|
Post by syaoranvee on Sept 26, 2011 4:42:28 GMT -5
Lung paralysis is humane? News to me. Although there's a little more to it then just that, yes, that's the most humane we have at the moment. Until something better comes along to replace it.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 26, 2011 4:54:07 GMT -5
I just feel like quoting this post. No particular reason why really, just one of my whims. I have asked more than once for your proof that the pressure they said they felt was coercion. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, your opinion has no more weight than hers. I have withdrawn from the argument. As such, I will not be addressing any points direct towards me in this topic. Just to make this clear, since I was asked several direct questions, even if they weren't labelled as such.
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Sept 26, 2011 5:01:01 GMT -5
I just feel like quoting this post. No particular reason why really, just one of my whims. I have withdrawn from the argument. As such, I will not be addressing any points direct towards me in this topic. Just to make this clear, since I was asked several direct questions, even if they weren't labelled as such. Indeed, it's quite obvious you aren't aware of how the topic of the discussion has changed from what it was previously. I suggest paying attention next time.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 26, 2011 6:10:10 GMT -5
Lethal injection would be significantly more reliable if all jurisdictions would stop making executions visible to the public, therefore eliminating the need to make it look quick & painless so they can actually make sure that it is painless.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 26, 2011 7:22:48 GMT -5
Zachski - A bullet, even one carefully aimed at a vital area of the head, won't necessarily kill you outright. It depends on a whole lot of factors. It would not be reliable more humane than lethal injection.
Plus it would mean that someone has to get right up next to the person and shoot them in the head point blank range. The majority of battle hardened soldiers would have a problem trying to do that, much less Average Joe Prison Guard.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 26, 2011 7:36:18 GMT -5
Plus it would mean that someone has to get right up next to the person and shoot them in the head point blank range. The majority of battle hardened soldiers would have a problem trying to do that, much less Average Joe Prison Guard. As an aside, I don't know how other states do it, but as I understand it in FL, the person who pushes the button to release the chemicals is not always a prison guard. (Actually, people, as there are 2 identical systems set up, but only 1 is active.) He/she is a volunteer. I have no idea how the volunteer is chosen. On the substance of your statement, though, I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Sept 28, 2011 1:40:14 GMT -5
I know I'm getting into the topic late, but it's 2:37 a.m. here and I don't feel like trawling through the rest of the thread to check... but other than the 'bullet may not immediately kill you' thought, is there any other reason the firing squad isn't in use anymore? Ammo is a damn sight cheaper than the drugs needed for lethal injection, and frankly, I'd prefer 'Why Don't you Just Shoot Him' over a set of drugs and anesthetics that even the prisons are admitting they're having trouble acquiring or they're having to settle for inferior, lower-grade alternatives.
Then again, I'm terribly biased, finding out that my favorite uncle had been murdered when I was only seven. I became a bit of a vengeful fuck after that.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 28, 2011 7:17:39 GMT -5
but other than the 'bullet may not immediately kill you' thought, is there any other reason the firing squad isn't in use anymore? I believe at least one of the reasons was the psychological impact on the people with the guns. As was alluded to above, it is one thing to shoot someone who is trying to kill you (and even that causes effects in some people). It is another to shoot someone who is strapped to a chair.
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Sept 28, 2011 13:57:53 GMT -5
Okay, that makes sense. Appreciated, Eric.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Sept 28, 2011 16:27:54 GMT -5
Personally I would rather be shot by firing squad than lethal injection. At least there is a bit of fucking bravado in that.
On the otherhand I don't think I could do the guillotine (even though aparently it is the quickest way to go) The being blocked in the kneeling position would do my head in.
|
|
|
Post by Kisare on Oct 1, 2011 14:27:25 GMT -5
I have asked more than once for your proof that the pressure they said they felt was coercion. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, your opinion has no more weight than hers. I have withdrawn from the argument.As such, I will not be addressing any points direct towards me in this topic. Just to make this clear, since I was asked several direct questions, even if they weren't labelled as such. See bolded part. You have withdrawn from the argument by your own admission. To reenter the argument, answer the direct questions posed to you. Otherwise, stfu. Or is this a cas of you not being able to answer the questions but still wanting to run your mouth?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 1, 2011 19:15:08 GMT -5
but other than the 'bullet may not immediately kill you' thought, is there any other reason the firing squad isn't in use anymore? I believe at least one of the reasons was the psychological impact on the people with the guns. As was alluded to above, it is one thing to shoot someone who is trying to kill you (and even that causes effects in some people). It is another to shoot someone who is strapped to a chair. Additionally, gunshot wounds can be messy, and a lot of people equate messy with "painful" and "barbaric". We tend to regard deaths that involve blood & any sort of disfigurement as far more disturbing than ones that leave the body relatively unmarked, even if the latter was more painful -- the bloody chunks left after an explosion are harder to stomach than the intact corpse of an individual who died of a heart attack. I'm not sure of the comparative reliability (meaning likelihood of survival/botched executions, swiftness, and the potential pain involved) of lethal injection vs a gunshot point-blank to the back of the head, but even if a bullet was equally or more effective, I wouldn't be shocked if people still preferred the needle.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 5, 2011 10:56:11 GMT -5
Re: discussion on methods, if we MUST execute people, it beats me why we don't simply give them a massive heroin overdose. Kills 'em just as dead, and they definitely wouldn't be in any pain.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 6, 2011 2:13:38 GMT -5
ODing on heroin isn't as quick and easy you'd think. It's also rather messy.
|
|