It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Welcome back Ole Sparky: Tennessee to bring back electric chair

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MarlinGrace


But I do agree with life in prison, I want maximum suffering for some of the things these criminals do, and the way to do it is life in prison.


Prison is not suffering.

Once someone institutionalized, it is a way of life.

It isnot suffering. Three meals a day, heat, air conditioning, medical care, and television, is not suffering. Hell they have it better than some poor people.

Criminals do not fear prison.


I know someone who has spent too much time in prison and paranoia has set into the max, he doesn't want back. I can say I am lucky never been never wanna go, but as a common sense sorta thing, everything I have seen of the race wars, ADSEG, and a life in a 6' X 8' cell I would rather be poor on the outside. With life in prison there is no opportunity. You live in a box, eat crap food, and are terrorised by inmates for the remainder of your life. With a death sentence you get off easy.




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Aleister

Long drop hanging is far more humane than the electric chair.


Electric hair in my opinion comes under "cruel and unusual".


The long-drop method was favoured by most of the world, for a long time. Albert Pierrepoint, Britains longest serving hangman strongly favoured this method.

The Long-Drop firstly compresses the carotid artery, causing an instant drop in blood pressure to the brain, causing the brain to instantly shut down and go comatose. Normally the brain recovers when the blood flow is re-established, in the case of the long drop, blood flow is never re-established. This means the person being executed is immediately rendered unconcious, and will feel no further pain from the execution process.

The force of the drop, and the design of the noose, if its been made properly then rotates the head in two directions, sideways and backwards, which has the effect of breaking the spine at the neck, usually severing the spinal cord in the process.

Done properly, death is from strangulation (loss of blood to the brain), and not asphyxiation (loss of oxygen to the brain), but the brain is unconscious for the entire process, so the condemned feels no pain at all.

Short drop (favoured by some barbaric countries) or wrongly executed long-drop, death is from asphyxiation, and the condemned is concious for most of it, in extreme pain.

A side note, Albert Pierrepoint was a major proponent of abolishing the death penalty, and only did the job because he didn't trust the competence of anyone else to execute the long-drop properly. He wanted to make sure they died painlessly, if they had to die at all.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Excellent point, I've pondered that same argument myself. It makes zero sense. How can someone support the death penalty and then be pro-life. Very strange indeed.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Seriously? Comeon .... the electric chair? Like the OP said .. might as well get all neanderthal and bring back stoning a person to death.

That being said, I wonder why they picked the electric chair and not a firing squad? Wouldn't the firing squad be quicker, cheaper, and less likely to have a misfire?



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Seriously, it's so barbaric!

Every time I think of death by electric chair the scene from the Green Mile comes to mind.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BMorris

I think one of the reasons for moving away from hangings is the need for participation from the condemned. It's the first time the idea has crossed my mind that so many men and women walked to the gallows and allowed the hangman to put that noose around their neck. Gives me the chills thinking about it.

George Orwell once described being at a hanging in India when he was in the British Army. A man was walked to the platform barefoot and wearing just a loin cloth. Within yards of the rope, he stepped over a puddle and it was an epiphany for Orwell to see this instinctive gesture of dignity from a man with minutes left to live. It was a significant factor in his decision to leave the army and become the iconoclast we know him as today.

With the electric chair, someone can be sedated and carried, or wheeled, in with little resistance. Same for lethal injection as they too can be knocked out and taken to the execution room.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

I think I've always missed the fascination and fixation on method of death our citizens have. It reminds me of a line in Apocalypse Now "We cut them in half with a machine gun, then give 'em a band-aid". Indeed.... We keep looking for nicer band-aids to use here, when the end is still 100% unchanged.

The state, in our names, is still violently taking the life of another human being. We can make that process SO warm and fuzzy that they almost look forward to it ..or we can make the violence of forcing death a physical thing with electricity or gunshot, among other things.

The guy dying doesn't get any different result out of it. The system doesn't care either way, as long as the procedures were followed as a book somewhere said it must be.

The only ones seeming to spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about how criminals die are the people LEAST impacted in any direct way. VERY often, not even living in the state in question and so...not even among the "Done in our name" the whole act is about.

Heck.. I'll volunteer to pull the switch or fire the magic rifle with the live round myself, for what the majority did to fully earn the end they receive.

My ONLY problem is what others have... We actually manage to PROVE some on Death Row are innocent. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the method used when they aren't cleared.

Method is just a means to the same end, no matter how the condemned travel to reach it. The quicker the better, in all truth.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

"Thou shalt not kill" is an immature, inaccurate, naïve, and frankly juvenile stance against the death penalty. The more accurate translation is, "Thou shalt not murder". The Bible that you misquote, in fact allows many provisions by which offenders could be executed, many of which are cruel or unjust by our modern standards. As a matter of fact, even Hebrew law understood the burden that these individuals place on society, and prescribed provisions for just and righteous punishment.

If our society dictates that we give the condemned a dignified and painless death, I am not against that, even though the offenders failed to provide the same to their victims. As long as justice is carried out, I'm not terribly particular on the method.

edit on 24-5-2014 by LuXiferGriM because: added thoughts.

edit on 24-5-2014 by LuXiferGriM because: correction



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

Give life to the innocent, and punish the guilty. What doesn't make sense about that?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LuXiferGriM

And just how is pumping drugs into a man tied up to a gurney, or hanging a woman guarded by six burly guards, or strapping a guy into an electric chair, not murder? What is your definition of murder???



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

The unjust killing of a person is murder. How are any of the examples you provided actually murder? In your eyes, is killing in self defense murder? Is war murder? If you are a religious person, which I'm assuming since you believe that you are quoting the bible, do you not believe this? "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

I'm not particularly religious, but I don't think the matter is as black and white as you would have people believe.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
a reply to: Aleister

"Thou shalt not kill" is an immature, inaccurate, naïve, and frankly juvenile stance against the death penalty. The more accurate translation is, "Thou shalt not murder". The Bible that you misquote, in fact allows many provisions by which offenders could be executed, many of which are cruel or unjust by our modern standards. As a matter of fact, even Hebrew law understood the burden that these individuals place on society, and prescribed provisions for just and righteous punishment.

If our society dictates that we give the condemned a dignified and painless death, I am not against that, even though the offenders failed to provide the same to their victims. As long as justice is carried out, I'm not terribly particular on the method.


Is there an amendment section for the 10 commandments?

I was led to believe the wording to be fairly specific. I've never seen written,'Thou shalt not murder'.

Isn't death by the state still murder, regardless?
edit on 24-5-2014 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
a reply to: Aleister

"Thou shalt not kill" is an immature, inaccurate, naïve, and frankly juvenile stance against the death penalty. The more accurate translation is, "Thou shalt not murder". The Bible that you misquote, in fact allows many provisions by which offenders could be executed, many of which are cruel or unjust by our modern standards. As a matter of fact, even Hebrew law understood the burden that these individuals place on society, and prescribed provisions for just and righteous punishment.

If our society dictates that we give the condemned a dignified and painless death, I am not against that, even though the offenders failed to provide the same to their victims. As long as justice is carried out, I'm not terribly particular on the method.


Is there an amendment section for the 10 commandments?

I was led to believe the wording to be fairly specific. I've never seen written,'Thou shalt not murder'.

Isn't death by the state still murder, regardless?


You bet it is. And premeditated murder, arrived at through a conspiracy of people who had to okay it. And not only that, but they hire someone to do it, so it's solicitation of murder as well. Lots of broken laws in a state murder, if only someone would enforce them.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
a reply to: Aleister

The unjust killing of a person is murder. How are any of the examples you provided actually murder? In your eyes, is killing in self defense murder? Is war murder? If you are a religious person, which I'm assuming since you believe that you are quoting the bible, do you not believe this? "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

I'm not particularly religious, but I don't think the matter is as black and white as you would have people believe.



To me killing in self defense is just common sense in some situations, not murder. War? Ha. So many murders are committed in war that people finally gave them a different name: war.
edit on 24-5-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
If you would care to research the biblical precedent (since you like to quote it), you would find that you have been mistaken. But of course you are just being coy now aren't you?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join