Utah Brings Back Firing Squads! lol

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/video/utah-brings ... 10276.html

I do not support the death penalty as I do not feel comfortable executing someone when guilt could be in question and uncomfortable with the government having the ability to decide who lives and dies but principally I do believe that justice is done when the truly guilty are extinguished from this world.

Firing squad seems more humane than lethal injection, the drugs they give for lethal injection basically paralyze you to the point that you suffocate to death all while you are completely aware of everything. It might not look as gruesome for those watching it but it is awful excruciating slow way to die. Hanging and firing squad the quickest cheapest way to go, paying for these million dollar cocktail of drugs which are inhumane is both pointless and cruel.

I don't know, maybe if they make sure to hit the head or heart. What if someone just takes a bunch of bullets to the stomach and limbs? It would take a while to die and there would be terrible pain. I don't understand why they need a whole firing squad. One bullet to the head will do the job.

I pretty much agree with what Jacoby said.

Though nobody really knows, how humane the various method are, they have been very few studies an not without controversy.

Given that they was a string of cases of people begin acquitted having served years, they quality of justice, and due process is just not high enough to support its use.

It is also hugely expensive, the act istelf is only they tip of the iceberg. The economic argument isn't there, despite perceptions.

Utah's most recent firing-squad execution was in 2010. Because it is a very quick death ( http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT ), many firing-squad advocates believe it is more humane. Because certain convicted criminals are later discovered to be innocent, I would prefer a real "life imprisonment without possibility of parole" unless new exculpatory evidence is discovered, but if we are going to have laws providing the execution of certain criminals, it should be by this method or something similarly quick.

My only complaint about the Associated Press news report that I cited is that it states that Utah uses "Winchester rifles" when Utah is home to Browning Arms Co. If true, I suspect that the state might want to reconsider its choice of weapon.

They aim for the heart, they use 6 people so none of them know exactly who fired the deadly shot. One of the rifles has a blank in it too. They secure the prisoner and are probably pretty good marksmen so it seems unlikely that they would miss.

Personally, I think hanging seems a lot simpler and just a question of math when done right which is instantaneous. It isn't the 1800s anymore so it should be pretty cut and dry to do correctly.

I read that part but I don't understand how that helps anonymize the killer.

It lets each rifleman (or riflewoman) "believe" that his or her rifle had the blank, and, therefore, wasn't one of the shooters responsible for the death of another human. But, I remember after the Gary Gilmore firing-squad execution in 1977, that one or more of the riflemen claimed that he could "feel" the difference that the blank makes. Blanks apparently feel different. Besides, in Utah, at least, the identities of the riflemen are confidential, and the riflemen are asked to respect that (though, presumably, they could "come out" as one of the executioners).

Browning is actually the Belgian Fabrique Nationale so it might be better to have Deseret Arms/Desert Tech supply the rifles. Another option to consider for states that do not use the firing squad is the Guillotine. --It's quick, relatively painless, and pretty much foolproof.

I've never understood the rationale behind the lethal cocktail. It's overly complicated and way too expensive compared to an opioid overdose, which is arguably the best way to fade out of existence.

Several center of mass rifle hits is pretty quick and painless (you'll be in shock real quick).

Instant fade to black with drugs is the best (hey, we do it with animals too), but shooting isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Murder warrants the death penalty IMO, and that's what I'd keep it for.

Firing squad makes it so that no single person is responsible for the execution, especially if there's a blank in one of the rifles.

They botched a few hangings of Nazi war criminals from the Nuerenberg trials, by that time they should easily have known about the math to hang someone "decently". And more recently there was the botched execution by lethal injection. I'd rather have someone with a gun nearby to finish it if the normal execution fails. Or let the prisoner choose.

Utah is home to several firearms manufacturers. I just picked Browning because it is the most well known. FN appears to let Browning do what it chooses to do as long as it provides product to FN for worldwide sales. At least one of its firearms is 100-percent Utah-made and, therefore, qualifies under Utah law to be classified as exempt from requiring the ATF 4473 form at purchase (if the purchaser doesn't intend to use or transfer it out of state). Besides, I generally like what FN sells; when I was shopping for my firearms, I road-tested dozens including FN. I liked them.

I don't think the government should favor local suppliers. That is protectionism, it's fine for citizens but the government should be more neutral. If something from another state or country provides better value for money the contract should go to them.

I disagree. State governments, especially, should try their best to keep as much of their tax dollars circulating within their states because that is where the money was gained. That creates and maintains jobs with those states, and improves business revenue which can be used to further increase tax revenue in secondary economic markets like housing, groceries, utilities, clothing, motor vehicles and increased lending where the employees of those businesses with increased revenue are likely to trade their new found wealth. That, in turn, helps the markets to lower prices or increase employment.

Look at it this way: If a particular state governor acted on his or her campaign promise to resist spending even a single tax dollar which had been collected in his or her state, within the state, that would result in the collection of, say, $10 billion from taxpayers on tax day. But, for the following 364 days of the year, the state would be cash poor because it had spent it all in neighboring states. Broke. Of course, other states would benefit from such largesse and its workers would be fat and happy selling to that poor state what it should be providing for itself. The poor-state governor would soon find himself or herself unemployed, too.

Or am I wrong?

I agree that letting government choose the winners and losers of economic decisions would be tyrannical. But, that is why almost all governments in the United States having bidding processes which protect how and to whom government contracts are offered, made and upheld.