proposed by a Virginia lawmaker would authorize death by electrocution if lethal injection isn’t possible.

The measures have surfaced as a number of pharmaceutical firms have barred corrections departments from buying drugs that could be used in executions, forcing states to scramble for other suppliers and to experiment with alternative drugs.

The botched, 26-minute execution of an Ohio inmate earlier this month — using a cocktail of chemicals never before used in a U.S. execution — underscored the problem.

“This isn’t an attempt to time-warp back into the 1850s or the wild, wild West or anything like that,” Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin, who sponsored the fire squad legislation, told the Associated Press, which reported on the bills. “It’s just that I foresee a problem, and I’m trying to come up with a solution that will be the most humane yet most economical for our state.”

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 next last
To: PapaNew
I give you assertions and reasons for my assertions.

Like those insights based on the Bible?

121 posted on 01/28/2014 8:29:02 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
Your argument simply doesn't work.

No, it simply hasn't been implemented.

122 posted on 01/29/2014 7:07:26 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

your reply is non-responsive and irrelevant.


123 posted on 01/29/2014 7:13:06 AM PST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
Whoever wrote that was far more talented than Joe.

The only two things old Joel Hägglund was talented at were stirring up Wobblies and calling out the "Fire" command at his own firing squad.

124 posted on 01/29/2014 7:20:30 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
How so? You assert with no reasoning that my argument "doesn't work." Yet my reasoning is, if my argument has never been implemented by a criminal justice system, then where's your proof that "it doesn't work"?

Now you assert "non-responsiveness and "irrelevance" with no argument or reasoning to back it up. So far, all you've done is send over assertions with no support.

125 posted on 01/29/2014 7:24:49 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Joe took fairly bad 19th/20th century “pop” music and added fairly bad Wobbly lyrics to them. For that musical murder, he should have been executed!


126 posted on 01/29/2014 7:25:04 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Can we use Le Guillotine?

Let's go old school and use a Halifax Gibbet.

127 posted on 01/29/2014 7:30:57 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Can we use Le Guillotine?

Let's go old school and use a Halifax Gibbet.

128 posted on 01/29/2014 7:30:57 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

I don’t really like the Halifax Gibbet that much. I believe I just suffered a tremor when I tried to post.


129 posted on 01/29/2014 7:35:28 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Now you’re blithering.

You claim that the purpose of imprisonment is to protect society from the criminal, and that therefore killing the criminal is not acceptable.

You fail to address the fact that a dead ciminal will NEVER AGAIN offend agaisnt anyone.

Your argument fails the basic test of self consistency.

Perhaps you are content with that; I find it (your argument) ludicrous.


130 posted on 01/29/2014 10:43:56 AM PST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
a dead ciminal will NEVER AGAIN offend agaisnt anyone

Who's blithering? A dead anyone will NEVER AGAIN offend anyone. Why not kill everyone, that way nobody offends anybody.

You've changed the issue. The issue and my argument is not "never again offend against anyone", but keeping society safe by the incarceration of dangerous criminals.

131 posted on 01/29/2014 1:50:26 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
but keeping society safe by the incarceration of dangerous criminals

Incarcerated dangerous criminals can escape or be released.

Dead criminals cannot.

132 posted on 01/29/2014 2:09:07 PM PST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
>> You've changed the issue.

No, I did not change the issue. The issue is protecting society (since you have, falsely, ruled out punishment). So ... protecting society against what? Obviously, repetition of whatever crime the person committed. Again, there is NO better way to protect society againt repeat offenses by a convicted criminal than to kill said criminal. If protecting society is the goal then we should be killing more criminals, not fewer.

133 posted on 01/29/2014 2:13:45 PM PST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

The issue really isn’t escaped criminals as they will either be recaptured or die in their efforts. The issue is releasing dangerous criminals back into society. My argument is to prevent that. There are ways of implementing that but the penal system and its priorities must change, including removing cost and overcrowding as an excuse by making prisoners pay their way through prison.


134 posted on 01/29/2014 2:20:35 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
hmm... tough one for PETA

Can't imagine why. It exalts animals over humans, even if the human in question is a Democrat voter, they're still worth less than an animal to a PETA drone.

135 posted on 01/29/2014 2:40:34 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Again, there is NO better way to protect society against repeat offenses by a convicted criminal than to kill said criminal. If protecting society is the goal then we should be killing more criminals, not fewer.


136 posted on 01/29/2014 6:43:17 PM PST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: South40

For some cases they probably could auction off the opportunity to shoot the convict.


137 posted on 01/29/2014 7:54:55 PM PST by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
Your scenario is mutually exclusive, mine is not. You're saying either let dangerous criminals go free to threaten and harm others, or kill the criminal. I'm saying overhaul the medieval penal/justice system so that you keep dangerous criminals separated society, but don't kill the criminal.

I believe in the God-given sanctity and right to life and so does God who knew man would fail, so He Himself took the hit for everyone including that criminal. So even if the criminal takes other lives, God himself has paid for his crimes so the dangerous criminal is not condemned. His right to live has been purchased howbeit away from people on the outside who also have a right to live. So the criminal's right to life stays intact although his right to freedom has been curtailed to protect the lives of others.

138 posted on 01/30/2014 4:28:40 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
>> You're saying either let dangerous criminals go free to threaten and harm others, or kill the criminal

No, I am not. Read what I wrote. It does not say that. Our discussion is stalled until you understand what I have written, which at this point you do not.

139 posted on 01/30/2014 4:33:02 AM PST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

You have assumed a lot in that post

Society can make punishment as it sees fit. Execution is not only justified but required to prevent terrible crimes


140 posted on 01/30/2014 4:33:25 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson