Utah Brings Back Firing Squads! lol

Post Reply New Topic

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.

Well, that assumes that all other states are doing it as well. In the EU all national and local governments are obligated to have open bidding that allows companies from other member states to compete. If you just circulate the money in your own state you are possibly keeping a mediocre company afloat just because it is in your own state. In this the EU is actually pretty capitalist. Because of comparative advantage your government could save money by buying from other countries, and they save money by buying from your state.

Oh, another thing I find strange is that in the US and UK politicians have regional constituencies. I don't think politicians should favor certain regions or groups, but use their own ideology to represent all citizens. It doesn't really help if people lobby to get some money for their own region, when it might be better spent elsewhere. That is what annoys me in European elections, I have to vote for a Dutch person even if I think for example a German or Irish person would be better.

I think the electric chair is the way to go when it comes to executions if there is going to be a death penalty.

The U.S. government has similar laws and regulations for fair bidding when federal funds are in play. So, if Utah wants to improve its federal highways, it needs to abide by those rules. Within Utah, as far as I know, there is a percentage of government contracts that must be given to Utah-based businesses who wish to contract. And, yes, the Utah government does welcome contracting with out-of-state businesses with whom it has had previous relations. But, for example, its governor is currently faced with legislation and public opinion that he should employ Utah businesses when the Utah State Prison ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Prison ) is moved or rebuilt. Protecting business and jobs here is a big issue, especially since the Utah Senate president owns the land surrounding the old prison and stands to gain financially and controversially unless the prison remains where it is (the current frontrunner among other possibilities). For what it is worth, we have one of the most successful economies and top-ranked budget processes in the United States. In other words, in works well for us. YMMV.

Still, it is a financial transaction for non-financial reasons. It is a real possibility that the total value created (for the entire US) would be more if all states opted for the best bid instead of their own economies.

Wellll, maybe in a vacuum. But, let's not forget that NASA Flight Director and manager Gene Kranz wrote in his book, Failure Is Not an Option, that "[w]hen reporters asked Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard what he thought about as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, 'The fact that every part of this ship was built by the lowest bidder.'"

That statement resonates when we consider the fact that 40 percent of the U.S. Space Shuttle fleet and the Mars Climate Orbiter probe were destroyed by the acts of the lowest bidders (including the infamous "O-rings" which failed during the first shuttle explosion, and were made, incidentally, in Utah).

I dunno. It seems that the matter is influenced either by the corruption of no-bid processes or by the ineptitude of lowest-bid contractors.

As far as effective or painless ways to die, it would seem that the opioid overdose would be the least painful-just sort of fading out and off, like being put under anesthetic and not being brought back up. As many people as are put under general anesthetic every day one would think that process would be effective. Put 'em under and then let 'em drop off. It is a far kinder death than what likely was inflicted upon a capital killer's victims. I think public firing squad and/or public hanging for capital crimes would put a quick end to the "gangsta" mentality, but there are too many soft-headed bleeding hearts who believe that keeping killers up on the taxpayer dime with free medical care and three hots and a cot is more important than caring for military veterans, or the disabled who can't care for themselves, but I digress.

I understand that the Eighth Amendment (at least here in the US) forbids cruel and unusual punishment, so we can't torture people to death. I believe in capital punishment, especially for cold-blooded murderers, and also for rapists and child molesters. If one commits a capital crime and there is proven to be no reasonable doubt, then the death penalty should be served quickly (it is a provision of the Sixth Amendment- to be served with a speedy trial- which should follow with speedy punishment, and it was, until the bleeding hearts took over the judicial system in the mid 20th century.) But as of the past thirty or forty years many states have either given up the death penalty or reserved it for almost impossible circumstances. There are times when inflicting death would be more humane- to the perpetrator as well as the victims' families who want to see that justice is done.

I would like to see every state bring back public executions for capital crimes. Whether it be firing squad, hanging, electric chair or lethal injection, the public has a right to know, and to witness, when a capital criminal is taken out of society. When did it turn about that justice is more about preserving the perpetrator's rights (that he forfeited upon committing the capital crime) rather than protecting society and securing justice for victims?

I know...I sound like a big old meanie- but I care more about innocent people and their families than I do thugs.

It seems like executions are done more with the spectator in mind than any genuine feelings about what is humane or not, with a hanging it can be either be done with too little force to break the neck and they die slowly of strangulation which can take up to like 30 minutes or it can be too much and they can be decapitated which while terribly gruesome to see is still instantaneous.

Good, hopefully the rest of the states with death penalty follow, no more of those expensive drug complications.

Hanging is anything but "simple". Its very complex (regardless of which century you're doing it in).

The simplest, and hardest to botch method, is probably the guillotine. Its not humane to the witnesses, but its relatively humane for the victim (much less painful than electrocution). Twentieth century guillotines (France still used them in 1939) looked more like CAT scan machines (very clinical) than they do like the outdoor tall wooden shaft things used in Napoleonic times (with the sun glinting off of the steel blade in the public square).

Firing squad isnt too bad. Six guys aim at your chest. If they miss your heart you're still gonna go pretty fast from four or five rifle rounds going into your rib cage I would think.

Victims should receive justice, but it is law of the land an all of the subjects, not law of a victim. We don't have system like in the gulf states, were the victim determines the fate of the accused. The term "retribution justice" is often misused in a legal context. Legal principles cannot just be abandoned.



I care about due process and justice for all.

Do away with the death penalty.

I have trouble understanding how any reasonable person can fail to see that supermax is punishment enough.

I heard recently that the European courts or some other such organisation has ruled that life without any chance of parole is also inhumane. That even the worst evil nutcases deserve a chance to redeem themselves (which in the case of the really wacky people is very unlikely to happen of course).

I wonder if the US will ever catch up with the rest of the west in this regard.