Hell it’s a toss-up whether or not he’ll survive until the election. He’s under assault from both the outside and his own body. It’s just a question of what gets to him first a bullet or the dementia.

This is why I am disinclined to believe in secret government conspiracies. None of the actions of the current administration are clever or indicative of a larger long-term strategy, they’re all short-term plans that mostly exist so they can feel big and important when they announce them, rather than because they will necessarily achieve anything.

Even the gallows is probably too good for them. There’s plenty of YA novels to draw inspiration from, let’s do some Hunger games like thing.

I think I read that some WW2 Nazi wanted to be killed by firing squad after Nuremberg, but they told him no. Firing squads are for soldiers. Hanging is for criminals, so he would hang.

Sounds like we need to resurrect this guy. He was allegedly pretty terrible at his job, and several of the individuals he hanged did not die a quick death.

The last step is to privatize all the previous steps.

It actually says no, no less than three times, that life begins at the first breath, thereby obliterating 90% of the anti abortion talking points.

alwayshasbeen.jpg

I’m an atheist and I know not to subsume all of Christianity under white evangelicalism.

For many for sure, I still hope others think the proper lessons are good. I mostly cling to that cause I went to religious schools as a kid, parents were not and I am not, but had decent education otherwise. But I did learn Christianity decently and in general has good ideas but they’ve been warped to greedy people’s needs.

Kinda reminds me of the movie Dogma, ideas are good (help people, be kind etc) but beliefs are hard to change. If you got an idea it can be shifted into something better as needs change.

I think if there is a higher power (I don’t really but think it’s a possibility like multi dimensions) they’d like us to understand the spirit of that book, not literal and not use it like a shield for being an asshole.

In the end you are you, if you don’t do stuff cause a book says no, it not cause you are good. If you do good stuff just cause a book says so it’s not good either. Want to be better for the people around you, not what some book says.

The people who manufacture the drugs that make you go peacefully have embargoed the USA, because they don’t want their drugs used for state sanctioned murder.

• Manufacturer Bans: Pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, Baxter International, B. Braun Medical, Fresenius Kabi, and Johnson & Johnson, have established policies to stop their products from being used in capital punishment.

• EU Export Restrictions: In 2011, the European Union passed anti-torture measures that prohibit the trade of goods used for capital punishment.

And the “can’t take it back” aspect. Conviction and execution of innocent people does happen.

And the people who want this, want it to be a painful gruesome death.

Yeah. If done correctly, a bullet to the head is quick and painless, as in, you are dead before your body has recognized that you’ve been shot.

But the people who want this want suffering, so likely firing squads will be ordered to hit body parts that will not result in instant, painless death but rather a gruesome and agonizing death from shock and blood loss.

There’s completely painless ways to die.

…

There’s nothing stopping an ethical death penalty except the ethics of the people implementing

This comment implies that the method of killing is the fundamental ethical problem with the death penalty. The killing part is the fundamental problem for me.

Up next, america announces new crucifixion punishment for “politically problematic” prisoners

We have to employ someone that does want to kill people, and we’re paying them to do it.

Honestly: While it may feel wrong, and requires some emotional distancing, if you start thinking about it rationally you’ll find that there isn’t really a fundamental problem with this one. Note that you gave an argument why the first case is bad but not for the second.

If we think things through, the main issue we have with killing is that people whom we don’t want to die die; [while I reject capital punishment in the vast majority of cases](https://fiona.onl/positions.html#no-death-penalty-for-individual-crime), the assumption here is that we have made a decision that we want someone to die, so causing that person to die is within the deployed ethical framework not unethical.

And if there is someone who wants to perform an act that is usually highly unethical, but in some instances is, according to the accepted ethical framework, not, then there isn’t really a clear issue to let that person do that thing in those cases, especially if others don’t want to do it.

The issue here is the framework in which the death penalty is a commonly available punishment itself, not that some things feel wrong within that framework.

That’s actually why it’s a squad.

A single executioner would be more than capable of delivering a killing shot. Hell, they could just shoot them in the head with a handgun.

The squad means that no one member knows if they’re the one that actually delivered the killing shot.

Select one person from the jury that convicted and assign them the role of carrying out their judgment.

ACAB

I mean image recognition is one of the things AI is actually good at… Just sayin…