Or bullet to the back of the head like in China, where they do harvest organs of executed prisoners for transplant. In fact, I’ve read there are suspicions that some prisoners with a particularly choice organ get moved up in the queue.
How about going back to a brave, hearty execution style?
Capital punishment is barbaric.
I solved that problem.
For sheer entertainment value, that one’s really hard to beat.
There’s no evidence that capital punishment deters murders, and therefore many countries think it’s an unjustifiable act and have banned it.
It’s therefore hard to see why you would have a discusssion on making the actual act painless.
Innocent people have been executed - isn’t that far worse than worrying about the OP?
As others have said, you also take no account of what it feels like to be condemned to death.
(emphasis mine - heh)
For the record - it’s usually Versed. (pronounced verse-ED)
Which, it should be pointed out, is not an unusual level of hypocrisy. Most people like eating meat but would not want to see the process by which it is made, and are in favor of surgery while still being grossed out by it. Give people the option of being insulated from the unpleasant realities behind useful goods, and they’ll take it.
Bolding mine - since I’m going to jump on the word “useful.” We need concentrated protein in the form of meat, and, like hydrogen vs petro-fuels, our level of production/distribution isn’t equal to the alternatives. But what need does capital punishment serve?
Not blood-lust, since we say “that’s the impulse which motivated the person in the execution chamber; it’s not the reason we maintain that chamber ourselves.”
Not prevention. Murder occurs more in some societies than others based on complex factors in those societies, not simple “kill and you shall be killed” rules.
Not revenge. If that were the case, we’d handcuff the condemned to a stanchion in a mock-up of a convenience store or bedroom or whatever, and let the next of kin kill him in the same manner of death as his victim.
…Or maybe it is revenge. I did read somewhere (but neglected to write it down and carry it in my wallet in case I needed it for a cite - sorry) that the relatives of murder victims actually had little sense of “closure” after executions.
I also read somewhere that one of the most difficult things that armies do when training recruits is to get them to overcome the impulse to kill other human beings.
Perhaps, do you think that, with a few sad executions, people don’t want to kill each other, and once it’s done for them by the state, they derive little satisfaction from it? Why don’t we just rely on that natural state to keep the murder rate down, and separate those who’ve crossed that line and have taken another human life into a life of controlled hardship for the rest of their lives?
Really? And what if it was you being euthanized…for a crime you didn’t commit? Would you be ok with it then?
I know this isn’t the topic of the OP, I’m sorry, it just came up when I read it. I think there are certainly people who absolutely deserve to be euthanized, but until the system is truly flawless, absolutely perfect, ZERO errors…it’s indefensible.
Playing extreme devil’s advocate, here, but . . . why? If it benefits society overall, why does it have to be perfectly accurate? Yes, it’s a pity that one person dies when he doesn’t deserve it, but if one or more additional innocent lives are saved by the practice of the death penalty, to balance that one innocent death, doesn’t society as a whole come out ahead?
Well, so far, only one death row victim has been proven innocent after he was executed (and this was in Texas.) That’s pretty impressive. And keeping prisoners alive COSTS MONEY – I’d rather not pay billions of tax dollars to feed, shelter, and provide medical care for the world’s worst human beings. Just gas 'em all, who cares if a few innocents fall through the cracks.
Seriously? If I were falsely convicted (and didn’t have the money to pay a decent lawyer to reopen my case), I’d choose death over life in prison every time. Why, wouldn’t you?
I think that it is. No matter the arguments against the death penalty, it all seems to boil down to the American lust to kill. Our collective ego doesn’t allow us to admit that we kill because we enjoy it, so we go through rituals to convince ourselves that we are civilized. But if the motivation wasn’t bloodlust, we’d care more about executing innocent people; instead I see people just handwave that problem away. We don’t really care if the people being executed are guilty or innocent, just so long as we can kill someone.
Why should anyone care about a society that regards the individuals who comprise it as expendable ? That’s the point where you should stop worrying about the welfare of society, and start looking for a way to destroy it.
And I see no reason to beleive that it DOES benefit society to begin with.
Not really, since there isn’t much of an effort to check. Most people don’t care; they just want to kill someone. Anyone.
The innocents do. And how are the “world’s worst human beings” much worse than all the “kill 'em all, and who cares about the innocents” death penalty enthusists ? Does going through a legal ritual before killing make them morally superior, given their lack of concern over the killing of innocents ?
Because I recognize the potential consequences of my actions. Criminals do not. That’s what makes them criminals.
Death Penalty benefits society by (1) saving tax dollars, and (2) sending a message to all criminals that there are BIG consequences for murder (and, in some states, child rape.) Some criminals aren’t deterred by the idea of life in prison – heck, many repeat offenders simply don’t know how to behave outside prison, they have become institutionalized. So if a repeat offender wants to pick up his 3rd strike just so he’ll get 3 hots & a cot for the rest of his life, all on Uncle Sam’s tab, I’d rather it be a bank robbery or grand theft auto.
And some murderers are so psychopathic they don’t give a shit about whether they live or die, so lack of a death penalty won’t deter them anyway.
Actually, it costs more to execute someione than lock them up for life
And what about it’s uniform application? Minorities more often than whites, men more often than women, Renters more often than people who can mortgage property to pay legal costs. They all killed somebody, but some of them are going to die for it and others aren’t. Are you OK with why it appears that some aren’t?
How about this example: serial killer Gary Ridgeway killed at least 48 women, but to spare the state the cost of trying him for each murders (typo: to effect “closure” for the families), because he agreed to confess to most of them he’ll be allowed to live out his life in jail.
The same year Ridgeway was arrested, a punk in Des Moines Washington, a mile or two from Ridgeway’s house, was pulled over by a cop. The punk went into a panic and shot the cop dead. He was sentenced to death.
You should be thinking of the possibilities of rehabilitation by having the men on death row enrolled with the military on suicide missions. Send, say, a dozen of them, all convicted murderers, rapists etc behind enemy lines to carry out dangerous missions. The few that return can be pardoned.
I say we nuke 'em from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Actually, it should be more widely applied, but being sentenced to death seems to correlate with killing a stranger.
Again, an argument that Ridgeway should be executed, not an argument that the cop-killer should not be.
Regards,
Shodan
More like an argument that we do it to every killer, or we do it to no killers, since wheather you’ll be executed or not has more to do with factors that are unrelated to your crime (race, gender, income).
And if we unifromly condemn all killers, where do we draw the line on aggravating circumstances? Go back to Hammurabi, and execute masons whose buildings collapse and kill the occupants?
Rights and wrongs of the death penalty aside, killing a person by a painful or distressing method is morally worse than killing a person by a painless, not-so-distressing one, isn’t it?
However, I guess there’s a possibility that if it was made too nice and sanitary, that this might erode the hesitation to apply the punishment - if it’s not really that bad, then there could be a tendency to over-apply it.
So how about this: If we must have the death penalty, it should be made as painless and non-distressing as possible for the subject, at the same time as being made as messy and unpleasant as possible for everyone else, as a deterrent against excessive application.
Why are we arguing the merits of capital punishment in this thread? The OP wanted to discuss whether nitrogen asphyxiation would be a painless alternative method of execution.
I’m against capital punishment (on religious grounds), but until we can get it banned, a painless method is much preferred. Don’t make the perfect (no executions) the enemy of the good (painless executions).
How do we know decapitation is painless? The brain is left intact–why wouldn’t the subject feel pain?
Hanging is instant, if it’s done right. Too easy to botch, though. Same with electrocution.
The problem I see with asphyxiation is that it’s too slow. The subject will realize he’s passing while it’s happening. To me, that doesn’t pass the cruel test.
The Bosda Hat (have you applied for a patent yet?) would probably pass the cruel test (it’s instant and painless), but is too messy for regular use.