Death Penalty Discussions

[Swatopluk]

As some correctly observed, the protocols are primarily to make executions LOOK clean and the 'problem' is when that fails. mayn simply don't care whether the execution is pure extended agony for the executed as long as it does not show (therefore the paralyzing agent). There are numerous quick and essentially foolproof methods to put someone to death but without exception those are very messy (dropping the 15 ton weight, high explosives in an enclosed space or even the old-fashioned guillotine). It's about us not looking like obvious sadist barbarians. The honest ones are actually (and regrettably) those that openly say 'make it as messy and as painful as possible', although the given reason may not be as honest (personal sadism often hiding behind the arguments of deterrence and 'just retribution').
I openly admit that torturing certain persons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo and the like) to death methodically and slowly has quite an emotional appeal but I would not want to create an actual legal precedent there.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

What I don't get is why if N or He have been proposed as 'humane' for animal killing, why aren't those used for human executions. Is it a matter of cost or one of less-than-humanity for humans but good enough for animals*?

*who cares about the suffering of the animals in everyday meals?

[Swatopluk]

This is not a joke: methods used for animals are not used on humans because it would be - wait for it - degrading. Seriously, that argument has been made and carried the day in at least one US state when there was a proposal to replace the unreliable (or not anymore available due to drug shortage) method by (with?) the one used to euthanize pets.

[roystonoboogie]

Michael Portillo made a TV programme a few years back about methods of killing people sentenced to death. He concluded that anoxia was the way to go. Cheap, painless, you fall asleep and never wake up. Instead of using cyanide in a gas chamber, use dry ice. When he put that proposition to a prison governor who oversaw a lot of executions, he rejected it because he thought the condemned should suffer on their way out. Which I am fairly sure is unconstitutional?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

CO₂ anoxia isn't pleasant, not that different from drowning, while N or He allow the removal of CO₂ from the bloodstream making the person fall sleep. Heck, if I got one of those nasty terminal illnesses I'll go like Donald Duck.

[roystonoboogie]

CO₂ anoxia isn't pleasant, not that different from drowning, while N or He allow the removal of CO₂ from the bloodstream making the person fall sleep. Heck, if I got one of those nasty terminal illnesses I'll go like Donald Duck.

OK, hire a bottle of balloon gas instead of dry ice.
Still better than horrible chemical cocktails that might fail because your circulatory system explodes.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I've always asked, when that comes up in conversation, why they don't just use an overdose of morphine?  This drug is readily available, is inexpensive (as these go), and many-many-many examples of real world "testing" provides empirical data on exactly how much to administer to ensure certain death.

I just do not get it, myself; morphine is quite reliable, it's not going to make the victim suffer (fulfilling, in a weird way, the prohibition of no cruel or unusual punishment), and nothing new needs to be invented.

In fact?  Overdoses of morphine is one of the most common methods of "back door" voluntary euthanasia.  

... meh.

If they are going to practice state-approved murder?  They really ought to be more honest about it...

[Swatopluk]

It would have to be a VERY large overdose. The respiratory center gets paralyzed, so the victim dies of suffocation due to simply not breathing while being fully awake and conscious.

Btw, in the days of (not so) old being conscious was a precondition for execution. For that reason the traditional last shot of booze got banned.
And a few years ago the also traditional last cigarette got banned because smoking is unhealthy (no, that is not a joke).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

It would have to be a VERY large overdose. The respiratory center gets paralyzed, so the victim dies of suffocation due to simply not breathing while being fully awake and conscious.

Btw, in the days of (not so) old being conscious was a precondition for execution. For that reason the traditional last shot of booze got banned.
And a few years ago the also traditional last cigarette got banned because smoking is unhealthy (no, that is not a joke).

Very large, no question.  Especially if the victim of state-sanctioned murder is/was a drug user.

But-- not impossibly large.   And they'd be feeling no pains of any sort, mitigating some of the horror of being murdered by your own society (I would think).

And there are other common drugs that could work as well.  Laughing gas, etc.


And yeah, I'm against the whole thing, in case my deliberate use of provocative terms didn't give that away....

... my main argument against it, is this:  Until and if humans ever develop a perfect justice system, then we, as humans, should never engage in "justice" which is infinitely irreversible.   There is no undo for death.

[Aphos]

I've always asked, when that comes up in conversation, why they don't just use an overdose of morphine?  This drug is readily available, is inexpensive (as these go), and many-many-many examples of real world "testing" provides empirical data on exactly how much to administer to ensure certain death.

I just do not get it, myself; morphine is quite reliable, it's not going to make the victim suffer (fulfilling, in a weird way, the prohibition of no cruel or unusual punishment), and nothing new needs to be invented.

In fact?  Overdoses of morphine is one of the most common methods of "back door" voluntary euthanasia.  

... meh.

If they are going to practice state-approved murder?  They really ought to be more honest about it...

I have wondered the same myself.

Likely (IMHO) it is because the law-and-order people don't want the condemned to die happy.

[Swatopluk]

There is no undo for death.

And if there was, it would be used to at last make the multiple sentences cases real.
OK, you have been condemned to 5 death sentences and 15 life sentences plus 500 years. In which order do you want them?

[Darlica]

ehum...

Just a question:
Why are we haveing a discussion about how to best carry out about how to kill people in a dedicated cartoon thread?!

We have better places for such topics.
_{(I'm posting from tablet so I can't move threads whithout messing up right now)} 

[Swatopluk]

I was thinking the same but I have bad experiences concerning fiddling with threads and prefer to leave that to experts.

[Griffin NoName]

I've only just seen this discussion. My lists of new posts is pathetically inaccurate and really annoys me.

Where do you want the thread moved to?

[Swatopluk]

Politics, I'd presume

(Current events is of course OK too)