Posted on 01/28/2014 12:56:48 PM PST by Second Amendment First
As death penalty states struggle to obtain drugs suitable for lethal injections, more old-fashioned methods of executing prisoners are getting another look.
Lawmakers in Missouri and Wyoming have introduced measures this month that would give their states an option to use firing squads — instead of lethal drugs — to carry out executions. Another bill proposed by a Virginia lawmaker would authorize death by electrocution if lethal injection isn’t possible.
The measures have surfaced as a number of pharmaceutical firms have barred corrections departments from buying drugs that could be used in executions, forcing states to scramble for other suppliers and to experiment with alternative drugs.
The botched, 26-minute execution of an Ohio inmate earlier this month — using a cocktail of chemicals never before used in a U.S. execution — underscored the problem.
“This isn’t an attempt to time-warp back into the 1850s or the wild, wild West or anything like that,” Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin, who sponsored the fire squad legislation, told the Associated Press, which reported on the bills. “It’s just that I foresee a problem, and I’m trying to come up with a solution that will be the most humane yet most economical for our state.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Like those insights based on the Bible?
No, it simply hasn't been implemented.
your reply is non-responsive and irrelevant.
The only two things old Joel Hägglund was talented at were stirring up Wobblies and calling out the "Fire" command at his own firing squad.
Now you assert "non-responsiveness and "irrelevance" with no argument or reasoning to back it up. So far, all you've done is send over assertions with no support.
Joe took fairly bad 19th/20th century “pop” music and added fairly bad Wobbly lyrics to them. For that musical murder, he should have been executed!
Let's go old school and use a Halifax Gibbet.
Let's go old school and use a Halifax Gibbet.
I don’t really like the Halifax Gibbet that much. I believe I just suffered a tremor when I tried to post.
Now you’re blithering.
You claim that the purpose of imprisonment is to protect society from the criminal, and that therefore killing the criminal is not acceptable.
You fail to address the fact that a dead ciminal will NEVER AGAIN offend agaisnt anyone.
Your argument fails the basic test of self consistency.
Perhaps you are content with that; I find it (your argument) ludicrous.
Who's blithering? A dead anyone will NEVER AGAIN offend anyone. Why not kill everyone, that way nobody offends anybody.
You've changed the issue. The issue and my argument is not "never again offend against anyone", but keeping society safe by the incarceration of dangerous criminals.
Incarcerated dangerous criminals can escape or be released.
Dead criminals cannot.
No, I did not change the issue. The issue is protecting society (since you have, falsely, ruled out punishment). So ... protecting society against what? Obviously, repetition of whatever crime the person committed. Again, there is NO better way to protect society againt repeat offenses by a convicted criminal than to kill said criminal. If protecting society is the goal then we should be killing more criminals, not fewer.
The issue really isn’t escaped criminals as they will either be recaptured or die in their efforts. The issue is releasing dangerous criminals back into society. My argument is to prevent that. There are ways of implementing that but the penal system and its priorities must change, including removing cost and overcrowding as an excuse by making prisoners pay their way through prison.
Can't imagine why. It exalts animals over humans, even if the human in question is a Democrat voter, they're still worth less than an animal to a PETA drone.
Again, there is NO better way to protect society against repeat offenses by a convicted criminal than to kill said criminal. If protecting society is the goal then we should be killing more criminals, not fewer.
For some cases they probably could auction off the opportunity to shoot the convict.
I believe in the God-given sanctity and right to life and so does God who knew man would fail, so He Himself took the hit for everyone including that criminal. So even if the criminal takes other lives, God himself has paid for his crimes so the dangerous criminal is not condemned. His right to live has been purchased howbeit away from people on the outside who also have a right to live. So the criminal's right to life stays intact although his right to freedom has been curtailed to protect the lives of others.
No, I am not. Read what I wrote. It does not say that. Our discussion is stalled until you understand what I have written, which at this point you do not.
You have assumed a lot in that post
Society can make punishment as it sees fit. Execution is not only justified but required to prevent terrible crimes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.