Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Why Don't We Just Shoot Condemned Inmates?

  1. #1
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217

    Why Don't We Just Shoot Condemned Inmates?

    Why Don't We Just Shoot Condemned Inmates?----If we're going to kill people, there's only 1 good way to do it.

    No matter what your stance is on the death penalty, it's hard to work up much sympathy for the man executed by the state of Missouri this morning. Joseph Paul Franklin was, without exaggeration, a white supremacist serial killer. His preferred targets were Jews, blacks, and anyone connected to interracial couples. During a 3-year spree beginning in 1977, he murdered at least 7 people, may have killed 15 more, and wounded civil rights leaders Vernon Jordan and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt for good measure. His victims include a father of 3 leaving a bar mitzvah, and 2 teenage African American boys.

    But the most striking thing about Franklin's case isn't why he was killed, but how. He was among the first prisoners in America's history to be executed by lethal injection using only a single drug - the sedative pentobarbital. Ever since lethal injection was introduced in the 1970s, virtually every state has used a combination of 3 drugs: 1 to put the inmate to sleep, the next to paralyze his muscles, and the last to stop his heart. That protocol has come under withering fire in recent years, however, from activists and medical professionals citing a growing body of evidence that indicates the process isn't always as painless as it looks; in many cases, in fact, the prisoner may remain conscious but paralyzed, unable to scream or thrash, as her heart is slowly squeezed to a stop. One result is that chemical companies have stopped selling those drugs to prisons. Hence Missouri's switch. (Other states are trying different drugs for their own executions.)

    I honestly think that if we're going to execute people, we as a society should have the integrity and the honesty to face up to the fact that that is what we're doing.

    But there's something absurd about this whole debate. Here's the thing: We - the American body politic - have decided we are going to commit the ultimate act of violence against condemned inmates. That is, we are going to kill them. And yet, having made that decision, it's as though we are so conflicted about it that we have to tie ourselves in knots trying to carry out this most heinous of acts nicely. We have phased out hanging, the electric chair, and the gas chamber in an attempt to find a way to kill a man or woman in an inoffensive way. And now we're trying to find just the right chemical to shoot into a man's bloodstream to end his life as palatably as possible.

    Listen: I oppose the death penalty. I do so primarily for two practical reasons. One, I believe our legal system and human beings in general are so imperfect that we can never know for certain that we have convicted the right person. 2, the death penalty is applied in such an arbitrary way, and the deck with which it's dealt out is so blatantly stacked against those with no money and/or dark skin that it can't be considered "justice" in any remotely meaningful sense.

    That said, I honestly think that if we're going to execute people, we as a society should have the integrity and the honesty to face up to the fact that that is what we're doing. By all means, let's do it in the most humane way: strap them to a gurney, just as we do with lethal injection, and then shoot them in the head.

    Why not? Because it's barbaric? No more so than other forms of killing. A bullet to the head is a quick and painless way to die, far quicker and more certain than lethal injection, or any of our other historically favored methods.

    Because who would pull the trigger? If it seems too much to have someone actually standing there holding the pistol, the gun could be mounted on a stand and triggered remotely by an executioner standing unseen in an adjacent room. Again, that's how lethal injection is typically carried out.

    Because it would create a sickening mess? Yes, it would. That would require some special preparations and clean-up. But again, that process would leave no doubt as to what actually happened.

    Let me say again: We should abolish the death penalty. But if we're going to have it, let's stop pretending that we're doing anything nobler than actually killing people.

    (source: Vince Beiser, Pacific Standard Magazine)
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  2. #2
    Senior Member CnCP Legend JimKay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,122


    So easy a child can do it.

  3. #3
    Moderator mostlyclassics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    627
    Interesting opinion, Heidi. Thanks for posting it.

    Because it would create a sickening mess? Yes, it would. That would require some special preparations and clean-up. But again, that process would leave no doubt as to what actually happened.
    There is a solution to the "mess" problem, and it's been around since just before World War II. War planes of that period had self-sealing fuel tanks. A fighter plane would take bullet hits through its fuel tanks, and the tanks' liners would seal right up. These were made from multiple layers of various kinds of rubber.

    Surely this technology could be altered and updated a bit to make a condemned body suit and thereby contain the mess involved in shooting someone. Wearing such a body suit might be a bit sweaty, but the condemned is likely sweating up a storm anyway.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    239
    I don't think the "sickening mess" thing is an issue. People have to clean up all sorts of messes involving dead people all the time. Terrible car wrecks, deaths at hospitals, deaths at murder scenes. And people have to clean up messes involving other bodily fluids all the time too, at hospitals or elsewhere. So the original author was raising a straw man. The solution to the mess is you pay people who are trained to safely clean up bodily fluids to safely clean up the bodily fluids.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •