Looks like the bloodlust in parts of the USA knows no bounds.
What bloodlust? A murderer who, in a place that enforces the death penalty for murder, is being granted the traditional form of execution of his choice? (Firing squad may not be a local tradition, but it is still traditional.)
Where's the bloodlust? As far as I can tell, this is being done coldly and professionally, with allowances made for the condemned man's wishes.
If they were going to execute him by hacking him up with axes for the pleasure of an audience, or something of similar nature, your statement about bloodlust in parts of of the USA knowing no bounds might make sense. But as it stands, it doesn't.
Unbelievably, this murdering bloodlust is rewarded instead of being abhorred. The depths to which the human conscience is driven by this disgusting practice is shown by the testimony of other state murderers. From the same article.
"State murderers"? Murder is, by definition, unlawful killing. Executioners are not performing any unlawful act. Therefore they are not murderers. You're obviously attempting to distort the facts to provoke an emotional responses to the situation rather than rational considered opinions.
I've already explained why this is not bloodlust, but what's the complaint about executioners being rewarded instead of being abhorred? Would you rather have executioners be people who are willing to kill others just for the fun of it? People who don't mind being social pariahs as long as they get to kill people? Because if executioners were abhorred instead of rewarded, that's what you'd end up with. I don't see how this would improve the situation.
Shame on Utah and its barbarism and all those who will murder this man and all those who choose to take part and watch this disgusting event.
I don't see any problem with killing murderers. If I worked for a correctional center in a place that employed the death penalty and was asked to perform an execution, I'd do it. I wouldn't particularly want to do it, but I wouldn't have any particular aversion to it either. I don't consider being killed for the crime of premeditated murder as barbaric, but as simple justice.
My only real objection to the death penalty for premeditated murder is the possibility of wrongful conviction.
how can a human being act "non-human"?
Inhumane does not mean "not-human", it means "not-humane". The words
humane and
human are two different words with two very different meanings.
The last time in the USA we used execution by gas chamber was in 1999. Now that's gruesome!
I'm inclined to think they should have used nitrogen as the gas of choice in the gas chamber. Unlike hydrogen cyanide, it would be painless. Unlike carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, there would be no sense of suffocating or choking. They'd simply be sitting there for a while, feel a little dizzy, then pass out from lack of oxygen. Sure, it'd take longer than the other gasses for them to asphyxiate, but if you were going to be executed regardless, it wouldn't be a bad way to go.
