The Death Penalty -What's The Most Humane Approach

I realise that this is a very touchy subject, but I also think that it's a subject that's worth broaching.

Whether or not you are a proponent of the death sentence, what method of execution do you think is the most humane?

It can also be a discussion about this type of capital punishment as well.



[edit on 28/7/2007 by budski]

To not do it at all. Death is not a penalty, it is an escape (a very expensive one at that).

I appreciate what you're saying - I'm an opponent of the death penalty myself - but that's a small part of what's open for discussion.

To get the ball rolling, here's what I think about the recently used methods of execution:

Hanging: quick and sure

Electric Chair: Barbaric

Lethal Injection: Civilized

But I also think that the mental anguish of a condemned prisoner should be taken into account.

I think firing squad is one of the best. But now a days you can just use machines to pull the trigger. It's quick, very effective and a very cheap.

Yes being english i think it's savage...And also giving the person freedom...Death is freedom..

Back to the topic.............I would use pliers on the ball bags and nut crackers

The thing that bothers me about the death penalty is the innocent people who are excecuted. Thats the point you people miss in your points. Just what percentage are inncent should be what your looking at.

On what type might be best, i assume injection, though i have never looked at the various forms. I think even though they are guilty they still should be treated humanely, but of course, living in this world, they are treated like cr*p, and with no respect as another human being.

Just what you do with these people is hard to say, because at least for the time being there are still going to be people like this.

I think that in the world of dna evidence and other advanced methods of forensic evidence, that convictions are a lot safer.

If there was any doubt, forget the DP

the old ways of trial were best.
They would take the accused to the lake, tie weight to him/her and throw him in. if he drowned he would be innocent (and released presumably) and if he survived he was guilty and was executed. i couldnt say what is the "best" method of execution.
think of the savings in legal fees if we were to adopt a similar systm again!

You are going to get a lot of "what ifs" in this thread. I'm going to out there and be the first here that is in favor of the DP. It has it's place went NO DOUBT exists. Why? Someone said it's expensive. Do you know what it costs the tax payers to house an inmate for just one day? $300. That's $110,00 a year. That gets larger if the inmate requires medical attention.

Now, there are criminals that have NO chance of rehabilitation, pedophiles. Why spend this money on housing someone that can't be helped? Serial rapists also come to mind. First degree murder goes without saying.

The most humane way is lethal injection. You're just putting an animal down, like you would Fluffy when there was nothing else to do.

Originally posted by budski

I think that in the world of dna evidence and other advanced methods of forensic evidence, that convictions are a lot safer.

If there was any doubt, forget the DP

Here in the US we almost regularly release people from death row. This leads some people to believe that at least ~1% of people on death row are innocent. It's worth noting that in the state African American make up ~13% of the population but historically make up ~50% of death row.

This guy was released from death row after sitting in jail for 17 years for a crime he didn't commit. He is the 99th person released from death row.

The former migrant farm worker still marvels at how swiftly the courts can condemn someone --- usually a poor person --- to death.

Even though he was innocent, Melendez's conviction and death sentence were upheld on appeal three times by the Florida Supreme Court. Then in 2000, a long-forgotten transcript of a taped confession by the real killer was discovered in a box of legal papers.

Just the other day the government had to pay $101 million dollars to men framed by the FBI. They weren't on death row but they did sit in prison for 30 years. Two of the men framed died in jail. (link)

Our justice system is very flawed and there for shouldn't be putting people to death. Like I said before :

a) capital punishment cases are expensive (3x to 5x the cost of non-capital cases)
b) we know we put innocent people on death row
c) death is more of an escape than a punishment, let them rot !

[edit on 28-7-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 28-7-2007 by discomfit]

I'm not sure, and I really don't care.

I don't care how people who truly committed the horrific crimes which lead to the death penalty are done away with. I really don't.

I'm much more concerned with making sure that innocent people don't get wrongfully convicted. I'm pro-death penalty, I just want to make sure no innocent person is ever executed.

Well, Intrepid, that's a very forthright view, and one I agree with in some respects.

However, a human being has the capacity to feel mortal terror - is this part of the punishment you advocate?

Peeing pants, soiling yourself, vomit inducing terror - as part of the punishment process of condemning a man to death.

I know if I voted a man for death, I'd have questions about the psychological punishment aspects.

No, as soon as a man is found guilty of a crime worthy of DP, with irrefutable evidence, just shoot him in the head, on the spot.

Cost to condemned man?
no psychological punishment - quick
Cost to society?
The inference that a mans life means retribution, or justice.
Economic cost?
apart from the trial, the lab work, physical and dna evidence, a jury of peers etc etc - one bullet, and a man who doesn't mind killing in cold blood - how do you advertise a job like that.
More importantly, why would someone take a job like that?

Even more importantly, why should we have to - the DP is an anachronism.

[edit on 28/7/2007 by budski]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm much more concerned with making sure that innocent people don't get wrongfully convicted. I'm pro-death penalty, I just want to make sure no innocent person is ever executed.

I totally agree dj, I also don't want to see further innocent victims.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm much more concerned with making sure that innocent people don't get wrongfully convicted. I'm pro-death penalty, I just want to make sure no innocent person is ever executed.

See thats my point, what percentage of trails are false and innocents get convicted. I am sure i heard once, around a third of guilty decisions in trials end in wrong verdict. Don't ask me to give faycs, i remember hearing it somewhere.

Do you know what its like to never have commited a crime, and to sit there for years paying for something you never did.

I doubt dna evidence is totally reliable, though but may lower guilty convictions of innocents.

Originally posted by budski
I know if I voted a man for death, I'd have questions about the psychological punishment aspects.

I can see that. I wouldn't though. I'm not condemning you for this. It's human. What about the psychological trauma that a future victim might suffer? Much worse for them, they have to live with it as a life sentence, assuming they were left alive.

the subject on the death penalty is never an easy one to discuss. as many people have differing views on it, reasons for and against that are given by both sides of the spectrum i understand fully for example below are some pro and con views on capital punishment from a site :

Common reasons in support of capital punishment

The Bible The Bible requires the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, including sex before marriage, adultery, homosexual behavior, doing work on Saturday and murder. It even calls for some criminals (e.g. prostitutes who are the daughters of priests) to be tortured to death by being burned alive. Most Christians, with the exception of those in the Reconstructionist movement, feel that many of these grounds for the death penalty no longer apply to Christian societies. U.S. However, Bible passages are still used to promote the retention of capital punishment for murderers; some advocate that homosexuals also be executed.

Justice/Vengeance Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response.

Deterrence Many people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing. This does not seem to be confirmed by an analysis of the available data. However, it feels intuitively correct for many people.

Value of human life: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch).

Cost: Once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further maintenance costs to the state. This appears to be invalid; the cost to the state paying for multiple appeals is greater than the cost of imprisoning an inmate.

Public safety: Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.

Common reasons against capital punishment
Playing God: Executing a person kills him before the time of their natural death. Some Christians believe that God places people on Earth for a purpose. If we kill them prematurely, then we may be thwarting God's will.

Effect on society: Some feel that permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if done by the state. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life as seen by the general population and brutalizes society. It is based on a need for revenge. It "violates our belief in the human capacity for change....[It] powerfully reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who have wronged us. We do not believe that reinforcement of that idea can lead to healthier and safer communities."

Lack of Deterrence: The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate.

Chance of Error: Many convicted murderers are later found innocent, and have been pardoned. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."

The family of the prisoner is victimized and punished by having their loved one murdered by the state. Yet the family is usually innocent of any crime.
SOURCE

IMO i do agree with the death penalty to an extent, meaning that every case has to be looked at very carefully and judged individually. In the cases of such vile acts being committed and often on numerous occasions then imo the death penalty should be considered. One concern i agree with is that many innocent men/woman have been sentenced to death only to be found innocent after the fact, this is something that has to be looked into more. Plus one think that irks me a bit is that after the offender has been given a death sentence why is it that most of them are still sitting their on death row 15 years later???? defeats the purpose of the death sentence does it not?

As for humane ways to kill someone, personally speaking and it sounds awful to say but did these offenders afford their victims a humane death? without pain, terror, feeling..?? Then why the heck should we afford the monsters that have committed such crimes the ability to die peacefully, painless or whatever. Let the suffer the pain and terror they put their victims through, let them know and feel every last bit of it, then maybe they will understand what they have put their victims through as they take their last breath.

`````````````````````````
replaced 'quote] tags with 'ex' tags for external material

[edit on 28/7/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by ronishia
IMO i do agree with the death penalty to an extent, meaning that every case has to be looked at very carefully and judged individually. In the cases of such vile acts being committed and often on numerous occasions then imo the death penalty should be considered.

This is the key point I'm trying to make. It's not on one conviction, though it could be depending on the case. It's NOT revenge I'm speaking about, it taking animals away from FURTHER victims. And then put them down, as animals.

if i had too determine the most human way it would be for the prisoner to choose which method (out of a designated selection) he/she wants.

Originally posted by intrepid

This is the key point I'm trying to make. It's not on one conviction, though it could be depending on the case. It's NOT revenge I'm speaking about, it taking animals away from FURTHER victims. And then put them down, as animals.

But these are people, not animals - lock them away by all means, but why come down to their level?

Some people look at others as livestock - and it shouldn't be that way, so why lower ourselves to that?