I am vehemently opposed to capital punishment, but I must profess some ignorance regarding the subject’s history. How were the methods of execution selected? How does capital punishment not fall under “cruel and unusual punishment”? As I’ve heard it (and I could be misinformed), the death penalty is not to meant to exact revenge; rather, it is meant to be used as a “last resort” when rehabilitation does not seem likely, or when the crime committed is beyond heinous. If that is the case, then why not choose more humane or just plain efficient methods? The electric chair is one glaring example of gross inefficiency. Everywhere, doctors are able to stop the heart for surgical purposes. Why not use a similar method?
I’m moving this thread over to Great Debates, which is probably where it should have been posted in the first place.
Lynn
I don’t know all that much about this, but I can tell you that as far as I know, they DON’T use the electric chair anymore. The executions are done by lethal injection.
Well, I think you may have asked 2 different questions. throughout history capital punishment has had many different purposes. The “last resort” argument you suggested only applies to the period when criminals were thought to be “rehabilitatable”. Be fore that laws simply imposed punishments. Death, then, was the ultimate punishment. I can understand a justification for the death penalty on the grounds that some crimes effectively amount to giving up of the criminal’s right to life. That is, there are some crimes for which the death penalty may be morally justifiable.
As to the methods, I think that many forms of execution were selected to inspire horror. For some time, death was carried out by torture. The guillotine was invented to provide a quicker beheading. Its efficiency ended up adding to its horror. I think in general, methods of execution are selected for the comfort of the executioners. What difference can the last few moments make compared to months or years of anticipation? I think the only “humane” way to execute someone is to let them go and then assasinate them when they least expect it.
Just MHO
Exactly. The deterrent effect was one of the most important reasons for having public executions in the early days. Executions were considered educational, especially for children, who might be turned away from a potential life of crime by seeing the horrible punishments inflicted on offenders.
Two factors played into how one was executed: status and the nature of the crime. English commoners were hanged (which was considered to be a somewhat disgraceful demise) whereas the nobility were granted the more “dignified” beheading. Commoners were rarely spared the full horrors of the “traitors death” (which included castration and evisceration while the victim was still living) but the nobility often had their sentances commuted to simple beheading sans the torture.
The nature of the crime could greatly change one’s punishment. Whereas a murderer might just be hanged, a woman who murdered her husband was often burned alive. There were also harsher deaths for those who had killed their “betters” because not only was it a murder, it was an upset of the social order.
Many states retain the option other methods, including electrocution, hanging and firing squad, mostly so they have a fall-back if lethal injection is ever legislated against. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004916.html
I don’t know if you will be back to this thread OneNote, but I hope we will see you in here again.
In a historic sense (Europe), executions often was a tool utilized by religious or political leaders to do away with their opponents, ref. medieval times in Britain or the Inquisition. More seldom was executions a preferred method to deal with criminals.
In the US on the other hand, executions became a swift and effective way to deal with crime in an enviroment where the law was much more difficult to enforce. It became part of the culture.
This is of course not a definite answer, just a historic glimpse.
As to the questions in the OP:
I think the method of executions is based on culture, opportunity and cleanliness. In the old west people were hanged because a rope was always available. Today a lethal injection is used because it’s clean, not because it’s quick. The most efficient way to kill someobody is probably to hang some explosives around his/her neck and use a remote detonator. Beheading also works nicely.
An interesting sidenote is that in Texas the legislators recently outlawed the use of those drugs used in executions when putting pets and reptiles to death because of the pain they may cause. But ironially it’s legal to use those drugs to execute people.
And the reason why capital punishment is not regarded as “cruel and unusual punishment” is in the phrase. It’s “cruel and unusual punishment”, not “cruel or unusual punishment”. As long as a majority of states has it on the books and it doesn’t look messy, it’s not likely to be outlawed.
is it right?
Sure. If some guy killed 50 people, why would he not die?
In prison people get free food, free room and board, and cable tv.
This is not a just punishment in my eyes.
is it right?
Sure. If some guy killed 50 people, why would he not die?
In prison people get free food, free room and board, and cable tv.
This is would not a just punishment in my eyes.
IANAL, but I think one of the issues pertaining to whether executions are “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Constitution is that the Fifth Amendment states that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Sounds to me like the Constitution is pretty clear that capital punishment was not considered cruel.