Utah executes death row inmate by firing squad

[BoMac]

Video: Death row inmate executed by Utah firing squad | World news | guardian.co.uk


And the Utah Attorney Gen. tweeted about the execution:

Mark Shurtleff (MarkShurtleff) on Twitter

 

[DrTeeth]

Murderers

 

[deep]

Life in Utah
or a firing squad.

 

[BVS]

WWJSD?

 

[Popmartijn]

So, what direction does the OP want this thread to go?
A discussion about the death penalty? A discussion about Twitter? A discussion about Twitter in combination with the death penalty?

 

[BoMac]

So, what direction does the OP want this thread to go?
A discussion about the death penalty? A discussion about Twitter? A discussion about Twitter in combination with the death penalty?

I'd suggest a direction, but threads on topics like this rarely stay on course in FYM. In fact, I can almost predict what certain posters will say. I posted it mainly because I had no idea this particular method was still being used.

Anyway, say what you will on this topic or the death penalty in general. Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty, and this story only reinforces my belief. It's simply barbaric, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Popmartijn]

I'd suggest a direction, but threads on topics like this rarely stay on course in FYM. In fact, I can almost predict what certain posters will say. I posted it mainly because I had no idea this particular method was still being used.

I don't think the firing squad is allowed anymore in Utah (at least, that's what I heard on the news here). Only, the convicted had specifically requested for it before it was banned.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, the guy did request it, so I guess if they themselves choose it, can it really be considered "barbaric" in that particular instance? I completely agree, on the whole it's a barbaric practice, but in this case, it's what the guy wanted, so...*Shrugs*. I'm torn, 'cause on the one hand if someone willingly asks for the death penalty for themselves, then I won't really complain (what exactly did this guy do, anyway, does anyone know for sure?); at the same time, though, do we really want to give a criminal exactly what they wished for? Clearly he wanted death, wouldn't it have been a worse punishment for him to let him rot in jail for life instead?

As for the Twitter thing, I can fully understand the complaints people have about the guy posting that and don't disagree, but hey, with this technology this is what you sometimes get. People post stupid stuff. Had this technology been around in the days of hangings, we would've seen that there, too (and possibly worse, since those were practically town events. Bring the children, come see a hanging!).

Angela

 

[Jive Turkey]

Its my understanding that it wasnt actually what the guy wanted. He requested the method so as it have it overruled as cruel and unusual punishment to pave the way for further appeals. Whoops!

click

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Oh, wow, really ?

Yeah, "whoops", indeed. Ouch. Sounds like a plot twist worthy of "The Twilight Zone".

Angela

 

[Bluer White]

I think America can do better than capital punishment. It's the 21st century, isn't it?

 

[bono_212]

Its my understanding that it wasnt actually what the guy wanted. He requested the method so as it have it overruled as cruel and unusual punishment to pave the way for further appeals. Whoops!

click

Wasn't there even a thread about him doing so a few months ago?

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

I'm not entirely sure how I feel on the death penalty. If I am informed correctly, there are only a few states that use it. A few years ago I wrote a paper defending the death penalty. My views have changed a bit since then. But I still feel that some people who commit certain crimes should face it. But I'm talking about the worst of the worst, with non-disputable evidence. Like Ted Bundy, or Tim McVeigh. Because at the same time, I feel many states are over-using the death penalty, such as Texas, and in this case, Utah. And lets not forget the number of those executed, who were later exonerated. As for death by firing squad, I see no issue with it if that is what he requested. I think if I were in his situation I would take firing squad as well. I heard that some contest that lethal injection is actually quite painful.

 

[Knuckle]

My question is, if all of his court proceedings (hearings, trial, etc.) are, by law, open to the public, then why is his execution closed to the public? What are we hiding? Why have the courts banned public executions that were so common in our history? If the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment, then why can't I pack a lunch and take my family to an execution just like the old days? I'm sure there would be a lot of people who would come out to see justice in action at, say, a soccer stadium or something. Just ask the Taliban. That's how you do it. Git er done!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I've never, ever understood why anyone would want to watch an execution for any reason. I don't get any pleasure from the idea of watching people die, I don't care who they are. Anyone who does, I would seriously suggest something's not quite right with them.

I can totally understand the loved ones wanting revenge. If somebody killed someone I loved, I'd likely be all, "Wait'll I get my hands on them...", too. I get the anger. I don't lose sleep at night over Timothy McVeigh not being here. But I also have heard stories of people who've lost loved ones in absolutely brutal crimes who still don't support the death penalty. There was a story I saw once about a girl who actually witnessed her father be murdered by some guy. She nearly lost her life to him, too. She went through a brief period of wishing death upon him, but then she changed her mind and actually fought on his behalf to keep him from getting the death penalty, instead working to get him life imprisonment. And she got her way. She explained that her father's beliefs about the death penalty (which he was fully against) and her faith led her to believing the death penalty was not the right way to punish the guy.

Aside from the fact that innocent people have been put to death, which is my strongest reason for being against the death penalty, it's really not technically even "an eye for an eye", anyway. If people really believed in that ideology, then one would assume the death inflicted on a criminal would be the exact one they inflicted on someone else. It's hardly comparable, somebody being stabbed repeatedly to death and then the person who did that gets a mere injection and slowly drifts away.

Angela

 

[Knuckle]

I've got to tone down my east coast dry sarcasm. My post above was not meant to be taken seriously.

 

[deep]

A live pay per view, say at $30, would generate a lot of revenue for the victims families.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I've got to tone down my east coast dry sarcasm. My post above was not meant to be taken seriously.

Oh, I got that it was sarcasm . Just a general comment, because I know there are people who seriously do think that way.

Angela

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I would suggest would be murderers to read the Criminal Code of each state before committing a crime. No one can plead ignorance of the law.

If the punishment for a certain crime is death, and you do it anyway, well, you kind of walked into it didn't you?

 

[BVS]

Well that's a rather silly and naive way to look things don't you think?

You've never sped, got in a fight, or broke the law or a rule of your parents when growing up?

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Further researching has led me to the conclusion that firing squad actually is a more "humane" way to go (define humane.) Anyways:

Experts argue firing squad is a humane execution
By JENNIFER DOBNER (AP) – 3 days ago

SALT LAKE CITY — A condemned Utah inmate's decision to die in a barrage of bullets fired by five unnamed marksmen has been vilified by many as an archaic form of Old West-style justice.

But some experts argue it is more humane than all other execution methods, without the court challenges of cruelty that have plagued lethal injection.

"Lethal injection, which has the veneer of medical acceptability, has far greater risks of cruelty to a condemned person," said Fordham University Law School professor Deborah Denno, who has written extensively on the constitutional questions that surround execution methods.

The reasons that Ronnie Lee Gardner chose death by firing squad are unrelated to the drama or controversy it evokes, his attorney told The Associated Press.

"It's not about the publicity. He just prefers it," Andrew Parnes said.

Late Tuesday, Parnes appealed Gardner's case to both the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to block the execution. It was the same day Gardner ate what may be his last meal — steak, lobster tail, apple pie, vanilla ice cream and 7UP. Utah State Prison officials said Gardner now intends to fast until the execution set for early Friday.

No rulings were issued by either court Wednesday.

Gardner, 49, was sentenced to death for a 1985 capital murder conviction stemming from the fatal courthouse shooting of attorney Michael Burdell during an escape attempt. Gardner was at the court because he faced a murder charge in the shooting death of bartender Melvyn Otterstrom.

Barring any last minute stays, Gardner will be the first person to die by firing squad in the United States in 14 years. He will be the third man killed by that same method in Utah since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling reinstated capital punishment in 1976: Gary Gilmore on Jan. 17, 1977 — after famously uttering the last words, "Let's do it" — and John Albert Taylor on Jan. 26, 1996.

Of the 49 executions held in Utah since the 1850s, 40 were by firing squad. The method has also been widely used around the globe and was long the primary method of execution employed by the military, even in the U.S.

But lethal injection has become the primary method used by most of the 35 states that still have capital punishment, according to the Death Penalty Information Center website. Yet it isn't without controversy.

University of Colorado law professor Michael Radlet has been tracking botched executions in the U.S. and found some 42 cases that went wrong between 1982 and September 2009. Of those executions, 30 were lethal injection, 10 were electrocution and two were from asphyxiation after exposure to lethal gas.

A court challenge of lethal injection in Kentucky essentially halted executions nationwide in 2007 as the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with whether a three-drug cocktail was more painful than just a single barbiturate. At the time, Kentucky had only had one execution by lethal injection — with no complications — but executions in Ohio and Florida had taken longer than usual and produced strong evidence that inmates had suffered severe pain in the process.

The court upheld Kentucky's use of the three drugs in 2008, clearing the way for capital punishment to resume, Denno said.

The firing squad has not been similarly challenged, and by all accounts, Utah's executions by firing squad were carried out without problems, Denno said.

"Even Gary Gilmore's father said it was a dignified execution," she said.

Utah's territorial government sought permission from the U.S. Supreme Court to use the firing squad back in the 1870s, according to Gillespie. The court said that "execution by shooting was not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause, in that the method did not entail torture or unnecessary cruelty," Gillespie wrote in his book "The Unforgiven," which chronicles the history of capital punishment in Utah.

Historians say the method stems from 19th Century doctrine of the state's predominant religion. Early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believed in the concept of "blood atonement" — that only through spilling one's own blood could a condemned person adequately atone for their crimes and be redeemed in the next life. The church no longer preaches such teachings and offers no opinion on the use of the firing squad.

Death penalty advocate Kent Scheidegger agrees that capital punishment should not amount to torture, but says the average person "is not really all that concerned with a murderer experiencing painless death."

Public debate is focused more on the larger issue of the death penalty and whether or not the punishment deters crime.

"Arguing over the method of execution is kind of a distraction," said Scheidegger, legal director of the Sacramento, Calif., Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

Religious and secular groups plan prayer vigils and rallies outside the state capitol and the prison in the hours leading up to Gardner's execution.

"If you think about it, how do you kill somebody in a permissible manner?" said Ralph Dellapiana, a co-founder of Utahns for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. "We don't care much about the method, we're of the 'it's all not OK' belief."

The barrage of publicity that follows the firing squad is largely what prompted Utah lawmakers to alter it's capital punishment law in 2004 to disallow the choice for inmates and make lethal injection the default method. Inmates sentenced before then — like Gardner — retain the choice.

In repealing the option, Utah lawmakers said they disliked the negative media attention that firing squads focused on the state, said Republican Rep. Sheryl Allen, who twice carried legislation to change the law.

In 1996, more than 150 media outlets descended on Utah to cover Taylor's execution, painting the firing squad as an Old West-style of justice that allows killers to go out in a blaze of glory that embarrasses the state.

Gardner is one of at least four of 10 men on Utah's death row who have said they want to die by firing squad.

What I read, is that lethal injection is 3 drugs, one which knocks you out, one that paralyzes you, and one that stops your heart. Wikipedia points out the problem:

Opponents of lethal injection believe that it is not actually painless as practiced in the United States. Opponents argue that the thiopental is an ultra-short acting barbiturate that may wear off (anesthesia awareness) and lead to consciousness and an excruciatingly painful death wherein the inmate is unable to express his or her pain because he has been rendered paralyzed by the paralytic agent.[29]

Opponents point to the fact that sodium thiopental is typically used as an induction agent and not used in the maintenance phase of surgery because of its short acting nature. Following the administration of thiopental, pancuronium bromide is given. Opponents argue that pancuronium bromide not only dilutes the thiopental, but (since the inmate is paralyzed) also prevents the inmate from expressing pain. Additional concerns have been raised over whether inmates are administered an appropriate level of thiopental owing to the rapid redistribution of the drug out of the brain to other parts of the body.[29]

Additionally, opponents argue that the method of administration is also flawed. They state that since the personnel administering the lethal injection lack expertise in anesthesia, the risk of failing to induce unconsciousness is greatly increased. In reference to this problem, Jay Chapman, the creator of lethal injection, said, "It never occurred to me when we set this up that we’d have complete idiots administering the drugs."[30] Also, they argue that the dose of sodium thiopental must be customized to each individual patient, not restricted to a set protocol. Finally, the remote administration results in an increased risk that insufficient amounts of the lethal injection drugs enter the bloodstream.[29]

In total, opponents argue that the effect of dilution or improper administration of thiopental is that the inmate dies an agonizing death through suffocation due to the paralytic effects of pancuronium bromide and the intense burning sensation caused by potassium chloride.[29]

Opponents of lethal injection as currently practiced argue that the procedure employed is designed to create the appearance of serenity and a painless death, rather than actually providing it. More specifically, opponents object to the use of Pancuronium bromide, arguing that its use in lethal injection serves no useful purpose since the inmate is physically restrained. Therefore the default function of pancuronium bromide would be to suppress the autonomic nervous system, specifically to stop breathing.[29]

 

[U2387]

I think America can do better than capital punishment. It's the 21st century, isn't it?

Yes, you are quite right.

Lets look at the reasons we punish anyway? Why punish criminals?

1.)Deterrence: Has been shown not to deter.

2.)The retribution theory, go after the bastard for what he did, veers way off course when you consider the following:

Of the many, many people who commit a 1st degree murder with aggravating circumstances(the only death eligible murder, btw) only a tiny fraction are put through capital trials. Of these, only a tiny fraction are actually sentenced to death. Of this even tinier fraction, only a tiny fraction are actually executed. It works out to something like 25-35 executions per yr out of about 8/10,000 eligible crime committing scumbags.

Combine that with the geographic variance, by state and by county, and you can understand why in outlawing the death penalty in Furman v Georgia in 1972, the Supreme Court equated the nature of the odds of getting executed as similar to the odds of getting struck by lightning.

Did anyone know that Texas may fry a lot of people, but that most counties and the vast majority of prosecutors in Texas have NEVER tried a death penalty case? It is used mostly in Harris, Travis and Tarrant county and almost never in other counties.

3.)The Incapacitation theory is off here as well. Maximum security prison for life w/o parole incapacitates fine. If you don't believe me, commit some serious felony and then try and escape. IT. WONT. WORK.

You can escape from County Jail and Grille---------- maximum security prison, lifer unit, good luck.

The death penalty has been losing to life w/o parole when the 2 are polled side by side for quite some time now.

4.)The 4th theory of punishment is rehabilitation, not in question when dealing with a capital murder. You're never re joining the rest of us.

Now, how about the fact that the appeals process, the maintenance of death row, a trained staff just to handle the execution process, combines to make death penalty cases much more expensive than life in prison. Counties have actually had to lay off cops to pay for capital trials.

This is not to say that U2387 does not think that there are some people that more than deserve to die for the crimes they commit. There are 2 or 3 I just pulled off the top of my head right now just in the Boston area, just in the last decade or so, who deserve it times infinity. But given the fact that it does not fit any theory of punishment at all? Given the fact that it is expensive and puts all the focus on the perpetrator and not the victim's good life? Given the fact that our system of justice, though very good, is run by flawed human beings and is capable of making mistakes and executing the wrong person? Given the fact that there are other ways of protecting society?

I can't go with it, and its more practical than moral with me. I have no sympathy for the humanity of a person who rapes and kills a 10 yr old kid. Of course, I know killing is wrong, and that it does not do anything to help our image as a nation(we're on a short list with Iran and China) or restore the victim's dignity. I do worry that we are wasting a whole lot of time, energy and money on a process that does not help the victims' families heal and especially, that we may execute the wrong guy. No turning back after that.

Being against the death penalty, I am often asked what I would do if a loved one of mine was murdered. I honestly don't know, never been there, hope to God never to have to be there. The closest I've come was a girl I met once who was murdered 3 weeks later. My best guess, as much as I wish this wasn't true, but I know myself and the temper I(on very rare occasions) have, is that I would find a way to shoot or strangle the bastard myself. Failing that, I wouldn't much care what the state did with him either way. I certainly wouldn't be clamoring for the death penalty, nor would I be at a vigil for him as they were executing him.

I know lethal injection can be painful when botched(which is apparently, often) and firing squad must not be too pleasant either. However, I think I would rather they die alone of a long, painful illness in a jail cell 25 or 30 years after anyone has heard their name uttered.

 

[diamond]

Murderers

Murder is the taking of innocent life.
Consult a dictionary before posting.

<>

 

[coolian2]

Murder is the taking of innocent life.
Consult a dictionary before posting.

<>

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



><

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Murder is the taking of innocent life.
Consult a dictionary before posting.

<>

perhaps you should. murder is not taking an innocent life. i don't seem to recall any situations where, say, a woman murders her husband who severely beats her on a daily basis to the point she now fears for her life. she gets off cuz hey he wasn't so innocent was he!

the united states says murder is unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. plain and simple. no mention of whether it's a mass murderer, someone who curbstomps kittens, or someone who got caught in the crossfire at a bank robbery.

try again.

 

[BVS]

Murder is the taking of innocent life.
Consult a dictionary before posting.

<>

What kind of dictionary have you been using?

No dictionary, law book or even Bible would ever define murder this way.

 

[U2387]

<>

You're a good guy, but:







Hope all is well in Arizona!

 

[PhilsFan]

The death penalty is the political issue I have the most passion for, and the one I'm by far the most studied.

And Diamond, are you aware that we have without a doubt executed people for crimes they have not committed?

 

[DrTeeth]

Murder is the taking of innocent life.
Consult a dictionary before posting.

<>

I don't know what's funnier; the fact that you (as the only person here) didn't realize I was trying to convey the message that I'm against the death penalty, or that you managed to misquote the dictionary.

 

[PhilsFan]

I don't know what's funnier; the fact that you (as the only person here) didn't realize I was trying to convey the message that I'm against the death penalty, or that you managed to misquote the dictionary.

It kind of reminds me of the time Lane Kiffin accused Urban Meyer of a recruiting violation when Meyer actually didn't break any rules. And by making the accusation, Kiffin committed a violation.