Utah Attorney General Posts Real-time Execution Updates on Twitter
It is amazing how technology can impact our lives in ways we least anticipate. Once again, its Twitter’s turn to surprise one and all in a manner that only one prescient man could foresee. It is now possible to receive real-time execution alerts through the popular micro-blogging site.
We are mostly measured in praise but let us make an exception for Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, the man who single-handedly transformed Twitter into a platform for real-time execution alerts, and a man who deserves a standing ovation for this.
"I just gave the go ahead to Corrections Director to proceed with Gardner's execution. May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims," the attorney general “tweeted.” He reportedly sent three tweets to his 7,000 followers around the time Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by a Utah firing squad.
"We will be streaming live my press conference as soon as I'm told Gardner is dead. Watch it at www.attorneygeneral.Utah.gov/live.html" he later wrote.
But his tweets did not go down well with some Twitter users. Wonder what prompted the backlash?

Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
IFLATLINEI
June 21, 2010 at 1:59pm
Executing criminals isnt a deterrent to the next criminal I dont care what some study says. The point of it is to rid the world of that particular scumbag and we should be executing way more of them. As far as using Twitter to announce executions? Really??? I dont know what to say and I dont think I need to.
![]()
Asterixx
June 19, 2010 at 12:41pm
Nunc est bibendum!
Exactly. Deterrance is fine, but there's something to be said for punishment as well.
![]()
Atrus00
June 19, 2010 at 11:34am
It's as if people are more angry about this stupid twitter thing than at the guy who actually committed murder. Some people need to get out of the bubble of San Francisco more often and stop being so damn politically correct.
![]()
Danthrax66
June 19, 2010 at 9:13am
I think that they should televise executions less people would commit crimes if they saw it; but then they would have to get rid of lethal injection and only do firing squad/hanging. Oh and as for backlash it's because people today are too "sensitive" we get outraged over everything and for no good reason the fuck killed someone who cares if they are telling people about the execution on twitter. I bet the family of the victims don't care about the judge making announcements on twitter.
![]()
Rocketpop
June 21, 2010 at 5:31am
Your argument is noted, but you're clearly retarded. Criminals often really dig the attention. One mass-murderer relished the attention he got after killing dozens and openly appreciated all of it. It was so bad that they denied reporters entrance, prohibited radio around him, and didn't allow him to watch the news. Notoriety isn't so bad if you're a criminal.
![]()
Muerte
June 21, 2010 at 7:39am
Actually, who the hell cares what the criminal gets out of it? He/she's dead. Public executions are for deterring other people from doing the same thing.
There will always be the few sick individuals who will see this as "the way to go" but it would make any sane person think twice before committing murder.
Hell what would be better is keeping them in total isolation for the rest of their lives. Nothing to do but wait for death. Not even the gurds would be able to talk to them. Now that's punishment. They used to do that in the late 1800's. A 6 x 6 cell, an excercise space, with no one to talk to and only one book to read. It was deemed cruel and unusual. Apparently most of them went insane from the isolation.
![]()
Rocketpop
June 22, 2010 at 6:36am
Um, what are you talking about? The point is that the more publicity and recognition criminals get, the more driven they are to commit crimes. What's ambiguous about that?
Also, sane people (i.e. people who aren't psychopaths) don't do things like that. But people who *are* psychopaths already don't feel guilt. Public executions aren't going to stop them; if anything, they'll look forward to them so they can get some recognition. But even if they're not psychopaths, they'd still want to go out being known to the world. Fuck, if I were a murderer, I'd want to be on TV, too.
![]()
athlon11
June 19, 2010 at 9:48am
Yea, every single study done on the subject of executions as a deterrent to crimes has shown that there is no deterrant effect what so ever.
![]()
DFSolley
June 21, 2010 at 11:40am
I hear this during all execution debates. All you have to do to find studies that show it’s a deterrent is to look. There are indeed studies that say there is no deterrent... BUT there are plenty that show that it is a deterrent.
This is a highly politicized issue, and many will believe that the studies with opposing views are wrong and don’t need to be considered. So for these true believers, the other studies don’t count, as they end up with obviously incorrect results.
![]()
Walnut
June 19, 2010 at 1:19pm
The argument could be made that the crime and punishment system in general is in ineffective deterrent seeing as criminals still commit crimes, sometimes even after being imprisoned and released. At the same time, it's nigh impossible to conduct a definitive study. It pretty much comes down to the fact that the prison system is, at this point, designed to be correctional. It's not entirely effective. Should a criminal come along that is without any hope of being 'corrected,' his crime being deemed too heinous, there's no need for taxpayers to pay to keep the sonofabitch breathing and comfortable. The "eye for an eye"/life for a life approach is harsh and hardly ideal, but paying to keep ruthless rapists and murderers alive and well isn't exactly ideal either. Good on the attorney general. While I don't exactly approve of his plans to sue until the healthcare act goes away, I'm an avid supporter of more transparent government.
![]()
BuLLg0d
June 19, 2010 at 6:25pm
I'm an avid supporter of staying on topic. Try here for soapbox issues on the legal system ---> http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/
![]()
Nickompoop
June 19, 2010 at 10:01am
I think the point of executions is not to deter people from committing crimes, but to execute people who deserve to die.
What spam filter?
![]()
rtruck
June 19, 2010 at 8:17am
Then why are you following them?
That's what Unfollow is for.
He tweetwd it to 7000 people that want to see it.
![]()
zakn
June 19, 2010 at 2:39am
I'm fine with this. Dude was convicted of killing two people, by a jury of his peers. And he chose the method of his execution, unlike the people he sent to the grave.
As for Twitter, it's no different than him calling up a member of the Press and informing them of whats going on. Except that everyone gets to see it. And that's a good thing. I wish more of our public officials conducted business in an open way, instead of offering jobs/posts for not running in primaries.
![]()
Fefe
June 18, 2010 at 11:25pm
It probably didn't go well with others maybe because twitter is meant used/viewed as a fun social website about personal daily lives....not announcing to all your followers about an execution. Then again, I guess there are no boundaries with how you decide to use twitter. There should be a more professional place for that kind of matter. It's like the attorneys proud and sort of rubbing it into Gardner's face to everyone that he's going to die.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.















