Comments:Condemned US killer to face execution by firing squad
The Government is supposed to protect life, not take it. This ideal is what is supposed to be what separates Western Countries from other places where the government is used as a political tool to end opposition. Every execution - let's say legalised murder - because that's what it is - takes the system one step closer to being able to be used to on ordinary citizens.
What I find disturbing is the fact that they can take away the right of a person to vote in a country. Because by killing a person, they are taking away the right of that person to ever vote again. Clearly inmates - at least while alive - are totally dependant on the government for whatever little life they have left. Someone who is 100% dependant on the government should have a tool other than violence (prison riots for example) in order to change things.
I have no illusions about what these prisoners have done, or the type people that they are. I know that they want to kill.
I would argue, however, that by proctecting the rights of one person, we are essentially protecting our own rights as well.
Perhaps the exception being the guards who have to look after these people. Although even rabid dogs can be taken care of, with the proper equipment.
When the families of the victim sit there and watch the execution, they are taking part in the evil that is a murder. It is blood smeared on their hands, and it shouldn't be there. You cannot on one hand punish someone for taking a life, and on the other hand, take a life. One evil act should not precipitate another.
Death row is an easy out for a criminal. It is much tougher to say: "You have to live for the rest of your life with what you have done." It is also easy for the system, which is relieving itself of the responsibility of rehabilitation. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm against capital punishment but it's a sliding scale. A bullet is a lot more humane than an electric chair, a gas chamber or a lethal injection. Plus despite the barbarity of both the state and this criminal, you have to admit the guy has cojones to choose bullets. I don't understand the Roman Catholic Bishop complaining about this death contributing to "gun violence". Death is death. Would he protest the same if the death was lethal injection, or is he just a goofy hypocrite who thinks death by bullet is somehow worse than death by poison? I don't know 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
|06:40, 28 April 2010
|Comments from feedback form - "Everyting is wrong"
|11:35, 27 April 2010
|16:45, 25 April 2010
|16:42, 25 April 2010
A firing squad... in the 21st century.... Seriously, Utah .... Seriously???!!!!
Hey, I don't blame the guy. If I had to choose between firing squad and lethal injection, I'd pick the same. At least with firing squad you get to die with dignity, not on a bed and sedated like a stray cat.
Last edit: 15:17, 27 April 2010
Why is there five in a firing squad and not one? Better yet not why not give him the option of hari kari?
What were the details of the original crime he committed? I mean evidence, facts, motivation, etc? What was his statement?
In rereading this story and if I read it correctly, I find it amazing that someone was able to slip him a gun at all and he managed to do what he did in a short period of time?
In deliberating about whether or not one believes in the death penalty, I might suggest watching "Lock up Raw". To determine the truth to this show, go to a prison and interview a convicted murderer yourself, observe the surroundings of the prison, go to a court room, go to a trial, go to a police station , volunteer to work in a probation department, go on a shift with a police officer, sit in a law class, work in a law firm, work in the court system and most of all be a juror and put yourself in his shoes or the victims shoes and then decide if you believe in the death penalty or not. Most of all observe and talk to all people of every station in life in order to undertand oneself and others actions.
How utterly barbaric and disgusting that a government within a nation which so often claims for itself the responsibility of protecting democracy, liberty and the rule of law participates in a heinous act that violates the most basic level of human dignity. What is happening here is no less than state-sanctioned revenge, and while revenge is a natural emotional response in the face of acts of cruelty, It is merely an impulse, and ultimately a base and childish one which serves no purpose but to perpetuate cruelty. The role of the state in dealing with criminal behaviour is to approach criminality as a systemic illness which needs to be treated, both by rehabilitating the criminal and by examining and addressing the underlying cultural or social conditions which may be the root cause of such crime. Acting as a surrogate for society's most savage violent inclinations serves only to validate criminal behaviour rather than discourage it. It teaches "yes.. it's ok to be merciless and brutal so long as you have the machinery of government at your disposal". What results is a codified form of vigilantism that completely undermines the moral authority of the state to deter crime. It is deeply sickening that a people who fancy themselves civilised (and even "Christian" at that) can look the other way while their government commits an unmistakably homicidal act.