r/SipsTea • u/sco-go • 14h ago

Lmao gottem She beat the system.

Post image
12.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

6.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/SecretRecipe 4h ago

We just need to use captive bolt guns like they use in slaughter houses. they work super well

8

u/KitchenTop1820 4h ago

But first they have to flip a coin

2

u/Moiraine-FanBlue 2h ago

The reason they don't is actually religious.

Many religions require you to have a relatively intact corpse for their burial rites or your Afterlife.
will be bad.

thus, the Government, for reasons of having to respect religious freedom, has to *provide* an intact corpse to be buried for prisoners.

2

u/SecretRecipe 1h ago

captive bolts just make a small dime sized hole in the back of the head. it would still leave a very much intact corpse

1

u/CpnLouie2 59m ago

One hole in the corpse does not cause it to be not intact.

Firing squad leaves holes, lethal injection leaves one or more holes.

Begs the question, then, that if the condemned were an amputee, or had donated a kidney before being incarcerated, does that render them "Non-Intact" for religious purposes, and therefore eligible for the bolt method?

1

u/Moiraine-FanBlue 47m ago

No, because the government doesn't get to decide *for* your religion what is a reasonable religious rite. the religion decides that for itself.

The only time the government can restrict freedom of religion is when your practice of your religion interferes with someone elses rights, such as

"My ancient religion demands human sacrifice to the *Insert God of your choice here*
for Sins to be forgiven/the World to not end/whatever"

Or

"My religion demands I die in battle"

"Cool, but you don't get to go challenge your neighbor to a duel"

2

u/CpnLouie2 34m ago

But allowing a "religious rules" argument would allow anyone to make a "religious" claim that being executed in **any fashion** violates their religion.

If the State has a right to execute someone, then the Condemned Person's religious exercise of getting to determine (or veto) any part of it must be set aside.

Given time and a modicum of intelligence, One could conceivably find almost any religious objection to any form of execution.

1

u/Moiraine-FanBlue 19m ago

Obviously the state doesn't agree with you, as it prefers to use methods that leave intact corpses.

The law is in fact allowed to use common sense.

Leaving the prisoner an intact corpse to be buried according to their sincerely held religious beliefs is not a great burden on the state.

Being told "My religion says I can do whatever I want and you can't stop me"

obviously doesn't fly. Your argument is somewhat nonsensical.

1

u/SecretRecipe 21m ago

The state doesnt have to honor your religious requests for execution beyond giving you access to spiritual counsel. The very act of execution in any method is a violation of multiple religious doctrines but that doesnt stop anyone

1

u/Moiraine-FanBlue 14m ago

You are not understanding. Freedom of religion gives people the right
"To not execute people"

Not the right "To not be executed".

The state simply chooses to use methods that leave a relatively intact corpse because a variety of extent religious beliefs call for the corpse to be intact on burial, because it is not a great burden on the state to not ...say...

feed you into a woodchipper.