Why Gardner wants the firing squad
Most of the coverage of Utah’s convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner’s choice of the firing squad for his execution misses an important point: why Utah offered the firing squad option and why Gardner may have chosen it. This article is one of the few that mentions the salient fact that Gardner is a Mormon, and quotes him as saying “”I guess it’s my Mormon heritage…I like the firing squad. It’s so much easier ”¦ and there’s no mistakes.” But there’s no further explanation of why his Mormonism might be relevant,
Here’s the possible answer:
In Utah they had a policy that followed the concept of blood atonement, where in Mormonism, people must spill their blood upon the ground as a sacrifice to God if they have committed a heinous sin such as murder.
I remembered this from an extraordinary biography about another famous Utah murderer, Gary Gilmore, written by his brother Mikal. It’s called Shot in the Heart, the title referring to Gilmore’s insistence on such a method of execution for that very reason. A sad and terrible tale.
That sounds downright…pagan. Or Aztec.
Not really, disregarding the religious aspect. Most executions in the US are carried out by lethal injection; that’s also how we euthanize dogs and cats. But when most (at least where I live) pets are euthanized, they are first sedated and the lethal injection is not given until they are fully unconscious.
My understanding is that human criminals must, by law, be conscious when being executed–they must be aware that they are being executed and why that is being done.
Compared to being executed by lethal injection it seems to me that shooting by a firing squad is a faster and more humane way to die. The squad is composed of marksmen shooting at a small target on the condemned man’s chest–one of the rifles is traditionally loaded with a blank round, so that noone knows who fired a fatal shot. Multiple rounds striking the area around the heart will immediately cease the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain, causing death within seconds. Hydrostatic shock will instantly cause a loss of consciousness, and a sudden flood of endorphins caused by that shock may possibly serve as pain management while the brain dies.
Sudden trauma is often painless, as was expounded in the “pain gates” theory. For me, it’s no theory. In 1986 I was in a bicycle accident that resulted in a nasty but superficial head wound that knocked me unconscious–it didn’t hurt a bit until after I woke up.
Gardner’s religious motives may be distasteful to some, but I think he’s making a smart choice….
Eff the condemned, and whether one method is more or less painless, or meets with his approval. It’s not about the condemned and what he wants or doesn’t want. Society wants justice to be done, and to be seen to be done, as an example to others.
Although after 25 years, any notion of justice being done is pretty much vestigial.
If we have to hit Ctrl-Alt-Del on this republic, which is looking increasingly likely, we need to specify that all executions will take place by hanging, and within a year of conviction.
PS: We also need to water down the Constitutional constrictions on treason, since they’re no longer appropriate removed from their original historial context.
There’s absolutely no reason Jane Fonda shouldn’t have suffered the same fate as Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce, another American, btw, although hanged by the British), and for the same reason.
OB, you sound unusually gloomy tonight
Yeah, I am, Tatyana.
The world is too much with me tonight, I’m afraid.
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it sometimes seems as though we may be in the run-up to a cataclysmic convulsion. Tonight is one of those times. If so, I only hope it happens soon, while I’m still fit enough to help do what needs to be done, and to spare my boys having to take part in it. I’ve had my time. I just want them to have theirs.
Tatyana–
Here is a link to an article on the history underlying the Mormon teaching about blood atonement. The authors are a husband and wife (still living in Salt Lake City, I think) who grew up Mormon and left the church after they began to do historical research into early Mormonism. At the time this article was first published, the Tanners ran an outreach ministry to former Mormons and those considering leaving.
http://www.exmormon.org/bloodatn.htm
Hope it helps fill in the background of the doctrine for you.
Uh…wut?
Granted, I may be an unusual Mormon, but the blood atonement teaching of the church matches the rest of Christiandom, i.e. – Jesus did all the blood atoning and before that it was done vicariously through sacrificial animals. Never in any of the teachings are members taught that their sins are paid for with their own blood. In fact, this goes against the basic teachings of the atonement and the gospel.
Don’t know where the other people are getting their information from, but it’s not church teaching. This is verifiable through research into older church publications straight from the top (i.e. – the First Presidency), not the misunderstandings of people who have an agenda against the church.
Occam’s Beard:
Yeah, I hear you. I’ve done some internet reading tonight, but I haven’t felt like commenting.
Thank, PA Cat.
Yours and Christy’s comments are a nice counterpoint.
Of course, there is unintended piquancy in Christy’s assertion that “blood atoning…was done vicariously through sacrificial animals”.
As if finding a substitute scapegoat in a person of one ancient Jew crucified 2010 years ago makes it somehow principally different. Speaking of scapegoats – Judaism, too, has quite a few remnants of the same antique tradition, if only symbolically now. Not so much requiring suspension of disbelief as Jesus’ blood and flesh transformed into wine and bread, though.
title referring to Gilmore’s insistence on such a message of execution for that very reason
Freudian negligee?
Nolanimrod: Oops! Will fix.
@PA Cat:
The Tanners, of course, have had their collective output debunked for years now. Feel free to do some reading up on it.
@Christy:
I’m offering the link for pretty much everyone but PA Cat, who I know won’t touch the link even with a ten-foot pole that’s been blessed by the top ten best-selling evangelical authors of your local bookstore. I learned the following the hard way during Mitt’s last “official” run for President: Someone who’s gone out of their way to post the usual nonsense on-line is someone who’s already convinced that Mormons aren’t merely dupes of Satan but are instead actually conspirators with Satan. All we can do in our defense on-line is offer information to a curious lurking audience who, hopefully, understand that books with titles like “The TRUTH About Mormons!” or whatever don’t offer much in the way of actual truth. It’s true of like books about pretty much every sect so targeted, but, being Mormon and a reader of this particular blog, I feel I have a vested interest in offering at the very least a link or two when some hoary old chestnut like “blood atonement” comes up.
I’ll go back to silently following the blog now.