Slashdot Mirror
Utah Attorney General Tweets Execution Order
Kilrah_il writes "In an all-time low for Internet use, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff used Twitter to announce to the public his approval of the execution of convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner. 'I just gave the go ahead to Corrections Director to proceed with Gardner's execution. May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims,' the attorney general wrote. The AG's 7,000 followers retweeted the message further on and soon many replied concerning the awfulness of tweeting the execution of a human being. 'Mr. Shurtleff was doing nothing unusual; politicians and news organizations now routinely send out tweets to alert people to the latest developments. But as Twitter users digested endless breaking news flashes alerting them to the death of a man by firing squad in the United States, for some Mr. Shurtleff's remarks stood out from the rest.'"
The Utah AG was 'tweeting' while the murder was 'twitching'? This case received a lot of publicity (as most executions do) and he was just spreading the news as it happened. He's now qualified to work for one of the big networks.
Follow their AG on twitter in order to stay in touch with their government, but they don't want to hear the icky stuff? Is that right?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
This is a good thing, regardless of your stance on capital punishment.
The most important aspect of the internet, in my opinion, is that it shoves transparency down the throat of government.
For better or worse, this Governor's name and decision is now tied irrevocably to his decision to sign the execution order. He is accountable and his constituents and other voters around the country know what he did.
This is as it should be.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Generic outrage.
Tweeting a legal and properly appealed capital conviction is the "all-time low for internet use", but I suppose that using the internet to distribute Jihad snuff films like Daniel Pearl or using the internet to recruit racial and religious hate is just fine.
Live a decent life, maybe you can die with dignity. Murder people, and someone may tweet your death. What's the problem?
There are many lows on the internet and this doesn't come close. The prosecution in this case chose to pursue the death penalty in light of the crime committed, the jury found him guilty and found the death penalty appropriate. The AG is doing his job, and while this might seem sensationalistic, I'd rather the officials in my particular state be as open as possible using all available avenues of communication, although I personally do not use twitter.
The primary reason this case is so sensational is that he was killed by a firing squad. Remember that he chose that particular method, not the state.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Firing squad is deemed inhumane in 49 out of 50 states
It hasn't been deemed "inhumane", it just isn't used in those states. Having seen my share of animals that were shot and a handful that were "put to sleep" I would actually argue that being shot is more humane. The ones that were put to sleep seemingly just closed their eyes -- but who knows what really happens? At least with humans, there's a school of thought that suggests the anesthetic used wears off quickly and leaves the condemned man awake but with a paralyzed diaphragm. If this is true you are suffocating to death while awake.
Contrast that to being shot. A well placed rifle bullet will kill you before you hit the ground. No need to sit and watch as they try to find a vein. No danger of them missing a vein and setting your arm on fire with muscular injections of the drug cocktail.
There really isn't any pretty way to end a life but of the available methods that our technology allows I would argue that being shot is the most humane. If the shooters do their job right you will be dead in seconds.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, at least he didn't order the execution through twitter. Just imagine if that account got comprised, or any account involved in stupid shit like that.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
May God grant him mercy...because we certainly won't.
There really isn't any pretty way to end a life but of the available methods that our technology allows I would argue that being shot is the most humane. If the shooters do their job right you will be dead in seconds.
Except there's some evidence to suggest that the rifle shots are seldom that well placed. Quite often, what used to happen was the man leading the firing squad checked the victim, found him still breathing and shot him in the head.
(It's a bit difficult to find evidence for this right now - Google's efficiency at keeping their search engine results is working against me as most searches involving the term "firing squad" bring up stories related to this particular execution - but knowing how fantastically good /.'ers are at finding evidence for a particular POV, I have no doubt that someone with more knowledge will reply....)
And Americans wonder why the rest of the civilized world looks at them and shakes their head in disbelief.
THE GOVERNOR TWEETS AN EXECUTION HE ORDERED.
I don't know what's more appalling, that he did it, or that no-one seems terribly surprised.
Three Squirrels
Beware of the Leopard.
Tweeting about it wasn't enough. The damned thing should have been broadcast live.
The asshole being executed was shown *far* more mercy than he showed his victims.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The real problem with firing squads and other methods compared to injection is how hard it is on the executioners not the prisoners. A firing squad is a very humane way to kill a murderer, as you noted. However, each member of the firing squad knows he killed the man himself (or at least, he definitely contributed). They try to work around that by making one round a blank. The marksmen know one round is a blank, but they don't know which. This allows them to rationalize that it may not have been their bullet. This simply introduces uncertainty though, because they know they have 4:1 odds that their bullet is real.
With lethal injection, everyone has a complete rationalization that they did not kill the man. The nurse who inserts the needle didn't throw the switch or fill the poison vials, so obviously they didn't kill him. The man who filled the vials didn't throw the switch or insert the needle, so obviously they didn't kill him. The switch is on a timer, so nobody actually physically threw the switch, and the guy who set the timer was simply setting a timer, he was in no way involved in filling the vials or inserting the needle or giving the orders to kill the man.
Everyone knows they were involved, but they each only share a small fraction of the responsibility, and alone none of their actions killed anyone. This gives them deniability, and allows their consciences to remain clean.
That is why lethal injection is popular. There are other more humane ways to kill, but it's "humane enough" and allows deniability for all involved.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
He's probably innocent anyway.
Reference, please?
He announced the death sentence being carried out on a murderer. The guy deserved to be killed by the state in the same way that he afforded his victims, but that never happens. If anything, the murderer's body should be put on display with a sign(and internet "tweets") showing the upcoming generations that the same fate shall befall you, should you choose to be a murderer. Where are the bleeding hearts for this asshole's victims and their families?
Messiness is not a bug, it's a feature. It both allows you to witness that the victim really is dead and, as an added bonus, doesn't hide the reality of what's being done at an execution behind the illusion of a mere medical procedure.
If you don't have a stomach to watch blood splatter from a severed neck, you shouldn't have anything to do with executions. In fact we should televise each and every execution and see how many people are still "though on crime" when they see just what they're voting for.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So what happened to... not infringing on God's right to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't... or for that matter, "thou shalt not kill"?
I'd take sunscreen to the grave, just to be on the safe side.
Most animals move after they get shot. That doesn't mean they aren't already dead though. Rifle bullets have enough energy in them to cause traumatic brain injury even with hits to the chest or abdominal cavity. Ever seen an animal hit with a well placed bullet from a high power rifle? Many times it looks as though they were hit by lightning -- they hit the ground, kick once or twice and expire.
Most lay people have no appreciation for just how powerful rifles really are.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's fine, but my point is that what you say is a matter of interpretation, and depends on where you draw the "murder" line. Because of that, "Do not murder" does not necessarily apply to capital punishment.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Conversely, I think the death penalty is a delicious ice-cream flavour. It doesn't matter, because that's not really what's being discussed. If you want to get capital punishment abolished, don't waste your time here.
Well considering that god then goes on to tell the Israelites to murder other tribes and rape their women, I'd say the translation is pretty much irrelevant anyway. The Ten Commandments should have been called "The Ten Things You Should Not Do, Unless You Really Want To".
Didn't someone say "the medium is the message?"
That's a bad idea, and a misleading one at that. It would show how "horrific" executions are in order to sway public opinion against capital punishment.
In the civilized world, we know that the death of another person is wrong. But sometimes, exceptions must be made for those who've renounced their humanity voluntarily and commit egregious crimes. It doesn't mean that we have to be barbaric in the process of carrying out an execution however.
I'm a firm believer that the death penalty should be quick and painless in a civilized manor. Gore need not apply.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's not my faith, sir. Your assumptions are unfounded and reflect poorly upon you.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Yeah most of that is just rubbish. You have clearly never been put under by professionals (as in for operation), in a split second you are gone. And if they put too much in you don't come back.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
My sister was brutally murdered and I knew from that point on that killing her killer would not make a difference to how I felt. How I still feel 20 years later... Still, bad deeds must be punished. I only wish her killer was killed by bashing his head in and strangling him like he did my sister. If we did that - kill the killer with the same method they used - it might become a deterrent again.
The main reason why capital punishment is not a deterrent is because we sugar-coat it. We put padded language around it. We get offended by a tweet reporting the go-ahead was made. And then we put them to sleep gently. All because our pussy-ass pacifist socialist education system brainwashes us into discarding any sense of honor, integrity, accountability and responsibility.
Executions should be announced with a media bullhorn and the country should stop everything else while its happening. No, we shouldn't broadcast the actual event. But we should acknowledge and witness when it occurs. We need to make our population instinctively aware that execution is a consequence - that there is a consequence for all our actions and transgressions against others.
In the civilized world, we know that the death of another person is wrong. But sometimes, exceptions must be made for those who've renounced their humanity voluntarily and commit egregious crimes. It doesn't mean that we have to be barbaric in the process of carrying out an execution however.
So Canada, France, Switzerland, the UK aren't civilized? China, Iran, Saudi Arabia are?
The U.S. is in a very select group of nations, could you enlighten us on what other countries are in your "civilized world"?
In what way would showing someone get executed be misleading anyone? Executions are horrific. Or, by "misleading", do you actually mean that they might reconsider their position and pick another one?
This is a flat-out lie. Even if someone has "renounced his humanity" - which is in itself a rather troubling concept, as it basically makes being human dependent on behaving in ways that meet your approval, which is pretty much what every tinpot dictator has used to justify his deeds throughout history - that in no way necessiates his execution. A maximum security prison is perfectly capable of holding an (ex-)human of any level of evil, thus removing the "protect others" argument, leaving only the deterrent and revenge arguments.
And, well, both deterrent and revenge angles would be best served by as gory display as possible.
I'm a firm believer that people who think they're civilized because they performed their human sacrifice rites in the altar of justice in a bloodless manner represent a whole new and fascinating level of self-delusion.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Messiness is not a bug, it's a feature. It both allows you to witness that the victim really is dead and, as an added bonus, doesn't hide the reality of what's being done at an execution behind the illusion of a mere medical procedure.
It turns it into a spectacle. If you throw gore and blood into people's faces, you're assuming that they'll shrink from the horror of it. Through most of human history, people have behaved the exact opposite way.
If you don't have a stomach to watch blood splatter from a severed neck, you shouldn't have anything to do with executions. In fact we should televise each and every execution and see how many people are still "though on crime" when they see just what they're voting for.
That illogic works both ways. If you can't stomach personally witnessing an entire family being brutally murdered by a psychopath, you shouldn't have anything to do with restricting executions.
Especially if you consider the Bible to be internally consistent, the same God wouldn't say to both kill and not kill, therefore they must be different acts.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
you do realise that the bible was probably actully written by priveleged people who wanted to convince their peons that bowing and scraping is a virtue, and revolution a sin. and a way to do that was placing vengance in the afterlife.
Shouldn't that be "The Ten Things You Shouldn't Do Unless You Do Them At My Insistence Or In My Name"?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Oh, please. Get over this nonsensical idea that there is such a thing as "the Bible's take" on any subject. Romans, Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written by different people with different agendas at different times to different audiences in different contexts.
Even most mainstream Christian scholars will tell you that.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
When it involves unnecessary gore, pain, and suffering. If your in favor of such techniques to get a point across, you're no better than the person scheduled to be executed. As such, I would personally charge you with crimes against humanity. How's that for irony!
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, many gang members and serial killers have renounced their humanity long LONG ago. I'm pleased that you've found it troubling. You should.
Capitol Punishment serves as justice (some call it revenge), and as a deterrent.
Says who? The point of Capitol Punishment is to serve out justice and bring closure for the living. We don't need the melodramatic gore for this.
I speak of humane execution. You're in favor of turning the event into a gore fest circus. Who's the one that's delusional here?
Life is not for the lazy.
The premise of your question is flawed. Capitol Punishment and Civilization do NOT go hand in hand.
What defines civilization is how we treat others in a humane manor. Also, the level of freedom and proper civil/legal representation are important too. You shouldn't execute someone for not believing in a religion. OTOH, you don't set free a mass murder on the streets. Execution is just a single method of carrying out justice. Not something to be abused or glorified.
Life is not for the lazy.
Here's a few:
"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." - Deut. 20:14
"So that is what the Benjamites did. While the girls were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them." - Judges 21:23 (read the preceding chapters to get a context, as well)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." - Numbers 31:17-18
I'm sure all those virgins were quite willing after being kidnapped or watching their families being slaughtered.
Then again, this is the same religion that said that rape could be used to get yourself a wife, as long as you were willing to pony up some cash to daddy for taking his property without asking.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." - Deut. 22:28-29
And what do you do with rape victims?
"If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you." - Deut 22:23-24
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Oh, please. Get over this nonsensical idea that there is such a thing as "the Bible's take" on any subject. Romans, Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written by different people with different agendas at different times to different audiences in different contexts.
Even most mainstream Christian scholars will tell you that.
Those same mainstream Christian scholars will also tell you that all of those works were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, all are the word of God.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
"This is something that would not happen if they actually used the book to teach and not as a tool of power, because people would actually bother to ensure the consistency of the information."
Many people do just that. In fact, I would say there are probably vastly more than you think. However, sensationalism and controversy draw all the attention. No one pays attention to the scholars and devotees quietly studying and trying to conform themselves to a moral standard that is largely incongrous with modern american life. Furthermore, those individals and congregations avoid political involvement and public controversy by their very nature. They are among a growing number of churches where the offering plate is never passed, hymns and singing are relegated secondary (or tertiary!) status, and the "message" is more like a college class with sentence diagrams of ancient languages, textural criticism, historical studies of the times and places of the people of the bible, and categorical reconciliation of ideas from the entire text of the bible.
But hey, if all you ever see is the pope, poison drinking snakehandlers, and televangelists you wouldn't know that there are places where people actually believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and are truly comitted to understanding it without presumption.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.