Death by firing squad.

[Liberaliter]

Pretty awesome way to go really, always good to leave something exciting for the audience.

 

[sgtshock]

There's a realistic (from my understanding) depiction of lethal injection in the movie "Dead Man Walking", and having just seen that, I gotta say I wouldn't really want to go that way. Strapped to a table in a sterile room, needles jabbed into the bottoms of both your arms, and watching as poison is pumped into your bloodstream, collapsing your lungs, killing you slowly. I'm sure firing squad isn't sunshine and rainbows either, but I'd imagine it's quicker, and less psychologically painful.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

WHOAAA! ITS BACK! But *ahem* eye for an eye.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I'm against the death penalty in general; I don't believe the government should have the power to execute citizens it deems "criminals."

In this particular case it sounds like a guy who wants to go out with some controversy; he's hoping to stir up some issues over the brutality of capital punishment, hoping that people will protest the whole firing squad thing, etc. Basically it just sounds like he's trying one final, desperate Fuck You to the system.

 

[Skratt]

To think a 'modern state' still uses any form of execution... *tsktsk*

Better than a murderer living life on our dime in a already crowded/bloated legal system.

You're right, let's just kill them, that'll teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. Less trouble for us too.

It's not about teaching lessons, it's about not paying for murderers.

So your determination of the value of a human life, even one which has murdered, is down to money? And you think this makes you better do you?

The value of any life is wholly dependent upon that life's own value of others. Not everyone who commits a murder deserves execution, but my tolerance of another's disregard for human life is severely limited.

I absolutely do not believe that my not wanting society (myself included) to suffer financial burden to keep someone alive who commits an act of unabashed disregard for human life is of any moral turpitude.

Does that way of thinking make me better than them? No, but I can certainly see how you would misconstrue my impassivity for superiority. Many who find themselves morally righteous often do.

 

[chenry]

Hell, I'll take firing squad over lethal injection any day. Firing squad is quicker and probably hurts less.

Costs less too.

 

[AngryMongoose]

It's how I'd like to go if I was sentanced to death. Of the five legal methods of execution in the US:

Hanging: Neck snaps, dead
Gas Chamber: Suffocation, dead
Lethal Injection: Kind of unclear on the specifics, but I think it stops the major organs, dead.
Electric Chair: BZZZZZZT! Dead
Firing Squad: The only manly way among these. It takes stones to look at five guns with guns and yell "HIT ME MOTHERF***ERS!"

Meh, i'd go for the blindfold, just of added badassery. I'd also take up smoking.

Of those you mentioned, lethal injection and firing squad seem the most humane (in that they seem they'd hurt the least, and are practical rather than completely over-the top and showy). And I've heard that there are fuckups during lethal injections, which leave people conscious while their major organs (I think it's the lungs shutting down that kills most people) shut down.

Dammit, bring back the guillotine; sure it was messy, but it was over in an instant.

Snip
It's not about teaching lessons, it's about not paying for murderers.

So your determination of the value of a human life, even one which has murdered, is down to money? And you think this makes you better do you?

The value of any life is wholly dependent upon that life's own value of others. Not everyone who commits a murder deserves execution, but my tolerance of another's disregard for human life is severely limited.

I absolutely do not believe that my not wanting society (myself included) to suffer financial burden to keep someone alive who commits an act of unabashed disregard for human life is of any moral turpitude.

Well, considering most prisoners are effectively forced to work for joke pay... The prison system is the only way America can keep alot of its factories in the country, and that's why the prison system is overflowing. They go out of their to get extra prisoners. "Zero Tolerance" my ass.

It costs quite alot to execute someone, but as a slave they're worth alot. So if it's financial pragmatism you want, keep'em alive and working.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

To think a 'modern state' still uses any form of execution... *tsktsk*

Better than a murderer living life on our dime in a already crowded/bloated legal system.

You're right, let's just kill them, that'll teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. Less trouble for us too.

It's not about teaching lessons, it's about not paying for murderers.

So your determination of the value of a human life, even one which has murdered, is down to money? And you think this makes you better do you?

They stopped being humans the moment they decided to take a persons life. As I have stated before, at that moment they become nothing more than worthless insects.

They should be killed as cheaply and effectively as possible. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay money out of our taxes for them to live on our damn dime for the rest of their worthless lives.

And yes, I am better. Don't even try to equate not wanting to fund a damn murderer to taking another persons life.

Why not?

You want to end someones life because you don't want to pay for that life.

The fate of another human being is balanced entirely by greed and/or your unwilligness to be out of pocket for their continued survival.

This is something I find both morally reprehensible and rather hypocritical.

Why am I not surprised to hear this from the person who thought the church of Sweden was valid proof of Sweden not being a mostly atheist/agnostic/non-religious country, mostly because he didn't read the link or do any actual research.

I want to end that person's life because he ended someone else's. Someone he had no right to kill, someone who had their whole life ahead of them to do whatever they wanted. Possibility great things. I want to end that persons life because of the grief stricken family left behind. I want to end that persons life because they have become no less than an insect.

What right do they have to live, when they have already deprived someone else of that right? And what real use of that life is there, rotting in a prison on our dime? Sure, some people have done useful things in prison such as inventing, or writing wonderful books. But those are few and far between.

I don't want to pay for someone so worthless, who has done the actual reprehensible thing.

To even try to equate not wanting to cloth and feed a murderer, a worthless insect, to killing someone innocent is the most idiotic thing in the world. Though again, expected, coming from you.

Because you cite money as the reason. People have the same right to life as you, always. Once you start holding the right to life for some above others you are basically setting the precident that life has a monetary value attached to it. How much money is a rapists life worth? How much should we spend on an armed robber? How about a burglar?

The way I see it, killing to save money is effectively the same as killing to gain money. It is basically the same thing as murder. The USA the only nation in the developed world that still practices this anachronistic method of "punishment" (to kill is not to punish). Why is that?

 

[Booze Zombie]

I would request that a hot Goth girl have sex with me and then shoot me in the head with a pistol if I were to choose a form of dying.

Not a fan of executions myself, though, on a more serious note.
Is it really alright for governments to murder people when they say you can't?

 

[GundamSentinel]

To think a 'modern state' still uses any form of execution... *tsktsk*

Better than a murderer living life on our dime in a already crowded/bloated legal system.

You're right, let's just kill them, that'll teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. Less trouble for us too.

yeah, the problem with the death penalty is that it's irreversible. you don't
want to find out years later you executed an innocent.

Finally, someone who understands. *hands out flowers*

Crowded/bloated legal systems are likely to err. Is killing someone for revenge and tax payers' money really worth a potentially innocent life?

 

[ClunkiestTurtle]

I would so rather go out by firing squad then lethal injection or what not...

Being strapped into a chair,watching shit injected in you, man that would freak me out more then the actual thought of death itself.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I absolutely do not believe that my not wanting society (myself included) to suffer financial burden to keep someone alive who commits an act of unabashed disregard for human life is of any moral turpitude.

And yet you disregard the human life of the murderer simply because you don't want "financial burden". It seems to be a fairly obvious double standard.

Does that way of thinking make me better than them? No, but I can certainly see how you would misconstrue my impassivity for superiority. Many who find themselves morally righteous often do.

Not morally righteousness, but simple common sense. If one is against murder, then they shouldn't really be sanctioning state sponsored murder of this kind for reasons of financial gain. If you are hateful and angry I can understand that. If you want people who have committed terrible crimes to go in the ground alive or be fed to sharks or something because you don't think they deserve to live - fair enough.

To attach money to this is pretty appauling.

 

[VGStrife]

To think a 'modern state' still uses any form of execution... *tsktsk*

Better than a murderer living life on our dime in a already crowded/bloated legal system.

You're right, let's just kill them, that'll teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. Less trouble for us too.

yeah, the problem with the death penalty is that it's irreversible. you don't
want to find out years later you executed an innocent.

Necessary casualties in the long run.

No, no it isn't.

I don't like the thought that I could legally be killed at any time because someone else committed a murder, and I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if you or someone you know was wrongly convicted.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Better than a murderer living life on our dime in a already crowded/bloated legal system.

Its more expensive to have somebody executed then to just give them life in prison.

Not really.

"In recent years, studies, articles, and reports have been published on the costs associated with the death penalty at the state level. They have generally concluded that, contrary to what many people believe, death sentence cases cost more than nondeath sentence cases. However, we found these conclusions were not adequately supported. Most of the studies did not actually compare death sentence cases with nondeath sentence cases, and some of the studies did not contain actual cost data. Further, even in cases where cost data were cited, these data were incomplete..."

And even if so, in my reworked system it wouldn't matter. One of the changes would that there would be no chance for appeal or anything if convicted. Upon conviction you would be executed outside the courthouse by firing squad.

To think a 'modern state' still uses any form of execution... *tsktsk*

Better than a murderer living life on our dime in a already crowded/bloated legal system.

You're right, let's just kill them, that'll teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. Less trouble for us too.

It's not about teaching lessons, it's about not paying for murderers.

So your determination of the value of a human life, even one which has murdered, is down to money? And you think this makes you better do you?

They stopped being humans the moment they decided to take a persons life. As I have stated before, at that moment they become nothing more than worthless insects.

They should be killed as cheaply and effectively as possible. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay money out of our taxes for them to live on our damn dime for the rest of their worthless lives.

And yes, I am better. Don't even try to equate not wanting to fund a damn murderer to taking another persons life.

Why not?

You want to end someones life because you don't want to pay for that life.

The fate of another human being is balanced entirely by greed and/or your unwilligness to be out of pocket for their continued survival.

This is something I find both morally reprehensible and rather hypocritical.

Why am I not surprised to hear this from the person who thought the church of Sweden was valid proof of Sweden not being a mostly atheist/agnostic/non-religious country, mostly because he didn't read the link or do any actual research.

I want to end that person's life because he ended someone else's. Someone he had no right to kill, someone who had their whole life ahead of them to do whatever they wanted. Possibly great things. I want to end that persons life because of the grief stricken family left behind. I want to end that persons life because they have become an insect.

What right do they have to live, when they have already deprived someone else of that right? And what real use of that life is there, rotting in a prison on our dime? Sure, some people have done useful things in prison such as inventing, or writing wonderful books. But those are few and far between.

I don't want to pay for someone so worthless, who has done the actual reprehensible thing.

To even try to equate not wanting to cloth and feed a murderer, a worthless insect, to killing someone innocent is the most idiotic thing in the world. Though again, expected, coming from you.

I take it you have never heard the words of Ghandi? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." You simply say this because you want vengence on one man for taking the life another for whatever reasons.

Taking one life will not bring the other back nor will it compensate for the grief. It will just cause more pain. You talk about the family of the victim, what about the family of the murderer? Don't they matter? Don't you think that they will be hurt to hear that their son or daughter was exectued by the goverment? We have thousands of murderers in the prison system right now. You really wish to kill every single one of them? And that is only the US alone. Let's not count all of them all over the world.

Would you honestly kill hundreds of thousands of murde- excuse me, insects?

 

[asinann]

What's so immoral about firing squad? It's an instant death with pretty much zero pain. I'd rather take that than lethal injection honestly.

Not if the one guy with an actual live round missed the heart or head.

 

[geldonyetich]

Personally, I'm thinking it's a ploy. He's hoping that his choice of execution will evoke enough media attention that his execution gets overturned entirely.

 

[JayDub147]

I actually wrote a speech advocating this for a public speaking class. Good that they're doing it the sensible way now (at least as sensible as the death penalty gets, anyway). It always seemed to me that other forms of execution were more for the well-being of the audience than the prisoner; that they wouldn't have to see any "real" violence. If you want to say that the victims and the people administering justice deserve more respect and consideration anyway, that's fine, but I don't think that anyone should be allowed to kill someone without really seeing and understanding what it is that they're doing.