Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Depends how you execute with bullets. The Thai used to spray with bullets from a submachine gun that was on a stand (for perfect aim to the executed's head). It's hard to imagine someone surviving a whole MP5 magazine to the head.

[WillowLuman]

There are three main reasons for modern methods of execution: humaneness, wanting to leave the body whole, and not wanting a mess.

A body in one piece makes for a more dignified funeral, and humiliating the bodies of dead people is seen as barbaric. Americans would not (officially) mutilate a body post-mortem for vengeance. And if you cut someone's head off or shoot them, there's going to be a mess, whereas with the chair or injection, all you have to do to avoid mess is put them in an adult diaper. The humaneness of any method of killing someone is, of course, questionable.

Once again, bear in mind that the cost of the actual method is fairly miniscule in terms of the total cost of putting someone to death.

[Funk]

Why don't they save the cost of the executioner and have the jury form a fireing squad?

If thay can judge a man guilty and send him to his death then why shouldn't they do it? 

[Sheb]

Isn't the jury supposed to only decide guilt or innocence, with the actual sentencing left to judges? Why the jury and not the judge, prosecutor or lawmaker?

[Bauglir]

Because a firing squad makes it impossible to guarantee a painless execution, which is the objection to lethal injection that I agree is a good objection.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I would want to die by explosion. Like, take me out to the demolition test site and put explosives on me and set them all off at once. Probably have like 6 different sets of charges, each of which is capable of vaporizing a person, rigged separately so that you have 6 chances for success for the simultaneous detonation.

I ... don't care about what happens to my body after I'm dead. I'm kinda finished with it at that point.

I'm sure they could rig up some kind of industrial crushing device that pounds a mortar into a perfectly-fitting pestle where the prisoner is tied up. If you're instantly splattered into a 1mm thick paste I doubt you're experiencing the event.

Although in general I'm against execution except when the person would be sentenced to remain in prison until death BUT there's an overwhelming danger of him breaking out or something. I think a person living in prison, such that he doesn't have any power or special privileges and he's just a crappy prisoner like everyone else, and his life generally sucks but it's not like daily torture - that is a very reasonable punishment and it's probably going to cause him more hardship over time than just killing him. Plus, there have been plenty of people who were executed and then we found out later they were innocent. It's tough to take back a hanging and say you're sorry.

[Playergamer]

Honestly I'd rather see life imprisonment. It's no less vindictive, even if it's less spectacular.

I hope this accomplishes something.

I'd rather we didn't feed him and protect him for the rest of his life while he still calls the shots from inside a cell.

Still not how it works. Prisoners usually end up paying for most of the costs of incarceration with labor, while execution can take years and usually costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars in electricity.

EDIT: Sorry, it's just that that exact wording makes me want to punch myself in the face.

[Funk]

I don't really know how U.S. courts work, but after looking it up, some times it's the trial jury, or sometimes a separate jury and at in others the judge does the sentencing.

I think that all prisoners should get to chose there method of execution as long as it is practicable.


I don't personally agree with having a death penalty.   

[Sheb]

I'm so gonna choose drinking myself dead.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

As for calling the shots from inside prison, I don't see why life-term prisoners get access to communication from outside. Like, part of being in prison for the rest of your life is society saying "we don't want anything to do with you anymore and we don't want you to influence anyone outside your four walls." It's a big screw-you to a human who is essentially social.

Within the prison you've gotta have contact among prisoners, and reading materials, etc. Otherwise you're driving people insane and psychologically torturing them. But apparently there is still isolation punishment which is legal, although I don't know how long they're allowed to do it for.

I'm not saying keep the guy from talking with other people. But put up a barrier between the prison and the outside world that keeps objects and information from being passed. If someone is a bad enough guy that he's locked up until he dies, no parole or early release etc. because his sentence is like 50,000 years, I don't see why he should get XBoxes and cigarettes and letters from his kids. Those are things he would want, certainly, but at this point what he wants is unimportant. His basic human needs should be provided for but stopping well short of any luxury.

A guard caught smuggling in contraband or smuggling out messages would be fired on the spot and the black mark on his record would prevent him from ever holding a security clearance or working for the government again. And you'd have reasonably good selection criteria for your guards, pay them well, and limit guard contact with inmates in general.

[WillowLuman]

Maximum security prisons are different, and Supermax triply so. They don't use such dangerous prisoners for prison labor, because that involves taking them to work sites, giving them tools, and such. The risk is too great. In a supermax prison, where this guy would likely be sent, every cell is solitary confinement. There is no communal mess hall, they just eat in their cells. The only people who the prisoner interacts with are the guards and the highly occasional visitor, except for highly supervised exercise periods.

[Willfor]

There are three main reasons for modern methods of execution: humaneness, wanting to leave the body whole, and not wanting a mess.

A body in one piece makes for a more dignified funeral, and humiliating the bodies of dead people is seen as barbaric. Americans would not (officially) mutilate a body post-mortem for vengeance. And if you cut someone's head off or shoot them, there's going to be a mess, whereas with the chair or injection, all you have to do to avoid mess is put them in an adult diaper. The humaneness of any method of killing someone is, of course, questionable.

Once again, bear in mind that the cost of the actual method is fairly miniscule in terms of the total cost of putting someone to death.

On the one hand, I do not advocate for the death penalty.

On the other hand, from a logistical point of view, we've already solved the "dignified death" problem when humanity realized that a length of rope around the neck and a sufficient plunge was an adequate method. You can reuse the platform, you can reuse the rope. It is, in fact, cheaper than a bullet in this way once you have the infrastructure.

But yes, you're right, method of execution hasn't been the real cost behind it for a while.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Still not how it works. Prisoners usually end up paying for most of the costs of incarceration with labor, while execution can take years and usually costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars in electricity.

EDIT: Sorry, it's just that that exact wording makes me want to punch myself in the face.

Permanent jailing is how private jails make their money. So this 'cost' debate is completely off the mark. It could cost a billion dollars to execute him and it'd still be a better idea than giving him the ability to appeal forever from inside a self-furnished cell with all the kickbacks you'd expect from being a) influential in the drug game and b) well-monied, so yes, expect him to have all the phone conversations he wants.

This all depends on the prison. If he doesn't go to a U.S. prison any chance of him getting justice is gone. On the other hand, knowing how pathetically weak willed our populace is in things like this, I bet what he'd want is to be protected by the US and our lenient-to-the-rich high security prisons.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

From what I've heard, much of the cost of execution comes from the lengthy appeals process (which is probably a good thing that it exists) and the training / safeguards / infrastructure of the execution.

I'd say it's pretty hard to beat a bullet when it comes to execution on a budget. But it seems like someone might survive a bullet wound in some cases - it might be considered inhumane. And the reason people used firing squads was so none of the soldiers doing the shooting could be sure who exactly had shot him, and some of them could miss on purpose without shame or punishment if they didn't want to kill him at the last moment. Apparently getting soldiers to actually shoot each other has been kind of a problem.

Guillotine seems pretty foolproof.

Then again skydiving sans parachute may work too - although there have been cases of people falling at what should have been terminal velocity and not dying. And the fall may be terrifying and inhumane for some instead of exhilarating. Plus there's the cost of the plane etc. Probably not great overall but it would be nice to see it as an option for those who wanted it.

--

As for "appealing forever" you actually don't get to appeal forever. Unless the death penalty is different - and please correct me if so - you get a limited number of "appeals of right" which everyone is guaranteed, and a limited number of other appeals which probably never get officially adjudicated. For example if you're convicted of murder you can appeal to the next court up and definitely get a hearing, but if you lose there you can try for the Supremes but don't count on ever getting more than a letter back saying no.

As for a cushy jail cell with plenty of outside contact: I'm sure you're right. I have little faith in our prison system's ability to keep a living crime lord from continuing to rule from his cell. I'm just saying it's possible that it could be done without crossing into inhumane treatment - any more than imprisoning a person is inhumane, which we accept as a necessity.

[WillowLuman]

There are three main reasons for modern methods of execution: humaneness, wanting to leave the body whole, and not wanting a mess.

A body in one piece makes for a more dignified funeral, and humiliating the bodies of dead people is seen as barbaric. Americans would not (officially) mutilate a body post-mortem for vengeance. And if you cut someone's head off or shoot them, there's going to be a mess, whereas with the chair or injection, all you have to do to avoid mess is put them in an adult diaper. The humaneness of any method of killing someone is, of course, questionable.

Once again, bear in mind that the cost of the actual method is fairly miniscule in terms of the total cost of putting someone to death.

On the one hand, I do not advocate for the death penalty.

On the other hand, from a logistical point of view, we've already solved the "dignified death" problem when humanity realized that a length of rope around the neck and a sufficient plunge was an adequate method. You can reuse the platform, you can reuse the rope. It is, in fact, cheaper than a bullet in this way once you have the infrastructure.

But yes, you're right, method of execution hasn't been the real cost behind it for a while.

Hanging isn't always instantaneous, sometimes strangling the person instead of breaking their neck. And if done wrong can result in decapitation.

I'm against the death penalty as well. Aside from the whole sanctity of human life thing, a long, empty existence contemplating their wretchedness seems an adequate punishment for the worst offenders.

Still not how it works. Prisoners usually end up paying for most of the costs of incarceration with labor, while execution can take years and usually costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars in electricity.

EDIT: Sorry, it's just that that exact wording makes me want to punch myself in the face.

Permanent jailing is how private jails make their money. So this 'cost' debate is completely off the mark. It could cost a billion dollars to execute him and it'd still be a better idea than giving him the ability to appeal forever from inside a self-furnished cell with all the kickbacks you'd expect from being a) influential in the drug game and b) well-monied, so yes, expect him to have all the phone conversations he wants.

This all depends on the prison. If he doesn't go to a U.S. prison any chance of him getting justice is gone. On the other hand, knowing how pathetically weak willed our populace is in things like this, I bet what he'd want is to be protected by the US and our lenient-to-the-rich high security prisons.

We're only lenient to white-collar-crime-lords. The fraudsters of Wall Street might get cells with room service (unfortunately). A Mexican drug lord, on the other hand, gets ADX Florence. 3 other cartel leaders are already there. Life is not a sentence that you get "out on good behavior."

ADX Florence, which is criticized as inhumane, is essentially solitary confinement all the time. Outside communication is expressly forbidden.