Death By Firing Squad???

Just recently, the state of Utah brought back an old form of capital punishment to life; part of the death penalty, namely the firing squad. It's not just that I am against the death penalty in general, which I am strongly opposed to, but even more so, a firing squad just seems inhumane. Even though there is no humane way to kill someone, having a prisoner stand in front of a firing squad takes the cake. However you put it, shooting someone who has no means to defend themselves is completely and utterly wrong.

According to the state legislature, the right to be executed by a firing squad was outlawed in 2004. What does not make any sense though, is why they would bring this idea back into place. Supposedly, the firing squad can only be used when the chemicals for lethal injections are not available, but even this way there is a way around shooting someone to execute them. Why not just wait for the lethal injection chemicals to come in? Is it that important that these inmates are killed as soon as possible? In fact, it costs more for the state to kill a prisoner sentenced to death than to hold them. To me this whole idea seems plainly outrageous, and I truly hope that I can understand the reasoning behind this decision in the future. But better yet, I would rather have this means of punishment abolished.


http://panampost.com/panam-staff/2015/04/02/human-rights-commission-chastises-utahs-firing-squad-death-penalty/

But is it Legal

Just recently the contract of Skutt Catholic teacher Matthew Eledge was not renewed, esentially firing him from his position as an Engllish teacher at the Highschool. But the reasoning behind this is extremely volatile and controversial. Eledge was let go from his position because of his decision to become engaged to a man. Many people are calling this blatant descrimintation against Mr. Eledge and are petitioning for him to be reinstated, while many other people are defending the schools decision.

Disregarding any ethical or moral values leaning either way, legally it is a very tricky situation deciding whether or not this constitutes as discrimination, for example not allowing someone a job because of their race a specific ethnic background. But I believe that one can come to the conclusion that this is a legal action that does not necessarily contain descrimination. This is primarily because of one thing; because Eledge signed a contract that required that he is not in a homosexual marriage. But that is not descriminating based on his sexual orientation. Let's say that instead of being let off because of engagement, it was because Eledge was homosexual. Not letting someone have a position becasue of their sexuality IS wrong and IS descrimination agianst their person. Although it is just speculation, as far as I can tell the faculty was fully aware of Eledge's sexual orientation, and maybe even of his being in a homosexual relationship. But he continued being part of the staff until he notified of his engagement. Therefore, I believe that this action was lawful regardless of ethics.

http://www.omaha.com/news/education/gay-teacher-loses-contract-at-skutt-in-what-alumni-s/article_d8d231e1-a5f9-5694-a36d-882e59fe7600.html?mode=jqm

ME

Hey I'm Ben Franco and this is brand new blog called Franco's Fricassee. I'm a sophomore at Creighton Prep and I've been forced to make this blog! Anyway since I'll be posting on here for a while, its probably a good idea for me to put a little info on here about myself. I'm 16 years old and I'm into all kinds of music, classical, pop, rap, rock, etc. I'm in the band at Prep, I like playing video games, and also play soccer and run cross country. I've got a pretty big family; a mom and dad, two sisters, and 3 brothers, although no pets because...parents. I'm a huge sports fan and follow Nebraska football (obviously), Creighton Basketball, Creighton soccer, and basically everything on TV (except baseball cause it sucks).