If Capital Punishment Must Be The Law Of The Land, What Is The Best Way To Administer It?

There was a sci-fi story where criminals were transported into Earth orbit, imprisoned in glass capsules and left to orbit Earth until those capsules burnt up in the atmosphere for the masses to see.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: smurfy

My position is that I do not oppose it and any means of getting rid of deserving individuals that doesn't torture them in the process is humane.

Is that explanation sufficient?

Who are you to say they deserve it.

Your discussion is not on topic. The post was not a debate about should or shouldn't we. The post is about the best method and that's pretty much it. Stay on topic, OK?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Holy sh*t! Are you serious???
Whilst I might agree with the sentiment, the method might be a bit extreme.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Again:
Your discussion is not on topic. The post was not a debate about should or shouldn't we. The post is about the best method and that's pretty much it. Stay on topic, OK?

a reply to: TrueBrit

just to point out - sluicing the liquid slurry of the executed into a swerage system = very bad idea

abottoires etc have to have a dedicated waste system for blood etc

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Harpua
apparently it actually costs more to execute prisoners.

That is purely a product of endless appeals. Personally I believe that is intentional. Those lacking the spines required to actually punish and deter capital crimes made the system so full of red tape it became more expensive to execute purely as an additional tool in their efforts to end capital punishment.

Bottom line in my mind is there should be no such thing as a life sentence. If someone is such a piece of crap they can never be trusted in society again, then they're worthless and need to be culled, period.

I've long said there should be no life sentences for the same reason... I rather not pay to keep someone alive that is so dangerous we can't let them out in the public again. Just get it over with. If anything, the life sentence is inhumane.

I think we should just drag the guilty out back and double tap them. Beheadings. Gallows. Anything is far cheaper and more efficient than the system we have in place now.

Comedian Rob Harris voices my opinion...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: yuppa

yuppa,

Please explain... why is my suggestion horrifying to you? I assure you, I only suggested what I did, because it eliminates the main issues from a humane perspective, which is that people suffer when they die, or fail to by other methods, but suffering is impossible via this method, because there is no time for suffering. There is no creeping death, no slow action of chemicals on the body, no possibility of crippling injury and extended agony. Just bang, gone.

Yeah,but thats the killing. the mental torture of it will lead to increased problems. such as more criminals getting more extreme to avoid it. Driting off to sleep is inhumane? shoot dont even need a execution room. just pump in nitrogen slowly and they pass out and die. redesign death row with specialized cells that the floor lowers to allow them to take the body after execution.

a reply to: face23785

And why would that be? If it's good enough for the military it's good enough for some scumbag civilian who murdered a child.

Do you have any idea what happens to child killers in prison? Execution would be more humane.

a reply to: CharlesT

Spike to brain stem.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: CharlesT

Ii don't think it matters nor does any good anyway.. Yeah... give them death. Great... Like "That'll teach him now he's dead. Yeah! "


No matter how...drugs, hanging, firing squad, electric chair etc... It doesn't seem to deter others at all committing crimes.. but I don't think we should have to board and feed them for life in prison either...

Maybe abandonment to some God-forsaken island with nothing.. "Naked and Afraid"!!!!!!

No interest in teaching, nor even deterrent....simply removing from the earth, in a cheap and reliable manner, those who have been proven beyond doubt, to no longer deserve air.
I quite like true brit's method, can even hear the theme song......

.....stop, hammer time.....

Rocket sled, aimed at said Acme Anvil.

Why not opiates?

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Again:
Your discussion is not on topic. The post was not a debate about should or shouldn't we. The post is about the best method and that's pretty much it. Stay on topic, OK?

I was on topic. The death penalty is pointless.. Just as the other examples.

As far as HOW to? It doesn't really matter how, now does it?

Shove 'em off a Cliff..

a reply to: vonclod

Why not opiates?

It creates market incentives for pharmaceutical companies. There is a prison-industrial complex that makes money from the taxpayer. Big Pharma would like a bigger share, especially now that people are catching on that they are responsible for starting the "opioid crisis."

a reply to: CharlesT

I would vote in favor of bringing back public hangings.

The execution of criminals has long been touted as not only a punishment of the guilty but also a deterrent to future crimes.
If this were truly the case, cries would have dropped over time after each execution was carried out. The means of execution has taken the "feelings" of the criminal to the point where they are treated much better than their victims.
Maybe a different direction should be taken in order to better deter crimes in the future.

a reply to: UKTruth

I thing it is worth investigating, precisely because it ticks all the boxes that people frequently complain about.

People complain about effectiveness, how a kill cannot be guaranteed, and of course failed kills leads to serious injuries and undue physical agony, which can lead to lawsuits and political pressure being used against the system... Ugly business all round.

People complain about costs too, and there are quite a few involved with an execution, that people just do not think about. You have the requirement for the time of medical professionals to administer drugs and monitor the condemned persons stats as they shuffle off the mortal coil, or to reduce suffering in the event of a botched attempt at a kill, you have the costs of burial (in the event that the condemned person has no ally outside the prison, willing to accept the financial responsibility for their burial), the cost of the morticians time in preparing the body. This all adds up.

And so on and so on. All I am trying to do, is accommodate the complaints that have been made about current methodology by all sides, and come up with a solution which:

a) Cannot fail to kill, for which overkill is required.

b) Requires fewer resources in terms of consumables, like bullets, drugs, gas, rope and time.

c) Reduces the costs associated with processing the condemned during and after death.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yes they do, but its going to be a chemical break down container of some sort, like a septic tank or something... thats what I am proposing. I am not in any way suggesting adding that stuff to a network of storm drains or something... that would be a one way ticket to a serious pathogenic threat.

a reply to: TrueBrit

donating bodies to science for those without families is a good thing to do. then there is cremation. cheapest way to dispose of a body next to just throwing it in a ditch.

Nitrogen asphiaxation is quick and painless and will kill all human subjects. cheaper than machinery.

a reply to: yuppa

You know, they said that about gas chambers. Quick and painless they said. Of course, that did not stop condemned men beating their heads against the chamber walls, because the pain of asphyxia was driving them suicidal. Oxygen deprivation is a cruel, sadistic way to kill. It is not fast, it is SLOW.

Seconds is too long. An instant is all it takes to end a person, and that is the maximum allowable time, if humane treatment of the condemned is a concern. In order to ensure that no pain signal travel from any part of the body to the brain, it is necessary to entirely disrupt the whole body simultaneously, else wise, if you leave it intact during death, some part of the body will know agony. Why? Because the human body has a remarkable ability to fight, without conscious effort on the part of the person whose body is in question. It has certain autonomic functions, which regardless of the consciousness or lack thereof of the owner, kick in when the body is in crisis.

The only way to prevent drawn out, painful deaths, is to ensure the total obliteration of the target, from skull to toe tip, all at once, so that there is no time for any electrochemical signal to travel anywhere in the body. Any other method could either fail, or take much longer than anticipated in some subjects, leading to a painful and prolonged death. There is no humanity in taking that risk by using subtle methods to remove a persons soul from their body.

Tall tree, short rope. It's cheap, quick, and effective. A proven technology. All of that other stuff is bleeding heart BS.

Take every criminal who has committed a violent crime ( Murder rape ( of any type ) and so one put them all in the same prison lock down the whole place every one leave them then Nuk the site from orbit .

It is the only way to be sure .