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.

 

Should executions be carried out using the internet?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This is a real question folks.

The issue of who will be the executioner of those condemned to die has long been an issue. Axemen wore hoods to hide their identity. Firing squads issue blanks to some of the men , therefore none of them knows if their shot actually killed the condemned.

The same is done with lethal injections today. Usually three IVs are hooked up, with only one having the poison. Three people push three buttons to release the contents of the three IV's, nobody knowing which of them is killing the condemned.

These methods are used to absolve those involved in taking another persons life of any guilt.

The ultimate abolition of guilt would be to spread it out over the entire society. Instead of 3 buttons, what if there were 3 million? Instead of there being a one in three chance of being a murderer, those participating would have a one in three MILLION chance of being a killer.

If this were done the next obvious issue would be if the execution should be shown live on the internet.

The internet just might become the new firing squad and you may be asked to participate just as citizens are "asked" to be jurors today.

How do you feel about this? Would this be better from a moral standpoint?




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Executions should most certainly not be carried out this way. It's not some kind of lottery. The law dictates that certain crimes are punishable by death, and that death should be handled in a professional manner.

As far as having guilt over knowing that the button you pushed delivered the poison... Medical professionals are not drafted into doing executions. I am not sure whether they're full-time employees of the penitentiary who also do executions, or whether they're contractors hired specifically for that purpose, but nobody forces them to execute another person.

Why would anyone sign up for a job like that if they would be guilty about what they were doing? I'm not saying that people don't feel guilty about it, but I'm saying that if it would bother you tremendously that is not a job that you should be involved with.

Sorry if I am a little incoherent this morning. Medication's fault.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
ahhhhhhhhh, the signs of a crumbling civilization abound!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Do you want something like running man show on tv or something. Democracy is mob rule any way, and if your part of the minority what then.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
How about you just let those who's job it is to execute them do their job? If I wanted to execute criminals I would get that job. But I don't.

If someones going to feel guilty about executing someone they shouldn't do that job. You don't become a teacher if you don't like teaching, right? Same idea. They took that job knowing what they were going to have to do.

I would say no to using the internet to execute criminals.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


The concept of apportioning guilt in executions is an old one and is indeed a big problem for leaders. It isn't just the personal guilt of the killer at issue, it is a societal problem. Those who willingly become the executioner are forever thereafter treated with suspicion by everyone else, knowing that you have somebody who willingly kills people living next door to you would spook anyone. And those who are the executioners thus become pariahs.

Lotteries are one of the earliest attempts to avoid this problem and "drawing straws" or "names out of a hat" are examples of this. Modern executions use modern straws(buttons connected to bottles of poison), thats all. The ultimate drawing of straws would be the internet, with conceivably millions of straws.

Is the concept of spreading guilt out like this a "better mousetrap" for executions?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


It seems to me the methods used to "absolve" those involved of guilt send the message that there's not enough conviction behind the morality of the death penalty. I mean, if you're behind it-- get behind it all the way. This is not an issue for moral vacillation.

Working in the criminal justice field at the prosecutorial level, I used to be in favor of the death penalty. However, in the past few years, what is required to actually convict a person of a crime and send them to death row is little to no hard evidence. The laws have been so watered down that there is a frightening rise in wrongful convictions in this country. If we can't do it right, we shouldn't be doing it at all. Nearly every week you hear about someone being released from prison after fifteen years or so, based on DNA proof of their innocence. This should not be happening.

www.lewrockwell.com...

Based on the evidence of this rise in wrongful convictions, we, as a nation, should feel some guilt about the death penalty as it is executed currently.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kattraxx
 


Thanks for the reply Trax. I agree with your assertion that the real guilt should be born by those at the top who decide that people should be executed. Those who are at the top of course have made a career out of passing the buck and would never dirty their own hands which is why others do the deed for them.

So, from their standpoint, would "passing the buck" to millions rather than a few be better?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
An anonymous, godlike authority acting as judge, jury and executioner over the internet is simply asking for trouble. I do not believe in the death penalty because some accused may be innocent. I would feel guilty even deciding on someone’s life, period.

What makes this concept morally wrong is when a bunch of ‘citizen’s are asked to decide the fate of any person over the internet. The process may be more convenient but quite impersonal and ‘group-thinking’ brings about hasty or irrational and sometimes with disastrous results. It should not and does not replace the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of jury by fair trial.


[edit on 2008-2-3 by pikypiky]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


I don't think the OP is talking about trials being conducted over the internet, with anonymous jurors in separate rooms around the country. Not "judge, jury and executioner," but the literal executioner.

Someone just pushing a button on their computer and delivering the lethal injection or bullet.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Evil double post...

[edit on 3-2-2008 by TheHypnoToad]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


Regardless, that is asking too much from anyone to simply push a button from a computer to execute an accused. Yeah, sure it would spread the sense of guilt though all the individuals involved but I personally cannot imagine participating in something that goes against my moral conscious.

But I do see the OP's point as the age of information increases so does its practical application in everyday decision making, like should voting for the next president be carried out using the internet? I think the answer would be a possible, yes, for both execution and voting via the internet.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
An anonymous, godlike authority acting as judge, jury and executioner over the internet is simply asking for trouble. I do not believe in the death penalty because some accused may be innocent. I would feel guilty even deciding on someone’s life, period.

What makes this concept morally wrong is when a bunch of ‘citizen’s are asked to decide the fate of any person over the internet. The process may be more convenient but quite impersonal and ‘group-thinking’ brings about hasty or irrational and sometimes with disastrous results. It should not and does not replace the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of jury by fair trial.


[edit on 2008-2-3 by pikypiky]


Thanks for your veiw piky, the issue of having our justice system turned into mockery of itself in some perverted "Survivor" show is frightening but very real. It is't the true subject of my original post but it is obviously related.

The combination of these two travesties of justice would be the basis for the ultmate Colliseum ever. The Fall of Romes' similarity to what is happening today is uncanny. Our Societys' moral decay is beggining to stink really bad, it is hard to cover your nose and deny that you don't smell it anymore.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05
How about you just let those who's job it is to execute them do their job? If I wanted to execute criminals I would get that job. But I don't.

If someones going to feel guilty about executing someone they shouldn't do that job. You don't become a teacher if you don't like teaching, right? Same idea. They took that job knowing what they were going to have to do.

I would say no to using the internet to execute criminals.


This poster makes a good point that is often overlooked.You wouldnt choose to be an executioner? Neither would I. Guess what? It isn't our choice. Citizens already are required to participate in executions by being jurors. It isn't a choice. You dont choose that job. And the result of this jury duty can very well result in an execution.

This means that the basic moral, social, and legal framework for taking the next step and having this process expanded using technology exists.

Will this happen? Should it ? If not why?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Agree with most of the sentiments expressed above.

While it is a noble thought to want to spare the executioner the guilt of killing, it must always be the case that the execution is carried out by a professional.

If not carried out by a professional, it is a slippery slope... What next? The family of a murder victim are granted the right to execute their son's murderer?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

While it is a noble thought to want to spare the executioner the guilt of killing, it must always be the case that the execution is carried out by a professional.



The abolition of guilt carried by the executioner is only half of the coin. The other half is that the leaders of society do not wish an association between the executions and themselves.

The ultimate way to do this might be instead of having three people push a switch or 10 men in a firing squad, the possibility of passing the entire act of killing a condemned man directly to the whole society by using an internet based system to throw the switch is possible.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by ItsHumanNature]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
While it is a noble thought to want to spare the executioner the guilt of killing


Why spend so much effort on trying to alleviate the guilt of the executioner? Are we even sure they experience such guilt?

Look, I mean, we send our soldiers to Iraq and a lot of people die out there, Iraqi people, insurgents and civilians alike. Do you propose to wire the triggers on each soldier's weapons into the Internet so that the American public has a chance to do its collective shooting? If you don't care to do that for the Army, why do you bother about the executioners who only kill a handful of people?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Do you propose to wire the triggers on each soldier's weapons into the Internet so that the American public has a chance to do its collective shooting? If you don't care to do that for the Army, why do you bother about the executioners who only kill a handful of people?


Hi buddha thanks for the post. I havn't proposed anything.

I am suggesting that this technology exists and I am asking the question of whether it should be used.

If not why? If so why?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The thrill of seeing Bush and Cheney and the Neocons that pulled off 9-11 swinging from a rope in a gallows at the Hauge after a trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity almost makes me want to go for televised executions: I would be honored to push the button that dropped the trapdoors from underneath those surrilous vermin, as would most of the worlds residents.

But as pointed out above, the prosecutorial misconduct and police perjury is so bad that no death penalty can be had under our current system. No way. ALL executions should be banned forever; If a person deserves to be isolated from society forever, put him in a cell and weld the door shut and pass his food thru a slot. Give him enough sunshine and exercise to be human about it and no TV, radio, papers, phone calls, etc. Make him think about what he or she did for as long as they draw breath.

But we cannot take lives based on laws that are controlled by criminally negligent judges and prosecutors and cops; it is inherently unfair.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The thrill of seeing Bush and Cheney and the Neocons that pulled off 9-11 swinging from a rope in a gallows at the Hauge after a trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity almost makes me want to go for televised executions: I would be honored to push the button that dropped the trapdoors from underneath those surrilous vermin, as would most of the worlds residents.




DING! DING! DING! DING!!! We have a winner! I was wondering how long before this reply came up, I bet my girlfreind it would be in the top 3.

I share your veiws about the abuse of this type of system. I can see all kinds of scenarios where this would be twisted.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join