At inmate's request, Utah prepares firing squad

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UTAH_FIRING_SQUAD


SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Barring a last-minute reprieve, Ronnie Lee Gardner will be strapped into a chair, a hood will be placed over his head and a small white target will be pinned over his heart.

The order will come: "Ready, aim..."

The 49-year-old convicted killer will be executed by a team of five anonymous marksmen firing with a matched set of .30-caliber rifles. He is to be the third person executed by firing squad in Utah - or anywhere else in the U.S. - since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

[Vessol]

Federally legalized murder FTW..

[John Taylor]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UTAH_FIRING_SQUAD

Good riddance. With each technological advance, the likelihood of executing an innocent prisoner decreases even further than the historically low point it is presently at.

[Reason]

It costs more taxpayer money to execute a prisoner than it does to have them in prison for the rest of their life.

[Kotin]

It costs more taxpayer money to execute a prisoner than it does to have them in prison for the rest of their life.

maybe cause we make it so politically correct with lethal injection and stuff.. if we just took em outside and shot em in the head I dont know that it would cost so much.. lol..

[angelatc]

Good riddance. With each technological advance, the likelihood of executing an innocent prisoner decreases even further than the historically low point it is presently at.

There is no acceptable margin of error. Opting to give the government the power to decide who dies isn't conservative.

[MsDoodahs]

Reminds me of The Executioner's Song.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083909/

[Flash]

It costs more taxpayer money to execute a prisoner than it does to have them in prison for the rest of their life.

You just need a gun and a bullet. You probably don't even have to hire anyone, you can have volunteers.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It costs more taxpayer money to execute a prisoner than it does to have them in prison for the rest of their life.

Well, that is because of the absurdly-long appeals process. Get rid of that and of course it would not cost anywhere near as much.

[dr. hfn]

It costs more taxpayer money to execute a prisoner than it does to have them in prison for the rest of their life.

source?

[angelatc]

It costs more taxpayer money to execute a prisoner than it does to have them in prison for the rest of their life.

Now that we have government health care, cost/benefit analysis will soon be a liability.

[Vessol]

Why is the government allows to legally murder someone? Even if they are responsible for heinous crimes, why do we give the government the right to murder them?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why is the government allows to legally murder someone? Even if they are responsible for heinous crimes, why do we give the government the right to murder them?

For the same reason Americans allow the government to lock them in a glorified cage for decades until they die.

[Slutter McGee]

Why is the government allows to legally murder someone? Even if they are responsible for heinous crimes, why do we give the government the right to murder them?

Because some people deserve to die. Locke even argued in favor of it. I disagree with the good doctor on this, but I know even he used to support the death penalty. Even a libertarian argument can be made for it.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[JK/SEA]

Hope its a head shot. Would hate to hear his vitals were ruined for donation.

[MelissaWV]

With technological advances comes people being incredibly sure without considering a rational, but unlikely, explanation.

Think that's far-fetched?


One of Germany's most wanted criminals may not even exist. Investigators who found DNA traces of a mystery woman suspected of committing at least three murders and numerous break-ins over the past 16 years, admitted on Thursday, March 26, they might have been chasing a phantom.

The first DNA trace from the female suspect turned up at the scene of a murder in May 1993. Later her DNA fingerprint matched the 2001 killing of a 61-year-old man and the cold-blooded murder of a 22-year-old policewoman in Heilbronn, a small German town north of Stuttgart two years ago.

The Heilbronn case had led to a police investigation that consumed thousands of man hours, but the trail was as cold as ever before.

"Phantom of Heilbronn"

The unknown female suspect, dubbed "the phantom of Heilbronn," was never seen at the scene of any of the crimes. Police investigators have said they suspected that she could be homeless, a drug addict or even an itinerant used car dealer.

The police went on a widely publicized television appeal offering a bounty of 300,000 euros ($407,000) for evidence leading to her arrest, but no one came forward.

The DNA trail had led to 40 different locations in southwest Germany, France and Austria, with the last genetic fingerprint of the "phantom" found on March 18 in a school in the western German state of Saarland.

Police started to become suspicious when they looked into the case of a missing male asylum-seeker, who was believed to have perished in a fire several weeks ago. The investigators found DNA traces of the female "phantom" in the asylum seeker's file. A new DNA sample was taken from the fingerprint card and the "phantom" woman's DNA trace disappeared.

After watching the woman's DNA disappear, investigators began to consider the possibility that the cotton swabs used to collect the DNA were contaminated with the "phantom's" DNA before they were used at crime scenes.

At a press conference in Heilbronn on Thursday, the local public prosecutor and police from the German states of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Saarland admitted that they had been investigating the possibility of contamination since April 2008.

"An unknown person could have come into contact with the swabs, while they were being manufactured, packaged or delivered," said Bernd Meiners a spokesman for the public prosecutor in the western city of Saarbruecken.

Police in Baden-Wuerttemberg have analyzed hundreds of unused swab sticks but have so far found nothing. But they say it is possible other batches were also contaminated.

According to Germany's Stern magazine, which broke the story that the police could have been chasing a phantom, the swab sticks were put through the proper sterilization procedures, but they could have still become contaminated from human cells in the form of skin particles, sweat, saliva or other bodily secretions.

In the meantime, female packers who work for the German company that supplies the swab sticks have given the authorities samples of their saliva to check whether the phantom's DNA is a match.

Police are also now testing the presumably sterile swabs used to collect evidence for contamination. New examinations of cotton swabs showed all likelihood of contamination said Ulrich Goll, justice minister in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, where police are spearheading the investigation.

"Something like this should not have happened," said the minister, who defended the police and forensic experts responsible for collecting the samples. "They were not able to tell if anything was wrong with the swabs."

Man oh man but wouldn't it suck to be a homeless person or whatever in that area? Suspicion and potential taking of your DNA... all because of overconfidence in the methods and results.

[torchbearer]

http://www.showtimefan.com/files/2008/03/dexter_209_0211.jpg

[Vessol]

So when you give the government the right to legally kill people without any consequences, what's going to happen when that power is used against you?

I'm not argueing in favor of sparing criminals, but I don't trust the government enough to give them the power to murder and legally get away with it.

[low preference guy]

Good riddance. With each technological advance, the likelihood of executing an innocent prisoner decreases even further than the historically low point it is presently at.

hope you fall in the margin of error!

[libertythor]

Hope its a head shot. Would hate to hear his vitals were ruined for donation.

No! We don't need to be like China and have organ harvesting as an incentive to execute people. I understand your intentions are good, but we are talking about systems that start out okay and then devolve into something sinister.

[jclay2]

I used to be strongly in favor of the death penalty until I thought about the possible abuses by government power in the future. Now I am just confused. Does anyone know any estimates of how often courts make type I error in murder convictions. I know you can't really know, but has anyone looked into it?

According to this website, 2% of all murder convictions are false ones.Is there any constitutional problems with giving someone a worse sentence based off of higher quality evidence that led to the conviction. If we have someone on video shooting someone, there is no doubt that they indeed did kill them. Compare that with someone who was supposedly seen by an eye witness. I think if you gave murder convictions with high quality evidence the death penalty, type I error would probably be well less than .5%

[torchbearer]

I used to be strongly in favor of the death penalty until I thought about the possible abuses by government power in the future. Now I am just confused. Does anyone know any estimates of how often courts make type I error in murder convictions. I know you can't really know, but has anyone looked into it?

the whole purpose of giving government this power to execute was to remove it from the hands of the people.
the last thing you want are vigilantes going around on suppositions hanging people.
if you remember why it is this way, it makes a difference.
of course, dexter does his due diligence... but not everyone is as thorough.

[jclay2]

the whole purpose of giving government this power to execute was to remove it from the hands of the people.
the last thing you want are vigilantes going around on suppositions hanging people.
if you remember why it is this way, it makes a difference.
of course, dexter does his due diligence... but not everyone is as thorough.

well isn't the argument usually over life in prison vs. death penalty?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Federally legalized murder FTW..

Yeah, I worked to get rid of the death penalty in New Jersey :D That's my greatest accomplishment I'd say!

[torchbearer]

well isn't the argument usually over life in prison vs. death penalty?

either way, you lose your "life".
is it more humane to put someone out of misery or keep them caged like an animal?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

either way, you lose your "life".
is it more humane to put someone out of misery or keep them caged like an animal?

It's more humane to have private courts. I'm a believer of retribution.

[torchbearer]

It's more humane to have private courts. I'm a believer of retribution.

well, set up a private court.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

well, set up a private court.

Ogabe won't let me.

[james1906]

Kill em all and let God sort em out. If the cops arrest you, you're probably guilty of something.

/sarcasm

[John Taylor]

hope you fall in the margin of error!

Are you aware of the appeals and review process our courts utilize and mandate prior to placing anyone on death row for their 20 year wait?

[nobody's_hero]

For the same reason Americans allow the government to lock them in a glorified cage for decades until they die.

Well, when you put it that way . . . :p

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Our judicial system is so fucked up. Always reminds me of the movie K-PAX (When he talks about eye for an eye, etc.). I would recommend people looking into the Xeer for a great example of a judicial system.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

the whole purpose of giving government this power to execute was to remove it from the hands of the people.
the last thing you want are vigilantes going around on suppositions hanging people.
if you remember why it is this way, it makes a difference.
of course, dexter does his due diligence... but not everyone is as thorough.

Why is it assumed that the death penalty is legitimate anyways? Unless you are actually there during the event, there is no legitimate authority for such a retributive act. I support all restitutive judicial systems.

[fisharmor]

It's more humane to have private courts. I'm a believer of retribution.

The word "retribution" is ambiguous and could mean what you don't want it to mean. I certainly took it that way the first go around, until I looked it up and saw that it could also mean compensation.

I prefer to use "restitution" when I talk about it, because there is no way to interpret that to mean "revenge".

Which is what our current court system is based on.
Once I started to find out how private courts handle crimes, it occurred to me how it could be that parents whose child was murdered could be against the death penalty for the murderer.

Revenge does absolutely nothing for the bereaved. There's also no way to compensate them for their loss, but we could at least TRY. If some sicko crawls into a home and rapes and murders someone's wife, and is caught, why the hell is that guy still paying all his bills every month after that?

Seems to me we could get convicted murderers to do something to mitigate the situation. As it is now, the only thing that is done - whether life in prison or state sponsored murder - is to make the murderer an example to others for disobedience to the state. The state literally doesn't give a shit about the affected parties.

[moostraks]

So when you give the government the right to legally kill people without any consequences, what's going to happen when that power is used against you?

I'm not argueing in favor of sparing criminals, but I don't trust the government enough to give them the power to murder and legally get away with it.

Well said...A government that most don't trust to utilize taxes effectively certainly should not be given this type of power over the individual.

[angelatc]

So when you give the government the right to legally kill people without any consequences, what's going to happen when that power is used against you?

I'm not argueing in favor of sparing criminals, but I don't trust the government enough to give them the power to murder and legally get away with it.

That is how I feel about it.

[angelatc]

Are you aware of the appeals and review process our courts utilize and mandate prior to placing anyone on death row for their 20 year wait?

Apples and Oranges.

[MelissaWV]

Why is it assumed that the death penalty is legitimate anyways? Unless you are actually there during the event, there is no legitimate authority for such a retributive act. I support all restitutive judicial systems.

"Life in prison" used to mean that the inmate was busy during their stay. People worked, produced things, and some prisons still do this (working gardens, etc.). It may be that the criminal has nothing, or close to it, to give the families in restitution, but perhaps if they "work it off" and get "paid" for their work, that money and assurance could be given to the families.

There need to be more assurances that once someone goes to prison, they are not magically getting out sooner than expected. That is one of my biggest gripes with the system right now. "Good behavior" does not negate the crime, so the sentence should not change. The conditions within the prison? Sure, those might change. Give that inmate an extra pillow. Give them an extra few minutes with their family when they visit. Give them some kind of treat to demonstrate that their good behavior is noticed and appreciated... but don't let out rapists or killers or whatever early just because they seem to be acting nicely in prison. The sentences are too long for some crimes already, but that's another matter, and can be argued outside of prison by overpaid lawyers instead.

So, in answer to why it is better to lock someone up in a cage rather than kill them, it seems that a living prisoner is more productive than a dead one. Before someone objects that this is slavery, it's actually fine if it is.


Amendment XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Inmates should honestly help keep up the prison and fund it.

Anyhow, as to a question of guilt, I'm guessing someone who decides to ask to be shot probably isn't the pinnacle of innocence.

[angelatc]

I used to be strongly in favor of the death penalty until I thought about the possible abuses by government power in the future. Now I am just confused. Does anyone know any estimates of how often courts make type I error in murder convictions. I know you can't really know, but has anyone looked into it?

According to this website, 2% of all murder convictions are false ones.Is there any constitutional problems with giving someone a worse sentence based off of higher quality evidence that led to the conviction. If we have someone on video shooting someone, there is no doubt that they indeed did kill them. Compare that with someone who was supposedly seen by an eye witness. I think if you gave murder convictions with high quality evidence the death penalty, type I error would probably be well less than .5%

Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. The "smoking gun" is relatively rare.

More than 130 people have been released from Death Row since DNA evidence became more prevelant.

The case that changed my mind involved a guy in FLorida. He was a black guy who drove a get-away car in a robbery that went bad, in that a clerk was killed.

He didn't kill anybody. He testified that he didn't know his friends were going to rob the place. His friends both testified he didn't know they were going to rob the place. And yet the state killed him.

[Slutter McGee]

Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. The "smoking gun" is relatively rare.

More than 130 people have been released from Death Row since DNA evidence became more prevelant.

The case that changed my mind involved a guy in FLorida. He was a black guy who drove a get-away car in a robbery that went bad, in that a clerk was killed.

He didn't kill anybody. He testified that he didn't know his friends were going to rob the place. His friends both testified he didn't know they were going to rob the place. And yet the state killed him.

That is why we need the appeals process. However. Let me give you another example. Man named James Anderson here in Amarillo kidnapped and raped a five year old girl. He did things to that girl that I dont want to describe for hours and hours. After attempting to drown her...he beat her over the head until she was dead, and then tossed her body in the dumpster behind his house. Eye witnesses saw him dumping the body. Written detailed confession with details the killer could only know. Evidence all over his home.

Some people deserve to die, and I would disagree that most evidence is circumstancial.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Bruno]

http://www.showtimefan.com/files/2008/03/dexter_209_0211.jpg

thanks for the reminder why I don't watch that show

[MelissaWV]

Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. The "smoking gun" is relatively rare.

More than 130 people have been released from Death Row since DNA evidence became more prevelant.

The case that changed my mind involved a guy in FLorida. He was a black guy who drove a get-away car in a robbery that went bad, in that a clerk was killed.

He didn't kill anybody. He testified that he didn't know his friends were going to rob the place. His friends both testified he didn't know they were going to rob the place. And yet the state killed him.


That is why we need the appeals process....

There are laws on the books that if you are participating in a felony, and someone is killed, you are just as guilty of that killing as the person who pulled the trigger. Appeals would not have helped a blessed thing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

thanks for the reminder why I don't watch that show

What?! Dexter is awesome! I miss season two though, was my favorite ;/ I liked the interaction between Douks and Dexter.

[Bruno]

What?! Dexter is awesome! I miss season two though, was my favorite ;/ I liked the interaction between Douks and Dexter.

So I've heard. I've grown tired of gore on TV shows and in movies. Images are hard to forget, and there are some that I'd rather not have floating around in my head, like the one above.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So I've heard. I've grown tired of gore on TV shows and in movies. Images are hard to forget, and there are some that I'd rather not have floating around in my head.

It's not gory at all. Give it a shot. It is one of the best shows in a long long time...since Dinosaurs on Disney, at least! (Though I would say Breaking Bad is giving it a run for its money)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I love Dexter! I also love watching The Tudors :D

[Bruno]

It's not gory at all. Give it a shot. It is one of the best shows in a long long time...since Dinosaurs on Disney, at least! (Though I would say Breaking Bad is giving it a run for its money)

Thanks, maybe I will check it out afterall.

[A. Havnes]

Good riddance. With each technological advance, the likelihood of executing an innocent prisoner decreases even further than the historically low point it is presently at.

I once read that the death penalty actually makes victims' families feel worse rather than better, because the scab keeps getting peeled off with every court procedure. As for me, if I'm ever murdered, I don't want my killer to be killed. I'd rather have him in prison where he may still change for the better.

[Bruno]

I once read that the death penalty actually makes victims' families feel worse rather than better, because the scab keeps getting peeled off with every court procedure. As for me, if I'm ever murdered, I don't want my killer to be killed. I'd rather have him in prison where he may still change for the better.

It would be nice if prison actively worked towards that goal, in addition to penalizing the person for the crime they committed.

[ifthenwouldi]

So I've heard. I've grown tired of gore on TV shows and in movies. Images are hard to forget, and there are some that I'd rather not have floating around in my head, like the one above.

I've read the 'Net buzz on Dexter, so I watched the first episode the other day.

My reaction was EXACTLY the same as yours. Don't need that kind of macabre image in my head, no matter how clever or charming the show is.

[Original_Intent]

I have thought on this for a couple hours before posting.

To Vessol and others of similar thinking. Either there is a God and an afterlife or there isn't. If there is, and someone gets executed wrongly, let God sort it out. Far more people are killed by murderers who are released on a technicality than those who are wrongfully executed.

"But", you may say, "We are talking about THE STATE. We don't want THE STATE wrongfully killing someone."

Meh. Dead is dead. The state is just as culpable of the death of an innocent that was caused when they released a murderer as they are in the death of someone they wrongly executed. I think that the death penalty is extremly grave, serious and should only be done on conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of peers. But this "zero tolerance for the possibility of error" is bullshit. Again, if there is a God, and some grave miscarriage of justice is done, then it is on the heads of those who either gave false evidence or testimony, or upon the jury that wrongly convicted them. And if there is no God and no afterlife, then dead now or dead 100 years from now, what is the moral difference? zero.

I am all for taking the power to execute justice out of the hands of the government, as long as people who then take the law into their own hands (where the power of government originated from) don't end up prosecuted for dealing justice themselves.

[Theocrat]

Federally legalized murder FTW..

Oh, shut the hell up. It has nothing to do with the federal government. It's States' rights.

[klamath]

My problem is I have lost faith in our court system to accurately convict the right guy.
Morally I have no problem for the state or anyone killing a unrepentent torturing, mocking, murder, rapist that states proudly that if he gets out he will do it again.
Someone made the statement that the many victims don't want the death penalty because it keeps tearing up old scars. I can tell you a hell of lot more victims live in fear that the SOB is going to escape or be paroled and come after them again.
I think the effort should be in improving our court system by getting rid of all the stupid laws that keeps the court calenders packed and concentrate inproving evidence gathering and the election of DA's that don't brag about their conviction numbers but the solidness of the cases they bring to court.