The Pentagon said Thursday it will livestream the military’s first firing squad execution in decades, allowing the public to watch as the man who killed 13 people in a 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood is put to death.
I hate these jerks but I think this is the right thing to do for two reasons. Firing squad death is about as humane as we have. Lethal injection is too error prone and can end as torture instead of death. I also think that if you as a society are going to execute people, it should be public so that people have to see the actual consequences of execution. If it’s too gory to watch, maybe don’t do executions?
True. I don’t think it ultimately matters that they’re doing it for the cruelty. I still think they stumbled on the right solution if Americans insist on continuing with capital punishment
I doubt it. Those with the sick bloodlust will love it and eat it up. You’ll see what I mean when you see some discussions on things like that failed injection.
Exactly. And if you and your fellow Americans aren’t ok with that you need to do more to put a government in place that will stop the practice entirely.
Hiding executions in the shadows is clearly not controversial enough to get Americans to stop the practice. Maybe this will be. It will for sure expose what America is at its core.
The media will censor it and only those that seek it out will see the uncensored version. Majority of those that seek it will just be blood thirsty idiots.
People don’t have to see it though. If the thought of watching someone die makes you uncomfortable, you just don’t tune in. The people who tune in will be those who want to jerk off to the state killing a brown dude for crossing it.
Pre radio and tv, and interestingly the human rights revolution in western nations aligns well with increased public discourse allowed by radio and tv.
You’re deliberately missing the point. Whether you watch it or not, that it is televised brings the issue of execution to the public’s attention:
If a country is going to execute people, it should have the honesty to show the public what that actually means
if the public can’t handle public executions, they should perhaps revisit why they want something they are unable to bring themselves to watch.
Regardless of intent, making executions public is increasing public dialogue about executions. We can see that correlation in other countries above. Improved communication modes correlated with abolition.
If that increased public dialogue focuses on the fact that the executions are public and not that they are happening at all, that shows a basic dishonesty about what the problem actually is.
I’m not missing the point at all, I understand your reasoning. The question is whether there’s any actual evidence to show that that reasoning actually holds up in practice. I think there’s a significant amount of evidence that it doesn’t, that being that executions were publicized for thousands of years. You countered that TV makes a difference and listed a bunch of dates. I asked if any of those dates actually show a correlation with televised executions. Since you didn’t answer, and I’ve never heard of that, I’m gonna say no, and so there’s no real evidence for what televised executions would lead to.
I dunno man, there are some things that are simple enough that we don’t need a double blind study for. The general idea: will more conversation be generated about a controversial topic that:
The problem is that putting it in the public can also normalize it and desensitize people to it, especially if it’s celebrated or seen as entertainment. We know that this can be the case, because again, it was the case for thousands of years.
Also, it’s entirely possible that even if it leads to conversations, and even if those conversations lead to things changing, it may be that the thing that changes is simply not publicizing executions. The Democrats pat themselves on the back for making incremental “progress” just by returning to the status quo, and anyone who says, “But executions are still happening” will be seen as an unreasonable radical, a “both-sideser.”
What you’re suggesting is similar to the logic of accelerationism and accelerationism doesn’t generally work. ICE raids have increased in intensity and visibility, but the Democrats still won’t commit to abolishing it. They raised a big stink over child separation before and when they got in power they ended that specific policy but kept the camps and deportations going, and what I described above is exactly what happened with mainstream discourse.
You can’t just make conditions worse and expect it to spur people into action, even if it might seem like you could intuitively. And the reason we know that is that we have history to look at, and we can see ages upon ages of people in horrible conditions, unable to change those conditions because of a lack of power and organization. And you’ll note that “do people have power and organization” is a question that the logic of accelerationism doesn’t even look at, it’s a factor that we discover is important when we look at what actually happens in practice. Which is exactly why you can’t just use this kind of extremely reductive reasoning and expect it to be at all reliable. There are any number of factors that could lead to things playing out differently.
Get together with like minded Americans and stop the practice then. Executions ARE more than normalized in the USA. All that’s changed now is that it’s more obvious to you and that makes you uncomfortable.
The correct action is to stop executions, not to force them back behind the curtains.
I hate these jerks but I think this is the right thing to do for two reasons. Firing squad death is about as humane as we have. Lethal injection is too error prone and can end as torture instead of death. I also think that if you as a society are going to execute people, it should be public so that people have to see the actual consequences of execution. If it’s too gory to watch, maybe don’t do executions?
They aren’t doing it for either of those reasons though
True. I don’t think it ultimately matters that they’re doing it for the cruelty. I still think they stumbled on the right solution if Americans insist on continuing with capital punishment
I doubt it. Those with the sick bloodlust will love it and eat it up. You’ll see what I mean when you see some discussions on things like that failed injection.
Exactly. And if you and your fellow Americans aren’t ok with that you need to do more to put a government in place that will stop the practice entirely.
Hiding executions in the shadows is clearly not controversial enough to get Americans to stop the practice. Maybe this will be. It will for sure expose what America is at its core.
The media will censor it and only those that seek it out will see the uncensored version. Majority of those that seek it will just be blood thirsty idiots.
Until you and like minded Americans force change, this is what America is.
Unfortunately the same type of people that love donnie and have just enough of them turning out to put him in office are the types that will love it.
Definitely. So get like minded Americans together and do something about it
Woooow expecting Americans to do something about it? And here I thought optimism was dead.
The reaction is about as expected. Throwing hands in the air, deflecting responsibility and running away. Home of the brave, clearly.
People don’t have to see it though. If the thought of watching someone die makes you uncomfortable, you just don’t tune in. The people who tune in will be those who want to jerk off to the state killing a brown dude for crossing it.
Is your anger at the fact that the execution is happening, or that it’s public?
If it’s just that it’s public, then what that tells me is that actually you’re fine with it as long as it’s hidden from you.
fentanyl is apparently pretty enjoyable, can be deadly, and we keep finding it all over the place.
Doesn’t really work like that. There were thousands of years of human history with public executions and no real action being taken to stop them.
Pre radio and tv, and interestingly the human rights revolution in western nations aligns well with increased public discourse allowed by radio and tv.
Key Abolition Timeline in the Western World
19th Century:
Post-World War II (1940s–1960s):
Late 20th Century Wave (1970s–1990s):
I have no idea what those dates are supposed to be demonstrating to me. Did any of those countries have televised executions?
You’re deliberately missing the point. Whether you watch it or not, that it is televised brings the issue of execution to the public’s attention:
I’m not missing the point at all, I understand your reasoning. The question is whether there’s any actual evidence to show that that reasoning actually holds up in practice. I think there’s a significant amount of evidence that it doesn’t, that being that executions were publicized for thousands of years. You countered that TV makes a difference and listed a bunch of dates. I asked if any of those dates actually show a correlation with televised executions. Since you didn’t answer, and I’ve never heard of that, I’m gonna say no, and so there’s no real evidence for what televised executions would lead to.
All you have is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
I dunno man, there are some things that are simple enough that we don’t need a double blind study for. The general idea: will more conversation be generated about a controversial topic that:
A) Is hidden in the shadows; or
B) Open and blatantly in public
The problem is that putting it in the public can also normalize it and desensitize people to it, especially if it’s celebrated or seen as entertainment. We know that this can be the case, because again, it was the case for thousands of years.
Also, it’s entirely possible that even if it leads to conversations, and even if those conversations lead to things changing, it may be that the thing that changes is simply not publicizing executions. The Democrats pat themselves on the back for making incremental “progress” just by returning to the status quo, and anyone who says, “But executions are still happening” will be seen as an unreasonable radical, a “both-sideser.”
What you’re suggesting is similar to the logic of accelerationism and accelerationism doesn’t generally work. ICE raids have increased in intensity and visibility, but the Democrats still won’t commit to abolishing it. They raised a big stink over child separation before and when they got in power they ended that specific policy but kept the camps and deportations going, and what I described above is exactly what happened with mainstream discourse.
You can’t just make conditions worse and expect it to spur people into action, even if it might seem like you could intuitively. And the reason we know that is that we have history to look at, and we can see ages upon ages of people in horrible conditions, unable to change those conditions because of a lack of power and organization. And you’ll note that “do people have power and organization” is a question that the logic of accelerationism doesn’t even look at, it’s a factor that we discover is important when we look at what actually happens in practice. Which is exactly why you can’t just use this kind of extremely reductive reasoning and expect it to be at all reliable. There are any number of factors that could lead to things playing out differently.
Get together with like minded Americans and stop the practice then. Executions ARE more than normalized in the USA. All that’s changed now is that it’s more obvious to you and that makes you uncomfortable.
The correct action is to stop executions, not to force them back behind the curtains.