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.'"

45 of 556 comments (clear)

  1. So ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So ... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't mind as long as he has the balls to also announce it himself in press conferences and/or interviews.

      What worries me is the notion that politicians might begin to use twitter and other internet communication as a way to avoid interacting with the public(and the risk of being heckled or having a shoe or two thrown at 'em).

    2. Re:So ... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What worries me is the notion that politicians might begin to use twitter and other internet communication as a way to avoid interacting with the public

      They are already doing this. Notice how there aren't too many House Democrats doing town halls this summer? Why face our Consistency and justify our agenda when it's much easier to hide behind the Congressional leadership?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:So ... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow, if you are worried about politicians trying to avoid real interaction with the people, you've missed the boat. Politics haven't been like that since (at least) the 1968 democratic national convention. Republicans saw how badly it went and scripted every word of their convention a month or so later. If politicians think there is potential for a shoe being thrown, they will generally avoid the event. And wisely so. And I'm sure if you look back farther, you will find it is not a new thing.

      Seriously, get your worries in perspective.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:So ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Notice how there aren't too many House Democrats doing town halls [cbsnews.com] this summer? Why face our Consistency and justify our agenda when it's much easier to hide behind the Congressional leadership?

      They say that the townhalls were taken over by people screaming at them, not giving them a chance to respond, justify, or even interact with the protesters. The videos that I saw seemed to back them up. I expect elected officials to answer to the voters, I don't expect them to waste their time being screamed at by people who quite clearly are there just to prevent any discussion.

      That goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Whether its a republican or democrat politician talking, doing shit like that should get you tased.

  2. So the residents of Utah by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:So the residents of Utah by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who decides that? Who do we consult to find out if it's appropriate to read something on the Internet opposed to printed media?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:So the residents of Utah by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with the people offended by this AG. He should have simply used twitter when it is time for his press conference, using the press conference to announce the man's death in a professional manner. It makes sense for random people or news organizations to use twitter to spread news of the execution, but the AG should not be so informal, being the professional responsible for the execution (responsible in the sense of "in charge", not as in "to blame").

      I don't think anyone would be offended at the "icky stuff" if he would just save it for the press conference or some other formal communication instead of twitter.

    3. Re:So the residents of Utah by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, you can't use the number of people who "spoke up" as evidence of public outcry because there's probably just as many who didn't speak up in their agreement because it's rather "uncool" to tweet cheers to such a tweet. I'd say it's far less acceptable to tweet something like: "Good! He deserved it!" than it is to tweet: "That's terrible."

      Since you probably follow people of your same mindset, you likely saw a bias representation of the event and assume it's "public outcry." The BBC post isn't any better.

      There's a bit too much sensationalism going on here, including you.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:So the residents of Utah by nschubach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still don't understand how Twitter is a "Big Red Crayon" and The Utah Times is somehow "A Fine Calligraphy Pen."

      The amount of sensational journalism that happens (including the summary) makes me feel Twitter is just as respectable as any other news outlet.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  3. An all time low? I disagree by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  4. Nice editorializing by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nice editorializing by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still believe that the taking of someone's life, no matter your stance on capital punishment, deserves a bit more than 140 characters in Twitter.

      Why? I mean, I'm against capital punishment (not to argue the propriety of it, but so that you know which side I'm coming from when I say this), and I have to ask why? I mean, one, it was simply a due notification of a previously established sentence being carried out. It wasn't announcing that he was officially sentenced. It wasn't a eulogy for the man. It wasn't even announcing that he was dead. And lastly, it's not like this is the sole coverage the event will receive. Not every communique needs to be a grand pronouncement, even if it relates to a human life.

      If it had been a tweet saying "RLG now dead. RIP." You might have a case. But it wasn't. Sorry, but it was a hyperbolic statement, and not at all warranted.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:Nice editorializing by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      deserves a bit more than 140 characters in Twitter

      You mean, like the years and years of exhaustive press coverage this murderer received after he killed innocent people in his failed attempt to break out of custody for other crimes he committed? You mean the thousands and thousands of pages of public records and court documents that accompanied his multiple prosecutions and appeals over the years? Do you mean like the years the murderer himself had to talk about himself and his fate to a wide audience, despite having cut short other innocent people's chances to ever do that? Do you mean the public procedings in his most recent hearings, which go on page after page?

      Maybe this topic deserves more than your own short, uninformed ramblings. You may not have limited it to 140 characters, but you sure dumbed it down plenty yourself.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. Not an "all time low" by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  6. For the record by aitikin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:For the record by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:For the record by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the use of a guillotine is messy. As a witness, do you really want to see blood squirt after decapitation?

      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.

    3. Re:For the record by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      but he didn't die within seconds

      "He" was long gone. Instantly, in fact. The amount of energy delivered to his chest cavity (with very carefully chosen ammunition) produces a mammoth shock wave. Complete and irreversible instant mega brain trauma, courtesy of - among other things - the fact that major arteries connect the brain to the central plumbing. Out like a light. Don't confused some left-over autonomic nerve/muscle activity (ever seen a chicken quite literally hopping around, minus its head? I have) with him being "alive" in any way that counts.

      His victims, unfortunately, didn't die so quickly.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:For the record by isorox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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"?

    5. Re:For the record by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 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?

      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.

      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 the death penalty should be quick and painless in a civilized manor. Gore need not apply.

      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.

  7. Re:Dignity. by the+linux+geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Me either. I don't understand why the general public seems to prefer lethal injection to hanging or firing squad as a method, given that the latter two are far, far more dignified. With lethal injection we have things like a condemned man being strapped to a gurney for hours as the personnel search for the correct vein, frequently with very painful results. With a properly-conducted hanging or firing squad, it's quick, relatively painless, dignified, and ends fast.

  8. Re:Dignity. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hanging has more potential for error than the firing squad but I would still take it over lethal injection. If it breaks you neck then it's quite humane -- if it doesn't then it's a rather lousy way to exit the world. Of course the same could be said for the firing squad if the marksmen screw up but the odds of four men all missing the kill zone with rifles at 30 feet (or whatever laughably short distance is used) is pretty low.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:So? by Jamza · · Score: 5, Funny

    "World peace has been declared. LOL jk We are invading Africa"

  10. I love religious hypocracy. by slasho81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    May God grant him mercy...because we certainly won't.

  11. Not enough exposure. by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Executions should be televised.

    And don't forget, the polls show the American people want capital punishment, and they want a balanced budget. And I think even in a fake democracy, people ought to get what they want once in a while. Just to feed this illusion that they're really in charge. Let's use capital punishment the same way we use sports and television in this country, to distract people and take their minds off how bad they're being fucked by the upper one percent. Now, unfortunately, unfortunately Monday Night Football doesn't last long enough. What we really need is year-round capital punishment on TV every night with sponsors. Gotta have sponsors. I'm sure as long as we're killing people Marlboro Cigarettes and Dow Chemical would be proud to participate! Proud to participate! Balance the stupid fucking budget!!

    And- and let me say this to you my interesting judaeo-christian friends. Not only- not only do I recommend crucifixions, I'd be in favor of bringing back beheadings!! Huh? Beheadings on TV, slow-motion, instant replay? And maybe you could let the heads roll down a little hill. And fall into one of five numbered holes. Let the people at home gamble on which hole the head is going to fall into. And you do it in a stadium so the mob can gamble on it too. Raise a little more money. And if you want to expand the violence a little longer to sell a few more commercials, instead of using an axe, you do the beheadings with a hand saw! Hey, don't bail out on me now, God damnit! The blood is already on our hands, all we're talking about is a matter of degree. You want something a little more delicate, we'll do the beheadings with an olive fork. That would be nice. And it would take a good God damn long time. There's a lot of good things we could be doing.

    --George Carlin

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
  12. Re:Dignity. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Indeed, hanging is actually very tricky.

    Set the drop to be too short, and they guy's neck doesn't break and you have to wait 15 minutes while he chokes to death - not pretty.

    Set the drop too long and the head pops off. Better for the guy dieing, as he doesn't suffer nearly as long (a couple minutes until brain death, but as the spine is severed he likely feels nothing). However that's not exactly a dignified death.

    If you don't mind popping heads off, why not go back to the guillotine? If well built it's flawless, and far, far cheaper than injection.

    All capital punishment is hard on the executioner. You basically have to be some level of sociopath not to be affected by it, which, incidentally, is probably a good use for sociopaths.

    If I were to die, I'd want it to be by firing squad - that's just awesome (though really hard on the executioners).

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  13. Re:Dignity. by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure I understand the sentiment that somehow the Internet is different than print media when reporting events.

    Putting it on Twitter is not like making a comic strip out of the event and joking about it. It's just another form of communication.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  14. "Haha" as a tag? by yourpusher · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a fine bunch of people you are.

  15. Re:Dignity. by winwar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I don't understand why the general public seems to prefer lethal injection to hanging or firing squad as a method, given that the latter two are far, far more dignified."

    They are squeamish. They like the idea of killing the bad person but don't want to be reminded of the brutality of it. Lethal injection can be made to look like just another sterile clinical procedure. Hanging, firing squad, and the gas chamber reminds people that a person is being killed. I suspect there is a large segment of people that support the death penalty but could never actually impose the penalty themselves (or would have great difficulty). Hence the preference for "humane" lethal injection.

  16. Re:Oh, fuck off by selven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where are the bleeding hearts for this asshole's victims and their families?

    The bleeding hearts have realized that the sentence the man receives does not in any way undo or mitigate the deaths of the victims and doesn't do much for their families. It just adds 1 more to the body count.

  17. Re:Dignity. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lethal injection as it's done is ridiculous. 3 drug cocktail, a sedative(barbituate), paralytic, and then the heart stopper. You really only need one. When i was humanely putting down rats for research purposes we just used a large overdose of barbituate. Inject 5x the lethal dose intraperitoneally. No fumbling about for a vein, they stop breathing in under a minute, and are gone in a couple more. There's no reason lethal injection has to be this complicated procedure.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  18. The message was serious. by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  19. Re:whoopie by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  20. Re:"Why do they hate us?" by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 4, Informative
    The deterrent argument is scientifically invalid:

    "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.
  21. Re:Dignity. by nbauman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and India aren't "civilized countries"?

    I was in Singapore for a week. It was like Chinatown without news stands -- if you can imagine such a thing. I couldn't find a copy of the Asian Wall Street Journal anywhere.

    The Asian WSJ had written critically of the Lee Administration's policies of censoring the opposition by bringing frivolous libel suits against rival politicians and bankrupting them (people who are bankrupted aren't allowed to serve in the Singapore congress -- clever). So the Lee Administration sued the Asian WSJ for libel.

    The WSJ abandoned its principles and published a groveling apology. As a result, they could send a fixed number of copies to Singapore, but it was like trying to find an uncensored American magazine in Soviet Russia.

    Finally, the concierge at a 5-star hotel got me a copy of the Asian WSJ. It reported that an Indian playwright had gone to jail because she insisted on performing a feminist play that the Singapore government had censored.

    (I also read in the WSJ that the "paddling" which outsiders treated as a joke is actually a brutal beating which Lee used against his political opponents.)

    I was in Singapore for a scientific conference, and on the positive side I was charmed by the high school and college students reading science textbooks everywhere, and their love for science and education. Lee is rightly proud of bringing his people out of medieval poverty and illiteracy into modern education and civilization. So is Fidel Castro. They both did it at the expense of human rights.

    Civilized? I'd give them a C. Work harder on human rights.

  22. Re:whoopie by toadlife · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  23. Re:whoopie by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  24. Re:whoopie by dotgain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:whoopie by meerling · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  26. Re:whoopie by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  27. cool strawman, dude by Kratisto · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  28. Re:whoopie by jmizrahi · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  29. Re:whoopie by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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});
  30. Re:whoopie by drkim · · Score: 4, Informative

    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:

    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...

    ...so if you want to trot out the bible to defend your position, you better get ready for lots of capital punishment!