After reading “A Tale of Two Cities”, ruminating on different methods of execution (not to mention Cecil’s articles on decapitation), and the horror of contemplating my own demise as I await a specific time, I wonder if a condemned person can arrange for a different method of death as a last request. Hearing stories of prisoners being paralyzed by drugs, but also awake, aware and in pain as they die, I can’t help thinking there are more humane ways to do this. Don’t get me wrong… some of these people may deserve an even more hideous execution, but plenty of innocent folks have been wrongly put to death, and while this is the ultimate injustice, adding the pain and misery of a cruel and unusual execution seems an avoidable circumstance. Should I find myself so falsely accused, could I request that I be placed in a closed car, with the exhaust pumped in? Or how about a simple IV that drains my blood to the point that I lose consciousness (it could all be donated after)? Is this a legal possibility? People die of drug overdoses all the time. Why is this so seemingly easy to botch in a clinical setting?
BTW, I’ve been reminded that death by CO poisoning can have it’s own drawbacks, such as nausea, etc., but the core idea still seems valid to me.
Cite for this please.
Or clarification if you’re talking world wide? Europe? US?
Seriously?
Cite.
(Yeah, you mean “in the US,” most likely, and most likely “in modern times.” But you didn’t say that, and it’s not relevant anyway, so there! :p)
This list gives a state-by-state breakdown. In some states some or all prisoners may select from a very short list of methods of execution; in other states it’s a fixed menu.
Sorry… I meant for the US, but I’m curious to know if such a thing could happen anywhere.
Thanks for the list! It’s looking like my best bet is to stay the hell out of trouble!
Yeah, Seriously.
The OP is taking about state actors executing people, and saying that she’d hate to be in a situation where the state chooses her execution method. And then states that “plenty” of innocent people have been executed. I’m fully aware that states such as Nazi Germany, North Korea, the USSR and the like have executed innocent people. But those nations would hardly be willing to let people choose their own fate.
Wanted to clarify that “plenty” doesn’t apply to modern western nations. Or I wanted a cite that it did.
“Plenty” is a very vague term. But it doesn’t mean a majority.
Let’s put it this way: Suppose X% of executions are of innocent people. If your doctor said you had such-and-such a disease, and an X% chance of dying from it, would you worry, or would you consider it negligible?
I wonder if there’s a balance between plenty and negligible.
Yes, but it’s negligible.
When it comes to wrongfully putting people to death, any number that isn’t neglible is “plenty”. In fact, any number that isn’t zero is “plenty”.
I humbly retract my use of the word “plenty”, and substitute “any”, since I feel certain it has happened, even though I don’t have a specific cite. Just the number of poeple exonerated over the past 20 years from Death Row due to DNA evidence would suggest someone is likely to have been wrongly convicted and executed in the 100 or even 50 years prior.
But that’s all beside the real point of the question. Looking at all of the accepted methods of execution, none of them are ones I would “want” to face. When I had minor surgery, I was out like a light in 3 seconds. After that, they could have cut my head off and I’d have been theoretically unaware. I’m just a little boggled by the degree to which states go to make the process difficult and unpleasant, given public opinion on the subject. I’m just thinking that, being my last act on earth, couldn’t I pick? Anything less seems needlessly cruel. Again, I understand that it IS the Death “Penalty”, and lots of folks may deserve to die, but what if one of them doesn’t?
Well, if one of them doesn’t deserve to die, the moral problem is hardly solved by allowing him to choose a method of execution that he hopes will be painless.
If it were me, and I knew I had no way out, I’d want that choice. It wouldn’t solve a moral problem, but would make my last moment more… acceptible? Bearable? Small comfort is better than no comfort.
But, aside from that, shouldn’t it be the duty of the state to come up with something more humane than inducing cardiac arrest, or frying under high voltage.
I guess I have 2 issues: 1) Isn’t there some better method, and 2) on the off chance that one might be innocent, couldn’t one choose?
Yes! That!
On the off-chance that one might be innocent, couldn’t one point out that one shouldn’t be put to death?
I don’t get this link you’re trying to make between the fallibility of the judicial process and the right to choose your own method of execution. If you think prisonsers are better able to identify painless methods of execution than the state is, then you could argue on general humane considerations that all condemned prisoners should have this right. But if your starting point is that the prisoner may in fact be innocent, the right to choose his own method of execution doesn’t look like the obvious conclusion to draw.
After all, suppose a person is sentenced to imprisonmnt rather than to death. He may, of course, be innocent. Is your conclusion that he should therefere be allowed to choose his own prison regime?
Not exactly “plenty,” but there is at least one pretty shocking example of an innocent man getting the death penalty in modern western nations: Timothy Evans, executed in Great Britain for the murders of John Christie. Christie testified against Evans, but was himself the real killer, and a serial killer to boot. Evans dies for Christie’s crimes, due largely to Christie’s testimony against him. Not trying to make a point, just throwing it out there for conversation.
Being sentenced to prison isn’t necessarily designed to be the last thing the prisoner ever does. Even if it is, the prisoner has the rest of their life to fight for freedom. A condemned man as well, yes, but theoretically a shorter time.
If an innocent person is being put to death, the justice system has already failed them spectacularly. Does it have to kick them in the ass on the way out the door, too? Even if every one so sentenced was completely guilty, the current methods seem needlessly barbaric. The idea isn’t supposed to be revenge or retribution, but carrying out a sentence (death), in a humane manner. I guess the idea of being there, in innocence, makes the situation more emotionally wrenching. Again, it doesn’t address a moral wrong, but couldn’t it possibly help? Aren’t we obligated to ensure that anyone undergoing this process be guaranteed of an experience no worse than falling asleep?