From the state that watches the most porn

[EricK]

I'm totally against the death penalty but if we have to discuss methods, while grisly, I always thought the guillotine would be most humane to the victim. Quick and painless. I could be wrong but never studied the idea.

Seconded on all counts.

Traditionally, it was not just seconded to be used on counts - but on dukes, and even royalty, as well.

 

[Axulus]

While I think it is best to just abolish the death penalty, why is it so hard to painlessly kill someone with guaranteed results? Can't they just be knocked out with a large dose of general anesthetic and then be injected with a lethal overdose of heroin (the rare few who do happen to wake up or who are not affected by the general anesthetic would be feeling pretty good before dying as the heroin courses through their brain). It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

 

[arkirk]

While I think it is best to just abolish the death penalty, why is it so hard to painlessly kill someone with guaranteed results? Can't they just be knocked out with a large dose of general anesthetic and then be injected with a lethal overdose of heroin (the rare few who do happen to wake up or who are not affected by the general anesthetic would be feeling pretty good before dying). It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

Cattle in the stockyard get it pretty good in some cases. And that actually serves some purpose that is not punitive. The real problem with the death penalty is its utter unfairness and being skewed toward the poor, the black, the unpopular, and about any other un you can think of.

 

[Sarpedon]

I agree, all this pompous circumstance is just ritual to distract from the fundamental ugliness of the act and assuage the conscience.

 

[jonatha]

I remember one English king ordered that his beheaded skull be sewn up inside his body so he'd be able to find it on Judgment Day.

I would have ordered them not to behead me.

That would pretty much have had to have been Charles I.

They weren't taking his orders at the time....

 

[ronburgundy]

2) Regardless of #1, do prisoners freak out more and suffer more mental distress thinking about that method?

The only information i have on that is that this method wasn't chosen.
I have no idea if anyone was 'freaked' about the idea of a beheading, or if people in the 19th century were just more likely to believe they needed full bodily integrity when they stood before God?

Well, I said "my guess is maybe" and that your comment is relevant because a plausible reason why it wasn't chosen is that it is clearly more "gory", and thus prisoners imagining it would find it more unpleasant to think about. Even fictional depictions of beheadings get a much bigger visceral negative reaction from audiences (and and R rating) than depictions of lethal injection. There is every reason to predict that the same is true when prisoners are thinking about their execution as they await death. However, I also said this plausible reaction to the thought of more gory execution might not rise to the level of cruelty that would make it unacceptable compared to injection.

I see 3 sub-issues here:
1) Is firing squad actually any more painful?
My guess is no.

For the shooter? Killing someone isn't exactly easy on the psyche.

No, I meant for the person killed. The psychological effects on others is covered by my point #3. I don't think we should try to make it extra traumatic for the individuals directly doing the deed, because they are just doing a job and not making the decision. But things like having half the guns with blanks could actually make it less traumatic than for the doctor overseeing the injections. I do think we should make it more traumatic for society in general and for the public, politicians, and juries and judges that make or support such decisions. By "traumatic' I mean the act should have a visceral unpleasantness to ponder and witness that corresponds with the seriousness of the act of killing. It might put a kind of natural check on when and how often a death sentence is given, reducing those instances where it is overkill (pun intended), even by the standards of a society that does find it sometimes acceptable.

One of the most important factors in ethical decision making is whether the deciders really have to deal with the consequences and nature of the actions their decisions produce. No matter one's stance on the death penalty in general, we all should agree that its unethical use/abuse must be minimized, and maybe this could help that. In addition, maybe juries and judges and governors should have to personally wittiness all executions they decide upon.

 

[ksen]

I agree with Ron that if jurors hand out a death penalty sentence they should be the ones to do the deed.

 

[Axulus]

I agree with Ron that if jurors hand out a death penalty sentence they should be the ones to do the deed.

Why not the politicians that passed the law, or the prosecutor that enforced it? The jury is instructed to follow the law and leave personal bias out of it, so it wouldn't make sense to make it their responsibility.

 

[PyramidHead]

I agree with Ron that if jurors hand out a death penalty sentence they should be the ones to do the deed.

Why not the politicians that passed the law, or the prosecutor that enforced it? The jury is instructed to follow the law and leave personal bias out of it, so it wouldn't make sense to make it their responsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

The jury is perfectly free to disregard the law and render any decision they want, so long as they all agree to it.

 

[ronburgundy]

I agree with Ron that if jurors hand out a death penalty sentence they should be the ones to do the deed.

Why not the politicians that passed the law, or the prosecutor that enforced it? The jury is instructed to follow the law and leave personal bias out of it, so it wouldn't make sense to make it their responsibility.

I do support judges, prosecutors, and politicians having to wittiness executions, but the jury can also make sense to because they ultimately a value-based (not purely fact based) judgment call as to whether they give death or life in prison. Their own values inherently come into play.
Also, they are representatives of society who supports those politicians and courts making such laws and decisions. I think death penalty legality should be decided by direct democratic vote, and possibly all those that vote for it being required to witness an execution.

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree with akirk that this is just blood thirsty fiends we're talking about.

 

[ksen]

I agree with Ron that if jurors hand out a death penalty sentence they should be the ones to do the deed.

Why not the politicians that passed the law, or the prosecutor that enforced it? The jury is instructed to follow the law and leave personal bias out of it, so it wouldn't make sense to make it their responsibility.

Why not all of them?

 

[fast]

While I think it is best to just abolish the death penalty, why is it so hard to painlessly kill someone with guaranteed results? Can't they just be knocked out with a large dose of general anesthetic and then be injected with a lethal overdose of heroin (the rare few who do happen to wake up or who are not affected by the general anesthetic would be feeling pretty good before dying). It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

Cattle in the stockyard get it pretty good in some cases. And that actually serves some purpose that is not punitive. The real problem with the death penalty is its utter unfairness and being skewed toward the poor, the black, the unpopular, and about any other un you can think of.

Always worried about unfairness, geez. Just take a few of em out. It gets easier. Who knows, we may even be lucky enough to take out a few innocents consecutively. Let us choose revenge and spit on justice and weep with joy when that extra spark of pain is brought onto the family of the innocent. When THAT brings the result you seek, we can bask in the comfort of knowing we got the results we were truly after ... But as it stands, you come across as wanting the death penalty abolished ... Never let them know what you're after--they'll stop at no end to block your efforts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I dunno, it strikes me that firing squad is more humane than injection. Injection takes a while to hook up, etc, and reports seem to suggest that it is hardly painless. Firing squad has always struck me as less cruel.

Probably, although they use heart shots rather than head shots--it's not an instant kill.


We have a simple, safe, painless and effective system of execution available that we don't use on humans: An anoxic environment. Pump pure nitrogen into the execution chamber, keep it at a slight negative pressure in case of a leak. A face mask will make it go faster but isn't actually necessary so long as you have enough nitrogen available.

- - - Updated - - -

For the shooter? Killing someone isn't exactly easy on the psyche.

I always thought that's why they used a squad, so no individual shooter would bear full responsibility for the death.

Yup--and one person in the squad (they do not know who) is actually firing a blank so there's always a doubt whether they killed someone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yup--and one person in the squad (they do not know who) is actually firing a blank so there's always a doubt whether they killed someone.

The kick is different from a blank. And people who are administering JUSTICE don't tend to think highly of an executioner who's going to regret administering it
I think they just found that the chance you're shooting a blank makes people more likely to pull the trigger in the first place, before you can tell if you have the blank....

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually, given the recent fuck ups, it can be argued that the firing squad is more humane than the lethal injection.

What I don't get is why they aim at the heart and not the head.

What are Utahns, ancient egyptians?

Oh...wait.

They gotta look good in the casket.

If they can be buried with a peaceful look on their face, then everybody goes home happy, assured that our "justice" is "humane."

The traditional method of execution of a convicted prisoner in Russia does not take this into account. The prisoner is led from his cell and brought to a room with a drain in the floor. He is shot in the back of the head before there is time to consider the matter. The family is informed a week or two later, when the paper work is complete.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think executions should be in public if we are going to have them. Let the people see the consequences of their choices, both the voters and the criminals.

 

[credoconsolans]

Seems to me firing squads would be faster and cheaper than lethal injection.

BAM!

It's done.

And c'mon, it's the 21st century, surely we have sufficient technology that doesn't need real guys out there with guns anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

I think executions should be in public if we are going to have them. Let the people see the consequences of their choices, both the voters and the criminals.

Last time they did that, it became a family outing. People brought the kids and picnic baskets.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I remember one English king ordered that his beheaded skull be sewn up inside his body so he'd be able to find it on Judgment Day.

I would have ordered them not to behead me.

Yeah, he kept saying no court had jurisdiction over him, too.
Then had the audacity to look surprised when they tried him, anyway.

Kind of like Nixon, really.

 

[Derec]

I'm confused. What does any of this have to do with porn?