And, medically speaking, why can’t that be guaranteed?
Frankly, I think I could pick something better.
After thinking over my original post, and UDS’s insights, maybe I need to change my core question: Why does anyone die like this? (same link)
Since the factual aspects of the original question have been addressed, and the OP appears to be interested in a broader discussion of the death penalty, let’s move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Sorry… yes, thank you!
Maybe we’re obligated to ensure that people don’t undergo this process at all?
But that, I realise, would be a complete hijack of the thread. So let’s park it.
Your position assumes that the individual prisoner is in a better position to pick a method that will minimise pain. That’s not obviously true. And popular perceptions about pain-free methods are not always accurate. Some people who die of recreational drug overdoses go to sleep and never wake up; others choke on their own vomit, or die convulsing. Or methods which are generally pain free may not be reliable - i.e. they may not kill you.
I think your position also ignores the constraints under which the states are operating. An anaesthetist could adminster a schedule of drugs to you that would, reasonably reliably, sedate you, put you to sleep and then kill you while unconscious in that order, but anaesthetists won’t do that, because ethics. So this isn’t an option that that a convict could choose, even if he were allowed a choice.
And, of course, you’re also assuming that the convict with the right to choose would adopt pain minimisation as his criterion. He might, in fact, pick an especially distressing mode of execution, in the hope that the state will find it difficult to hire anyone willing (and qualified) to do it. Or as a protest against executions, or his execution in particular. Or he might choose on other criteria, but make a choice which was, nevertheless, distressing for the staff involved. (Death by starvation, with some not very difficult management, is pretty pain-free.)
Finally, your assumption that causing him physical distress is barbaric, but killing him isn’t, is questionable. But, again, that strays towards territory that we probably need to steer clear of.
As I say, I’ve decided I must revise my original question. My first post was a little all over the place, partly from the head, and partly from the heart. As I started thinking about your points, it occurred to me that the innocence angle was merely what made the original scenario so compelling (since it’s the only way I can see this happening to me). After a bit, I realized that I’m obligated to ask, “Why should anyone feel the need to request a method of death that didn’t seem like torture and murder?” (If I were feeling particularly annoying, I’d ask “why don’t the people who sign off on, and carry out those botched executions face the same sentence for torturing and murdering a prisoner?”, but I’m not!).
Accepting the fact that people are put to death (else we wouldn’t be having this discussion), and accepting the fact, for the moment, that I can’t stop their dying, why should anyone have to face the prospect of spending 20 minutes frying like a hot dog, or clenched in excruciating pain while strapped to a gurney? Medically/scientifically, why isn’t this avoidable, and if it is, why isn’t it legally guaranteed to be avoided? I assume there are people out there who believe that at least some of these prisoners deserve a horrible death, but the state shouldn’t be among them.
I don’t necessarily feel that I’m better suited to choose my own painless method of death, and I don’t advocate letting prisoners choose any old method they can think up, but damn, based on those stories, I can’t help but feel I could pick something better. But, upon further reflection, I shouldn’t have to.
Something to keep in mind is that the anti-death penalty side is going to say exactly the same thing no matter what method you choose - that it is barbaric and cruel and causes horrible suffering.
The idea is to rule out all the traditional methods because they are cruel, and any new ones because they are unusual.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree, and I’m not trying to settle the question of whether people should be put to death. Much effort should be, and has been, spent on abolishing the practice. But in the meantime, as people are dying, as the state is forcing people to take that last step, I find it hard to believe that, in this day and age, that last step has to carry the possibility of smoldering or convulsing for minutes on end. Even if the state condemns a thoroughly guilty, unrepentant raping, murdering jackass to death, it doesn’t condemn anyone to torture first. Contemplating Charles Darnay in his cell, facing the guillotine, is what got me started thinking about all of this, but at this point, I might choose the blade over the needle or the switch, since I’d only have 10-15 seconds of horrible consciousness, as opposed to a half hour of writhing agony. I just don’t understand why it isn’t possible to pull off a consistently humane sentence, and if it is, why isn’t it enforced?
But I gotta admit, I’m startin’ to feel all alone on this…
Part of my point was that I wouldn’t necessarily take the word of the anti-DP side when it comes to descriptions of how much the condemned suffered when he was executed. Because if you were condemned (which God forbid) and got to pick your method of execution, they would say the same things no matter what you picked.
People who wanted to believe something reported that Terry Schiavoexperienced all kinds of things that weren’t necessarily true, and interpreted other things as evidence of consciousness that wasn’t there. It’s a natural mistake to make.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah! Understood… thanks!