How would you pick your execution method?

[unicorn]

Much of the press acted surprised that a man in South Carolina chose to be executed by firing squad, rather than lethal injection. But these "lethal injection" methods usually seem to use muscle paralyzers, which essentially cause the person to suffocate to death, unable to breathe. His choice seemed rational to me.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/07/us/brad-sigmon-south-carolina-firing-squad-execution/index.html

"...Sigmon chose firing squad over the two other state-approved methods of execution, lethal injection or the electric chair. He was pronounced dead by a physician at 6:08 p.m. ET, officials said at a news conference Friday... “He chose the firing squad knowing that three bullets would shatter his bones and destroy his heart,” King said in a statement. “But that was the only choice he had, after the state’s three executions by lethal injection inflicted prolonged and potentially torturous deaths on men he loved like brothers.”...". 

Of course, there are ways to use lethal injections without paralytics, but I don't think any states use those methods. 

[floridarob]

I'd request the Never ending breadsticks as my last meal to start 👍

[bkkmfj2648]

PFC ?  Quick and easy to become a new member...

[PeterRS2]

22 hours ago, unicorn said:

“He chose the firing squad knowing that three bullets would shatter his bones and destroy his heart,” King said in a statement. “But that was the only choice he had, after the state’s three executions by lethal injection inflicted prolonged and potentially torturous deaths on men he loved like brothers.”...". 

I had always thought that only one of those in a firing squad killing anyone sentenced to death would have a real bullet in his rifle. The point being that no one in the squad would then know who actually killed the condemned man and therefore be burdened with that knowledge for all time. 

Then again I am totally against capital punishment, the more so when there have been so many relatively recent cases in the USA where men sentenced to death have been reprieved after new DNA evidence proved they were entirely innocent, or DAs and police had fabricated or tampered with evidence which would have proved innocence and not passed that evidence to defense attorneys prior to trial. With over 200 exonerated and escaping the death penalty in the US since 1973, I think it is clear whatever faults there are in any justice system, killing in too many cases is state sponsored murder.

[unicorn]

58 minutes ago, PeterRS2 said:

I had always thought that only one of those in a firing squad killing anyone sentenced to death would have a real bullet in his rifle. The point being that no one in the squad would then know who actually killed the condemned man and therefore be burdened with that knowledge for all time. 

Then again I am totally against capital punishment, the more so when there have been so many relatively recent cases in the USA where men sentenced to death have been reprieved after new DNA evidence proved they were entirely innocent, or DAs and police had fabricated or tampered with evidence which would have proved innocence and not passed that evidence to defense attorneys prior to trial. With over 200 exonerated and escaping the death penalty in the US since 1973, I think it is clear whatever faults there are in any justice system, killing in too many cases is state sponsored murder.

I agree with your views on capital punishment. Convictions of the innocent is only of of many compelling arguments. I believe that in most states, the district attorney (prosecutor), judges, and the sheriff are all elected positions, which often makes convictions at any cost politically expedient. (Certainly where I live in California, these three offices are all elected) The recent movie Juror #2 is a good dramatization of how easily a jury can be bamboozled (especially when judges tell jurors that the "haven't done their job" if any of them disagree, forcing them into sequestration until they all are coerced to "agree"). 

The only time I'd be OK with capital punishment would be in cases in which there was mass murder--serial killers and the like--and the evidence wasn't just beyond reasonable doubt, but completely indisputable. Examples would be Jeffrey Dahmer, Tim McVeigh, Stephen Paddock, and so on. These examples are so rare, that it's probably not worth having such laws on the books. 

As for the blanks in the rifles, I believe that depends on the state. If I'm to believe what I heard in the news, at least in South Carolina there are three executioners, each one with live rounds. I remember reading years ago that there are other states in which there are more executioners, but some rifles have blanks instead of bullets. I have a distant recollection of another state which uses 7 executioners, with 3 or 4 having live rounds. I would surmise that the executioners would have to volunteer for these positions--and be comprised of those who wouldn't feel burned by the knowledge that they shot dead a man who was strapped down. 

[vinapu]

7 hours ago, unicorn said:

 

The only time I'd be OK with capital punishment would be in cases in which there was mass murder--serial killers and the like--and the evidence wasn't just beyond reasonable doubt, but completely indisputable

+1

not necessarily mass murder but as you say " and the evidence wasn't just beyond reasonable doubt, but completely indisputable " ie. somebody was caught red handed killing somebody else.