Utah's reintroduction of firing squads bucks global trend

Don't forget about Indonesia who will be killing some of the Bali 9 this month by firing squad.

If we're going medieval, Mazatello definitely more entertaining than a firing squad.

Seriously some US convictions look so seriously flawed I'm not so sure the state should be killing people.

If I had to be executed, I'd choose the guillotine; if I had to execute someone, I'd choose the same. It is flawless, painless, and in our modern world, can be programmed so that nobody has "blood on their hands."

Of course, this will never happen because of the need to maintain the illusion that, somehow, modern execution techniques are scientific and humane and not at all related to past barbarity even though that is all just pretend.

I'd go with the guillotine. Perhaps we could find a more suitable American word for it such as "Justice Freedom Peace iThing."

I think a French doctor back in the day observing executions by guillotine remarked the severed heads kept blinking and looking really pissed for 10 or 15 seconds.

The bottom line is there is no humane way of killing people. That said, I agree some criminals are beyond redemption.

People who support life without parole also support the death penalty, they just take the route of denial and have the punishment meted out over an excruciating long time in the largely shocking conditions of the US penal system.

Even if I was innocent I'd take the firing squad over a lifetime of misery crammed in a cage...

So, democracy good, unless the people want the death penalty.

BTW, if AP had bothered to consult wikipedia, they might have noticed Kazakhstan is in Europe and has the DP, and that Russia is in Europe and technically has the DP, although it's effectively suspended in Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Russia#Public_opinion

... According to a 2006 FOM survey ... the death penalty was supported by three quarters of the respondents, and only four percent of them favored the abolition of the death penalty. The moratorium itself was opposed by 55 percent of the respondents and supported by 28 percent of the respondents. ... According to a 2013 survey by the Levada Center, 54 percent of the respondents favored an equal (38 percent) or greater (16 percent) use of the death penalty as before the 1996 moratorium, a decline from 68 percent in 2002 and from 61 percent in 2012. This survey found that the death penalty now has a higher approval rating in urban areas (77 percent in Moscow for example), with men and among the elderly. According to the Levada Center figures, the proportion of Russians seeking abolition of the death penalty was 12 percent in 2002, 10 percent in 2012 and 11 percent in 2013.

Kazakhstan is in Europe

Not really. I tiny part of it isn't in Asia would be less misleading. It isn't part of Europe politically if that is what you're suggesting.

I'm not so sure the state should be killing people.

I'm absolutely sure the state should not be killing people.

It's barbaric.

Oh some people should truly be zapped. The Dale Creagans, the Charlie Mansons and the Osama bin Ladens.

I say that for economic reasons, not for some fire and brimstone reasons.

Do you support life in prison without parole Cleo?

I say that for economic reasons, not for some fire and brimstone reasons.

Do you support life in prison without parole Cleo?

As in, support it = I think it's a Good Thing?

No, I don't think life in prison without parole is a Good Thing. But if the only alternatives are killing people in cold blood or letting potentially dangerous people back out onto the streets, it's probably a necessary evil.

And way preferable to finding out after an execution that oops, you got the wrong person.

I won't argue that the US system is clearly unjust in so much as their are clearly gross miscarriages of justice. It needs serious reform and each case receiving unique attention. For the cases where there is no doubt and the crimes horrific I don't see why convicts shouldn't be removed from the gene pool.

Life in prison without parole is death sentence. One meted out incredibly slowly over many decades in an incredibly barbaric place.

Supporting that IMO means you really want them to suffer, or you're simply in denial of supporting a death sentence of locking them in a box and waiting for them to croak. AIDS, anal haemorrhaging from rape, shivs or natural causes, take your pick.

Me, I just don't want my taxes being spent on keeping people alive indefinitely when they are beyond redemption.

I don't see why convicts shouldn't be removed from the gene pool.

If the gene pool is a concern, you could neuter the worst cases.....

Supporting that IMO means.....

I just said that I don't 'support' it.....

in an incredibly barbaric place

Why does the supposedly most advanced nation on earth have such a barbaric place, and why would you use the fact of the existence of that barbaric place to justify the barbaric practice of putting people down? Why not work to make those barbaric places a bit less barbaric?

Me, I just don't want my taxes being spent on keeping people alive indefinitely when they are beyond redemption.

I tend to agree. Not all crimes should get the death penalty. But for cases where there is not a doubt, say those people who do mass killings and are caught in the act, or cases where there is no doubt as to the person who has committed the crime, they need to be sentenced to death. So often we see and hear of cases where people do truly inhumane things to others, and we get in a huff about the light sentences that they get. If they do a very serious crime and there is no doubt in their guilt, death penalty.

Offer a few appeals and don't keep them on death row for years.

Will this bring back the ones that they have killed, no it will not. But just needs to be served.

If the gene pool is a concern, you could neuter the worst cases.....

Heh, a lady and a feminist :) The rest of us find that not only barbaric but worse than death.

Ahh, so with child rapists and killers you support one day releasing them? Mass murderers? Terrorists?

Wow.

"Why does the supposedly most advanced nation on earth have such a barbaric place, and why would you use the fact of the existence of that barbaric place to justify the barbaric practice of putting people down? Why not work to make those barbaric places a bit less barbaric?"

Let me help you down from that horse. Most European prisons aren't any different. I won't mention the rest of the worlds hellholes.

Prison is supposed to be a punishment. Not a place where people like Anders Behring Breivik get a private cell with internet access and a degree with the potential of one day being released. That to me is the definition insanity.

Not all crimes should get the death penalty.

duh....

so with child rapists and killers you support one day releasing them? Mass murderers? Terrorists?

Support releasing people who pose a danger to the public? Not at all. But by all means retain the means to review cases every so often. If the review board deems them to be still a danger, lock the cell door again for a few more years.

Most European prisons aren't any different.

And that makes it OK? I don't think so. But at least Europe doesn't execute people.

Prison is supposed to be a punishment.

The loss of freedom is the punishment. I have never heard of anywhere with a proper legal system having AIDS and anal rape on the books as legitimate punishments for any crime.

Cleo,

Above you are contradicting yourself. You don't support life in prison yet you claim it is a necessary evil. Which is it?

Do you or do you not support life in prison without parole?

And that makes it OK? I don't think so

Yet you singled out the US for criticism?

I have never heard of anywhere with a proper legal system having AIDS and anal rape on the books as legitimate punishments for any crime.

It isn't, you're being obtuse.

As far as I can tell you can't decide if you support life in prison without possibility of parole as it will mean admitting you support a death sentence. But you support mutilating people by emasculation for "the worst cases".

duh....

@ Cleo: In the US news today, there is a story of a woman from Detroit who was arrested due to the fact that two children (ages 11 and 14) were found dead in the freezer in her home that she was being evicted from.

So do you think that this lady if found guilty should only be sentenced to LWOP (Life WIthout Parole), just because you don't like the idea of a death penalty? I have a friend who was a prosecutor, and she once told me of a person that was tried and put on death row for a horrible killing. He admitted he killed the person that day for no reason , just to kill someone. He reminded them of the worse case of Lecther from the movies.

So like this guy who is still sitting on death row for 20 years, this mother who had her own kids in a freezer should not be sentenced to death and be allowed to live? Where is the justice in that. Not sure what your relgious beliefs are, but it does say in the Bible that we here on earth still need to have laws and punishment. We (as man) can't punish someone in the way that God can by either letting them into Heaven or eternal damnation, but we can judge and if need be punish them on the crimes that they have been comitted.

In my opinion, this woman should be given the ultimate penalty for the horrible things she has done to her own children.

Madverts -

You don't support life in prison yet you claim it is a necessary evil.

I suppose folk who advocate the death penalty have a tendency to talk in absolutes. It is not a contradiction to say that while life in prison is not a Good Thing, it is still better than the alternatives.

you singled out the US for criticism?

Where is Utah again?

you can't decide if you support life in prison without possibility of parole as it will mean admitting you support a death sentence.

I do not support extremes or absolutes, which both the death penalty and life without parole are. That doesn't mean that keeping very bad people in prison until they die of natural causes should be ruled out; nothing much else can be done with them, unless you insist on staying in the Kill'em Club in the company of the likes of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea.

But you support mutilating people by emasculation for "the worst cases".

Just pointing our that taking people 'out of the gene pool' doesn't necessarily mean killing them. Interesting that you should consider neutering a fate worse than death. Never owned a male dog or cat? They're much happier, healthier and longer-lived without their bits.

Alpha - The duh was in response to your admitting not all crimes carry (or should carry) the death penalty. Bit of a no brainer, unless you're a real bloodthirsty extremist. Crimes such as fishing from horseback (1), owning a set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2), driving in a housecoat while female (3), or selling a duckling dyed blue (4) do not carry the death penalty, nor should they in most people's eyes, I should imagine. Although the penalty for jumping off a building is death. Right enough - them NY buildings is high. (5)

(1)http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/utah

(2) http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas

(3)http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california

(4)http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/kentucky

(5)http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york

Not sure what your relgious beliefs are, but it does say in the Bible ....

Atheist, so sorry, waving the bible around doesn't help. If you're so sure God will exact his revenge in the end, why not just leave it up to him? Killing in God's name sounds over-the-top hubristic to me... Matthew 7:1-3.

Cleo - whole heartedly support your views. Barbarism begets Barbarism begets Barbarism.

And to throw in a can of barbarism - why are the most militaristic states on earth the greatest capital punishers irregardless of political persuasion? Just asking!

And Alphaape - seeing you are bringing God & The Bible into this discussion -

What would Jesus say? What would Jesus do? Just asking?

cleo,

No need to ramble on. That is obfuscation. The question was a simple yes/no affair.

The thing is, like me, you support a de facto death sentence for certain people. At least admit this is your position.

A lot of so-called anti-death penalty arguments implode right where yours has.

I don't think locking people up in a cage until they croak is anymore humane than a firing squad. In fact, I think life without parole is a cruel and unjust punishment.

My point from the beginning has been that I don't want huge amounts of public money wasted.

An unnecessary profligacy keeping certain unrepentant, heinous people alive simply because squeamish people would rather throw away the key and live in denial of what life without parole actually means.

Oh, and you know calling for mutilation of certain convicts does tend to whip the moral carpet from underneath ya.

Cia ciao...

Madv -

"Oh, and you know calling for mutilation of certain convicts does tend to whip the moral carpet from underneath ya"

What on earth are you on about? Please explain?

Cleo advocates neutering the "worst cases" above. Are you suggesting this doesn't constitute mutilating convicts?

Madv -

I was more focused on the "...whip the moral carpet from underneath ya".

And yes, mutilation can take many forms from ear piercing to 50 lashes - but the greatest mutilation of all surely has to be the promise of death and then the carrying out of that mortal mutilation.

Being an opponent of state killing is not about being a do-gooder, but rather bringing to a halt the already tragic and despicable circumstances, by resisting the call of further blood letting.

An earlier poster suggested modern practices can be programmed so "nobody has blood on their hands".

Well. I challenge that and say that I believe the state and all it's death supporters certainly do have blood on their hands.

The question was a simple yes/no affair.

The problem is that when it's a question of lives, a simple yes/no doesn't suffice.

Going on about the 'mutilation of convicts' is cute, but disingenuous. You are the one who wants people 'out of the gene pool'. I suggested one way of doing that without killing. I do not 'advocate' it, I am not 'calling for' it, and I made no mention of 'worst cases'. Stay honest, Madverts.

Yes, many people probably deserve a death penalty. But there is no government in the world which is divine or infallible enough to be granted the right to take a mans life.

Cleo,

The problem is that when it's a question of lives, a simple yes/no doesn't suffice.

Rubbish. The question is simple. Do you or do you not support sentencing people to die in gaol? No possibility of ever getting out. Death.

Yes. Or No. Or forfeit.

Going on about the 'mutilation of convicts' is cute, but disingenuous. You are the one who wants people 'out of the gene pool'. I suggested one way of doing that without killing. I do not 'advocate' it, I am not 'calling for' it

No, you suggested it. I'm not going to let you be that slippery. Your suggestion was that instead of killing people to remove them from the gene pool, that convicts could have their privates removed. Or their innards. Your suggestion, not mine. And that would be, indeed, mutilation.

and I made no mention of 'worst cases'.

You wrote:

cleoMar. 25, 2015 - 03:13PM JST If the gene pool is a concern, you could neuter the worst cases.....

I've got nothing against you personally Cleo but I think you're out of order questioning my honesty in this exchange. You're in a shaky position of your own making where you claim not to support life tariffs without parole, but then suddenly you do. This a yes and no issue, nothing more.

We both know why you're swerving the answer, because it means having to admit that your so-called anti-death penalty stance doesn't stop death sentences being directly associated with your position. I'd just like to get you to admit that you support death sentences, because you clearly do. Some of the time.

Turning the key in a cage until death is as final as bullet through the head. It just takes exponentially longer.

And costs a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money.

@Madverts

Turning the key in a cage until death is as final as bullet through the head.

No it isn't. A jail sentence can be overturned, even later on. And that's the whole point.

And costs a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money.

Money shouldn't be your guide when it comes to human lives and justice.

Bernd,

At least follow the thread please.

I'm talking about the cases where there is no doubt. Reasonable doubt, well - that's something else.

I am well aware there are shocking miscarriages of justice and that certain states are handing out death sentences like it was the middle ages. As previously stated, the US system needs review, desperately.

If I had a choice, and if I were a big supporter of capital punishment, I think the firing squad or a bullet in the back of the head the way they do it in China is the fastest, painless way to go.

Japan still executes people too, right?

So criminals who get caught by policemen may end up like that.

And I am proud to say I am from Utah!!! At least there is somewhere where someone that commits the most heinous crimes against humanity can look forward to a death by lead poisioning!!! It is not about revenge, its about justice.. for the victim and for the public. If the worst cases are treated to a life of worry free life at the tax payer expense then the public is being abused. The cost of maintaining a life-sentensed inmate is staggering, annually more than most people make in a year.

So, go ahead and negetive the crap out of me. The one who do are probably the same ones that think everybody should have free healthcare, free welfare, free this, free that!!! Oh, and it all should be paid by someone else (rich people/companies).

Society as a whole needs a rebood IMHO. Heinous crimes deserve severe repercussions. Life has consequences, they can be regulated or taxed away.

Weather you believe it or not US prisons are a country club. Some criminals have no other option in life due to laziness and irresponsibility. Yes, I am saying some small percentage are not deterred from incarceration. On the street your next meal is not predictable. In prison, fed well.

I say return to hard labor. Remove cable TV in the cell. Make prison a very undesirable place to be. The only deterrent.

No humane way of killing people?

What about death by sex?

Weather you believe it or not US prisons are a country club.

I just choked on the rhetoric.

The question is simple. Do you or do you not support sentencing people to die in gaol? No possibility of ever getting out. Death.

I've already said I don't support life without parole, aka lock 'em up and throw away the key. Keep the key on the hook, and have a look at them now and again. Life with parole doesn't have to mean everyone automatically gets out eventually, no matter how bad they are. Review all cases on a regular basis. Don't let out the ones who aren't fit to be let out.

As for No possibility of ever getting out. Death you do realise that's what awaits us all, whether we commit crimes or not?

What would Jesus say? What would Jesus do? Just asking?

@browny1: He would say what he told his diciples when they asked what laws that they should obey and he showed them a coin and asked whose face was on it (Ceasars), and came up with "Render unto Ceasars that which is Ceasars..."

Not to get preachy and thumping the Bible, but for those who claim to be not religious and then try to use religion against others, let me explain. In the 10 commandments, it says Thous shall not kill. The actual translation from the Hebrew to Greek is more of "thou shall not murder." Murder and killing are two different things. The Bible does state that there are times for everything, and death and killing is one of them. But murder is understood to be a criminal act, and the death penalty is part of the judical process.

To that end, there have been reformations in at least the Christian and Jewish religions (they don't stone and kill people who commit adultery these days and for many of the other things that were prohibited back then), but the payment for a horrific crime (murder) with your life doesn't seem to be going against what Jesus taught.

Alphaape - sorry, but your answer doesn't directly answer.

Are you saying Jesus said to follow the laws of your rulers no matter how much it goes against your beliefs because you wouldn't want to be outside of the law?

And please a little more substance to your statement "...but the payment for a horrific crime(murder) with your life doesn't seem to be going against what Jesus taught". Doesn't seem? Well what is it then - it follows his words or it doesn't follow his words?

And my lovely friend a 70year old christian lady who is the pastor of the local chapel, would certainly disagree with you on your statements. But according to you she may well - seem to be wrong. I'm meeting her next Wednesday - I'll ask her.

And re trying to use religion against others - I'm not. I simply asked, since you brought up the religious angle, what would Jesus think about all of this.

My limited understanding of the dynamics and intricacies of christianity and it's word, doesn't allow me to proffer a deeply qualified response, but a simple comment based on my " historical image" of a merciful Jesus, is that he'd be horrified at the cold killing of another human being in Utah or anywhere for that matter - state ordered or not.

Good Bad StrangerlandMAR. 26, 2015 - 08:24AM JST Weather you believe it or not US prisons are a country club.

I just choked on the rhetoric.

Apparently you have little knowledge of US prisons.

"lethal injections"

That could be even worse than burning people to death like Islamic State does, or shooting people to death.

Cleo,

I've already said I don't support life without parole, aka lock 'em up and throw away the key. Keep the key on the hook, and have a look at them now and again. Life with parole doesn't have to mean everyone automatically gets out eventually, no matter how bad they are. Review all cases on a regular basis. Don't let out the ones who aren't fit to be let out.

That's a cop out. Some people are beyond redemption. Those that you would never release are being sentenced TO DEATH behind bars, You support, therefore, the death penalty.

As for No possibility of ever getting out. Death you do realise that's what awaits us all, whether we commit crimes or not?

Death is inevitable. Removing people's freedom until they die is a death sentence all the same. Your position supports the death penalty through "slow puncture". Enjoy the denial of your position.

Some people are beyond redemption. Those that you would never release are being sentenced TO DEATH behind bars, You support, therefore, the death penalty.

Sorry Madverts, but it's ridiculous to state that not killing people is a death sentence.