I can’t put it into words, but there’s just something about the honorable gentleman’s name and his suggestion that makes me feel all warm and squicky inside.
But his thinking isn’t fiscally responsible. You’d have to pay for lion keepers and also feed them when they’re not participating in executions. No zoo would lend the state their beasts for the purpose since they don’t want their keepers attacked.
The guillotine has possibilities, but I wonder if he’d handle the basket with the severed head or mop up the blood spatter when things are over. Without knowing anything about Christian, I would guess he’s a chicken hawk who supports US wars, but doesn’t want to participate actively.
His bio is sketchy: http://vote-ok.org/Intro.aspx?State=OK&Id=OKChristianMike
As a chicken hawk (and I admit I could be corrected on that) I suspect he would not volunteer to clean up the gore after any kind of messy execution. And if he won’t, why should someone else be made to do so?
What these folks don’t seem to realize is that as much as a criminal might deserve execution, the many of the rest of us suffer when there is one. Especially if it’s botched.
I disagree. A zoo could save a lot of money by feeding prisoners to lions rather than buying Lion Chow. Texas alone might produce enough executions to keep them well fed.
Guillotines? George Carlin had a good idea on making those executions profitable. You put the prisoner at the top of a hill and then cut off his head. The head rolls down the hill. At the bottom of the hill are holes dug into the ground, and you let people bet on which hole the head falls into. Certain you could make enough to pay a good wage to a blood mopper.