• 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!

Lethal Injection or Firing Squd

What would you choose?

  • Firing Squad

    Votes: 21 80.8%

  • Lethal Injection

    Votes: 5 19.2%
  • Total voters
    26
EMNofSeattle said:
I don't think it is the easiest or the most sensible. the vast majority of Americans want the death penalty, even in California, hands down the most liberal state in the country it was overwhelmingly supported in a recent referendum.

the real issue is people are allowed to file decades of bogus appeals that have no legal basis and have them heard. you should get one appeal, and every appeal after that should not stay the execution date. if the courts can't resolve whether or not the state is violating your religious rights by hanging you for murdering two women and an 8 year old girl (I **** you not that was an actual appeal a court entertained for 10 years ) in time that should be tough stuff.
Click to expand...

So just because people want it we should be sentencing people to death? It should be abolished, the government should not be in the business of killing potentially innocent people. It is something people want until they actually get it.
 
Fishking said:
Should be easy, though. Yeah, it might be a little slow but just slowly draw out the level of oxygen in the room until it's over. The person will passout and should be harmless. I mean, if people can stick a hose in their car window from their exhaust to do it themselves, I think we can actually design something pretty efficiently.
Click to expand...

Actually when you breathe in 100% nitrogen you almost instantly lose consciousness as the air in the brain is displaced. Its EXTREMLY dangerous in refineries and kills many people before they even knew what was going on. They are walking along in some tunnel or inside a silo, get a little bit dizzy for a few seconds. Then fall over unconscious.
 
BillRM said:
Once more tanks of nitrogen seems both a dirt cheap way and a very humane way of killing someone.
Click to expand...

Following a three-month investigation, a NASA board of inquiry concluded that a last-minute change in testing procedures, coupled with a breakdown in communications at the space center, caused the accident.
Click to expand...

Jesus this is freaking NASA we are talking about... You think they could have afforded little personal air monitors for each person that clips onto their shirt.
 
Should have had a choice of 'other'.....I say whatever it takes. Zyklon B pesticide pellets seem to work for the Nazis.
 
This case contributed a lot towards the abolition of the death penalty in the UK. I am against the death penalty because of mistakes like this. I wonder if people who support the death penalty would be so supportive if they were the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
BBC Blogs - Wales - The execution of Timothy Evans
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Actually when you breathe in 100% nitrogen you almost instantly lose consciousness as the air in the brain is displaced. Its EXTREMLY dangerous in refineries and kills many people before they even knew what was going on. They are walking along in some tunnel or inside a silo, get a little bit dizzy for a few seconds. Then fall over unconscious.
Click to expand...

Yeah...it's definitely very doable and I dunno why we don't use this method. My example just highlights how easy the process is and how it shouldn't be hard to implement and then not have to deal with finding certain chemicals that are hard to come by for lethal injection.
 
I don't think any method is better than the other. You can't assume there is less suffering. If someone shoots you in the head you fall down instantly because your brain can no longer support the body, but it doesn't mean you aren't alive in there experiencing it for a time. Same with lethal injection. I've been knocked out by anesthetic before but I wasn't dying, I was just out. Who knows what happens when you actually die under those conditions.

Capital punishment is inhumane no matter how it's done.
 
Personally, I'd prefer a very stern lecture. Perhaps accompanied by a "this practice must cease forthwith" memo.





;)
 
Goshin said:
Personally, I'd prefer a very stern lecture. Perhaps accompanied by a "this practice must cease forthwith" memo.

;)
Click to expand...

That's it...you're going to get a death by PowerPoint execution.
 
Fishking said:
That's it...you're going to get a death by PowerPoint execution.
Click to expand...




YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


Oh, the inhumanity.... not the PowerPoint!



How about death by Snu-Snu instead? :lamo
 
Goshin said:
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Oh, the inhumanity.... not the PowerPoint!

How about death by Snu-Snu instead? :lamo
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry. You asked for this.
 
Carjosse said:
So just because people want it we should be sentencing people to death? It should be abolished, the government should not be in the business of killing potentially innocent people. It is something people want until they actually get it.
Click to expand...

well in a representative republic with democratic institutions it's certainly not a minor reason.

every time the death penalty has been either it's own issue (not one time has a death penalty law been repealed referendum) or a major one in US elections (such as the election of Governor Pataki in NY) It has won.
so there is no political will to abolish it, the states without a death penalty either never had it in the first place (Alaska, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) or repealed it only when it was viewed as poltiically safe, in states with no mechanism for a referendum. the people who oppose DP in this country are a vocal minority, whereas supporters are a broad bipartisan group.

What does "potentially innocent" mean in a legal context? if you go to trial there is no option for a jury to decide "potentially innocent" either you're guilty or not guilty. That's the way the system has to work. after all why lock up potentially innocent people in prison? If you have an appeal based on reasonable error or reversible error by the trial court that is one thing. but trying to claim you're "potentially innocent" when the state proved beyond reasonable doubt one was guilty is another. And no one can point to someone who can be proven to be innocent who was executed since the 1970s. at most there's a handful of cases that involve technical arguments or people choosing to believe defense theories that trial and appeal courts rejected.

There's another side to this, and this is a serious question, have you been to your province's parliament building? are you aware of what occured there in the 1980s? look that up, and that will be another argument for why we need the death penalty....
 
zyzygy said:
This case contributed a lot towards the abolition of the death penalty in the UK. I am against the death penalty because of mistakes like this. I wonder if people who support the death penalty would be so supportive if they were the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
BBC Blogs - Wales - The execution of Timothy Evans
Click to expand...

if I were the victim of a miscarriage of justice I might feel differently about a lot of things, hell people who are guilty and rightfully sentenced often have different opinions about the justice system.

There's an old guy who hangs out at a ferry dock near where I grew up who's a registered sex offender who swears six ways to sunday he's innocent, he probably feels different about sex offender registries then most of us would....
 
EMNofSeattle said:
well in a representative republic with democratic institutions it's certainly not a minor reason.

every time the death penalty has been either it's own issue (not one time has a death penalty law been repealed referendum) or a major one in US elections (such as the election of Governor Pataki in NY) It has won.
so there is no political will to abolish it, the states without a death penalty either never had it in the first place (Alaska, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) or repealed it only when it was viewed as poltiically safe, in states with no mechanism for a referendum. the people who oppose DP in this country are a vocal minority, whereas supporters are a broad bipartisan group.

What does "potentially innocent" mean in a legal context? if you go to trial there is no option for a jury to decide "potentially innocent" either you're guilty or not guilty. That's the way the system has to work. after all why lock up potentially innocent people in prison? If you have an appeal based on reasonable error or reversible error by the trial court that is one thing. but trying to claim you're "potentially innocent" when the state proved beyond reasonable doubt one was guilty is another. And no one can point to someone who can be proven to be innocent who was executed since the 1970s. at most there's a handful of cases that involve technical arguments or people choosing to believe defense theories that trial and appeal courts rejected.

There's another side to this, and this is a serious question, have you been to your province's parliament building? are you aware of what occured there in the 1980s? look that up, and that will be another argument for why we need the death penalty....
Click to expand...

You only have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. There is still a chance of innocence, not much, but it still exists and you can always release someone form prison, you can't raise them from the dead. I know exactly what happened and the man responsible went to prison and was released later, he now lives a normal life with his family in rural Quebec hurting no one. I would say that is much desirable outcome.
 
SheWolf said:
I was just finishing a true crime book. The assailant is found guilty and condemned to die, and the judge gives him the option to die by either lethal injection or firing squad. He picked firing squad.

At that point, I thought I started wondering which option I would pick. I think I would rather get a firing squad than a lethal injection. A firing squad seems quicker and actually more humane. With a lethal injection, you will get a IV in the arm and wait to die while the drugs take effect.

Public opinion seems to be that a firing squad is less humane, but if you put yourself in the condemned person's shoes do you see it differently?

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Or a bullet in the back of the head Chinese style. They dead before they feel it.

Or a "captive rod" system like used in slaughter houses.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
You only have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. There is still a chance of innocence, not much, but it still exists and you can always release someone form prison,
Click to expand...
No you cannot always release someone from prison, people occassionally die in prison.
I know exactly what happened and the man responsible went to prison and was released later, he now lives a normal life with his family in rural Quebec hurting no one. I would say that is much desirable outcome.
Click to expand...

And I only wish one could say the same for his victims, that's not what I consider a desirable outcome. In fact it's an outcome that basically says we value the lives of people who commit murder above yours. Your life is not worth near as much as the man who took it, is the message relayed by the outcome. and maybe in Canada that flies, but plenty of places in the US there would be vigilantes waiting for that guy, and that's definitely NOT a desirable outcome.

And the reason to use Lortie's case is because, in a society with a death penalty, he would've pled guilty to avoid execution, and take life in prison without parole, in a society with no death penalty, not only does he not even get a life sentence, for a mass shooting with a machine gun (and I guess another success of gun control while we're at it) he paroles out in twelve years! That is not Justice, that is a mockery of the process of justice.
 
Last edited:
I would vote for the "eye for an eye" option
 
SCitizen said:
Horrible situation.

Many people are going to suffer thousands of years, but as a Jew I believe less then on in thousand people will suffer eternally.
Click to expand...

Jews don't have hell.
 
BillRM said:
There something odd here as over my lifespan I been in a room at my vet with a beloved pet a dozen or more time when it came time to end his or her life.

One time the vet even came to my home to take care of the deed and my cat was on my lap when he was given his shots.

At no time did any of them seem to suffer in any manner so why is this so must harder to do when it come to humans and why do we need special and hard to get drugs when drugs that can do the deed can be found in lock boxes at any vet?

The whole thing seem odds.
Click to expand...

my wife owns several horses Last spring, the oldest had several ongoing issues and one night, we came home to find the horse down in its field and while we got him back up and the vet spent the night giving the animal IVs and other medications, by the next day, the lab results were such that the horse-31 at the time-could not tolerate the surgery that had an outside chance of saving it. SO the vet gave the horse a shot and in 10 seconds it went completely down and was dead within a minute. There is nothing to indicate the animal suffered any pain.
 
rocket88 said:
Hanging
Click to expand...

allows the use of the prisoner's organs for medical transplants

not true with Lethal injection, electrocution or the incredibly inhumane gas chamber.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No you cannot always release someone from prison, people occassionally die in prison.

And I only wish one could say the same for his victims, that's not what I consider a desirable outcome. In fact it's an outcome that basically says we value the lives of people who commit murder above yours. Your life is not worth near as much as the man who took it, is the message relayed by the outcome. and maybe in Canada that flies, but plenty of places in the US there would be vigilantes waiting for that guy, and that's definitely NOT a desirable outcome.

And the reason to use Lortie's case is because, in a society with a death penalty, he would've pled guilty to avoid execution, and take life in prison without parole, in a society with no death penalty, not only does he not even get a life sentence, for a mass shooting with a machine gun (and I guess another success of gun control while we're at it) he paroles out in twelve years! That is not Justice, that is a mockery of the process of justice.
Click to expand...

That is rehabilitation, that is what the justice system should strive for. The justice system turned him from a murderer to a productive member of society. Having a justice system built entirely around the idea of revenge will never have good outcomes and the US is very clear evidence of that.
 
let's be honest, lethal injection might be horrible but within a few minutes you won't remember it anyway

i would be conflicted for this reason - i'm kind of introverted so i'd rather just lie down and take the needle (which would also be familiar), but at the same time, i wouldn't mind making the state pull the trigger literally and face my killers. Especially since i could only realistically be in that situation if i were innocent
 
Actually, the gas chamber would be completely painless..... Not the old gas chamber, but one in which nitrogen gas displaces all the oxygen. You don't get the symptoms of carbon dioxide build up, which can be quite painful. You just simply and quickly pass out and die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom