The Death Penalty -What's The Most Humane Approach

Originally posted by gallopinghordes

That being said the most humane method would be to go to the condemned person and tell them all has been forgiven and they are free; then as they turn to walk away shot them in the back of the head.

Wow, GH. That's cold (brrrr...). I'm proud of ya .

Capital punishment should be used sparingly, or not at all, if the alternative is an innocent should die. Most humane method? Quick. So that any pain is over. Does the method really matter, so long as its quick?

Originally posted by seagull
Does the method really matter, so long as its quick?

Well, I don't think beheadings would go over well with this crowd.

OK. So maybe beheadings are not on. They are quick though, if done properly. I've occaisionally wondered how long awareness continues after one has had ones head lopped off. Not sure what that says about me, but I've wondered .

Originally posted by seagull
OK. So maybe beheadings are not on. They are quick though, if done properly. I've occaisionally wondered how long awareness continues after one has had ones head lopped off. Not sure what that says about me, but I've wondered

.

I was just joking. As to your question I've read between 5-11 seconds.

As long as you know the date, time and place it's going to happen, I'm not sure the method matters that much - especially if you've spent 15 years on death row lodging appeals etc. as the mental punishment would be horrendous.

The Russians used to pretend they were letting someone go, then step out behind them and shoot them in the back of the head, apparently.

The French guillotine must be pretty damn quick - I read some stuff about it years ago, and apparently the mouths used to open and close, and the eyes blink, but this was probably just a reflex.

[edit on 30/7/2007 by budski]

I know you were joking, Intrepid . Beheading hadn't even occured to me (shudder).

It's even less humane than I might have thought. Between 5 to 10 seconds? Nope, let's not. Nasty, nasty way to go.

okay, my reply must come in stages.

1) Kneejerk Reaction: Assuming the person is absolutely 100% guilty, then the penalty shall be whatever the victim's family decides is fair & IS WILLING TO CARRY OUT.

I have yet to be put into a situation where I'd be willing to kill another human being. I can think of a handful that would put me over the edge of reason, but those aside -- I cannot do it. SO, if random person X thinks the criminal should be shot, then random person X gets to pull the trigger... and make sure they're dead. Physically touch the dead person to ascertain death. "You want that person dead, then you kill them yourself and make sure the job is done!"

2) 2nd Knee-jerk Reaction: If we're looking for efficiency in killing, let's follow the Nazi's -- use the Luger, line 'em up, and BANG! One bullet kills at least 3 people, maybe more depending on distance of the gun and distance between bodies.

Bullets are cheap this days...

3) 1st Cigarette of Ponder-ment: ....as are lives. It pains me to know that people's virtue is determined by their financial viability.

Gandhi's words come back to me: "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." There is no way that true Justice can be had by lowering and degrading oneself to repeating the actions of a wrong-doer. If it's wrong to kill, then it is WRONG TO KILL, period. Doesn't matter who's at what end of the trigger, you cannot teach people not to kill others by killing others.

4) 2nd Cigarette: Absolutist theories never work. (

I read some posts and glanced at others.

The death penalty in the USA means maybe death at the end of 15 to years while filing endless appeals. You never hear or read the statistic of how many inmates die a natural death while waiting for the death penalty to be imposed. Why is that?

In my world this would be simple. Give a person a trail by jury and present all evidence. If found guilty, send the convicted person to another part of the country for another trail with a new jury. If found guilty, again, he/she is dead by the end of the week.

People will say "what about DNA or this or that or some science that hasn't been invented yet but will show him innocent in 10 years". Get over it. Back in the 50's, a death sentence meant that. From trial to appeal to gas chamber was usually within 1 year and many times within 6 months. It meant something to have the death penalty. You knew you were going to die if you did a capital offense. The same can not be said in today's world of group hugs and kisses for these criminals.

BTW: I actually oppose the death sentence but justice does need to be done to these animals that commit capital crimes. Hard logic to follow but it works for me.

The death penalty is not a fair punishment. America is the shame of the west - how can you have the right to lecture on civil rights when in some states you murder children as a punishment for their crimes? Its absolutely preposterous and unfair. Your crime rate is sky high and you have long being a proponent of this horrendous crime. Stop it, now.

Having been born and raised in the state that initiated lethal injection, I can assure one and all that children are not murdered for their crimes. I work for the department of corrections and live not 20 miles from the state prison where the death penalty is carried out here.

An IV (intravenous line) is started on the condemned prisoner and 5 remote control buttons are used. Since there are only 3 chemicals used but 5 people pushing buttons, 2 of them are "dummy" buttons that do nothing. Only 1 of the chemicals actually kills (potassium, although, if left unattended, the pancuronium would paralyze the diaphram and the person would suffocate) so that no one knows who is actually delivering the lethal injection.

The first person goes in and pushes the first button, the second person goes in and pushes the second button, and so on until all 5 DOC employees (volunteers) have pushed all five buttons and no one knows which person actually pushed the button hooked up to the potassium.
Mentally incapacitated and/or under 18 at the time of their crime do not get the death penalty in Oklahoma. I think there's one more category exempt from the death penalty but I can't remember which one it is. (I may be mistaken: there may only be 2 groups).

I didn't used to believe in the death penalty until I started working in a prison and saw first hand that there are true monsters in this world, and given half a chance, they will continue their monstrous behavior on the bleeding heart public that frees them or lets them live long enough to figure out a method of escape.

There was a story posted here on ATS not one month ago about a guy (in Illinois, I think) that was being transported to a hospital, disarmed the transport officer and killed him. He had tatoos all over his face and couldn't possibly hope to escape but he killed anyway while the liberals were trying to give him (free) healthcare.

Guillotines sever a head, of course, and the brain can live without oxygen for 4-6 minutes so I wouldn't consider beheading a humane approach. When they were first instituted even the crowds had trouble stomaching the mouths moving, the eyes blinking, etc. of the severed heads, so eventually the victims were hooded or baskets to catch the heads were added to save the onlookers the distress of witnessesing such a gruesome site.

Electric chairs were considered (in their day) to be more humane but those didn't work out very well eventually and now we have lethal injections. The dosages have to be calculated properly and the IV has to not perforate the vein (like the botched execution in Texas) but a huge dose of potassium will kill quickly. The sodium thiopentathal is a barbiturate for anesthesia and the pancuronium bromide is a paralytic so they're not flopping and flailing around (which is distressing to witness).

A jury of their peers, having determined that the criminal in question is a rabid dog that needs to be put down, does so with dispath and compassion for the executioners as well as the condemned prisoner. I guarantee you that they die more humanely than their victims.

I firmly believe that state sponsored murder is an anachronism in this day and age.

The officially sanctioned murder of an individual debases society and humanity.
I'm not a liberal by any means, but two wrongs don't make a right.

On a conspiracy discussion board, where mistrust of the government is rife, there are people who are perfectly willing to accept this murder, simply because the biblical "eye for an eye" mentality is ingrained in their society.

There are many examples of mentally ill people being executed - but because a lot of the people in the judicial system have political aspirations, the state sponsored murder continues in order to impress upon the electorate that they are tough on crime
web.amnesty.org...

And this is a major problem - state sponsored murder is politically motivated - it is not for the good of the people,it is not a deterrent, it is for the good of those who wish to be elected into office.
www.rightsforall.amnesty.org...

There are also many examples of botched executions, perhaps the cruelest punishment in the western world - not only is the condemned living every day with a death sentence as appeals are thrown out for political credit, when they are taken for execution, there remains the chance that they will die a brutal agonising death.
www.ccadp.org... - warning, this link contains very graphic images

I hear the cries of, "this is what they did to their victims, so they deserve it".
But in condemning someone to a brutal death, exacerbated by the mental torture of years on death row, we bring ourselves down to the level of the criminal - only societies crime is worse, because we have the capacity to stop the murder - and the state is worse still, because they do it for their own ends.

Nowhere else in the western world uses the death penalty except the USA.
The USA has one of the highest execution rates in the world.
The USA lags behind many African, South American, Middle Eastern and Far East countries in it's judicial process of execution i.e. it executes far more people.

Is this how the USA wants to be viewed by the rest of the world?

The report, 'The death penalty worldwide: developments in 2006', shows that at least
1,591 people were executed in 25 countries last year - the overwhelming majority in China (1,010), Iran (177), Pakistan (82), Iraq (65), Sudan (65) and the USA (53). These six countries alone accounted for 91% of all executions carried out in 2006.

The USA purports to be a civilized country, yet carries out more executions than all except 5 other nations.

The time for this kind of frontier justice has passed - it's time now for the death penalty to be abolished, because it is inhumane, it debases society, ti does nothing as a deterrent and it has become a political tool used to exploit the emotional nature of humans in seeking retribution rather than justice.

sorry logged on as Seagull but i'm not

[edit on 2-8-2007 by seagull]

The title of the thread being about the most humane method for enacting the death penalty and not being about whether there should BE a death penalty, I felt it appropriate to give an answer on topic. The premise of acceptability for capital punishment was assumed by the title of the OP.

Originally posted by Irish Liberal
The death penalty is not a fair punishment. America is the shame of the west - how can you have the right to lecture on civil rights when in some states you murder children as a punishment for their crimes? Its absolutely preposterous and unfair. Your crime rate is sky high and you have long being a proponent of this horrendous crime. Stop it, now.

Shame of the west? Wow...

Our history gives us the right to lecture on civil rights. We welcome people from all over the world to come here as free people. Yes we have dark patches in our history. Yet, we don't hide from them; unlike some nations I could mention.

I think you'll find that a large cross section of America is torn between advocation of the death penalty, and abolishment; without having the stats at hand, a 50/50 split would seem likely.

Skyhigh? Down in virtually every catagory, last I heard. Can the same be said in many places? Not saying the death penalty is much of a deterant, it's not. However, it does deter one criminal at a time.

As for "murdering children"... If a "child" is old enough to kill, he's old enough to accept the punishment mandated by the state via the voting public.
****

Off topic. Sorry. Had to answer.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by seagull]

I think that instead of the death penalty we should give people life in prison. There have been many people who have been wrongfully executed in the United States who have been later proven innocent by DNA evidence. If they had been given life in prison instead then they would still be alive and we could set them free. Instead they became collateral damage.

I also think that if you murder someone or if you rape someone or molest a child you should get a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole and no clemency. People in Washington state are calling for a one strike law for sex offenders because of the recent rape and slaying of a 12 year old girl on the fourth of July. This is something that there shouldn't be any debate about, why would you ever want to let a murderer or a rapist back into society once you've caught them?

It is a slap in the face of justice to kill someone for killing. Doesn't the executioner deserve a similar punishment, or are his murders legitimized because that's just his job?

Originally posted by whitewave
The title of the thread being about the most humane method for enacting the death penalty and not being about whether there should BE a death penalty, I felt it appropriate to give an answer on topic. The premise of acceptability for capital punishment was assumed by the title of the OP.

If you'd care to read the whole of the OP, rather than just the title, you'll see that the DP is also up for discussion.

So all answers about an individuals belief in whether or not there should be a DP are on topic.

So far, you haven't given an answer of any description, let alone one on topic - or were you just having a moan

Not sure what you're on about, Budski, (or what you're on) but just for chuckles and grins I went back and REread the entire opening post.

"The Death Penalty-What's The Most Humane Approach?
I realize that this is a very touchy subject, but 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." (emphasis mine)

Type of capital punishment? There are many types of punishment but only the death penalty is considered "capital punishment", so, unless you mis-spoke yourself, there's only one type of capital punishment-death (by its various methods). Since, from your last post, you clearly want to make it a discussion about the morality of capital punishment as well as the methods employed, I withdraw my previous objection.

"On a conspiracy board, where mistrust of the government is rife, there are people who are perfectly willing to accept this murder, simply because the biblical 'eye for an eye' mentality is ingrained in their society."-budski

After re-reading each and every post to date, yours is the only one that mentions the bible. The only mention of "an eye for an eye" was made by someone opposing the death penalty.

I'm curious. Would you be willing to have these monsters move next door to you after they've served their time in prison? They have to live somewhere, after all. I live out in the country where life is a little more practical and less muddied by the societal concerns of an urban setting. Many (city) people dump their unwanted dogs and cats out in the country because they're too irresponsible with their own pets and think ...well, who knows what they think. The point is: some of these unwanted animals are actually taken in by country folk who want a pet, but when the feral dogs grow up and start taking down your cattle, they get a bullet or a gunny sack trip to the creek. The 2-legged "dogs" that take down your preschooler at the bus stop or your wife in the parking lot deserve the same consideration. They are predatory animals and a danger to society at large. We only give them "humane" executions out of respect for their humanoid DNA. They are not human in any real sense of the word. They are bipedal and that's the extent of their humanity. Their enlarged brain capacity they inherited by virtue of being homo sapien only makes them more of a danger.

Society has not condemned these individuals because of their lack of worth to society-that would be morally wrong-each individual is a sovereign, but because their individual actions have posed a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of others. They have disrespected that fundamental human right; blatantly disregarding the most basic of all human rights. Society realizes that if a person has not learned that fundamental skill or lacks the capacity or desire to learn it by the time they are physically capable of doing damage that they are inherently "not human". They are feral, rabid dogs that need to be put down.

Finished with my "moan" for now. Looking forward to your (and others) response.

Originally stated by Whitewave They have disrespected that fundamental human right; blatantly disregarding the most basic of all human rights.

(I'll just pick up right where I left off in my u2u... )

I've been taught that education is the answer. Often times, I wonder if people understand the rules in place... It's not enough to be told that action x is wrong. It's not enough to be threatened into doing action x.

I'm 25, born and raised in America (primarily in the midwest). Not until my last year in college was I ever told a *reason* why I should not reach out and kill someone. Up to that point, it's been "You just don't do it" and "Don't kill another person or you'll go to prison!!!"

From your u2u whitewave, I understand the men you work with don't have the physical capacity to understand why (at least not anymore)... they never had a chance. ((That, right there, is what really breaks my heart. A human being who has the mental capacity and a reasonable up-bringing doesn't receive my sympathy -- because they had a full deck with which to decide their own actions. But a human being kept/made into (for all intents and purposes) a feral beast by horrendous situations out of their control... :shk: ))



Setting aside those who are 'lost' (for just a moment), I wonder how many people _in_ society know their basic human rights?

And more importantly, how many people understand the responsibilities that come with each and every right?

Do they know WHY these rights were agreed upon, WHY we should abide by them and socially enforce them?

I've been through the education system, just recently graduated with a BA. For one class period, we discussed Human Rights in a philosophy class last semester. Prior to that, the only other discussion was in 8th grade.

My point is: The Rights and accompanying responsibilities of all Humans are not being taught.

How can we expect people to know and understand what they are supposed to do and not do, if they've never been taught?


I watched a talk-show program with my mother a few weeks ago about mothers with severely overweight children (3 and 4 year olds nearing/over 100lbs). One of the mothers, in-between sobs, outright admitted that she was never taught how to take care of a child.
My mother scoffed: "How can you not know how to care for a child?!"
I retorted: "Like kids come with instruction manuals... If her mother never taught her, or provided a horrendous example, how can you expect her to automatically know what to do and what not to do?"


What do you guys think:
Is it necessary for people to understand their rights & responsibilities, and thus be able to act with moral correctness?
Or is it better to be under a constant threat of punishment to deter wrong behavior/actions? (Does such a threat _actually_ and _consistently_ deter wrong actions?)


Edited for clarification and missspelling.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Diseria]

Whitewave.

A couple of points.

I never said anything about letting violent criminals loose, so how could they live next door to me? Your assertion that these people are animals is one that has prevailed throughout this thread - but if you treat humans as animals then they will respond as animals.
I'll also reiterate my belief that the DP debases society as a whole - the more a society sees of murder (and yes, I include the DP, because that is just legalized murder) then the more a society becomes inured to murder.

Why do people think that they have a right to take a life? this is what I mean by an eye for an eye mentality.

The state or government has no more right to take a life than a murderer has.
Lock them up for the protection and safety of others, yes - murder them, no.

The US still has (in some respects) a frontier mentality about justice. It's also one of the most violent nations on earth, so how does the DP prevent violent crimes exactly?
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

In international polls, there is mostly a move away from support of the DP apart from the most militant nations and this, to me, speaks volumes.
i.e. the countries with the most internal violence, and the most militaristic tendencies are amongst the biggest supporters of the DP - even when it has been shown that it does nothing to reduce violent crime, and may actually increase it - after all, if you're going to get killed for one murder, why not kill as many as you can.

budski. I understand the point you are making, and to a very large degree I agree with you. The death penalty shouldn't be used save in the most extreme cases, where the death of the criminal is beyond question and the crime is of extreme heinousness, we can all envision those sorts of crimes that might apply.

There are no actual "humane" ways of execution, some are quicker than others, but all apparently inflict some sort of pain upon the criminal. Usually, its very short lived and over very quickly. The ones we hear about are the exceptions that prove the rule.