Bring back capital punishment?

Mr.Nice Guy

Does anyone think it's time we brought back capital punishment in this country?

Alot of people seem to be exasperated with the justice system in this country and there seems to be a perception that criminals are a bigger danger now more than ever. Every day we seem to hear reports of either a murder,a vicious assault, etc.

So should capital punishment be brought back for the really heinous crimes like murder, assaults on children, etc?

What are your thoughts?

simu

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Does anyone think it's time we brought back capital punishment in this country?

No. An appropriate prison sentence is punishment enough for anyone.

Alot of people seem to be exasperated with the justice system in this country and there seems to be a perception that criminals are a bigger danger now more than ever.

Well, it's just a perception. Crime isn't a huge problem here and most sane people don't live in fear of criminals and there's no definitve proof that capital punishment is a deterrant to potential criminals anyways.

Mr.Nice Guy

simu wrote:

Well, it's just a perception. Crime isn't a huge problem here and most sane people don't live in fear of criminals

Plenty of elderly citizens live in fear of crimianls and are afraid to leave their houses. It has nothing to do with sanity.

simu wrote:

and there's no definitve proof that capital punishment is a deterrant to potential criminals anyways.

It's a deterrant to repeat offenders...

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Plenty of elderly citizens live in fear of crimianls and are afraid to leave their houses. It has nothing to do with sanity.

Women in tescos down the road was afraid terrorists would leave bombs in the photo booth. Are we saying we need capital punishment to keep delusional people happy?

It's a deterrant to repeat offenders...

USA. Only major western country with capital punishment. Largest prison population in the world.

Logic is flawed.

Repeat offenders are usually petty criminals, small time crimes. What is this, three strikes and you're dead?

bonkey

Wow. Polls are back.

Enee-way....

Capital Punishment doesn't work. There is nothing to support its use other than the wish of people to see some "get what they deserve". That's not justice. Thats vengeance.

Not only that, but its the one policy where mistakes are utterly uncorrectable (incarceration is never reversible, but it can be a corrected situation).

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

Women in tescos down the road was afraid terrorists would leave bombs in the photo booth. Are we saying we need capital punishment to keep delusional people happy?

I'm referring to those who commit terrible crimes like murder.

mycroft wrote:

USA. Only major western country with capital punishment. Largest prison population in the world.

Logic is flawed.

Repeat offenders are usually petty criminals, small time crimes. What is this, three strikes and you're dead?

Obviously it wouldn't be applied to small time crimes.

bonkry wrote:

Capital Punishment doesn't work. There is nothing to support its use other than the wish of people to see some "get what they deserve". That's not justice. Thats vengeance.

Capital punishment works on murderers. They're not going to kill again. Where is the justice when 'life imprisonment' doesn't mean imprisonment until the end of the prisoner's life?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I'm referring to those who commit terrible crimes like murder.

And misscarriages of justice. The judge in the birmingham six case expressed regret that he couldn't other the death penality

Obviously it wouldn't be applied to small time crimes.

The majority of murderers aren't repeat offenders. They don't commit several
murders.

Capital punishment works on murderers. They're not going to kill again. Where is the justice when 'life imprisonment' doesn't mean imprisonment until the end of the prisoner's life?

Most people convicted of a serious murder charge recieve life, meaning life, or close to. Some 30 year old recieving a thirty year sentence coming out at fifty five isn't likely to commit murder.

Villain

Mr Nice Guy used a poll!!!!!!!!!

Now you just know thats going to p**s Gandalf off.(thats a bit humour btw)

As for the topic, I don't think it works as a detterrant and I also don't trust our justice system enough to believe that an innocent person wouldn't be faced with such punishment.

DonkeyStyle \o/

bonkey wrote:

Not only that, but its the one policy where mistakes are utterly uncorrectable (incarceration is never reversible, but it can be a corrected situation).

The Guilford Four springs to mind... executions would have been a big whoopsie there eh? :eek:

is_that_so

"Let him have it" (Derek Bentley- "an illiterate epileptic with a mental age of 10" ) is another case where someone was wrongly executed.

deadduck

i'm nearly sure it cost's something like 70 grand a year to house each prisoner. for this reason alone, the death penalty should be brought back sharpish. money down the drain

Villain

deadduck wrote:

i'm nearly sure it cost's something like 70 grand a year to house each prisoner. for this reason alone, the death penalty should be brought back sharpish. money down the drain

Well deadduck I had a thread here many moons ago about prisioners having to work while they were in prision like on the roads etc, there was a slight disagreement over how much they should get paid if at all but I think most people were in favour of the idea.

is_that_so

deadduck wrote:

i'm nearly sure it cost's something like 70 grand a year to house each prisoner. for this reason alone, the death penalty should be brought back sharpish. money down the drain

€250K for each young offender so we might as well just shoot them on the spot.

murphaph

The death penalty is wrong. It is wrong because there is no worthwhile appeal once sentence has been carried out. Life improsonment should mean life. It should be noted that in some states, victims of capital punishment are said to have died of 'Homicide' written on their death certificates!

deadduck

is_that_so wrote:

€250K for each young offender so we might as well just shoot them on the spot.

depends on the crime

deadduck

irish1 wrote:

Well deadduck I had a thread here many moons ago about prisioners having to work while they were in prision like on the roads etc, there was a slight disagreement over how much they should get paid if at all but I think most people were in favour of the idea.

we definitely need something like that. why we don't is beyond me. i realise the death penalty will never be brought back in this country, but surely prisoners have it too handy

Mr.Nice Guy

I would not favour using it if there is even a shred of doubt that the guilty party might actually be innocent nor am I advocating it be used for small time crimes.

I'm talking about people who without a shadow of a doubt commmitted the crime and who are deemed capable of doing it again. In other words, those who are a real threat to society.

Why give them 'life imprisonment' (when they'll actually not be there for life) as opposed to doing to them what they did to an innocent person?

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Wow. Polls are back.

Thats easily fixed-see how I was able to burn the ballots and throw away the boxes

irish1 wrote:

Mr Nice Guy used a poll!!!!!!!!!

I suspect another loophole is born... and that this thread originated somewhere else.The poll came with it and survived the move from another forum.
At least thats what I suspect has happened.

Now you just know thats going to p**s Gandalf off.(thats a bit humour btw)

I doubt it

Back on topic now everyone.

rancheros

I don't think any body has the right to take a persons life, let the offenders live and work the sh^%te out of them.

Too easy of a way out killing them if u ask me

Vince135792003

I think if you look at it rationally like a fair few of you have done its hard to justify bringing back corporal punishment. However I can see where Mr. Nice Guy is coming from especially from two perespectives. I've wathced a fair few straight faced documentaires on serial killers. Documentaries that have told the case, said what happened and thats it. I have to say that at the end of a few of them when they were put to death for killing and quite often raping numerous woman was somthing that I had no problem with. I really did n't. Theres much more other greater and more noble causes to care for. Obviuosly thats an extreme example though.

My second point is that when people don't see justice being done in the courts, there will always be a marginal but sizeable enough amount of people who view the re-introduction of capital punishment as an alternative. I read Barry Cummins book Lifers about 6 months ago. He went into detail about a number of murders and what shocked me was how many were up for parole after 8-10 years maybe even sooner. I can't quote exactly unfortunately but just some of the cases were people were viciously murdered by men, given life sentences only for them to be given parole in such a short time shocked me. Life should mean life. These people did n't rob a bank. They didn't steal cars. They viciously murdered people. Justice needs to be done. Life must mean life. It's the very same with rape. How often do you see or hear of someone being convicted for 15 years only to read further on the track that his sentence was reduced by half, sometimes even more.

In my opinion capital punishment is the wrong way of going about justice. However I can see why people would emotionally look at it as a solution when you see justice continually being failed to be done. We all know the cases.
In order for thier to be justice when a criminal receives their sentence they must do their sentence. Every last second of it. No more no less.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince,

Good post. Clearly people are disillusioned with the way 'life' has in many cases meant 15-20 years. The fact is, for the victims of families, their sentence is 'life'.

Life imprisonment should mean life.

pwd

I think that capital punishment is more humane than life imprisonment.
I agree with the use of capital punishment for severe crimes.
Ireland would have a much higher prison population if we had more money to spend on prisons. I disagree with spending large amounts on prisons.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I would not favour using it if there is even a shred of doubt that the guilty party might actually be innocent nor am I advocating it be used for small time crimes.

And Again the usage of a death penalty is subjective, and if for example it'd be used in the birmingham six (where there wasn't "a shred of doubt") six innocent people would have been killed. And the IRA would have had another recruiting tool.

In short there isn't a "without a shred of doubt" cases. US death row law is littered with

A) people who are of below average intelligence

And of a poor background.

I'm talking about people who without a shadow of a doubt commmitted the crime and who are deemed capable of doing it again. In other words, those who are a real threat to society.

Why give them 'life imprisonment' (when they'll actually not be there for life) as opposed to doing to them what they did to an innocent person?

And you'll find people like Harold Shipman got life and thensome.

Look from two examples in the UK in the past week.

There have been two horrific murders.

1) A black 18yo was attacked with an axe, upon being approached by his attackers he and his friend and his girlfriend walked away avoid conflict and walked to another bus stop.

2) In the second a bloke on bus to kentish town was sitting upstairs with his girlfriend when a bloke flicked chips at him and his girlfriend, the guy ignored it, and then politly asked the bloke to stop.

In the first instance they were chance the girlfriend fled and came back to find an axe impalled in her boyfriend head.

In the second despite what the police described as acting in a rational and calm attitude the victim was stabbed six times and died.

Now do really think the axe attacker or the knife stabber really stopped to think while they were commiting their assaults, "if I kill him worst I'll get his 20 years, its not like I'll be executed, **** it why not?"

Incidently for someoe who's defended republicism and the actions of pearse on this site, it's ironic that you're supporting capital punishment "This kind of murder and crime is wrong, and this kind is right" even if they both end up in corpses.

deadduck

it never fails to surprise me how people totally ignore the financial side of these things. money being wasted on wasters that could be used for much more beneficial things for the rest of us.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

IceHawk

Nobody is really considering that the purpose of the prison system is supposed to be primarily reform. It's true that the parole system in this country is probably too leniant, and that serious criminals should by default be carrying out full sentences, with parole only granted in cases where real improvement is shown. At the moment, if someone gets a 25 year sentence, we assume they'll be out in 15, whereas it should be that only exceptional cases are released early.

At the moment the prisons are seen as a way to get people off the streets, so capital punishment is seen as the permanent solution. But this doesn't allow for any reform. Added to that, most murders are crimes of passion and most murderers can probaby claim with some justification that they weren't in a normal state of mind at the time. These people, obviously disturbed, deserve help, not death. As for cold calculating killers or rapists, in Ireland there can only be a tiny minority of people in this category, so introducing the death penalty just for these people would have hardly any effect on the cost of prisons. Anyway, introducing the death penalty is practically guaranteed to result in it being misused at some point in the future, so it makes more sense to avoid the entire area and instead increase focus on reform in the prisons

magpie

US death row law is littered with

A) people who are of below average intelligence

And of a poor background.

So no great loss to Society then? We could free up a few council estates here using that logic.

mycroft

magpie wrote:

So no great loss to Society then? We could free up a few council estates here using that logic.

The cup of human kindness doth overflow here.

Flukey

Capital punishment is wrong. Basically what the judge and jury are saying is:

" Murder is wrong in any circumstance. You murdered someone. So we are going to murder you." A bit contradictory don't you think? Either murder is wrong or it isn't. They can't have it both ways. In effect, if they condemn someone to death, they are condoning what they have done.

Even if a jury is 100% certain that the person is guilty, they still could be wrong. Also, by their logic, should it be later discovered that that person was innocent, they themselves should be executed, because they have sent a perfectly innocent person to their death. That never happens though, does it? If they have been locked up, they can be released, but you can't go down to the graveyard, dig them up, say sorry and send them on their way.

Anyway, logically, if you support the death penalty you would never use it. How do I come to that conclusion? Well, if you support the death penalty, you think it is ok to murder people. So if someone is found guilty of murder, you won't see that they have done anything wrong and see no reason to sentence them to death.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

And Again the usage of a death penalty is subjective, and if for example it'd be used in the birmingham six (where there wasn't "a shred of doubt") six innocent people would have been killed. And the IRA would have had another recruiting tool.

There was of course a "shred of doubt" in that instance as the men protested their innocence and many people, for example in Ireland, didn't believe they were guilty. I'm talking about using the death penalty on cold hearted killers like you described in your previous post such as those who killed the young lad with the axe.

mycroft wrote:

And you'll find people like Harold Shipman got life and thensome.

The public would not have accepted otherwise though. And Shipman killed himself anyway in the end.

mycroft wrote:

In the first instance they were chance the girlfriend fled and came back to find an axe impalled in her boyfriend head.

In the second despite what the police described as acting in a rational and calm attitude the victim was stabbed six times and died.

Now do really think the axe attacker or the knife stabber really stopped to think while they were commiting their assaults, "if I kill him worst I'll get his 20 years, its not like I'll be executed, **** it why not?"

You mention "while they were committing their assaults", let me ask you would they have done these things if they had stopped before they committed them and thought, "if I kill him I'll be killed myself"?

mycroft wrote:

Incidently for someoe who's defended republicism and the actions of pearse on this site, it's ironic that you're supporting capital punishment "This kind of murder and crime is wrong, and this kind is right" even if they both end up in corpses.

But sure Ireland had capital punishment for years after the Rising indeed Dev used it on many IRA members during The Emergency if I'm not mistaken.

Incidentally, what were the crime figures for Ireland when it had capital punishment, compared to nowadays without it?

Flukey wrote:

Anyway, logically, if you support the death penalty you would never use it. How do I come to that conclusion? Well, if you support the death penalty, you think it is ok to murder people. So if someone is found guilty of murder, you won't see that they have done anything wrong and see no reason to sentence them to death.

Your logic is flawed. You say: "if you support the death penalty, you think it is ok to murder people".

Wrong. "Murder" is defined as "the intentional and unlawful killing of one person by another".

There is nothing unlawful in using the death penalty. On the contrary, it's entirely lawful.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

There was of course a "shred of doubt" in that instance as the men protested their innocence and many people, for example in Ireland, didn't believe they were guilty. I'm talking about using the death penalty on cold hearted killers like you described in your previous post such as those who killed the young lad with the axe.

So basicaly the death penalty only if you plea guilty? Or no death penalty if your mum thinks you're innocent?

The judge, stated if he could he would have ordered the death penalty for the birmingham six.

The public would not have accepted otherwise though. And Shipman killed himself anyway in the end.

1) So basically the judge said "i'd like to give you six months but the public wouldn't stand for it, so it's life my son? No Shipman got life because he was a stone cold killer and got the full weight of the law, life in his case meant life.

2) what's the last thing got to do with it. We're not debating prisoner suicide. Utterly irrelevant.

You mention "while they were committing their assaults", let me ask you would they have done these things if they had stopped before they committed them and thought, "if I kill him I'll be killed myself"?

Do you really think anyone stabbing someone on a bus over chips, or over a race crime, stops and thinks "whats the worse I'll get? 15 years?" No in those instants commiting murder over trival acts they're not considering the consequences. The fact that random murders occur daily in america means theres no weight to that argument of yours.

But sure Ireland had capital punishment for years after the Rising indeed Dev used it on many IRA members during The Emergency if I'm not mistaken.

Incidentally, what were the crime figures for Ireland when it had capital punishment, compared to nowadays without it?

Why are you asking me? You want to know toddle off and find it.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

1) So basically the judge said "i'd like to give you six months but the public wouldn't stand for it, so it's life my son? No Shipman got life because he was a stone cold killer and got the full weight of the law, life in his case meant life.

No, I don't think judges are that sarcastic. The media were all over that case and it was obvious Shipman was going down for a long time. This doesn't happen to all criminals who receive 'life imprisonment' as you well know.

mycroft wrote:

2) what's the last thing got to do with it. We're not debating prisoner suicide. Utterly irrelevant.

It's relevant in that Shipman did to himself what the justice system could have done.

mycroft wrote:

Do you really think anyone stabbing someone on a bus over chips, or over a race crime, stops and thinks "whats the worse I'll get? 15 years?" No in those instants commiting murder over trival acts they're not considering the consequences. The fact that random murders occur daily in america means theres no weight to that argument of yours.

What makes you so qualified to argue about the psychology of a killer? And what about those killers like Shipman who clearly are aware of what they are doing? Random murders in America are irrelvant to Ireland. They have a major problem with gun crime and their popualtion is far larger than ours.

mycroft wrote:

Why are you asking me? You want to know toddle off and find it.

Temper, temper.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

No, I don't think judges are that sarcastic. The media were all over that case and it was obvious Shipman was going down for a long time. This doesn't happen to all criminals who receive 'life imprisonment' as you well know.

So you think the only thing that stops the courts from handing out tough sentences is the media.

It's relevant in that Shipman did to himself what the justice system could have done.

How is it relevant? Exactly. Do you think shipman wouldn't have commited all the murders if he'd have faced the death sentence?

What makes you so qualified to argue about the psychology of a killer? And what about those killers like Shipman who clearly are aware of what they are doing? Random murders in America are irrelvant to Ireland. They have a major problem with gun crime and their popualtion is far larger than ours.

Common sense? What makes you so qualified to raise this discussion in the first place. You've made several statements about capital punishment, what makes you so qualified.

America is the best example we have. Its a western world similar wealth with the death penalty.

Why do you think the death penalty would be a deterent here but not there?

Temper, temper.

We've seem me angry "Mr Nice guy" thats not me angry. Asking people to do your research for you is just sodding lazy.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

There is nothing unlawful in using the death penalty. On the contrary, it's entirely lawful.

True, but interestingly in the United States, when the coroner fills out the death certificate of an executed prisoner, he lists "Homicide" as the cause of death. Legally, It is considered "justifiable homicide", as is a killing in self defence, for example. Personally I find these two forms of killing to be diametrically opposed. I can't see how retrospectively killing someone as a punishment and deterrent can be justified when there is ALWAYS some doubt. Too many people have been murdered on death row (It is "non-justifiable homicide, ie a crime when the person is not "justifiably killed") in cases of miscarrage of justice for us to take the chance with people's lives.

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

True, but interestingly in the United States, when the coroner fills out the death certificate of an executed prisoner, he lists "Homicide" as the cause of death. Legally, It is considered "justifiable homicide", as is a killing in self defence, for example. Personally I find these two forms of killing to be diametrically opposed. I can't see how retrospectively killing someone as a punishment and deterrent can be justified when there is ALWAYS some doubt. Too many people have been murdered on death row (It is "non-justifiable homicide, ie a crime when the person is not "justifiably killed") in cases of miscarrage of justice for us to take the chance with people's lives.

I'm not advocating killing numerous prisoners like in Texas or something but in the case of individuals who murder children for example, why not have the option there to deal with these people?

bonkey

deadduck wrote:

it never fails to surprise me how people totally ignore the financial side of these things.

Unless you're proposing the death sentence in preference to all forms of incarceration, I'm staggered that you can make this statement without providing some sort of breakdown as to what percentage of our prison costs go on prisoners who would be executed were we to have the death sentence reintroduced.

So...how about it...can you show that you aren't ignoring the financial reality in preference to a non-informed assumption??? Please don't forget to include an estimation of the costs of implementing the death penalty in showing it would be cheaper - you can use the costs of any developed western nation with such a system in place as a good starting point.

money being wasted on wasters that could be used for much more beneficial things for the rest of us.

You do realise that the same logic could be used to argue that prisoners don't deserve any humane treatment, and should be exempted from the UDHR, regardless of their crimes?

Oh - and to those who are arguing (or considering doing so) in favour of it in the absolutely-clear-cut, no-question cases....could you please explain how we can convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt, but then decide that its not clear-cut enough to execute them? In short - where do you draw the line...or, if you prefer not to draw the line, how many innocents are you willing to see executed in order to save money / extract vengeance / whatever-you-justify-it-with?

jc

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I'm not advocating killing numerous prisoners like in Texas or something but in the case of individuals who murder children for example, why not have the option there to deal with these people?

Because there is always an element of doubt. The case may be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean they actually 'did it'.

deadduck

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

who says we have to do it the american way?

in the case mentioned earlier, where a guy and his girlfriend were on a bus and some waste of skin decided to flick chips at them, the guy asked him to stop, and the guy responded by stabbing him to death. if this was caught on the bus' video camera, surely its a clear cut case.

and as for bonkey, if your trying to say life in prison would cost the same as one bullet in the head, your nick suits you

and for ffs sake, will those of you who can't tell the difference between murder and the death penalty, get your head out of your arses

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

Because there is always an element of doubt. The case may be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean they actually 'did it'.

Even if, as deadduck said, it's caught on camera? Don't be silly.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Even if, as deadduck said, it's caught on camera? Don't be silly.

Less of the silly please, if you have a point, make it and leave the personal stuff to one side.

Caught on pure digital camera like it soon will be once Dublin Bus upgrade the entire fleet? Caught on pure digital, and hence renderable under digital image rendering software to look like whatever one wants it to look like? A case was thrown out in a US court because a digital image was used as evidence. It was impossible to prove that the image hadn't been altered using image rendering software. The camera usually never lies Like I said, there is always an element of doubt. There have been conspiracies to convict innocents before remember.

deadduck

murphaph wrote:

Less of the silly please, if you have a point, make it and leave the personal stuff to one side.

Caught on pure digital camera like it soon will be once Dublin Bus upgrade the entire fleet? Caught on pure digital, and hence renderable under digital image rendering software to look like whatever one wants it to look like? A case was thrown out in a US court because a digital image was used as evidence. It was impossible to prove that the image hadn't been altered using image rendering software. The camera usually never lies Like I said, there is always an element of doubt. There have been conspiracies to convict innocents before remember.

yeah, i heard bus companies and their employees are notorious for stitching up innocent people for murder

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Even if, as deadduck said, it's caught on camera? Don't be silly.

Every cop on the reclaim the streets 2002 was caught on camera commiting assault, and nearly every one was aquitted.

murphaph

deadduck wrote:

yeah, i heard bus companies and their employees are notorious for stitching up innocent people for murder

The element of doubt remains. You're working on the probability of conspiracy being low, and it is, very low, but not a probability of 0.

deadduck

sure why imprison anyone then, i'm sure if someone was imprisoned for 25 years of their life for a crime they didn't commit, they'd wish they were dead anyway. i know i would.

mycroft

deadduck wrote:

sure why imprison anyone then, i'm sure if someone was imprisoned for 25 years of their life for a crime they didn't commit, they'd wish they were dead anyway. i know i would.

Thats not the debate, you can't release a dead man after new evidence appears.

deadduck

in fairness, i'm comparing "life" to the death penalty. you can't give back the 25 years anymore than you can give back the life. 25 years away from everything you ever knew, your life would be proper ****ed

Guzzler

I think the death penalty is more about vengeance rather than justice. I can understand that some part inside of people bereaved by a murder of a loved one would prefer the killer being six foot under rather than waiting on parole in jail. Is this rational though ? I'd put myself in the vindictive camp.

As far as I can see, no one has brought up the "eye for an eye" card yet. In the name of god where have the christians gone!

I'm all for convicted rapists/paedo's getting regular kicks in the goolies though.

murphaph

deadduck wrote:

25 years away from everything you ever knew, your life would be proper ****ed

But you'd have your life to try to rebuild if you wanted. In any case-not all miscarriages of justice take 25 years to rectify, some people are exonerated at appeal shortly after conviction! So do we just execute people we think won't be exonerated for 25 years because we think their lives would be '****ed', to quote yourself.

murphaph

Guzzler wrote:

I think the death penalty is more about vengeance rather than justice. I can understand that some part inside of people bereaved by a murder of a loved one would prefer the killer being six foot under rather than waiting on parole in jail. Is this rational though ? I'd put myself in the vindictive camp.

As far as I can see, no one has brought up the "eye for an eye" card yet. In the name of god where have the christians gone!

Agreed, although the old 'eye for an eye' isn't limited to Christians. Jews and Muslims have exactly the same things written in their 'holy' books. Spot quiz, does anyone know why Utah uses a firing squad to execute their death row inmates?

mycroft

murphaph wrote:

Agreed, although the old 'eye for an eye' isn't limited to Christians. Jews and Muslims have exactly the same things written in their 'holy' books. Spot quiz, does anyone know why Utah uses a firing squad to execute their death row inmates?

Off the top of my head I'd figure it'd be quite humane. A good marksman can kill you instantly, I've heard gruesome facts about lethal injection and electrocution.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.