06-30-2015 05:00 PM
209 12345 ...
tools
  1. SteveISU's Avatar
    Big fan of firing squad. Even though the cost of ammo has gone up, it's still the most cost effective and gives you the best bang for your buck (no pun intended).
    01-22-2014 09:34 AM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    Would you say that the judge of the first murderer in history was soft on crime? Maybe the sentence was too light?
    Yes. Absolutely.




    >>> Sent from Coldlanta
    01-22-2014 04:52 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    The rack, iron maiden, or keel hauling. But this is precisely why I am not a judge or any of the like. I am too black and whit
    Can you explain why those methods (i.e. the rack, iron maiden, and keel hauling) are superior to electrocution, the firing squad, the gas chamber, or hanging?
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 04:00 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    Big fan of firing squad. Even though the cost of ammo has gone up, it's still the most cost effective and gives you the best bang for your buck (no pun intended).
    Wouldn't hanging be cheaper than the firing squad? You basically use a rope tied into a noose, and I'm assuming you could reuse the rope for another execution. You can't reuse a bullet that has been fired. Therefore, would hanging be superior to the firing squad?
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 04:17 PM
  5. SteveISU's Avatar
    Wouldn't hanging be cheaper than the firing squad? You basically use a rope tied into a noose, and I'm assuming you could reuse the rope for another execution. You can't reuse a bullet that has been fired. Therefore, would hanging be superior to the firing squad?

    Yeah but too long a rope the guys head snaps off, too short he's hanging there suffocating.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 04:20 PM
  6. llamabreath's Avatar
    Yeah but too long a rope the guys head snaps off, too short he's hanging there suffocating.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    If we use just one rope for ten at a time (a group hang), that would save even more money.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 04:23 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    Yeah but too long a rope the guys head snaps off, too short he's hanging there suffocating.
    Wouldn't a firing squad have similar problems? A bullet to the head would be almost instant death, but a bullet to the stomach would take longer to bleed out.
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 05:54 PM
  8. SteveISU's Avatar
    Wouldn't a firing squad have similar problems? A bullet to the head would be almost instant death, but a bullet to the stomach would take longer to bleed out.

    You'd hope to have a marksmen who doesn't miss by that much. lol

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 06:58 PM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    You'd hope to have a marksmen who doesn't miss by that much. lol
    Some people would prefer to miss the vital organs intentionally, in order to prolong the execution process. As a society, we must decide whether that would be an acceptable practice or not.
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 11:01 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    If you are just trying to do it as cheaply as possible and don't care about morals or anything resembling humanity, then just use a rock for bludgeoning or strangle with your bare hands. If you're trying to inflict pain, that is absolutely disgusting and you seriously need to consider professional help.
    jdbii and palandri like this.
    01-24-2014 11:24 PM
  11. stackberry369's Avatar
    56% of those put to death since 1976 are white, 35% black, and 7% latino. Were's the racial bias?
    Blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty when the victim is white.......

    Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
    jdbii likes this.
    01-24-2014 11:26 PM
  12. palandri's Avatar
    This thread is getting ghoulish.
    01-24-2014 11:32 PM
  13. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I really don't see why forms of execution themselves have ever been such a big deal. If you are trying to kill someone, you are taking a life. What does it matter how you did it? Someone who is tickled to death (if it were possible) is just as dead as someone who was burned to death, stretched to death, beheaded to death, or in any way deprived of life.

    It is the decision to allow for execution as a means of punishment that should be debated, not how we kill the person. It should be noted, in my opinion, that in our efforts to be "humane" that we have pushed ourselves down a path of making the situation overly complicated.

    As Scotty once said, "The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
    01-25-2014 12:30 AM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Nothing can beat the justice of hell.
    Could people confess their sins and embrace a merciful God to avoid an eternity of punishment?
    01-26-2014 12:31 PM
  15. msndrstood's Avatar
    Could people confess their sins and embrace a merciful God to avoid an eternity of punishment?
    Only if you believe in that doctrine.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri likes this.
    01-26-2014 02:04 PM
  16. _Zguy__'s Avatar
    With this "15 minutes" does that include the sedative then allow that to take effect and then the actual killing drug for a minute in a half. If the person is on death row there is appropriate cause for them to go through that little pain.

    I would think at this point we could put the guy under just like any surgery and quickly do whatever a bullet in the back of the head would do
    01-26-2014 05:02 PM
  17. Scott7217's Avatar
    Only if you believe in that doctrine.
    The concept of punishment in the afterlife has interesting consequences as well. For example, let's say the murderer escaped capture from the law and managed to live out the rest of his days. Once he dies of old age or disease, he will be immediately sent to some underworld and be punished for eternity with methods that would be more painful than anything we could imagine. There would be no possibility of getting away with a perfect crime. In the end, all criminals receive the punishment they deserve. Of course, all of this only applies if you believe in that doctrine, too.
    01-27-2014 04:24 AM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    Of course, all of this only applies if you believe in that doctrine, too.
    I think it may be more accurate to state that this all only applies if it is true, and not based on the beliefs. If someone believes it in and it's false, nothing happens. Likewise, if they don't believe in it and it's true, something happens despite their disbelief. Either way, using that as a concept of "justice" also negates the point of having a "justice" system.
    Scott7217 and Tall Mike 2145 like this.
    01-27-2014 04:27 AM
  19. jdbii's Avatar
    The concept of punishment in the afterlife has interesting consequences as well. For example, let's say the murderer escaped capture from the law and managed to live out the rest of his days. Once he dies of old age or disease, he will be immediately sent to some underworld and be punished for eternity with methods that would be more painful than anything we could imagine. There would be no possibility of getting away with a perfect crime. In the end, all criminals receive the punishment they deserve. Of course, all of this only applies if you believe in that doctrine, too.
    It's kind of a nice insurance policy for believers when justice isn't served. If the murderer isn't caught or gets off on a technicality then the victim's family can take solace in their belief that the murderer will face eternal damnation.
    01-27-2014 09:49 AM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    Either way, using that as a concept of "justice" also negates the point of having a "justice" system.
    So, let's say the state uses an execution method that is quick and painless. Would people object to that execution method if they also believe in an afterlife that punishes criminals for eternity?
    01-29-2014 12:14 PM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    So, let's say the state uses an execution method that is quick and painless. Would people object to that execution method if they also believe in an afterlife that punishes criminals for eternity?
    Who cares if people do object, especially for reasons that cannot ever be substantiated? If I objected because I was afraid that it would put us on a path of cause and effect that would prevent any unicorns from ever being born in Tasmania, would we accept that as a good reason to halt the practice?

    We have a legal and moral obligation to keep those beliefs and our laws 100% separate except for when they coincidentally travel in the same direction. If people do object for legal or moral reasons, they can lobby for change by communicating with their state representatives or run for office themselves and try to effect changes. The decision on whether or not to take a prisoner's life and, if so, by what method, should be a moral decision, not an emotional decision, not a religious decision and certainly ought never be construed as a form of or gateway to "punishment".
    01-29-2014 05:13 PM
  22. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Who cares if people do object, especially for reasons that cannot ever be substantiated? If I objected because I was afraid that it would put us on a path of cause and effect that would prevent any unicorns from ever being born in Tasmania, would we accept that as a good reason to halt the practice?

    We have a legal and moral obligation to keep those beliefs and our laws 100% separate except for when they coincidentally travel in the same direction. If people do object for legal or moral reasons, they can lobby for change by communicating with their state representatives or run for office themselves and try to effect changes. The decision on whether or not to take a prisoner's life and, if so, by what method, should be a moral decision, not an emotional decision, not a religious decision and certainly ought never be construed as a form of or gateway to "punishment".
    "Moral Decision"

    Something has to define morals. There has to be some sort of doctrine behind morals. Some sort of a belief system. There is nothing naturally that dictates "right" and "wrong". It is all a point of view and 100% up for debate. When you boil it all down, any religion is effectively just a set of beliefs. No different than any other ideology. No different than any other reason for doing anything. People have such a blind hatred of religion that they forget this. There is no objectively better or worse reason for doing anything. To cry "because God told me to" has just as much merit inherently as crying "because it is the moral thing to do" or even "because it is the logical thing to do". They are all reasons that may or may not be deemed "good" reasons by society, but even that is 100% subjective.

    My point in all this is to say that putting a giant X over anything that has the "religion" attached to it is quite frankly stupid. We already have complete separation of church and state. Even if we elected the Pope president, we still would. Enacting legislation because of religious reasons does not violate any sort of law or intent of the the Constitution. As long as officials are still democratically elected and still held accountable by the people and not by any other entity, church and state will be remain completely separate. Even if all the laws match the teachings of the Bible or Sharia Law and all the politicians are religions leaders. The People control the government and the People dictate what the reasons for laws. And no reason is any more or less valid than any other.
    01-30-2014 02:03 PM
  23. jdbii's Avatar
    My point in all this is to say that putting a giant X over anything that has the "religion" attached to it is quite frankly stupid. We already have complete separation of church and state. Even if we elected the Pope president, we still would. Enacting legislation because of religious reasons does not violate any sort of law or intent of the the Constitution. As long as officials are still democratically elected and still held accountable by the people and not by any other entity, church and state will be remain completely separate. Even if all the laws match the teachings of the Bible or Sharia Law and all the politicians are religions leaders. The People control the government and the People dictate what the reasons for laws. And no reason is any more or less valid than any other.

    I know you are not speaking in absolutes nor do yo mean to be taken literally word for word, but I think it should be pointed out that technically, if the reason for the law is religious reasons then it wold be a violation of church and state. I think that the language and reasoning behind the law would need be "cloaked" to some degree in secular language, otherwise it would get struck down unless a majority of Justices were Bible friendly. One of the first things any court considers is the law's legislative history, and if the Senators and Representatives made speeches that they were enacting and voting for the law because it's the will of the Almighty then it's unconstitutional. (Repeat...I think).
    01-30-2014 02:45 PM
  24. jdbii's Avatar
    Who cares if people do object, especially for reasons that cannot ever be substantiated? If I objected because I was afraid that it would put us on a path of cause and effect that would prevent any unicorns from ever being born in Tasmania, would we accept that as a good reason to halt the practice?

    We have a legal and moral obligation to keep those beliefs and our laws 100% separate except for when they coincidentally travel in the same direction. If people do object for legal or moral reasons, they can lobby for change by communicating with their state representatives or run for office themselves and try to effect changes. The decision on whether or not to take a prisoner's life and, if so, by what method, should be a moral decision, not an emotional decision, not a religious decision and certainly ought never be construed as a form of or gateway to "punishment".

    I don't think it is a moral decision to resort to capital punishment, because if it was a question of morality we wouldn't do it since it's amoral to kill. I also think punishment is one of the reasons any criminal sentence is imposed, be it capital punishment or 30 days in jail. Society imposes punishment, more commonly referred to as retribution, for no other reason then "the criminal did a bad thing and needs to pay." I see that as central to the reason why death penalty advocates support it. Retribution is not the most important reason, but it does stand side by side with with the other reasons why criminal sentences are imposed: Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Incapacitation.
    01-30-2014 03:02 PM
  25. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I know you are not speaking in absolutes nor do yo mean to be taken literally word for word, but I think it should be pointed out that technically, if the reason for the law is religious reasons then it wold be a violation of church and state. I think that the language and reasoning behind the law would need be "cloaked" to some degree in secular language, otherwise it would get struck down unless a majority of Justices were Bible friendly. One of the first things any court considers is the law's legislative history, and if the Senators and Representatives made speeches that they were enacting and voting for the law because it's the will of the Almighty then it's unconstitutional. (Repeat...I think).
    What effectively happens and what is actually intended or interpreted are 2 completely different things.

    As long as the People control the government, church and state are separated. Any reasoning for legislation is the will still be of the People, whether it be in the name of God, science, the Easter Bunny, or "because i like how it sounds". If a church or any other entity ever replaces the democratic process or manipulates the creation of legislation without the consent of the People, then the separation of church and state will be violated.

    Heck, i would argue that the principal behind "Separation of Church and State" has already be trampled on and destroyed by the 2 parties, the media, and the lobbyist that manipulate every part of our government. The People controlling the government is really more of an ideal than a practice. But as long as "religion" is not involved, i guess the ignorant sheep will be okay with any group controlling the government. As long as they have their "Separation of Church and State".
    01-30-2014 03:24 PM
209 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. T-Mobile In Toledo/NW Ohio?
    By redhawk24 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-2014, 07:58 PM
  2. "Mars One" one-way manned mission to Mars. Thoughts?
    By Tall Mike 2145 in forum Politics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 02:18 PM
  3. Support this homeless man's app
    By clankfu in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-11-2013, 12:44 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD