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?
Any Last Words?
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, the exception being Oklahoma, where it is used solely as a backup, should lethal injection or electrocution fail or become unconstitutional. Utah allows firing squads only in cases where the prisoner had chose it before it became unconstitutional. Therefore, Gardner, having been on death row for 20 some odd years, had chose death by firing squad before it was deemed inhumane.
I realize this is OT, but it really struck me as odd that Utah was still doing a death by firing squad. Interestingly enough, Washington State still allows prisoners the choice of their method of execution between death by hanging and death by lethal injection.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
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?"
"World peace has been declared. LOL jk We are invading Africa"
May God grant him mercy...because we certainly won't.
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.
What a fine bunch of people you are.
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?
whether you agree with capital punishment or not, you have to agree that the state should not take its power to kill its own citizens very lightly. even if those citizens are scumbags.
Absolutely. But the message was not light, it was professional and serious in every way.
Just because YOU happen to think of Twitter as a channel of pure entertainment, does not mean it can only be used that way forever. It is a raw channel for information of ANY type.
That's the sign of a good tool, that in the end users are using it in ways the people that built the tool never dreamed of.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
The truly appalling part to me was that the shooters volunteered. They were not appointed to shoot, they wanted to. It's one thing to have laws saying that killing your own people is ok given the "right" crime and discuss how humane or civilized the killing method is. It's quite another thing to have cops volunteer to kill another human being.
And for those saying "RLG wasn't a human being": civilized parts of this planet have agreed that people - no matter if they are good or bad or white or criminal - are people in the first place. And you don't kill people. As a rule. Because life is valuable. Yes, every life. Deal with it.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
or for that matter, "thou shalt not kill"?
The word "kill" is widely held to be a mistranslation, to my understanding. The more proper translation would be "murder", which means that certain forms of killing may or may not be allowed by such a statement.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
yeah, you got lost and attacked Mexico by mistake, again...
And Americans wonder why the rest of the civilized world looks at them and shakes their head in disbelief.
Apparently, you consider it more civilized when government officials do unpleasant things quietly so that nobody is disturbed by it. I suggest you look at the history of 20th century Europe for how well that worked.
Nor, for that matter, is the belief in European moral superiority anything new; that existed ever since the US was founded. While French, German, and British intellectuals were pointing their fingers at the US over slavery and Indian issues, the militaries that supported their upper middle class lifestyles were busy slaughtering natives all around the world (or minorities at home, as the case may be); but it was all oh-so-civilized because they didn't really talk about it much.
Thanks, but I prefer being part of the uncivilized world then.
"There is no reliable, scientifically sound evidence that [shows that executions] can exert a deterrent effect.... These flaws and omissions in a body of scientific evidence render it unreliable as a basis for law or policy that generate life-and-death decisions. To accept it uncritically invites errors that have the most severe human costs." (Discussion of recent deterrence studies).
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Many, including myself, consider the death penalty to be state-sponsored murder.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
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.
It's not about the guy that was executed, it was about an official, and extremely serious and somber statement, made via what many consider the lowest form of communication.
What if you had a wedding, and the bridal march was done by some guys farting, or your Masters Degree was on a post-it note?
Some forms of communication are just not considered to be appropriate for some types of information.
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".
Who the fuck are you to decide that he should be banned. He's probably innocent anyway. Maybe you should spend a few years posting on slashdot before you finally go to hell you worthless sack of shit.
Didn't someone say "the medium is the message?"
I'm not sure it's a mistranslation as much as a change in the English language since the KJV was translated 300 some years ago. People "got it" then, but now our use of the word kill has slightly different connotations. You're right; modern translations do use murder there.
The government can't save you.
It's not my faith, sir. Your assumptions are unfounded and reflect poorly upon you.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
It's quite another thing to have cops volunteer to kill another human being.
... even while his victims will never eat with their families again. His victims' families were part of who was paying to keep him alive. Now ended.
Why? Cops go to work every day knowing that they've taken on the solemn responsibility to use deadly force, if necessary, to protect other people. They are also frequently the ones that get to watch some innocent person - a victim of some violent person - die right before their eyes. They are frequenly the poor guys who have to go knock on a family's door to tell them that their loved one was just killed by somebody else for no good reason. Police officers see death all the time. They are acutely aware of how precious life is, and how capriciously it can be taken away. And when a guy like the murderer in question personally decides to kill innocent people, and a jury finds his motives and actions to rise to the level of unforgivable, why shouldn't a skilled police officer volunteer to be one of the people that gets the job done correctly?
The officers that volunteered for that duty are carefully screened, and undergo significant training. They consider it an important responsibility, doing it right. It's in the service of the families of the people that murderer decided to kill. It's in the service of the non-murdering working citizens of Utah, who had to work just a little bit, every day, to pay some taxes to buy this guy years of meals while he strung out his appeals process
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Pretty soon we will have the pleasure of seeing the president communicating in a similar fashion when starting another (pointless) war.
First, Utah announces a Twexecution. Next, the US president announces another Twinvasion. Rally the Twoops! We're going to Twar!
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
Multiple gunshot wounds to the heart generally cause death (or at least unconsciousness that will lead to death) in a matter of seconds.
Lethal injections take several minutes to kill, and that's if they do them correctly. Remember - no actual doctor will do it as you can't violate the Hippocratic Oath much worse than that. There's been horror stories of paralyzed victims slowly losing the ability to breathe over 30-45 minutes, conscious, but unable to speak or move.
The only reason lethal injection became popular is that it makes the death LOOK painless due to the paralysis drug preventing the victim from expressing pain.
Given a choice, I can't imagine anyone choosing the needle.
...getting fired by email was harsh!
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Twitter isn't the only form of electronic communication. It is, however, the most asinine and informal. I wouldn't want the news of my upcoming demise originating from the same site responsible for informing millions that Lance Armstrong woke up and is preparing a delicious sandwich.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
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)
Widely held to be a mistranslation by whom?
By linguists. The Hebrew word "hariga" means killing, whereas "retzach" means murder. "Retzach" is the word used in the ten commandments. You're welcome to dislike the Bible, but this particular complaint is unfounded.
Isn't the difference between killing and murder just that one is forbidden and the other isn't?
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. -Romans 12:19
To me belongeth vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. -Deuteronomy 32:35
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD. -Leviticus 19:18
The bible's take on the subject is pretty clear. Reinterpreting scripture to get what you want isn't exactly a new phenomenon.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
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.
Most, including myself, consider the death penalty to be justice.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Huh? Surely the question of how best to translate an ancient Hebrew text into modern English does not depend on what faith or lack thereof you subscribe to or don't as you so choose. Furthermore, an "apologist", as any classicist will tell you, is anyone who defends a position by the systematic use of reason.
Yeah, I can tell.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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});
I heard what you were saying! You know nothing of my work! You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Yeah, if you actually read the bible, there are tons of prohibited activities that get you the death penalty (death by stoning). Some of these:
...so if you want to trot out the bible to defend your position, you better get ready for lots of capital punishment!
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife...
If a married couple has intercourse during the woman's period...
Being a fortune teller...
Working on Saturday...
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.
Most, including myself, consider the death penalty to be justice.
Justice is when the offended party is made whole. You steal $100 from me, you give back my $100, possibly with interest. You can not make whole a person who is dead. You can't make the victim's family whole by killing the murderer. The death penalty is about revenge. It's about hoping the murderer experiences the same suffering and fear that the victim or victims purportedly felt, and that sentiment is reflected in nearly every statement I've ever read by a death penalty supporter. If you're going to support state-sponsored killing, at least be honest about what you're supporting. Revenge killing doesn't have the same antiseptic ring to it as the death penalty but at least it's truthful.
"Justice" that you can't take back when DNA evidence exonerates the convict.
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.