site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2771 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 12, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The usual answer is that it’s easy to kill people cheaply and humanely in all sorts of ways, but most people don’t want to sell stuff for the purposes of executing people and the ones who are willing to get boycotted.

It's this.

Anesthesiologists know exactly how to kill someone reasonably cheaply and in a painless and not distressing way, it's why they have such a high suicide rate.

But finding people to sell the stuff required (and getting requisite professional staff to assist) is hard.

Then you add on the "finger on the trigger" problem (who wants to be the specific person who killed someone on purpose? Nobody you want doing it).

All this adds up to the weird dance we have.

In Utah, the condemned is offered the choice of execution methods(from a small number). All of them choose the firing squad, and firing squad executions are carried out by four volunteers from the police force, one of whom shoots a blank.

This seems like a way around both of these problems.

Huh. That's fascinating.

I wonder behind the psychology of that - wanting to stare death in the eyes?

Mormonism requires the shedding of blood to atone for murder; I’m doubting that these death row convicts were practicing Mormons prior to conviction, but we can probably expect the condemned to engage in religious bet hedging.

ah, makes sense

What are the other methods?

Lethal injection authorized by law, probably hanging on a technicality. It's worth noting that executions in Utah are very infrequent, due to a low crime rate.

Then you add on the "finger on the trigger" problem (who wants to be the specific person who killed someone on purpose? Nobody you want doing it).

This specifically has a known solution, though: you take a citizen draft of say, 10 people, and you set things up so that they all have to take an action (pressing a button for example). Only one of the buttons actually works and it’s random every time.

It’s how they used to do firing squads: most of the rifles are loaded with blanks so nobody knows who the real killer is.

you take a citizen draft of say, 10 people, and you set things up so that they all have to take an action

Why not make the jury that condemned the person do this?

I’m (perhaps incorrectly) recalling a story of how they used to do it in Utah. I imagine because they want juries to deliver the correct verdict without worrying about having to carry out the execution.

Got it reversed- firing squads have one blank among several rifles.

Right, I think it works well for firing squads but as soon as you have ten people pushing buttons and only one of them work.....it just kind of looks stupid. Since the whole issue here is optics I'm not sure how to make that shake out.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats