Well, if the idea is to just kill the guy, and we’re not out to punish him, I say we let him have a good time.
A heroin/cocaine speedball, six shots of Jack Daniels, and then put him in a room with a coked up hooker named Candy.
It’ll take the coroner two or three hours just to pry the smile off his face.
True. But there are other people to consider apart from the person to be executed. If minimising pain and ensuring a quick death was the only priority then the guillotine would probably still be in use. Doesn’t get much quicker or effective than that.
But there’s a problem with the guillotine. It’s messy. And messy means people have to clean it up. It’s one thing to cart off a body after a lethal injection, it’s another to pick someone’s head off the floor and sweeping up half a gallon of blood.
A bullet to the head has the same problem, if to a lesser extent, but the reason it’s not used might have more to do with the fact that in many (i’m guessing most) cases, using a gun to kill a person is exactly what the person was convicted of.
When it comes to capital punishment, the term humane has very little to do with the executed, in my opinion. The real meaning of the word is to make it seem cleaner and more clinical. Civilised. And that way removing as many similarities to murder as possible.
Dagnabbit!
“Doesn’t get much quicker or more effective than that.”
That is debatable, I suppose, as evidenced by the monthly “do decapitated heads remain conscious” GQ threads - although It is difficult to tell whether there would be any ‘phantom pains’ from the severed body (originating from the cut ends of all the nerves in the spinal column perhaps?).
I agree that a bullet in the head, although undoubtedly quick, does seem a bit of a messy and brutal way to do things.
Nobody has yet mentioned the possibility of deliberate bleeding to death; blood pressure drops, victim falls unconscious, death occurs.
As to whether I support the death penalty, I’m one of those that might consider it appropriate if there were a 100% sure method of establishing guilt. I might, but I still might not because of (what I perceive to be) the dangers of desiring to harm someone.
Supporter of capital punishment here.
Whichever methodology is chosen it should be immediate (especially for a violent crime) - Found guilty, walk out of the court room and that’s it. Done and over.
Yes, this does bring into the equation those who get framed, are badly represented or are actually innocent. But rather than leave someone on death row for 20 odd years before doing anything is stupid and a waste of taxpayer money.
Be it hanging, guillotine, lethal injection, or firing squad each has its pros and cons. Obtaining a consensus from the jury on which method to use could be a possibility. But then again that may hold things up further…
::shrug::
Not a supporter of capital punishment.
Really, any method of execution is humane if the condemned man is rendered unconscious first. Anesthetize him, and then throw him in the wood chipper. Doesn’t really matter, since he doesn’t feel it.
Welcome to Cuba. You’ll like it here. 
Wait a moment… did you just say that it is better to quickly execute someone who may be innocent than it is to waste time and money making sure?
No cite, but I seem to recall stories of the Chinese government in some cases billing the families of the executed for the bullets. How humane is that?
Abandon all right of appeal, which has numerous times in the past overturned previous convictions due to poor or compromised evidence. Right, got it.
Re: the OP, I believe there is no humane way of killing another person, whether in the commission or punishment of a crime. If what you want to do is remove the criminal from society, then imprisonment for life without parole is sufficient. If all you want to do is get rid of what society deems the useless or excessively dangerous, then kill 'em however you want, but let’s not pretend we’re being ‘humane’ about it.
Thanks for taking one for the team, Washte… oh, wait, you mean you aren’t volunteering yourself? 
I don’t mind the thought of killing people for justice. I don’t think we, as humans, are capable of enough certainty to do it.
Ammunition is cheaper and quicker than gas chamber, electrocution, or lethal injection.
I have to say that I am all for the bullet to the back of the head deal. And I also am all for immediate punishment. If someone is convicted of a capital crime, I really do not want to pay to support their criminal asses until someone gets around to nuking them.
Also, I think that the family of the victim should have the opportunity to do the shooting should they so choose.
As far as being concerned for what the witnesses may see? If they don’t want to see blood and gore, don’t go to an EXECUTION.
Please could you address the point about appeals and 100% certainty?
Just a note that the “eye for an eye” dictum was a means of limiting revenge to match the injustice done to you, not a go-ahead for capital punishment…
Nothing in this world is 100% certain- we could try and retry a person but there is never 100% certainty.
If you think about it. really in the scheme of things, defense lawyers are not there to prove that their client is innocent, they are there to confuse the jury into doubting actual facts, therefore not being able to come to a guilty ruling.
Additionally, automatic appeals are a waste of taxpayers time and money. If more criminals were punished in a swift manner, to the fullest extent possible, I feel that we would have a lot less criminals running around. Of course, that is my opinion.
And a lot more dead, innocent people - but that, too is just my opinion…
Grim
I do not agree with your statement; there are plenty of documented cases where the ‘actual facts’ were in fact fabricated, misinterpreted, irrelevant etc and convictions based on them were later overturned.
preacherswife:
It really chills the blood to think that someone with an attitude like yours is eligible to sit on a jury. You ought to pray that you never find yourself falsely accused of any crime, let alone murder, and that if you ever do go to court your jury has higher standards of reason than you do yourself. That’s not just my opinion – it’s the legal basis for every civilised country in the world.
Carbon dioxide asphyxiation.
I suppose, although I suspect my standards for “certain crimes” would be considered unusual.
They’re barbaric. It’s primitive and unsophisticated, but touches on an underlying truth; still, it can be replaced by a better understanding.
Whoops! My fingers kept typing when my mind had moved on…
That should be “nitrogen asphyxiation” instead of “carbon dioxide asphyxiation” in the above post. My sincerest apologies.
So if there were a lot of innocent people being falsly accused and then nuked, would that not
Why is it we are wasting time and money to retry criminals? Why not spend the money to redevelop our legal system so makes a little more sense?
I do not agree that everyone that commits a crime should be put to death, but what I do beleive is that I should have to pay for a capital murderer or a serial murderer to sit in prison for 10 years until we realize or prove or whatever that they are “REALLY” guilty. That shows serious flaws in our legal system that should be addressed so we stop wasting time and money.
I still stand with punishment should be swift. I do not agree with electrocution or gas chambers. If we are going to put someone to death, it should be quick. And I am sorry but I still also stick with the fact that the families of the victims should have the option to be the one carrying out the execution.