The most humane form of death penalty?

[A Sophist]

Definately not the lethal injection, too oftenly botched. And honestly the argument can go both ways. To the people who say that its inhumane, go check out a prison and tell me that living there for life would be better. And to the people who think they deserve a harsh death, that is fine to an extent, we SHOULD be cruel to the people that committed terrible crimes. The people that have more minor crimes don't deserve that punishment. I would say the best way would have to be a bullet to the head. (Although, I am sadistic and would love to see a gladitorial system put in for the "death penalty". Bring back the Colliseum!)

 

[Tiptoe]

Which is it, folks? Gas chamber? Lethal injection? Firing squad? Electric chair? Guillotine? Hanging? Crusifixtion? Burning at the stake?


Personally, I think lethal injection.

There are only two ways lethal and gas.

 

[BodiSatva]

Take criminal in question...bury feet in wet concrete...let concrete harden around feet...drop the slab and the **** scumbag into the ocean...

Concrete is cheap...use a rowboat with manual oarsmen that are criminals as well...a couple of guards with rifles...

 

[Ryuken]

Saudi Arabia is world apart from the Western world. Are you suggesting we implement a draconian theocracy here in the states?

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I'm just saying, if we WERE to do that, crime rates would definately go down. Examples are the most efficiant way, even if their not humane.

 

[Donkey1499]

Which is it, folks? Gas chamber? Lethal injection? Firing squad? Electric chair? Guillotine? Hanging? Crusifixtion? Burning at the stake?


Personally, I think lethal injection.

A bullet to the back o' the head is humane enough. Quick, easy and painless. And if you lay down some tarp then the clean-up is also quite easy.

 

[Jay R]

Why would you even want a humane death penalty? If the decision of the society is to terminate someone for the crimes they have committed, why make it easy and peaceful? Do victims get such a luxury?

Send 'em out of the world the way they came into it. Screaming.

Totally agree on organ harvest too, no need for consent, just another way to pay their debt to society.

 

[MCS117]

I suggest we actually use the same barbaric way to execute people, and no, it's not the gilloutine. They should get a pistol and shot each the person in the head. They probably would feel a small prick when it enter's the temple, but usually the bullet would slash your brain into smoothie before you feel the pain. It's the least painful compared to injections where people are afraid of the needles. The gun can be from behind or from the front. You can go out anyway you like. Also this can preserve the rest of the body for organ harvesting.

As for why they need humane death sentences, people believe the criminals would change for the better and will do something good for socety. I would reply, "If they want to do something good for the society, just die for they are draining our money."

 

[superskippy]

Why should the most humane method be used? If a nation has decided that a person has committed a crime so heinous that they can no longer support thats persons ability to live, why I ask is the method on the fore of peoples minds?

A hanging or firing squad is quick, and cheap. Israel has executed a man but once, Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann, and we strung the bastard up by his neck.

We would have done the same for Mengle if he hadnt gotten away before dying earlier then expected.

The death penalty is not something to be taken lightly, only in the most grave of crimes should it be even considered and I fear it is thrown about far too much in the world today.

 

[Monkey Mind]

If it were me I'd choose a firing squad, no blindfold. I prefer to go to my death awake and aware. I think a firing squad is the most humane and dignified method. Not just for the criminal, also for those tasked to carry out the sentence. Certainly better than being strapped to a hospital bed in some viewing theater or fried on a devilish chair contraption. Of course I'd want trained marksmen, all aiming for the heart, spine, etc. Not the brain though... need to remain awake to properly experience and accept my death.

All this is moot since I don't support the death penalty as a legalized form of punishment. By the time it ever gets implemented in the US it's nothing more than a sick mockery of justice anyway. Often the person being executed is not the same person who committed the crime, having had 10, 15, 20 years to evolve and grow as a human being.

Anyway the original topic is strangely fascinating even if the basic premise is flawed. :mrgreen:

 

[superskippy]

Curiously what do you think of our execution of Obersturmbannführer SS Adolf Eichmann, a prime orchastrator of the Holocaust?

Do you disapprove of that, does your conviction run that deep?

 

[cherokee]

How about you starve Oprah Winfrey for a week.
Next tie bon-bons or chicken wings to him
then set Oprah loose?

 

[Jay R]

In purely practical terms, hanging is the best method of dispatching somone. Using the british 'drop' method that breaks the neck rather than the American approach that used to have them swinging and struggling for ages. It's quick, easy, cheap as hell, the noose and gallows are reusable.

 

[alphieb]

In purely practical terms, hanging is the best method of dispatching somone. Using the british 'drop' method that breaks the neck rather than the American approach that used to have them swinging and struggling for ages. It's quick, easy, cheap as hell, the noose and gallows are reusable.

That is sick as H&ll James.

 

[Jay R]

That is sick as hell James.

Really? I would think the people advocating life in prison to draw out punishment as long as possible are more malicious. The thread is asking for thoughts on a humane form of execution, drop hanging is the fastest method of doing the job, gets it over with quickly, far more 'humane' than being strapped to a table then watching someone inject poison into your veins. I don't get off on hangings, that post was just offering up an observation in purely practical terms. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

How do you fell about cannibalizing the bodies for organ donations? :twisted:

 

[Monkey Mind]

Curiously what do you think of our execution of Obersturmbannführer SS Adolf Eichmann, a prime orchastrator of the Holocaust?

Do you disapprove of that, does your conviction run that deep?

I don't know. It's hard to comment on something like that because I wasn't alive at the time, and I cannot begin to understand the emotions involved. I would probably have wanted him dead.

I guess I would prefer that the structure of society be set up in such a way that it forces us to make the highest choice, even if we would prefer vengeance. I wouldn't describe executing someone like Eichmann as wrong. It's just less right than the alternative of showing mercy.

 

[superskippy]

I thank you for the response, though now I must ask another question if you will indulge me.

You were talking about mercy, do you beleive someone like him deserves mercy? Or that it would look greater for us to be merciful to him?

To put an absolute question before you, do you condemn our execution of him? He was executed by hanging if that means anything.

If you dont condemn it would it be fair to say that you then support execution in the most extreme of cases? Mass murderer, war criminal, aid to genocide, etc etc.

 

[Monkey Mind]

I thank you for the response, though now I must ask another question if you will indulge me.

You're welcome, and thank you. Interesting discussion.

You were talking about mercy, do you beleive someone like him deserves mercy? Or that it would look greater for us to be merciful to him?

No of course he doesn't deserve mercy, that's the point. The very definition of mercy is the act of giving less punshment than is due. It's not a question of "looking" greater by giving mercy - I think there is a real difference both ethically and spiritually. Mercy is a higher choice than vengeance.

To put an absolute question before you, do you condemn our execution of him? He was executed by hanging if that means anything.

No, I don't feel qualified to condemn it. I know on an intellectual and intuitive level that mercy and compassion are ideals I should strive for, but that doesn't mean I've achieved them perfectly myself. I can sympathize very strongly with the desire for vengeance. Based on my feelings toward terrorist scum like Zarqawi, I think it's safe to say I would have taken the same gut-level satisfaction when Eichmann was executed. I know that about myself, but that doesn't mean I am content with that or proud of it.

If you dont condemn it would it be fair to say that you then support execution in the most extreme of cases? Mass murderer, war criminal, aid to genocide, etc etc.

No, I don't support execution by the state once the criminal has been captured. If I have any say in the matter I prefer that the laws be written so that is not an option. There is no additional value in killing the person once they're removed as a danger to society. I think government should be an expression of our highest vision of ourselves, which for me is something more than retribution.


In closing, here is a quote that expresses some of these concepts more elegantly than I am capable of doing:


"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -- Albert Einstein

 

[Voidwar]

regarding the thread title . . .

Its probably this

 

[alphieb]

Really? I would think the people advocating life in prison to draw out punishment as long as possible are more malicious. The thread is asking for thoughts on a humane form of execution, drop hanging is the fastest method of doing the job, gets it over with quickly, far more 'humane' than being strapped to a table then watching someone inject poison into your veins. I don't get off on hangings, that post was just offering up an observation in purely practical terms. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

How do you fell about cannibalizing the bodies for organ donations? :twisted:

I do advocate life in prison. If someone is twisted enough to murder innocent people they deserve a life sentence. Also take into consideration that some people are wrongfully accused. Hanging is very inhumane, if an inmate is allowed to live at least they have a chance to repent and find god. They can also remain in contact with their families.

 

[Jay R]

I do advocate life in prison. If someone is twisted enough to murder innocent people they deserve a life sentence. Also take into consideration that some people are wrongfully accused. Hanging is very inhumane, if an inmate is allowed to live at least they have a chance to repent and find god. They can also remain in contact with their families.

Like their victims can....oh wait....:doh

Sorry, that was too easy!

Not too fussed about them repenting myself, if God exists I would hope he has the sense to draw the line between good and bad and enforce it. Isn't that what hell is for?

You're right about the problems with the wrongfully accused, but that relates to the the practice of the death penalty not the theory. Of course it should only be used in cases with strong convictions and plenty of corroborating evidence, and then a death row period and re-examination of the case should be mandatory prior to executing the sentence.

As for their families, I'm not too fussed about them either, seems a bit of a double standard that victims lose lives and their families lose loved ones if you then don't take the life and bereave the loved ones of the culprit. Assuming the conviction is strong and the safeguards have been observed then I think theres no problem imposing a punishment that matches the crime committed. eg:

Take a persons life, forfeit your own.
Bereave a person's family, expect your own to be similarly bereaved.

It's a neat balancing of the scales of justice, quite eloquent really.

 

[alphieb]

Like their victims can....oh wait....:doh

Sorry, that was too easy!

Not too fussed about them repenting myself, if God exists I would hope he has the sense to draw the line between good and bad and enforce it. Isn't that what hell is for?

You're right about the problems with the wrongfully accused, but that relates to the the practice of the death penalty not the theory. Of course it should only be used in cases with strong convictions and plenty of corroborating evidence, and then a death row period and re-examination of the case should be mandatory prior to executing the sentence.

As for their families, I'm not too fussed about them either, seems a bit of a double standard that victims lose lives and their families lose loved ones if you then don't take the life and bereave the loved ones of the culprit. Assuming the conviction is strong and the safeguards have been observed then I think theres no problem imposing a punishment that matches the crime committed. eg:

Take a persons life, forfeit your own.
Bereave a person's family, expect your own to be similarly bereaved.

It's a neat balancing of the scales of justice, quite eloquent really.

Since when do two wrongs make a right? That eternal punishment should be in God's hands only, not ours.

Everybody makes mistakes, some greater than others, some beyond our imaginations, but we shall forgive. God decides our fate, my friend and brother, not the commen man.

 

[andylippitt]

As I argued here, I think that those who oppose the death penalty and argue that the methods are cruel and inhumane but don't offer less inhumane methods are being disingenuous.

If someone suggests that the latest issues with lethal injection constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and that is really what they are concerned about, they should offer a less cruel and less inhumane means of doing it. Short of that, it seems clear that the person is arguing solely for DPs abandon rather than from genuine concern about the methods.

 

[TurtleDude]

1) "some people ought to fry, but I don't like the government having the power to fry one of its citizens"-the Honorable Edmund Sargus Jr-(USDC, SDOH) when he was the best US attorney in the United States. I agree

2) for one minute-the gas chamber was the most painful and inhumane form of execution short of anal impalement or the zulu practice of rectal skewering

3) lethal injection done properly is painless but rotting in jail for 50 years like the only 9-11 conspirator is far far worse. Tim McVeigh got off easy

4) I would have a hard time indicting or convicting say a father who "michael Coreleoned" a guy who say murdered his son or raped and killed his daughter. In fact there is more purity and honesty in that form of execution than allowing the government to do it

 

[bilbus]

Give me a $3 in pennys and a pillow case i will show you how to do it.

You dont get conviced to death by helping old ladies across the streetc ... You did the crime, now its your turn.

 

[Duke]

Which is it, folks? Gas chamber? Lethal injection? Firing squad? Electric chair? Guillotine? Hanging? Crusifixtion? Burning at the stake?


Personally, I think lethal injection.

I've got a much better one: Old age. Not only do they have to spend more time in prison, but they have to get old. :mrgreen:

Seriously.


Duke