Death Penalty, which method is best?

[johndoe3]

Since Utah is bringing back the firing squad as a secondary method if lethal injection drugs are not available to carry out the death penalty,
it brings up the question: Is there a better way than these two?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2324630-155/ ... n-to-bring

My own viewpoint is that old style hanging is not as gruesome as some of these others, and it works.

[doubloon]

If the drop is not done properly sometimes the head pops off.

[ThaDoubleJ]

I went no country for old men style, seems cheap and effective. I'm ok with the victim's family getting to pick as well, and carry it out if they choose. I'd also like to see people executed for failure to dim highbeams.

[poikilotrm]

Until we have honest cops and a way to insure accountability in LE, prosecutorial, and judicial circles, the death penalty needs to be held in abeyance. If you have any doubts, just ask Jon Burge for his opinion.

[ThaDoubleJ]

That's not gonna happen.

[whiterussian1974]

The problem that I have w pneumatic boltgun #4 is that it depersonalizes the victim and leads to "assymbly line" death houses like Dachau/Auschwitz.

The #5 guillotine is needlessly messy and also too automated.
Hanging is pretty good. It gives human contact which actually calms the condemned just b/f death if handled compassionately.
#1 Drugs and #2 Firing Squad have both had problems w being improperly administered. Drugs are also too clinical for my taste and the firing squad causes psychiatrist problems for those involved. Often they aim for peripheral targets instead of a "kill shot." This means needless suffering for the condemned and also the Executioners.
#6 Tank of Sharks: inovative, but kind of James Bond.
#7 High cliff: Too many security problems.
#8 shot to brainstem: pretty good, but more dangerous and complecated than #4 bolt gun.
----
{This next part is meant in jest and doesn't reflect my professional persona. Just a brainstorm from my teen yrs.}
I'd go w #9. Allow the condemned to overdose on a drug like Morphine, Cocaine, Meth or something else that will stop either the Heart or Diaphram.
Though if I were offered my own personal form of Execution. I'd choose death by sexual exhaustion. A line of disease infected inmates that I'd screw until either my heart gave out or I died of an STD like AIDS or Syphelis.
Or maybe Autoerotic asphexia ending in suffocation? Like the actor in Kill Bill.
------
Maybe allow the inmate to choose their desired method. Utah used to have 4 approved methods which the inmate could choose between. IIRC: hanging, decapatation, firing squad, lethal injection.
I'd add voluntary admission into a Pharmaceutical or Bioweapon research program. Maybe endure Anthrax or plague, but be allowed to inject lethal morphine or CaCl to terminate participation?

Personally, I think that participating in a research program that can ease others' suffering is more valuable that simply ending one's life. Repay the debt instead of just forfeiting one's life.

[jreinke]

Not to be morbid or sadistic or anything like that, but....take the tobacco form a cigarette and place it in a cup with a couple of ounces of water. After a couple of hours, draw some of the brown water into a syringe, inject it into the inmate and then take him back to his cell. Come back 72 hours later and he'll be dead from nicotine poisoning. Simple, cheap and effective.

[whiterussian1974]

Not to be morbid or sadistic or anything like that, but....take the tobacco form a cigarette and place it in a cup with a couple of ounces of water... draw some of the brown water into a syringe, inject it into the inmate and then take him back to his cell.
he'll be dead from nicotine poisoning. Simple, cheap and effective.

The only problem is the "Cruel and Unusual" provision.

That's why I mentioned Cocaine, Morphine, etc. They either stop the Heart or Lungs. And they are relatively quick.

I'd still prefer to die from sexual exhaustion. But doubt that the Taxpayers would want to fund that.

Realistically, a cardiac embolism would work fine. Relitively painless, quick, and cheap.
I agree that cheap, simple drugs should be preferred over scarce, complex 3-drug regimes.
Just quick, painless, effective.

Give the Inmate several options, and let them choose. That way the Cruel and Unusual provision becomes a moot arguement.

Personally, I think that it is FAR too expensive to jump through all the legal hoops to see an execution through. It's FAR cheaper to warehouse an Inmate for 80yrs, than the 3-8 million $s to kill them. Just store them in a 8'x6' bathroom sized cell and restrict their human contact. That was the original purpose of Eastern State Pen in Penn. To force inmates to meditate upon their demons and immoral/unlawful acts until the demons are exorcised. To purge the evil from them.

It may be more emotionally fulfilling to excise the human cancer from the Social Body. But a group of armed people killing someone who is completely dependant upon them and unable to defend himself is the very DEFINITION of murder. And I'm saying this as a former CorOfr and current Deputy of 18yrs.

[T-Rex]

A line of disease infected inmates that I'd screw until either my heart gave out or I died of an STD like AIDS or Syphelis.

[whiterussian1974]

A line of disease infected inmates that I'd screw until either my heart gave out or I died of an STD like AIDS or Syphelis.

Just to clarify...I meant female inmates. TX is the only state that I'm aware of that has Felony Habitual Prostitution. Get caught 3xs and she serves time in a Woman's Prison. Though I'd be willing to be executed by girls serving 3mo Misdemeanor charges.
In fact, I'd prefer 18-19yr old 1st time offenders.

[Chuck88]

I chose hanging, because if I had to choose between conventional execution methods for myself, the rope would be tied with the firing squad, which was already mentioned. They both just seem classy! Of course, if administered incorrectly, either method will result in a very slow, agonizing death, and I'm not sure I could place that much trust in the executioner (as opposed to, say, lethal injection, which seems difficult to screw up). It's a tough call. Ultimately, I believe that the inmate should be able to choose any method within reason for his own death.

[bakerjw]

I have to go with lethal injection. Several years ago our vet came out to put my dad's dog down. He found a vein and gave him a large dose of phenobarbital. I expected it to be slow acting, but Midnight slumped over in a matter of seconds. There are a number of pharmaceuticals out there that can sedate and kill very effectively. I know when I've been sedated, other than the pin prick of getting an IV, being put under is painless.

Now for my diatribe if you can call it that.
In the history of our country, there is no way that we have a 100% perfect record of executing those who are truly guilty. It is a statistical impossibility. We have executed innocent people. What ratio justifies the killing of an innocent person? 1 innocent for every 100 guilty? 1 to 1,000? 1 to 1,000,000? That is why I am opposed to the death penalty because to me, the risk of killing 1 innocent is person is too great.
Then we also have those, and many of them Christians too, that want to make executions as painful as possible. The bloodthirsty vehemence that some people show is unbelievable. Part of what sets us apart from the most hardened criminals is that we have compassion. If we are going to take a person's life, then doing so in as painful and barbaric a way as possible makes us as bad as those to whom we'd execute.

[doubloon]

...
Now for my diatribe if you can call it that.
...

Good points. We agree and we disagree.

As much as part of me wants someone to suffer for particularly heinous crimes another part of me realizes many people capable of committing these such a crime do not have enough of a moral compass to feel remorse or recognize suffering as punishment for something they've done. So quick and clean gets my vote and injection/gas seem to have the best reputation for delivering on those requirements.

Eliminating the risk of killing even one innocent person can be extrapolated to poor practices. Call it the camel's nose, reduction to absurdity or anything else that may fit but if saving even one innocent person is the criteria it's almost possible to make a case for disarming the police force. Surely more innocent people must die every year at the hands of law enforcement than on death row.

I don't think I have ever seen a list of confirmed innocent people who have been executed. I have seen a list of a dozen or so people posthumously exonerated some only to be re-convicted.

I know there are a number of exonerations every year and it could be argued we already let more guilty people go than we are killing innocents.

Personally I'm willing to throw a little wheat out with the chaff to improve the overall quality of the grain.

[poikilotrm]

Personally I'm willing to throw a little wheat out with the chaff to improve the overall quality of the grain.

Wow man. That's really moral and brave of you. Tell ya what, PM me your info, address, etc. I will make sure that you have a visit from the popo, and that felony something is found, and then you can plead guilty at arraignment despite your innocence, ya know, in order to "improve the overall quality of the grain".

Whaddya say? Wanna?

[whiterussian1974]

Personally I'm willing to throw a little wheat out with the chaff to improve the overall quality of the grain.

You made a # of excellent pts, until that last sentence.
Remember that we're dealing w human beings, not harvested gain. Your arguement about exoneration/reconviction was spot on. NONE of us are truly "innocent." We ALL commit crimes and immoral acts. It just becomes a matter of degree and scale.

I've written before that Jurors should serve 1 month each for each yr that they sentence someone to prison to reduce the # of "tired of jury duty" convictions. If each of the 12 jurors TRULY feels that the Defendant is guilty and should serve time, then they should be willing to sacrifice in order to ensure a just sentence. And for Death Penalty, how about a 1 in 12 chance of Execution? Currently many just say, "Well, he MIGHT have done it." A take on your last statement.

Yet as of 1991, 97% of all Americans committed a Felony each and every yr. (ref: my Sociology textbook.) There are so many confusing and contridictory laws that it's COMPLETELY impossible for even Lawyers and Police to know what all the laws are; and to avoid committing Felonies when placed in various scenarios.

Ultimately, the only way to stop crime is through Genocide. No humans, no crime. Yet is that a world for which sane people yern?

My argument is different. That is, "If we wish to show that murder is wrong, is killing a defenseless person sitting in an 8'x6' cell the best way to prove that? And what is worse: killing a cashier during a robbery or a nation of 350million people ganging up to kill a series of harmless people each and every yr?"

Yet, there are cases where I don't object to killing. Both State-sponsored murder, and Individual acts. But the system currently in place needs an overhaul.

[doubloon]

I'm not saying the system can't stand some improvement but a perfect system is unattainable. If we're waiting on a perfect system then we may as well stop prosecuting anything worse than jaywalking.

Yes, I'm sure it's much more humane to subject someone wrongfully convicted to a lifetime in the general population of a modern correctional facility.

Because a lifetime in prison is all about croquet on the lawn, pillow fights and ice cream on Sundays no dehumanization or abuse to see in here move along. Nobody trading blow jobs for protection because they ran out of tobacco here, didn't happen. Nobody being denied leave for their mothers funeral or their daughter's wedding, don't be ridiculous.

I believe a quick and painless death is more dignified and humane than losing family and freedom caged like an animal.

[whiterussian1974]

I believe a quick and painless death is more dignified and humane than losing family and freedom caged like an animal.

Agreed. But I'm saying that the Arrest and Trial Process itself is the problem.

When I attended the TDCJ-ID Corrections Acad we learned that TX conducted a survey of Prosecutors to determine the # of faulty convictions. They said that roughly 20% of convictions were of Innocent people. There were a variety of reaons for this including: poor representation, the facts that Judges admitted into the Record, Political Pressures, Overzealous prosecution, unsympathetic jurors, media attention, etc.

When USA was young, having your neighbors who you grew up w and knew your daily behaviour judge your guilt and punishment was a great idea. But now Judges decide which facts the jury is allowed to hear. Many Juries don't have much stake in whether innocent people are sent to prison. And jurors have no idea what kind of person you are absent what witnesses say. And those witnesses frequently lie. Plus there are procedural blocks that frequently favor the Prosecution and limit the Defense.

So the State has nearly limitless resources w which to slur a person's reputation, conduct tests that tend to harm the defense while rejecting any evidence or tests which harm the prosecution. Plus, they have the ability to give Immunity to those that help the State, and prosecute witnesses that aid the Defense.

Courts Martial are far more level playing fields. They draw lawyers from the same pool, and Evidentary Rules are geared toward truth rather than the better connected/funded team.

Wouldn't it be neat if there were standard prices for legal services and lawyers had to work w/i a budget. Then rich people wouldn't be able to spend 2 million $ seeking a fair trial. And the State wouldn't be able to spend up to $200,000 seeking a conviction. And police ofrs wouldn't feel pressured to testify the way that the State insisted. Prosecutors wouldn't hide or destroy evidence. Etc, etc, etc.

[johndoe3]

Yet as of 1991, 97% of all Americans committed a Felony each and every yr. (ref: my Sociology textbook.) There are so many confusing and contridictory laws that it's COMPLETELY impossible for even Lawyers and Police to know what all the laws are; and to avoid committing Felonies when placed in various scenarios.

The problem is clear that most felonies on the books should not be felonies. There should be no felonies for speeding, for victimless crimes like DWI (I don't drink but it is outrageous), etc. and the Congress is just as bad passing federal felonies for countless things that are not crimes against others.

Former top cop of NYC, Bernard Kerik, has written a book about the subject after serving his time, and he makes the same case I am making. The criminal justice system is broken because America has no compassion at all for people, making felons of people who are not felons because of unjust laws. 3 strikes and you're out was a stupid law to pass as are many others.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bernie ... id/635536/

I was called for jury duty and observed that potential jurors are treated like crap, no wonder no one wants to serve on a jury. Judges are the main cause of this problem. Every juror should be attend a class to be informed that as a member of a jury they are to judge the facts and the law and law application itself. Jury pools should interview potential jurors and eliminate those who say up front they will not convict or punish anyone (there are more than a few of those, I heard them say so), or those who are somehow related to the defendant or accused crime in some way. The rest of the jury pool should be chosen for the jury by drawing names, eliminating the attorneys on both sides stacking the jury (which they do flagrantly with the blessing of the system). Police should not have immunity and if they lie in court, they should go to jail. And I'm sure there are more changes that others here could add.

My view is that a vast majority of the so-called felonies should be eliminated and made misdemeanors as is appropriate. The police-lawyer-judge judicial system is broken and unjust and made that way deliberately by legislatures and those involved in the justice system. The incredible lust for money by the system is what has skewed the whole process as well as insiders using the system for their own gain and to punish opponents.

[bakerjw]

Good points one and all.

One comment on he way the system works. Innocent people who mistakenly commit a felony are going to be most likely to fight the charge whereas Jose Rodriguez Castellana gang banger has been through the system multiple times and knows how to work it.

I saw a made for TV movie several years ago that was based on a true story. A woman was out with a guy and they were pulled over. Drugs were found in the car. As soon as they were processed, he offered to point the finger at her in exchange for a plea. He, being guilty as can be, got probation and she, innocent as could be, fought the charge, got convicted and did time.

When my kids were young and growing up, I told them that there might come a time when they are doing something they shouldn't be doing and they get caught. I told them that if that happens, the first one to roll on his friend doesn't take it up the ass.

[doubloon]

... A woman was out with a guy and they were pulled over. Drugs were found in the car. ...

... the first one to roll on his friend doesn't take it up the ass.

The first anecdote sounds sadly plausible. Unfortunately there is no system I know of in the world that sorts everything out right every time. Innocent people lose access to any number of rights in the court system every year for just being in the wrong place at the right time.

The second one is good advice if preceded with don't hang around people who play stupid games.

12 Angry Men is still an excellent commentary on the court system.

[sillycon]

12 Angry Men is still an excellent commentary on the court system.

A very excellent movie/commentary, indeed! A bit scary as well, when you start to think of how much more apathetic people today seem to be towards jury duty.

The single piece of advice I've routinely gotten from folks on ALL sides of the legal system -- police, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, the wrongly accused (legitimately; the "eye witness" couldn't keep their story straight and ended up admitting to making the whole story up while they were under oath on the stand) etc. -- is that the best thing people can do to stay out of prison is to say NOTHING aside from demanding legal representation. I've also been told by multiple folks that most cases end up with a plea bargain vs. going to trial (e.g. convince a person to take a lesser sentence by making them think you have enough evidence for a conviction when you actually have no conclusive proof at all).

If that's genuinely correct or not, I can't honestly say -- nor do I hope to ever be able to.

[doubloon]

... the "eye witness" couldn't keep their story straight ...

National Geographic (I think) has an excellent series called Brain Games.

I can't find it right now but I think there was an episode where they staged a "crime" in a park then recruited eye witnesses to testify to what happened.

It's amazing how many different stories can be gotten from people who all saw the same thing.

[whiterussian1974]

Yes, Eye witness is worst form of Evidence. Many people think that DNA and Trace are infallible. Yet we've had plenty of instances where lab techs have simply tested the reference sample twice and lo' and behold they matched. So the people were convicted of having their own DNA, since the collected DNA was never tested.

Whenever people complain to me about "crooked cops" I always ask the last time they served on a jury. Most respond that juries are made of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. I laugh and say, "Yeah, those are the same idiots that are going to convict you of raping little boys." Somehow they don't think that's quite as funny. ?!?
----
(In sarcastic voice.)
It's amazing how a system that draws from over 4500yrs of experience can get Innocent people convicted and sometimes even to confess to things that they never did. We're trained to use human frailties against you and use a plethera of psychological and emotional techniques to break you down and get you to confess (and believe) anything we want. Just look at Coercive Persuasion techniques. They've gotten GIs to confess to spraying Germ Warfare over N Korea and Vietnam. Sometimes so successfully that GI POWs even refuse to return to USA b/c they are so fully brainwashed.
---
Doubloon is right about NatGeo Brain Games. There was also a show where pairs of contestents had 1 hr to hide a suitcase anywhere they wished w/i a town and then were "arrested" and subjected to 48hrs of standard processing and questioning. By the end if the "Detectives" found the suitcase, no award. But if the suitcase wasn't discovered, the pair would get 1 million $.

Nearly everyone broke even though they knew that they only had to hold out for 48hrs. No prison or felony record. Just $1 million if they kept their mouths shut. Yet the shame, isolation, and pressures were just too much for most people to handle.

Very interesting to observe the psychological pressures, reactions, and responses to standard practices. Is it any wonder why conviction rates are so high? The deck is stacked against the Innocent person from start to Finish. At least the Guilty have something to trade. Yet you must confess to a crime b/f you can cut any deal. And even after "confessing" there's no guarantee that the DA will honor the deal. After all, the police can lie all we want and yet the accused must answer honestly and cooperate in their own conviction or face additional charges. (False Statement to PO, Hindering Investigation, Tampering w Evidence, etc, etc, etc.)

And being 1st to roll on your buddies only means that you are guaranteed a conviction. DAs only give preferential sentencing if your testimony secures additional convictions. Even then, many judges will still determine the Sentence. The DA only "requests" lighter sentences.

[whiterussian1974]

If we want a better system, we must demand it from politicians and then back it up w Jury service.
Jury Nullification is largely unknown. And many people think that if having Blue eyes is a crime, then Blue-eyed people should get the book thrown at that. That's Law and Order, right?

That's why I almost NEVER vote for Republican judges, even though I vote heavily Rep in National elections.

We have to protest in the Jury Box, not just the Ballot Box.

[bakerjw]

LOL!!! He had his hands in the air pleading "Don't Shoot!" Before he was gunned down in cold blood.

Last year, I was called for jury duty. The company where I work takes public service like that seriously so I got paid to go. Actually my work load didn't go away, so I still had a lot of work to make up after hours. It was an interesting experience, but there was no way on Earth that I would ever get selected for a jury. A system test engineer that's main role in life is to read detailed specifications and pay attention to the most minute details? Defense states attorneys want people on juries who live their lives based on emotion, not strictly the facts.

I would have asked, had I even got called to sit in the jury box, if we'd be given an opportunity to verify the qualifications of any experts that might give testimony. Just because a defense attorney brings p an "expert" doesn't make him an expert.

Another John anecdote. There was a guy that we used to see on TV. His name was Kent Hovind and he actually taught at my grade school. He called himself the "Dino Doctor" and would go on shows and debate scientists about creation. He thought that he had every angle covered, but when faced with facts that went against his new Earth, less than 6,000 years old, theory, he'd grab his bible and state that it was as he said because it was in the bible. He was an absolute idiot. Well, we were watching a show one evening, I can't even remember the content, but as one of their experts, they produced none other than Kent Hovind. He was wearing a conservative sweater in a library setting with subdues lighting. He spoke clearly and decisively as one would expect from an "expert". None of the bible waving frothing at the mouth routine that I had seen before. From that day forward, I decided to question "EVERY" expert that is presented to me. Well except for Hawking because he's just way cool.