Florida lawmaker wants to bring back electric chair, firing squad

A fair point, and it doesn't really matter. Needle, bullet, chair, or guillotine, dead is dead. A firing squad just has a more honest feeling to it, in my opinion. There's really no logical basis to that either, it's just a feeling.

What I will say, going back to cruel and unusual, is that keeping someone locked up for life seems pretty cruel and unusual. I think if that were my fate, death would be a blessing.

 

Spiritsoar,

You'd rather an innocent human being (the corrections officer given "executioner" duty) be saddled with the task of more intimately killing other human beings than a traditional execution mechanism being used? I don't get the logic. Dead is dead, use modern technology or use whatever is cheap, stop playing the ethics game and stop being such fucking pussies. Capital punishment is gov't-sponsored homicide that we justify in court.

*waits for inevitable masturbatory "...but 3 out of 5 rifles have blank cartridges!" argument*

Also:

Capital Punishment & Technology

Because killing someone with a $0.47 5.56x45mm round and killing someone with a million-dollar gas chamber still leaves you with a dead body.​

...the fuck? Holy Cliché Psych 101 Example, Batman! The onus is on the executioner? I’d say the onus is on the criminal justice system, the courts, the judge and jury. You know, White America. People like you. It is not up to the fucking corrections system to decide guilt or innocence, life or death. They are a tool with a function. It is their job to carry out the sentence passed by the judge and jury. By the time a prisoner reaches the electric chair, he's likely already had a decade of appeals. I don't know how you came up with this logic but I'd love to hear the rest of this ridiculous argument. I got a silly piece of paper a few years back that states I'm educated in the administration of criminal justice in the United States and based on that education I would like to suggest that there are three separate entities involved in the execution of someone: law enforcement, courts and corrections. If someone dies, it's the fault of the cops or the lawyers, not the poor sucker working on death row.

Suggesting that the executioner be held accountable for capital punishment is like suggesting I was responsible for the war in Afghanistan.

Welcome to the machine.

Government-sponsored spanking? Oh, baby.

 

I like this attitude. So what if reality presents itself in direct contradiction to the things I believe? Shit happens.

How is this a useful attitude to have? Aside from not having to ever admit you're wrong, what is gained by such indifference to factual information?

 

I don't have much time before I have to leave, but when I referred to 'executioner(s)' I was referring to the entirety of the system that leads to an execution. And I was rolling off of the implication stated above me (which I tend to believe) that the more 'humane' methods of execution we have devised for our modern age are more humane for us, not necessarily the people who are dying. We've done the same with war, in many ways, right? I don't believe in the system. I don't believe in the death penalty. Why is it such a fucking surprise to find that I think devising easier methods for us to kill people is bullshit?

 

Well, I told you it was just a feeling. But hell, if we're going to feel bad for the corrections officer, then feel bad for the doctor, and the guy who flips the switch, or pushes the button, or however it's done. What's the better option? Have the judge do it? Or even better, the jury?

Screw the 3 out of 5 argument. I guess in theory this lets someone feel like maybe they didn't do it. I think if they do it, they should know they did it, and believe that they were just. Otherwise, excuse them from the duty.

 

Spiritsoar,

You know what's more unethical than killing someone convicted of a crime?

Making another person kill them because you don't want to use technology.

Yeaaah, I assumed that you were simply using poetic language but it seemed a little over the top given the fact that you linked the Milgram authority experiment. How is that even relevant here? I'm still not getting it. Are you suggesting that the jury should pick up machetes and deliver bloody justice to child rapists themselves? I'm all for hyperbole but your argument was confusing. It could just be that "not a genius" factor, though.

I apologize for being so terse. It was unnecessary.

Text in bold: Enough said.

 

well, I could have worded it more clearly. no apology needed.

 

You should probably wait until the 30 minute window has expired before stating "no apology needed" to someone with my post editing habits.

I did, after all, go to college thinking that I might be a suit-wearing, book-throwing part of that system you don't believe in.

 

True, I don't think I've ever seen Eddie and Ace in the same thread. Hmmm.....

 

It makes no difference. We're all just bandying words around here. Personally, I don't need anyone to apologize me here. I know I can be a high-minded uppity bitch sometimes. I can't help it. It's just how I roll. I mean well.

I think my point was clear. It's easier to do harm when it is in the abstract. why should it be made easy?

 

Ok, you made a good point earlier, and now you're going back on it to say the technology makes it better. The point is, there's always someone else doing the killing, regardless of the method. The technology isn't the justification.

I think that anyone who would advocate the death of a person who wouldn't be willing to do the deed themselves is being dishonest and cowardly.

 

I've been assuming that Eddie is Ace when Ace forgets to take his meds.

 

Holy shit: of course someone else is doing the killing. It's the function of the State. Let's walk through the capital punishment process: The State arrests them based on probable cause for crimes against the State. The State investigates and produces a case showing that they committed crimes against the State. The State finds them guilty of crimes against the State. The State sentences them to death for crimes against the State. The State executes them with the electric chair/gas chamber/firing squad/hangin' gallows for crimes against the State. Are you seeing a pattern here?

I am unsure if you are in the military (I get TFP military guys confused) but this should be a real no-brainer if you are.

Generals make the decisions. Captains move the Sergeants. Sergeants line up the Privates. Privates pull the trigger.

Sure, I would be "going back" on my statement... if I was pro death penalty. Anyway, I'm just some dummy with a reiteration fetish that likes to hear himself talk... that happens to be attacking your silly comments. It's utterly asinine to suggest that only someone that wishes the perpetrator of a crime to die should kill them. Aside from being vigilante justice, how does that work if it's a homeless man or the only surviving relative is a child? The criminal justice system provides justice for society, not for individuals. You may think that someone going to jail for murder is going to jail because they killed Bobby-Ray McStinkynuts. They're actually going to jail because they murdered someone and that is a crime in the United States. It's not personal. The reason why the State executes people is because justice isn't supposed to give a shit who you killed, merely that you killed someone and that is a crime that is punishable by death in some cases and in some jurisdictions. The State controls the power to kill people. It's "Big Dog" logic.

I can't stop laughing. This totally stinks of emo intellectual whining. Please tell me you're a jaded E4 in Marine Corps talking about "being in the shit" in F-juh. So, yeah, my thoughts on the death penalty is that is merely symbolic justice for the families (or society) and has little to do with deterrence (as SCIENCE! has shown). The death penalty, in its current form in the United States, is merely a ridiculously expensive emotional response.

...

I totally don't understand the philosophical argument that you and mixedmedia are putting out here.

Law isn't personal. Stop trying to inject your feelings into it; it'll just make you insane.

Law & Order might be like that on TeeVee, but it doesn't work that way in real life.

But, hey, I'm dumb as a rock here, so please enlighten me. I'm all about learning.

 

Damn if this thread didn't explode.

I wasn't going to jump into it, but fuck it. Why not? I struggle with the death penalty. On one hand, I think that prosecutors and jurors are too quick to charge and convict and that there are far too many innocent people in prison. I think the DNA facilities need to be updated and more precise and investigators need to keep looking even after a charge is made to help solve the innocent deaths. One the other hand, there are just some things that I find so egregious that I cannot accept that they should live. Rape a child.. you should die. Rape or murder handicapped people, you should die. My list is small but those things push me over the edge. I'll call bullshit on the war and proclaim that it's needless yet I'll still support the troops-- this is similar. I'm taking a shit where I eat and I simply can't change that fact.

I understand the argument that death is death and murder is murder quite clearly, but for me, I just can't wrap my head around letting someone who rapes a child live and my having to pay for his meals and his cable tv in his cell. Prison is an inhuman place, and those who perform inhuman atrocities only thrive there. So flame away, I would have no problem seeing a child rapist fry.

 

I've just gotten home from a very long day, but I will definitely get back to this. I am not taking this personally or interjecting any personal feelings into my viewpoints. Rather, I think my viewpoint is extremely logical.

but I have to eat something and unwind a bit now.

 

Plan9, I get confused, because I often think we're arguing against each other and saying the same thing. I'm not pro-death penalty. I simply think anyone who says they are and who wouldn't be willing to pull the trigger themselves isn't committed to their ideas. How is that emo?

Also, yes I am military, but I don't particularly see what that has to do with the current argument. To be honest, since I'm pretty sure you've said you were military yourself, I find your random speculation to my rank, service, combat experience, etc. to be a little disappointing.

 

I'd read Plan9's comment again.

 

Ok, I've read it again. I admit that I have no idea what the comment was supposed to get across. I just found it random and out of context.

 

That sounds a lot more like Plan9, right there.