Print

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

Yes.

No.

Only for certain crimes. (Name please)

[Glowcat]

Basically if the government is to decide who should be killed, why can't I. If that guys really, really wronged me, for instance shoot my beloved, beloved Chihuahua, he should die, no. Because my Chihuahua is like my child, and therefore he killed my child, and therefore he should die, you understand?

If somebody feels avenging their Chihuahua is important enough to kill another person and suffer legal retaliation then they're not going to care what the government's stance is. They likely feel that the government's legal system has no legitimacy if it was unwilling to punish the Chihuahua Killer in the first place.

[Max White]

As for your prison overloading problem, US of A, aren't the majority of first time offenders sent to prison for drug related crimes? And not even dealing, just possessing?
Seriously, your war on drugs sucks, perhaps if you tried helping drug addicts instead of punishing them, things would have gone better.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm a supporter of capital punishment, I actually wouldn't mind seeing it increased slightly to help deal with the prison overload.

Even if that was an ethical strategy, it wouldn't decrease the overload in any meaningful way unless we just gather up the prisoners in every prison and gun them down, which I certainly hope you would object to. If you want to end the prison overload, end the War on Drugs, because that is why the prisons are full.

I view it as waste though, they should be used for scientific experimentation.

The People's Republic of China agrees with you, they take the organs of the thousands of people they execute. Aside from that, there's really only one other preexisting example I can think of.

Then they could at least be of some use to humanity instead of being parasites.

And here we come to the crux of the problem. I don't think you see these people as really being people anymore, once they don an orange jumpsuit and sit in a cell they're just "parasites". Be careful of dehumanizing your fellows, Grimshot.

[Leatra]

Goverments always use this power to kill people who talks a lot. Slandering people is not very difficult for goverments.

This is the most important reason why I said no.

[Neonivek]

Which is one of the major problems with prisons

People want prisoners to be treated as if they were never going to get out.

Though that has nothing to do with Capital Punishment.

[Realmfighter]

I do know that Capital Punishment is apparently, though I have no flippen idea how, expensive.

I do! I do!

Basically, you have to put them in high security prisons until their execution date (I don't remember the exact numbers, but they stay in prison for something like 10-20 years on average.) and you need to spend a lot more time in court which costs quite a lot (And we really can't change that unless you like the idea of even more innocent people being killed by accident)


(Why the fuck did I throw away that essay D:)

[ggamer]

I wouldn't support the electric chair or stoning, or anything along those lines. That's more like torture than it is execution.

I would think firing squad would be the most humane option.

Now, before Vector uses her superhuman hearing powers and crucifies me for it, I have some reasons.

1)It kills the person quickly. In most cases, highly trained marksmen are used, and it is about a forty yard distance between.

2)There are around five men, and only about two have bullets. the rest have blanks, so noone knows who fired of the killing shot.

This, of course, is supported under the assumption that the evidence is sound. Nobody should be killed based off of a maybe. I would say at least three witnesses and substantial physical and DNA evidence of the crime. If not, rotting in prison is a close second.

[Max White]

I would think firing squad would be the most humane option.

What? NO! For the love of humanity no!
If you must kill somebody, because you have a big cowboy hat and give tax breaks to oil tycoons, then use lethal injection. Biological chemists have worked hard to find drugs effectively kill in a short time with no suffering.

Why would you even think to use a firing squad?

[ggamer]

I would think firing squad would be the most humane option.

What? NO! For the love of humanity no!
If you must kill somebody, because you have a big cowboy hat and give tax breaks to oil tycoons, then use lethal injection. Biological chemists have worked hard to find drugs effectively kill in a short time with no suffering.

Why would you even think to use a firing squad?

If you would read the part under that, I would really appreciate it.

[Jacob/Lee]

I would think firing squad would be the most humane option.

What? NO! For the love of humanity no!
If you must kill somebody, because you have a big cowboy hat and give tax breaks to oil tycoons, then use lethal injection. Biological chemists have worked hard to find drugs effectively kill in a short time with no suffering.

Why would you even think to use a firing squad?

Well, he is right... A shot between the eyes causes complete failure of the brain instantly IIRC

[Phmcw]

Basically if the government is to decide who should be killed, why can't I. If that guys really, really wronged me, for instance shoot my beloved, beloved Chihuahua, he should die, no. Because my Chihuahua is like my child, and therefore he killed my child, and therefore he should die, you understand?

If somebody feels avenging their Chihuahua is important enough to kill another person and suffer legal retaliation then they're not going to care what the government's stance is. They likely feel that the government's legal system has no legitimacy if it was unwilling to punish the Chihuahua Killer in the first place.

Actually I think they would. There is a reason why the number of murder is 3 time less in Belgium than is the US. We are conditioned to think that murder is unacceptable, while Americans are conditioned to think that murder is the capital punishment. That, better social security and gun ban.

[Bauglir]

The People's Republic of China agrees with you, they take the organs of the thousands of people they execute.

Actually, I'm okay with that part. I'm less okay with the executions in the first place, but if they're dead they don't really need their organs anymore.

@ggamer
It's still psychologically terrible for the shooters. About the best you can do is desensitize them to violence, because not knowing whether you killed them doesn't really help. All it does is make you worry that you were the one who killed them. Not to mention headshots are pretty difficult to pull off reliably at any respectable distance, unless you plan to set up a battery of sniper rifles. Sure, you're almost certain to hit them, but unless you hit brain it's gonna be a pretty sucky way to go.

[Max White]

If you would read the part under that, I would really appreciate it.

I don't accept 'because it will be quick in 99% of cases' and 'because nobody is sure they killed the guy' to form a reasonable excuse.
1. A very high rate of instant death is not the same as a 100% rate of instant, painless death. I also deem it more humane to not shoot a bound man.
2. If the men shooting are the type to fill guilty about it, having only a 2/5 chance of being the one with the bullet will not make them feel any better. In some cases, not being sure will make them feel worse.

Your reasons suck, do better.

[ggamer]

I would think firing squad would be the most humane option.

What? NO! For the love of humanity no!
If you must kill somebody, because you have a big cowboy hat and give tax breaks to oil tycoons, then use lethal injection. Biological chemists have worked hard to find drugs effectively kill in a short time with no suffering.

Why would you even think to use a firing squad?

Well, he is right... A shot between the eyes causes complete failure of the brain instantly IIRC

Exactly. Whereas lethal injection only paralyzes the subject as poison slowly cuts of brain activity. I'm rather sure that's worse than a bullet to the frontal lobe.

Just because an idea sounds pretty on paper doesn't make it the most humane thing to do.

EDIT: I'd like to see your theory on why LI is better, max.

[Max White]

Exactly. Whereas lethal injection only paralyzes the subject as poison slowly cuts of brain activity. I'm rather sure that's worse than a bullet to the frontal lobe.

Just because an idea sounds pretty on paper doesn't make it the most humane thing to do.

No, even with how you described it, it still sounds like the way to go.