Florida Lawmaker on the Death Penalty: "If it were up to me we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it”

Florida state Rep. Brad Drake submitted a bill Tuesday that would do away with lethal injection and give death row inmates a choice between the electric chair or a firing squad. According to The Current, Drake came up with the idea for the bill while talking to a constituent recently at a DeFuniak Springs Waffle House. "'You know, they ought to just put them in the electric chair or line them up in front of a firing squad,'" the constituent said. Drake, a Republican from Eucheeanna, agreed.

While it's usually the case that states change their capital punishment laws to make the practice seem less barbaric, Drake is "so tired of being humane to inhumane people." When asked by The Current about two instances in which Old Sparky (the nickname for Florida's electrified murder chair) left one convict alive and set another's face on fire, Drake said, "In the words of Humphrey Bogart (sic), 'Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.'" (The "sic" is because Drake misquoted Clark Gable.)

Democratic Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel-Vasilinda, who is pushing for an end to capital punishment in Florida, said the bill "seems to be [a] little bit regressive, frankly." 

But not as regressive as Drake's preferred method of execution. "There shouldn't be anything controversial about a .45-caliber bullet," he told The Current. "If it were up to me we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it." 

(H/t FAMM's Greg Newburn.) 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • o3||

    what about hanging also?

  • Almanian||

    Your autoerotic preferences are between you and your sexual organ(s).

  • o3||

    gas chamber then

  • Suki||

    More complicated technology is not the answer when natural, organic gravity can do the trick.

  • ||

    Keep your gas to yourself.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: o3,

    gas chamber then


    "If you offer your outhouse as a gas chamber for executions, you may be a Redneck too!"

  • o3||

    ok that's kinda funny...a progressive redneck...hummmm...not sure what that looks like

  • NRA Lobby||

    Reminds me of this piece from the defunct Modern Humorist: http://www.modernhumorist.com/.....enalty.cfm

    Alternative Deathstyles: The Executioner's Lobbyists

  • Pip||

    That was great! Thanks!

  • WTF||

    "If it were up to me we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it."

    Why not sentence them to "Rehab" per Idiocracy?

  • WTF||

    "If it were up to me we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it."

    Why not sentence them to "Rehab" per Idiocracy?

  • Apatheist||

    I'd prefer we'd have the psicorp erase their personality so they can be productive members of society.

  • Au H20||

    God, Babylon 5 was an awesome show. And the episode that addressed that was A FREAKING MAZING. The whole Jesus comparison worked really well.

  • ||

    If there's nothing controversial about a bullet, how does that directly segue into throwing people off the Skyway? Which, incidentally, is way the hell up.

  • Mensan||

    If I recall it's about 200 feet high at the roadway. I got stuck in traffic on there one day while they talked down a jumper.

  • Matt||

    I support this. If you are going to kill someone, why are you trying to sanitize the process of the killing? If you do, it shows you aren't comfortable with the morality of what your actions. Not to mention the fact that lethal injection is probably the least humane method of killing since drawing and quartering.

  • Matrix||

    Guillotines for all?

  • Sparky||

    Now we're getting somewhere!

  • ||

    I agree with you Matt. Throwing them off a bridge may be a bit tacky. But, it is still killing them either way. If you don't have the stomach to throw them off a bridge, perhaps you shouldn't have the stomach to give them the needle.

  • Matrix||

    Why not burn them at the stake? What about feeding them to the lions? Or putting hemlock in their last meal? Tie a large rock around them and throw them in the river to sleep with the fishes. Use them as live targets for our service members to practice shooting bad guys? How about making gladitorial events for them to participate in? Winner's can have their death penalty reversed, but still spend life in prison. Or they just win to fight another day.

  • ||

    Cue Heroic Mulatto and a juicy post of creative death porn and other such snuffery.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Great, they had to post this while I was out to lunch!

  • ||

    Do you have any idea how much the upkeep for those Execution Lions would cost?

  • ||

    I dunno. Seems like we wouldn't have to buy much lion chow.

  • ||

    Seems like we wouldn't have to buy much lion chow.

    I'm thinking Vet bills.

  • ||

    People are not as clean as they used to be.

  • T||

    Gonna have to speed up the appeals process some to avoid paying for lion chow.

  • Matt||

    Also, what about their teeth? Could play havoc with a lion's digestive system. You should probably break them out with a hammer or something before you kill them so the lions don't get hurt.

  • Matrix||

    just toss 'em in at the local zoos. Kids would have an educational experience.

  • ||

    Zoo Lions are not qualified for execution duty.

  • Roy||

    I can attest for the execution worthiness of the white ones.

  • ||

    I can attest for the execution worthiness of the white ones.

    [pedant] Tiger [/pedant]

    (also, he didn't die.)

  • Pip||

  • Barack Obama||

    Let me be clear.

    We are cutting the deficit one death row inmate at a time.

  • ||

    Stake is inhumane, so are lions, hemlock might be ok, rock and river is too complicated, live targets would be inhumane. Gladiatorial events might have survivors and too complicated.

    The answer is Guillotine. Best method ever for execution.

  • ||

    The cross - if it was good enough for JC it's good enough for anyone.

  • Matrix||

    Frankly, I could not care less about murderous scum who destroy productive citizens of this country. However, too many of those innocent productive citizens are imprisoned and executed for murders committed by someone else. That alone makes me hesitant to support capital punishment.

  • Almanian||

    C'mon - omelets, eggs...what's a couple dead innocents when we're protecting our CHILDREN?

    /idiot

  • Hugh Akston||

    Productive Citizens LOL. This is why death penalty advocates are impossible to parody.

  • J_L_B||

    Support for the death penalty remains high despite wrongful convictions for a few reasons.

    First, there's no well-known individual that has been proven to be wrongfully executed. When pushed for a name, no one can point to a well-known person who was wrongfully executed. Contrast that with the long list of people who are touted as wrongfully acquited (OJ, Casey Anthony, Robert Blake, etc.).

    Second, they conclude that people aren't death row aren't first time offenders convicted solely of murder. The image is of a serial offender with a violent past who finally committed the worst of offenses and is receiving the ultimate punishment. Basically even if they didn't do it, you're exonerating people with a long history of legal issues; not exactly saints.

    Third, the disparity in punishment. A few I've asked about the death penalty say it's not fair for someone to take someone's life and then receive a punishment less than his crime. They described it as robbing a bank for $2,000 and then being fined $1,500 for the crime.

  • Reformed Republican||

    There have been clear cases of death row inmates exonerated due to DNA evidence in the past couple of decades. Given that fact, it is statistically likely that there were people in similar situations that were executed before DNA testing could be done, and people who still might be executed, though innocent, due to lack of DNA evidence.
    Personally, I would rather have an occasional guilty person go free than execute an innocent. A life sentence, instead of an execution, gives the possibility of some correction if later evidence proves innocence. That is not possible in the case of an execution.

  • J_L_B||

    Given that fact, it is statistically likely that there were people in similar situations that were executed before DNA testing could be done, and people who still might be executed, though innocent, due to lack of DNA evidence.

    Can't argue with that, but like I said, most people see those as violent offenders who, even though they were innocent of murder, were still probably guilty of pretty bad acts and hence aren't goinge to get their sympathy.

    I would add that a lesser reason is the concern about what life in prison has become in countries with no death penalty. The impression is that those countries have kowtowed to their criminals so much that life in prison means a few decades and then you're out. Here in the US, we still have people in prison who were sentence to life in the 1940's. Anywhere else they probably would've been released in the 1970's.

  • o3||

    reformed - maybe sentance the white killers to life & teh blackz to death.

  • o3||

    derp i just peed myseflf lol

  • Abdul||

    Death penalty opponents may be victims of their own success. They have tried to argue that lethal injection is cruel and unusual. they've gotten one of the companies that makes one of the ingredients to stop selling it for death penalty purposes.

    However, the firing squad is constitutional and in place in Utah. States that want to avoid litigation and other hassles with lethal injection can always go low tech the way Rep. Brad Drake suggests.

  • Mike M.||

    Utah actually banned death by firing squad several years ago, though a man was executed that way last year because he was on death row before the law was passed and he insisted on his "right" to the firing squad. He may well end up being the last American to ever get it.

  • Abdul||

    They did away with the firing squad before they changed that stupid law about being a member before you can drink in a bar?

    what's wrong with you, Utah?

  • prolefeed||

    The Doctrine and Covenants doesn't specifically address the morality of firing squads, while it is relatively clear about alcohol.

    Not defending their idiotic laws which violate the Mormon doctrine of "agency", just pointing out how their minds think.

  • Apologetic California||

    This post is a test whether you're a true libertarian or not. If you laughed like I did and sent "Go do it! I'd pay to see them toss these fuckers over the bridge!" then you need to hand-over that LP badge.

  • Almanian||

    But can I keep the decoder ring?

  • Sean||

    That made me laugh. A lot.

  • ||

    So if you would have gladly put a bullet in Ted Bundy's head, you are not a libertarian? Libertarianism means pacifism?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Libertarianism means erring on the side of non-aggression except in cases of self-defense.

  • ||

    I disagree.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Perhaps you'll change your tune after I beat the shit out of you.

  • ||

    Not at all. I will just be plotting my revenge.

  • ||

    Are you 5 years old?

    If you are, I applaud your learning proper grammar and typing at a young age. Otherwise you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Hugh Akston||

    OFFS Tulpa, even John got the joke. The real reason to oppose the death penalty is that, no matter how many people we execute, it will never bring your sense of humor back to life.

  • ||

    it will never bring your sense of humor back to life.

    Tulpa had a humorectomy at birth; not coincidentally, it was also his circumcision. Talk about a two-fer!

  • Pip||

    Nascent micro-surgery, no doubt.

  • ||

    Looks like Hugh is the latest player in the clown nose on, clown nose off game.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The court order mandates that I have to wear something when I leave the house, but it fails to specify what. A clown nose does the job, but still allows me to express myself through the glory of my body.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No, Tulpa, you just are one of those high-functioning Asperger syndrome folks. Hence, your job as a Mentat.

  • ||

    Asperger's is actually a badge of honor in my profession. Maybe I have it, maybe not; really doesn't matter as I'm too old for a diagnosis either way to make a difference. Like most types of "personality disorders" the symptoms are present in moderate forms in many people who don't actually have the disorder. (which begs leads to the question of whether it's a disorder at all)

  • Tman||

    Libertarianism doesn't mean people can't support executions. It just means that you wouldn't trust the government to do it properly.

    Like John said, I have no problem with executions for truly sick bastards like Ted Bundy, but that doesn't mean I trust the government to do it.

  • Gojira||

    Then the issue becomes how does one define a "truly sick bastard". What's "truly sick" to you might just be "pretty bad" to someone else, etc.

  • Tman||

    Then the issue becomes how does one define a "truly sick bastard".

    No, the issue is whether or not I believe the government is trustworthy enough to apply capital punishment as a penalty for conviction of truly heinous crimes -crimes that society has deemed worthy of the worst punishment, whatever that may be- in a court of law.

    I don't.

  • ||

    But you do trust the government to lock people up for the rest of their lives properly?

    It's unavoidable that if you're going to have coercive punishments for crimes, someone has to decide what they are. And it's juries that do this in our system, btw, not the govt.

  • ||

    And it's juries that do this in our system, btw, not the govt.

    Still peddling this horse shit, I see.

  • ||

    It happens to be a fact, which your content-free reply would seem to confirm.

  • ||

    Yes, it is a fact you are still peddling this horse shit. I'm glad you admit it.

  • Tman||

    But you do trust the government to lock people up for the rest of their lives properly?

    No, but if someone is locked up in error, there is a recourse to get them out. The system isn't perfect and there are thousands of people who have been released from jail after serving time for crimes of which they were innocent. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a jail system to begin with.

    This isn't the case with the death penalty, which is why I don't support it. You can't bring someone back from the dead if you screw up.

  • ||

    You can't give someone 20-30 years of their lives back either when you discover the oopsie. You can't wave your hands and say "oh well nobody's perfect" with regards to life imprisonment and then turn around and say that the death penalty has to be completely perfectly implemented or be abolished.

  • Tman||

    You can't give someone 20-30 years of their lives back either when you discover the oopsie.

    No, but some have successfully sued the ever loving shit out of the people who screwed up. This doesn't fix anything but it's better than nothing.

    You can't wave your hands and say "oh well nobody's perfect" with regards to life imprisonment and then turn around and say that the death penalty has to be completely perfectly implemented or be abolished.

    Yes I can, for the reasons I stated above. A fraudulent life sentence can be reversed and the person set free, thus it is partially reversible. A fraudulent death penalty conviction is completely irreversible.

    Are you the new Mingey now, or am I just late to the party?

  • ||

    You are right. It is partially reversible. But I am not sure that is much of an advantage. We can't get the years back. And if the death penalty is off the table, the only way we have to deter criminals sentenced to life from committing crimes in prison is to set up inhumane punishments like super max prisons. You guys act like there are no downsides to eliminating the death penalty. There are.

  • Tman||

    You guys act like there are no downsides to eliminating the death penalty. There are.

    I'm aware of the downsides, but I don't think they outweigh the downsides of the state sanctioned execution of an innocent person.

  • ||

    Maybe you sleep better knowing that innocent people are locked up for the best years of their lives on the faint hope they are some day freed, but I don't. I don't see that as any better than the death penalty.

  • Tman||

    Maybe you sleep better knowing that innocent people are locked up for the best years of their lives on the faint hope they are some day freed

    I never said I sleep better because of this. I said we have an imperfect system. It's rife with problems and more should be done to fix it.

    I don't see that as any better than the death penalty.

    Again, A fraudulent life sentence can be reversed and the person set free, thus it is partially reversible. A fraudulent death penalty conviction is completely irreversible.

    There is a difference.

  • ||

    See my response above. If you have a situation where you hand out life sentences but no death penalty, what motivation do I as a criminal have not to kill all of the witnesses? Once I am in prison and sentenced for life, what motivation do I have not to prey on other prisoners?

  • ||

    that's a pretty weak argument. A criminal who engages in a crime that would relegate them to a life sentence (murder, or any 3rd strike crime) would already have reason to kill the witnesses whether there is a death penalty in that state or not. The reason is that they likely won't get caught if there are no witnesses, they don't want to go to jail any more than they want to die. Whether or not death is a worse option for them than life in prison is irrelevant to whether or not they kill the witnesses. Your argument is actually better suited to support doing away with the death penalty AND life sentences and giving every criminal the option of parole at some point, then they have reason to try and reduce the severity of their crime (i.e. kill only the intended victim and no witnesses) as well as offer them reason to behave in prison. By your logic 3 strikes laws give people incentive to kill someone to avoid going to jail for drug possession and other nonviolent crimes, simply to avoid life in prison for something as petty as shoplifting.

    There is never a reason not to prey on other prisoners if you are serving life or death, its just that death row inmates are segregated in individual cells so the point is moot. The primary reason one might not prey on another in prison is potential retaliation by the victims friends/gang/etc, or that a guard may shoot and kill them in the act. Otherwise, these people are generally violent, low lifes who react irrationally and we should not be trying to figure them out, just remove them from society and keep non-voiolent offenders seperate from the violent ones, and let the lawyers and prison industry deal with the rest

    Lets not try an make rational decisions based on what the irrational or depraved do. My issue with the death penalty as been the historically inherent racism in the system, and the fact that we have DNA now that is proving we have convicted the wrong people. But if you are doling out the death penalty equally to everyone regardless or their race or their victims race, and you have DNA to support the conviction, I am fine with removing murderers from the world.

  • ||

    Is there any proof that the death penalty is a deterrent?

  • prolefeed||

    I think the actual people locked up, OTOH, do see generally see life imprisonment as much better than dying.

    I think you have an empathy fail on this one, John. Most people want to live, however badly their lives suck.

  • ||

    Sure they want to live. And if they know they can't die, what do they care if they kill witnesses rather than just rob them? You have empathy fail pro. You think everyone is a nice person and feels bad about killing someone. Some people don't.

  • ||

    Not catering to the wishes of murderers is "empathy fail"?

  • ||

    I don't see how it means that at all. Libertarianism is about freedom. It's not anti-government due to utilitarian or trust issues.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The DP should only be administered by me when I deem it necessary to protect me and mine. This is beauce of a new concept called acountability.

  • ||

    And that only begs leads to the question of who you DO trust to do it.

  • ||

    Bull. Libertarianism only deals with whether force is justified. It doesn't say anything about the degree of force that is appropriate.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    So if you would have gladly put a bullet in Ted Bundy's head, you are not a libertarian?


    Depends - would that be a bullet in his head before knowing what he was, or after knowing what he was?

    Because I would certainly put a bullet in his head if he was trying to kidnap my daughter. Otherwise, you're talking about murdering him.

  • ||

    I would do it after he kidnapped yours or anyone else's daughter.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Are you paying for the bullet?

    And of course, if the guy turns out to be innocent after all, the next bullet has your name on it.

  • ||

    There are plenty of "true libertarians" who want nothing to do with the LP's three ring circus.

  • ||

    I got a solicitation from the LP yesterday saying "If you don't give, please complete the survey telling us why." I'm tempted to complete it saying that "the LP, as it's constituted, does not do anything to productively advance the cause of liberty." But it seems pointless to send such a response.

  • kilroy||

    I have the same survey on my desk. I'm still formulating the specific phrasing of "you're worthless" that I'll use.

  • tarran||

    Do what Jay did in that episode of modern family when he typed that email on behalf of his wife:

    Dear Claire,
    I can’t work on the bake sale, because you’re a bossy control freak that looks down on my cupcakes, even though your lemon squares were very dry.
  • 0x90||

    I thought the true libertarian response was to wonder if by them, he was referring to all politicians.

  • gozwa||

    why do I have to pay for it? Don't my taxes cover anything?

  • Old Mexican||

    Florida Lawmaker on the Death Penalty: "If it were up to me we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it”


    If it were up to ME, I would not leave it up to YOU, you bloodsucker.

  • Morpheus||

    "If it were up to me we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it."

    Then I am glad that it is not up to you.

  • Stevie One Leg||

    Perhaps we should outlaw waffle houses.

  • Matrix||

    The whole state of Georgia would have to be cleansed by fire... you can't spit without hitting a Waffle House in Georgia.

  • Stevie One Leg||

    And while we're at it, outlaw spitting

  • Singapore||

    Already on it.

  • Smothered, Covered, Chunked...||

    ANIMAL!

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Did you miss the "Waffle House is better at emergency response than FEMA" article during the hurricane that hit the east coast?

  • Pip||

    ^^THIS^^

  • ||

    they didn't say it was better AT emergency response, it said that FEMA was using Waffle Houses as a way of judging the severity of damage in disaster areas after storms because the Waffle House tends to open for business if at all possible, so if the Waffle House is serving its FULL menu then the area is in pretty good shape, if they are on their secondary menu, then there are issues in the area but electricity and water/sewer has not been seriously affected, if its not open at all... that area is in severe need of help.. the Waffle House has never engaged in Emergency response. They serve artery clogging food, 24hrs a day, and that is all.

  • Almanian||

    Also, I propose a new Reason Drinking Game cue:

    "My balls hurt a lot worse when Radley Balko was here."

    Thoughts?

  • ||

    Seconded.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    All in favor?

  • Bea Flagger||

    *wiggles fingers*

  • BakedPenguin||

    Am I the only one who found the newspaper's name amusing, given the context?

    Also, I'd be more outraged if this was an introduction of the DP in a state that didn't have it. Even assuming this bill makes it through (which I doubt), changing the method is a marginal gain or loss.

  • Raston bot||

    death by DP? ouch!

  • Abdul||

    I just looked this up on Wikipedia. The Sunshine Skyway is 431 feet tall. The Golden Gate is over 700 feet, and people have survived jumping off the Golden Gate.

    All in all, death row convicts should take the chances with the bridge.

  • ||

    That is very medieval. If you survive, you go free.

  • ||

    http://www.skywaybridge.com/home.htm It looks like one has about 7% chance of surviving a plunge over the new bridge. My only concern is that public executions would cause hugh traffic tie-ups on the bridge.

  • ||

    So, if he is innocent, he will survive the fall and be free to go.

  • Sean||

    Only if he weighs less than a duck.

  • ||

    But a duck can fly. So if he flies after being thrown off the bridge he is also innocent.

  • ||

    It's a very deep channel with lots of sharks, too, so there are more death options.

  • ||

    Sharks. We would okay as long as we didn't try to execute James Bond.

  • ||

    I've got mackerel off of the old bridge (they made the initial spans of the bridge that collapsed into a fishing bridge). Killer mackerel.

  • ||

    I caught a 45 pounder off of Clearwater when I was a kid. Most fun I ever had fishing was reeling that thing in. Magnificent fish. Felt terrible when the guy who ran the boat immediately clubbed it to death.

  • ||

    I've caught mackerel off of the old bridge. I got them after I caught them.

  • ||

    And the sharks have lasers mounted on their heads.

  • Mike M.||

    Great whites or hammerheads?

  • Abdul||

    Any chance of getting lasers on those sharks? C'mon, Florida, don't let us down!

  • ||

    We're not one of your buy-everything states. If you want lasers on shark heads, best go to California.

  • kilroy||

    Do they have laser beams on their heads?

  • kilroy||

    Scroll, scroll, scroll your mouse.

  • ||

    I think the survival probability has as much to do with the depth of the water underneath the bridge as it has to do with the height of the bridge.

    Though at terminal velocity for a human being, landing on water is essentially like landing on concrete due to its high bulk modulus.

  • ||

    Abdul|10.12.11 @ 12:44PM

    the 700+ ft height of the Golden Gate Bridge is to the tops of the two towers which are not open to the public. Suicide attempts are made by jumping from the road deck which according to Wikipedia is at about 245 ft.

    The road deck of the Sunshine Skyway is at about 200 ft (which is granted a decent difference). Again, the 431 ft is the height of the top of the towers, likewise inaccessible to the public.

  • Abdul||

    Failed to account for surviving the fall, failed to appropriate funds for shark-mounted lasers...

    I'm beginning to think that Rep. Drake didn't think this thing all the way through.

  • ||

    He's a State Representative for cryin' out loud, what do they ever think through, besides maybe what they're going to have for lunch?

  • Pip||

    "likewise inaccessible to the public."

    I am the 99.

  • ||

    People may have survived falling from the deck of the Golden Gate (245 ft), but not from the top of the towers (746 ft).

  • Gray Ghost||

    While the tops of the towers for the Golden Gate are indeed extremely high (~700 feet), the vast majority of jumpers jump from the road deck level, which is about 245 feet above the waters of the Golden Gate Narrows. Per the article, the fatality rate from jumping is estimated at about 98%. I tend to doubt that death is instantaneous; rather, death is from drowning after one tries to swim with shattered legs in cold water, against a 6 knot+ current. This assumes the fall didn't knock you unconscious, of course.

    Relating to the death penalty controversy, I don't have a problem with it in theory, but I strongly question the State's execution of the process. It's a lottery, frankly, depending on the race and class of the victim and perpetrator, with the location of the trial perhaps having the most to do with whether the sentence is even sought. For places like Harris County, Texas, the process is familiar for prosecutors. They know roughly how long the trial will take, which procedural pitfalls to avoid, and which defendant's stories will play well with the jury. A crime there that would get a potential death sentence, might only get a 20 year sentence is a place like, e.g., Zavala County. For the same crime.

    I wouldn't mind raising the required burden of proof in a death penalty case to something more than reasonable doubt. There are defendants whom we know did the crime. Their guilt isn't in doubt. I don't support removing the death penalty in those cases just because prosecutors in other cases were overzealous in applying it (Illinois, for example.) I'm also not aware of most criminals still serving "life" sentences at extreme ages. I had thought most of them were paroled as---rightly---being considered not likely to re-offend. Kill someone famous---Sirhan Sirhan---or be bug-fuck crazy---Charlie Manson---and life will probably mean life. But for your run-of-the-mill armed robber/clerk killer sentenced to life, I thought most of them were let out at 70 or so?

    Niven's Jigsaw Man method of execution always seemed to make the most sense to me. I never did understand why I was supposed to be horrified by the idea... The tremendous overuse of the penalty, sure, but not the idea itself.

  • Spoonman.||

    I don't support the death penalty because of the unacceptable possibility of mistakes, but if we're going to have one I'd like to see a serious argument that the firing squad isn't the most humane execution ever invented.

  • sarcasmic||

    The folks who pull the trigger may beg to differ, though they only discover why after the fact.

  • Pip||

    In all seriousness, the best way to die is to be inside a crucible when they pour molten steel into it. You immediately vaporize and there is no messy clean up. In fact, you can still use the steel.

  • ||

    If only Annakin Skywalker had met that fate, we would have been spared Episode three.

  • Atanarjuat||

    That would be truly terrifying in the moments before you vaporized.

    I don't get why the firing squad is considered inhumane, either.

  • Pip||

    That would be truly terrifying in the moments before you get shot.

  • Abdul||

    Get outside the box. here's two ways that are lots more humane:

    Lung cancer from cuban cigars

    Smothered to death by Scarlet Johanson's "golden globes."

  • ||

    I believe Monty Python endorsed the last option.

  • ||

    so tired of being humane to inhumane people.

    *insert every cliche about becoming the very thing you're fighting against*

  • Gimlet||

    PBS just had a show about how to kill a human being:

    Capital punishment is in crisis. After a series of high-profile botched procedures, influential pressure groups worldwide are calling out for a humane and infallible method. But does one exist? Former British politician Michael Portillo investigates. His journey takes him across Britain and America, meeting experts in the business of death, from ... [more]retired executioners to toxicologists, biomechanics specialist and trauma surgeons as well as witnesses of botched procedures. Michael sets up experiments to find out why hangings are so easily botched, why poison gas is so cruel and the many flaws of lethal injections. And after exploring the science and history behind current methods of execution, Michael investigates some alternatives. With a strong and important journalistic story at its heart, firmly rooted in the scientific world, this is an original take on a difficult scientific issue.

    I fell asleep just before it ended, but I think they decided a centrifuge was the most humane.

    It's on YouTube here:

    http://video.google.com/videop.....725414405#

  • ||

    It truly is remarkable how much the human body is resistant to impending death, depending on the circumstances, of course.

    From a histological and pathological perspective, offing someone isn't easy.

    Worst botched suicide attempt I've witnessed was a fellow who aimed a bit too vertical when he put a business end of a 12 gauge in his mouth and toe triggered. All he succeeded in doing was taking off most of his face, facial bones and part of his frontal lobe.

    'Twas not pretty.

  • ||

    It's easy if you're not worried about causing pain.

  • ||

    Speaking from experience, Tulpa? Or do you just nag, nanny, and verbally molest your victims to death?

  • ||

    Sorry, I thought we were having a serious conversation here, not an insult contest.

  • T||

    Every conversation here, serious or otherwise, is an insult contest, Tulpa. Surely you've figured that out by now.

  • ||

    "The triumph of hope over experience"

  • Pip||

    There was a guy who did that that (except he didn't blow off part of his frontal lobe) and then went to a community college I was attending. Pretty tough to look at. I am told he was very good looking prior to that.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I would wear a Doctor Doom mask if I did that to myself.

  • ||

    Wow. It'd have to be Cobra for me.

  • ||

    Worst botched suicide attempt I've witnessed was a fellow who aimed a bit too vertical when he put a business end of a 12 gauge in his mouth and toe triggered. All he succeeded in doing was taking off most of his face, facial bones and part of his frontal lobe.

    And just 3 months later, Orrin was able to manipulate a keyboard with his tongue and began posting comments on H&R. A truly inspirational story.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Can't you just use noble gas/nitrogen asphyxiation? How many cases are in the literature where (resuscitated) victims mentioned that "everything just went black"? No warning, no nothing.

    A centrifuge was the most humane method they came up with? That strikes me as bizarre. The old Soviet method of leading the condemned to a room to "write their appeal to the Supreme Soviet" and having a guy behind the door blast them in the head with a Makarov, seemed like a very quick way to do it without the victim suspecting much until the end.

    Horrifying, especially if you've seen the last 10 minutes of say, Katyn, but very quick. I thought the linked movie was very well done, and completely NSFW.

  • ||

    THAT IS NOT HOW JOKE-HANDLES WORK, LINDA!

  • ||

    and I managed to fuck up the threading too....*sigh* Time to put my Hit&Run; game back in the box and return it to the store.

  • Warty||

    I'd take the firing squad over just about any other method, lethal injection included. You have, what, 8 guys with rifles aiming right for your heart? Your blood pressure would drop so quick you probably wouldn't even realize you'd been shot.

    Also, there's something unseemly about hiding executions like we do now. Remember that the reason they stoned people to death in the old days wass so that everyone in the village had blood on their hands.

  • ||

    I would want a firing squad just so I could yell Shoot straight you bastards right before they shot.

  • ||

    I mean Shoot straight, you bastards! Don't make a mess of it!. Preview is my friend.

  • Raston bot||

    Breaker Morant?

  • ||

    Yes. Those were his real last words.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Great movie.

  • ||

    "...we got them and shot them under Rule 303."

  • ||

    But we bequeath a parting tip
    For sound advice of such men,
    Who come across in transport ship
    To polish off the Dutchmen!


    If you encounter any Boers
    You really must not loot 'em!
    And if you wish to leave these shores,
    For pity's sake, DON'T SHOOT 'EM!!

    And if you'd earn a D.S.O.,
    Why every British sinner
    Should know the proper way to go
    Is: "ASK THE BOER TO DINNER!"


    Had Breaker lived he might very well have been as famous an Australian poet as Banjo Patterson and Henry Lawson.

  • ||

    Actually, he probably is more famous now.

    No one ever made a film about Banjo Patterson or Henry Lawson. I'd not be surprised if no one here had even heard of them.

    But a bunch have probably seen the film based on this.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Seven guys, tradition is for one rifle to have a blank in it.

  • Gojira||

    Also, there's something unseemly about hiding executions like we do now.

    And one of the reasons they stopped doing them publicly was because the festival/carnival atmosphere around hangings was increasinly seen as unseemly. People would hoot and holler and eat lunch while watching people hang.

    You can't ever forget, most people do not look at life through the morality lense that an anti-gov't libertarian type does. They don't care if you're killing innocent people; they may even think it's funny. And they would line up to pull the lever themselves (true story: at one point, the sign-up sheet to be the executioner at Huntsville in Texas had a two-year backlog, because you got a month off paid to talk to counselors about how bad you feel).

  • ||

    If killing was something that really bothered people the way it does in the movies, we wouldn't do it so often.

  • ||

    Compared to most periods of history and parts of the world, we don't do it often.

  • ||

    Lately. But don't worry, we will get back in practice. And also, I read those statistics too and I don't think much of them. True every day killing might not happen as much like it did in the past. But we are only 35 years removed from industrialized killing that took 1/4 of the population of Cambodia and just a few more years from killing that killed hundreds of millions in China. Given those events and the likelihood that they will happen again, the fact that we don't draw and quarter people anymore seems a bit hallow.

  • ||

    I was really speaking of Western society only. There are still plenty of tribalists in the world who don't think twice about killing their rivals.

  • Apatheist||

    Please, WWII was only 60 years ago. You would have to be looking at a very limited "period"

  • ||

    One problem with firing squads is that sometimes they intentionally aimed away from vital organs so that the condemned would die a painful death.

    But barring shenanigans like that, it is pretty humane.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Warty,

    I'd take the firing squad over just about any other method, lethal injection included.


    If the sole purpose of the death penality is to make the guy very dead, a firing squad should be fine because you would then not deal with any of the bullshit that surrounds other methods.

    Not that I agree with the death penalty - it is no comfort for the victim who is already dead. I prefer to leave self-preservation to the people and kill the motherfuckers BEFORE they succeed in killing US.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it interesting that, in general, most who support the death penalty oppose abortion on the grounds that it destroys innocent life.

    And, in general, most who support abortion oppose the death penalty for the exact same reason.

    Seems a bit contradictory.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Hence the principled standpoint of no government intervention in either.

  • ||

    Sort of like the Jim Crow South didn't support government intervention in lynchings.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Again, Tulpa does not understand principles.

    No suprise I guess.

  • ||

    I don't see the contradiction. They have faith in the Lord, and thus know that the Lord's will regarding new life should be followed. And they have the same faith in the State, particularly it's law enforcement side.

  • ||

    The death penalty doesn't destroy innocent life.

    There is no greater demonstration of the value we as a society place on human life than the taking of it from those who take it from others.

  • ||

    The death penalty doesn't destroy innocent life.

    Except when it does, but you know, omelets and eggs and such.

  • ||

    Don't bother Saccharin Man. Leave him to his peanut butter slathered, authoritarian mental jizz-fests.

  • ||

    Seriously for a moment, GM, why are you behaving this way? You used to be a rational person, and I refuse to believe you've devolved into a glib smartass asswipe like the poster you're responding to.

  • ||

    Really giving MNG a run on the "stupidest person claiming to have a PhD" award aren't you?

  • ||

    Dude, I'll drop you an email when I begin caring about your opinion of me. Don't bother checking your inbox for the next year, or decade really.

  • ||

    And Tulpa edges ahead. Watch out, MNG... he's right on your tail!

  • Warty||

    Why do you people still interact with Tulpa and MNG, anyway? Just have serious conversations with rectal if you're going to go that route.

  • ||

    Why do you people still interact with Tulpa and MNG, anyway?

    I have a little hope for Tulpa.

  • Warty||

    He went down the rabbit hole years ago. Fuck him.

  • sarcasmic||

    education != intelligence

  • ||

    education != intelligence

    I agree with this.

    And regarding what the insult machine above said, I've never, ever tried to use my degree as evidence of being right about something. It's only come up tangentially when I mention my job activities.

    I don't believe in credentialism or arguments from authority, which is why I back up pretty much everything I say with an argument. As opposed to insults, like some others I could mention.

  • ||

    When you took it upon yourself to post and encourage this little stunt of yours. It left a really, really, really bad taste in my mouth, as did most of the entire thread.

    When you're qualified to DX stress (as equally as subjective to DX pain and other subjective maladies), then I'll take your authoritarian, ObamneyCare loving, Mitt-licking self seriously.

  • ||

    You've GOT to be kidding me. That's your beef? That guy was CLEARLY abusing his authority to write doctor's excuses. As a doctor you should be the first one who's fucking pissed about devaluing the trustworthiness of a doctor's excuse.

    In any case, I have a hard time believing that a backwater little blog like H&R generated many phone calls at all anyway. The information I got took about 10 seconds of googling to obtain, and I imagine many, many opponents of the protests did exactly that on their own independently.

  • ||

    That guy was CLEARLY abusing his authority to write doctor's excuses.

    I disagree most strenuously. Dr. Sanner is still a licensed physician in the state of WI, and was fully within his rights to practice medicine as he saw fit. He identified a need and addressed health concerns of his patients and established a legal doctor/patient relationship. Just because it can be construed as politically motivated medicine in no way abridged his rights and duty.

    The med students OTOH, with no attending around, no adherence to HIPAA and university rules as residents, different story and equally sent me into orbit.

    I'll take Dr. Sanner's judgement over yours, Tulpa. And the point is buttinskis and nogoodniks who were angry don't realize that ObamneyCare will be doing the congruent thing.

    And you, support this. That is why I am so disgusted with you AND authoritarian ilk.

  • ||

    Like I said, I don't believe in credentialism. I don't care what letters are after your name, if you diagnose large numbers of people who've left their jobs and traveled hundreds of miles to stand around and scream at people all day with "debilitating stress" then you're a purveyor of bullshit. You must accept the possibility that some doctor somewhere would abuse his or her authority, mustn't you?

    I have letters after my name that purport to show that I know math, but if I say 2+2=5 because it supports my political position, you should definitely not chastise someone who disagrees with me because they don't have the letters after their name.

  • ||

    you should definitely not chastise someone who disagrees with me because they don't have the letters after their name.

    I chastise those who make it their business to interfere in the business of others, especially health concerns, and I really don't give a shit what you think on this one, whether float some non-squitur analogy dressed up as an argument from mathematics.

    Your opinion of what bullshit is, that's one thing; when you are in a position to make that opinion (via WebMD no doubt) count in a doctor/patient relationship, that is something else entirely.

    And for the record, I'm on the record here arguing against licensing. My diploma, certifications, and experience should suffice. Since you love tautologies and a blind adherence to law, I would think a licensing scheme would be wine and roses in your world.

  • ||

    Note that that fellow wasn't simply writing excuses for people who came to his office; he went to the protests to offer people excuses. Huge, huge difference.

  • ||

    Note that that fellow wasn't simply writing excuses for people who came to his office; he went to the protests to offer people excuses. Huge, huge difference.

    Under WI law, and protected by HIPAA by the way, when a doctor/patient relationship is established, it becomes legally and none of anybody else's business unless there is a third party's right to know under the law. FULL STOP.

    DX: Unspecified acute reaction to stress

    2009 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 308.9

    Etiology: Overstimulation of the senses and inhibition of relaxation WNL/per locale as reported by patient.

    TX: Prescribed relaxation techniques and advised patient to seek locale more conducive to cessation of offending stimuli PRN.

    One and done, Tulpa. If the patient chooses to be non-compliant with a given TX, that is their right and does not dissolve the doctor/patient relationship nor does it negate the rights inherent under the law.

  • ||

    *...becomes legally binding...

  • sarcasmic||

    You two are as bad as John and MNG.

  • ||

    You two are as bad as John and MNG.

    Noted sarc and I'll desist.

  • ||

    C'mon, Groovus. You are completely ignoring the possibility, nay, the certainty, that the doctor's diagnosis and prescription were pure and simple pretexts, designed to allow protestors with which he agreed politically to not only take off work to protest, but to get paid for doing so.

    That makes the doctor party to a fraud, and I think negates the doctor patient relationship, which is premised on treating the patient, not facilitating their political activities at the expense of their employers.

  • ||

    I like the way you think. Always have.

  • ||

    RC, I will disagree as you as well, and only the patients can declare and make the claim of malpractice. And I didn't ignore the likelihood of politically motivated medicine; however, he still has the right to practice as he saw fit. If he gets reviewed the WI board, fine, he can make his case there (to my knowledge, no complaints have been lodged against him).

    They were under a doctor's care, and well within their rights to follow TX and advice or chuck it as they saw fit. Whether we agree with the care as delivered matters none.

    Now, if the union wanted to deny the teachers their sick pay, fine. Take them to court and prove the fraud.

    My point is, as distasteful as it seems, Dr. Sanner did nothing wrong or actionable, as the law is written, and there is no demonstrable case of fraud.

    You want the Tulpa's of the world butting in your doc's DXs, RC, whether they be curbside DX or not?

  • ||

    There's a difference between wrong and legal, GM...let alone wrong and "possible to prove is illegal in a court of law with a preponderance of the evidence". It's all the more funny that I have to point this out to you since you are accusing me of being a legalist.

    Not to mention that even if I had gone over the line in that case, it doesn't justify your insulting behavior on this thread. Look at the way I get insulted around here (WITH _ZERO_ JUSTIFICATION at least as far as being "authoritarian" and "bloodthirsty") and still attempt to behave like an adult and give people the benefit of the doubt.

    I did call SF an asswipe, and shouldn't have, but there's a history there.

  • ||

    Not to mention that even if I had gone over the line in that case, it doesn't justify your insulting behavior on this thread.

    You're right. I still maintain my case and stand by it, but it doesn't excuse my vitriolic invective.

    I reserve the right to make peanut butter, prune and Vulcan jokes at your expense however, especially when you go on a Full Metal Flopney lovefest.

    It's all the more funny that I have to point this out to you since you are accusing me of being a legalist.

    I would have made terrible attorney, though you should admit you do have a propensity to tautological legalism which may or may not be construed as "authoritarian".

  • ||

    I'm only a legalist when it comes to legal matters.

  • ||

    All right, GM, you're forgiven. Now, if you're not busy, I have a couple of strangulated hemorrhoids that need to be snipped.

  • ||

    I have a couple of strangulated hemorrhoids that need to be snipped.

    If they are strangulated, then they will exsanguinate and fall off on their own. There is the risk of infection and sepsis, so you might wanna grab some absinthe and get to snippin'. Grab your scissors, a solder iron and WebMD and go to town, DIY'er.

    Or just nag them off your bum. They should run away with post haste.

    Either way, caveat emptor.

  • ||

    Oh, how did I miss this gem. I'm violating HIPAA by discussing what a doctor did? I can't imagine that's what you're claiming. But there it is, like an elephant climbing a christmas tree.

    BTW, the whole controversy arose because the doctor started publicizing what he was doing to reporters. It's kind of hard to start crying "privacy!" after he does that.

    If the patient chooses to be non-compliant with a given TX, that is their right and does not dissolve the doctor/patient relationship nor does it negate the rights inherent under the law.

    And if I choose to disseminate publicly available information about his phone number, there's nothing illegal about that either. I haven't been banned from Reason for doing what I did, so by your logic, it must be OK. Right Dr Pharisee?

  • ||

    Oh, how did I miss this gem. I'm violating HIPAA by discussing what a doctor did? I can't imagine that's what you're claiming. But there it is, like an elephant climbing a christmas tree.

    You're not. You are not party to the doctor/patient relationship in either capacity. I never claimed you violated anything (or anyone, any animal, etc.) Uncle Festering. Try again.

    BTW, the whole controversy arose because the doctor started publicizing what he was doing to reporters. It's kind of hard to start crying "privacy!" after he does that.

    Wrong again. The protesters were advertising his services. He merely confirmed he was there as a physician for hire, like any other business person. You're running with the Andrew Breitbart meme, and naked with scissors too, I might add. Freak.

    And if I choose to disseminate publicly available information about his phone number, there's nothing illegal about that either. I haven't been banned from Reason for doing what I did, so by your logic, it must be OK. Right Dr Pharisee?

    I never said you couldn't criticize or direct people to his contact info, Tulpa. I was criticizing your rationale for doing so, which I still think is sleazy and generally underhanded, but you are still well within your rights to do so. As much right as Dr. Sanner has to provide his services at his discretion to those who solicit his vocation at their convenience, regardless of venue.

    Careful with your invectives, Tulpa. You're butthole surfing perilously close to shit-weaslery, Your Pruneship.

  • ||

    Cars don't destroy innocent lives either accept when they do. We accept the possibility of innocent people dying in other contexts all of the time.

  • ||

    Dying by misadventure is not execution, John. Execution is execution.

    Tulpa's blind faith in government-run justice isn't surprising, but it's disappointing in you. Criminal prosecution is corruptible on many levels, from crooked cops, to crooked executions, to crooked judges that want to keep their conviction rate up, to juries being made of of people too stupid to get out of jury duty, to prisons and their powerful union lobbies.

    The answer is to reform the justice system, not keep bumping along as we are, imprisoning and executing the innocent to satisfy Tulpa's bloodlust.

  • ||

    I don't have blind faith at all. Don't confuse my questions for blind faith. I am just saying that there are draw backs to no having the death penalty. If you don't have the death penalty and routinely hand out long if not life sentences, there is no deterrence against brutality. Suppose I am a convicted felon and know the next time I am caught robbing someone I will never get out of prison. Why would I not just shoot the witnesses to make sure I don't get caught? Or once I am in prison and know I am not getting out and won't face the death penalty, what stops me from terrorizing the other prisoners.

    Yeah, I feel horrible at the thought of an innocent person going to prison much less being executed. But I feel horrible about an innocent person being murdered in a robbery or some guy doing five to ten being victimized by a lifer in prison. Those people count too.

    I go back and forth about what the right answer is. I really am divided on the death penalty. But, the question is not as simple as "if there is any chance an innocent person could be executed, we can't do it".

  • ||

    But the executed innocent argument is just a pragmatic approach. I object to the entire notion that a state can kill its subjects. Life imprisonment of an innocent person is terrible as well, but at least there is some chance that they might be eventually exonerated and freed. As sarcasmic notes below, the vast majority of post-execution exonerations are just dropped because there is virtually no point to continue.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is plenty of incentive not to continue.
    What if it is found that the prosecutor withheld evidence, or the cops falsified a report?

    What then?

    By now the shady cop is probably a chief and the prosecutor might have used his high conviction rate as a stepping stone to run for governor.

  • ||

    To both of you guys. Sure if you execute enough people it is inevitable that you will execute an innocent one. No system is perfect. But even given that, what if as a result of having the death penalty you can have a more humane and safer prison system and have fewer innocent people murdered on the outside? Isn't that at least a debatable tradeoff?

  • sarcasmic||

    I actually do support the death penalty in the form of armed citizens protecting themselves.
    You want fewer people murdered on the outside? Arm them.

  • ||

    you don't know history friend. We had a time when it was each individual's duty to protect themselves and their family, we call it "the Wild West" today and it was one of the most violent periods in American history.

    I will agree that allowing people to OWN fire arms is a deterrent to home invasions and entering of occupied homes, so I oppose out right firearm bans. But I disagree with the idea that everyone should be walking the streets armed. No one should be allowed to take from others by force, and we have laws to punish those who do. But those who support arming more people as a means of prevention are saying that your cash or car are worth the other man's life or your own, when they are material possessions worth far less than anyone's life. I mean, are you really advocating arming people and expecting that they won't shoot someone who attempts solely to take their wallet?
    While the criminal deserves prison, and one could argue that someone who would use any weapon to rob someone deserves what they get, if they really intended only to take your possessions and not harm you, is it right to kill them?

    But, say we live in this society where criminals assume that most everyone is armed. If one is determined to rob someone on the street, and said criminal is willing to brandish a pistol, he is likely willing to use it. So now, you are armed, walking to your car, perhaps you open carry, perhaps your gun is hidden, the criminal determined to take your money, car, whatever, why would he not just shoot you and take it if he has a reasonable belief that you are armed. As opposed to simply pulling the weapon on someone who would likely be unarmed, take the cash, etc and leave. Arming everyone actually would increase the rate of murders... why let your intended victim get the drop on your or resist, when you can take the wallet, rings, keys off their corpse??

    Television and movies have every gun nut believing they will be Rambo or something when someone pulls a gun on them. Upping the number of guns on the streets does not equal safer streets. In fact, the stats show quite the opposite. Crime is at record lows in most places but the most violent inner cities, and as Libertarians, you all know the solution to that is legalization of drugs/gambling etc. Even with the economic decline, theft and robbery has not skyrocketed as most would have assumed it would. Making every citizen into a vigilante is not the answer.

  • Britt||

    The so called Wild West had a crime rate roughly equivalent to 7% of modern day New York City's.

    Oh, and you assert that more guns make more crime, but this is untrue. We have more guns than ever in America, the huge uptick in firearms ownership post Obama has led to record low crime rates. More guns=less crime, that is an actual fact.

    Ryan, you don't know what you're talking about at all. Go read some more books before you open your damn mouth.

  • ||

    It's extremely rare for the death penalty to kill an innocent person, and we have procedures in place to make that possibility less and less likely.

    Whereas with abortion, an innocent life is taken every. single. time. Indeed, taking the innocent life is the entire point, which is why we even kill viable unborns during the process of birth.

  • Pip||

    Dumbest. Meme. Ever.

    A fetus has never been convicted of a capital crime.

    (pro-choice, BTW)

  • sarcasmic||

    A conviction does not guarantee guilt.
    People who have been sentenced to death are found to be innocent all the time.
    Sometimes after their execution.

  • ||

    People who have been sentenced to death are found to be innocent all the time.

    Which shows the post-conviction appeals system works. Cory Maye, for instance, would probably still be rotting in jail if he had been sentenced to life instead of death.

    Sometimes after their execution.

    Name one time this has happened in the US in modern times.

  • sarcasmic||

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or.....y-innocent

    That was off a single google search.

    Common sense tells me there are more because there's little incentive to exonerate someone after they've been killed.

  • ||

    You seem unaware of what "possibly" means.

  • ||

    No skepticism about the conviction, ultimate skepticism about the exoneration.

    Nope, no law and order blind partisanship here. No, not a bit.

  • ||

    I'm skeptical about plenty of convictions, which is why I support (a) the lavish system of post-conviction appeals for death sentenced people, and (b) severe punishments for prosecutors and others who conspire to wrongfully convict or withhold exonerating evidence.

  • sarcasmic||

    severe punishments for prosecutors and others who conspire to wrongfully convict or withhold exonerating evidence.

    Except that those punishments, in practice, do not exist.

    Prosecutors care about one thing and one thing only: Convictions.
    They don't give a shit if the person is guilty or not. Their job is to find someone, anyone, and "prove" them guilty.
    If the prosecutor has to lie to do it then they'll lie.
    If they have the opportunity to hide exonerating evidence without being caught, then they'll hide evidence.

    Their incentive is to convict and they have no disincentive to do shady business in order to convict an innocent.
    Besides, as far as the prosecutor is concerned, the creep is guilty of something so they can rationalize it all away.

  • ||

    Yes, the current incentives are screwed up because the sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct are toothless. I agree. Both of us want to change the laws governing the justice system, just in different ways. The way you want to change things isn't any easier than the way I want to change things.

  • sarcasmic||

    You seem to be unaware of what "incentive" means.

    There is a strong disincentive to find someone innocent after they've been executed, for people like you may lose their faith in the justice system.

    I lost my faith the first time I read a police report of an incident that I witnessed.
    It read like a work of fiction.
    I have zero faith in our justice system.
    None.

  • ||

    There are plenty of people and organizations, with a lot of money and power, who would give their left nut to find evidence that an innocent person was executed. I do agree about the incentives for govt and prosecutors to let sleeping dogs lie, but oh well, that's the way things are. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

    My main problem was with your claim that innocent people have been executed, which still has no proof. That's a strong claim.

  • sarcasmic||

    There's one organization, namely the government, that must sign off on any "proof" that a person is innocent.
    If the government refuses to admit fault, no amount of evidence can "prove" someone innocent.

  • T||

    I lost my faith the first time I read a police report of an incident that I witnessed.
    It read like a work of fiction.
    I have zero faith in our justice system.

    dunphy hasn't been here for a while, so I'll fill in: You're just butt-hurt the system screwed you over correctly, man. You need to quit being a criminal and then whining about it when you get caught.

    I know you miss that, sarc.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like I miss a boil on my ass.

  • Pip||

    "A conviction does not guarantee guilt."

    True, but pre-birth guarantees innocence.

  • ||

    According to one argument, the crime is trespassing via uterine implantation.

  • ||

    According to one argument, it's OK to kill random people on the street because you're sending them to heaven.

    They have roughly equal validity.

  • ||

    I was just positing the argument, I didn't say I agreed with it.

    Since I believe that self-ownership begins when a claim can be staked, in this case, the claim is established when implantation occurs, and the fetus can have a reasonable expectation of development leading to birth.

    It was the only way to square the competing rights argument, and maintain my consistency with both an anti-DP belief and the permission of abortofacients such as Plan B and "morning after pills". If the uterus is hostile to implantation, no claim can be staked.

    This only applies to consensual sex as I assume the risk of pregnancy is well known (I don't know anyone who believes in the stork), since in cases of rape/incest the self-ownership of the woman was violated first, thus negating any claims what could called "the second intruder" might have.

  • ||

    Well, it sounded too much like the tactic some people use of "just asking questions" so they don't have to back up what they say.

  • ||

    So noted.

  • ||

    So noted.

  • ||

    I see the squirrelz are alive and kicking.

  • ||

    The firing squat will take care of that.

  • Another Phil||

    Fail. The random people on the street aren't trying to live inside your body. You're not even trying now.

  • ||

    Good catch! And the fetus didn't choose to enter anyone's uterus either, so the trespassing analogy is inappropriate too.

  • ||

    The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.

  • ||

    That rmeinds me of the old story of the potential juror who was asked if he could impose the death penalty if the defendant was found guilty. His response was, "I could do it on the weekend, but I work Monday through Friday."

  • ||

    Disturbing.

    Also, since the idea came up at a Waffle House, shouldn't there be some sort of "scattered, smothered, and covered" joke?

    Not to mention "topped, chunked, and diced?"

  • ||

    but I've got a notion that the motion of your ocean
    needs small craft advisories

  • romulus augustus||

    Even the guillotine sometimes failed to sever the head and had to be hauled back up for a second try. But when it worked, very efficient and "humane."

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Well, this may change your mind. I can't imagine the horror of or realization.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Fuel-air bomb

    That said, the only "civilized" way to kill someone would involve some technique to instantly destroy the brain. But since that tend to be messy, society has an anathema to it, even though the person is still dead.

    I oppose the death penalty simply because our justice system is not worthy of that level of trust. However, the death penalty should be available for those who want to take it willingly.

  • ||

    I've read firing squads actually have the least amount of "failures", lethal injection can fail and take a long time, just like the electric chair.
    The Guillotine and firing squads are probably the best methods as far as making sure to kill someone, and making sure to kill them quickly.

    However the firing squad can fail if the guards all decide to shoot for the abdomen or something like that, causing a long death.

  • ||

    Reserving comment on whether we should execute, if we are going to, we should do it right.

    Nitrogen asphixiation.
    Cheap, painless, and foolproof.

    Requires a breathing mask, a tank of air and a tank of nitrogen.

  • ||

    Take the job of aiming out of the hands of people - just put 10 or so rifles into some sort of clamp that points them all at the same spot, then you just have to strap the guy in so that he can't move. (Sure he's a bad guy, but his heart's in the right place)

    Finally, you can have the guns get triggered mechanically on a timer, if you like.

    Or we could just forbid the state to kill people. I do have concerns similar to John's about criminals who may, while still in prison, maintain the power to kill or harm others. (either by their own hands killing or harming the people they come into contact with, or because they have some control over other criminals, either inside or outside the prison)

    It might take a constitutional amendment to fix that, though, since the Supreme Court has found that completely isolating such a person, forever, is a violation of their rights.

  • Mr. Mark||

    Firing squad.

  • Colin||

    Florida should add a third option: listening to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz shrill for an hour.

  • ||

    Cruel and Unusual....

  • Mike M.||

    Look, a lethal injection is one thing, but cruel and unusual punishment is very specifically prohibited.

  • Spartacus||

    I have been to Waffle House, and I have been to DeFuniak Springs. I cannot imagine both at the same time: it wuld be like Idiocracy to the Google power.

    Sounds like a great place to get ideas for future legislation from.

  • ||

    Even the firing squad and Ol' Sparky are cop outs. They can cause pain and fail.

    Simple: An eager good old boy with his .30-06 loaded with 180 grain soft-point bullets pointed at the back of the victim's skull. 100 percent instant death guarantee.

    It would be quick and honest. And would put witnesses off strawberry jam for life.

  • ||

    This was interesting!

  • Pip||

    If it is humane to put an old dog down, why not a murderer?

  • Warty||

  • ||

    I fully support the death penalty when, and only when, the defendant pleads guilty to the capital crime and there is a good measure of corroborating evidence beyond police statements.

    I'm thinking of Nidal Hassan and Jared Loughner as examples. Their guilt is unquestionable, and I have no issues with them being put to death for their crimes.

    As far as the method of execution, I like the firing squad.

  • ||

    So we only administer the death penalty to people who volunteer for it.

    Why don't you just come out and say you're totally against it?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I will say I'm against it for everyone except those who willingly choose it.

  • ||

    We might as well just legalize suicide and save some money then.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    No arguments there.

  • ||

    Well, we should do that too, but I still think we need to execute some unwilling people too.

  • ||

    I just said they had to plead guilty, I never said they asked for death.

    And IIRC, there have been many condemned men who have asked to have their death sentence carried out, only to be declared insane for making the request. What kind of fucked up logic is that?

  • ||

    If the rule you propose were put into effect, pleading guilty to a capital crime would essentially be like initiating a game of Russian roulette, since you would stand no chance of getting death if you plead not guilty.

  • sailor||

    This is a part of libertarian thinking I can't understand. I am perfectly comfortable with killing murderers, provided there is essentially no doubt, including substantial physical/dna evidence.

  • ||

    It's not part of libertarian thinking. I suspect it arises from the general attitude of mistrust of govt (which I can totally sympathize with and share to some extent) which explains its prevalence despite not following from the axioms of libertarianism.

  • ||

    I thought the modern method of USA executions was by drone attack?

  • ||

    Legally, those aren't killing and, therefore, are not executions.

  • ||

    That's actually a great idea. When someone is sentenced to death, immediately ship them over to a known terrorist area and kill them with a drone. Even better, put them next to someone else 'we' don't like who can become collateral damage.
    Think of all the money that will be saved on years of imprisonment and appeals.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Eh, save some money and just let them out of prison in a few years. We'll see flying killer robots operating domestically soon enough.

  • ||

    What's the point of using a drone if you have to go through the boring process of conviction and sentencing?

  • ||

    Good point. Call the drones "Due Process Drones," and combine all into one.

  • ||

    Watson showed us that we really don't need jurors anymore.

    TBH, I'd probably rather face a jury of computers at this point anyway.

  • Spartacus||

    I have always been in favor of bringing back outlawry. Would make things a lot simpler.

  • sailor||

    How about just strapping the guy to the ground under a suspended 10 ton metal block. Drop, lift and squeegee. Instant death, impossible to screw up.

  • ||

    What about a glass block? The we could watch.

  • Tony||

    There is no practical argument to be made for the death penalty, period.

  • ||

    It helps reduce prison overcrowding.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So does legalizing consensual crimes, which also has the added bonus of not killing anybody.

  • ||

    Or we could do both.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Executing approximately one person per year, plus all the extra prison space (more per death row inmate than regular prisoners), labor (extra security), and resources devoted to operating death row, totally reduces prison overcrowding.

  • ||

    Well yeah it wouldn't have a significant impact. But all I had to disprove Tony was find a practical argument, even an insignificant one.

  • Mr. Mark||

    What? No practical argument? Have you seen the recidivism rate for executed convicts? I'm told it's remarkably low.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Brad Drake:

    If I have a good opportunity, I will throw your ass of the causeway. Google your name, motherfucker.

  • ||

    My great-great grandfather, Wilbur Fisk Sanders, was the lawyer for the Montana Vigilantes before we got statehood. He hung more men than a John Holmes Super-Pumper Kit. ... I'm pretty sure he would be disappointed that his great-great grandson is vehemently opposed to the death penalty in any of its variants.

  • GaryM||

    No, he misattributed Margaret Mitchell's words.

  • Astro||

  • ||

    Why not shoot you up (and I do mean YOU) with the stuff they give for surgery? Only, of course, you'll never wake up from step #2 which could be all sorts of stuff ranging from organ donation to good old fashioned genital mutilation. Maybe even a little corpse rape. rape.

  • Mr. Mark||

    The death penalty is a thing that should never need to be applied.

    Unfortunately, there are people who upset that ideal by doing things that merit death.

    By hyena.

    And while I do think that things like prosecutorial misconduct, jury stupidity, and false testimony are deserving of significant attention, there will, unfortunately, be a continuing need for a death penalty. I'd even expand it to cover other crimes.

  • Custom Nike Dunk||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement