Herman Goering, second only to Hitler in Nazi Germany, was sentenced to death by hanging in the Nuremberg trials, but managed to take cyanide before his execution. To me, the key word in his sentence was “death”, not “hanging”, so the fact that he “cheated the hangman” is pretty irrelevant. I am assuming that the hangman was not given a fee for each execution he carried out, so what difference does it make how the condemned man dies? I am interested in everyone’s opinion, so please share yours.
There were places and times where the hangman was literally paid by the hanging. So the phrase just dates back to then. Doesn’t mean it has to be accurate for Goering.
I’d like to see some people die the most horrible death possible but that is problematic in a number of ways. If it can be determined that someone deserves to die as a just punishment for their willful acts it’s best to get it be done quickly. And to avoid the possible problems associated with execution I’m fine with the evil son of a bitch killing himself. Should be an option for anyone sentenced to death or life in prison.
Back in the day, hangmen were paid by the drop. Not in this Göring’s case, but that’s the origin of the phrase.
The rest of the story goes to the point of historical public executions.
Having the public be able to watch the spectacle of the condemned being killed in cold calm blood by the government was a big part of the point of executions. It was a very sobering reminder to everyone else of just how real “fuck around and find out” can be when the government is involved. Be that government some US Wild West sheriff, or old King Henry III back in Ye Olde Darke Ages. Or the judges of Nuremberg.
The defendant committing suicide deprives the government of the opportunity to stage a spectacle. It’s one last defiant FU by the condemned aimed straight back at his tormentors. He managed to cheat the government (the metaphorical “hangman”) out of their full measure of satisfaction.
Again the Nuremberg executions were not public spectacles. But, just like the trials, they were intended to remind the future wannabe tyrants of just what the price of leading a war can be if you fail at it.
One hopes we’ll see Putin treated to that experience for the same reasons, but I strongly doubt it’ll go that way.
Or that he’ll be put to work rebuilding houses, schools, hospitals, etc. Or that dam. But I agree, not much chance of that
And then he will fall out of a window.
At least three reasons:
-
There have been many cases of a reprieve granted moments before a scheduled execution. You don’t want someone killing himself and losing that chance, however microscopic it might be.
-
The theory that even a murderer should be given a chance to confess his sins and die shriven and go to heaven. If he commits suicide then he goes to hell.
-
The justice system controls his destiny. They decide the time and manner of his death. He doesn’t get to go out on his own terms.
Yeah, I think suicide while facing execution is almost the same as execution itself. I don’t understand people who get in a tizzy about “He cheated the executioner by taking life himself!”
He didn’t take his own life on his own terms, he did so under coercion.
Concur with this. The practical effect of a criminal committing suicide on the eve of his execution may be the same, but the propaganda effect is quite different. (Also, historically, hanging was seen as a particularly ignominious way of dying – if you were a noble, you generally got the “privilege” of being beheaded, instead. I don’t know to what extent those cultural associations were still in place in the mid-twentieth century, though.)
Hanging is in fact the key word in this instance. Execution by hanging is seen as a dishonorable death in the military. Goering specifically committed suicide to avoid hanging after his request for a firing squad was denied.
The enormously corpulent Goering would be found guilty, at the Nuremberg Trials, for crimes against humanity: chief among them, issuing written orders for the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” in 1941. He was condemned to death by hanging, but protested the sentence as being unworthy of his status as a soldier, and requested, instead, a firing squad. When denied, he secretly took poison – committing suicide just hours before he was to be hanged.
Notably, the only US soldier tried and executed for desertion in WW2, Eddie Slovik, was shot by a firing squad, not hung.
-
Who is “you” in that sentence? Most reprieves are political acts, not legal acts. If “you” is the general public, the sooner the convicted condemned bastard is dead the better. A suicide prevents the governor or whoever from getting last minute cold feet for no reason beyond publicity. Last minute exonerations are a different thing. But ultimately quite rare. And certainly not relevant to Nuremberg.
-
An interesting theory. A bit quaint in the modern world, but I expect it held sway 100+ years ago in nominally Xian nations.
-
This.
Simon Sebag Montefiore, in his histories of the Stalin era, writes that it was called “spitting in the face of the Party,” as if the dedicated Communist would be violating a lifetime dedicated to justice for the People by avoiding torture, show trial and execution.
I think people don’t feel they got justice when the person offs themself, even if the end result is the same. Like when the boss finally decides to fire that asshole employee that everyone hates, but they quit instead. You still don’t have to work with him, he still doesn’t have a job, but you wanted to see him punished.
Active shooter situations are kinda similar. They’re different in that there’s no trial/sentencing, but people get angry when someone kills a bunch of people at a school or mall and then shoots themself. There’s a feeling of ‘they got away with it’ (or at least that justice wasn’t served) when that happens.
I disagree with you entirely on this. Reprieves are granted for many reasons, including a chance to review the evidence, or because it would be unjust to kill this particular person. The idea that they should be killed quickly in order to prevent this is barbaric.
And are you aware that there were in fact several exonerations at the Nuremberg Trials? Or at least, insufficient evidence to merit a guilty verdict. Even at Nuremberg, it is right to consider the possibility that a last minute review might overturn the verdict, and therefore not let them die before the appointed time.
I think with Goering, it was 100% number 3. I sort of doubt there were many people thinking he was somehow going to be given the chance for a last-second conversion and redemption (although religiously that is possible), and there was zero chance for a last-second reprieve.
As far as the gruesome death part goes, I’m not sure if it would have been worse to go via cyanide or via John C. Woods’ bungled hangings.
This is what I was told, too. Soldiers of defeated armies can expect to die, but expect it to be more or less the same way their comrades on the battlefield did – by bullet or blade.
Hanging was how criminals were executed. By picking hanging as the execution method, the Nuremberg judges were indicating that this wasn’t just the usual “honourable” conflict between countries that sometimes results in warfare – these were crimes.
Although, the guy who quits is probably punished more than the guy who’s fired. It’s a lot easier to get unemployment if fired than if one quits. And it’s also easier for the company if the employee quits.
I don’t want to capture mass shooters alive for the sake of justice. I want to capture them alive so we can study them. People like that are broken, and we would do well as a society to figure out how they’re broken, ideally so we can fix them, or hopefully at least prevent others from getting broken in that way, or to spot the broken ones before they kill.
You do understand unemployment compensation isn’t a consideration when it comes to a conversation about being put to death vs suicide, right? It’s was a hypothetical to make a point, not a one to one comparison. Besides, my point was about how the other people feel about the situation, not how the person being fired (or put to death) feels about it.
Your reasoning for wanting them captured alive is why you don’t want them to kill themselves, other people have their reasons, but my point still stands in that that we the people prefer to see criminals dealt with (be it jail, put to death or being studied) and may feel cheated if the person commits suicide before that happens.
This was certainly true for Germans of that time.
For example, Nazi generals Keitel & Jodl protested greatly that they were sentenced to hang, claiming as military men they should be executed by firing squad. This was denied, as they had been convicted for criminal actions, not military ones.
Honestly I would not have minded had Goering been executed by hanging. Upside down by his toes and left until he shriveled up and died.