Utah May Bring Back Firing Squad Executions

Utah May Bring Back Firing Squad Executions
Death by rifle may return to the US state with campaigners arguing it is the cheapest and most humane method of execution.

A Utah politician wants to bring back firing squads as a method of execution after controversy over a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma.

Republican Representative Paul Ray believes death by gun is a more humane and cheaper form of execution, and wants it to be an option for criminals sentenced to death in his state.

He plans to introduce his proposal during Utah's next legislative session in January.

Lawmakers in Wyoming and Missouri tried to pass similar legislation this year, but both efforts failed.

Mr Ray believes firing squads may seem more acceptable now, especially after drug shortages complicated lethal injections.

The default method of execution in the US also came under heightened scrutiny last month when prisoner Clayton Lockett's vein collapsed and he died of a heart attack more than 40 minutes later.

"It sounds like the Wild West, but it's probably the most humane way to kill somebody," Mr Ray said.

"The prisoner dies instantly. It sounds draconian. It sounds really bad, but the minute the bullet hits your heart, you're dead. There's no suffering."

However, critics say things can go wrong with any method of execution.

They cite a case from Utah's territorial days in 1897, when a firing squad missed Wallace Wilkerson's heart and it took him 27 minutes to die.

Utah outlawed firing squads in 2004, citing the excessive media attention it gave inmates.

But those sentenced to death before that date still have the option of choosing it.

The last execution by rifle in the state was 2010, when five police officers used .30-caliber Winchester rifles to kill Ronnie Lee Gardner, who murdered a lawyer in 1985 while trying to escape from a courthouse.

Ray's proposal would give all inmates the option to be shot.

Opponents say firing squads are not necessarily a foolproof answer.

It is possible an inmate could move or police could miss, causing the inmate a slow and painful death, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment.

http://news.sky.com/story/1263577/utah-may-bring-back-firing-squad-executions

In a country that lives by the gun it doesn't surprise me that this is being put forward.

why dont they just slit their throats with a prayer to who ever...apparently its totally humane......  

Hanging? That in theory is quick and painless. Apparently so was a well maintained guillotine.

victorisnotamused wrote:why dont they just slit their throats with a prayer to who ever...apparently its totally humane......  

I think someone was thinking of that for Richard Cheney. Why he escaped trial is totally befuddling...it's not what you did, but who you are. Lol.

Can't see how a firing squad is more humane.
I mean seriously, it is possible for someone to survive that isn't it? And it's got to be a very painful way to die surely?

If someone survives an execution don't they have to be released - or what I mean is, they can't be executed twice?

abolish the death penalty . Executing someone then makes the person performing the execution just as bad .

The most humane thing to do would be to not deliberately kill someone in the first place. I realise that those who are executed have done something really dreadful, but to kill them in return is just as bad IMO.

If they must have executions, it seems to me that lethal injection is quite cowardly, as is any method where someone doesn't directly kill the prisoner. Even with firing squads they don't know who fired the lethal bullet. Well if they think that execution is the right thing to do, why do they try to absolve the executioner of personal responsibility?

Also, it's the lead up to the execution which is part of the punishment. All that last meal nonsense and setting a day and time - it's like torture really.

Whether you are for or against the death penalty, all must surely agree that the lethal injection is not the way to do it. Apparently it takes ages and the condemned is in agony. Can you imagine how horrible that is for those present?

Nems wrote:Whether you are for or against the death penalty, all must surely agree that the lethal injection is not the way to do it. Apparently it takes ages and the condemned is in agony. Can you imagine how horrible that is for those present?

Horrible for those present? Well they choose to be there, don't they?

Of course it's horrible - it's killing someone in front of others - what do they expect?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:Whether you are for or against the death penalty, all must surely agree that the lethal injection is not the way to do it. Apparently it takes ages and the condemned is in agony. Can you imagine how horrible that is for those present?

Horrible for those present? Well they choose to be there, don't they?

Of course it's horrible - it's killing someone in front of others - what do they expect?

A nice quick stress free execution. Read about Albert Pierrepoint cell to dead in 30 seconds.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Horrible for those present? Well they choose to be there, don't they?

Of course it's horrible - it's killing someone in front of others - what do they expect?

A nice quick stress free execution. Read about Albert Pierrepoint cell to dead in 30 seconds.

Oh, so those watching don't get upset? Why shouldn't they get upset? They're condoning the killing of another person. I bet they wouldn't do it themselves.

I think child molesters, rapists and those who murder others for no reason don't deserve to be treated humanely..

Let them suffer I say, suffer and spare not a thought for them as they spared none whatsoever for their victim.



Shooting them would be too easy a way out for these filthy molesting.

They are also a financial drain on , bloody filthy scroungers living from the tax payer

after commiting such perverse and depraved acts.


And so long as it's proven they have committed the crimes, death row inmates should never be sitting on death row for as long as periods of twenty years and so on.

Get the electric chair out and let justice be done, all this shooting and lethal injection is just too easy a way put for these murdering baby rapists.

Joy Division wrote:I think child molesters, rapists and those who murder others for no reason don't deserve to be treated humanely..

Let them suffer I say, suffer and  spare not a thought for them as they spared none whatsoever for their victim.



Shooting them would be too easy a way out for these filthy molesting.

They are also a financial drain on , bloody filthy scroungers living from the tax payer

after commiting such perverse and depraved acts.


And so long as it's proven they have committed the crimes, death row inmates should never be sitting on death row for as long as periods of twenty years and so on.

Get the electric chair out and let justice be done, all this shooting and lethal injection is just too easy a way put for these murdering baby rapists.

You mean as long as they were convicted?

Well yes,,,so long as there was no doubt they committed the despicable acts and are convicted of them.

I'm out in the sun here with the sun shining on the iPad! Bit hard to see!

Joy Division wrote:Well yes,,,so long as there was no doubt they committed the despicable acts and are convicted of them.

I'm out in the sun here with the sun shining on the iPad! Bit hard to see!

If someone is convicted, presumably there is no doubt in the jury's mind that they're guilty.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Well yes,,,so long as there was no doubt they committed the despicable acts and are convicted of them.

I'm out in the sun here with the sun shining on the iPad! Bit hard to see!

If someone is convicted, presumably there is no doubt in the jury's mind that they're guilty.

...as I said in another post...if there is concrete evidence proving they committed those heinous crimes against children , then they should not be afforded the easiest and least painful method of execution.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If someone is convicted, presumably there is no doubt in the jury's mind that they're guilty.

...as I said in another post...if there is concrete evidence proving they committed those heinous crimes against children , then they should not be afforded the easiest and least painful method of execution.

So you mean if they are convicted. After all, if there is no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be convicted, right?

Perhaps you're saying that some people are more guilty than others?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



...as I said in another post...if there is concrete evidence proving they committed those heinous crimes against children , then they should not be afforded the easiest and least painful method of execution.

So you mean if they are convicted. After all, if there is no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be convicted, right?

Perhaps you're saying that some people are more guilty than others?

What I'm saying is that if there is concrete evidence of their guilt , then of course a conviction will and should follow at trial...

Then let the heinous sort get what SHOULD come to them,lethal injection is too easy and sedates them or puts them to sleep, and a gun is way too quick,,,
You seem intent to try to put words in my mouth...


Ive already told you three times what I think.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you mean if they are convicted. After all, if there is no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be convicted, right?

Perhaps you're saying that some people are more guilty than others?

What I'm saying is that if there is concrete evidence of their guilt , then of course a conviction will and should follow at trial...

Then let the heinous sort get want should come to them,lethal injection is too easy and sedates them or puts them to sleep, and a gun is way too quick,,,
You seem intent to try to put words in my mouth...


Ive already told you three times what I think.

You seem to be avoiding the issue. Why not just say that they should be executed if convicted?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


What I'm saying is that if there is concrete evidence of their guilt , then of course a conviction will and should follow at trial...

Then let the heinous sort get want should come to them,lethal injection is too easy and sedates them or puts them to sleep, and a gun is way too quick,,,
You seem intent to try to put words in my mouth...


Ive already told you three times what I think.

You seem to be avoiding the issue. Why not just say that they should be executed if convicted?

What I'm doing is not answering a ridiculous question, while convicting people without evidence may be your thing...it is not mine, unless of course there is evidence to support the charges.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You seem to be avoiding the issue. Why not just say that they should be executed if convicted?

What I'm doing is not answering a ridiculous question, while convicting people without evidence may be your thing...it is not mine, unless of course there is evidence to support the charges.

I think you mean that some convictions are not safe.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


What I'm doing is not answering a ridiculous question, while convicting people without evidence may be your thing...it is not mine, unless of course there is evidence to support the charges.

I think you mean that some convictions are not safe.

..of course that's been known to happen and it shouldn't.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you mean that some convictions are not safe.

..of course that's been known to happen and it shouldn't.

Well what if it's only discovered that a conviction is unsafe after someone has been executed?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..of course that's been known to happen and it shouldn't.

Well what if it's only discovered that a conviction is unsafe after someone has been executed?

..well I'm totally against that, it has happened , but is becoming a thing of the past ..at least in civilised countries.

The courts don't seek to put to death cases which are not watertight Rags.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well what if it's only discovered that a conviction is unsafe after someone has been executed?

..well I'm totally against that, it has happened , but is  becoming a thing of the past ..at least in civilised countries.

The courts don't seek to put to death cases which are not watertight Rags.

So what would you consider to be a watertight case? I think there's always room for doubt unless someone actually confesses voluntarily.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..well I'm totally against that, it has happened , but is  becoming a thing of the past ..at least in civilised countries.

The courts don't seek to put to death cases which are not watertight Rags.

So what would you consider to be a watertight case? I think there's always room for doubt unless someone actually confesses voluntarily.

Well there are many,..but let's say a pervert raped a child and his semen was found on the child...police  have a strong suspect for this...a known child molester , who has no alibi , he is taken into custody and stuff collected from him,,,it matches when tested,,,

What would you think of that?


Please, don't tell me so etching ridiculous like someone tossed him off then rubbed over the wee lassie?...

Wouldn't you say that makes him guilty?


..crimes don't have to have a confession to prove someone murdered do they?

The suspect can sit all silent if he want(but normal innocent people would be looking for ways to PROVE their innocence), or indeed ...try to lie and convince he is innocent,,,but factors today like DNA technology prove  someone's guilt or indeed someone's innocence,,

Of course there are extreme factors and circumstances where twins could be involved in a crime..but share the same DNA...shit like that...

But this is extremely rare.


Just remember Rags,,,DNA advancement has saved so many innocent people as well as helped convict those guilty of heinous acts....

And if you have a better solution, then feel free to post it here...or to the department of justice.




...I would consider this a watertight case.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..well I'm totally against that, it has happened , but is  becoming a thing of the past ..at least in civilised countries.

The courts don't seek to put to death cases which are not watertight Rags.

So what would you consider to be a watertight case? I think there's always room for doubt unless someone actually confesses voluntarily.

Say someone is caught committing a murder in daylight on a brilliant CCTC system, it was also with messed by six people who recognise the killer...the images on CCTV are crystal clear.

One can sit all day and dent that'll,it won't save them from justice by playing daft...there absolutely no doubt wether one confesses voluntarily or not.

Should we start letting off the countless liars , who even though have been caught by overwhelming evidence..are still shouting 'wasnae me'?

Do you know that most people who commit crimes  ,then lie, to save themselves ?...

Do you know that figure is even higher with murderers and raps it's etc?

I think you do know really.

I would consider this to be a watertight case.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You seem to be avoiding the issue. Why not just say that they should be executed if convicted?

What I'm doing is not answering a ridiculous question, while convicting people without evidence may be your thing...it is not mine, unless of course there is evidence to support the charges.

I'm afraid she's got you on this one, JD.  First, your assertion that courts are faultless is ridiculous.

Second, courts do not always aim to do the right thing; there are plenty of courts in the southern US that can and do aim to put black people who are innocent in jail, and acquit white people who are guilty.  A classic case of racial bias in the courts is Treyvon Martin, a case in the southern, racist state of Florida.  Another is the murder of Jordan Davis, also a case in the southern racist state of Florida.

Third, who made you god recently?  As god, I would pick out jaywalkers as the most heinous crime.  I hate those mother-rapers.

You are not thinking clearly, JD.  As usual, your theories are subjective ass-draggers.  She's got you on this one.

Original Quill wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


What I'm doing is not answering a ridiculous question, while convicting people without evidence may be your thing...it is not mine, unless of course there is evidence to support the charges.

I'm afraid she's got you on this one, JD.  First, your assertion that courts are faultless is ridiculous.

Second, courts do not always aim to do the right thing; there are plenty of courts in the southern US that can and do aim to put black people who are innocent in jail, and acquit white people who are guilty.  A classic case of racial bias in the courts is Treyvon Martin, a case in the southern, racist state of Florida.  Another is the murder of Jordan Davis, also a case in the southern racist state of Florida.

Third, who made you god recently?  As god, I would pick out jaywalkers as the most heinous crime.  I hate those mother-rapers.

You are not thinking clearly, JD.  As usual, your theories are subjective ass-draggers.  She's got you on this one.

WTF are you talking about Quill?

Firstly.....Show me where I said courts are faultless?, I even I pied they are anything but,.

Secondly ...is you just gibbering your own tune.


Thirdly... Show  me where I've tried to play God?...and what are theses Jaywalkers you speak of?


Again Quilll...you've just jump in with both feet and not read my posts properly...

And nobody has got me...only in your mind.

..and if you really think the two examples I have are not watertight ,then you need your heid looked at, come on a Quill, thought you were a lawyer ffs????

Amd stop trying to claim I've said things which I haven't, ok.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well what if it's only discovered that a conviction is unsafe after someone has been executed?

..well I'm totally against that, it has happened , but is  becoming a thing of the past ..at least in civilised countries.

The courts don't seek to put to death cases which are not watertight Rags.

So what would you consider to be a watertight case? I think there's always room for doubt unless someone actually confesses voluntarily.

Raggs is right

Even in Cases of confessions some have been proven false after the fact.

better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent life taken......

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So what would you consider to be a watertight case? I think there's always room for doubt unless someone actually confesses voluntarily.

Raggs is right

Even in Cases of confessions some have been proven false after the fact.

It appears Rags has said the opposite to you Veya in that unless a voluntary confession is made,then nothing else is watertight...

I know many people have been wronged , yes even forced into a confession..,I have never said otherwise , not even on this thread,

I just think we hear of it less in comparison to years ago...most likely because of DNA and forensic advancements.

@JD
that's why I don't agree with the death penalty.

Also the DNA forensic evidence is still open to corruption, I prefer not letting the State kill fellow citizens no matter how bad they are.   

veya_victaous wrote:@JD
that's why I don't agree with the death penalty.

Also the DNA forensic evidence is still open to corruption, I prefer not letting the State kill fellow citizens no matter how bad they are.   

..sadly it is Veya...I'm not sure we will ever have a fail-safe judicial system anyway or fail safe system which proves or disproves people, but overall it has to be better than before

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

...as I said in another post...if there is concrete evidence proving they committed those heinous crimes against children , then they should not be afforded the easiest and least painful method of execution.

So you mean if they are convicted. After all, if there is no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be convicted, right?

Perhaps you're saying that some people are more guilty than others?

 

Once more Raggs' goes out of her way to prove just how ignorantly stupid she really is...

AS IF she isn't perfectly aware that there are wrongfully convicted people in the system every day..

AND that some 3-5+% of death row inmates are eventually proved innocent of those crimes that they have been convicted of..  

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you mean if they are convicted. After all, if there is no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be convicted, right?

Perhaps you're saying that some people are more guilty than others?

 

Once more Raggs' goes out of her way to prove just how ignorantly stupid she really is...

AS IF she isn't perfectly aware that there are wrongfully convicted people in the system every day..

AND that some 3-5+% of death row inmates are eventually proved innocent of those crimes that they have been convicted of..    

   

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you mean if they are convicted. After all, if there is no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be convicted, right?

Perhaps you're saying that some people are more guilty than others?

 

Once more Raggs' goes out of her way to prove just how ignorantly stupid she really is...

AS IF she isn't perfectly aware that there are wrongfully convicted people in the system every day..

AND that some 3-5+% of death row inmates are eventually proved innocent of those crimes that they have been convicted of..    

Whatever.

BUT...no one seems to want to comment on the "halal" option....

being as its so humane......

victorisnotamused wrote:BUT...no one seems to want to comment on the "halal" option....

being as its so humane......

Well, not me Victor...I think it's cruel.