|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 22, 2015 7:29:06 GMT
So europe is meddling in other countries.... how ironic.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 22, 2015 12:31:47 GMT
2. Because of the large devout Mormon population, they believed that to atone for spilling blood, you literally had to have your own blood spilt. Injection was too clean. Blood Atonement is a doctrine that was taught in the early days of Mormonism. Brigham Young who lead the church from 1840 to 1877 actively taught it after they settled in Utah. There are lots of historical antidotes about it's use in those days as an justification for vigilante justice. However, seams to mostly died with Pres. Young. For Mormonism today, I doubt you will find any same member who at least publicly claims to believe in that practice. Many won't even know what it is. It is one of the many historical skeletons in the church's closet that the upper management has tried to whitewash over and deny happened. As far as using it for firing squad, I doubt it is a real reason. While there may be a few members who do believe in it, the vast majority of members don't and would find the idea repulsive. However, Mormon doctrine does have a bit of a Law of Moses (eye for an eye) bent to it and they believe in divine retribution. If not in this life, than in the next. Many members would have no problem hastening along that process due to the doctrine that murder is the 2nd worst sin possible. . I do remember sometime in the mid 90's when I was living in the Salt Lake area, someone requested to be executed by firing squad due to it being the most expensive option. It was all over the local news for a while. I am torn on the idea of the death penalty. For people where there is absolutely no question of their guilt (clear video evidence, many reliable witnesses, etc), I think they should be executed quickly, within 3 months of conviction. There is no point in keeping them around for longer. I will also agree that people who are too dangerous to be release as well. However, it is the cases where there is still possible question on guilt, things get muddy for me. I support a prison system that is a something that people fear going to. For many prison is better than life on the outside. However, I also support some more sensible laws that would reduce people going into prison. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 22, 2015 14:38:34 GMT
I am kind of suspicious that the return of the firing squad is partly a political maneuver to put pressure on the people responsible to make the drugs more available. if it was just a "blood must be spilled" rule, they could bleed the condemned after the loss of consciousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 22, 2015 14:48:54 GMT
as far as prison - while it should be an undesirable destination for most people, I also think people in prison should earn their own keep. - some people may say that is cruel and unusual punishment - but the response to that should be "if earning your keep is cruel and unusual punishment, then why does every government known to man systematically torture its entire population base?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 22, 2015 15:24:24 GMT
"Cruel and Unusual" is usually misunderstood.
Originally, "cruel" referred to things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, and other horrendous punishments that were considered torture back at the founding. Things that are considered cruel today were common then--flogging, for example. Since then, it's only the concept of "evolving standards" that has caused these things to be considered "cruel".
"Unusual" meant that the punishment should fit the crime. If two people were arrested for jaywalking, you couldn't fine one and sentence the other to death.
It's a difficult concept to deal with even today; "cruel and unusual" is constantly being reevaluated.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 22, 2015 15:48:58 GMT
"Cruel and Unusual" is usually misunderstood. Originally, "cruel" referred to things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, and other horrendous punishments that were considered torture back at the founding. Things that are considered cruel today were common then--flogging, for example. Since then, it's only the concept of "evolving standards" that has caused these things to be considered "cruel". "Unusual" meant that the punishment should fit the crime. If two people were arrested for jaywalking, you couldn't fine one and sentence the other to death. It's a difficult concept to deal with even today; "cruel and unusual" is constantly being reevaluated. nowadays, there are those who think anything unpleasant is cruel. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 23, 2015 0:18:47 GMT
I know the first is true (it's in the papers), but I always wondered if the second was--a Mormon friend of mine assured me so, but I've never verified it. Ironhold, have you heard of this? Depends on who you talk to. Back in the 1800s, church leader Brigham Young delivered an infamous sermon. In it he declared, to paraphrase, that if people understood the eternal (as in: not this life, but the afterlife) consequences of such sins as murder and adultery, they would allow themselves to be impaled with a javelin as part of the penance process rather than live to old age with their sin still on their head. Although this was most likely an extreme bit of hyperbole meant to highlight the seriousness of these sins, a shocking number of people took him at face value. Most of these individuals were non-Mormons, including several who were hostile to the church. They paraded his words around as him teaching and authorizing "blood atonement", which he most assuredly did not do. The infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre was immediately claimed to have been just such an action, when in reality it was the result of local-level leaders using a state of war to settle old grudges. A few members of the church also took him literally, but incidents appear to have been few and far between; the one I'm most familiar with was a case in which vigilantes took it upon themselves to lynch a man who was caught with someone else's wife. So while individual Mormons may believe that the firing squad is in keeping with church teachings, there's nothing to directly say "yes, this is how it's supposed to work". As it is, most of the articles I've seen have missed one key fact: back when the firing squad was still on the books, the condemned had the choice of how they wanted to die. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 23, 2015 6:50:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 7:53:56 GMT
Unfortunately, that regulation is encouraging the use of experimental doses of other drugs that may prove more cruel than the banned substances. In one recent case, the condemned seemed to be in obvious pain as the new drugs were administered.
Of course, there is an active movement to end lethal injection on the belief that it is possibly cruel with the banned drugs--the condemned may look calm, but actually that may be an illusion. Supposedly, the drugs may just induce paralysis while the condemned suffers excruciating pain as his heart is stopped by the other drugs--it's induced heart failure. But to the witnesses, they look like they just go to sleep.
There are those that say the condemned get what they deserve in this case. Personally, I dislike the hypocrisy of saying it's "humane" if it's not.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 23, 2015 8:56:20 GMT
I am kind of suspicious that the return of the firing squad is partly a political maneuver to put pressure on the people responsible to make the drugs more available. if it was just a "blood must be spilled" rule, they could bleed the condemned after the loss of consciousness. Please try me with a multi-faithful jury that has no reason to need "blood".... If its a case blood MUST be spilled for religious reasons, I cry foul, and demand a retrial by my own peers. Being tried out of my own religious beliefs is racist, isnt it?... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 23, 2015 9:02:37 GMT
Question, why cant they just use an overdose of morphiates.
The things they use as sedatives, if you use too much, people just dont wake up again.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 23, 2015 12:26:26 GMT
or carbon monoxide, if needed combined with sleep drug first...
It stinks of trying to make it look like it is the EU's fault they don't want those drugs exported for certain uses.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 23, 2015 12:44:44 GMT
Question, why cant they just use an overdose of morphiates. The things they use as sedatives, if you use too much, people just dont wake up again. I've been wondering the same thing. Why not just give them enough to put them to sleep and when that's done, administer the lethal dose? That, or in the interest of poetic justice, use lethal doses of confiscated illegal drugs. A solid 2-3000 mg of heroin should be more than enough to kill even the most hardened of addicts and since it's an opiate, if it's administered gradually, it has the same sedative effect as morphine, so it's just as "humane" as anything else would be. Why not put all those illegal drugs that police have fought so hard to get off the street to some use and save the money on other drugs that essentially do the same thing? |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 23, 2015 12:51:12 GMT
or carbon monoxide, if needed combined with sleep drug first... It stinks of trying to make it look like it is the EU's fault they don't want those drugs exported for certain uses. I agree. Evil EU! They stink because they don't support the death penalty and won't allow their citizens to sell drugs used to execute people in nations outside the EU, but when France tries to sell aircraft carriers to Russia, there's no limit to how much the rest of the world can butt in. As I've always said: If standards are good, double standards must be twice as good. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Mar 23, 2015 13:09:11 GMT
I'm not sure how many states this is true for, but in Connecticut there is a very robust and rigorous appeals process available for those on death row. DEATH PENALTY APPEALS AND HABEAS PROCEEDINGSLoki: What you referred to as Murder One with Special Circumstances may be equivalent to Capital Murder (aka Felony Murder or Capital Felony Murder) in Connecticut. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 23, 2015 13:19:00 GMT
or carbon monoxide, if needed combined with sleep drug first... It stinks of trying to make it look like it is the EU's fault they don't want those drugs exported for certain uses. I agree. Evil EU! They stink because they don't support the death penalty and won't allow their citizens to sell drugs used to execute people in nations outside the EU, but when France tries to sell aircraft carriers to Russia, there's no limit to how much the rest of the world can butt in. As I've always said: If standards are good, double standards must be twice as good. Selling execution drugs affects one person. Selling aircraft carriers to the Russians affects hundreds of millions of people. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 14:22:30 GMT
Unfortunately, that regulation is encouraging the use of experimental doses of other drugs that may prove more cruel than the banned substances. In one recent case, the condemned seemed to be in obvious pain as the new drugs were administered. Of course, there is an active movement to end lethal injection on the belief that it is possibly cruel with the banned drugs--the condemned may look calm, but actually that may be an illusion. Supposedly, the drugs may just induce paralysis while the condemned suffers excruciating pain as his heart is stopped by the other drugs--it's induced heart failure. But to the witnesses, they look like they just go to sleep. There are those that say the condemned get what they deserve in this case. Personally, I dislike the hypocrisy of saying it's "humane" if it's not. and we should know this if it is, because it is the same drug combination used to euthanize animals. (and by "should" I mean it would be advisable for us to know this) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 14:34:53 GMT
to alswer all the alternative drugs questions at once, I would guess it has to do with the bean counting nature of executions. just giving them enough to kill a horse would not be suitably nitpicky, and trying to give them an exact dose would be too many variables to be consistently effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 15:00:08 GMT
I am kind of suspicious that the return of the firing squad is partly a political maneuver to put pressure on the people responsible to make the drugs more available. if it was just a "blood must be spilled" rule, they could bleed the condemned after the loss of consciousness. Please try me with a multi-faithful jury that has no reason to need "blood".... If its a case blood MUST be spilled for religious reasons, I cry foul, and demand a retrial by my own peers. Being tried out of my own religious beliefs is racist, isnt it?... Although I may be incorrect, I believe the firing squad in Utah was only brought in at the condemned's request--this was the case with Gary Gilmore, I think. His mother was Mormon, hence the belief by many of the atonement issue. The other option was death by hanging at the time. Gilmore was the first person executed after the Supreme Court reversed the ban on executions. If you're really scared of being executed in the US by firing squad, then--don't commit murder in Utah. Or if you do, don't get caught. Or if you are caught, get a good lawyer. Or if you get sentenced to death, be sure to file appeals. If all else fails, take comfort in the fact that in the last 400 years, only about 162 people have died from judicial firing squads in the US. Your odds of being struck by lightning are much better. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 15:17:43 GMT
Question, why cant they just use an overdose of morphiates. The things they use as sedatives, if you use too much, people just dont wake up again. They are. It's called the Ohio Protocol--the single drug used is Sodium Phenobarbital (I believe). It's a normal drug used for inducing anesthesia, and administered in high doses. It's also one of the banned drugs by the EU, although it is used in the Dutch Protocol for euthanasia. The problem with barbiturates is that different people react differently. In one case, a euthanasia process took days to kill the person. Lethal injection has problems, to say the least. There have been quite a few botched attempts. Typically, executions take 7-11 minutes to kill, with death declared about 20 minutes after the start. However, it's taken much longer in some cases. California law says the the execution method can't take longer than 45 minutes; this is why the multiple drugs are used. Beyond 45 minutes is considered cruel and (especially) unusual. As appeals are usually going on up to the last second, it's not fair that some might have a better chance than others, isn't it? That's the way the courts see it, anyhow. In truth, when you look at the doses used for each of the drugs, any one of the drugs would most likely kill. In the case of the condemned, since many are drug users, their tolerances are much higher than the average person. Another rather horrific attempt was made when a long time IV drug user was executed. It took something like 2 hours to find a vein. Frankly, being jabbed with large bore IV needles for two hours by people about to kill me sounds a bit inhumane, personally. |
|
