I heard on the news for a second time that someone pushed someone else onto the New York subway track. If the perpetrators are caught, should they be punished in like manner, by being thrown in front of some train (in a controlled environment of course?) This is assuming capital punishment is legal? Or would this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
I’m thinking that “an eye for an eye” is making a lot of sense here. What do you think?
Um, no. Do you actually want people working for the government who professionally rape and beat people to death? What kind of people do you think are actually willing to do such things?
And, yes, that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. That’s why we kill people who do it.
No. There is a clear moral line between murder and execution, and it should not be thinned or tarnished.
Hell no. In fact, this question highlights the reason the death penalty should be abolished. Perhaps those criminals deserve to die, but the government shouldn’t have the right to kill them. I don’t want to be governed by vengeful murderers, just as I don’t want to be governed by rapists, torturers and subway pushers.
The government simply should not be in the killing (nor raping, torturing and pushing) business.
The purpose of capital punishment is ostensibly justice, not revenge. There’s no purpose served in “symmetric” executions other than satisfying bloodlust.
Beyond that, it increases the probability of mishaps and makes for a harder job for the poor schmoes who have to guard the prisoners and execute the punishment, not to mention being likely more expensive.
Of course. Instead of shooting him the U.S. should have crashed an airplane into Osama’s house.
Why are you thinking that? What would it achieve, in your view, that current methods of justice lack?
Higher ratings.
You’d think they’d attempt to broadcast executions now if that were the reason.
No, the real reason is more votes. Whipping up the base by picking on an unsympathetic scapegoat. Classic politics.
Fortunately, I think (I hope) we’ve gotten past the stage in our social evolution where this kind of thing would garner a majority (or even a substantial minority) of support. Still, there are tons of people who would vote for it in a heartbeat.
For this crime, a good public flaying would be more appropriate.
Or we could take a vote from all the RO’ers and pick the method with the most votes.
Robots, duh!
Or: life without parole, the reality show. Tune in to watch “Vivisepulture-vision!”
Week after week of the condemned drawing crude pornos on his cell wall so as to have something to jack off to, for fifty years.
Or: sentenced to “You Can’t Imagine.” A processed death implicitly horrific but kept strictly secrets except for a handful of processors and cleaners. Judge, jury, politicians and public at large are kept sanitized, and no would-be killer can fantasize on how tough & nihilistic he’ll be facing death, or find psycho-sexual arousal at the prospect of execution a-la Albert Fish. All anyone knows is that they can’t imagine what happens.
Well, if the guy who lethally injected John Wayne Gacy had been dressed up like a clown, I wouldn’t mind.
Don’t forget the part where we should’ve first figured out how to revive him after the exectution, then execute him again, then repeat the process about 3,000 times.
No. If we’re going to kill someone, we should do so in as quick and painless a manner possible.
No. Executions shouldn’t be performed at all, on account of the fact that capital punishment is wrong, always and everywhere.
If it makes you feel any better, I’ll concede that murders also shouldn’t be performed at all.
P.S.
No, there isn’t. See above.
If for no other reason, it sounds pretty difficult logistically. What if someone commits murder by arson? How do you make him die the “same way”? Does any fire do or do you have to burn him along with a house? If you need a house, you can’t just put him in a normal house, since it’s pretty easy to escape.
How would you get the controlled environment for the train execution? The government would probably need its own train and tracks, since letting someone borrow your train for a reason like this seems like a huge liability issue. So it would have to build its own special execution tracks and it would have to buy a train, which we don’t even know the manufacturer would sell (some corporations balk at being the manufacturer of execution supplies, which is why states keep having to switch lethal injection drugs). Maybe some person of questionable scruples has a used train they’d sell, though. But that’s still a huge expense for a tiny fraction of murders.
If the victim had a chance to fight back, do you give that to the condemned? If it was, say, a stabbing, the victim probably had the chance to get a few good kicks in, so do you just put the condemned in a room with a guy with a knife or do you tie him down first? If you tie him down, how is it the same?
death by Bunda!
This is a chilling thought to me. Even more so than the fact that the state finds it necessary to put some of its citizens to death.
Some here may find the documents of the Samson family, executioners to the royals of France, an interesting read. Those who inherited this job as a royal mandate weren’t necessarily inclined to murder, though at least one member of the family seemed to relish his work. Doing this job took a toll on the human spirit and it was reported that when his services were no longer needed the last in the line took his leave with relief.
A legal execution should be speedy, cheap, painless and as close to foolproof as possible. I would suggest an overdose of the least expensive, most rapid-acting anaesthetic available.
Speedy to save family members on both sides of the crime prolonged misery.
Cheap to save the state money.
Painless, keeping in mind that a certain percentage of the convicted may be sentenced in error.
Foolproof in the sense that if the overdose fails to kill in the predicted amount of time the condemned would at least still be in an anaesthesized state giving the executioner time to repair the malfunction and complete the task.
I am unclear why we use the methods we currently do which leave room for stealthy meddling for revenge or bungling which can create pain for all involved.
Well, it never did before, did it?