# Death By Firing Squad



## MJS (Jun 18, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759499/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Looks like Utah, has done its first execution by firing squad, in 14yrs.



> SALT LAKE CITY - Death row inmate Ronnie Lee Gardner died in a barrage of bullets early Friday as Utah carried out its first firing squad execution in 14 years.
> 
> Shortly before the shooting, Gardner was strapped into a chair and a team of five marksmen aimed their guns at a white target pinned to his chest.
> 
> He was pronounced dead at 12:20 a.m.


 
I know that there are people both for and against the death penalty, in any fashion, but this is the first one that I've ever heard of.  Oh and for the record, I'm not against the death penalty.  Personally, the thing that I dislike about it, is the endless appeals process.  Of course, there've been many cases, where years later, the guy who spent 15yrs of his life in jail, and gets released, is very thankful that he wasn't executed, but whats sad, is that it takes all that time to figure out the wrong man was sitting there in the first place.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 18, 2010)

I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but it's kinda ridiculous to kill someone 25 years later.  People can change a lot in that amount of time.  And some don't.  

I thought this line was interesting:


> Utah adopted lethal injection as the default execution method in 2004, but Gardner was one still allowed to choose the controversial firing squad option because he was sentenced before the law changed. *He told his lawyer he did it because he preferred it*  not because he wanted the controversy surrounding the execution to draw attention to his case or embarrass the state.


 
How does he really know whether he prefers one form of death penalty over another?  It's not like he's ever tried it before.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 18, 2010)

I dunno...with the botches in lethal execution of late, i'd rather pick a more definitive method.


----------



## baron (Jun 18, 2010)

I'm assuming death by old age due to natural causes was not one of the options available.  That's what I would choose.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 18, 2010)

I saw a bit of this on the news... was irked by the fact that the witnesses complained that it was "too violent" and how the man's hand made a fist prior to the shooting and afterwards. Well geez he just got SHOT several times so uh the body is going to have a reaction and death by gunshot is not always pretty (i.e. gangsters and bad-guy cowboys in the movies during the 30's to 60's ... BANG! they grimace and fall down to the ground/floor). 


MJS said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759499/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
> 
> Looks like Utah, has done its first execution by firing squad, in 14yrs.
> 
> ...


I agree here, I am fed up with those endless appeals as well. Bundy who was clearly guilty sat for a very long time before being executed. Dahmler likewise before he was killed in prison, among many other examples. It's when the individual is obviously and unmistakably *guilty*, that they should do away with the appeals process and carry out sentence post-haste. 



CoryKS said:


> I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but it's  kinda ridiculous to kill someone 25 years later.  People can change a  lot in that amount of time.  And some don't.
> 
> I thought this line was interesting:
> 
> ...


 He REQUESTED it because he said that he lived by the gun and thus felt he should die by the gun as his victims all died from gunshot wounds. He was getting what he dished out. To me that speaks of a man who for 25 years learn to regret his actions and the pain he caused and realized that his punishment should fit the crime, that he should not languish in jail for the rest of his life while his victims are dead and buried and their families hurting because equal justice isn't being played out. 
With his decision I don't see any cruel and unusual punishment, like him... I found it fitting.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 19, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> How does he really know whether he prefers one form of death penalty over another?  It's not like he's ever tried it before.


I vote for style points, of the choices available in the US, firing squad has a certain amount of style to it...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 19, 2010)

MJS said:


> Oh and for the record, I'm not against the death penalty.  Personally, the thing that I dislike about it, is the endless appeals process.



Personally, I am against it. Not because I think that murderers should be spared (I don't), but because the percentage of wrongful convictions is staggering, and I don't think that killing the innocents is a fair price to pay for killing the guilty ones.


----------



## MJS (Jun 19, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> I saw a bit of this on the news... was irked by the fact that the witnesses complained that it was "too violent" and how the man's hand made a fist prior to the shooting and afterwards. Well geez he just got SHOT several times so uh the body is going to have a reaction and death by gunshot is not always pretty (i.e. gangsters and bad-guy cowboys in the movies during the 30's to 60's ... BANG! they grimace and fall down to the ground/floor).
> 
> I agree here, I am fed up with those endless appeals as well. Bundy who was clearly guilty sat for a very long time before being executed. Dahmler likewise before he was killed in prison, among many other examples. It's when the individual is obviously and unmistakably *guilty*, that they should do away with the appeals process and carry out sentence post-haste.
> 
> ...


 


Bruno@MT said:


> Personally, I am against it. Not because I think that murderers should be spared (I don't), but because the percentage of wrongful convictions is staggering, and I don't think that killing the innocents is a fair price to pay for killing the guilty ones.


 
May as well address both posts at the same time, seeing that what I'm going to say is pretty relavant to both.   As I said, its amazing at how many people rot in prison, that were wrongly put there, so they sit for 10+yrs, and fortunatley end up released.  This has happened a time or two in CT, and the state awarded the person money, as compensation.  Well duh..thats the least they could do. LOL.  Of course, whats really sad, is that it takes all that time before the cops, prosecutors, and anyone else involved, gets all the facts straight.  Why does it take 15yrs and suddenly, some 'new' evidence pops up.  Where was that evidence 15yrs earlier?  It gives the impression that someone overlooked something, and it cost a potential innocent man, 15yrs.

But, back to the death penalty.  If people get that upset over it, regadrless of the method, then IMO, those guilty people should sit in prison for life, no chance of parole.  And no country club either.  23hrs a day locked up, 1hr to come out and do whatever.  Oh I know, I know, its too cruel.  **** that.  Dont do the crime if ya can't do the time!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 19, 2010)

Well, executing the death penalty is like putting down a dog. No need to be cruel about it. It would also remove part of the debate. Death by nitrox for example.

That said, I'd prefer the firing squad.
Or chinese style: bullet to the back of the head. I don't see how death by bullet is more cruel than the electric chair, the gas chamber or a lethal injection which makes you asphyxiate by paralysis while remaining concious.

As to why wrongful convictions still happen: DAs are under pressure to convict, not to make sure justice is served. So if the defendant has a fresh out of college pro bono lawyer, he will get the shaft. I know someone who has done research for a thesis about repeat offenders, and he told me that many people are serving long sentences because their lawyer ****ed up, and other walk away from murder conviction because they had a brilliant lawyer who tore the DA apart.

Confirmation bias is another factor. In the case of the birmingham six, there was enormous pressure to convict the 6 terrorist suspects. Many mistakes were made and exonerating evidence ignored or hidden because they 'knew' they had the right persons. Only, they didn't. It took 30 years for the exonerating evidence to surface. Had the death penalty existed still in the UK, they'd have been dead. At least now they can spend the rest of their lives in freedom.


----------



## MJS (Jun 19, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Well, executing the death penalty is like putting down a dog. No need to be cruel about it. It would also remove part of the debate. Death by nitrox for example.
> 
> That said, I'd prefer the firing squad.
> Or chinese style: bullet to the back of the head. I don't see how death by bullet is more cruel than the electric chair, the gas chamber or a lethal injection which makes you asphyxiate by paralysis while remaining concious.


 
Well, you're correct.  I mean, I'm not an expert on the procedures, but I have heard people complain about supposed pain, that is felt with the injection.  Does an animal feel any pain when the vet puts them down? Dont know.  While I would hope that the animals do not suffer, I can't help but to have little sympathy for the criminals that're put down.  You could have someone who committed a horrible crime, and the bleeding heart club members *****, because this piece of ****, feels a few moments of pain.  



> As to why wrongful convictions still happen: DAs are under pressure to convict, not to make sure justice is served. So if the defendant has a fresh out of college pro bono lawyer, he will get the shaft. I know someone who has done research for a thesis about repeat offenders, and he told me that many people are serving long sentences because their lawyer ****ed up, and other walk away from murder conviction because they had a brilliant lawyer who tore the DA apart.
> 
> Confirmation bias is another factor. In the case of the birmingham six, there was enormous pressure to convict the 6 terrorist suspects. Many mistakes were made and exonerating evidence ignored or hidden because they 'knew' they had the right persons. Only, they didn't. It took 30 years for the exonerating evidence to surface. Had the death penalty existed still in the UK, they'd have been dead. At least now they can spend the rest of their lives in freedom.


 
If I screw up at my job, I get spoken to by my boss.  If I continue to screw up, I'd imagine I'd get fired.  Yet a lawyer, who goes to school many more years than I did, and gets paid a hell of alot more, screws up, and does anything happen?  Personally, pressure or not, I would want to make sure the right person is sitting behind bars.  Seems like everyone is in a hurry to just get someone, anyone convicted.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 19, 2010)

Big Don said:


> I vote for style points, of the choices available  in the US, firing squad has a certain amount of style to it...


Well I can't see how stylish it is to be strapped down immobile in a chair and get shot at. Why not stand the guy up against a post? Or if he wants to take it like a man... free standing with a blindfold and a cigarette. But if you wanna talk about style then ride the lightning on Ole' Sparky.  
I do agree with post that mentioned the Chinese (and old Nazi) way is quick and painless and saves money on bullets... a quick shot to the back of the skull and he's out. It's messy or it CAN be messy but hey so was the murder that they committed. 



Bruno@MT said:


> Personally, I am against it. Not because I think that murderers should be spared (I don't), but because the percentage of wrongful convictions is staggering, and I don't think that killing the innocents is a fair price to pay for killing the guilty ones.


That is why reserve the immediate death penalty for those who are OBVIOUSLY guilty. Dahmler had heads in his friggin fridge for cripes sake how much more guilty can you get than that?!?! Gacy had the bodies buried all over his backyard and basement crawlspace. Yet they (among others) languished for years behind bars pending appeals. You don't appeal the obviously guilty. You down them like the dogs they are. 
As for guilty verdicts that were circumstantial or even ambiguous at best... yeah okay but make sure the lawyer is focusing their attention on getting the investigation done instead of tabling it for in favor of newer clients who need their assistance. There's LOTS of lawyers out there... they should work at one case at a time ensuring their client's innocence or guilt. DA's definitely need to ensure positive irrefutable guilt. 
If I were sentenced to life in prison for a crime I didn't commit I'd want someone to be busting their butt to make sure I don't spend more than 1 or 2 years waiting for DNA or whatever in depth investigation is needed to  show that they were wrong about me. I happen to like my butthole at the diameter that it is right now.   I'm sure that quite a few innocent guys in prisons are of the same opinion.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 19, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> That is why reserve the immediate death penalty for those who are OBVIOUSLY guilty. Dahmler had heads in his friggin fridge for cripes sake how much more guilty can you get than that?!?! Gacy had the bodies buried all over his backyard and basement crawlspace. Yet they (among others) languished for years behind bars pending appeals. You don't appeal the obviously guilty. You down them like the dogs they are. .


 
Actually, Dahmer was sentenced to 15 _consecutive_ life terms. Gacy was one of the first in Illinois to go by lethal injection, and they botched it...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 19, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Actually, Dahmer was sentenced to 15 _consecutive_ life terms. Gacy was one of the first in Illinois to go by lethal injection, and they botched it...


Ah, I stand corrected. Thank you. 
Well my feelings on the botched Gacy injection... good for them! He deserved nothing less. 
As for Dahmer ... well it is best that he gotten killed in prison. I'd thought that he was sentenced to death ... :idunno: ok... 

thanks for the correction(s) :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 19, 2010)

Not that I know, clearly, but I reckon that death by firing squad is probably as good a way to go as any ... other than the terror of waiting for the moment.

I know from personal experience {my bike accident} that catastrophic trauma does not hurt, so death via multiple gunshot wounds is actually a fairly kind way of going about things.

I do, however, hold much the same opinions as *Bruno* on the death penalty being administered when the system of justice and proof is so obviously flawed.

That said, like *Caver*, I do think that when guilt is incontestable for a capital crime, then that is what should be carried out rather than eternal imprisonment.  

I put my hand in the air and confess that I have become much more Right Wing about this the older I have gotten.  To the extent that I'd opt for a return to public executions in an attempt to make certain elements of our society think twice about committing such crimes as the recent stabbing of a young Marine, in the head, as he went to help his sister who was being assailed by a bunch of teenage thugs.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2010)

The Nazis actually used the guillotine more than shooting people, they killed 16500 people like this, more than were guillotined in the French Revolution.

The problem about gloating about a botched execution is while he may have deserved it, gloating makes us as bad as he. The other problem is you cannot say killing is wrong and illegal if you then proceed to kill someone. We can decide if someone is guilty or not by a proper trial but only the family of the victim/s should decide the punishment. If they decide on execution they must do it, the right to retribution is theirs as is forgiveness.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 20, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> That is why reserve the immediate death penalty for those who are OBVIOUSLY guilty. Dahmler had heads in his friggin fridge for cripes sake how much more guilty can you get than that?!?! Gacy had the bodies buried all over his backyard and basement crawlspace. Yet they (among others) languished for years behind bars pending appeals. You don't appeal the obviously guilty. You down them like the dogs they are.



I agree with you. It's just that it is legally impossible to define 'obviously guilty'. Many like dahmer deserve a simple bullet to the back of the head. However, you have to be able to come up with a definition of 'obviously guilty.

DNA evidence is not always conclusive, or at best puts you at the murder scene. Besides, the odds of a positive DNA match when it is not your DNA is not as bad as you might think. Eye witness accounts are flawed, especially across skin color (I would have great difficulty distinguishing one Japanese person from the other), etc...

At what point do you say 'beyond any shred of doubt, with no other possible explanation, is this man guilty of murder'?

Sometime there was a tv show named 'Justice' which had a law firm defending murder suspects. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost, but what was interesting was that you had to form your own opinion based on evidence and testimony. And then at the end, you could see how it 'really' went down. And the interesting part was that they sometimes came up with fairly plausible way in which someone was found guilty (or almost guilty) despite being completely innocent.

And that made me think: How many times does this happen in reality? And the answer is : fairly often. The innocence project claims a significant percentage of convictions. So even if the case is good enough for a conviction (reasonable doubt and all that) there should be exceedingly high standards for execution. Not only for the sake of the one being executed, but also for the sake of the people performing the execution and the jurors.


----------



## xJOHNx (Jun 20, 2010)

I'd prefer the squad as well. No blindfold.

Some article I read said that death by injection takes 9 minutes? That's long... and painfull.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2010)

MJS said:


> Looks like Utah, has done its first execution by firing squad, in 14yrs.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that there are people both for and against the death penalty, in any fashion, .


 

Hmm. I'm neither for nor against the death penalty. I don't much care. I can see the point of those who say that it's hypocritical-and, make no mistake, when a person is executed, it's not done in the name of his victim or victims, but in the name of _the people_-in *all our names.* We are all just as culpable for these things as though we were participating in a BIblical era stoning. On the other hand, I can see the point of removing problem children from the sandbox-_Sorry, you've more than proven that you can't play nicely with the other children, so we're taking you off the *planet.*_

Just don't tell me it's a deterrent-because the people who do these things are not ever thinking of the consequences when they do them, except to the extent that they try to avoid them. John Wayne Gacy is a perfect example, an unrepentant sinner whose last words were _Up yours._ 

As far as the method goes, again, it doesn't matter much to me, unless being buried alive were an option-then I'd pass. I just know that I'd rather face the death penalty than a life in Supermax, so I don't see what the big deal is......


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 20, 2010)

First off here is how I look at the Death Penalty.

Now you guys know I'm to the right of John Wayne on many things. Heck, some things I'm to the right of Genghis Khan. But on the death penalty I have these thoughts.

I feel for some crimes, YES, hang'em high. But... I feel for them to hand down that penalty it should be for *'BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT'*, not beyond a 'reasonable' doubt.

It's just that death is to final. If they were innocent it would be just horrible (and I think Texas, where I am at, is now trying to find out if they did execute an innocent man.)

Now beyond a shadow of a doubt is not all that hard. Many murders have the weapon and possessions of the person they killed in their possession. That, cameras, eye witnesses, and DNA well pretty much says they did it.

But we know in some cases all they have is the person caught with the victims possessions and that's it. No DNA, no eye witness, no murder weapon. And in those cases I feel they should be given life or just a long sentence.

Now as for the form of execution, I DONT CARE. They could hang them, shoot them, gas them, electrocute them, or just push them off a cliff! Dead is dead. As long as its reasonably quick, well, then its fine and dandy with me. They could be keel hauled as for as Im concerned (ok, maybe that might take a bit of time.)

But only if they are convicted beyond a SHADOW of a doubt.

Deaf


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 20, 2010)

I dont believe in the death penalty for the simple fact of weird logic: You're trying to get people not to kill/teach that killing is wrong  by - wait for it - killing people.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 21, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> I dont believe in the death penalty for the simple fact of weird logic: You're trying to get people not to kill/teach that killing is wrong  by - wait for it - killing people.



That's not true. You're trying to get people to believe that *murder* is wrong by killing people.

Remember, some people jus' need killin'. It's even in the Old Testament.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That's not true. You're trying to get people to believe that *murder* is wrong by killing people.
> 
> Remember, some people jus' need killin'. *It's even in the Old Testament.[/*quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That's not true. You're trying to get people to believe that *murder* is wrong by killing people.
> 
> Remember, some people jus' need killin'. It's even in the Old Testament.



*This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1st Sam 15:2-3)*

There is lots of violence, rape, and worse things in the old testament. It's hardly a reference on proper and respectful behavior.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> *This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1st Sam 15:2-3)*
> 
> There is lots of violence, rape, and worse things in the old testament. It's hardly a reference on proper and respectful behavior.


 

Exactly and a lot of wise people have spent a lot of time since making the Law civilised and up to date but still many people prefer to believe that the old words are the ones they prefer as they think it justifies whatever they want to do.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Exactly and a lot of wise people have spent a lot of time since making the Law civilised and up to date but still many people prefer to believe that the old words are the ones they prefer as they think it justifies whatever they want to do.



I can see I need to work on my comedian ability.

Even still, my point stands.  We execute people to show that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I can see I need to work on my comedian ability.
> 
> Even still, my point stands.  We execute people to show that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong.



Ah, well a regular dose of emoticons can work wonders 

That said, I don't think it is unfair to call a wrongful execution 'murder'. Since wrongful executions do happen, what to do with the jurors, DA, and the executioners? that would make them guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and murder. Especially the people involved in performing the actual execution are guilty of committing murder because the state said it's ok.

Capital punishment should be mandatory in those cases. Not doing that is the same as saying that the difference between killing and murder is an arbitrary decision on the part of the state, and that as long as the state says it's ok, killing is not murder.

And since 'the state' in this case boils down to a dozen (ish) people who need to agree, you basically have a system in which a handful of people can legally decide that killing someone is not murder, even if, in hindsight, they made the wrong decision. In other words, murder is only wrong if someone else is doing it. If the state does it, it's not murder, even if the same actions (conspiracy to commit murder because they think they have a good reason) would put anyone else in the seat of the defendant.

It's the wrongful convictions that make me stand against the death penalty. If you could come up with a guaranteed, incorruptible way of ascertaining guilt, then I could perhaps change my mind. But since that is not going to happen any time soon, I am not going to be blase about throwing away innocent lives just to make sure that the really bad ones get to see their maker rather sooner than expected. Let God sort them out; not us.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That's not true. You're trying to get people to believe that *murder* is wrong by killing people.
> 
> Remember, some people jus' need killin'. It's even in the Old Testament.





5-0 Kenpo said:


> I can see I need to work on my comedian ability.
> 
> Even still, my point stands.  We execute people to show that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong.



Touche. and i take your point. Even so, I took your post as a funny little bit of sarcasm. Do you also attend sarcasm university with Bob Hubbard?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Touche. and i take your point. Even so, I took your post as a funny little bit of sarcasm. Do you also attend sarcasm university with Bob Hubbard?


 

I think Transatlantic sarcasm is a tad different from ours! I saw it more as a straight comment, our sarcasm tends to be ironic, amusing and far more scathing lol!


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 23, 2010)

He got what He deserved.


----------

