Utah proposing to bring back firing squad executions

[Borgholio]

http://news.yahoo.com/utah-revives-plan ... 48379.html

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Ten years after banning the use of firing squads in state executions, Utah lawmakers on Wednesday endorsed a proposal to allow the practice again to avoid problems with lethal-injection drugs.

The proposal from Republican Rep. Paul Ray of Clearfield would call for a firing squad if the state cannot obtain the lethal injection drugs 30 days before the scheduled execution.

Utah dropped firing squads out of concern about the media attention, but Ray said it's the most humane way to execute someone because the inmate dies instantly.

"We have to have an option," Ray told reporters Wednesday. "If we go hanging, if we go to the guillotine, or we go to the firing squad, electric chair, you're still going to have the same circus atmosphere behind it. So is it really going to matter?"

After a 20-minute discussion, an interim panel of Utah lawmakers approved the idea on a 9-2 vote Wednesday. The proposal still needs to go through the full legislative process once lawmakers convene for their annual session in January.

Rep. Mark Wheatley, a Democrat from Murray, voted against the measure because he said Utah doesn't have a problem that needs to be fixed.

Santaquin Republican Rep. Marc Roberts, who cast the other opposing vote, said he didn't think the proposal was needed and is unsure of his own view on capital punishment.

Under current Utah law, death by firing squad is only an option for criminals sentenced to death before 2004. It was last used in 2010.

Ray said his proposal gives Utah flexibility if it's unable to obtain the drugs needed in a lethal injection.

For years, states used a three-drug combination to execute inmates, but European drugmakers have refused to sell them to prisons and corrections departments out of opposition to the death penalty.

That move has led states to use different types, combinations and doses of lethal drugs, but those methods have been challenged in court.

Because of the challenges with the drugs and prolonged executions earlier this year in Oklahoma and Arizona, lawmakers in Utah and elsewhere are looking for alternatives.

Critics have said the firing squads are not without risks and will renew the intense media attention Utah had wanted to avoid.

Despite being restrained, an inmate could still move or the shooters could miss the heart, causing a slower, painful death, according to the Washington, D.C.,-based Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment.

One such case appears to have happened in Utah's territorial days back in 1879. According to newspaper accounts, a firing squad missed Wallace Wilkerson's heart and it took him 27 minutes to die.

Utah stopped allowing inmates to choose a firing-squad execution in 2004, citing the excessive media attention it gave prisoners. Those sentenced to death before the law changed still have the option of choosing it.

It was last used in 2010 when Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by five police officers with .30-caliber Winchester rifles.

Gardner was the third person to die by firing squad after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Several other inmates on Utah's death row have opted to die by gunfire, but they are all years away from exhausting the appeals of their death sentences, according to the state attorney general's office.

Jean Hill with the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City spoke Wednesday in opposition to the proposal and the death penalty in general, telling lawmakers that there is no humane way to kill someone.

"These may be heinous crimes that have been committed, and the idea of revenge is a normal human emotion," Hill said. "But the state's role is not to take revenge on people."

[PKRudeBoy]

Seems reasonable to me. If you're going to have the death penalty, I think the condemned should have a choice in how they die, especially given the problems we've been having with lethal injection. I know I would prefer I firing squad to that.

[Broomstick]

Gee, people, let's get a grip on the fact that if you're going to kill someone it may not be as instantaneous and painless as you intend, m'kay?

That said, firing squad or guillotine are pretty certain in such matters. It also sidesteps the problems of medical personnel and execution.

Of course, personally I'm opposed to the state executing people but if we're going to do it a firing squad can serve as well as a needle.

[Simon_Jester]

I think they're right.

Death by lethal injection has the potential to be agonizing, torturous pain and horror for the inmate, because the "knockout drug" part of the lethal cocktail doesn't always work as planned. With a firing squad, it's over, quickly, even if the first volley doesn't kill you instantly.

Lethal injection is also a very dehumanizing way to die, in my opinion. You die alone in a room, strapped to a gurney, like an animal being 'put to sleep.' At least with a firing squad, you're not alone, even if all the other people in the area are there to kill you. There's a scrap of human dignity in death by a firing squad, potentially.

[The Vortex Empire]

If I was getting executed, I'd choose a firing squad over lethal injection, I've read too many accounts of botched lethal injections to choose otherwise. Let the person about to be executed choose.

[Irbis]

That said, firing squad or guillotine are pretty certain in such matters. It also sidesteps the problems of medical personnel and execution.

Guillotine I'll give you, but how is firing squad certain? There are plenty of people who survived 5 shots, especially if some of these are blanks (old method of staving off psychological problems in shooters, mixing 2-3 blanks in and telling them "it wasn't you"). If all you hit are lungs, dying that way can be pretty horrific, to boot. The option to be sure is to keep firing or shoot head from point blank range, both of which score rather low on 'no cruelty' card.

Ironically, at once safest, fastest and cheapest method of killing people is 5$ made in china grenade in their front pocket. Sadly, you can't PR sell it as 'painless' or 'time honoured' way of killing like other methods so the carefully built hypocrisy shield comes down like house of cards. Not that they even try, denying firing squad while allowing poison on the grounds of 'excessive media attention' is all sorts of stupid at once.

[PKRudeBoy]

Personally, I think nitrogen asphyxiation would be the most humane method, followed by opiate overdose or a bullet to the back of the head.

[Jub]

They could also use the bolt gun that we use to kill cows. You strap them into the chair, the piston fires, and they're dead as their brain stem gets destroyed. It's cheap, easy, and low tech.

[Broomstick]

That said, firing squad or guillotine are pretty certain in such matters. It also sidesteps the problems of medical personnel and execution.

Guillotine I'll give you, but how is firing squad certain? There are plenty of people who survived 5 shots, especially if some of these are blanks (old method of staving off psychological problems in shooters, mixing 2-3 blanks in and telling them "it wasn't you"). If all you hit are lungs, dying that way can be pretty horrific, to boot. The option to be sure is to keep firing or shoot head from point blank range, both of which score rather low on 'no cruelty' card.

First of all, firing squads have ample time to aim prior to shooting, and shoot from very close range. Presumably, one also uses people experienced in operating firearms. This minimizes the chances of wounding rather than killing.

And, by the way, having someone step over the condemned with a pistol and putting a shot into the brain is a time-honored way of making certain the person is dead.

Yes, ANY form of execution can be botched (think of what happens if a guillotine blade jams - and that has occurred). The thing is, people shooting a target is pretty straight forward, and you can always administer a coup de grace if the first round isn't immediately deadly. Lethal injection is fiddling, using a device that people don't get much practice on, and if you botch it the person may be too paralyzed to let you know they're dying in agony over 10-15 minutes (or more).

[Simon_Jester]

Guillotine I'll give you, but how is firing squad certain? There are plenty of people who survived 5 shots, especially if some of these are blanks (old method of staving off psychological problems in shooters, mixing 2-3 blanks in and telling them "it wasn't you"). If all you hit are lungs, dying that way can be pretty horrific, to boot. The option to be sure is to keep firing or shoot head from point blank range, both of which score rather low on 'no cruelty' card.

I don't know. Which is less cruel, a pistol round to the head, or spending an hour strapped to a table being slowly and painfully poisoned to death.

Ironically, at once safest, fastest and cheapest method of killing people is 5$ made in china grenade in their front pocket.

Probably yes, although cleanup will be drastically more messy. There is one catch:

Sadly, you can't PR sell it as 'painless' or 'time honoured' way of killing like other methods so the carefully built hypocrisy shield comes down like house of cards.

To me this is not hypocritical. There really is a cultural argument for execution being a ritualized thing that allows the condemned some degree of dignity.

Of course, if you're anti-death penalty I'm sure it all looks like variations on the theme of savagery.

But within the cultural context of Utah (where the argument against the death penalty is considered resolved, at least for now), this is a legitimate question:

"Given that we have condemned this person to death, what is the means of execution that strikes the right balance between being reasonably feasible*, reasonably humane**, and reasonably consistent with the dignity of the condemned***?"

*As in, not too expensive
**As in, a quick death
***Always a tricky proposition, and hard to define.

They could also use the bolt gun that we use to kill cows. You strap them into the chair, the piston fires, and they're dead as their brain stem gets destroyed. It's cheap, easy, and low tech.

Cheap, quick to kill, but dehumanizing.

[loomer]

Yeah, I see no problem with this. If a man wants to die by gunfire, let him. Have them aim for the head and you resolve most of the problems with slower deaths from lung wounds. It might not be ideal for open casket, but if it's a voluntary decision, you can let them consider that. Sure as fuck beats being strapped down to a gurney while the meds malfunction and you die slowly over the course of hours because they aren't allowed to just shoot you and put you out of the pain.

[PKRudeBoy]

That said, firing squad or guillotine are pretty certain in such matters. It also sidesteps the problems of medical personnel and execution.

Guillotine I'll give you, but how is firing squad certain? There are plenty of people who survived 5 shots, especially if some of these are blanks (old method of staving off psychological problems in shooters, mixing 2-3 blanks in and telling them "it wasn't you"). If all you hit are lungs, dying that way can be pretty horrific, to boot. The option to be sure is to keep firing or shoot head from point blank range, both of which score rather low on 'no cruelty' card.

First of all, firing squads have ample time to aim prior to shooting, and shoot from very close range. Presumably, one also uses people experienced in operating firearms. This minimizes the chances of wounding rather than killing.

And, by the way, having someone step over the condemned with a pistol and putting a shot into the brain is a time-honored way of making certain the person is dead.

Yes, ANY form of execution can be botched (think of what happens if a guillotine blade jams - and that has occurred). The thing is, people shooting a target is pretty straight forward, and you can always administer a coup de grace if the first round isn't immediately deadly. Lethal injection is fiddling, using a device that people don't get much practice on, and if you botch it the person may be too paralyzed to let you know they're dying in agony over 10-15 minutes (or more).

I really don't see a way to botch nitrogen asphyxiation, considering that while it's happening, you don't even notice the fact that you are suffocating to death.

[GuppyShark]

There appears to be a non-trivial risks associated with the use of nitrogen:

http://www.monash.edu.au/ohs/topics/haz ... ation.html

[Jub]

Cheap, quick to kill, but dehumanizing.

I don't see it as any more dehumanizing than a lethal injection or electric chair. In both those cases, depending on the setup, you die alone and strapped down. This one is more of the same with less risk of a catastrophic failure.

[The Grim Squeaker]

There's another major element in favor of the squad - namely that it decentralizes blame/guilt. Thus, each squad member can think that maybe his rifle has a blank in it, and that it's not just him executing the man - as opposed to it being a single man, injecting poison into someone from up close.
(Poor executioners ).

[Beowulf]

There appears to be a non-trivial risks associated with the use of nitrogen:

http://www.monash.edu.au/ohs/topics/haz ... ation.html

Those appear to be fairly mitigatible risks, and only for the executioners, not the condemned. For the condemned, it's operating as designed.

[K. A. Pital]

I would very much prefer to die like a man rather than being put to sleep like a mad dog.

[Broomstick]

They could also use the bolt gun that we use to kill cows. You strap them into the chair, the piston fires, and they're dead as their brain stem gets destroyed. It's cheap, easy, and low tech.

Yes, but it's also how we kill cattle. There's a psychological aspect to slaughtering a man like we do a food animal that doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

[Jub]

Yes, but it's also how we kill cattle. There's a psychological aspect to slaughtering a man like we do a food animal that doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Don't use the exact same gun then, you could swing a metal bar sideways and get the same effect. The fact is that if you have to use physical trauma to cause death the destruction of the brain stem is the least painful and most efficient way to kill somebody.

[Beowulf]

Yes, but it's also how we kill cattle. There's a psychological aspect to slaughtering a man like we do a food animal that doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Don't use the exact same gun then, you could swing a metal bar sideways and get the same effect. The fact is that if you have to use physical trauma to cause death the destruction of the brain stem is the least painful and most efficient way to kill somebody.

Phyiscal trauma? Like an 8g piece of gilding metal and lead travelling at 900 m/s?

[Jub]

Phyiscal trauma? Like an 8g piece of gilding metal and lead travelling at 900 m/s?

Guns work, but they aren't 100% accurate and generally speaking they need a person to shoot them. A bolt gun that gets positioned and locked in place relative to a bound prisoner won't miss and the guy that flips the switch can be in another room so as to avoid the trauma of watching a man die after you push the button. Seems better than a firing squad all round.

[Beowulf]

Guns can be as accurate as you need them to be. You can stick them on train and elevation mounts and have a remote actuator for the trigger for them as well. You don't necessarily need to line up 7 guys with bog standard rifles.

[Simon_Jester]

Although that then touches off the 'degrading, killed by servomechanism' aspect.

Cheap, quick to kill, but dehumanizing.

I don't see it as any more dehumanizing than a lethal injection or electric chair. In both those cases, depending on the setup, you die alone and strapped down. This one is more of the same with less risk of a catastrophic failure.

And those are also dehumanizing, and the argument some, including me, present is that all of them are profoundly flawed for that reason.

[Siege]

Why is it dehumanizing to be pumped full of poison but not to be pumped full of bullets?

[Jub]

And those are also dehumanizing, and the argument some, including me, present is that all of them are profoundly flawed for that reason.

I actually think dehumanizing the condemned is better for society as a whole. They killer gets no last bit of fame and glory, the executioner is spared some small measure of strain by being less involved in the death, and society gets to see that people worthy of being put to death have even the right to go out defiant and standing stripped from them. The only people hurt are, arguably, the condemned and anybody emotionally close to them; and I find that a small price to pay for the benefits gained.

EDIT: Not to say that I want the death penalty, I'm happy that Canada doesn't have it, but if you must have it why not make it as cold, detached, painless, and clinical as you can?