Volunteering to watch an execution

[Belsnickel]

So, I have a hard time with this. I kind of understand the reasoning. As someone who is 100% against the death penalty (until they can tell me that there is a 100% certainty that 100% of those convicted to death are guilty) I don't know if I could volunteer to do it. There is a sense of morbid curiosity at play, but it has been something I have battled with a good bit since reading the article for the first time.

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2017, 07:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I have a hard time with this. I kind of understand the reasoning. As someone who is 100% against the death penalty (until they can tell me that there is a 100% certainty that 100% of those convicted to death are guilty) I don't know if I could volunteer to do it. There is a sense of morbid curiosity at play, but it has been something I have battled with a good bit since reading the article for the first time.

Do you think executions should be open to the "public"? I do. Would I volunteer to witness? No. If I were standing around and they asked if I could represent the public; I'd say sure.

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2017, 07:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That's sorta sums up how I feel about it.

Some people need to be put down, IMO. But that doesn't mean it should be a joyful spectacle. Just sober business and get her done.

Not sure anyone is suggesting it should be joyful. There were reports in the OP of people being affected by what they witnessed. If you are for capital punishment you damn sure better be willing to witness what you advocate for.

[Bengalzona]

(05-02-2017, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure anyone is suggesting it should be joyful. There were reports in the OP of people being affected by what they witnessed. If you are for capital punishment you damn sure better be willing to witness what you advocate for.

Volunteering once as a public service is one thing. Wanting to go back again over and over is a different story.

And, no, I do not agree that someone who supports the death penalty needs to be willing to witness it. Nor am I convinced that there is a real need for 'witnesses' outside of those professional and family members already permitted.

As for me personally, if they offered volunteering to witness an execution as a substitute jury duty, I might be willing to volunteer (once).

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2017, 08:04 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Volunteering once as a public service is one thing. Wanting to go back again over and over is a different story.

And, no, I do not agree that someone who supports the death penalty needs to be willing to witness it. Nor am I convinced that there is a real need for 'witnesses' outside of those professional and family members already permitted.

As for me personally, if they offered volunteering to witness an execution as a substitute jury duty, I might be willing to volunteer (once).

Obviously I disagree with all of this (except as a substitute for jury duty). These executions should be open to the public not just family members and folks whose "job" it is to be there.

As to going more than once; who knows what motivates them. A sense of responsibility, as sense of justice, a sense of the macabre....

Also who better to know something is awry than someone who has witnessed more than one. If it is the law and there are those willing to volunteer to fulfill the duty then I see no problem.

As to my stance of if you advocate it, you better be willing to witness the repercussions of it; that's just a personal opinion.  

[Dill]

(05-02-2017, 07:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think executions should be open to the "public"? I do. Would I volunteer to witness? No. If I were standing around and they asked if I could represent the public; I'd say sure.

If your point is that people should know what they are voting for, and be willing to stomach the consequences of their decision, then I agree with you.

But I don't think executions should be public--unless watching executions changes people's minds about the death penalty.
I think there are good reasons why the nation decided against public executions after 1936.

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2017, 08:55 PM)Dill Wrote: If your point is that people should know what they are voting for, and be willing to stomach the consequences of their decision, then I agree with you.

But I don't think executions should be public--unless watching executions changes people's minds about the death penalty.
I think there are good reasons why the nation decided against public executions after 1936.

Public was just a turn of phrase and I'm not advocating the gallows on city square; however, I do feel there should be a degree of transparency. I feel like I am taking the liberal stance and others who think they should be closed to the public are taking the conservative stance.

I can only assume by "change your mind" you mean to going from pro to con; yet the execution described in the OP may change someone from con to pro, if they were to see it's not like on the Green Mile with thedry sponge.

[Dill]

(05-02-2017, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Public was just a turn of phrase and I'm not advocating the gallows on city square; however, I do feel there should be a degree of transparency. I feel like I am taking the liberal stance and others who think they should be closed to the public are taking the conservative stance.

I can only assume by "change your mind" you mean to going from pro to con; yet the execution described in the OP may change someone from con to pro, if they were to see it's not like on the Green Mile with thedry sponge.

Well, since the 17th century there has been a progressive liberalization of 1st world industrial societies. Part of that has been the shift from punishment as and outdoor public spectacle to closed and indoors. Part of it has been a shift away from capital punishment altogether. Seems to me, then, that keeping it indoors and restricted is more liberal--"civilized" a liberal would probably say. 

Personally, I think the death penalty diminishes the value of life in a society overall, and where it is public even more so.
Conservatives tend to be more pro death penalty, ready to volunteer to help carry out executions, to lower the age and expand application, etc.

I believe the US is at present the only 1st world country with the death penalty. It exists in virtually all authoritarian regimes around the world. China apparently executes thousands every year. Some of it public. Often groups of people, like these poor Tibetans.


A few who watch executions might be more likely to go from con to pro. But I doubt if many would. I am pretty sure that in the US more currently pro would go con.  There was a time in the US when public executions were common, then public revulsion changed that, and ended the death penalty in many states.

I agree with you about transparency.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I would never volunteer to watch an execution and I wouldn't go to one if I was court ordered to be there for whatever reason. I don't believe in the death penalty and believe that taking someone's life is taking that persons chance at Salvation away.

I know, "if they haven't accepted Jesus into their hearts in the 10-20 years they are on death row, they never will" and all that jazz and it may be true but what if they needed just one more day, one more hour...one more second?

That's just me though and I know many, if not all Christians who do believe in the death penalty.

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2017, 11:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, since the 17th century there has been a progressive liberalization of 1st world industrial societies. Part of that has been the shift from punishment as and outdoor public spectacle to closed and indoors. Part of it has been a shift away from capital punishment altogether. Seems to me, then, that keeping it indoors and restricted is more liberal--"civilized" a liberal would probably say. 

Personally, I think the death penalty diminishes the value of life in a society overall, and where it is public even more so.
Conservatives tend to be more pro death penalty, ready to volunteer to help carry out executions, to lower the age and expand application, etc.

I believe the US is at present the only 1st world country with the death penalty. It exists in virtually all authoritarian regimes around the world. China apparently executes thousands every year. Some of it public. Often groups of people, like these poor Tibetans.


A few who watch executions might be more likely to go from con to pro. But I doubt if many would. I am pretty sure that in the US more currently pro would go con.  There was a time in the US when public executions were common, then public revulsion changed that, and ended the death penalty in many states.

I agree with you about transparency.

Once again the debate at hand is not about whether one agrees or disagrees with capital punishment. Much like abortion; it is legal and many disagree with the practice. The debate at hand is should it be allowed to be witnessed by the public.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Kinda reminds me of Drill Sergeant duty in the Army.

If the Army selects you to be a Drill Sergeant you don't have to do a psych eval because you're obviously sane enough not to volunteer for such a shitty job.

But, if you volunteer to be a Drill Sergeant a psych eval is mandatory because you're obviously insane for volunteering to be a Drill Sergeant.

[GMDino]

(05-03-2017, 08:59 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Kinda reminds me of Drill Sergeant duty in the Army.

If the Army selects you to be a Drill Sergeant you don't have to do a psych eval because you're obviously sane enough not to volunteer for such a shitty job.

But, if you volunteer to be a Drill Sergeant a psych eval is mandatory because you're obviously insane for volunteering to be a Drill Sergeant.

Ah, "Catch 22" applied to Drill Sergeants!  LOL!

[Dill]

(05-02-2017, 11:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again the debate at hand is not about whether one agrees or disagrees with capital punishment. Much like abortion; it is legal and many disagree with the practice. The debate at hand is should it be allowed to be witnessed by the public.

I agree Bfine. I thought I was just adding some context. Both of my above posts, and pictures, are about "witnessing."

Remember my central point was not simply that the death penalty diminishes the valuation of life generally in any society which adopts it, but also that public viewing would diminish that valuation even more so. 

In countries like China, where executions are pubic, part of the point seems to be state intimidation of the populace.

I understand the requirement for "public witnesses." Very official. But I find the motives for the serial witnessers here troubling, ranging as they do from apparent titillation to callous, sadistic satisfaction. It's like the 18th century public spectacle only in smaller sample size.

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2017, 07:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think executions should be open to the "public"? I do. Would I volunteer to witness? No. If I were standing around and they asked if I could represent the public; I'd say sure.

See, this is what is interesting for me. As someone who is against the death penalty, I am fully in support of objective witnesses to the executions. I'm not necessarily for doing it in the public square or broadcasting it, but it needs to be witnessed.

I've never hidden the fact that I am a bureaucrat. I'm a social democrat that favors strong government programs, so obviously I am someone that trusts in the government more than, say, a libertarian. But, I trust in the government when there is accountability in place. Our bureaucracy and our elected officials must be held accountable, and objective witnesses to an execution are exactly that. While the fourth estate can provide that to an extent, there is something to be said to ordinary citizens acting in that capacity.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-02-2017, 11:10 PM)Dill Wrote: I believe the US is at present the only 1st world country with the death penalty.

1st world country is always a bit of a misleading title considering China and India are the 2nd and 6th largest countries in the world by GDP, respectively. Yet neither of them are "1st world" countries. Both of them have the death penalty.

So of the top 6 economic powers in the world, 50% of them have the death penalty.

Meanwhile in Norway, they don't even have life sentences... so in 2011 when that guy killed 77 people (the Norway-to-US population % equivalent of killing roughly 4,800 people here) he got 21 years in prison. Sorry, but those are the kinds of people who need to be gone.

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 06:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1st world country is always a bit of a misleading title considering China and India are the 2nd and 6th largest countries in the world by GDP, respectively. Yet neither of them are "1st world" countries. Both of them have the death penalty.

So of the top 6 economic powers in the world, 50% of them have the death penalty.

Meanwhile in Norway, they don't even have life sentences... so in 2011 when that guy killed 77 people (the Norway-to-US population % equivalent of killing roughly 4,800 people here) he got 21 years in prison. Sorry, but those are the kinds of people who need to be gone.

What is misleading about the term "1st world country"?  It designates a country's level of development--social and political as well as economic, not size of GDP. And economic includes economic well being. (Check the per capita for India and China; are they in the top 6?) That is why economists usually measure GNI rather than GDP when assessing well being.

Regarding social/political development, India is a democracy of one billion people; 26 executions since 1991.  China is a dictatorship of 1.4 billion; thousands executed and no one has anyway of keeping track. Imagine Texas with a billion people and you get the idea.

According to Amnesty International, the "top five executioners" in the world are presently Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and China--all developing countries.  https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/china-must-come-clean-about-capital-punishment/  The US WAS among the top five until this year. That is not great company.  All of these countries would, by 1st-world standards, appear socially and politically underdeveloped, with smaller middle classes and partial democracy or none.

In China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq "that guy" would certainly be gone. I would rather live in Norway.

[Bengalzona]

(05-02-2017, 11:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again the debate at hand is not about whether one agrees or disagrees with capital punishment. Much like abortion; it is legal and many disagree with the practice. The debate at hand is should it be allowed to be witnessed by the public.

I wonder how it would impact support for abortion if witnesses were required.

I do sort of wish they would have Green Mile dry-sponged Timothy McVeigh.