Utah: Back to back firing squad executions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Angela Harlem

Jesus Online
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
30,163
Location
a glass castle
This isn't necessarily an anti death penalty thread, more the method of choice, and the fact there IS a choice. I find this altogether too inhumane I think. I'm not entirely sure yet, but I'm a little disturbed by this.

Link
 
The problem I see with this.. besides being inhumane... is the likely hood that they know they are getting celebrity like attn by making the choice they have.

Kinda like a suicide bomber?
 
martha said:
Utah: The world's most beautiful place run by the US's most retro populace.

That comment is fairly offensive to my religion.

There are more than a few states who still use the death penalty, I dont understand why you had to make this derogatory comment aimed at the general Utah populace, which everyone knows is primarily members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.
 
Last edited:
u2popmofo,


I spend every Christmas at a house on 880 E in Orem.

A lot of my family is LDS.

I don't find Martha's remarks over the top or offensive to my loved ones.



We are in interational forum and I am sure there are many Muslims here.

There are far more offensive remarks on this board almost everyday towards Muslims.

Besides, Texas is starting to make Utah look reasonable.
 
u2popmofo said:


That comment is fairly offensive to my religion.

There are more than a few states who still use the death penalty, I dont understand why you had to make this derogatory comment aimed at the general Utah populace, which everyone knows is primarily members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

The comment was not aimed at Mormons in particular. I would not be so foolish as to lump all of any group into one. My personal experiences with the general population of Utah, along with published reports, such as the one linked in this thread, led me to the conclusion I stated above. It was not meant to offend anyone, including you. However, I do stand by my comments. Utah is one of the most beautiful places on our planet. Execution by firing squad is an old, barbaric practice from way back in the bad old days. The article linked states that it's based on old Mormon ideas from the 1800s. That is retro. If the comment offends, perhaps an examination of why it offends is in order.

As for other states still having the death penalty, including my own, don't even get me started. And for the record, I say more offensive things about Texans.
 
So "retro" as you call it is somehow bad? I probably didnt understand what you were saying, but I thought you were making it sound like Utah is bad because being "retro" as you say, is bad.

Regardless, Utah does have a conservative populace. Is there something inherently wrong with that? No, it's the populace's constitutional right. Is there something wrong with a populace using their own religious beliefs to make political decisions when voting? No, this also is the constitutional right of every citizen of the United States. Go U.S.A.
 
Last edited:
"Utah's use of firing squads predates statehood in 1896 and is a remnant of the early Mormon belief that bloodshed is a required punishment for taking a life, said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which says it is neutral about the death penalty but critical of its application.

"Certainly no other state has continued its use or allowed people to choose it. It's the one thing that stands out," Dieter said. "It's part of the history, so there's a reluctance to change."

The notion that murder must be atoned for in blood has never been part of official church doctrine, and the Mormon church has not taken a formal position on execution methods, said Robert Millet, Brigham Young University religion professor. "


If you take that into account, an opinion of the Mormon belief and its stance on the death penalty and firing squad executions in particular is not really relevant. Not to imply anyone is targetting the faith specifically, even though this faith makes up a large percentage of Utah's population.

Deep, it wouldn't necessarily not bother me, but this is simply about this particular method. A bullet is much more violent and less civilised than an injection. I wonder why when we have the means for such a clinical and cold method, we would choose a firing squad over it? Part of it is the connotation with shooting itself. I remember whatching the program on CNN for McVeigh's execution and once 7.14am your time ticked over, I couldn't watch anymore. Even though it wasn't being shown, knowing that while the names scrolled down the screen, a man was losing his life by order of the courts was a very weird thing to behold. I'm not condoning what a criminal does to get themselves to that point, 168 lives lost and 100's more friends and families devastated by his actions is a pretty huge deal. But at least it was humane. A hard and clinical method, rather than a firing squad which strikes me as emotional and yes barbaric.
 
I just do not like the fact that these two criminals get to shoose the method, and increase their press because of the choice they have made. It is a stupid law to let them pick the method. Firing squad should not be an option.

Peace
 
Is the firing squad made out of volunteers? Even though I am against the deathpenalty, to be honest, I see no difference between a firing squad or a lethal injection or the chair. The result is the same and the victims will probably feel the same amount of pain (if any).
 
u2popmofo said:
So "retro" as you call it is somehow bad? I probably didnt understand what you were saying, but I thought you were making it sound like Utah is bad because being "retro" as you say, is bad.

Regardless, Utah does have a conservative populace. Is there something inherently wrong with that? No, it's the populace's constitutional right. Is there something wrong with a populace using their own religious beliefs to make political decisions when voting? No, this also is the constitutional right of every citizen of the United States. Go U.S.A.


Martha is also allowed to have the opinion that 'retro' is bad. Let's not beat the dead horse, ok?

She wasn't saying that all people from Utah are barbaric, or even that all Mormons are. If she had made some generalization like that, I think you'd have the right to be offended, but she didn't. She just voiced her opinion, which she is entitled to as a right of every citizen of the United States. Go U.S.A.
 
martha said:


As for other states still having the death penalty, including my own, don't even get me started. And for the record, I say more offensive things about Texans.

One in particular? :sexywink:
 
To be honest, I've never had a great fondness for most Texans either --- but I do have my favorites. (since we're picking,... errr.. talking... about Texans)
 
a quick note here,

i do not want my previous post to be construed as Texas bashing.

i was only referring to some of the laws that are on the books there
and that many politicians there support.
 
u2popmofo said:
So "retro" as you call it is somehow bad? I probably didnt understand what you were saying, but I thought you were making it sound like Utah is bad because being "retro" as you say, is bad.


I looked up the definition before I responded.

Regardless, Utah does have a conservative populace. Is there something inherently wrong with that? No, it's the populace's constitutional right. Is there something wrong with a populace using their own religious beliefs to make political decisions when voting? No, this also is the constitutional right of every citizen of the United States. Go U.S.A.



I hear this a lot when I visit my family members in Utah.
They are happy with ?The Church? having so much influence in State Government.

There is much criticism of Muslims wanting their faith to influence and control government.

I ask them how they would feel if they lived in state where the Catholic Church influenced and had control in the government? They do not answer.

Are your beliefs based on the fact that you are conformable with the religion that is ?now? dominate?

It is interesting to me that it was Mormons and Catholics that brought the suit to have prayer at Texas public school events prohibited. Why? The dominant Christian Fundamentalists in Texas labeled the Mormons and Catholics as non-Christian cults.
 
u2popmofo said:
Is there something wrong with a populace using their own religious beliefs to make political decisions when voting? No, this also is the constitutional right of every citizen of the United States.


I use my own religious beliefs to help me make decisions when voting, but I would never be so bold as to assume that what I believe should be applied to everyone who doesn't believe as I do. This is what I see happening in both Utah and Texas. This is why I'm wary of the governments in both states.

And yes, I meant retro in a bad way. Looking back to the last century or two to inform your laws, without asking why, can be a very bad thing.
 
I think everyone has made great points, and I understand where you're all coming from. Honestly, I agree with most all of you. I too think it's very bizarre and odd that anyone would be given the decision of how to choose to be killed.

I just wanted to stand up for my own personal religion and beliefs, that was all. In following with that I wanted to write that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints DOES NOT tell their followers how to vote, or how they should base their political opinions. The church has gone out of their way to steer clear of doing that. Members vote based on their own beliefs, not because some organization is telling them what to do. That just doesnt happen.


On a completely different note: in someways, it's good when odd things like this get brought out in the news. Hopefully things in the news, like this, bring more public attention for the issues, and people can try to change how the laws are written and set up.
 
Last edited:
yeah, back to the subject at hand - wouldn't want this thread to get *CLOSED* like some others...

the problem I have with the firing squad is that you have humans pointing guns at humans and firing. I am absolutely for the death penalty, and if the firing squad is the only choice, than so be it, but if there are other options, I believe they should be used first.

even thought the gunmen (state-hired) do not know who is actually firing the fatal shot(s), I think it is wrong to even have them fire upon another human, that is simply too personal.

I do understand that somone always throws the switch ont eh chair, or presses the button on the chemical injection, but it just seems more humane than aiming a gun at someone's head or chest, and firing.

even if the prisoner chooses this, I do not think a death-row inmate should be able to choose to have another human shoot him - that is way too personal.
 
I dunno Martha, I agree with Ouizy. Yes you are right that killing is killing is killing. I'm all for spades being called spades etc. Yet there is a distinct difference between these methods in how they are viewed, the associations we make with them and actual method. Method being beyond the actual practice and more like how Ouizy pointed out that someone has a gun trained at you to aim for the chest and it becomes more personal.
Its a fine line, but its definately there I think.
 
Oh and another thing which I have read but cannot prove its truth is that a trained or experienced marksman will actually know the difference between shooting a bullet and a blank. So the whole aspect of the squad not knowing may be invalid.
 
I thought of that as well.

If you are an expert marksman and you fired the shot, I think you would have some idea of where your shot would have hit. If, for example you were aiming at the left ventricle and that is where the body gets hit - you were the killer.

That cannot be put on someone's head.
 
Back
Top Bottom