Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Shooting is cruel and unusual? I think you find it tough to show that instant destruction of the nervous system is in any way cruel. And people have been executed with bullets for centuries, its hardly unusual.

Tell that to a court.

Care to elaborate?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Care to elaborate?

There are many arguments that it is, and if you want to prove that it isn't in the sense of the law, which is what we are talking about here. You would need to take it to court and I doubt you would find many people on your side, besides the usual hang the criminals higher than haman crowd.

I'm afraid you would have to prove it is cruel and unusual as the burden of proof is on the party claiming its cruel and unusual. Which would be tough, given the facts I laid out above.

The nervous system gets instantly obliterated, and the technique has been accepted for hundreds of years. Especially in punishment of desertion from armed forces and other applications.

Well seeing how only one state offers it, I say it is pretty much already proven.

Afraid that isn't proof.

Well believe what you want to believe, but there are better ways than blowing someones head off.

The main argument against is that the current methods can cause pain. Bullets are one of the only ways to guarantee instant death. No chance of the individual being semi-resistant, no chance of sedative failing, etc...

We just don't like it because its ''icky'' which is frankly silly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The main argument against is that the current methods can cause pain. Bullets are one of the only ways to guarantee instant death. No chance of the individual being semi-resistant, no chance of sedative failing, etc...

We just don't like it because its ''icky'' which is frankly silly.

Have you actually seen someone shot multiple times before? We are a lot more resilient than you think.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The main argument against is that the current methods can cause pain. Bullets are one of the only ways to guarantee instant death. No chance of the individual being semi-resistant, no chance of sedative failing, etc...

We just don't like it because its ''icky'' which is frankly silly.

Have you actually seen someone shot multiple times before? We are a lot more resilient than you think.

Nobody survives getting their brain stem hit at point blank range. We aren't going to line someone up against a wall 10 feet away like they do in the movies. It would be controlled, the prisoner would be restrained on a table and the weapon fired at point blank range to the base of the skull. Guaranteed instant death.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm afraid you would have to prove it is cruel and unusual as the burden of proof is on the party claiming its cruel and unusual. Which would be tough, given the facts I laid out above.

Actually, it wouldn't be difficult at all. The unusual part pretty much takes care of itself, as the US has moved beyond execution by firearm. Cruel is up for a bit of debate, but as the Supreme Court takes human dignity into consideration it could be argued that a particularly gory death (which your proposal entails) satisfies that criterion.

I think dignity isn't something people getting executed deserve. And that argument is just bogus on its face.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think dignity isn't something people getting executed deserve. And that argument is just bogus on its face.

Same principal that the SS, ISIS and other groups like that use, how enlightened of you.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think dignity isn't something people getting executed deserve. And that argument is just bogus on its face.

Same principal that the SS, ISIS and other groups like that use, how enlightened of you.

Rethink that. Its far far from the same thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think dignity isn't something people getting executed deserve. And that argument is just bogus on its face.

Same principal that the SS, ISIS and other groups like that use, how enlightened of you.

Rethink that. Its far far from the same thing.

Shoving hundreds of people into gas chambers or executing people by firing squads or beheadings. Sounds very similar to things that have been spouted already.

You are equating killing people by the millions whose only crime was having different beliefs or genes with executing a pedophile or a murdering psychopath?

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are equating killing people by the millions whose only crime was having different beliefs or genes with executing a pedophile or a murdering psychopath?

I am equating the methods, which are similar to what you are suggesting.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are equating killing people by the millions whose only crime was having different beliefs or genes with executing a pedophile or a murdering psychopath?

I am equating the methods, which are similar to what you are suggesting.

Its a false equivalancy. Shooting done in a controlled environment is far different from clumsey executions done with definite intent to cause suffering. The only similarity is a bullet is used.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are equating killing people by the millions whose only crime was having different beliefs or genes with executing a pedophile or a murdering psychopath?

I am equating the methods, which are similar to what you are suggesting.

Its a false equivalancy. Shooting done in a controlled environment is far different from clumsey executions done with definite intent to cause suffering. The only similarity is a bullet is used.

Oh so you can just slam the bullet into their head then? You must be very strong, the only difference is that you are hoping to give the person a quick death.

If you really want to kill someone somewhat humanely, there will never be such a thing, just use inert gas asphyxiation.

What is your definition of humanely?

A bullet to the back of the head is considered cruel and unusual because that bullet passes through the brain and out the front of the skull. While you might not consider this relevant in regards to the deceased, the family of the deceased still has rights and would want to see him in tact for any sort of funeral services held. Possibly to see him one last time without his face having a massive hole in it.

There you go.

I'm sure the restriction on cruel and unusual has zero to do with what the family wants. And frankly why should they have any say? There is no right to have an open casket funeral.

If any of my relatives got executed I probably wouldn't have a funeral of any significant size.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm sure the restriction on cruel and unusual has zero to do with what the family wants. And frankly why should they have any say? There is no right to have an open casket funeral.

If any of my relatives got executed I probably wouldn't have a funeral of any significant size.

So, if your child was executed, you would not want to have a funeral?

Not a big one. Depending on the nature of the crime I might not at all.

Hopefully people will remember this the next time they think about helping somebody at the side of the road.

 Ustrello wrote:
Well seeing how only one state offers it, I say it is pretty much already proven.

Actually, that disproves it. If it WAS a violation of the 8th amendment, NO states would offer it.


And you have Utah and Oklahoma (that is two by count) that offer it as at least an alternative to other means.

In one sense any capital punishment is cruel since death is the thing nearly everyone fears above all else.

 JEB_Stuart wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
GC is getting ready for her driving test.

GC is old enough for her test???? How long have I been gone from Dakka?!? You just made me start to feel old Fraz...

Here. Feel older. The Boy is a presenter at MathFest this week in Washington. Take that Mauritania!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
An execution would cost more than life in prison.

Only because our system has too many appeals and delays.

If we either limited appeals or have much shorter unmovable deadlines it would be much cheaper.

Give them 5 years to prove their innocence, then at the end they get a .45 magnum point blank to the base of the skull. Guaranteed instant painless death. No possibility of botching chemicals or other crap.

The .45 would fall under cruel and unusual punishment which is outlawed by the 8th amendment. Don't get me wrong I believe that some people do deserve to die, mostly the most heinous of crimes serial kills/serial rapists, but there are better ways.

Firing squad has been ruled constitutional actually. Death by armpit tickling, has never been adjudicated on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well seeing how only one state offers it, I say it is pretty much already proven.

Only one state because the burden on the shooter's was viewed as too much, not the constitutionality of it.

Death by air dropped piano has never been tested.

I broadly support Grey Templars comments.

Convicted death row inmates don't deserve much 'dignity', however this must be clarified. They should be treated humanely, not abused, and if executed that should be done efficiently and with a minimum of pain caused. - Which frankly goes against practically everything in the US capital punishment system.

However the system is not obliged to have any respect for the convicted. Especially respect as a lot of criminal community understand the word. They haven't earned respect, they have earned polite contempt.

 Orlanth wrote:
I broadly support Grey Templars comments.

Convicted death row inmates don't deserve much 'dignity', however this must be clarified. They should be treated humanely, not abused, and if executed that should be done efficiently and with a minimum of pain caused. - Which frankly goes against practically everything in the US capital punishment system.

However the system is not obliged to have any respect for the convicted. Especially respect as a lot of criminal community understand the word. They haven't earned respect, they have earned polite contempt.

in light of revelations about sloppy work and outright tampering at the FBI lab, a lab here, and other shenanigans I cannot support the death penalty on a pragmatic basis. I will note, the consitutionality of death by forced viewing of The View has been ruled Cruel and Unusual punishment.