The least cruel method of execution?

hobitbob wrote:

Perhaps abolishing the death penalty would be a better idea.

I favor that remedy, but at the state level.

0 Replies

I understood that Jack Kevorkian used a 2 drug method, one to put a person to sleep, and another (Potassium chloride) to stop the heart. This seems relatively safe, as long as a sufficient amount of the first drug is administered. I see no need for that second chemical thats used in legal lethal injections, the mere possibility that they could wake in a paralyzed state is enough to throw that option out the window.

Also, can't a person overdose on morphine? Why don't they just do that?

Lastly, what about carbon dioxide? You read about people who die in garages with their car running and all of that. That option couldn't possibly be too painful. It seems like it "sneaks up" on you.

I just don't understand why a reasonably humane way to put a person to death hasn't been figured out by the law by now, when a little research could surely answer that question.

0 Replies

The true, unacknowledged purpose of capital punishment is to inspire fear and awe--fear and awe of the State.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The true, unacknowledged purpose of capital punishment is to inspire fear and awe--fear and awe of the State.

If that were true, why not just kill randomly selected citizens on a regular basis?

0 Replies

Why do we even care about the "least cruel method" of execution? For those who support capital punishment on the grounds that it deters future criminals while demonstrating the state's ultimate right to punish, why make the condemned's death "easy"? Shouldn't we prefer the "most cruel method" of execution instead?

It has always struck me as an absurd contradiction to support capital punishment but insist upon the most humane method of execution. Why should anyone care how much suffering the condemned prisoner experiences? Why should anyone want the condemned to "feel no pain"? At the point where the condemned is executed, he is playing a "civic role" -- his death is a symbol, a means to an end. His death, in other words, is meaningless if it means only something to him.

As such, the method of execution must, first and foremost, serve society's interests, not the condemned's. Every execution must embody, in itself, the rationale for capital punishment -- otherwise, it is simply murder. Consequently, if we are really serious about the value of capital punishment as a means of deterrence and as a demonstration of the state's interest in justice, wouldn't it be preferable to execute the condemned, in the most excruciatingly painful manner possible, on live TV?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

It has always struck me as an absurd contradiction to support capital punishment but insist upon the most humane method of execution.

Believing someone should forfeit his or her life for extreme criminal acts does not mean you wish that person to suffer. I'm puzzled as to why you think the two go hand in hand.

(Oh, and again, I do not personally favor the death penalty.)

0 Replies

And there's that little caveat in the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment. Now, just about everybody is a little selective in when they actually care about constitutionality, but I imagine it's pretty important to death penalty advocates that they don't offer up easy grounds on which their preferred mode of punishment can be declared unconstitutional.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

And there's that little caveat in the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment. Now, just about everybody is a little selective in when they actually care about constitutionality, but I imagine it's pretty important to death penalty advocates that they don't offer up easy grounds on which their preferred mode of punishment can be declared unconstitutional.

You know, you got me thinking...

I know it says no "cruel AND unusual" punishment, but that's quite a different thing than no "cruel OR unusual" punishment. My point is, wouldn't a punishment that was either unusual or cruel, but not both, be Constitutional?

I wonder... can anybody come up with some creative suggestions for methods that are cruel and ordinary or unusual and humane? Cool

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Believing someone should forfeit his or her life for extreme criminal acts does not mean you wish that person to suffer. I'm puzzled as to why you think the two go hand in hand.

Puzzled? Re-read my post. I gave my explanation there.

At the point where the state decides to execute someone, the manner of the condemned's death is no longer a concern solely (or even primarily) of the condemned. Since the state has decided to kill for reasons of policy, the manner of death should serve that policy. Otherwise (as I mentioned before), it is simply murder.

What, then, is that policy? Proponents of the death penalty typically cite two rationales: (1) deterrence; and (2) retribution. In both cases, it would seem that the most cruel form of execution should be employed: (1) because it would have more deterrent value (a horrible, painful death would, presumably, deter more criminals); and (2) a cruel death is arguably more "retributive" than an "easy" one. Making the execution less cruel, in contrast, runs counter to the policy reasons for having executions in the first place. Not only is it hypocritical to advocate both the death penalty and the "least cruel methods" of execution, but it is bad policy to do so.

patiodog wrote:

And there's that little caveat in the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment. Now, just about everybody is a little selective in when they actually care about constitutionality, but I imagine it's pretty important to death penalty advocates that they don't offer up easy grounds on which their preferred mode of punishment can be declared unconstitutional.

Certainly, from a practical political perspective, the Eighth Amendment's strictures against "cruel and unusual punishment" effectively outlaw the kinds of executions that death penalty proponents should be supporting. But then their proper response should be to advocate the repeal of the Eighth Amendment rather than emasculate the institution of capital punishment.

0 Replies

I've said it a million times...death is not enough punishment for bad guys........give them a deep rectal itch, the kind that feels like you've been stabbed, 24/7 for life, and make it 1/2 inch deeper than the length of your longest finger.......then put 'em in solitary and feed 'em jalapenos.....

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
The true, unacknowledged purpose of capital punishment is to inspire fear and awe--fear and awe of the State.

If that were true, why not just kill randomly selected citizens on a regular basis?

The death penalty would be even more effective, as a deterrent, if we
executed a few innocent people more often.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The death penalty would be even more effective, as a deterrent, if we executed a few innocent people more often.

We tried that in Illinois, dys: it doesn't work.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Believing someone should forfeit his or her life for extreme criminal acts does not mean you wish that person to suffer. I'm puzzled as to why you think the two go hand in hand.

Puzzled? Re-read my post. I gave my explanation there.

You seem to believe you answered my question, but I don't see the answer. I believe people can believe the death penalty is an appropriate remedy in some cases and still not wish cruelty on the condemned. You disagree. Fine.

0 Replies

Unusual AND humane......J-Lo sits on my face and I suffocate........hey, you asked. :wink:

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

You seem to believe you answered my question, but I don't see the answer. I believe people can believe the death penalty is an appropriate remedy in some cases and still not wish cruelty on the condemned. You disagree. Fine.

I have now explained my position twice, so I can only assume that you're being deliberately obtuse in your refusal to recognize that fact. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to explain one more time:

(at this point, I anticipate that Scrat will stop reading)

Those people who "believe that the death penalty is an appropriate remedy in some cases but who still do not wish cruelty on the condemned" are hypocrites who do not understand why they are supporting the death penalty. And they are hypocrites for the reasons that I cited in my previous posts.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Unusual AND humane......J-Lo sits on my face and I suffocate........hey, you asked. :wink:

ROFLMFAO!

0 Replies

Joe,

They are only hypocrites assuming they accept your criteria. Which is asking a lot. I personally find it absurd.

One can easily wish to use the death penalty as a deterrent while wishing to avoid barbarism.

You make the assumption that they are willing to have their society perpetrate any act and go to any length for the purpose of retribution and deterrence. That is an absurd cartoonish position that only few fools would hold. Most would have a less polarized and more balanced position.

Your contention that one must wish cruelty if they support the death penalty or be a hypocrite is absurd.

Balance in all things Joe, people can reasonably wish to use less barbaric methods of execution while still considering it a deterrent.

If you apply your own criteria, anyone who wishes prisons to serve as a deterrent for crime needs to wish them to be as inhumane as possible or be a hypocrite.

Again, an absurd notion. Most people who support the death penalty do not wish for such barbarism, and they are perfectly willing for death to be its own deterrent without resporting to absurd extremities in barbarism.

The logic you tout is only applicable assuming that death penalty supporters are willing to go to any length to provide a deterrent. This is not the case for the overwhelming majority.

0 Replies

Yeah, what he wrote! Shocked

0 Replies

More monkey wrenches to the "logic" being touted.

Assume one is willing for their society to go to ANY length to deter crime. Now also assume that they wish that barbarism in any form be a crime.

It does not make them a hypocrite to not wish to commit a crime to deter a crime. This simplistic approach will be faced with many such paradoxes.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

One can easily wish to use the death penalty as a deterrent while wishing to avoid barbarism.

Then they would wish for half-measures.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Your contention that one must wish cruelty if they support the death penalty or be a hypocrite is absurd.

And you attempt to support your position through mere repetition of an unsupported claim.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Balance in all things Joe, people can reasonably wish to use less barbaric methods of execution while still considering it a deterrent.

Then they would be fools.

Craven de Kere wrote:

If you apply your own criteria, anyone who wishes prisons to serve as a deterrent for crime needs to wish them to be as inhumane as possible or be a hypocrite.

Prison is already quite inhumane. Besides, incarceration can be justified for the rehabilitative function that it serves. The death penalty, in contrast, has no rehabilitative function. Therefore, people can support humane prisons and not be hypocrites. Supporters of "humane executions," on the other hand, are hypocrites.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Again, an absurd notion. Most people who support the death penalty do not wish for such barbarism, and they are perfectly willing for death to be its own deterrent without resporting to absurd extremities in barbarism.

Then they are fooling themselves.

Craven de Kere wrote:

The logic you tout is only applicable assuming that death penalty supporters are willing to go to any length to provide a deterrent. This is not the case for the overwhelming majority.

Then they are hypocrites.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Assume one is willing for their society to go to ANY length to deter crime. Now also assume that they wish that barbarism in any form be a crime.

Really, this is the best you can do? Murder is a crime, yet capital punishment is not. I'm sure that if "barbarity" were outlawed tomorrow, "legalized barbarity" could still exist in some state-sanctioned form.

Craven de Kere wrote:

It does not make them a hypocrite to not wish to commit a crime to deter a crime. This simplistic approach will be faced with many such paradoxes.

No, only your simplistic approach invites such putative paradoxes.

0 Replies

The least cruel method of execution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know