Talk:Execution by firing squad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details.
The citation is in: "Injections to replace Utah firing squads", Daily Telegraph online, January 5, 2004. |
Surely "in North America since 1600"? PML.
- Will clarif to "...English speaking parts of North America..." -- knoodelhed 06:39, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- The original source is explicit saying "340 in the US since 1600". I found exactly that same wording on a website (that did not cite references). As you point out, that's a logical impossibility since the US didn't exist as a legal entity then. Perhaps they meant "US and predecessor territories" but I have been unable to confirm. Given the confusion (and the inability to cite references for this estimate), I am going to pull the sentence. I don't think it adds that much to the article anyway. If someone can clear up the confusion with a validated reference, please revert. Rossami 19:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Returned with reference Rmhermen 20:12, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
As written, this comes across as an anti-Mormon statement that IMO violates the NPOV policy. Please clarify who believes this before reinserting it into the article. Rossami 21:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Many have suggested that its use in Utah is related to a supposed Mormon doctrine of blood atonement, although the Mormon church has strongly denied that this doctrine exists.
- Until these 'many' are identified, the article has been changed to give Taylor's own reasoning.
The link to a CNN article about firing squads (link 1) that appears not to be working. The URL is http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/17/firing.squads.ap/index.html Has anyone got another link, or should it just be removed? Kingal86 13:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] 'criminal' inappropriate
Many people who weren't criminals have been executed by firing squad, e.g. persons captured in wars or revolutions or killed in wartime reprisals. I've replaced the first use of the word 'criminal' with 'person' and the second with 'victim' (which may not be the best word either, but is clearly more appropriate than 'criminal').Palmiro 18:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think changing the wording makes this article a bit harder to follow. The vast majority of executions by firing squad are of criminals. In fact, I'm tempted to say all of them. Can you provide evidence of executions by firing squad in these situations? I know of examples of execution by gunshot in non-criminal wartime reprisals, etc. but none of execution by firing squad. I do consider that a significant distinction. Of the cases of persons captured in wars or revolutions, all the examples I know that ended in a firing squad were preceded by a trial. If there was a conviction by trial (even if the trial was seriously flawed), the term "criminal" remains appropriate. Changing the wording for trivial exceptions does not seem to benefit the article. Rossami 19:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi Rossami. Personally, I don't think the changed wording makes it harder to follow (although as I said, 'victim' may not be the best word - I can't immediately think of a better one though). In relation to the distinction you draw between execution by gunshot and execution by firing squad, I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear as to what falls into which category. Where a large military squadron executes a number of prisoners by firing a volley of shots (which I think was a common practice in a variety of wars, cf the famous Goya painting of the execution of the defenders of Madrid), which category does that fall into?
"If there was a conviction by trial (even if the trial was flawed), the term criminal remains appropriate." I have to say I disagree (even leaving aside the issue of innocent persons who are convicted). I don't think 'criminal' is an appropriate term for persons convicted of political offences. To judge from the content of this (excellent) article, and also given that political trials aren't a very common phenomenon in the US, this may not be a serious issue in relation to the use of the firing squad in the US. However, in many jurisdictions execution by firing squad is commonly used when a person has been convicted in military or special security courts. These are courts which typically try political offences.
You asked for specific examples. First of all, I arrived at this page by following a link from Patrick Pearse. This is a case of a person convicted of an offence by a court martial, but I don't think many people would agree with the use of the term 'criminal' in his regard. It would be a highly controversial judgement, to say the least.
As a second example, during the Irish Civil War the government ordered the execution of 77 captured Republicans. As far as I know all these prisoners were executed without trial and by firing squad (quite a few other killings of prisoners without government authority also took place). The most notorious case is the first one. Four men who had been imprisoned since the start of the war, without undergoing any trial, were executed by firing squad in what was officially stated to be a reprisal for the assassination of a senator from the governing party, an assassination which took place while the four men were in prison. The four were selected primarily on the basis of their origins - symbolically, one from each province.
I'm sorry that both these examples are Irish, as I suspect I could find a good few from elsewhere, but I don't have any reference sources available relating to other countries.Palmiro 23:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would consider the example you describe in the first paragraph to be many things but not "execution by firing squad". I may be splitting hairs but the term firing squad is specifically and, I believe, universally used in the context of capital punishment. Firing into a group of prisoners is just that - firing into a group of prisoners. None of the other characteristics of a firing squad execution are present.
- Your other two examples are more difficult to parse. You raise a good point that political prisoners are sometimes (and at certain points in history, were often) executed by firing squad. You are correct that some of those prisoners are or were denied a trial. I would counter with the argument that they were deemed criminals by some representative of the government even if that designation would be challenged by any independent observer. (My rule about a trial was, therefore, not a good one.) I think Patrick Pearse still qualifies - even if you and I would not consider him a criminal, the courts martial did. (If I remember right, the charge was treason.)
- To rebut your second example, I am forced to define the executions as extra-judicial killings - an exception that is, hopefully, rare enough that it stays worthy of comment. I'm not sure I agree with all your arguments yet but you've convinced me that the more general term "person" may be appropriate in some circumstances. I'm uncomfortable with "victim" though. How about "condemned"? We use that word pretty extensively in other paragraphs. It feels like overuse but perhaps that's the only technically correct term. Rossami 01:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, 'condemned' sounds like the best option. It avoids the infelicity of 'victim' (which I agree is a problematic term to use when the condemned may be under sentence of death for murder and there's therefore a prior victim in the case) as well as the problems associated with 'criminal'. I've therefore changed 'victim' to 'condemned person'.
[edit] re: third theory
Anonymous User:12.216.183.219 added the following as a "third theory" of why a blank cartridge may be used in the firing squad. While I am familiar with this superstition and do not doubt its existance, I have never heard it advanced as a justification for the blank cartridge. Please cite your sources for use of this particular reason for including a blank cartridge. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Third, many consider it an omen of bad luck to know who the executioner was. This is also true for other forms of capital punishment, most similar to the black hood which many executioners will wear.
[edit] expansion of China practice
At 23:52, 26 Jan 2005, Centralman expanded the paragraph on the Chinese practice of execution as shown below (italics added). While it's an interesting fact, it is a distraction from this article's core topic of "execution by firing squad". Any suggestions on where this could fit better? Rossami (talk) 13:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Execution by firing squad is distinct from other forms of execution by firearms such as the "single shot from a handgun to the back of the neck" practiced by the People's Republic of China in the past. It has since changed to "single shot from an assualt rifle to the back of the head with a special bullet that expands upon impact." It usually results in the disintegration of the upper half portion of the head. In Thailand, before lethal injection is being adopted in the 21st century, execution is being carried out by a single executioner firing a mounted Heckler & Koch mp5, which fires in 3 round bursts aiming at the heart of the condemned prisoner.
Until there has been a decision made or otherwise, please allow me to post up there, thanks.
- This is where and hopefully when we make the decision. I think the section is a tangent that does not belong in this article (though it probably does belong in some other article on executions). Execution by a single shooter is, by definition, not execution by firing squad. Many of the core issues of this article (such as diffusion of responsibility) are not relevant to execution by a single shooter. The only reason to have had the sentence in this article in the first place was to clarify a reader's understanding of execution by firing squad with a brief example of what it is not.
- You obviously feel that the section does belong here. I'm willing to listen to your arguments why it should stay and I encourage others to join the discussion. In the meantime, the general Wikipedia concensus is that disputed sections are removed to Talk while the discussion continues. I'm pulling it back out until we get closer to agreement. With your permission, though, I am going to update the blockquote above with your expanded section. As I said, I don't think it belongs here but it definitely belongs somewhere. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merger of Execution by firing squad in the United Kingdom
I'm not sure who posted the recommendation for the merger, but looking at the current size of the articles, they could easily be merged. We can always split them out again if they ever do become too large. Any objections? Rossami (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Remove reference to Ceauşescu
C.'s execution should not be quoted as an exemple of "Execution by firing squad". He and his wife were shot by a single executioner with a submachine gun. (see article Nicolae Ceauşescu). Kauko, 16:22, 6 March 2006 (CEST)
[edit] Firing squads in Finland?
I question:
- Since Finland has conscription, it is widely assumed the death penalty by firing squad will be immediately re-estabilished if the country enters a military conflict.
Ummm, I know almost nothing about Finnish law or military affairs but this seems like a stretch because 1) Finland seems ill-disposed to enter a war, nor does it appear that hostilities are going to break out among Finland's neighbors in the near future (I know, I'm being presumptive in light of history...) 2) Finland is in the EU which require member states to forswear use of the death penalty in all cases. Am I completely off the mark here, or what? Ellsworth 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's a complete non sequitur in any case; there's no logical link between having conscription and using firing squads in military conflict. And yes, it does also strike me as highly unlikely. Palmiro | Talk 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Re-introduction of death penalty at wartime is considered as a self-evident issue here in Finland, no matter what the EU legislature might say. The grim realities of the war and necessities of keeping discipline on the conscripts override the ideals of the Brussels legislators. Hell, how do you expect to keep discipline on those conscripts who are craven, unwilling or have weak nerves if you don't show them the choices are either probable death from ahead or certain death from behind???
- That kind of bigoted and ignorant comment does not deserve a reply. Go talk to someone actually serving in the military. Stop wasting our time with such nonsense. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have myself served in the Finnish Army, I am a reserve officer and I know exactly what I am talking about. So does each and every Finnish reservist, and in Finland almost each and every able-bodied male is a soldier. It is a common assumption in Finland the death-penalty will be reinstated for disciplinary reasons in wartime just as it was 1944. It is not perhaps nonsense to say that swift executions of deserters showed an example for the would-be deserters and saved the front from breaking in the Soviet Summer Offensive 1944.
- If it is in fact "widely assumed", then you can no doubt easily provide a verifiable citation from a reliable source demonstrating so. As to your ideas on leadership, that is a concept that was outmoded during the Napoleanic Wars. I am appalled to hear someone claiming to actively serve still espousing such discredited ideas. Rossami (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That is what our drill sergeants and commanding officers unianimously said. Some units even carried out mock executions with blanks. Likewise, that issue arises every now and then on Finnish discussion forums, and the common opinion is that death penalty will be reinstated immediiately at wartime. A verifiable citation might be sergeants Pinola and Klevdahl who said that in situ while I served. United States does not have conscription while we have. If you need to drag on the unmotivated, craven, unwilling or neurotic, you have to deal with them with extreme methods if needed to keep discipline and to prevent them from undermining the motivation and morale of the whole unit. I do not know if you have yourselves served and if you have been in a conscript army, but I served - against my will - and I was a conscript, because if I hadn't served in the army, I would never have gotten any decent job in the civilian life. I know exactly what I am talking about. Small nations simply cannot afford any idealism or humour on miiitary matters. I know exactly also what the fate of the conscientious objectors will be in wartime. They are given rifle and they are ordered to fight. If they don't, they are shot. Exactly what happened to Arndt Pekurinen in 1941. Sorry, no conscientious objection here in wartime. No leeway for individualism or dissidents when the existence of the nation is at stake. Conscientious objection at peacetime doesn't free anyone from military service at wartime.
- Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, et al, an allegation from a Wikipedia (whether signed in or anonymous) about a personal conversation is not a verifiable citation. Please do not add this line back until you have a citation which meets our requirements for verifiability. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- As to your second question, yes I served. (CPT, FA, US Army ret.) And more importantly, I learned my lessons from NCOs and officers who led troops in combat. I am trying to not cast aspersions on your NCOs but it has been a while since Finland was in a shooting war. I do have to question their experience. The men I learned from knew that they were giving potentially lethal orders - situations in which the threat of a firing squad is moot. They also understood that they were giving these orders to men with automatic weapons. You can not threaten your men to charge a machine gun nest. You must lead them. By the way, the US does not have conscription right now but it hasn't been that long since we got rid of it. You are fooling yourself if you believe the lessons of other countries have no applicability. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this: "Officers and NCOs also had (and still have) the right to shoot a disobedient subordinate on spot in case the subordinate is endangering the unit in a battle or in a severe storm." Citation definitely needed. Also, I want to add that death penalty during wartime is also prohibited by the Finnish constitution, and I seriously doubt that Finland would reinstall capital punishment during war. At least not officially.
Vidkun Quisling was Prime Minister of Norway from 1940-1945. While it is true that he was later executed by firing squad for collaboration with the German occupants, he was clearly not a Finn. Guest 18:09, 15 Jun 2006 (UTC)
- In Finland, some individuals inside and outside the Defence Force might believe that death penalty could be reinstated. However, this absolutely not the view of the Defence Force judicial personnel. For example, the former advocate general Katariina Buure-Hägglund denies vehemently in her book about the legislation for crisis situations that there would be even a possibility to reintate the capital punishment. The same has been noticed by the constitutional board of the Finnish Parliament, which is responsible for the interpretation of our constitution. In addition, Finland is party to the convention on the abolition of the death penalty and has bound itself not to use it even during wartime. There is no official support to any claims about death penalty during wartime in Finland, as far as I know. (We have a democratic constitution, so the opinions of certain officers do not have very much importance.) Practicing executions is but a fulfillment of the fantasies of some individual, who would, were his/her actions known, probably face disclipinary action.
- On the other hand, the officers, NCOs and even privates in positions of superiority have the right to use force to stop a subordinate who is endangering the unit by deserting, violently resisting the superior, or disobeying an order aimed to remove the danger, if the unit is in combat or in distress at sea. The use of force must be relative to the dangereousness of the act by the subordinate and to the danger faced by the unit. This may, in exceptional circumstances, include the use of weapons against the subordinate. However, the use of such force was extremely rare even in the WW II, and is generally discouraged. (The famous pacifist Arndt Pekurinen was shot on the front and his superiors founded their actions to this section, but it is quite clear that the circumstances did not warrant their actions. The death of Arndt Pekurinen may be considered more an extra-judicial execution than any legal one.)
- The translation of the section 26a of the 45th Chapter of the Penal code, follows
- Section 26a – The use of forcible measures (515/2003; enters into force on 1 January 2004)
- (1) A soldier who is on duty as a sentry, in the day detail or as military police and who meets with resistance has the right to use such forcible measures as can be deemed justified in view of the security of the military unit or the object being guarded, the nature of the duty or service, and the dangerousness of the resistance. On the grounds mentioned above a sentry has the right to use forcible measures also if, despite his/her command to stop, someone approaches a guarded area to which entry is prohibited.
- (2) If in combat, distress at sea or in another similar situation that is especially dangerous to the military unit or its operations, and despite the prohibition of a superior officer, a subordinate deserts, violently resists his/her superior officer or does not obey an order that a superior officer has given to repel the danger, even though this order was repeated, the superior officer has the right to use such forcible measures against the subordinate to restore obedience and discipline as can be deemed justified in order to prevent the act or to have the order obeyed, taking into account the dangerousness of the act of the subordinate, and the situation also otherwise.
- (3) Should a prisoner of war attempt to escape, the person who is assigned to prevent an escape has the right to use the forcible measures referred to in section 2(11)(b) of the Act on the Enforcement of Punishments (39/1889).
- (4) The provisions of chapter 4, sections 6(3) and 7 apply to excessive use of forcible measures.
- Section 26a – The use of forcible measures (515/2003; enters into force on 1 January 2004)
- The language is somewhat unclear, the translation of the Department of Justice using form "superior officer" for Finnish esimies. This is strictly not right, as esimies means any superior, including officers, NCOs, and even rank and file temporarily in positions of superiority. (The Finnish criminal law does not discriminate between offences against officers and enlisted superiors.) --MPorciusCato 05:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, while the superiors have right to defend the troops by use of force in cases of insurrection and rebellion, this can hardly be called "capital punishment". Section 26a justifies the use of force by soldiers in different situations. It does not describe any form of capital punishment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk • contribs) at 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Huhtihniemi graves
Huhtiniemi graves are no more mere "speculation". On the excavations on 17 October 2006, eleven skeletons, all male, aging 20-22, were exhumed. All were buried without coffins and in a row. All show signs of bullets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.87.65 (talk • contribs).
- Interesting but not really relevant to this article. I'm sure you can find an article on Wikipedia where that story will fit better. Rossami (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- A link to Huhtiniemi mass grave would do in my opinion, no need to bloat the article with it as of now. Scoo 10:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] rationale for blindfold or hood
"The condemned is typically blindfolded or hooded..." What is the rationale behind this custom?--Soylentyellow 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
