Death Penalty Discussions

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

Current Events.  How very apropos.   Thanks, Griff! 

Back to the topic.

I've had this conversation many times before, and one point I have always found interesting, is that many of the older style of state killings, were invented by humanitarian interests.   Such as the guillotine-- the inventor lamented the slow torturous deaths due to either hanging or burning (or worse), and invented this "clean" method.  Alas, it's only "clean" if the blade is extremely sharp; during the French Revolution, the blades often became dull, requiring several lift-and-drops before successfully separating the head of the victim.  (Of course, with the blade being so incredibly heavy, the trauma of a broken neck due to blunt-force trauma would likely be instantly fatal, if messy.)  And it also permitted a kind of assembly line for executions; both unforeseen consequences by the inventor.

Interestingly enough, hanging was originally (as far as I can find out) intended to be horrific and torturous.  It wasn't until some folk, interested in quick deaths, figured out (through trial and error?) that using a knot that was extended, exerted sharp-force leverage, and placing it just so on the neck, caused instant neck-breakage (which typically meant instant death).   In American History, there is quite a bit on that subject, and the fact that some victims of hanging had a secondary rope attached to the body (typically under the arms), to prevent too much extension during the hanging.  Due to their weight, a "normal" hanging would result in the head becoming separated-- an outcome deemed undesirable for some (to me strange) reason.  So a second check-rope prevented too much downward travel of the body, after the neck was broken by the fall.

Of course, again in history, there are numerous examples of a failure of each-- either the head did come off, or the neck fails to break, resulting in a slow strangulation.   Ironically, either of these appears to be something the crowds enjoyed more than the usual sharp neck-snapping.  (we humans are a barbaric lot, sometimes-- of course, some of that is partly relief in that it [the death] isn't happening to them...)

Electrocution is another that was deemed quick and painless by the "experts".  (How do you become an expert in methods of death?  Study of the macabre subject, I suppose.  But a good working knowledge of the human body is also necessary, right?  And a complete understanding of the limits of the nervous system too, I would think... meh).  Of course, there are, again, many historical examples of where this method did not work as planned, either. 

I'm a simple guy, though-- if we as a society do intend to practice ritualized murder of the undesirables?  I think we at least owe them a kind of last hurrah, and so I personally favor either massive pain-killers or an overdose of a euphoric drug.  Or, perhaps a combination of these; some sort of mechanism that stops the heart, like say, overdose of something easy-- sodium?  Combined with an abundance of morphine (to eliminate any pain from the heart-stopper).  Since we are ending this person, and they will soon be beyond anything else we may do?  Why not?   Those seeking revenge will have the satisfaction that they are ended.   And those of a more kindly nature, will know the victim did not suffer at all.

Of course, like anything else, we'd have to .... experiment to find the optimum combination.... meh.   

On a final note, I could point out that the traditional firing squad (only with multiple bullets, a redundancy to ensure reliability) has been eminently successful and reasonably fail-proof in the past.   

In fact?  It could even be cost-free (from the state's perspective).   Apart from building a sand pit, and a solid, non-ricochet backstop?   The costs of the weapons and ammunition could be zero, if volunteers were asked for.   And volunteers I'd no doubt, could be had just for the asking-- too many, in fact, there'd need to be a lottery system or something, to winnow them down to a suitable (manageable) number.  You could specify certain criteria too, such as no handguns, no small caliber rifles, etc.   And you'd still have more than sufficient to murder...erm... "execute" those deemed unfit to live anymore.

In some ways, this last "solution" to the "problem" could also serve as a relatively safe outlet for the more aggressive members of our society... (safe being relative, here-- certainly not safe for the victim).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But, the comics... 
---
One of the things that I noticed on the reports of this event is that the nastiness of the crimes committed was always prominent in the reporting, almost as if it were justifiable to make someone suffer for half an hour before he dies, precisely because of what they did.
---
Personally I think that if it were possible to be 100% certain that the accused is guilty, and the chances of recidivism are high if the individual were purposely or accidentally released, execution would make rational sense, but as it has clearly been noted before, we are veeery far away from 100% certainty. Needless to say that cruelty on the execution doesn't serve any purpose but the sadistic urges of a very tiny -but amazingly vocal- minority.

[Swatopluk]

Electrocution was actually a backhanded business-ploy by Edison. He wanted to discredit Westinghouse by proposing death by AC (the specialty of Westinghouse while Edison was the leader in DC) by 'demonstrating' how dangerous AC was. he even proposed to call this execution method 'westinghousing'. the offical legal term is btw 'to be burned by electricity'. It had little do do with humanitarian thoughts (outside the offcial proaganda campaign for it). The infamous test with the elephant (and the illegal photo of the first electrocution of a human convict) repelled some of the witnesses that afterwards became strict opponents of the method.

In reality most of the old methods got abandoned because they were 'messy' not because they were inhumane. It's supposed to look clean and leave a seemingly untouched body in order not to inconcenience our sensitivities. For the same reason the military hates if when pictures of weapon effects on people get public. As an 18th century ruler once wrote: Ideally the people do not even notice when their sovereign is at war. The created mess tends to ruin both recruiting and public opinion when it becomes too visible (also cf. the Abu Ghraib pictures. As long as torture was something abstract, a amajority was fully willing to put up with it. That changed when the images came out (and not even the worst ones afaik)).

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

Your observations are correct, Swato-- people don't like it when they are reminded that the Emperor is not only utterly without clothing?  But that he is grossly obese, and suffers from near constant flatulence too ....

... in short?  People prefer things all ... "shiny".   

... meh ...

If people cannot stomach the *fact* that the death penalty is literally a state-sponsored murder of an individual life?  Then perhaps it should not be acceptable to actually perform such acts.