That's right Utah is bring back the firinq squad method of execution since European providers of the drugs used for lethal injection have ethical objections to prodiving the drugs to be used for the explicit purpose of killing people. They don't like that and will not be part of it.
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150325238128
Since 2011, the Europe-based manufacturers of the most common execution drugs have refused to sell them to American prisons. They flat-out disagree with the practice, and hope that cutting off the source of the drugs will eventually lead the US to stop executing people.
The Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reported on the boycott at the time: “Though the new restricted list covers the only two drugs currently used in American death penalties, the fear is that intrepid states will find a way round the controls by using other sedatives not on the list.”
And he was right. Since the ban, some states have simply stopped executing people, and by 2013 the number of executions in the US hit its lowest point since 1994. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Maryland and New York have all passed legislation to end the practice in the last decade. Pennsylvania’s governor instituted a moratorium in February to investigate the state’s capital punishment system.
That leaves the handful of states that still execute people – largely Florida, Texas, Missouri, Georgia and Oklahoma – struggling with a dwindling supply of drugs and turning toward other methods. They have most often chosen compounding pharmacies, companies that cook up made-to-order cocktails that resemble the drugs they used to get from the European companies. And they have done so secretly, as states pass laws to protect the makers of the drugs from public disclosure. (The Guardian has sued in several of those states.)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/24/utah-execution-firing-squad-death-penalty
Remarks: Since they are on the govt. payroll anyway (even though they are on black ops budgets), can't they just call in professional marksmen to do the deed without hesitation or guilt?
Good. Maybe they can start with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Personally I am against capital punishment as there are too may cases here in the U.S. of wrongful convictions.
That being said I find it hard to believe that there is only one drug that can be used to humanely kill someone.
Personally I am against capital punishment as there are too may cases here in the U.S. of wrongful convictions.
That being said I find it hard to believe that there is only one drug that can be used to humanely kill someone.
I'm against it too.
as for the drug, have someone convicted and sentenced without any doubt be forced to read the terrorism thread. That should do it...though I'm not sure how humane it'd be.
jk gina... 
I'm against capital punishment because I think it is too much power to give to the State. You would think anyone who wanted a smaller government wouldn't want the government to have the power to kill.
Good. Maybe they can start with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
He wants to die, he wants martyrdom. If the jury returns a life imprisonment verdict, I think the prisoners should be able to opt out for death if they want it. In fact that could be a way to end the debate about death penalty. Just give everyone life imprisonment, and let the prisoner choose if he would rather die than go to jail. or give him times thoughout each year when he could choose death to commute his own sentence. But have the means of death via a trained marksman aka Sniper. Two bullets, clean, precise.
[Edited on 3/28/2015 by gina]
Personally I am against capital punishment as there are too may cases here in the U.S. of wrongful convictions.
That being said I find it hard to believe that there is only one drug that can be used to humanely kill someone.
I'm against it too.
as for the drug, have someone convicted and sentenced without any doubt be forced to read the terrorism thread. That should do it...though I'm not sure how humane it'd be.
jk gina...
I'm against capital punishment because I think it is too much power to give to the State. You would think anyone who wanted a smaller government wouldn't want the government to have the power to kill.
What do you think about just rewriting the laws so that there is no death penalty, just life imprisonment with the ability of the prisoner to choose death if he/she wants to at any point after conviction?
As it is now, the judges determine if life imprisonment can become commuted and the person released after a certain point or a certain amount of years served or if they can never get out.
The lethal injection uses two drugs, one paralyzes the muscles in the body, how humane is that? Nobody knows how much pain the person will feel as the drugs try to disrupt their life. Having had surgeries I can tell you even when you are not conscious, your body feels pain. During one surgery at one point my blood pressure shot waaay up, in response to the pain from the procedure, they had to give me more doses of pain meds to bring it down. During another one, it must have been bad because when I woke up I was screaming "Pain" with nurses looking at me. Pain is not just a conscious perception, the body knows. I don't think they die a humane death via lethal injection. A firing squad is messy. Why put someone thru all that? I think my idea is better. (marksman 1 shot, 1 extra just to make sure).
[Edited on 3/28/2015 by gina]
The Spirit and Beings continue unselfishly to maintain life upon our planet, restoring us nightly, and forgiving us our wilful blindnesses far beyond our spiritual or bodily capacity of repayment. If the Spirit, Who is Life, exacted an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, this world would indeed be peopled with the blind and the toothless.
- Henry Powell Spring
True, but mankind will not follow the edicts, advice of the enlightened creator of life. He gave his commands very simply, not written by lawyers with all types of contingencies. Then he saw how mankind was, and found it necessary to send messengers to show mankind how to live according to his ways. Man still refused, and hunted and still does, the messengers sent to a planet perpetually at war with one another and even the land itself. Drilling and stealing the minerals and precious stones from the earth, taking the oil which is a stabilizing force for the tectonic plates, using the oceans as cesspools and then fishing from it to feed people. Mans transgressions are many. Man will not stop judging, imprisoning, or executing people till Judgement Day, that was foretold also.
Maybe Man in general, but the individual can still choose to follow his/her conscience. You have shown in many posts that you support the death penalty, as long as it is "humane" such as your Taliban bullet to the brain stem.
Why even use a drug, or combination of drugs?
One of the case studies I had while going for my criminal justice degree involved a family that was murdered in south Georgia. One of the women was repeatedly raped, chunks of meat from her breasts were bitten off, and she was shoved face down into a fire ant hill. (If you've never stepped in a fire ant hill, don't.)
Do you think it would be cruel and unusual punishment to have the person who did that to this woman put to death in the same manner? Give him to a bunch of "Bubbas" in lockup, slice up his chest a bit, and put him face down in the fire ants? He obviously thought it was great fun, so why should he not get back the same as he gave?
Say you purposefully aim your car at someone and kill them when you force them under the wheels.
Strap that person to a couple of strong boards at the end of a long, steep incline. Put a junker car at the top of the hill and let it roll down. No drugs or firing squad needed.
If you think the method is cruel, think about the victim they murdered in the same way, and feel for them.
Sadly,victom's rights are often overlooked.
I'm against capital punishment because I think it is too much power to give to the State. You would think anyone who wanted a smaller government wouldn't want the government to have the power to kill.
I agree. The death penalty is wrong. There is no disclaimer on the first commandment.
Maybe Man in general, but the individual can still choose to follow his/her conscience. You have shown in many posts that you support the death penalty, as long as it is "humane" such as your Taliban bullet to the brain stem.
My views on it are complex. IF man is gong to have a death penalty, then I favor to be done humanely, and the (Afghan) Taliban do it that way. Even the Pakistani Talibs who gave their oath of allegiance to Mullah Omar try do it as humanely as possible according to their own beliefs. I have seen the videos of the execution of Colonel Imam, and many of those there wanted to shoot him multiple times, but Hakim Ullah Mehsud stopped them and did it himself with just two bullets. He also explained why they killed him, it was retribution for what the Colonel did to the Arabs back in the 1980's, they witnessed it first hand.
I have seen the video of a stoning in Waziristan. Then they told the fighters to select big rocks to make it as quick and painless as possible. They were carrying out execution in accordance with the ways known to them to be correct. I think the Afghan way with the bullet to the brainstem was more humane, but each group follows their own beliefs.
It s a complex issue, the Islamic belief is that the family, relatives of the deceased can choose the punishment of the person who did the crime, in secular law, the state prosecutes the person and then chooses possible punishments, and lets a jury of people unrelated to the case decide.
Death is everyone's final outcome to life. Since God tells you that life and death are in his hand, in natural circumstances he decides when and how someone will die, I am basically opposed to a jury giving someone a death penalty; but I also think in that situation, it should be the person who gets to choose when and how they will die. I think it is better to just stop giving the power to the state and unrelated people over someone else's life. Give them life in prison and let the convicted person choose when they will die. That balances out the state taking over God's stated right of vengeance (he said it was his right to levy vengeance for injustice), but since secular law and the state have decided to play God and take that right, let the person opt out for death when he chooses to, which is an act of mercy or cowardice depending on your point of view.
Life imprison the convicted gets to choose when the marksmen comes to end his life.
I have seen the video of a stoning in Waziristan. Then they told the fighters to select big rocks to make it as quick and painless as possible.
They are really teddy bears at heart. Maybe we could suggest they use Nerf rocks, then they could prove how warm and fuzzy they all really are.
What you have not recognized is that even when they feel they have to do something terrible because it is part of following their religion, they temper it with as much mercy as possible. They did not seek vengeance on the woman, they did not humiliate her, they followed the laws as they believe them to be but they also thought about her suffering and wanted to minimize it as much as possible within the confines of their laws. I think stoning is un-Islamic based on some Quranic verses, but that is an issue I would need to take up with the scholars of Islam and those in the madrassas I know it originated in Judaism, there are some practices from Judaism that were carried over into some sects in Islam.
What you have not recognized is that stoning is totally barbaric.
even when they feel they have to do something terrible because it is part of following their religion, they temper it with as much mercy as possible
I see, a lot like ze nice nazis who were chust followink orders, and would shoot ze prisoners in ze back when ze kommandant was not lookink.
I have seen the video of a stoning in Waziristan
Cool ! Muslim snuff porn ! Kinky !
What you have not recognized is that stoning is totally barbaric.
even when they feel they have to do something terrible because it is part of following their religion, they temper it with as much mercy as possible
I see, a lot like ze nice nazis who were chust followink orders, and would shoot ze prisoners in ze back when ze kommandant was not lookink.
I have seen the video of a stoning in Waziristan
Cool ! Muslim snuff porn ! Kinky !
Yes, stoning and beheading are so civilized. Those screams from the people being beheaded are actually cries of joy at the humane treatment they are getting. 😛
And such a thrill to viddy a malenky bit of the horrorshow ultraviolence, wouldn't you agree,
me droogy droogs?
Aloha Snackbar !!!!!!!
What you have not recognized is that stoning is totally barbaric.
even when they feel they have to do something terrible because it is part of following their religion, they temper it with as much mercy as possible
I see, a lot like ze nice nazis who were chust followink orders, and would shoot ze prisoners in ze back when ze kommandant was not lookink.
I have seen the video of a stoning in Waziristan
Cool ! Muslim snuff porn ! Kinky !
Yes, stoning and beheading are so civilized. Those screams from the people being beheaded are actually cries of joy at the humane treatment they are getting. 😛
Stonings are not civilized at all, my point was that they believed they had to to do it that way, but even though they believed they had to do that, they tried to make it as fast and painless as possible. As to the beheadings, the way it was described was that it was done like the halal /kosher way animals are slaughtered, they sever the carotid artery first and then the animal will not feel any more pain, nor a person. I watched one beheading, it was just horrible, I had to stop before they completely severed the head, because once you see something like that, you really cannot get those images out of your mind.
Al Qaida has said the way they behead people is that they anesthetize them first, they inject them with sedatives, so they are not as terrorized as they would normally be. Then they sever the carotid artery before they saw thru the muscles, tissues on the sides of the neck. I don't know what Isis does, and some of the videos from Pakistan suggest they just cut the heads off without anesthetic.
Beheadings are UNISLAMIC because the Quran says God put the parts of the body where he wanted them, he says not to cut bodies (ie. tattooes, piercings), and it is said not to alter God's creation. Well beheading people is most definitely altering his creation, therefore it goes against the guidance in the Quran. The people doing the beheadings read the passages that say they can smite the necks of those they fight against, and they consider beheadings smiting their necks.
Stonings are Unislamic because the Quran specifies penalties for the free woman, and the slave woman, one of the penalties being half what the other woman receives. Stonings cannot be halved, therefore it is not permissible.
The requirements for conviction of adultery require FOUR witnesses, witnessing penetration in the sex act. That requirement is never found, nobody goes around looking in the windows of other people's houses, and for the most part over there where stonings and beheadings occur, the windows are painted black to stop maruauders or nosy soldiers from looking anyway. If the people admit to it, then they are deemed guilty, but the Quran says they should be kept in their houses.
People in rural areas follow what has been taught to them, what has been passed down to them. Many are not literate, they learn from recitation. That's why it persists in this manner.
You love it. Adrenalin rush from fear and self righteousness, alright, gimme another terror fix !
Beheadings are UNISLAMIC because the Quran says God put the parts of the body where he wanted them, he says not to cut bodies (ie. tattooes, piercings), and it is said not to alter God's creation. Well beheading people is most definitely altering his creation, therefore it goes against the guidance in the Quran. The people doing the beheadings read the passages that say they can smite the necks of those they fight against, and they consider beheadings smiting their necks.
Doesn't Islamic law say that those who steal shall have their hand cut off, or have I been misled about that?
Wonder how long Gina would last under Sharia Law?
Beheadings are UNISLAMIC because the Quran says God put the parts of the body where he wanted them, he says not to cut bodies (ie. tattooes, piercings), and it is said not to alter God's creation. Well beheading people is most definitely altering his creation, therefore it goes against the guidance in the Quran. The people doing the beheadings read the passages that say they can smite the necks of those they fight against, and they consider beheadings smiting their necks.
Doesn't Islamic law say that those who steal shall have their hand cut off, or have I been misled about that?
There are those that believe that it does, the same way some people take literally from the Bible where it says if your eye causes you to sin, better to take it out than to sin. Should people follow a literal translation? I think that since repentence and forgiveness are big points in Islam (there is an entire chapter on Repentence, and the Bible repeatedly tells people they have to forgive other people's transgressions) the more correct way is to not alter the body. Those who steal should do community service work if they cannot make restitution. That would be better for them and the community at large.
[Edited on 4/13/2015 by gina]
I have seen the video of a stoning in Waziristan. Then they told the fighters to select big rocks to make it as quick and painless as possible. They were carrying out execution in accordance with the ways known to them to be correct. I think the Afghan way with the bullet to the brainstem was more humane, but each group follows their own beliefs.
I must say that for once I am forced to agree, that the Taliban Bullet To The Brain Stem is more humane than stoning with carefully selected big rocks.
However, continuing the line of reasoning from the other capital punishment discussion, I still have to go with the guillotine over either of the above, when it comes to production-line execution.
But of course, I am just following my own beliefs. To each his own.
Do the math. What do you think the most humane way to execute millions of people detained in FEMA camps would be? There won't be any way to feed all, or maintain hygiene, something will have to be done. Ideas?
[Edited on 7/4/2017 by BrerRabbit]
