My father, a 30-year Marine, said the you know when you're firing a blank and when you're not because of the recoil.Chou wrote:
Seriously about that blank.. if your conscious is in the way, why line up for a firing squad?
I would have shot him in the head on the count of 2 just to see if I had the blank
There you have it and these assigned executors are mostly police officers, they sure as hell would know the difference.Harmor wrote:
My father, a 30-year Marine, said the you know when you're firing a blank and when you're not because of the recoil.Chou wrote:
Seriously about that blank.. if your conscious is in the way, why line up for a firing squad?
I would have shot him in the head on the count of 2 just to see if I had the blank
Coming home late at night: oh my god, it wasn't a blank, i killed a convicted murderer.. whatever shall I do now? ='(((
puhlease
that entire 1 blank for a conscious is just a tissue for the public to show this method isn't barbaric.
Last edited by Chou (2010-06-20 12:18:51)
Agreed.
Serious Flex
we doHarmor wrote:
So how come we don't allow inmates to choose their demise?
Snu-snu anyone?
In Virginia you can choose to take the chair or lethal injection. If you decline to pick, you get the lethal injection.
Not really. The first agent knocks you out painlessly within 10 seconds, it's a pretty standard sedative.ATG wrote:
This.11 Bravo wrote:
well the liberal clap trap causes that shit.Spark wrote:
Couple of studies, most of them point to the total expenditure on a death-row prisoner is more than a life-prisoner.
And lethal injection is more prolonged and probably painful for the inmate.
A firing squad is fast and effective.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Then it shuts down all muscles. So your heart stops and presto - one less scum bag to worry about.Spark wrote:
Not really. The first agent knocks you out painlessly within 10 seconds, it's a pretty standard sedative.ATG wrote:
This.11 Bravo wrote:
well the liberal clap trap causes that shit.
And lethal injection is more prolonged and probably painful for the inmate.
A firing squad is fast and effective.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Unless he was wrongly convicted, then it's one less productive member of society....-Sh1fty- wrote:
Then it shuts down all muscles. So your heart stops and presto - one less scum bag to worry about.
Serious Flex
Wow you're cynical.eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Unless he was wrongly convicted, then it's one less productive member of society....-Sh1fty- wrote:
Then it shuts down all muscles. So your heart stops and presto - one less scum bag to worry about.
Because I'm sure people are inccorectly accused all the time and there just happens to be 100% evidence to charge them of murder and put them to death.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I'm just playing shifty. Don't take it too seriously or you'll wind up with an ulcer
Serious Flex
You did raise an interesting point though. Although I do think the proportions are too small to even consider adapting to.eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
I'm just playing shifty. Don't take it too seriously or you'll wind up with an ulcer
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
one innocent put to death is too many-Sh1fty- wrote:
Wow you're cynical.eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Unless he was wrongly convicted, then it's one less productive member of society....-Sh1fty- wrote:
Then it shuts down all muscles. So your heart stops and presto - one less scum bag to worry about.
Because I'm sure people are inccorectly accused all the time and there just happens to be 100% evidence to charge them of murder and put them to death.
i support the death penalty in 100% guilty cases
not "well we can't really prove that you didn't, so we'll convict you just to be safe for now"
Uhh... not the first agent, no. The first agent is a stock-standard sedative (in ridiculous quantities yes, so it probably would kill you or leave you much the worse for wear, but over a much longer timeframe). The second and third agents kill you.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Then it shuts down all muscles. So your heart stops and presto - one less scum bag to worry about.Spark wrote:
Not really. The first agent knocks you out painlessly within 10 seconds, it's a pretty standard sedative.ATG wrote:
This.
And lethal injection is more prolonged and probably painful for the inmate.
A firing squad is fast and effective.
Last edited by Spark (2010-06-21 02:32:40)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
one innocent death is, indeed, too many
i think the death penalty is one of the most offensive over-hangs from the pre-rational era. we simply don't need it.
encouraging a vindictive and vengeful approach to 'justice' is nothing short of hypocritical.
you cannot structure a society with laws and case-examples and instruct: "thou shalt not kill" to then publicly execute all killers.
i know the tax-question is an independent issue but i really think that state-authorized killing is a crime against humanitarianism.
i think the death penalty is one of the most offensive over-hangs from the pre-rational era. we simply don't need it.
encouraging a vindictive and vengeful approach to 'justice' is nothing short of hypocritical.
you cannot structure a society with laws and case-examples and instruct: "thou shalt not kill" to then publicly execute all killers.
i know the tax-question is an independent issue but i really think that state-authorized killing is a crime against humanitarianism.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
To be honest, who are we to say what is or isn't moral? If you get my drift...
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
errrm.
what sort of question is that.
morality is actually a fairly autonomous, self-determining thing. there is an inherent moral compass within human beings, to an extent.
morality would exist without religion, society or politics, in a loosely humanistic sense; we have certain 'limits' and animal empathies
but on top of that, superstructurally: politicians/statesmen, philosophers/intellectuals, religious/spiritual leaders/dogma, social group-rule and the human arena of interacting sociology, all determine what is 'moral' and what is not 'moral'.
what sort of question is that.
morality is actually a fairly autonomous, self-determining thing. there is an inherent moral compass within human beings, to an extent.
morality would exist without religion, society or politics, in a loosely humanistic sense; we have certain 'limits' and animal empathies
but on top of that, superstructurally: politicians/statesmen, philosophers/intellectuals, religious/spiritual leaders/dogma, social group-rule and the human arena of interacting sociology, all determine what is 'moral' and what is not 'moral'.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
So technically (I never quite understood that word ) we have basic morals we've developped upon and "improved" ?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Yeah for sure! Let's let other people decide what's right and wrong, then just follow what they think!-Sh1fty- wrote:
To be honest, who are we to say what is or isn't moral? If you get my drift...
Don't worry, I'm sure in the Marines they'll tell you whether it's right or wrong to punt puppies off cliffs and so on.
Last edited by eskimo_sammyjoe (2010-06-21 05:00:45)
Serious Flex
That's what we're all doing...eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Yeah for sure! Let's let other people decide what's right and wrong, then just follow what they think!-Sh1fty- wrote:
To be honest, who are we to say what is or isn't moral? If you get my drift...
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
What? Since when?-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's what we're all doing...eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Yeah for sure! Let's let other people decide what's right and wrong, then just follow what they think!-Sh1fty- wrote:
To be honest, who are we to say what is or isn't moral? If you get my drift...
When was the last time you went against your morals because someone told you to?
We have laws to stop those who don't have morals, but the majority of us work out for ourselves the basic rights and wrongs.
Serious Flex
it is one of the primary purposes of the law and judiciary system to continually codify and enable current morality into ruling-statute
that is why the death penalty seems fundamentally flawed and anachronistic: it's a vengeful hangover from a pre-reasonable era
that is why the death penalty seems fundamentally flawed and anachronistic: it's a vengeful hangover from a pre-reasonable era
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yes the majority of us are following the same moral guidelines however, the reason we do so is because they allow us to live in a relatively peacefull society.-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's what we're all doing...eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Yeah for sure! Let's let other people decide what's right and wrong, then just follow what they think!-Sh1fty- wrote:
To be honest, who are we to say what is or isn't moral? If you get my drift...
I don't quite understand how I'm not clear enough.eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
What? Since when?-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's what we're all doing...eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Yeah for sure! Let's let other people decide what's right and wrong, then just follow what they think!
When was the last time you went against your morals because someone told you to?
We have laws to stop those who don't have morals, but the majority of us work out for ourselves the basic rights and wrongs.
To get a law to pass you have to vote for it no? Some vote against it, but they still have to follow it. Hence, they "Let other people decide what's right or wrong"
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
laws do not determine what your personal, subjective opinion deems 'right' or 'wrong'
a successful law will normally co-align with your own beliefs, but that's as far as the correlation goes
a successful law will normally co-align with your own beliefs, but that's as far as the correlation goes
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
There's a difference between law and morals. It's not illegal to do many things but they may not be moral.
Abortion is a classic example...whilst mostly not illegal, many people consider it to be morally wrong.
Abortion is a classic example...whilst mostly not illegal, many people consider it to be morally wrong.
Last edited by eskimo_sammyjoe (2010-06-21 06:18:27)
Serious Flex
Punishment must be harsh for it to be punishment at all. Sending a criminal to a prison where he has better amenities on the inside than he had in his old life does nothing to discourage crime.Uzique wrote:
one innocent death is, indeed, too many
i think the death penalty is one of the most offensive over-hangs from the pre-rational era. we simply don't need it.
encouraging a vindictive and vengeful approach to 'justice' is nothing short of hypocritical.
you cannot structure a society with laws and case-examples and instruct: "thou shalt not kill" to then publicly execute all killers.
i know the tax-question is an independent issue but i really think that state-authorized killing is a crime against humanitarianism.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat