• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Utah to allow firing squads for executions

Im sure they meant that murders deserve to die

Yes, I'm sure that is what he meant. That is to say I respect the distinction.
 
Short rope, long drop - proven effective and even the rope can be reused. ;)

You gotta get the good rope though not that cheap crap. And too long a drop could decapitate them instead of just breaking their neck clean. I would suggest the expertise to do this efficiently and quickly has long since died out. A bullet it probably easier, cleaner and less fraught with problems.

Killers deserve to die.

Only the most heinous of killers. The worse, most horrible deserve death.

It's the difference between justice being served, as opposed to the taking of an innocent life. The murderer takes the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it. The executor provides the means of justice being served when that innocent life has been taken.

Well said.
 
Utah to allow firing squads for executions - CNN.com


Legal challenges to the drug mixes used.
Why not use the Chinese method- Shot to the back of the head, or a 22 cal, thru the ear canal, bullet bounces around the skull scrambles the brain.

....or we can just not have the death penalty.

Hell, we just threw out a case of a woman wrongfully placed on death row. It doesn't seem like this is a good system to keep, we keep finding innocent people on death row. Hate to know how many innocents we've actually killed.
 
Keep thinking about it, it will make sense.

What makes you think that I never agreed with you at some point in my life? Some of us just come to realize that the very notion of valuing life by ending life is contrariety nonsense.
 
I favor massive and unending suffering followed by a painful death for those with no value on life and for the suffering they have caused many others. But that's just me.

Hopefully.
 
Killers deserve to die.

No, they do not. They deserve to be punished, that is obvious but almost none deserve to die (if any) but a good deal do deserve natural life in jail.
 
No, they do not. They deserve to be punished, that is obvious but almost none deserve to die (if any) but a good deal do deserve natural life in jail.

Clearly you have never been to jail.
After the immediate shock of jail life, they come to grips with their new reality. Plus some shred of hope of a retrial or other legal maneuvering by a lawyer just sucking up their families money. If they have any.
Then its the day to day, and anyone in a day to day existence will find a way to survive. Even thrive.
Modern jail is not the painful arduace life of rape, bad food, fighting, mean screws and tough wardens.
Even death row is usually peaceful and relatively pleasant in airconditioned and heated cells.
Men become institutionalized pretty quickly when facing life in prison.
Its too good for some killer that took everything from some one.
 
....or we can just not have the death penalty.

Hell, we just threw out a case of a woman wrongfully placed on death row. It doesn't seem like this is a good system to keep, we keep finding innocent people on death row. Hate to know how many innocents we've actually killed.

Unfortunately some people can live with the error rates.
They can live with DA's witholding information that could have cleared a person.
The bar is set so high for DA that do this, convictions are nearly non existent. Did find one case though


DPIC | Death Penalty Information Center

Holding Prosecutors Accountable
In 1985, John Thompson, a 22-year-old father of two, was wrongfully convicted of murder and sent to death row at Angola State Penitentiary in Louisiana. While facing his seventh execution date, a private investigator hired by his appellate attorneys discovered scientific evidence of Thompson’s innocence that had been concealed for 15 years by the New Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office.

Thompson was released and exonerated in 2003 after 18 years in prison, 14 of them isolated on death row. The state of Louisiana gave him $10 and a bus ticket upon his release. He sued the District Attorney’s Office. A jury awarded him $14 million, one for each year on death row. When Louisiana appealed, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. This spring, Justice Clarence Thomas issued the majority 5-4 decision in Connick v. Thompson that the prosecutor’s office could not be held liable.
 
The idea that if you take the life of an innocent you have forfeited your own is about as objective and impersonal as it gets. Plus if life in jail were 'worse for the offender' why does every one of them appeal to have their sentence reduced to life in prison? Answer: because the death penalty IS worse for the offender despite your claim to the contrary.

No, that is the old testament/muslim sharia kind of thinking.

The death penalty is something from the dark ages, not from 2015 IMHO. And no, it is not objective or impersonal because of the subjective, irrational and haphazard manner in which people get the death penalty.

And it is worse because the criminal will be confronted with the results of his actions and he will have to think about what he did for the rest of his life (long life). At least that is my opinion.
 
....or we can just not have the death penalty.

Hell, we just threw out a case of a woman wrongfully placed on death row. It doesn't seem like this is a good system to keep, we keep finding innocent people on death row. Hate to know how many innocents we've actually killed.
There is little doubt that the state has executed the innocent. I don't know if you're familiar with Cameron Todd Willingham, but his case is very disturbing. There's no way that he should've been convicted let alone put to death based on evidence and He was probably innocent, but that's Texas for you. In a perfect legal system I would be for the death penalty, but when there is a chance that one innocent person could be put to death under our system. I will not support the death penalty.
 
No, that is the old testament/muslim sharia kind of thinking.
That an idea or an action can trace its origins back over the centuries is hardly a reason to reject it, so your argument here is false.

The death penalty is something from the dark ages, not from 2015 IMHO. And no, it is not objective or impersonal because of the subjective, irrational and haphazard manner in which people get the death penalty.
I am glad you included "IMHO" in your quote. That relegates your response to the subjective realm of personal opinion, not objective fact. Nor can you point to anything 'irrational or haphazard' in the way the death penalty is carried out. Again that is your own person bias not something based upon reality.

And it is worse because the criminal will be confronted with the results of his actions and he will have to think about what he did for the rest of his life (long life). At least that is my opinion.
Yet these same criminals you pretend are haunted by their acts do whatever they can to prolong their own lives and avoid the death penalty. Your error here is to put your own feelings into the minds of cold blooded killers. You ASSUME they feel remorse because you would.
Nothing you wrote here counters
 
There is little doubt that the state has executed the innocent. I don't know if you're familiar with Cameron Todd Willingham, but his case is very disturbing. There's no way that he should've been convicted let alone put to death based on evidence and He was probably innocent, but that's Texas for you. In a perfect legal system I would be for the death penalty, but when there is a chance that one innocent person could be put to death under our system. I will not support the death penalty.

And it's one of the main problems. People's zeal to kill those they think are guilty also kills innocents because we lack perfect knowledge. So when you consider that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it does not provide any additional security to society on whole, it's exceptionally expensive, and it consumes innocent life; there seems to be very few rational reasons to keep it around. I think some just want to deem certain actions so toxic that they are morally obligated to kill the accused because they want that guy dead, not because it brings additional justice or security.
 
That an idea or an action can trace its origins back over the centuries is hardly a reason to reject it, so your argument here is false.

So the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, foot for a foot" comes from the works of doctor Seuss?

Sorry, but the big supporters of the old testament are often also supporters of the above "eye for an eye" statement/feeling.

And no, just because something is from even before the dark ages/days when people believed in spirits, witches and other idiotic things does not mean something has to be rejected. But in the past several thousands years one would hope that mankind would evolve and one of these evolving things would be the end of archaic punishments like the death penalty IMHO.

And to be in the group of countries currently (in the past ten years) use the death penalty:

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, North Korea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, USA, Vietnam and Yemen.

That to me is a not group of countries one wants to belong to.

I am glad you included "IMHO" in your quote. That relegates your response to the subjective realm of personal opinion, not objective fact. Nor can you point to anything 'irrational or haphazard' in the way the death penalty is carried out. Again that is your own person bias not something based upon reality.

The death penalty is often used arbitrarily, depends greatly on the quality of the defense (most rich people can afford to hire top lawyers who know to weasel their rich and important clients away from the death penalty), a lot of cases depend on jail house snitches/plea bargaining, there was one DA who actually said that the color of someone's skin was part of why he wanted the death penalty, etc. etc. etc., the color of skin, the location where they live, the willingness of a DA to want to get death penalties and some might even want to go after the death penalty for their future political careers.

Yet these same criminals you pretend are haunted by their acts do whatever they can to prolong their own lives and avoid the death penalty. Your error here is to put your own feelings into the minds of cold blooded killers. You ASSUME they feel remorse because you would.
Nothing you wrote here counters

No, I hope they are haunted by their own conscience. The punishment is the jailing for the rest of their lives.
 
That an idea or an action can trace its origins back over the centuries is hardly a reason to reject it, so your argument here is false.

I am glad you included "IMHO" in your quote. That relegates your response to the subjective realm of personal opinion, not objective fact. Nor can you point to anything 'irrational or haphazard' in the way the death penalty is carried out. Again that is your own person bias not something based upon reality.

Yet these same criminals you pretend are haunted by their acts do whatever they can to prolong their own lives and avoid the death penalty. Your error here is to put your own feelings into the minds of cold blooded killers. You ASSUME they feel remorse because you would.
Nothing you wrote here counters

Do your research on the DP - it meets your very low standard of haphazard.
2 % of the counties responsible for the vast majority of DP cases.
DA hiding evidence. No penalties
Innocents convicted and needless to say dead as we are posting
Racial bias.

2 links.

DPIC | Death Penalty Information Center

Holding Prosecutors Accountable
 
Short rope, long drop - proven effective and even the rope can be reused. ;)
I'm sure the ACLU would file a lawsuit based on a dubious claim of some sort that the state would have to use a new rope for each execution.
 
Last edited:
Utah to allow firing squads for executions - CNN.com


Legal challenges to the drug mixes used.
Why not use the Chinese method- Shot to the back of the head, or a 22 cal, thru the ear canal, bullet bounces around the skull scrambles the brain.

This story is a big to do over nothing. First off, it only establishes that the state of Utah may use the firing squad in the advent that lethal injection is not available at the time of a scheduled execution. Second, the last execution in Utah was that of Ronnie Lee Gardner in June 2010, executed by, you guessed it, firing squad.
 
I'm sure the ACLU would file a lawsuit based on a dubious claim of some sort that the state would have to use a new rope for each execution.

The rope (new or used) is not cruel and the same rope cannot be considered unusual. ;)
 
Short rope, long drop - proven effective and even the rope can be reused. ;)

better yet, the organs can be harvested for those with medical needs. Not so with electrocution, or a hot needle
 
better yet, the organs can be harvested for those with medical needs. Not so with electrocution, or a hot needle

I always been in favor of the guillotine. Fast, quick, relative painless. Surefire.
 
I always been in favor of the guillotine. Fast, quick, relative painless. Surefire.

one of the few things the french got right
BTW I am not a fan of the death penalty. I think its the easy way out
 
Back
Top Bottom