Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Friday March 16 2018, @02:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the fundamental-states-of-matter dept.

Oklahoma plans to start carrying out executions with nitrogen gas, a method that has never been used in the U.S. but that some states have already approved amid difficulties with lethal injections.

At a news conference Wednesday, Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Mike Hunter and Corrections Director Joe M. Allbaugh said that over the next few months the state would develop a protocol for using nitrogen.

[...] In recent years, Oklahoma and other states have struggled to obtain the drugs needed for lethal injections, the most common execution method but one that has increasingly faced scrutiny.

In 2015, a state court put a moratorium on executions in Oklahoma after a series of botched executions, including one in which an inmate convulsed for 43 minutes before dying and another in which the wrong drug was administered.

Oklahoma is poised to become the first state to use nitrogen gas in executions


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:16AM (56 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:16AM (#653285)

    The firing squad is fine. Forget that nonsense with some rifles containing blanks. Let's just do a 12-gauge blank, pressed against the lower back of the head.

    The noose is fine. No, it doesn't matter how you tie the knot and it doesn't matter how far they fall. It's fine if they die of a snapped neck, compressed airway, compressed artery, compressed vein, or fully separated head. It's all good. Don't be a wuss.

    Drugs are fine. We were getting silly overcomplicated, as with everything the government does. The cops confiscate drugs all the time; that'll do. Many prisoners will gladly overdose if you give them the chance.

    None of the above is even a tiny bit as awful as what most of these people have done. If we wanted a fair and just punishment, we'd have to torture them. (which is not cruel in relation to the crime, and not unusual if we make it standard practice)

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 16 2018, @02:22AM (8 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday March 16 2018, @02:22AM (#653289) Journal

    This may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Macho Man of Ultimate Manliness, but some of us would like to be *better* than the people we are ridding ourselves of.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:47AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:47AM (#653306)

      Don't kill them then. If you want to kill, don't be picky about it. Heroin as a lethal injection sounds good to me.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:25AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:25AM (#653338)

        Heroin sounds pretty good to a lot of the inmates too. And we can't have that because they bad folks.

        Some states are even doing away with last meal requests.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 16 2018, @01:39PM (1 child)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 16 2018, @01:39PM (#653586) Journal

          Don't do away with the last meal requests.

          Simply do away with granting the requests.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @06:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @06:14PM (#653721)

            The last meal is a cultural tradition and a bit of decent treatment in the last hours of the life of a person, regardless of what crimes they committed.

            Cap the dollar amount of the requested items, or even limit it to a menu of prison food service and commissary items if you must, but don't do away with the last meal.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @04:32PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @04:32PM (#653660)

      This may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Macho Man of Ultimate Manliness, but some of us would like to be *better* than the people we are ridding ourselves of.

      He is not saying you personally have to do it. And ultimately "better" is a subjective distinction.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 16 2018, @05:15PM (2 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday March 16 2018, @05:15PM (#653686)

        Doesn't matter - as a member of society, you share responsibility for the actions of social institutions.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @08:31PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @08:31PM (#653782)

          Bzzzt! Wrong! I'm a felon, I have no say and no share of the responsibility. Don't try to lump us all together to smooth over your moral cowardice.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 16 2018, @09:40PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday March 16 2018, @09:40PM (#653818)

            Sure you do - every action you took before and after incarceration shaped society, and even incarceration doesn't eliminate the social ripples of your actions, it just temporarily restricts them somewhat. Voting is one of the the least important manifestations of civic responsibility.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by KilroySmith on Friday March 16 2018, @02:32AM (4 children)

    by KilroySmith (2113) on Friday March 16 2018, @02:32AM (#653297)

    How about anti-aircraft guns? I've heard they're a popular method of execution in some of the more enlightened areas of the world...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:52AM (#653310)

      Suppose we let people pledge money to use an anti-aircraft gun. It's only about $27 for each M-940 20mm MPT-SD round.

      Add a markup to make it $42 and require a multiple of 100, so $4200 minimum. Don't you worry, nobody in the whole country would think of paying that much for such a purpose. :-)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:52AM (#653311)

      man on earth, by luminousity.

      Although I've heard there is this orange guy who claims he glows the most better!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @02:58AM (#653314)
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 16 2018, @04:10AM

      Anything less than headbutting a chainsaw is just a tree-hugging hippie bullshit way to die.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 16 2018, @03:01AM (23 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 16 2018, @03:01AM (#653316) Journal

    The firing squad is fine.

    No, it's not.
    It creates nightmares for the ones in squad.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:06AM (18 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:06AM (#653323)

      I think we can find firing squad members who aren't a bunch of pussies.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 16 2018, @03:14AM (16 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 16 2018, @03:14AM (#653330) Journal

        You volunteer, I understand?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:27AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:27AM (#653339)

          I suppose, if convenient to me, I'd do a few for free. I think most normal males would be willing.

          If I have to make a career out of it, moving my family and showing up every day bright and early, I'll be needing some decent pay. I'm sure there are cheaper people.

          But yes, basically.

          • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday March 16 2018, @09:44AM

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 16 2018, @09:44AM (#653472)

            I suppose, if convenient to me, I'd do a few for free. I think most normal males would be willing.

            Well it seems I'm in the not-normal category, then.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday March 16 2018, @09:48AM (2 children)

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday March 16 2018, @09:48AM (#653476) Journal

            I suppose, if convenient to me, I'd do a few for free. I think most normal males anonymous Internet Tough Guys who have no understanding of the psychological toll of taking another human life and / or emotional crippled sociopaths would be willing.

            Also interesting that you seem to think that men are up to the task, but women aren't.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 16 2018, @07:22PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 16 2018, @07:22PM (#653757)

              Most teen boys would do it in a blink. Just make a remote-control robot and turn it into a game, where they go around shooting virtual bad guys in a labyrinth, but one (or more) of the bad guys is the condemned.
              Patent pending.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @07:56PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @07:56PM (#653767)

              55% of the males
              20% of the females

              This assumes knowing what the crime was, but not being personally involved. Personal involvement could make that 95% and 50%. Being unaware of the crime would drop it to 10% and 5%.

              This also assumes a male perpetrator, which is usual. Change that, and the willing men will drop dramatically.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 16 2018, @04:18AM (10 children)

          I dunno about you but I'd have no problem putting two in the chest and one in the head of anyone who deserved it. There are absolutely lines for me that crossing means you cease to be a human being and become nothing but an animal that needs to be put down. I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over it either.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Friday March 16 2018, @05:00AM (5 children)

            by ilPapa (2366) on Friday March 16 2018, @05:00AM (#653375) Journal

            I dunno about you but I'd have no problem putting two in the chest and one in the head of anyone who deserved it. There are absolutely lines for me that crossing means you cease to be a human being and become nothing but an animal

            One of those lines is the willingness to put "two in the chest and one in the head" of someone.

            I'll bet you would have been willing to "pull the switch" on the Central Park Five after that woman was raped and beaten. You would have killed five innocent men. There have been well over a thousand cases of innocent people being killed by the State. If you believe in limited government, there's no way you can support allowing the State to have the power to kill citizens.

            Capital punishment, like torture, diminishes everyone.

            --
            You are still welcome on my lawn.
            • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Friday March 16 2018, @07:08AM (1 child)

              by jmorris (4844) on Friday March 16 2018, @07:08AM (#653426)

              1. They weren't innocent, they just didn't put their dick in the victim. They WERE part of a wild gang of around thirty who were running amok and harmed many other people. The testimony of the asshole who said he did it alone was oh so convenient to the prog narrative since he was already doing a life sentence.

              2. Because the DNA didn't match none of them were even sentenced to life and certainly none received a death sentence. Meaning the case isn't even something you should have brought up here.

              3. Just because the Communist, anti-crime control mayor handed the perps a huge sack of cash and the key to the city does not mean they aren't criminal scum.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:55AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:55AM (#653480)

                1. They weren't innocent

                Yes they were. Perhaps you are confusing their skin color for their guilt?

                2. Because the DNA didn't match none of them were even sentenced to life and certainly none received a death sentence. Meaning the case isn't even something you should have brought up here.

                Actually, a certain individual, who is now President of the United States, called for them to be put to death.

                3. Just because the Communist, anti-crime control mayor handed the perps a huge sack of cash and the key to the city does not mean they aren't criminal scum.

                Hmm ... see the last sentence of #1.

            • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 16 2018, @10:41AM (2 children)

              On the contrary, protecting its citizens rights is the primary purpose of government, so dealing with those who would infringe one of the most important rights, life, is absolutely within their mandate no matter how limited you wish them to be.

              As for them making mistakes, they're only human and that's always going to happen. By all means, do your due diligence. Be as thorough as realistically possible in death penalty cases. If you allow yourself to be paralyzed by the possibility of making a mistake though, you'll never be able to do anything at all.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Friday March 16 2018, @03:53PM (1 child)

                by ilPapa (2366) on Friday March 16 2018, @03:53PM (#653638) Journal

                On the contrary, protecting its citizens rights is the primary purpose of government

                And by killing a non-zero number of innocent people, THAT is how a government protects their rights?

                Seriously, what percentage of the total number of people killed via capital punishment being innocent would you find acceptable?

                --
                You are still welcome on my lawn.
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Friday March 16 2018, @12:58PM (1 child)

            by TheRaven (270) on Friday March 16 2018, @12:58PM (#653556) Journal

            I dunno about you but I'd have no problem putting two in the chest and one in the head of anyone who deserved it.

            A lot of basic training in any armed force is due to the fact that most humans are unwilling to kill another human. This behaviour has strong evolutionary roots (species that kill each other don't survive so well) and it takes a lot to overcome in most people. The exceptions are usually classed as sociopaths. It comes as no surprise at all to me that you would be in this category.

            --
            sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 1) by Kalas on Friday March 16 2018, @08:57PM (1 child)

            by Kalas (4247) on Friday March 16 2018, @08:57PM (#653796)

            Goddamn. You might as well buy a neon sign the size of the moon advertising "I AM A SOCIOPATH".
            Makes me wonder if you've already crossed one of those lines yourself.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:11AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:11AM (#653928) Homepage Journal

              I find it interesting that you lot think anyone whose emotions do not control their decision making is a sociopath. I suppose it goes hand in hand with you calling everyone who disagrees with you Nazis though. You either don't give a damn what words mean or you're mentally damaged enough that reality is not a worry of yours.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:45AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:45AM (#653473)

        I think we can find firing squad members who aren't a bunch of pussies.

        I'm sure there are plenty of folks in his cellblock who would be happy to volunteer. Worried about giving other psychopaths a loaded gun? Hell, they'd do it with anything you give them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @07:09AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @07:09AM (#653427)
      Firing squad method can cause a fair bit of pain.

      Here's my proposal- wrap high explosives around the head of the person to be executed. Detonate to execute.

      With this method you can scientifically guarantee no physical pain because the explosion will travel much faster than nerve impulses. There will be no brain left to receive any pain signals. There may be mental distress leading up to it but that's the same for other executions.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @07:35AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @07:35AM (#653439)

        Here's my proposal- wrap high explosives around the head of the person to be executed. Detonate to execute.

        With this method you can scientifically guarantee no physical pain because the explosion will travel much faster than nerve impulses. There will be no brain left to receive any pain signals. There may be mental distress leading up to it but that's the same for other executions.

        Better yet, arm it with a button that detonates on release. Hand it to the prisoner and let him/her decide the timing of their own execution. If they want to hold out and hang on, I hope they took plenty of No-Doz. Sell tickets. Offer a betting pool. Pop popcorn.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:04AM (#653459)
          Firstly that's cruel too. Secondly you'd need more complicated stuff and procedures to prevent things from going wrong. e.g. prevent immediate detonation while you are handing it over.
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:52AM (#653479)

          Frankly, I'm more worried about having you loose on the streets than half the people on death row.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:02AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:02AM (#653318)

    The point of the blanks is to spare the executioners the knowledge that they definitely killed somebody. The executioners themselves don't know if they've got the live round or if it's one of the others and as such, they don't really know if they killed anybody.

    But, the trend towards more "humane" methods of killing people is more about preserving the cultural institution than about anything else. There's plenty of ways of killing people that are relatively quick and painless, but most of them involve blood and gore that we've decided aren't acceptable in our society. The next step is going to be to stop the executions completely as they serve no purpose and are something that cannot be done if the convict turns out to be innocent.

    Not to mention what it says about society when it condones killing people that can be locked up for life. Which is another reason why it's starting to fall out of favor. The entire country has the option of life without the possibility of parole, so jurors have that option in addition to the death penalty rather than voting against the death penalty knowing the the guilty party will be paroled at some point in the future.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @10:26AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @10:26AM (#653489)

      Anybody who is moderately competent in firing weapons knows whether the round they just fired is a blank or not.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:15PM (#653622)

        Especially if you aim for the head, or the balls.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 16 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday March 16 2018, @05:02PM (#653676)

      The point of the blanks is to spare the executioners the knowledge that they definitely killed somebody. The executioners themselves don't know if they've got the live round or if it's one of the others and as such, they don't really know if they killed anybody.

      Not really sure I fully understand the logic behind this. That the executioners may not think it's morally acceptable to execute people? Then maybe they shouldn't have taken the job as executioners? Or is this a thing like jury duty where you're randomly selected for firearm training for a few weeks of service?

      If not, you decided to take the job. If you don't trust the government to correctly select who to snuff, you shouldn't've taken it. If you don't believe executing people is moral, you shouldn't've either.

      If it *is* a public service and most people don't want to do it, then maybe the government should think about whether it's a good idea in the first place. I imagine the U.S. have a volunteer armed forces these days has similar logic behind it.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 16 2018, @05:24PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday March 16 2018, @05:24PM (#653692)

        I believe that generally speaking firing squads originated in military settings - i.e. you were ordered to participate, and the victim might well be a fellow soldier. Heck, the entire point of having a squad rather than a single shooter is to spread out the guilt - it only takes one well-placed bullet to kill someone. And there you're dealing with men who are pretty much all in the business of killing people, but there's a difference between killing an armed soldier who's trying to kill you back, and killing a helpless unarmed man.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:28AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @03:28AM (#653340)

    If you believe in Hell, they're going there anyway (and if they aren't, that's on God, and who are you to judge His decision).
    If you don't... well, they're gonna die, and that's it. Like taking out the trash, or putting a rabid animal under. Hell, exactly like that latter one.

    I've also always wondered why this wasn't already the standard execution method.
    It's reliable, easy, humane. None of that pesky "is this cruelty" guff that plagues the other common methods. We're a civilized people, no?

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 16 2018, @04:29AM (10 children)

      Making it prettier is in no way civilized, it's just cowardly. If you're not comfortable with putting a gun to their head yourself and pulling the trigger, you've no business on the pro side of the discussion. The death penalty should not be justice and it should not be vengeance. It should be the same as shooting a rabid dog; simply necessary.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Friday March 16 2018, @05:06AM (9 children)

        by ilPapa (2366) on Friday March 16 2018, @05:06AM (#653378) Journal

        It should be the same as shooting a rabid dog; simply necessary.

        The problem is, our legal system is not equipped to ascertain this necessity without killing some innocent people along the way. What margin of error are you comfortable with when it comes to state-approved murder?

        You're squarely in eugenics territory now, Mighty Buzzard, and I'll bet that despite your tough talk you don't really want to be there. I know there's still some good left in you.

        --
        You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday March 16 2018, @07:21AM (3 children)

          by jmorris (4844) on Friday March 16 2018, @07:21AM (#653430)

          So? We kill innocent people all the time. How many lives could we save with a mandatory regulator to prevent cars from exceeding 25 mph? We decide the increased standard of living for the living outweighs the increased mortality. And so forth. We should kill monsters because we should be the sort of people who refuse to leave them alive. Even in prison they often kill and many in prison do not deserve death. Once we decide somebody is -never- coming back out we should put them down. If we had penal colonies we could use that option for those meriting lifetime exclusion from society but not quite horrible enough that killing them is the best for the other prisioners, but we don't.

          Cost benefit. And to get the maximum benefit death needs to be certain and swift. Time from police catching a monster (multiple murder, torture / rape / murder, terrorism, other really horrible things) to a public execution should be less than a year. And it should be done where others likely to be deterred will be likely to witness the event. Twenty years after the crime, a dozen appeals later and after a half dozen attempts stopped at the last minute by a stay has little deterrent effect.

          Btw, the arguments about dirty people in the criminal justice system is not a valid argument. You solve that by making the withholding of exculpatory evidence and other such nonsense that results in a death count as murder under color of law and sentence the district attorney. Execute a few Mike Nifong types along with any remaining "good ol boys" and the problem would be as close to solved as anything with humans involved ever is.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @10:02AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @10:02AM (#653482)

            So? We kill innocent people all the time.

            You're rather flippant, almost casual, with other people's lives.

            We can't prevent all accidents. But I bet if we tried you'd be the first in line to cry foul.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 16 2018, @08:43PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 16 2018, @08:43PM (#653790)

              The US has no shortage of temporarily inconvenienced millionaires, but also temporarily out-of-baddies heroes, and temporarily unvictimized hardliners.
              The probability of each of those three situations turning around is not equal.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday March 16 2018, @10:38AM

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday March 16 2018, @10:38AM (#653498) Journal

            has little deterrent effect.

            Funny thing... neither does capital punishment!

            Criminals are hardly ever deterred by punishment (regardless of severity) because either (a) The Dunning-Kruger effect (perhaps reinforced by a history of getting away with stuff) gives them an unfounded confidence that they are somehow exceptional compared to all the convicted criminals in history, and so will never be caught, thus they firmly believe the deterrent will never apply to them, or (b) they have insufficient impulse control, and just do whatever awful thing they feel like in the moment when their emotions get the better of them, regardless of consequences. Oh, or (c) they genuinely are mastermind supervillains (or at least lucky idiots) who really WILL get away with it this time, which then of course feeds back into (a).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @10:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @10:28AM (#653491)

          You're only in eugenics territory if there is a genetic basis to criminality. Are you asserting this?

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 16 2018, @10:55AM (3 children)

          Mistakes have always and will always happen as long as human beings are involved. So long as your best reasonable effort is made to ensure that you're executing the correct person, your conscience can remain clean. What constitutes "best reasonable effort" needs thorough consideration and debate though.

          As for my supposed willingness, I long ago volunteered to shoot people from opposing armies who had done me no wrong whatsoever. An enemy nation's soldiers are no more likely to be evil bastards than the general public (less so even in my opinion) but sometimes they need to be killed. Killing those whose guilt of especially heinous crimes have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is even easier morally.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday March 16 2018, @05:29PM (2 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday March 16 2018, @05:29PM (#653696)

            Seems to me it's generally not the soldiers that need to be killed, but the generals and civil leaders behind them. Unfortunately they're never on the battlefield, and the rules of "civilized warfare" prohibit assassination. Funny that...

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:15AM (1 child)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:15AM (#653929) Homepage Journal

              Yeah, I've never been a fan of "civilized" warfare anyway. If you're going to go to war you should make sure to treat your enemies so horrifically that A) nobody wants to fuck with you again for a very long time and B) your own citizens are less eager to decide war is the thing to do. It would save a hell of a lot of lives, much like bombing Japan did.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday March 18 2018, @03:10PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Sunday March 18 2018, @03:10PM (#654481)

                I would agree, except for your ridiculously over-broad definition of "enemy". Civilians are very rarely anyone's enemy - people mostly just want to be left alone to live their lives. Your enemy is the cabal of powerful individuals running the country, generally with very little regard for the desires or well-being of the citizens (even in titular democracies). And more immediately, the working class soldiers who have agreed to kill people for the sake of "their" country.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday March 16 2018, @05:44AM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 16 2018, @05:44AM (#653399) Journal

    Well, if you're going to go that route, why not just do a 10 quart blood donation? Nearly painless.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.