Why don't we starve them? That's supposed to be painless! (joking people)

I don't get too picky about the methods. If they are the kind of criminal I do believe should be executed(a small minority), I'm not going to go out of my way to make them comfortable. But I could go for firing squad.

Well it's not just a matter of 'comfort', though if you put yourself in that place...but I digress...I mean in comparison, how much is a handful of bullets going to cost in comparison to those drugs they use? I don't imagine those things are cheap by any means.

Supernova wrote:

Well it's not just a matter of 'comfort', though if you put yourself in that place...but I digress...I mean in comparison, how much is a handful of bullets going to cost in comparison to those drugs they use? I don't imagine those things are cheap by any means.

Well, if the motive is to save us money; I'm all for it. Heck, don't even bother with a firing squad. Have an expert just put a single bullet in the head.

Quote :

Well, if the motive is to save us money; I'm all for it. Heck, don't even bother with a firing squad. Have an expert just put a single bullet in the head.

Isn't the whole reason for a firing squad that no one knows which gun had the bullet? Maybe that is wrong, but that is what I thought.

I don't really know what method I would say is best, but I am against hanging, because doesn't that sometimes not work right, and they are not killed instantly?

RedBedroom wrote:

Isn't the whole reason for a firing squad that no one knows which gun had the bullet? Maybe that is wrong, but that is what I thought.

I don't really know what method I would say is best, but I am against hanging, because doesn't that sometimes not work right, and they are not killed instantly?

I was being a bit facetious.

Well, that is why super said experienced, so the death WOULD be instantaneous.

LOL, I see. Silly me!

Can a death row inmate still request a firing squad nowadays?

I don't know...I remember that big deal made over the guy in Utah, he had made his request before they did away with the condemned's ability TO request it as their method of execution. I think at least if you're going to kill them, you should give them a choice on HOW they're to die...do them one better than they did their victims anyway.

Yeah - that's what was making me wonder, as they said that state had done away with it, so it made me wonder if other states allowed it.

I doubt they still allow it. It's too barbaric to shoot murderers.

Terrorists. Timothy McVeigh deserved no life. Serial killers who can never be changed, which is probably most, if not all, of them. Some others, but it should be used prudently and judiciously.

The guy that I mentioned in my post is a serial killer, responsible for the deaths of countless women - they haven't found all of his victims and really aren't sure how man sex trade workers he preyed on. He was convicted in the deaths of of six women and charged with the deaths of 20 others, though police suspect he had many more victims. The guy was a pig farmer and after the trial was over - there'd been a media ban for the 8 or so years since he was first charged but details are now coming to light. They said they found processed meat in freezer that had traces of human DNA. It's people like Pickton that make me realize I might consider capitol punishment, but I still really don't know.

Joanna Crane wrote:

Terrorists. Timothy McVeigh deserved no life. Serial killers who can never be changed, which is probably most, if not all, of them. Some others, but it should be used prudently and judiciously.

I was totally against it for a long time, and it took a lot of self searching till I finally agreed that in some instances it is just and fitting. I've heard of the Pickton guy, and he fits the mold. I'm not sure how "human" those kind of monsters are, and when life in prison is really no punishment to them, well...justice has to be served.

I also feel that murderers of children, in particular those that torture those innocent, helpless, precious children need to have a fitting form of punishment, and the older I get the less compassion I can find for them. I want them to feel the pain and the terror of their victims, I want them to know what it is they are being punished for, I want them to just once be able to relate to the victims of their crimes.

Yup - that's what's making me question whether or not there are actually cases I'd consider capitol punishment. I mean - until Pickton, I was against it but when details started to emerge, esp. the bit about cannibalism. I thought in the early days of the trial, there was talk about how he'd thrown parties at his place and now it makes me wonder just what guests were served, though there's been no mention of those parties in recent years and no warnings for people who were guests at his place.

Some crooks definite require it. It's not like the worst offenders in our society are bank robbers and burglars.

I don't feel any sympathy for serial killers and whatnot getting the needle....but if it were up to me, I'd sooner sentence them to 957 years in prison, like Dahmer. I don't think the law should be able to decide who dies.

Except life at the expense of OUR taxes in which they DON'T have to pay taxes, or work, and they get three meals a day, a place to sleep, TV and video game privileges, unmonitored conjugal visits in which they can have smuggled in cell phones, etc...exactly where do they send the message in all this that killing somebody is wrong?

I do not agree with this at all. Because no justice system, however
sound, could ever prove, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond
ALL doubt that a criminal conviction is correct. So what about all
those innocent people, being executed for crimes they themselves did
not commit. They did not make any decision, conscious or otherwise.

"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

^^^^Again, I ask, should we not send people to jail at all then because they might be innocent? By your logic, that would have to apply. People, being sent to life in prison, for not making any decision, conscious or otherwise. So are you against punishment for crime altogether?

Your post suggests that a criminal cannot be guilty beyond reasonable doubt let alone all doubt? If only it were that easy but alas, the most dangerous of criminals tend to be those who don't mind hiding their identity. We can't let the execution of innocent people give those who were guilty of the most serious crimes passes of any kind.

Capital Punishment is fundamentally against the right to life, just as committing murder is. It is not 'punishment' as such, because punishment has a lesson to teach to the wrongdoer, and if possible to rehabilitate. In this case, the wrongdoer does not learn anything. The death sentence isn't punishment, it's vengeance and retribution.

Chris wrote:

Capital Punishment is fundamentally against the right to life, just as committing murder is. It is not 'punishment' as such, because punishment has a lesson to teach to the wrongdoer, and if possible to rehabilitate. In this case, the wrongdoer does not learn anything. The death sentence isn't punishment, it's vengeance and retribution.

I think execution definitely teaches the wrongdoer much. If you kill somebody, you forfeit the right to your own life. He usually has years to reform and rehabilitate.(But we'd never be able to chance testing that in society if he did something heinous enough to merit the death penalty) So I'd say the wrongdoer learns plenty. Especially more than letting him live off the people would. It can be vengeance or retribution, but it doesn't have to be. Besides, I believe the wrongdoer will learn plenty in the afterlife, certainly much more than cell would teach him.

Capital Punishment is not fundamentally against the right to life. In fact, I'd argue it's even necessary(if only rarely) in order to preserve it.

Jeffrey Dahmer didn't get the official death penalty, he was just in prison, what did he learn? It's not like he was anywhere near set to let back out in society, was he?

Let's go back to the hangman's noose and make it a public display. Scare the crap out of people who commit heinous crimes. Not only get them off the streets but scare the ones thinking about it enough to not do it. It doesn't scar our kids it scares them. Our kids are tough enough to survive nightmares.

< /sarcasm >

I was listening to some guy who was talking about how in... Vietnam, Philippines maybe, canings are still used. He said that those who are caned rarely re-offend and that we're too soft on our prisoners here. I guess the canings there are public, but he also said that you have the added humiliation of causing someone to "loose face" in public, which is HUGE over there. Not sure if it would have the same effect here, as "loosing face" isn't quite the same. It does seem that not enough is being done to deter some repeat offenders. I just can't remember what it was I was watching when I saw that but it seems to me they were talking about young offenders.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

Let's go back to the hangman's noose and make it a public display. Scare the crap out of people who commit heinous crimes. Not only get them off the streets but scare the ones thinking about it enough to not do it. It doesn't scar our kids it scares them. Our kids are tough enough to survive nightmares.

< /sarcasm >

After the Saw series, kids are totally desensitized.