I vote guillotine.
Is “closure” just a euphemism for “vengance?” And is capital punishment required by the same human capacity for rage that causes homicide in the first place?
“I watched my daughter’s killer be flayed alive in the village square. It was a horrible thing to watch, but the shock of it balanced out the shock of discovering her body.”
or:
“I watched my daughter’s killer die painlessly on a gurney. I feel that he paid for a life with a life, but I am vindicated that I’m a better person than he was because we used as much kindness as possible.”
(this vindication is what I suspect is going on with methods of capital punishment becoming progressivley more emotionally sanitary. Murders themselves use whatever method is most expeditious: either horrific to express themselves, or “clean” to avoid detection, or simply to get the job done. Until killers start deliberately killing as painlessly as possible, I expect this trend will continue, just so that society can draw a nice, self-satisfying line between itself and “killers,” all the while killing people itself; both in prison, on the streets, and on the battlefield)
or:
“I can use a court-assigned password to log into the prison security camera and watch my daughter’s killer sitting in a small, bare room, reduced by boredom to a gibbering idiot, year after year.”
(The last scenario is my favorite, but it would never happen because we are just as merciful as we are rageful, and we’d have to let the guy read comics and watch TV and all the other stuff any of us would do if we were stuck at home alone on a long rainy weekend.)
I guess it’s just too much to ask of an irrational species to draw the clear line: good people don’t kill any people.
You got to admit, a line of det cord would end things pretty quickly … no pain going on there. messy as hell though. And has the advantage of needing absolutely no medical supervision … No head? Yup, definitely dead there <pronounce>
I am soooo going to hell, where is that handbasket?
Not sure if I would torture someone to death normally, but if someone killed someone in my family other than a quick clean shot, I would probably consider it. I do know that some rapist who got their hands and other body parts involved with one of my under 16 goddaughters better be glad they are behind bars and safe from me. In that case I would gladly do the prison time.
I would however have fairly little issue putting a noose around a neck, or pulling a switch, or pulling the trigger on a legal execution if hired as an executioner. But I dont consider the common methods to be cruel or unusual. I will note that where I can do my own injections, I am not trained as a phlebotomist nor to set IVs.
Why can’t they find an IM execution drug cocktail? Any ham handed guard can be taught to give an IM injection. Took me about 5 minutes to learn and about 20 minutes of practice to give myself non-autoinject shots, and 5 minutes and 1 try to do autoinject shots.
Starving Artist, are most people here even aware of Paul Bernardo and what he did?
Besides letting people google it, you should give a synopsis…just for perspective on where you are coming from.
Thanks, but I thought I did. I described some of what he did, and my feeling was that that served as the synopsis and provided the needed perspective to understand my feelings with regard to what I feel should have been his punishment.
I’d like to see some cites. And not – “Everyone knows this!” Or “I’ve seen it happen!!!”
I’d also like to see a cite for your claims of population density for states that do not have the death penalty.
I gave you cites. And perfectly valid ones too. Cites are supposed to be evidence of how someone came to be of a certain belief (or in this case, knowledge). I directed you to perfectly obvious illustrations as to how severity of punishment inhibits crime, and how that is reflected in the penal code. (I also pointed out that even children understand this simple concept.)
You, on the other hand, seem to think cite = documentation, and it ain’t necessarily so.
I didn’t make any claims about population density.
Cite generally does mean reference to an outside source.
Cite: Cite Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Ahem, I direct your attention to post 57 in this thread
I referenced every legal penalty on the books. Admittedly I didn’t reference them by statute or code, but everything I said equated to them and they are an outside source. Seriously. Something like the second definition in your link: “to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example…”
Damn it, you’re screwing up my trap. Stop it. I said nothing about population density. (Not that it would matter anyway.)
So much for this not becoming a debate about the death penalty itself. Oh, well. Probably a futile request to begin with.
Well, as I said a minute ago I refrained from posting further information about Bernardo upthread so as to avoid a possible hijack of the thread. Still, don’t you think your OP was pretty much answered and played out by then? However, if you still want to keep the thread on topic and regard the current conversation as a hijack or derailment I would certainly honor that request.
Filling the execution chamber with nitrogen would be the most humane. People would pass out pretty quickly, without trauma, and soon die.
CO2 is a bad idea. It’s actually the buildup of CO2 that leads to the suffocation sensation in people–not the lack of oxygen. So CO2 would only increase trauma and panic.
Helium. Put the condemned party into a cell and begin pumping in helium to replace the air. Give him a microphone so he can spend his last minutes decrying the criminal justice system and justifying his crimes. Death will be painless by what I’ve heard, and possibly entertaining.
Shove up in that handbasket, I’m sure there’s room for one more.
Sorry, I read the wiki page, and the crime library page. I did find one woman who was stabbed twice in her butt, but I didnt read anywhere where he episiotomied her anus for sodomy … maybe Im not reading the right reports.
Though I actually do read crime library a fair amount [to see where csi and law and order are getting their stories mainly, or ‘fact’ checking crapumentaries on the hitler channel about twue cwime]
passes over the cookies. Save some, Im sure there will be more along in a minute
Assuming that the death penalty is only meted out for the deliberate taking of another persons life and the destruction that can cause to family members of the deceased, the only person entitled to take the life of a convicted killer, should be a direct family member or someone assigned by them.
Then, a year after the conviction, said family member or representative, should be allowed to mete out their own punishment in whatever way they see fit as long as it can be achieved within a cell. The prisoner should be waiting, conscious and restrained as he watches the Victim Avenger choose his weapon from a varied selection visible through the bars, and then await his fate with the same sense of hopelessness that his/her victims may have felt.
At least this way, the state would only be facillitating revenge, rather than carrying it out itself.
Man, that guy must still be in therapy after seeing that.
And you can add a participatory element for the general public, as suggested by George Carlin. You let the head roll down a hill with a seris of holes in the ground at the bottem. People can bet on which hole the head would fall into.
Well while there is a degree of truth to this, it doesn’t paint the whole picture. If we assume people commit crimes based on a rational decision making process (which is unlikely, but hey, let’s go with it for now), then the severity of the punishment is only one factor involved in that decision.
As far as I can see, the crime will be committed if:
(Utility level if crime is committed - Utility level if crime is not committed) (i.e. the net gain in utility from doing the act) > Punishment (including social ostracism etc) * chance of conviction
In theory, at least, increasing the level of punishment reduces the likelihood the crime will be committed. However, the smaller the chance of being convicted, and criminals very often think that chance is very small indeed, the more you need to boost the level of punihsment to have a noticeable effect.
More effective is reducing the utility level of the crime (by such factors as giving people more to lose by committing the offense) or increasing the perceived likelihood of conviction, through, for example, better funded police forces.
There is a further danger to your extreme torture type scenario - it may actually reduce the perceived chance of conviction. Many people out there would be a lot less likely to convict someone if they saw the penalty as being what you suggest.
Now, starting to remove the assumptions about how people act, your suggestion works even less well. I find it someone implausible to believe that a child murderer will look at a situation where he faces life impirsonment with constant abuse from inmates and guards, or even the death penalty after years of constant abuse from inmates and guards, and decide the muder is worth while, but will decide it isn’t worth while if there is a degree more pain inflicted first. Just doesn’t make sense to me. He doesn’t think he is going to get caught, and so once punishments reach a certain level of severity, making them more sever doesn’t make a blind bit of difference.