PDA

View Full Version : Firing Squads


er340790
11th Mar 2015, 14:40
Question: Assuming that you have Capital Punishment, is death by Firing Squad really any less humane than Lethal Injection???

IMHO it must at least be faster than the reported 40-minutes-to-die botched injection stories.

Over to you lot... :8

Lawmakers in Utah have proposed resuming the use of firing squads to carry out the death penalty if lethal injections drugs are not available.

US states such as Texas are struggling to obtain lethal injection drugs amid a nationwide shortage.

Other states are considering alternative methods after several inmates who received lethal injections took hours to die.

It is not clear if Utah Governor Gary Herbert will sign the measure into law.

The bill that passed the state senate on Tuesday night would reinstate the use of firing squads more than a decade after the state abandoned the practice.

The bill's sponsor, Republican lawmaker Paul Ray, said using a firing squad would be faster and more humane than the drawn-out deaths that have occurred in botched lethal injections.

But opponents call firing squads a cruel practice from the state's Wild West days. If approved, Utah would become the only US states to execute inmates by firing squad.

Lethal injection drugs are in short supply in the US after European manufacturers opposed to capital punishment have refused to sell the concoctions

States across the country have seen their drug inventories dwindle after European manufacturers opposed to capital punishment have refused to sell the lethal concoctions.

Texas only has enough drugs on hand to perform two more executions. The state could run out in the next two weeks.

The head of Utah's prison system has said the state does not have any lethal injection drugs on hand.

The Utah bill is one of many being debated across the country.

This year Arkansas lawmakers introduced legislation to allow firing squads.

In Wyoming, a measure to allow firing squads if the lethal drugs are not available failed to pass the legislature.

In Oklahoma, lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow the state to use nitrogen gas to execute inmates.

Because of the intense media attention, Utah lawmakers stopped offering inmates the choice of a death by firing squad several years ago.

But a handful of inmates sentenced to death before 2004 still have the option of going before a firing squad.

Ronnie Lee Gardner, a convicted murderer who shot and killed a lawyer in attempt to escape from prison, was the last inmate executed by a firing squad in 2010.

rgbrock1
11th Mar 2015, 14:53
I would say that execution via firing squad is a very efficient method of doing away with someone who needs killing, yes. Certainly a lot more "humane" than some of the recent botched attempts at execution. Or a lot cheaper as well.

Fareastdriver
11th Mar 2015, 15:12
Even cheaper in China. They send the family a bill for the bullet.

G0ULI
11th Mar 2015, 15:14
There are many drugs that will cause death very rapidly. Those used for tranquilising and euthanising large animals are especially dangerous as many veterinary surgeons can confirm. Unfortunately these drugs are not certified as being suitable for human use and the law in the US seems to require the use of drugs that have been certified as being 'safe' for use with humans. The additional requirement for a combination of drugs to be used also complicates matters.

This situation has been allowed to develop because of the reluctance of many in society to accept responsibility for their actions. If three drugs are used, which one was responsible for causing death?

If three switches are turned to activate an electric chair, which one was connected to the circuit? Which guns were loaded with blank cartridges, etc., etc.

The deliberate execution of a human being is a horrible thing, but if a democratic state supports such a policy, then all of its citizens are equally culpable in that execution and should be prepared to take responsibility and support the actions of the government they elected.

Failing that, then life in prison with no possibility of parole is the only answer and that creates a whole new set of problems.

cavortingcheetah
11th Mar 2015, 15:43
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Vereshchagin-Blowing_from_Guns_in_British_India.jpg


If you're going to use a firing squad why not blow the miscreant to blazes from the mouth of a gun? That's a short and sharp method in which the victim is typically tied to the mouth of a cannon and the cannon is fired. This provides a quick, humane solution with the added satisfaction of an environmentally green result.

The prisoner is generally tied to a gun with the upper part of the small of his back resting against the muzzle. When the gun is fired, his head is seen to go straight up into the air some forty or fifty feet; the arms fly off right and left, high up in the air, and fall at, perhaps, a hundred yards distance; the legs drop to the ground beneath the muzzle of the gun; and the body is literally blown away altogether, not a vestige being seen.

The head could then be preserved for posterity or presented to the family as a keepsake.

Espada III
11th Mar 2015, 15:45
I hope I never have to face the question of deciding someone's fate, but if I were ever to face execution, a double tap to the head would be my preferred exit, as quickly as possible after I was tied to the post.

rgbrock1
11th Mar 2015, 15:54
cavorting:

Thank you for your rather descriptive summation of execution via cannon fire. I think I might forgo lunch today.

JWP1938
11th Mar 2015, 16:02
Drugs used to render people unconscious for surgery are used every day and can keep folks out for hours if necessary. I don't see why one of these can't be used and, if a lethal dose of the same can't be administered for some reason, other lethal medication can be administered while they are out. I don't see why this option is not used.

Fareastdriver
11th Mar 2015, 16:42
Give him or her one of these to play with. with them suitably being wired into 10,000 volts via a suitable series of circuits.

Electric circuit maze - Satyapan's Experiments (http://satyapan.weebly.com/electric-circuit-maze.html)

dazdaz1
11th Mar 2015, 16:45
Correct me if I'm wrong, I recall a number of years (UK) ago, bringing back capital punishment. The question did not state hanging, but most people presumed this would be the execution means.

I fail to understand the reasons why not a bullet to the back of the head compared to hanging, 6ft drop, if your lucky no decapitation.

MagnusP
11th Mar 2015, 16:46
There was an article in New Scientist around 1980 about the physiological and psychological effects of various methods of execution.

Found it. 1983.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pKU5MXqo4UYC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=execution+new+scientist&source=bl&ots=yQLcqblZml&sig=kwS8oXHEXfQulXeGtntYWdh8J3M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_GIAVfoQxubuBvmJgfgJ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=execution%20new%20scientist&f=false

11Fan
11th Mar 2015, 17:58
.....death by Firing Squad....I'm all for it, but they should make a sport out of it. Forgo the rope, post and blindfold and give the guy a running start.

AtomKraft
11th Mar 2015, 18:07
Why not just administer a regular general anaesthetic of the type normally used in operations.

Then shoot him in the nut while conked out.

If it's ok for normal patients, it should be good for this purpose too.

Just different treatment later.....

susier
11th Mar 2015, 18:07
I think anything violent is less dignified for a start


more work to tidy up afterwards


I am against the principle of capital punishment in any case, and rather impressed by the manufacturers of said drugs taking a stand on it.


But if it has to be done, which I dispute, then really, something quiet and as 'non violent' as possible seems more appropriate.

crewmeal
11th Mar 2015, 18:12
Perhaps we should ask ISIS for their opinion. They have many options.

tony draper
11th Mar 2015, 18:19
Don't see what was wrong with a bit of rope and gravity.:uhoh:

sitigeltfel
11th Mar 2015, 18:36
Don't see what was wrong with a bit of rope and gravity.:uhoh:

Very true. Eco friendly, and you can use the same kit time and time again.

victor tango
11th Mar 2015, 18:47
The answer is obvious.....

Stick a note next to their plate as they are having their last meal saying "please tell us which method of dispatch you would prefer"

No handwringing.......it's down to them.

Compassionate as well innit.:rolleyes:

tony draper
11th Mar 2015, 18:55
I see a catch there.
I wish to be eaten by a Tyranosaurus,am prepared to wait until you locate one.
:uhoh:

UniFoxOs
11th Mar 2015, 18:58
I fail to understand the reasons why not a bullet to the back of the head compared to hanging, 6ft drop, if your lucky no decapitation.

Doesn't need luck. Done by a conscientious hangman it is quick and effective, as it breaks the neck instantly. Also quite cheap.

Albert Pierrepoint was the man.

tony draper
11th Mar 2015, 19:03
Indeed he processed 14 exe staff from Belsen in one morning.
:uhoh:

FakePilot
11th Mar 2015, 19:09
What about being chased to death by scantily clad women?

finfly1
11th Mar 2015, 19:11
Bali seems to have no probs with same.

kangaroota
11th Mar 2015, 19:14
Is it true that Noel Coward was a participant in a firing squad?

FERetd
11th Mar 2015, 19:17
Fake Pilot Quote:- "What about being chased to death by scantily clad women?"

Why would he run?

(I know, it was very sexist of me to assume that the offender was male - very un-PC)

AN2 Driver
11th Mar 2015, 19:32
Fastest and probably most painless method is the Guilloutine.

Probably followed by a shot in the head, which has been used in China and elsewhere.

Hanging with the UK long drop method appears to be quite effective.

The way the death penalty went in the 20th century in my view made it a state sponsored torture. Electric Chair, Gas Chamber, lethal injection, any more civilized? I don't think so.

Generally, I think a prison sentence without parole is probably a heavier punishment, if it is really done that way, meaning no chance of parole or this guy ever being out again.

eticket
11th Mar 2015, 19:32
This is how Bali does it:

Death penalty in Indonesia: an executioner's story | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/06/death-penalty-in-indonesia-an-executioners-story)

They do it at night and create a target by shining a torch at the heart area.

Some countries went over to the Injection as they were worried about spreading HIV, Hepatitis etc. around the execution chamber when using the rifle.

newfieboy
11th Mar 2015, 19:37
Mmmmm..... Firing squad didn't go too well for Col. Callan (Costas Georgious) and three other mercenaries in the Angola unpleasantness in 1976.

Callan was hit three times and took a couple of minutes to die. Gearhart the only American lined up was hit twice in the collarbone and was eventually dispatched after an MPLA officer fired a full mag into him and missed vital parts, when said officer realized he'd bodged it, threw his weapon down and ran away...Mercenary next to him, an ex Para Brummie Barker actually fainted as order to fire was given. The Angolans figured they had hit him!!!! Nope they missed.He was loaded onto a stretcher apparently dead. Wrong....he came to, wondering wtf is going on. Was eventually dispatched with a double tap to the head after another bodged attempt by the Angolans. Only mercenary killed instantly was ex para Andy McKenzie, guess he was an easier target...he was sitting in a wheelchair after losing a leg. Considering there were five Angolans with automatic weapons to each man, pretty piss poor shooting!!!!!! Did give the Cubans invited to witness the executions some entertainment apparently.

I guess the moral to this episode is if your going via firing squad, either don't use Angolans, or make sure make sure they know how to shoot straight......

Lonewolf_50
11th Mar 2015, 19:48
Firing Squads seem the perfect fodder for yet another Reality TV series.

(Apologies to George Carlin who suggested all executions be pay per view in a comedy sketch from about 15 years ago)

4mastacker
11th Mar 2015, 20:15
Kim Jong Fat Wun seems to have novel ways of dispatching folks - why not ask him what's the best way.

hiflymk3
11th Mar 2015, 21:51
Oh! I thought Firing Squads was about the forthcoming police cutbacks.

ian16th
11th Mar 2015, 22:05
Albert Pierrepoint was the man.

A useless and probably outdated piece of trivia.

Pierrepoint St. in Worcester was the closest that you could park a car to the shopping area.

Circa 1976-82.

ian16th
11th Mar 2015, 22:14
WRT Capital Punishment, my moral problem is not with the capital punishment, it is with the legal system(s) that use the English Law concept of finding a person, 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt.'

In the case of capital crimes it should be guilty beyond any doubt.

Even in England and Wales we saw the pantomime of pardoning a hanged man.

If Scottish Law can have a 3rd verdict, other countries can add the guilty beyond any doubt one.

Just my thoughts.

zetec2
11th Mar 2015, 22:14
Find it rather odd when the USA gives a lethal injection they rub the part off the body to be injected (arm ?) with a numbing agent to presumably numb the pain of the injection, why ? the persons going to die so a bit more agony is surely not a worry or is it just the humane caring side of society ?.

Fareastdriver
11th Mar 2015, 22:23
I saw a Chinese policeman drop a bagsnatcher in Shenzhen. I think he shouted a warning beforehand. The assembled crowd seemed quite pleased about it, especially the old lady who got her bag back. I don't know how they cleared it up. I had decided it was diplomatic to bury myself in the nearest Starbucks.

Sallyann1234
11th Mar 2015, 22:33
How about dropping the condemned down a disused mineshaft?

Cheap, no mess, and no body to dispose of.

alisoncc
11th Mar 2015, 23:33
There is a simple reality, locking people up for life is no longer seen as a deterrent. I know of quite a few aged pensioners who would be far better off in prison than out. The huggie-fluffies have made it far too comfortable with all the benefits of modern life - TV, Internet, libraries, nutritious meals, warm clean accommodation, good medical care, etc. etc. etc. And it COSTS the taxpayer big time.

A few years back I saw figures of how much it costs in Australia to keep someone in prison versus paying said person an aged pension, and the prison option was three to four times that of the pension. If our Treasurer is pleading poverty to increase the pension age, then surely we must look again at capital punishment.

So the question isn't about morality, ethics or civilised behaviour, I would suggest it's should be more to do with the costs of keeping someone found guilty of a heinous crime in comparative luxury for the rest of their lives.

PS. If morality, ethics or civilised behaviour are an issue then consider the homeless person dependant upon a single meal from a soup kitchen each day. Someone who hasn't commited any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law, yet should we treat them worse than a convicted criminal. Why?

.

crippen
12th Mar 2015, 02:16
Can't they just buy an euthanasia machine and let them do themself in when they are ready?? :suspect:

Metro man
12th Mar 2015, 03:11
Send them for medical treatment in a third world country, best way to guarantee death.

BOING
12th Mar 2015, 03:30
I suspect the basic aim here is to hit back at the companies who are refusing to supply the original drug cocktails. Apparently the companies thought the World was captive to their version of morality, now they know it isn't.

.

JWP1938
12th Mar 2015, 09:58
No one has answered the "anesthetic question" yet? I assume nobody knows the whys and wherefores.

radeng
12th Mar 2015, 10:23
The suggestion of nitrogen seems pretty barbaric, as it is essentially suffocation.

Firing squad is wasteful if it's aimed at the torso - the organs will be too damaged to be used for transplants.

Tarq57
12th Mar 2015, 10:41
I watched a documentary within the last couple of years.

A celebrity of some sort (I forget his name) from the UK was examining this very issue; the object being to determine the least painful and most effective way of executing someone. This was after the lethal injection executions started to go awry at times.

He got doctors, pathologists, and other experts in their fields and assembled quite a bit of info about the various ways of dying. (Turns out that burning to death is rather painful. Who'd have thought? So, too, is the gas chamber. The gas forms an acid which slowly eats the lungs and eventually the victim dies of asphyxiation. The other common means of execution can also go wrong, and even when they go right, there's often pain for some time. Hanging, for example, breaks the neck and severs - or part-severs - the spinal cord. This may cause death immediately, or may simply render the victim unable to express any sensation, paralyzed, while he chokes to death.)

He was looking for something as painless as possible, and as un-messy as possible. Very civilized. Nitrogen gas appears to be the thing. He (with help) created some enclosures for pigs, and in one the pig had to venture past a screen into a chamber filled with CO2 to access some of its favourite food. The pig only attempted this once or twice - it was unpleasant.
In the chamber filled only with Nitrogen the pig entered the chamber, and was still munching happily while it passed out - which also moved the screen in such a way that access to fresh air was restored. As soon as the pig revived, after a few seconds, it immediately went for the food again. And again. And again.

All nitrogen does is deprive one of O2. It's suffocation, but not uncomfortable. There's no painful build-up of CO2 in the lungs (this is the gas that triggers an urgent need to breathe), you simply pass out.

It was suggested as a means of execution to a person of authority (judge, senator or prison governor- I can't remember) in one of the States - this was at about the same time that drug companies were starting to withhold - and the response was "Naw. Why give them a painless end? We want it to hurt."

I'm generally anti capital punishment. I think it's a big step to give the state such authority. That said, there are some crimes and some criminals.....
Anyhoo, if it to be used, I agree with a court finding of ''beyond any doubt".

Curious Pax
12th Mar 2015, 10:45
I think it's a big step to give the state such authority.

The irony being that the main proponents of the capital punishment in the US tend also to be on the Republican side of the fence, advocating minimal government control over their lives. Apart from the biggest control of all of course!

tony draper
12th Mar 2015, 10:51
It was a Michael Portillo Documentary,I though it was Carbon Monoxide poisoning they finally decided on as the best way to go,it caused a feeling of euphoria and merriment then unconsciousness quickly followed by a exit from this vale of tears.
Personally I think a execution should hurt a bit.:rolleyes:

Rob Courtney
12th Mar 2015, 11:11
Fastest and probably most painless method is the Guilloutine.
Not when you take into account the act of marching the guy out into the courtyard strapping him down and then fixing his neck in place. Quickest method is the British way of hanging. This takes approx 10-15 seconds from the hangmen entering the cell, strapping the persons arms and marching him next door to the gallows. The condemned normally thinks he has minutes left when in fact he has seconds, much easier for everyone concerned.

A nitrogen enriched atmosphere will cause someone to pass out after only 2 breaths and he will have a feeling of euphoria as he passes out. There are quite a few incidents worldwide in labs that use liquid Nitrogen when the dewer isn't closed properly and someone goes back into the lab at a later time, that's why all labs should be fitted with oxygen monitors.

I find the whole American ritual of marching him/ her in, strapping them down, inserting needles, reading the charges and then asking for any last words barbaric as the poor guy has to wait ages before the execution begins

abgd
12th Mar 2015, 11:18
The practical difficulty with lethal injection in its current form is that it can be very hard to find a vein in which to insert a needle, particularly if it's not something you do day-in day-out. If the needle misses the vein, then the drugs leach out underneath the skin and for some - e.g. potassium chloride - this can be very painful.

Changing to regular anaesthetics wouldn't ease this problem, because most of the initial anaesthetics are administered intravenously as well.

There are a number of substances that if administered subcutaneously (which is easy) will cause fairly quick and distress-free death. I don't know why they don't use them and have always wondered. I suggested one to our vet whilst he was failing to find a vein to put our poor old dog down, and he agreed that it would work, but said that it wasn't licensed for the purpose.

The only thing I can think of is that they might not want people to become too aware of the potential for certain fairly common drugs to be used in the death penalty, for fear of encouraging their use murders/suicides.

I think my own take is that if the death penalty is to be used, then the process shouldn't be sanitised too much. If it seems humane, then it will come to seem too easy and unobjectionable.

It's hard to object to the death penalty in specific instances, but I'm not overly trusting of the judicial process, and feel that the concept of 'beyond doubt' is philosophically flawed. I understand when DNA testing was introduced, quite a lot of 'slam-dunk' cases were found to be false on reexamination.

Fliegenmong
12th Mar 2015, 11:25
Having had the mis fortune to have gone under the knife 3 times in the last 3 years, I always play the "see how long you can stay awake for" game...1,2,3...and then you are in the recovery ward....so no one has still answered the what about anaesthetic question, instantly unconscious.......

...I'm always conscious (until I'm unconscious :E) about the anaesthetist (?), given that they are the guys or gals responsible for 'bringing you back'

I once heard the biggest suicide rate of any medical (?) professional was anaesthetists because of the folk they 'lose on the table' :ooh: (I struggle to spell the word!!)

Far East Driver......Saw a gang of 30/40 youths being chased / confronted by 15 / 20 chinese police weilding batons last year in Shenzhen, similarly we buried ourselves into the ever thinning throng of people inside the train station...:uhoh:

cattletruck
12th Mar 2015, 11:36
The death penalty doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent for some.

Maybe throwing them into a pool of sharks is a better option - environmentally friendlier too.

tony draper
12th Mar 2015, 11:45
Yer, but those who undergo it seldom re offend.:)

obgraham
12th Mar 2015, 16:48
Anesthetic drugs are exactly what has been used. The normal cocktail was 1:Sodium pentothal, rendering the executee immediately unconscious, then 2: Succinylcholine, a rapid acting muscle paralyzing agent, then 3:A big slug of potassium chloride, which stops the heart. Then you're dead.

Pentothal and succinylcholine was the standard method of initiating surgical anesthesia for decades. It was used during the entire first 20 of my surgery years. Being a barbiturate, pentothal is now politically incorrect and no longer easily available, and has been replaced in OR's by Propofol. That's the drug that did in Michael Jackson.

There is absolutely no reason that Propofol/Succ/KCl could not be used in executions -- I suspect the manufacturers have threatened consequences if it is used.

bcgallacher
12th Mar 2015, 18:26
I have been anesthetised several times - the last occasion with Propofol.There was no counting back from ten as before,I was just asked if I was ready,then the plunger on the syringe was pushed and I was out instantly,just switched off with no sensation of anything. I do not know if it was due to Propofol being used but I woke up feeling fine - without the sensation of a hangover as before. I have often wondered why it was not used in executions in the USA as I thought it would be perfect for the job.

RedhillPhil
12th Mar 2015, 18:30
How about killing them by the same method that they killed their victim(s).

ian16th
12th Mar 2015, 18:39
How about killing them by the same method that they killed their victim(s).

In some countries capital punishment is used for crimes other than murder.

Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Iran et al

Tankertrashnav
13th Mar 2015, 00:53
I think my own take is that if the death penalty is to be used, then the process shouldn't be sanitised too much. If it seems humane, then it will come to seem too easy and unobjectionable.

Not a view shared by Albert Pierrepoint, probably the only executioner in modern times to become a household name. As he executed over 400 convicts, his views on the death penalty are at least worthy of consideration.

As to the actual execution process itself, he took pride in making it as swift and humane as possible, priding himself on the shortness of the period from entering the condemned cell to the time the prisoner was dead on the end of the rope. In many cases he got this time below 15 seconds, and he would have been appalled at the drawn out bodged executions using lethal injections which have taken place in recent years. His view was that the accused had been tried, convicted and sentenced to death and it was no part of his duties to inflict further distress.

As to the effectiveness of the death penalty itself it is useful to consider his thoughts on the matter from his 1974 autobiography:

It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.

james ozzie
13th Mar 2015, 03:00
This idea that you can mix blanks & live rounds in the different shooters rifles seems flawed. If I recall, an auto rifle will not reload properly with a blank unless it has a gas restriction on the barrel? Also the recoil is less so you would know if you had fired a blank.

And from some accounts, you need all the live rounds you can use.

The idea of shooting at a spot of light in the dark is a worry - is it not so that most people shoot high in the dark?

TWT
13th Mar 2015, 04:02
jm,I have been wondering about the same thing.

A soldier will know if he has just fired a blank or a normal live round by the recoil alone.Although I do remember firing blanks from an FN FAL SLR without a gas restrictor in the Army cadets and it did reload itself.Maybe those blanks (plastic cases) had a large load in them ?

Firearm experts,what do you think ?

rh200
13th Mar 2015, 04:12
As to the effectiveness of the death penalty itself it is useful to consider his thoughts on the matter from his 1974 autobiography:

Most of the arguments against the death penalty are flawed along these lines.

Justice is a multifunction variable. On two fronts you have planned crimes and the unplanned ones. The death penalty has no effect on the latter, neither do the other penalties.

As for planned crimes, or ones contemplated for a bit, its like every thing else. Risk versus reward. At the end of the day its about what is the risk and what is the probability of it being carried out. You alter those variables and you alter the outcome one way or the other.

Then there is the philosophical use of the deterrent to try and keep the crimes regarded as heinous. Another words devaluing the crime. The death penalty is just another tool in the toolbox of social control mechanisms.

BOING
13th Mar 2015, 05:26
The Firing Squad

It appears that in most legally sanctioned executions by firing squad each rifle contains only one cartridge so the matter of whether the firearm cycles correctly is irrelevant.

If all of the shooters fire almost simultaneously it is probable that, as a result of nervousness and the noise and concussion of discharge, no shooter can be sure that he fired the blank round although I would not guarantee this.

With, for example, five shooters it is certain that one well placed shot out of the five will do the job. We are now assuming a team of trained shooters, not the local militia. The actual target is really quite large and the range is quite short so that, with a suitable firearm and ammunition, adequate damage is inevitable at the ranges involved. Firearms deaths are usually a consequence of loss of blood but against a stationary target spinal chord damage is likely leading to instant death.

There is no reason shots should not be well placed if the target is illuminated sufficiently to allow proper sight usage by the shooters.

.

obgraham
13th Mar 2015, 06:28
Assuming we've decided that shooting is the desired method, I don't understand why we prefer fooling around with blanks/nonblanks and worrying about the feelings of the shooters, all of whom were volunteers.

The Chinese simply walk up behind the sod, and put one bullet in the base of the brain. Quick. Clean. Instant. Little room for error. Much more humane than relying on the skill of some shooter across the room.

We just don't like it because the Commies use it.

chksix
13th Mar 2015, 08:10
Instead of using CO2 they should have tested CO on the pigs. It replaces the oxygen in the blood and makes you fall asleep painlessly.

parabellum
13th Mar 2015, 08:35
Pierrepoint's logic is, I think, flawed. There is no way you can measure those possible murders that were not committed because of the death penalty any more than you can say which murders were committed because there was no fear of the death penalty.


Regarding blanks in rifles, anyone who has regularly fired a rifle will know if they have fired a blank or live round, no question of it. Not only does it make sense to use as many live rounds as there are rifles available, it is highly probable that soft nosed bullets are used. Traditionally, going back to the Boer War, the best shots are selected. Kipling wrote a poem about it, can't find it at the moment.

Pinky the pilot
13th Mar 2015, 10:52
Regarding blanks in rifles, anyone who has regularly fired a rifle will know if they have fired a blank or live round, no question of it

Exactly! Firing a blank round in a SMLE 303 has no comparison to firing a live Mk7 FMJ round, and anyone who has done so would readily agree!:=

The recoil with a live round is a dead giveaway (pun not intended) for starters!:rolleyes:

Tarq57
13th Mar 2015, 11:06
Instead of using CO2 they should have tested CO on the pigs. It replaces the oxygen in the blood and makes you fall asleep painlessly.
The CO2 was used simply to demonstrate the difference between something that was well known to cause immediate discomfort, vs a bit of an unknown.

From what I've heard/read (I was in the fire brigade in a former life) passing out through CO poisoning usually is accompanied with headache and nausea which can be severe, but by that stage the victim is past being able to react to it.

Mac the Knife
13th Mar 2015, 11:37
I think firing-squad is archaic, extremely messy and mutilating as well as traumatic for all participants.

I've seen tens of thousands of general anaesthetics in my life and IV induction is painless and (with propofol) pleasant.

If you don't have a vein readily available, then a mask gas induction with sevoflurane in gradually increasing concentrations transitions gently to sleep.

Once asleep there are a whole panoply of drugs that will stop the heart.

I can't really understand what all the fuss is about.

Mac

:ugh:

BOING
13th Mar 2015, 16:57
I can't really understand what all the fuss is about.

Said with great irony.
The fuss is about approving a drug to kill somebody. Since only the most heinous crimes in the US are punishable by death it amounts to a matter of ensuring that a criminal who has brutally murdered someone, often as in recent cases by extended torture, gets to die a little more comfortably or a few seconds more quickly. Many would ask for the reverse.

As is usual in the US a combination of regulatory bodies has dug themselves into a deep procedural hole of conflicting requirements that is being exploited by the anti-death penalty crowd in an attempt to prevent all executions. In the US you cannot simply grab a handful of drugs from a cabinet, even if their effectiveness for the intended use is known, and start pumping them into people. In effect you can't use an unapproved drug to kill people in case you don't kill people properly. Couple the lack of the officially approved execution drugs with the recent inept attempts at finding alternatives and you have a major PR disaster on your hands.

The answer therefore is seen as a move away from drugs to a more traditional method of execution which is why we see suggestions that the use of firing squads be revived.

rgbrock1
13th Mar 2015, 17:03
There is a very discernible difference in firing a weapon with live rounds or firing one with blanks. Very discernible difference indeed.

BOING
13th Mar 2015, 17:49
Yes Brock, I was worried by that point. I suppose you could tailor a special purpose blank that had a more realistic feel compared to the actual cartridge but it hardly seems worthwhile.

My guess would be that the use of the blank cartridge goes back to military firing squad practice. If you are going to detail a group of men as a firing squad, as opposed to asking for a group of volunteers, you need to provide some sort of "fig leaf" to help reduce feelings of guilt. If it is known that there was a blank amongst the live rounds a shooter can always try to convince himself that he did not fire the killing shot.

I found his entry in Wikipaedia.

Blank cartridge

In some cases, one or more members of the firing squad may be issued a weapon containing a blank cartridge instead of one housing a live round.[1] No member of the firing squad is told beforehand if he is using live ammunition. This is believed to reinforce the sense of diffusion of responsibility among the firing squad members, making the execution process more reliable. It also allows each member of the firing squad to believe afterward that he did not personally fire a fatal shot[2]—for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "conscience round".

However, according to a Private W. A. Quinton, who served in the British Army during the First World War and had the experience of being in a firing squad in October 1915, he and eleven colleagues were relieved of any live ammunition and their own rifles, before being issued with replacement weapons. The firing squad was then given a short speech by an officer before they fired a volley at the condemned man. He said about the episode, "I had the satisfaction of knowing that as soon as I fired, the absence of any recoil, [indicated] that I had merely fired a blank cartridge".[3]

In more recent times, such as in the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner in the American state of Utah in the United States in 2010, a rifleman may be given a "dummy" cartridge containing wax instead of a bullet, which provides a more realistic recoil.[4]
.

VP959
13th Mar 2015, 19:11
Daft question, perhaps, but we have been killing millions of animals with a captive bolt gun for many years, and it has a proven reliability.

Surely it isn't beyond the ingenuity of those who wish to have some other form of state sanctioned murder to come up with a harness, helmet or whatever that contains a remote fired captive bolt gun, is it?

Seems simple to me, and uses readily available technology that is already licensed for humane killing.

Krystal n chips
13th Mar 2015, 19:16
The abolition of capital punishment would render all these grotesque, in some case, suggestions null and void.

Abolition being an attribute of a civilised society and culture.

And how many, in all honesty ( unlikely ) of the armchair executioners on here would actually be prepared to be an executioner without any qualms ?.

Tankertrashnav
13th Mar 2015, 19:36
The old .303 Bren fired a bulleted blank with a projectile made of wood (painted blue, as I recall). Obviously that could cause someone a great deal of harm if it hit them, so the Bren was provided with a blank firing attachment which shredded the wooden bullets as they passed through it. After a few bursts you were left with a little pile of wood shavings on the ground in front of you! I remember that the noise was deafening when firing blanks - much louder than live rounds.

All of absolutely no relevance to firing squads, of course!

Good question - K & C. Killing an enemy in the heat of battle is something which many on here, including myself, would do (indeed may have done) but execution in cold blood is a totally different matter.

BOING
13th Mar 2015, 19:59
KC

Abolition being an attribute of a civilised society and culture.

A questionable statement since the historical record is not long enough to prove its truth. Of course, we have to allow for the fact that your definition of words is often greatly out of kilter with those generally used.

There in no correlation between "civilised society and culture" and the lack of capital punishment unless you wish to throw the Greek, Roman, Japanese, Andalusian Muslim, Persian and even the French Empires into the non-civilised, non-cultured, category. From earliest times capital punishment has been treated as a dirty necessity carefully compartmentalised so that it did not taint the rest of society but it was seen as a necessity.

VP959.
Similar mechanical ideas have been tried in the past (such as the original Garrote, see Wikipaedia), some of which were used for a considerable number of years. I know of no example of state sanctioned use of the powder operated captive bolt but I would imagine it was used or considered by some less scrupulous regimes or rebel organisations.

TTN
Point taken on "the heat of battle" but how do you square a nation's declared intent to use nuclear weapons against an innocent civilian population with its objection to carrying out individual executions of convicted criminals? Anyone who supports the military while objecting to capital punishment is a total hypocrite.


.

.

rh200
13th Mar 2015, 22:06
Abolition being an attribute of a civilised society and culture.

An opinion based on your moral values and culture! What makes yours any more valid than anyone else's?

abgd
13th Mar 2015, 23:24
I have to say I'm not a fan of the Romans. The more I learn about them, the less I like about them. There are any number of 'civilisations' - organised empires that were not pleasant peoples to be ruled by.

The idea that anyone who supports the military should support the death penalty is daft - not all armies intend to use nuclear weapons on civilians. There are lots of roles for the military in peacekeeping. Advocating the death penalty for people who may or may not be guilty is a different matter.

I think many societies go through rather lawless stages where expedience and a 'direct' approach to crime and punishment have their place. But as they progress to a more settled state, perhaps such sanctions become less necessary. My general feeling is that if you correlated the death penalty with violence in societies, you'd find that those that do without it would be the more peaceful with less risk of a violent death. Arguably because they're the only ones where you could get the death penalty revoked, but possibly also because they're in some way less inclined to solving problems through violence.

alisoncc
13th Mar 2015, 23:32
Point taken on "the heat of battle" but how do you square a nation's declared intent to use nuclear weapons against an innocent civilian population with its objection to carrying out individual executions of convicted criminals?
It was called Mutually Assured Destruction. Think of it as a form of blackmail or hostage taking with no one side keen on actually doing it. You do it to us and we will do it to you. And you know what - it worked.

Hydromet
13th Mar 2015, 23:41
On a slightly similar 'blank round' theme, I vaguely remember in my training being shown a film of an old British drill for dealing with rioters. A small squad of soldiers all fired at the ringleader at once, but only one had a live round up the spout. The purpose of this was so that no individual could be identified by the rioters as having fired the fatal shot.
I don't know if this drill was ever used in action.

BOING
14th Mar 2015, 01:34
alisoncc
It was called Mutually Assured Destruction. Think of it as a form of blackmail or hostage taking with no one side keen on actually doing it. You do it to us and we will do it to you. And you know what - it worked.

Which is exactly the logic of capital punishment. Deterrence. "You do it to him and we will do it to you."

I do not really care how people think. I just cannot understand the twisted logic of people who happily accept that young persons in the military may fight, kill and die in their name, that police officers could kill in their name, yet they object to a murderer who has been found guilty in a court of law from suffering the well-known consequences of his crime.


.

james ozzie
14th Mar 2015, 02:39
And to continue the firing squad flaws: many a soldier I have known would, I think, quietly pull the shot to ensure a miss. If your squad is composed of like minded people, it could be a farce with 100% missing. Hardly a dependable method of execution.

innuendo
14th Mar 2015, 02:57
yet they object to a murderer who has been found guilty in a court of law from suffering the well-known consequences of his crime.


The people in this link below were "convicted" in courts of law which got it wrong.
Seems like a lot of trials that got it wrong and puts the Canadian courts in a very bad light but the procedures are derived from the British system so not a Kangaroo Court system of prosecution. Surely most of the principals in the proceedings felt they were doing their jobs properly and yet they got it wrong.
I would find it hard to accept that Canada is alone in this sort of result, (Evans for Example).
To state the obvious,this penalty cannot be redressed.

Canada's wrongful convictions - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-wrongful-convictions-1.783998)

BOING
14th Mar 2015, 03:24
Innuendo
It is a fact that mistakes have been made. This situation has improved because less crimes are now capital offenses, rules of evidence have improved, the technology of establishing the truth has improved, juries have become more vocal and, most importantly, combining the previous elements, the level of proof of guilt is now much higher than it was. I note that most of the examples mentioned in your quote are 1990 or earlier.

In today's Western Courts the argument that the death penalty should not be applied because mistakes have been made in the past is no longer valid.

To stay with the topic here is a quote from a recent Time magazine article.
But experts say it may actually be the most effective way for states to execute inmates.

“Firing squad is the only execution method for which people are trained,” says Fordham University law professor Deborah Denno, who studies lethal injection and other execution methods. “It’s the most certain, the most expert way of executing and from all we know it would be the quickest.”


.

alisoncc
14th Mar 2015, 04:49
The people in this link below were "convicted" in courts of law which got it wrong.There's no such thing as a perfect world. If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. Judges and juries are human, and will occasionally make mistakes, but that's no reason not to act.

I believe in the three strikes and you are out concept. If someone is found guilty of three separate murders at different times and places, then they should be for the chop. Once, there is a possibility of a mistake, three times no way.

Thus for a paedophile who preys on young children, found guilty three times by three different judges and juries, means they will continue to do so if let out, so I would call for capital punishment here with no regrets.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
14th Mar 2015, 06:45
If we issue blanks to spare the riflemens conscience (and which sounds of dubious value anyway), why do we persist with handheld weapons? Why not use 1, 2, or an array of fixed and previously zeroed in firearms all fired remotely? You could have numerous firing switches, only one of which is live, if you wished to provide the executioners with an out. I'm surprised that with the USA's love of technology and over-complicating things that this hasn't already been done.

John Hill
14th Mar 2015, 07:26
Something like this you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c3WIL4JSAU

Bangkok Hilton scene.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
14th Mar 2015, 08:40
Bit messy though. Wouldn't have been much left to pick up.

OFSO
14th Mar 2015, 10:37
I don't know the mechanism by which strangulation induces an orgasm in men (although judging by the people found hanging on the back of bedroom door hooks it seems quite a few people do), however it's an interesting thought as you walk up to the trapdoor.

Tankertrashnav
14th Mar 2015, 11:18
OFSO - this led to the myth of the mandrake plant which was reputed to grow under the (outdoor) gallows where the dying man had ejaculated onto the ground. The plant was believed to scream when you tried to pull it up by the roots.

parabellum
14th Mar 2015, 12:34
Actual executions in Thailand around the time of the Bangkok Hilton film were, in fact, carried out by an older senior NCO in the police who travelled around the country on a motorcycle and used a hand held sub machine gun.


Regarding the constitution of the firing squad, there is a section of Queens Rules and Regulations that dealt with executions but I believe it was in a section only distributed to those that might need it, under the administration of the Provost Marshall. Once the courts martial was complete the soldier would not go back to his own unit guard room but would go to a detention facility run by the Military Provost Staff Corps. The firing squad would not come from the soldier's own unit but would be drawn from a unit or soldiers not co-located with the mans unit. The rules for peace time and war were also different. Convicted murderers, during the second world war, were hanged, some at Shepton Mallet. That is how it used to be some fifty years ago!

cockney steve
14th Mar 2015, 12:37
Except , - hanging (properly executed) breaks the neck.
Britain's last hangman wrote a fascinating autobiography, in it ,he detailed the procedures laid down, the equipment, the training and the carefully calculated "table of drops"
The hanging room was directly across a corridor from the condemned cell and the doors were arranged such that when both were opened, a seamless link was formed .
The prisoner was previously weighed and height measured. The hangman and assistant had a choice of sets of equipment which included pre-stretched ropes with a noose one end and an eye at the other. the eye was suspended from an adjustable bar to set the final height of the noose . the rope was then looped up and tied with fine twine so the noose hung at the correct height for the condemned person....
the execution party would enter the cell, the prisoner's arms pinioned behind his back. he would be marched through the "tunnel" to stand on the marked spot. The Assistant and hangman would put a bag over his head, over which would be dropped the noose....simultaneously, the ankles were pinioned,
The hangman went to the lever and removed the safety-pins , whilst the assistant finished the ankles and threw himself clear as the release was pulled.......
the prisoner droppedas the trapdoor crashed down......everyone went off for breakfast, before the hangman and assistant went back to lower the body onto the zinc-covered table below, where it was stripped and prepared for burial.

All pretty macabre, but clinically precise and a highly-drilled ,practised pair of executioners. There were several hangmen and several assistants. apparently, they were randomly paired. The author was convinced that executions were "staged" around the country as a warning to the local Criminals, as he could see no consistency in the granting of clemency to the guilty.
It seems an ideal solution where there is no question of guilt....If someone does not wish to abide by the moral standards of a civilised society, they should be removed from it. According to the severity of their transgression, temporarily (jail) or permanently.

Sir George Cayley
14th Mar 2015, 15:04
Strap line for a firing squad?



"We aim to please" :)


SGC

alisoncc
14th Mar 2015, 15:18
When I was in Papua New Guinea in the early 1970's there was a story going around about the last public hanging that took place in Port Moresby. Apparently it took place in a public square with onlookers.

The story goes that those watching enjoyed it so much, that they pushed another guy forward to be done. Demanding that the prison guards do him next.

alisoncc
15th Mar 2015, 08:53
With reports of a 74 year old nun being raped in India, I would like to suggest that a firing squad is far too quick and painless. How about locked in the Tower or similar for a few months in a dark dank dungeon, then hung drawn and quartered with the head paraded around the area where the crime took place for a week or so.

abgd
15th Mar 2015, 09:21
Another consideration: a fair number of people you might consider executing will be hiv/hepatitis B/C positive - drug abuse; disorganised lifestyles; impulsivity.

As an executioner you probably don't want to be aerosolising their bodily fluids at close range.

ORAC
15th Mar 2015, 09:45
Hanging with Frank (https://shootingpeople.org/watch/43269/hanging-with-frank)

tony draper
15th Mar 2015, 10:02
Learned summat interesting a while back,the last public hanging in London was as per usual attended by a very large crowd, most of whom traveled to the event on the underground.
:)

OFSO
15th Mar 2015, 10:11
If someone does not wish to abide by the moral standards of a civilised society, they should be removed from it.

This statement should be engraved in large letters over the entrances to offices where people go to claim welfare, apply for residency, law courts...in fact just about everywhere. Oh yes and also at passport offices where you enter the country. It would be nice if it also came up on yougov websites but sadly they never seem to work so that would be pointless.

abgd
15th Mar 2015, 11:02
And the reason we're having this discussion now:

How To Execute People In the 21st Century - Slashdot (http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/03/14/185246/how-to-execute-people-in-the-21st-century)

Krystal n chips
15th Mar 2015, 11:28
If someone does not wish to abide by the moral standards of a civilised society, they should be removed from it.

This statement should be engraved in large letters over the entrances to offices where people go to claim welfare, apply for residency, law courts...in fact just about everywhere

That's interesting then.....leaving aside your decidedly dubious interpretation of democracy for a moment, why should people claiming benefits be subjected to such dogma?

As for moral standards, how's the old drink / driving going these days ?.

Now, what about the moral standards of those who participate in executions ?.....that's the state participants not the victim in case you are confused.

BOING
15th Mar 2015, 16:02
If someone does not wish to abide by the moral standards of a civilised society, they should be removed from it.

Technically speaking a society does not have morals it has mores, an individual has morals. Therefore an individual who believes his morals are superior to the social mores (such as K&C) is free to criticise the state but his opinion carries little weight. An individual whose moral behaviour does not meet the mores of the state should not be tolerated and, in extremis, should face execution. Over time mores tend to drift into alignment with morals which leads to acceptance of behaviour such as drug usage.

Now, what about the moral standards of those who participate in executions ?.....that's the state participants not the victim in case you are confused.

An individual can object to the morality of execution which in most societies would allow him to decline the job as a member of a firing squad which solves the contrived problem raised in the quote. However this does not negate the fact that execution is consistent with the mores of the society and participation in a firing squad does not reflect on the morality of the participant except in the eyes of the "morally superior".


.

Interested Passenger
15th Mar 2015, 17:24
Around the country there are many zoos. Always looking for food supplies, and ways to entertain the animals to keep their marbles intact.

Large enclosure + rapist/murderer/banker/terrorist + lion/tiger/panther/elephant with tooth ache.

Imagine how attendances would go up

Pretty sure Ant&Dick could front the show "I'm a scumbag, eat me out of here", with a phone in to decide how many animals are in there, or the head start the scumbags get.

ratings winner:ok:

Krystal n chips
15th Mar 2015, 18:00
Technically speaking a society does not have morals it has mores, an individual has morals. Therefore an individual who believes his morals are superior to the social mores (such as K&C) is free to criticise the state but his opinion carries little weight. An individual whose moral behaviour does not meet the mores of the state should not be tolerated and, in extremis, should face execution. Over time mores tend to drift into alignment with morals which leads to acceptance of behaviour such as drug usage.

Now that's an interesting response. A combination of semantics and dismissive ideology, notably your own.

Where did I claim my moral stance, along with how many million others who oppose capital punishment in any way contravenes social perceptions as to how immoral it is, as well being as a barbaric source of pleasure it would seem, for many ?.

And your last comment about drug use seems to be based on fanciful, rather than what factual evidence ?



Quote:

Now, what about the moral standards of those who participate in executions ?.....that's the state participants not the victim in case you are confused.

An individual can object to the morality of execution which in most societies would allow him to decline the job as a member of a firing squad which solves the contrived problem raised in the quote. However this does not negate the fact that execution is consistent with the mores of the society and participation in a firing squad does not reflect on the morality of the participant except in the eyes of the "morally superior

You do seem to have an opinion that is entirely incontrovertible in that you dismiss the idea of a person having moral objections to participating in an execution as being of little or no relevance, whereas such an individual, or individuals, have a significant bearing regarding their stance on the matter.

BOING
15th Mar 2015, 19:35
K&C
The literature provides support for my usage of the terms "morals" and "mores". The original and, in its time, controversial reference to the subject is in Sumner's book "Folkways" referenced below so we can do no better than follow the definitions or the originator. Both quotes provided by our friend Wikipaedia although the Catholic Church weighs in heavily on these definitions.

Mores (generally pronounced /ˈmɔreɪz/, and often /ˈmɔriːz/; from Latin mōrēs, [ˈmoːreːs], grammatically plural: "habit"; singular form: mōs) is a term introduced into English by William Graham Sumner (1840–1910), an early U.S. sociologist, to refer to norms that are more widely observed and have greater moral significance than others. Mores include an aversion for societal taboos, such as incest.[1] Consequently, the values and mores of a society predicates legislation prohibiting their taboos.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good or right and those that are bad or wrong.[citation needed] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[1] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness."

The reference to drug usage is certainly justified. In the US restrictions on the use of marijuana are slowly being lifted. What was previously considered a crime is now permitted under various contexts in opposition to Federal Law. This situation came about because individual members of the population approved of marijuana use (the moral, ie personal, decision), followed by the enough members of the general population agreeing (the mores, ie social, decision) which has led to changes in State Laws. The mores follow the morals as Sumner predicted.

You do seem to have an opinion that is entirely incontrovertible in that you dismiss the idea of a person having moral objections to participating in an execution as being of little or no relevance, whereas such an individual, or individuals, have a significant bearing regarding their stance on the matter.

I'm not sure what you are saying here but if you saying that the moral question of being part of a firing squad is important to a person then I agree that of course it is. Thank Heaven we have people with moral strength because it is an important factor for social change, hopefully in the right direction. What I am saying is that, since the mores of society favour capital punishment (or, in theory, it should go away under law) then someone who chooses to take part in a firing squad cannot be considered immoral other than by people who consider themselves morally superior. In this case the opinions of the "morally superior" are irrelevant under law and social mores.

By the way K&C, could you please use the "quotes" function since it would make your posts easier to follow. Thanks.

.

BOING
15th Mar 2015, 21:10
You know, I've never thought much about this matter until recently but on reflection, if you gotta go, a firing squad may not be the worst way to do it.

Electric chair, no thanks.
Gas chamber, no thanks.
Hanging, I see problems with this.

This leaves drugs or a firing squad. Drugs are probably better if you get the right ones in the right order from the right person but if this isn't an option a trained firing squad is not a bad alternative. Competent shooters, well chosen rifles and ammunition, massive damage and the whole thing over in a few seconds.

I do not know what the Utah rules are but I would think;
1. The shooters would be chosen from the civilian population. You would not want the military or police directly involved in executions, too politically touchy.
2. Shooters would be volunteers.
3. Shooters would undergo psychological evaluation. You would not want fools who would brag about what they had just done at the pub that night and you would not want nuts who got a kick out of killing.
4. Shooters would have to prove competency and attend training (which would provide a further opportunity to eliminate unfit volunteers).
5. You would need a fairly large pool of volunteers (say 50 people) from which group the number required for an execution would be chosen at random. All volunteers are kept in the same building until the deed is done and then all leave together so that the actual shooters would be difficult to identify. You could actually split the group between several rooms so that even the volunteers are not sure who was chosen (To prevent assassinations by antis who have already shown they believe it is OK to kill doctors to prevent abortions - go figure the logic on that one).
6. Each volunteer can only attend one event.
7. The traditional blank cartridge continues.

Now, a firing squad as capital punishment. First, not to be used lightly. However, there have recently been a series of crimes in the US where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, including confessions by the accused backed up by evidence. Some of these crimes have been appalling. Execution can't bring the victims back but it can deter others from committing similar crimes. The argument that is used by anti firearms advocates is that all guns should be confiscated because saving one life is worth the restrictions - would these people approve of capital punishment on the basis that one life would be saved by deterring murder?

.

beaufort1
15th Mar 2015, 21:21
There are loads of very steep, i.e. vertical, sea cliffs, with no mess to clear up afterwards either. :ok: Job's a good un.:)

Dr Jekyll
15th Mar 2015, 21:29
I don't see a problem with hanging providing it's a long enough drop.

BOING
15th Mar 2015, 21:43
Beaufort1
Apparently the cliff idea was very popular historically.

Falling (execution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_%28execution%29)

Rather obvious conclusion.

Throwing or dropping people from great heights has been used as a form of execution since ancient times. People executed in this way die from injuries caused by hitting the ground at high velocity.

West Coast
15th Mar 2015, 22:16
I know wiki isn't exactly authoritive, but it indicates that the last death penalty completed by a firing squad used police officers, and there wasn't a blank round in any of the weapons, rather one used a wax bullet which is considered a non lethal.

BOING
15th Mar 2015, 22:31
Thanks WC
I checked the reference and you are, of course, correct. I based my ideas on the fact that, at the present time, execution of for example a black criminal, by anything other than a convincingly racially neutral firing squad would certainly cause tremendous riots. The police forces of the US have no more need to get involved in contentious issues.

Interesting report.
Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by five anonymous officers on 18 June 2010. In February 1996, Gardner threatened to sue to force the state of Utah to execute him by firing squad. He said that he preferred this method of execution because of his "Mormon heritage." Gardner also felt that lawmakers were trying to eliminate the firing squad, in opposition to popular opinion in Utah, because of concern over the state's image in the 2002 Winter Olympics.[55]

.

West Coast
15th Mar 2015, 23:12
I understand your point, and concede it has merit. I hope however that the court system doesn't shop for a particular racial makeup of the trigger pullers, it would be one more nod towards political correctness. The guards aren't judging the condemned, just exerting a little pressure on him or her. That shouldn't necessitate convening a panel of black shooters to shoot a black convict, etc. If it causes a ruckus afterward, so be it.

BOING
15th Mar 2015, 23:48
That's the whole problem. How do you select an anonymous random panel if you need to be PC? Of course, the identity of the shooters should never be declared but there is always a reporter who will cry "freedom of information". Some sort of court order protecting the identity of the shooters would need to be established. Then it would turn into a matter of, well if the identity of the shooters is protected we need to review the make-up of the pool of volunteers, how many colored, American Indians and women are included?

All of which gets us away from the question that does a firing squad provide a humane and efficient method of carrying out an execution if it is required but you can be pretty sure that PC will come into it somewhere.

.

John Hill
16th Mar 2015, 00:02
Obviously in certain societies people could be found who would pay to be on the firing squad, take that a step further and sell the condemned to the operators of captive hunting preserves.

funfly
16th Mar 2015, 00:12
Gas with carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide is best and painless.
And cheap

cavortingcheetah
16th Mar 2015, 00:26
Just keep the condemned in irons until the most appropriate birthday of a member of the royal family and then do them in batches.

RatherBeFlying
16th Mar 2015, 01:01
Really the simplest way as no drug companies involved. You just have to design a suitable enclosure that can be ventilated afterwards.

Divers are cautioned not to take off their breathing apparatus in an underwater air space as rust has often consumed all the oxygen. A number have been lost that way.

parabellum
16th Mar 2015, 01:17
BOEING - If you have a pool of, say, 50 in the firing squad volunteers and on the day make no list of who constitutes the actual squad then there will be no record. Give them all a number, draw the numbers from a hat, call out the numbers, do the deed and send them all home. Might work.

BOING
16th Mar 2015, 03:10
Parabellum - should work.

By the way we have a cylinder of compressed nitrogen gas in the shop - we use it to flood epoxy containers to stop the contents going "off". After what I have read here we are going to change our safety and use procedures - I thought the stuff was just a harmless inert gas - not so.

Potential hazards of nitrogen.
Nitrogen is sometimes mistakenly considered harmless because it is nontoxic and largely inert. However, it can act as a simple asphyxiant by displacing the oxygen in air to levels below that required to support life.

Since the air is 78% nitrogen in any case I really got complacent and screwed up on this one. It looks as though nitrogen does not give much warning that you are being overcome.

.

Bushfiva
16th Mar 2015, 06:13
Yes, increase nitrogen by 3% and you are at risk. Get to 90% and effect can be immediate, no warning.

abgd
16th Mar 2015, 06:47
Subjecting 50 people to lengthy psychiatric evaluation and forcing them to really consider whether they could kill a person would, I fear, be rather expensive and cause a fair amount of psychiatric fallout.

Better to have a relatively small cadre of professionals. I would imagine that the job that might do strange things to a person's psyche, but probably the first execution would be the most significant. For the same reason I'd try to minimise any involvement of non-executioners in the process - even peripheral things like weighing the prisoners. Certainly abattoir workers and soldiers end up with shedloads of psychiatric issues.

Perhaps make that cadre ethnically representative and choose executioners at random from it.

Krystal n chips
16th Mar 2015, 07:11
Boing,

Thank Heaven we have people with moral strength because it is an important factor for social change, hopefully in the right direction. What I am saying is that, since the mores of society favour capital punishment (or, in theory, it should go away under law) then someone who chooses to take part in a firing squad cannot be considered immoral other than by people who consider themselves morally superior. In this case the opinions of the "morally superior" are irrelevant under law and social mores.

I assume the bold above was an inadvertent term, albeit one that is ideologically apt.


You do have a very dictatorial stance don't you. And, from your subsequent posts on the topic, for good reason it seems. You are intolerant as to the views of others with regard to this emotive topic, one which you seem to have given a great deal of thought to in fact.

Such dedication tends to be a form of obsessive behaviour in the wider world, which is invariably disturbing when encountered.

Have a read of this link with regard to morality and then try and make to correlation with those of us who oppose the death penalty.

For yourself therefore, I will pose the question again.

Would you participate in an execution without any qualms as to the taking of human life in a clinical and brutal manner ?

Mores, Law and Morality (http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Mores_Law_Morality.htm)

[I]By the way K&C, could you please use the "quotes" function since it would make your posts easier to follow. Thanks

Erm, no.

BOING
16th Mar 2015, 08:53
You do have a very dictatorial stance don't you. And, from your subsequent posts on the topic, for good reason it seems. You are intolerant as to the views of others with regard to this emotive topic, one which you seem to have given a great deal of thought to in fact.

That's Sagittarius for you K&C.

Would you participate in an execution without any qualms as to the taking of human life in a clinical and brutal manner ?

Perhaps clinical but I would certainly avoid the brutal if at all possible. Of course it depends on the circumstances. Actually I normally would not hurt a fly - for ages the wife has been asking me to dispatch our second rooster because we only need one - I keep finding excuses why today is not a good day. Poor innocent thing, after all its only being a rooster, it hasn't committed any crime. Now humans, that is different, they have these things called self-determination, self-conciousness and as you say morality. They are capable of knowing when they do wrong, they are capable of making long-term plans to do something evil, they repeat their evil. And when they are convicted of said evil - yes I could be clinical but I would avoid brutal.

Tell me, do you eat meat? How much brutality do you think is involved in producing your steak? Do you buy Third World products? How much pain and suffering, perhaps child labour, is involved in producing the cheap 10P product that you are so pleased to buy? Do you think that other sentient beings on this Earth are of less value than man? I was a hunter once, I killed, I gutted, I dismembered. Not any more, when you get that close to a dead, beautiful, innocent animal you have killed you can only dislike yourself. But an evil man is different, he has done things beyond the pale of normal behaviour, sickening things that cause pain and eternal loss to a wife or a parent and he did it all in full consciouness of his actions. At that point he does not deserve mercy.

You see KC, I hold man to a higher level of morality than you do and I frankly do not give a darn what you think about my attitudes.


.

StressFree
16th Mar 2015, 09:17
Krystal,

I agree with you 100% on this issue, in a truly civilized society there is no place for the death penalty. Once a criminal is in the hands of the state after a fair trial they become inviolate, our only sanction is the deprivation of liberty, both as a punishment and protection to those against whom the criminal wronged.

Capital punishment will never return to Europe, for that I'm proud.

Best regards.

Tankertrashnav
16th Mar 2015, 11:17
I find myself in agreement with K & C for once (but I don't see what he has against the quote facility!) Like Stress Free I'm pleased the we, along with the rest of Europe, got rid of the death penalty many years ago.

However I accept that other legislations (USA, China etc) do things differently, and I leave it to those countries to do as they wish. I try and avoid getting into pointless arguments on the subject, in the same way that I avoid US gun law threads.

parabellum
16th Mar 2015, 12:17
Capital punishment will never return to Europe, for that I'm proud.

That statement is just too smug. Don't count your chickens yet. Should ISIL manifest itself in Europe it may well become necessary and I, along with many others, would vote for that.

rigpiggy
16th Mar 2015, 12:50
My only issue with the death penalty is prosecution malfeasance. Providing a law is put into place that anybody withholding potentially exculpatory evidence will share the punishment. Because prosecutors and police have never withheld. Anything in their zeal to secure a conviction

Ancient Mariner
16th Mar 2015, 13:06
Stressfree:Capital punishment will never return to Europe, for that I'm proud.

Really?
The death penalty has been completely abolished in all European countries, except for Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Then there are those other 48 countries with proprietary penal systems.
And don't forget the unrecognizables, Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia and so on.
I would not bet a lot of money on neither of those reinstating the death penalty.

Europe is more than the EU. ;)
Per

BOING
16th Mar 2015, 17:01
Eclan

Nope, not contradictory at all. I use "and" as a conjunction not in its Boolean sense.

BOING
16th Mar 2015, 17:44
This thread is about the use of a firing squad to implement a death sentence not about the morality of the death sentence itself but since you choose to make unsubstantiated claims such as the one that the death penalty will never return in England:

Also in August 2011, a representative survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion showed that 65% of Britons support reinstating the death penalty for murder in Great Britain, while 28% oppose this course of action. Men and respondents aged over 35 are more likely to endorse the change.[55]

MOSTAFA
16th Mar 2015, 18:08
Since when did a majority count in the democracy we now call the United Kingdom.

Donkey497
16th Mar 2015, 22:42
From a UK point of view, I don't think that we need to concern ourselves with the death penalty, per se, when we have a handy place like Rockall. Anyone who seriously transgresses the accepted rules of society can get free transport out to Rockall and a free paper boilersuit to keep the weather off while they are there.


If they want to come back after a period of contemplation over their transgressions, they will be welcomed back, with the slate clean. All they have to do is swim back to the mainland.


In a spirit of reconciliation and rehabilitation, the precise time that they wish to spend on Rockall contemplating their transgressions before swimming back to the mainland would be entirely up to them.

alisoncc
16th Mar 2015, 23:34
One might presume that the time-honoured methods, as used in so many TV dramas, of car exhaust fumes or sticking head in the gas oven for ending an existence aren't really as effective as portrayed. Surely if individuals are able to end their own existence with such ease, why should the state with all it's resources find it so much more difficult?

Always liked the car exhaust concept followed by the vehicle being crushed for reclamation, with the TV detective attempting to acquire forensic evidence from the block of metal.

pzu
26th Mar 2015, 01:44
The five ways the US executes - in 45 seconds - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32036455)

PZU - Out of Afruca (Retired)

abgd
26th Mar 2015, 02:34
Surely if individuals are able to end their own existence with such ease

Actually it seems surprisingly difficult to kill oneself. In practice, most people fail. Partly this may be through lack of gumption/resolve (Men are much 'better' at it than Women) but lots of people botch it - take lots of pills then vomit them, ropes break. People shoot themselves then just give themselves a lobotomy or turn into a vegetable rather than dying. It seems it's not as easy as it sounds.

Then poor people with no wish to die trip over their shoelaces, crack their heads on the pavement, and that's that.

tony draper
26th Mar 2015, 12:43
Perhaps that's why many choose the jump from a high point,gravity cares naught for a lack of gumption or the change of mind once the initial step is took.:uhoh:

Jackonicko
26th Mar 2015, 13:34
Thank you K&C, Stressfree and Tankertrashnav for restoring my faith in humanity. There are still intelligent people willing to stand up and be counted and who see a difference between morality and the 'will of the majority'.

In another time, in another place, Boing's revolting ideology could be used to justify what the Nazis did.

I'm not a Christian, Boing, but I admire the basic morality preached by JC.

Love thy neighbour was high on his list of "do"s.
Thou shalt not kill was pretty high up on his list of "don't"s.

bcgallacher
26th Mar 2015, 14:07
A very recent poll in the UK put support for capital punishment below 50%. Over the years I have had a change in opinion because of the number of unsafe convictions in the courts. The present shambles in the US regarding executions does nothing to persuade me that the death penalty is a desire able option in british courts.

teeteringhead
26th Mar 2015, 15:31
Actually it seems surprisingly difficult to kill oneself. In practice, most people fail. As Dorothy Parker noted ......
Razors pain you; rivers are damp; acids stain you; and drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; nooses give; gas smells awful; you might as well live.

BOING
26th Mar 2015, 17:53
Love thy neighbour was high on his list of "do"s.
Thou shalt not kill was pretty high up on his list of "don't"s.

Pity the the criminal involved in torture and murder did not share these beliefs. Go on, tell me he will get his punishment on Judgement Day.


In another time, in another place, Boing's revolting ideology could be used to justify what the Nazis did.

The ideology, as you refer to it, has been practiced since the dawn of mankind, the Nazis, or myself, certainly did not invent it and your Christian church (along with other religions) have been some of its most ardent supporters. The Inquisition, various purges against "heretics" and the various religious wars have stained what we call "civilisation" for the last 2000 years.

I'm not a Christian, Boing, but I admire the basic morality preached by JC.
Interesting philosophical and moral point.
The teachings of JC, in the possibly suspect form that they have been passed down to us, certainly seem admirable. On the other hand we were given free will to choose our own path in life. Which is the greater right or wrong, to passively watch a poor widow being robbed and murdered or to kill her attacker? If we arrive at the Pearly Gates together who gets the browny points, you for letting evil flourish or me for fighting it? Certainly, fighting evil was the norm until as recently as the 1960's, and we have all seen what has happened to society since then.

In the words of TS Eliot from "Murder in the Cathedral" :
The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.


.

West Coast
26th Mar 2015, 18:16
The present shambles in the US regarding executions does nothing to persuade me that the death penalty is a desire able option in british courts.

Sounds like your opposition is with the implementation and not the act itself. Take a poll asking if the guilt is not in doubt, such as the Muslim who killed Lee Rigby. I'd be curious if the same level of opposition exists.

ATNotts
27th Mar 2015, 12:32
such as the Muslim who killed Lee Rigby

Why is the word "Muslim" relevant - if the guilty party were to have been, say, a Jew would the death penalty be more or less appropriate - or about the same?

Hempy
27th Mar 2015, 13:14
ATNotts, that would be the ultra right wing fed media hype scare/hate/need-an-enemy bigotry campaign. Move along.

bcgallacher
27th Mar 2015, 18:48
WC - to be truthful I am a bit ambivalent about this subject. Absolute proof is subject to definition. The human race over the last few hundred years has reduced the number of offences punishable by death,now most developed countries that retain the death penalty do so only in the case of homicide. I do not think it is a deterrent - the US which retains the death penalty in many states has a far higher rate of homicide than the UK. I have absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever,I just feel that we should not kill criminals in a so - called civilised society.

BOING
27th Mar 2015, 18:54
Ah yes, the (King) Arthurian Paradox.

BOING
27th Mar 2015, 23:44
Hello BCG,

There are many people like yourself who claim that a society having the death penalty cannot be civilised.

Could you please point out any academically accepted definition of a "civilised society" that specifically requires the lack of a death penalty as a condition of civilisation?

.

abgd
28th Mar 2015, 08:39
Is there any academic definition of 'civilised'?

A quick visit to google scholar suggests the word is used primarily with reference to the Victorian era.

bcgallacher
28th Mar 2015, 11:22
Boing - read my post again,nowhere have I said that a country that has the death penalty is uncivilised,what I said is that in a so- called civilised society I did not think we should be executing criminals. The last survey in the UK seems to indicate that a majority of citizens seem to think the same way.

LookingForAJob
28th Mar 2015, 11:52
Ergo, the UK is a so-called, civilised society???????

I think I can see why people might want to look for a definition of 'civilised society'.

Hempy
28th Mar 2015, 12:59
In 2015 CE, I'd postulate that any country where it is not de rigueur to hack heads off with a rusty kitchen knife to be 'civilised'. My only issue with the death penalty per se is the proven fallibility of the 'judicial system'.

Unless you are prepared to accept the odd wrongful death as 'collateral damage'. Which is fine..unless YOU are the collateral...

BOING
28th Mar 2015, 15:57
BCG,
Nothing personal in my comment, you just happen to be the last in a series of posters who have, more or less, linked "civilised society" and "no capital punishment" in the same sentence. My point was to suggest that the banning of capital punishment has never been a requirement for a society to be called "civilised". Your moral position is entirely your own and I am pleased to see you have the fortitude to make your stand. However, the general connection that posters have made between civilisation and no capital punishment does not stand examination.

I would, in fact, claim that societies are becoming less civilised as time passes. The classic definition of a civilised society requires a stable social order with its members being willing to work for the greater good. In almost all societies in the World we now see progressive change being replaced by revolution or the stability of society being disrupted by internal stresses.


.

West Coast
28th Mar 2015, 17:44
WC - to be truthful I am a bit ambivalent about this subject. Absolute proof is subject to definition.

What definition? There's no doubt he did it, can you seperate it from guilt specific to Rigby case? If so, you'll have a long successful career as a lawyer here in the US.

You're introducing more than need be. I don't care if the Muslim terrorist (repeated for the luvvies sake) that killed LR had a terrible childhood or other issues that one might consider mitigating circumstances. Some people need killing, the thug in question is in that group.

Tankertrashnav
28th Mar 2015, 17:59
West Coast - have you considered that if we had executed Michael Adebolajo he would have received a swift and painless death and his problems would now be all over? (Ten year stints on "death row" were never a feature of our judicial system, that seems to be peculiar to the US).

As it is he is serving a life sentence with what is called a "whole life tariff" in the UK, which means he will never be eligible for parole. His appeal against the whole life tariff has already been turned down. That means that as he is currently 29 years of age, he could have another 60 plus years to consider the error of his ways before dying in jail. Some may even consider that is a worse fate than execution, but I am perfectly happy that that is his fate.

West Coast
28th Mar 2015, 18:15
I don't think the concept is for him to consider the error of his ways, it's to punish him AND to have others consider the consequences of their actions based in part of that chaps actions.

You can argue it either way as to which is a more effective punishment and you'll come to a conclusion based on your bias towards the DP. That said, does it really matter what law abiding citizens like you and I think is the worst fate for a murderer? An awful lot here go kicking and screaming through the legal process to avoid the DP in favor of sentences that will have them die in custody of old age. Seems clear to me which outcome they prefer.
I rather do admire the few that want their execution in a speedy manner, but they are few and far between.

The Nip
28th Mar 2015, 18:17
T'nav,

Although that could be indeed more severe than a quick death, times change and so do laws. Who is to know that the ECHR might not override the justice system sometime in the future and release this man.

He might even get a house in London and lots of money for hurt feelings...:}

con-pilot
28th Mar 2015, 18:42
Who is to know that the ECHR might not override the justice system sometime in the future and release this man.


Very true, even here in the evil US there have been prisoners serving 'life without the possibility of parole' released from prison.

I know because I've flown a few of them back to the place they were arrested so they could be released. One such elderly gentleman could not stand being free, so he robbed a bank so he would be returned to prison. He had been serving life without the possibility of parole for murder. But on this prisoner’s 80th birthday a liberal federal judge decided to release this guy, ruling that he had served long enough.

So life without the possibility parole is not always what it appears to be.

alisoncc
28th Mar 2015, 18:46
For those who argue against the imposition of a death sentence, what are the other options?

With prisoners allowed conjugal rights in some jurisdictions, allowed out to participate in sports, freedom to practise their religions, the best medical care available, all facilities for study even to higher degrees, unlimited Internet access, etc, etc, etc, is there any element of punishment?

There are many in our societies who lack the freedom to go and do what they want when then want - the disabled, the old and infirm, those with limited finances, etc. etc. So a lifetime in a low stress environment like prison where everything is provided for, for many might not seem too bad, and is little of a deterrent.

It's all very well stating that in a civilised society we shouldn't put to death those whom many consider worthy of it, but what else should we do? Should we bring back the sewing of mailbags or breaking rocks? And would the ECHR allow it? What should we do with those deserving of a death sentence that cannot now be imposed?

PS. Here is an example of what can happen when a Commissioner for Human Rights has a say

http://www.news.com.au/national/bashed-to-death-with-a-bike-should-convicted-killer-john-basikbasik-be-paid-350000/story-fncynjr2-1227184471294

Walt6210
16th Oct 2016, 10:39
Where did you get the info on the execution itself?

Info on what happened aftrr the trial is hard to come by.


Presumably the men who served 8 years had a pretty unpleasant time.

Mmmmm..... Firing squad didn't go too well for Col. Callan (Costas Georgious) and three other mercenaries in the Angola unpleasantness in 1976.

Callan was hit three times and took a couple of minutes to die. Gearhart the only American lined up was hit twice in the collarbone and was eventually dispatched after an MPLA officer fired a full mag into him and missed vital parts, when said officer realized he'd bodged it, threw his weapon down and ran away...Mercenary next to him, an ex Para Brummie Barker actually fainted as order to fire was given. The Angolans figured they had hit him!!!! Nope they missed.He was loaded onto a stretcher apparently dead. Wrong....he came to, wondering wtf is going on. Was eventually dispatched with a double tap to the head after another bodged attempt by the Angolans. Only mercenary killed instantly was ex para Andy McKenzie, guess he was an easier target...he was sitting in a wheelchair after losing a leg. Considering there were five Angolans with automatic weapons to each man, pretty piss poor shooting!!!!!! Did give the Cubans invited to witness the executions some entertainment apparently.

I guess the moral to this episode is if your going via firing squad, either don't use Angolans, or make sure make sure they know how to shoot straight......

I was interested in where you found this info? There isn't much around on what happened post trial to any of them.