Ship of Fools: Let's just shoot people

Thread: Let's just shoot people Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027169

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge argued Monday (pdf) that if we're going to keep executing people in the US, we should stop kidding ourselves that it's not brutal and should give up on lethal injection.

quote:
Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and peaceful — like something any one of us might experience in our final moments.... But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.

...

The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or 10 large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time. There are plenty of people employed by the state who can pull the trigger and have the training to aim true. The weapons and ammunition are bought by the state in massive quantities for law enforcement purposes, so it would be impossible to interdict the supply. And nobody can argue that the weapons are put to a purpose for which they were not intended: firearms have no purpose other than destroying their targets. Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all.

Today the person whose habeas corpus petition was denied was put to death in Arizona, and it took so long that "his attorneys had time to file an emergency appeal asking officials to save his life as the drugs apparently failed to fully take hold." (LA Times article). How much he suffered seems open to interpretation -- his lawyer said he was gasping for air, the state's lawyer said he was snoring.

Personally, I think the judge dismissed the option of using the guillotine too quickly, but in general, I'm with him. When oh when will the US achieve more than a thin veneer of civilization and stop executing people? Why on earth is it so hard to figure out that if we think gassing, hanging, and shooting people are all too horrible, perhaps we ought to re-think the whole execution thing in the first place?

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

I am very glad that I live in a country [UK] where there is no death penalty. Surely executing someone is sinking to their level. An eye for an eye is very Old Testament. [Mad]

Keeping someone alive in prison for possibly years and years, with that person knowing they will never be free, must be more worrying to the prisoner than a quick [or not so quick these days!] visit to the Death Chamber and oblivion.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
An eye for an eye is very Old Testament. [Mad]

Right and so it is. A law of mercy.

Why is it that Old Testament seems to mean ick! to so many purported Christians?

[ 24. July 2014, 02:42: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
Keeping someone alive in prison for possibly years and years, with that person knowing they will never be free, must be more worrying to the prisoner than a quick [or not so quick these days!] visit to the Death Chamber and oblivion.

Last week a federal judge agreed with you and ruled California's death penalty unconstitutional, in violation of the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, because it takes us so long to execute people. The state will probably appeal the ruling. In the meantime, we have hundreds of people sitting in San Quentin waiting to see if we're ever going to get our act together and figure out how we want to kill them.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
An eye for an eye is very Old Testament. [Mad]
Right and so it is. A law of mercy.

Why is it that Old Testament seems to mean ick! to so many purported Christians?

Because we're Marcionites. And we think squishing people's eyes out is nasty.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
[...] Surely executing someone is sinking to their level. [...]

This would be true only if the police dragged the suspect out the back of the stationhouse and beat them to death. The battery of procedural safeguards a suspect enjoys make an execution after due process and appeal as different in kind to a murder as imprisoning a person after conviction is different to a kidnapping.

I disagree with capital punishment because I disagree with retributive punishment in general, but I accept that, from a retributive perspective, a solid argument can be made for it. This is an issue over which decent people ought to be able to disagree with mutual respect.

What I don't like is medicalizing executions. It screams denial. If you're going to kill someone as punishment for their crimes, be honest about it, scrap the gurney, and employ methods like a firing squad or a gallows. Putting someone down carries no moral statement.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

On the California front, execution in the Golden State is so dysfunctional that murderers are asking to be sentenced to die for the creature comforts!

Thanks to decades of litigation, America's death penalty is the worst of all worlds: hideously slow; used too infrequently to be a deterrent (even supposedly execution-happy Texas only executes something in the region of 1% of its convicted murderers); and, thanks to plea bargaining, applied with little relation to the seriousness of the crime.

It costs a fortune for no discernible benefit. States used to execute murderers within a few months of sentence: they now execute them after decades of appeals, and most are never executed at all. Unless the federal courts take a different line, it ought to be abolished simply on practical grounds.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Just for the record, I think that judicial execution is barbaric for those societies that can afford to warehouse for life those people convicted of 'capital' crimes. In this 21st century, every society can afford it.

Plus, this medicalized killing is stupid beyond belief. A bullet to the head or the guillotine makes sense if there has to be judicial executions.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Is execution any more barbaric than life without parole? I don't think so, and neither did these Italian lifers (being Italy, I doubt the prison kitchen was to blame). LWOP is just a slow-motion execution.

Life without parole, like the needle, is punishment in denial, keeping all the retribution of capital punishment, but lacking the courage of its convictions. It pretends to be humane, but abandons the heart of penal reform, the possibility that anyone may be redeemed and earn their freedom.

The real battle in the U.S. isn't over executing a handful of gangbangers, it's over abandoning thousands to cages run by the most savage inmates until they drop dead.

[ 24. July 2014, 05:03: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think if we are going to kill people governmentally (I think we should not but they keep not caring what I think about it), we should do it in a way that is going to be quick and as painless as possible. I think the absolute best method based on these criteria is arguably the guillotine.

Further it should be on C-Span or some such network -- every single execution should be during prime time hours, and should be shown live on TV. Maybe if enough people saw it, they would see how barbaric it is, and we could eventually get rid of it throughout the 50+.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Caught a rerun of The Running Man lately? [Biased]

Tellingly, for the last century in which Britain hanged murderers, its government became obsessively secretive about the process. Today, Japan is equally circumspect. Most Japanese accept capital punishment, but they want it out of sight, out of mind. More denial. At least most U.S. jurisdictions invite journalists and witnesses along.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Caught a rerun of The Running Man lately?

I did, as it happens. Seeing some of the protesters when high-profile people are to be executed makes me realise that letting people see executions will not put them off - quite the contrary. In the UK they stopped having public executions, and I believe one of the reasons was that the crowds and the partying was becoming uncontrollable.

I have heard that in Japan (somewhere odd) executed by hiring a sniper to take a condemned person out without warning, which actually does seem a whole lot more humane than making people focus on a date when they will be killed.

State-licensed killing is wrong, for so many reasons. Making it life instead would probably prove cheaper, what with all of the appeal process, which seems to get it mitigated to life often anyway.

So yes, it is brutal barbaric thing to do. Using "medical" technology rather than being torn to pieces by wild animals simply helps the 'mercans feel that they are being "humane".

But it is still taking a life, and that is barbaric.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I am getting the impression that Byron feels death is preferable to any form of suffering.

You are dying, die faster !
You are jailed for life, better to die.
You survive a serious assault and will have nightmares for the rest of your life, jump off the statue of liberty.
You have a headache, it might go on for agggeeesss, cut it off.
That cough sounds persistent, here, have some cyanide laced chocolate ..

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Carbon dioxide has long been suggested as a method of execution. It's quick, painless, cheap, requires no special equipment or expertise, and is 100% effective.

It's never been adopted because it's quick, painless, cheap, etc... FFS America.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am getting the impression that Byron feels death is preferable to any form of suffering.

You are dying, die faster !
You are jailed for life, better to die.
You survive a serious assault and will have nightmares for the rest of your life, jump off the statue of liberty.
You have a headache, it might go on for agggeeesss, cut it off.
That cough sounds persistent, here, have some cyanide laced chocolate ..

I'll snap through the hellish bit first: anyone who disregards quality of life is either stoic to the point of catatonia, or a masochist of Sadean proportions. Zonk-out or cilice-up, as ya like, just don't expect the rest of us to share your predilections.

Right, onto my argument, which is that no civilized society throws people onto the scrapheap. Too many states have sentenced convicts to endure barbarism and called it justice. I dislike LWOP 'cause I consistently apply my grounds for disliking the death penalty.

What's bizarre is that so many "progressives" think that life in a concrete jungle is more civilized than an execution. We shouldn't offer one as an alternative to the other; we should have neither.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Oh wow, 'cilice-up' is funkatorial.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Last week a federal judge agreed with you and ruled California's death penalty unconstitutional, in violation of the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, because it takes us so long to execute people. The state will probably appeal the ruling. In the meantime, we have hundreds of people sitting in San Quentin waiting to see if we're ever going to get our act together and figure out how we want to kill them.

Since we are considering firing squads anyhow - a single machine gun team could clear the entire execution backlog of California in under a minute. Use a few bulldozer and a mass grave between rounds, and you can probably deal with the entire USA in a single day with minimal manpower and costs. For that matter, just walk them into a mass grave, dump some mustard gas on them, wait, close it up with earth and you are done. Further cost cutting can be achieved by leaving out the mustard gas...

I'm against the death penalty myself, if societies can afford lifelong imprisonment. But the style with which one kills people does say something about the respect one affords them, and about the values one holds. I'm guessing that quite a number of people who would accept firing squads would not want to see the industrialised mass killings I have described. Though clearly these would be highly efficient.

It is not a priori absurd to wish to kill a person with the minimum of pain and indeed a minimum of "splatter". It is not absurd to wish to kill them one by one. This need not be squeamishness and inefficiency, it can demonstrate a kind of respect and care for the person to be killed, and that is not immediately irrelevant just because one is in fact killing them.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Life without parole, like the needle, is punishment in denial, keeping all the retribution of capital punishment, but lacking the courage of its convictions. It pretends to be humane, but abandons the heart of penal reform, the possibility that anyone may be redeemed and earn their freedom.

In the UK at least you have to work quite hard to get a whole life tariff. Generally, you have to be a serial killer or a repeat offender or to have done something pretty bloody abominable. I don't think that it should be used lightly nor do I discount the possibility of redemption. However I do think that some people ought to be working out their salvation in fear, trembling and a maximum security cell.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
In the UK at least you have to work quite hard to get a whole life tariff. Generally, you have to be a serial killer or a repeat offender or to have done something pretty bloody abominable. I don't think that it should be used lightly nor do I discount the possibility of redemption. However I do think that some people ought to be working out their salvation in fear, trembling and a maximum security cell.

Catchy slogan. [Devil]

Salvation's for priests to worry about. Criminal justice ought to be concerned with public safety. Some prisoners will need to be locked up until they die on those grounds; but death behind bars should never be a foregone conclusion.

Instinctively, I'm all for retribution, but its an instinct I force myself to ignore. Payback doesn't undo the damage done, and leads to counterproductive and cruel laws.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
For that matter, just walk them into a mass grave, dump some mustard gas on them, wait, close it up with earth and you are done. Further cost cutting can be achieved by leaving out the mustard gas...

The gas chamber is already considered to be cruel and unusual punishment even though it hasn't been declared unconstitutional. The last use of the gas chamber was by Arizona in 2010. Lethal injection is on it's way out as a method of execution. The next step is either total abolition of the death penalty or a combination of older methods of execution (firing squad or hanging with the guillotine being a remote possibility).

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Carbon dioxide has long been suggested as a method of execution. It's quick, painless, cheap, requires no special equipment or expertise, and is 100% effective.

It's never been adopted because it's quick, painless, cheap, etc... FFS America.

Actually, suffocation by carbon dioxide is a pretty unpleasant way to go - your body is fully aware that its carbon dioxide content is up and takes every step it can to relieve the problem - you go into hyperventilation. Also your blood becomes acidic, which isn't very nice ...

Suffocation by nitrogen, on the other hand, is a very different matter. Ask any RAF pilot about their first experience of the hypobaric chamber. As the oxygen supply fails, you are blissfully unaware of what is happening to you. Which is why all RAF pilots have to undergo training in the hypobaric chamber so that they know what it feels like.

If we insist upon executing people, and similarly insist upon it being clean and painless, nitrogen narcosis has a lot to recommend it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I think carbon monoxide is painless?

(Can't believe I'm discussing the best execution method here.)

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think carbon monoxide is painless?

(Can't believe I'm discussing the best execution method here.)

But not as cheap as nitrogen - 80% of the atmosphere is nitrogen.

And I can't believe that I am arguing for this point either.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Carbon dioxide has long been suggested as a method of execution. It's quick, painless, cheap, requires no special equipment or expertise, and is 100% effective.

I understand helium is better, as it doesn't trigger a suffocation reflex as does CO2.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Okay: Nitrogen it is.

So if we can work that out in less than 12 hours, what's stopping the US penal system?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Carbon dioxide has long been suggested as a method of execution. It's quick, painless, cheap, requires no special equipment or expertise, and is 100% effective.
I understand helium is better, as it doesn't trigger a suffocation reflex as does CO2.

Helium is dead expensive, and a prisoner's last words need solemnity. Not... that.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
hanging with the guillotine being a remote possibility

Extremely remote, I should have thought.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The argument goes that the guillotine is both cathartic yet painless.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Although this is Hell, I'd take this topic seriously in all forums. I think we delude ourselves sometimes that we are civilized, decent, kind, loving and have progressed. But it is merely a veneer and to what we should aspire.

Even in countries without executions, the natural human wish to kill others who have killed loved ones and harmed you exists. For myself, I am personally grateful that my murderous dreams against such personal experience of two criminals have been reduced to nearly nil over time; in waking I have disavowed violence all of my life, but I still have the human tendency for retaliation, rage and want to make someone pay, including making them pay with a painful horrid death. I have also watched cats "play" with mice.

We must acknowledge our tendencies, both for evil and for good, for peace and for violence, if we are ever going to learn anything. For me, this is one of the most attractive bits of Christianity: paying back violence with forgiveness and acceptance of the flaws and grievous behaviour in others: God forgive them they know not what they do.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is not a priori absurd to wish to kill a person with the minimum of pain and indeed a minimum of "splatter". It is not absurd to wish to kill them one by one. This need not be squeamishness and inefficiency, it can demonstrate a kind of respect and care for the person to be killed, and that is not immediately irrelevant just because one is in fact killing them.

I agree with you entirely that the wish to execute persons individually and with a minimum of 'splatter' may indeed have to do with treating them with a modicum of respect - it is a good point. However, the way it's panning out currently in the US doesn't look especially like this is the way around things are, to me - who would elect to take an hour and a half to die if there was a quicker way? Also, with respect to execution by firing squad, I understand that historically revolvers or regular small-bore rifles have been utilised, and the tradition is to aim for the heart, not the head. Praise be, I have never even come close to actually witnessing such a thing, but I know that when an animal is shot, in a vital organ, by a hunter with a rifle, there is very, very little in the way of 'splatter'. So it remains possible that this method could (potentially, at least), be quick, painless, and reasonably tidy. And you don't need to be strapped to a gurney, which I wouldn't find especially conducive to a dignified exit, I don't think.

I'll add my voice to all those above and say I can't believe I'm discussing this - and that I'm opposed to capital punishment.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I don't know if any of you caught this documentary, but this information has been around for years. The US could do things differently if it wanted. Currently, at state level, it frequently does not want.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
For that matter, just walk them into a mass grave, dump some mustard gas on them, wait, close it up with earth and you are done. Further cost cutting can be achieved by leaving out the mustard gas...
The gas chamber is already considered to be cruel and unusual punishment even though it hasn't been declared unconstitutional. The last use of the gas chamber was by Arizona in 2010.

I suspect IngoB was deliberately going for the most dreadful possible method of execution, causing appalling pain and suffering, as long as it was efficient, in order to make his point. I don't know what gas would have been in use in the US up until 2010, but it won't have been mustard gas, which is an instrument of chemical warfare.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Nope...it was hydrogen cyanide which was also used as a chemical weapon (I think).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
]I suspect IngoB was deliberately going for the most dreadful possible method of execution, causing appalling pain and suffering, as long as it was efficient, in order to make his point.

Indeed. I thought talking about burying them simply alive in the end was obvious enough...

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I understand helium is better, as it doesn't trigger a suffocation reflex as does CO2.

And it would make the last words interesting.....

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Okay, the death penalty is wrong. I find it to be nothing more than a way for society to extract revenge, which society has no business doing.

Having said that, if we are discussing the most "humane" way of killing someone (now there is an oxymoron), then the two methods below would seem to fit the bill...

1) A large overdose of heroin. A blissful rush followed by night-night.

2) Lay them on a large concrete slab and drop a ten tonne weight on them from 100 metres. It would be like stamping on a spider; quick and painless I would have thought.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The lady on "Newsnight" last night (this link, starting at 26:39) was asked about any alternatives to lethal injection. Granted that her position is (rightly, in my view) the ultimate and complete end to executions in the US, she really got herself muddled when she was asked about more humane methods of killing people which could be used until that aim comes about.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Okay, the death penalty is wrong. I find it to be nothing more than a way for society to extract revenge, which society has no business doing.

Agreed.

quote:

Lay them on a large concrete slab and drop a ten tonne weight on them from 100 metres. It would be like stamping on a spider; quick and painless I would have thought.

Is that humane? It may only involve a wait of a few seconds, but I would imagine the mental agony would be incredible?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The argument goes that the guillotine is both cathartic yet painless.

Painless? Whom did they ask?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The argument goes that the guillotine is both cathartic yet painless.
Painless? Whom did they ask?

They never heard any complaints from the recently beheaded, did they?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:

Lay them on a large concrete slab and drop a ten tonne weight on them from 100 metres. It would be like stamping on a spider; quick and painless I would have thought.
Is that humane? It may only involve a wait of a few seconds, but I would imagine the mental agony would be incredible?

I would imagine the mental agony of knowing, with absolute certainty, that one is about to die is pretty incredible no matter what the method of execution happens to be.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Lay them on a large concrete slab and drop a ten tonne weight on them from 100 metres. It would be like stamping on a spider; quick and painless I would have thought.

That's how Wile E. Coyote would conduct executions.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The argument goes that the guillotine is both cathartic yet painless.
Painless? Whom did they ask?
They never heard any complaints from the recently beheaded, did they?

Experiments have been done showing the decapitated head will show response to being called by name for 10 to 20 seconds.

Without lungs the person has no way of complaining.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Lay them on a large concrete slab and drop a ten tonne weight on them from 100 metres. It would be like stamping on a spider; quick and painless I would have thought.
That's how Wile E. Coyote would conduct executions.

Yes, and see how badly it works out for him.

Huia

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The argument goes that the guillotine is both cathartic yet painless.
Painless? Whom did they ask?
They never heard any complaints from the recently beheaded, did they?
Experiments have been done showing the decapitated head will show response to being called by name for 10 to 20 seconds.

Holy Shit! Who has been conducting these experiments, I have to ask?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Without lungs the person has no way of complaining.

Very true. However, I thought I had heard that those executed by lethal injection were given a muscle relaxant drug at the same time (presumably to stop them thrashing around in a manner distressing to those watching), and in a high enough dose, that might prevent 'complaining' also.

I have also heard (and this is with reference to the slaughter of animals by the halal method, but you have to allow the similarity to guillotining), that an EEG will show no traces after about three seconds of the carotid artery being cut.

Anyway, it's all moot in my view, given that even if methods of execution in the US are reviewed, the guillotine is a really, really, unlikely replacement candidate...

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The argument goes that the guillotine is both cathartic yet painless.
Painless? Whom did they ask?
They never heard any complaints from the recently beheaded, did they?
Experiments have been done showing the decapitated head will show response to being called by name for 10 to 20 seconds.

Without lungs the person has no way of complaining.

That "experiment" by a French doctor was later shown to be a fake, and his claims were a hoax.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Possibly, but it takes minutes of oxygen deprivation to kill the brain - and presumably the decapitated person dies of anoxic brain damage, after all, what else could they die of ?

Ridiculously detailed article on the definition and determination of death.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Eegs show rats retain cortical activity upto four seconds post decapitation - but unsurprisingly this experiment has not been carried out in humans.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Experiments have been done showing the decapitated head will show response to being called by name for 10 to 20 seconds.

Without lungs the person has no way of complaining.
That "experiment" by a French doctor was later shown to be a fake, and his claims were a hoax.

Was that the prisoner Languille?

[ 25. July 2014, 22:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Several people here have said that if we're going to execute people, it should be as quick and as painless as possible, humane. And a number of posts have taken that as a presumption.

Several people have also paused to note that they find it more than a bit bizarre that they are making points at all about how people should be executed. That points to the absolute insanity of the whole thing. We weigh the merits of the guillotine, a firing squad, a slab of concrete, various kinds of gaseous chemicals, as if this were a sane, humane, decent, moral thing to do.

Well, yes, of course, if we're going to kill people, let it be quick and painless -- but why? Because that makes it better? Seriously? Because we are decent people who don't draw and quarter people in the town square? We don't have the public spectacle of hangings on holidays, so we're better than our forebears, who flocked to such events?

I submit that in the US we are most certainly not better than that. Yes, it is better for the person who will die if he doesn't languish on death row for decades before being executed, if he doesn't gasp for breath for the better part of two hours before dying, if it's quick and relatively painless rather than drawn-out and horrific. But it is not better for us. Using a "humane" method of state execution allows us to think that it's all okay, that we aren't barbarians, that we are in some way better than and fundamentally different from the people we are killing. And we're not, we're just not.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

Well, yes, of course, if we're going to kill people, let it be quick and painless -- but why? Because that makes it better?

Well, yes. Because it makes it better.

I eat meat. I will continue to eat meat, and I don't apologise for the fact that eating meat means killing animals. Nevertheless, I would like the animals I eat to be killed in as painless a way as possible, and not just because they taste better that way.

So if we decide that a particular criminal should forfeit his life, then yes, we should kill him in a way that inflicts the minimum necessary pain.

I don't understand why you think this isn't better for us. I think it's better for us to not cause animals unnecessary suffering, even if we still eat them. Do you not agree?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
I am very glad that I live in a country [UK] where there is no death penalty. Surely executing someone is sinking to their level. An eye for an eye is very Old Testament. Keeping someone alive in prison for possibly years and years, with that person knowing they will never be free, must be more worrying to the prisoner than a quick [or not so quick these days!] visit to the Death Chamber and oblivion.

I think The Silent Acolyte has been a little unfair with your OT reference [Big Grin]

. It is true that the rule was, in some respects, to limit people's revenge, and in primitive savage societies that could probably be construed as 'merciful'. God's attempt at damage limitation knowing his human creation's capacity for cracking nuts with sledgehammers. Jesus did try to take the principle in a more enlightened direction, but predictably we struggle with that. And there will always be a tension between coping with the practical realities of keeping those who are unfit to live in society safely contained, while permitting those who wish to, to exercise religious principles of forgiveness, mercy etc.

I do, admittedly, have a very unChristian feeling of satisfaction at the thought of life sentences actually being for life - rather than the usual trivial ten or fifteen year joke sentences seriously deranged criminals tend to get here in the UK. It complicates things that innocent people are sometimes executed - just as innocent people are sometimes jailed - judicial murder which is never, in itself avenged, even when acknowledged; 'oh dear, we made a mistake. Sorry!' Society needs to have a seriously tamped-down conscience to live through that, I would say. I mean, if society is taking upon itself the taking of human life as a penalty for criminal transgression, its judicial and law-enforcement agencies must be superlatively capable of unimpeachable conclusions in each and every single case, to justify their privileged and frankly dangerous position.

A system that - even occasionally - 'gets it wrong' really doesn't inspire confidence.

Not that logic need come into the argument at all, of course, but it always struck me as a strange statement to make; in order to teach our society how wrong it is to take human life, let's make the penalty for some crimes the taking of human life.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Leorning Cniht, I explicitly spelled it out:

quote:
Using a "humane" method of state execution allows us to think that it's all okay, that we aren't barbarians, that we are in some way better than and fundamentally different from the people we are killing. And we're not, we're just not.

With all this discussion of quick and painless death we are only kidding ourselves that we are in some way morally okay.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Leorning Cniht, I explicitly spelled it out:

quote:
Using a "humane" method of state execution allows us to think that it's all okay, that we aren't barbarians, that we are in some way better than and fundamentally different from the people we are killing. And we're not, we're just not.
With all this discussion of quick and painless death we are only kidding ourselves that we are in some way morally okay.

I don't believe Leorning Cniht said we would be morally "all okay," only that using a more humane execution method would be "better." Unless you (and he) think all moral choices are a binary between "all okay" and "all evil," you are misrepresenting him.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I was going to post my position here but ... this is Hell, not Purgatory, so... I won't.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe Leorning Cniht said we would be morally "all okay," only that using a more humane execution method would be "better."

Pretty much.

I think there are two separate decisions: should we (in principle) kill people, and how should we kill people.

I think in all cases, the answer to the question "if we kill people, how should we kill them?" is that we should kill them in as painless a fashion as we can reasonably manage.

(Not sure whether Carbon Monoxide is better than Nitrogen from that point of view, but enough people go to sleep by a broken heater leaking CO and don't wake up that it can't be too painful.)

I hear plenty of comments from work colleagues etc. about how they would be happy to see some criminal convicted of a heinous crime suffer in agony as he died. Clearly it's better for the criminal if that doesn't happen, but I also think it's better for us not to think that way, and if we do think that way, not to give in to our base urges to torture the guy in vengeance.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Probably good pay-for-view revenue would be generated if the business model was right. I'm thinking it would be great to see audience participation via twitter, voting for the tortures on the way to death.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Probably good pay-for-view revenue would be generated if the business model was right. I'm thinking it would be great to see audience participation via twitter, voting for the tortures on the way to death.

A great way for the state to make money off tax-dodging conservative Christians.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

People came up with entertainment options for all this at least 13 years ago.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People came up with entertainment options for all this at least 13 years ago.

Well. I wonder where the idea for Hunger Games came from? Nothing new under the sun, is there...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Indeed, nothing new under that ol' sun.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe Leorning Cniht said we would be morally "all okay," only that using a more humane execution method would be "better." Unless you (and he) think all moral choices are a binary between "all okay" and "all evil," you are misrepresenting him.

I didn't say he said this. (And "all okay" is colloquial, not exactly the phrasing one uses for precise philosophical points, because I'm not making a precise philosophical point.) I said we are kidding ourselves. Collectively, we, as Americans, are out of our tiny little minds. We are not good people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe Leorning Cniht said we would be morally "all okay," only that using a more humane execution method would be "better." Unless you (and he) think all moral choices are a binary between "all okay" and "all evil," you are misrepresenting him.
I didn't say he said this. (And "all okay" is colloquial, not exactly the phrasing one uses for precise philosophical points, because I'm not making a precise philosophical point.) I said we are kidding ourselves. Collectively, we, as Americans, are out of our tiny little minds. We are not good people.

So what you said had nothing at all to do with what he said, then. Got it.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I hear plenty of comments from work colleagues etc. about how they would be happy to see some criminal convicted of a heinous crime suffer in agony as he died.

I think they might be quite surprised by how they felt if they were actually in that position. I was on hand to observe, a couple of years ago, a person whom I profoundly disliked (with good reason), suffering intense emotional anguish. And it wasn't really any different from watching someone I did like suffering intense emotional anguish. It was horrible. It turns out I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It was a good thing for me to learn.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So what you said had nothing at all to do with what he said, then. Got it.

I did in fact explain my point, and he totally missed it. As did you.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So what you said had nothing at all to do with what he said, then. Got it.
I did in fact explain my point, and he totally missed it. As did you.

You now appear to be saying that only you can make a point, and anybody else making another point -- say, l.c. -- is off-base because he's not responding to your point.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Having slept on this I'm not at all sure what I'm arguing for or why. I apologize for being a pissant and withdraw from this part of the conversation.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

No worries! Goodness knows I've been there, have the t-shirt (and the mug, the keychain, the tote bag, the commemorative plaque, the letter thanking for my dedicated service to the cause ...).

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Ah, heck with it, I'll post my wee thoughts on this, but this is Hell, target painted on chest, etc., but this really seems more of a Purg discussion to me, blah blah blah...

I believe in the abstract in the death penalty for murder and such crimes.

BUT I believe the way our justice system in the US seems to be managing it is unfair in very disturbing ways. Racially especially but not exclusively. There have been way way too many people who turned out to be innocent after decades in prison, so who knows how many innocents have been executed? Yikes.

AND I think the ways our justice system in the US are using to kill people are downright more horrific than a lot of more humane ways to die.

THEREFORE I think the US justice system is so messed up as to make me against the death penalty in the US.

BUT if we are going to have the death penalty anyway, OR until we CAN abolish the death penalty, I think it should be as quick and humane as possible. Maybe the prisoner could be given a choice of options.

THOUGH if I were in prison for life, in these horrible conditions, especially the insane US private prison industry (which should be completely abolished), I think I'd genuinely RATHER die, and quickly.

That said, this is Hell, if you want to attack me for it I'm not interested in doing the Hell thing, so ... those are my thoughts, have fun.

(scurries back up to Purgatory and the like)

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

....
THOUGH if I were in prison for life, in these horrible conditions, especially the insane US private prison industry (which should be completely abolished), I think I'd genuinely RATHER die, and quickly.

I've deleted much of your post because I agree with much of your take on the situation. However, people in prison with Capital sentences do tend to use the full appeal process. That's one of the reasons for the inhumane delay.

While the death penalty seems wrong in many cases, especially given the racial and economic biases to the legal system and the number of convicted innocent people shown up by DNA evidence, I'm not sure what you do when someone with a life sentence murders a prison guard or another prisoner.

Let me add that I'm totally unconvinced by the argument that the relatives of the crime victim "need the closure" of an execution.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, it is better for the person who will die if he doesn't languish on death row for decades before being executed, if he doesn't gasp for breath for the better part of two hours before dying, if it's quick and relatively painless rather than drawn-out and horrific. But it is not better for us. Using a "humane" method of state execution allows us to think that it's all okay, that we aren't barbarians, that we are in some way better than and fundamentally different from the people we are killing. And we're not, we're just not.

This is a telling point. I can't get too exercised over the fate of a murderer. For their part, they've broken the most important clause in their contract with the community and can't complain, whatever the community does with them.

The question is, what does the communitiy's sentence say about / do to us? To me there is something horrible about taking someone who is in custody, can stay there as long as we choose, incapable of repeating their offence and nevertheless, just... killing them. I'm glad that in the UK we don't do that any more, though I'm not smug about that because polls consistently show that a majority of my fellow citizens disagree. It's only because enough legislators couldn't stomach a return to executions that we don't still hang 'em high.

Anselmina's point about the possibility of wrongful conviction weighs as heavily. It's not even that there's just an occasional slip-up in the judicial process, though that in itself would be a solid enough argument against for me. I'm not sure how many once-capital murder convictions here, since abolition of the death penalty, have been reversed, mostly years later, but it's certainly in double figures. At least they could be let out of jail and some redress made. No way can you dig up a corpse and say "Whoops, sorry, on your way then."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
I can't get too exercised over the fate of a murderer. For their part, they've broken the most important clause in their contract with the community and can't complain, whatever the community does with them.

The state has such a poor record of getting the right guy, as determined by DNA testing, that I can't join you in your gleeful rejoicing over the suffering of "murderers."

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
This is a telling point. I can't get too exercised over the fate of a murderer. For their part, they've broken the most important clause in their contract with the community and can't complain, whatever the community does with them.

The question is, what does the communitiy's sentence say about / do to us? To me there is something horrible about taking someone who is in custody, can stay there as long as we choose, incapable of repeating their offence and nevertheless, just... killing them. I'm glad that in the UK we don't do that any more, though I'm not smug about that because polls consistently show that a majority of my fellow citizens disagree. It's only because enough legislators couldn't stomach a return to executions that we don't still hang 'em high.

Anselmina's point about the possibility of wrongful conviction weighs as heavily. It's not even that there's just an occasional slip-up in the judicial process, though that in itself would be a solid enough argument against for me. I'm not sure how many once-capital murder convictions here, since abolition of the death penalty, have been reversed, mostly years later, but it's certainly in double figures. At least they could be let out of jail and some redress made. No way can you dig up a corpse and say "Whoops, sorry, on your way then."

The Innocence Project lists over 300 exonerations using DNA evidence in the United States. 18 of these were people sentenced to death. Half of them were people of color.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The preponderance of blacks and hispanics on death row is shameful.

Similarly, the standards of admissible 'evidence' in some states beggars belief.

Yes, the question of what to do with murderers is not easily answered, but if killing people is wrong then executing people is also wrong.

And botching executions is unforgivable.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
[...] I can't get too exercised over the fate of a murderer. For their part, they've broken the most important clause in their contract with the community and can't complain, whatever the community does with them. [...]

Right with ya, emotionally speaking. Thing is, dehumanizing anyone, for any reason, is a dark road to go down. I'll force myself to defend the rights of the unequivocally guilty for that reason if no other.

That's why I don't argue the death penalty should be abolished because of wrongful conviction. Fatal mistakes aren't used as grounds to disarm the police, or to ban vehicles or over the counter medications. Focusing on mistakes above all else skirts round the issue.

I believe the death penalty's wrong 'cause I believe retribution is wrong. Like I said upthread, I've no issue with those who disagree, but both sides ought to be able to show concern for prisoners, even if that concern is expressed through executing them in a humane way.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
That's why I don't argue the death penalty should be abolished because of wrongful conviction. Fatal mistakes aren't used as grounds to disarm the police, or to ban vehicles or over the counter medications. Focusing on mistakes above all else skirts round the issue.

The nature of the 'mistake' is completely different, though. With the death penalty there's no mistake in killing someone, only in getting the identity of your victim wrong.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Let me add that I'm totally unconvinced by the argument that the relatives of the crime victim "need the closure" of an execution.

While I haven't had the experience of a murder, we did have a random life threatening crime against a family member. I would indicate that wanting the death of the offender is absolutely the wish of the family members even when the crime isn't a murder; if you don't imagine it in daylight hours, it haunts your dreams. My contact with other families indicates that this is rather common.

It is not about closure, it is about what we experienced as the human need for punishment and retribution. Before this happened, I would have said that I thought I was civilized, educated and mature enough to rise above such base human emotional and violent responses, but I learned that I'm not. Lack of appropriate punishment will absolutely make the family lack closure. The offender to disappear from our consciousness.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The nature of the 'mistake' is completely different, though. With the death penalty there's no mistake in killing someone, only in getting the identity of your victim wrong.

Granted, the analogy's not exact, although deliberate killing is something an execution shares with using deadly force in self-defense. What self-defense gains in imminence, it loses in certainty: mistakes are, of course, far less likely after trial and appeal than in a panicked confrontation.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Let me add that I'm totally unconvinced by the argument that the relatives of the crime victim "need the closure" of an execution.
While I haven't had the experience of a murder, we did have a random life threatening crime against a family member. I would indicate that wanting the death of the offender is absolutely the wish of the family members even when the crime isn't a murder; if you don't imagine it in daylight hours, it haunts your dreams. My contact with other families indicates that this is rather common.

It is not about closure, it is about what we experienced as the human need for punishment and retribution. Before this happened, I would have said that I thought I was civilized, educated and mature enough to rise above such base human emotional and violent responses, but I learned that I'm not. Lack of appropriate punishment will absolutely make the family lack closure. The offender to disappear from our consciousness.

But it does not necessarily follow that execution would provide closure. Certainly Herzog's film Into the Abyss suggests that it does not always happen.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
But it does not necessarily follow that execution would provide closure. Certainly Herzog's film Into the Abyss suggests that it does not always happen.

I've heard (and read) a number of interviews with family members of victims that make the same point. Maybe for some it does provide closure. For many others, it does not. Should whether or not we kill a convicted murderer be dependent upon whether or not the victim's family members are of the first sort or the second?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I'm not saying that people might not want revenge and retribution. The question is whether the state should cater to that desire by executing people.

What happens to that family when later evidence exonerates the executed? How do they get closure for having demanded the death of an innocent person?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Perhaps I missed it on this thread, but apparently it is cheaper to use jail for life until death than to execute because of legal costs. Not saying the economic argument should persuade, but it is interesting.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Perhaps I missed it on this thread, but apparently it is cheaper to use jail for life until death than to execute because of legal costs. Not saying the economic argument should persuade, but it is interesting.

Similarly, it would frequently be cheaper to use methods to prevent lower-level offenders from being in jail in the first place. Which never stops 'law and order' politicians from advocating a 'tough on crime' stance that basically involves locking people up after they commit crimes as the thoroughly unimaginative answer to stopping them from commiting further crimes in the future... for a period at least.

(Everybody, please note, I'm most definitely not saying that there isn't a role for jails, and even lifelong jail.)

[ 31. July 2014, 03:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Let me add that I'm totally unconvinced by the argument that the relatives of the crime victim "need the closure" of an execution.
While I haven't had the experience of a murder, we did have a random life threatening crime against a family member. I would indicate that wanting the death of the offender is absolutely the wish of the family members even when the crime isn't a murder; if you don't imagine it in daylight hours, it haunts your dreams. My contact with other families indicates that this is rather common.

It is not about closure, it is about what we experienced as the human need for punishment and retribution. Before this happened, I would have said that I thought I was civilized, educated and mature enough to rise above such base human emotional and violent responses, but I learned that I'm not. Lack of appropriate punishment will absolutely make the family lack closure. The offender to disappear from our consciousness.

This is perhaps why the OT sets up "cities of refuge" where someone who causes an accidental homicide can flee for safety.

The desire for retribution when someone has caused such enormous pain and suffering is normal, natural. What doesn't follow, however, is that the State needs to satisfy that desire.

I know that if someone harmed my child I would need to be physically restrained from personally carving out the beating heart of the murderer with a sharpened spoon. That doesn't mean that's a good or moral thing to do, nor does it mean that should I succeed, the brutal death would bring any more "closure" to my grief. To say nothing of the impact should I later learn that in my grief and rage I had carved out the wrong person's heart.

We need to find other ways to comfort, support, and care for grieving families.

[ 31. July 2014, 15:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

I wouldn't bother to sharpen the spoon.

I agree with you on the aftermath.

[ 31. July 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Similarly, it would frequently be cheaper to use methods to prevent lower-level offenders from being in jail in the first place. Which never stops 'law and order' politicians from advocating a 'tough on crime' stance that basically involves locking people up after they commit crimes as the thoroughly unimaginative answer to stopping them from commiting further crimes in the future... for a period at least.

(Everybody, please note, I'm most definitely not saying that there isn't a role for jails, and even lifelong jail.)

Agreed. Crimes of violence and harm are vastly different from crimes of property. Which are again different than crimes related to some personal choices, like drugs usage. Some of the things classified as crimes are indeed crimes, others are about economics, health or social conditions.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Apparently it costs $2 million more to execute someone than it does to keep them locked up until they die.

This is because of the cost of numerous appeals, extra security for said appeals, dealing with protestors when executions take place, etc.

The Times tells me that this is leading to 'conservative republicans' (tautologous surely) campaigning against the death penalty on cost grounds.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Apparently it costs $2 million more to execute someone than it does to keep them locked up until they die.

Don't suppose the executioner gets to see much of that figure in bonuses .

Posted by Charlie-in-the-box (# 17954) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[QB] Caught a rerun of The Running Man lately?

The running man idea, not bad. We could go reality TV with it. Start with the current day, pick death row inmates, say, four each week? Then do the back story on each one, what led up to their current situation and then show their lives today on death row. You know, have the first grade teacher on there saying how wonderful/caring he/she was (or demented) and how shocked/not shocked they are that this person did what they did.

Then we have to detail their crimes, talk about the victim, and hear from the families of the victims.

Then go to a meeting of the four, their agreement to participate, and then have them doing things to try to win various prizes. Each set of four can go four weeks, until one is left and he/she gets to pick their manner of death, while it is broadcast, live, with a two hour media blitz. They get to pick their outfit to wear, their last meal, and what music they want played. They can jump off the grand canyon, die of smoke inhalation in a limo, whatever. People are beyond sick about this so why not just show it on TV?

Hell, we can even make it like American Idol. Call in to vote for their last meal, etc. The weekly winners can get a bonus like better meals, a cushy mattress, or free pay-per-view for a week.

People love reality TV. They would pay to see this stuff. Our society would pay to see a beheading. Didn't executions used to all be public? [Snigger]

[ 03. August 2014, 14:11: Message edited by: Charlie-in-the-box ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Subscribing to the notion that we allow government to exist because it does things more efficiently for us collectively than we can do ourselves means that we view government as us, writ large. When a government takes action – we are taking that action.

Several people here have hypnotized that they could not be retained if someone killed their child. I understand the feeling. When someone has threatened either of my sons I am filled with the need to protect them. They are more precious to me than life itself.

Get past the fact that our system of justice, being human based, makes mistakes for the moment. Look at who might deserve to die for their sins. Let’s see. How about a horrible serial killer? Everyone can agree we don’t want a serial killer hanging around.

How about the guy you see murdering a convenience store clerk during a robbery? Bad person, no doubt?

What if wither was your son, or daughter? Would you feel differently?

How about someone standing at the US Mexican border shooting the children trying to sneak into the US?

If they should be executed, how about the people standing at the border urging our government to throw them out; meaning that they are highly likely to die because death is what they were fleeing in the first place? A little too far? Did you think about it for a second?

Go out further. How about the people who make immigration policy? Or, the people who buy drugs which it what fuels a lot of this? Maybe the gun manufacturers and dealers who know a significant chunk of their income comes from drug cartels south of the border? Some of those folks need to die for the common good?

A Buddhist Monk once said “You cannot cure hate with hate.” We are not curing hate based crimes with hate. We are not curing violence with violence. We are acting upon the same base instincts we condemn when we do the same thing through the State.

Dressing up hatred and violence through some “humane” sounding way of killing seems to me to serve only as a way of making us feel like we are administering justice rather than revenge. When we as a government kill people it is US killing those people. We, individually and collectively are depriving some mother of her child to exact revenge.

Do you think that mother will think it is all OK because her child died painlessly? Or, do you think we might perhaps have started another cycle of hatred and revenge?

[ 11. August 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Tortuf ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Long time no see Tortuf. Welcome back. [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0