Slashdot Mirror
How To Execute People In the 21st Century
HughPickens.com writes Matt Ford writes in The Atlantic that thanks to a European Union embargo on the export of key drugs, and the refusal of major pharmaceutical companies to sell them the nation's predominant method of execution is increasingly hard to perform. With lethal injection's future uncertain, some states are turning to previously discarded methods. The Utah legislature just approved a bill to reintroduce firing squads for executions, Alabama's House of Representatives voted to authorize the electric chair if new drugs couldn't be found, and after last years botched injection, Oklahoma legislators are mulling the gas chamber.
The driving force behind the creation and abandonment of execution methods is the constant search for a humane means of taking a human life. Arizona, for example, abandoned hangings after a noose accidentally decapitated a condemned woman in 1930. Execution is also prone to problems as witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner "cringes," "leaps," and "fights the straps with amazing strength." The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands. The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes, and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and "rest on [his] cheeks." The physical effects of the deadly hydrogen cyanide in the gas chamber are coma, seizures and cardiac arrest but the time lag has previously proved a problem. According to Ford one reason lethal injection enjoyed such tremendous popularity was that it strongly resembled a medical procedure, thereby projecting our preconceived notions about modern medicine—its competence, its efficacy, and its reliability—onto the capital-punishment system. "As states revert to earlier methods of execution—techniques once abandoned as backward and flawed—they run the risk that the death penalty itself will be seen in the same terms."
The driving force behind the creation and abandonment of execution methods is the constant search for a humane means of taking a human life. Arizona, for example, abandoned hangings after a noose accidentally decapitated a condemned woman in 1930. Execution is also prone to problems as witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner "cringes," "leaps," and "fights the straps with amazing strength." The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands. The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes, and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and "rest on [his] cheeks." The physical effects of the deadly hydrogen cyanide in the gas chamber are coma, seizures and cardiac arrest but the time lag has previously proved a problem. According to Ford one reason lethal injection enjoyed such tremendous popularity was that it strongly resembled a medical procedure, thereby projecting our preconceived notions about modern medicine—its competence, its efficacy, and its reliability—onto the capital-punishment system. "As states revert to earlier methods of execution—techniques once abandoned as backward and flawed—they run the risk that the death penalty itself will be seen in the same terms."
I wonder what kind of occupation of how and why someone would pursue a career in designing execution methods.
mfwright@batnet.com
Considering that assisted suicide techniques are well-researched and well-documented, it seems very strange that they wouldn't simply use any of the preferred, pain-free methods such as the exit bag. What gives?
With hypoxia (lack of oxygen), you just fall asleep and, if continued long enough, die painlessly.
Hypoxia is easy to implement, just replace the air in the room with 100% nitrogen. There will be no suffocation reflex, since that requires carbon dioxide. It is a completely painless way to die.
The problem with nitrogen asphyxiation is the optics suck. One critical insight into the three-drug death penalty method was the paralytic. As neurons die, they "wave goodbye" by triggering muscle contractions. So even though they're utterly unconscious, they will still have seizure-like activity if you don't paralyze them.
Don't.
It isn't enough to say don't. You need to tell the lovers of death WHY it's a stupid idea.
Here goes.
1. It's pointless. It's not an effective deterrent, at least not for all people, otherwise you'd never need to use it.
2. It's prohibitively expensive. Most of the costs involve legal wrangling, after all, but that's still part of the cost.
3. It is irreversible. If you figure out you got the wrong person, you can't fix it.
4. Even if you have the right person, it's not actually punishing HIM (or her,) since death is the ultimate fate of all living organisms.
The person you would execute is receiving the exact same thing your own beloved child is doomed to get the day you conceive him or her.
If that's a punishment then why, oh why, would a person EVER become a parent knowing that the child would be condemned to such a horrible fate?
What did any (and indeed, EVERY) innocent child do to deserve that?
5. If you think you're getting the person being executed an earlier start on his/her eternal punishment, consider that eternity is the exact same duration,
regardless of when it starts.
6. In as much as there IS no eternal punishment, in the place many people believe their imaginary friend consigns "bad" people when they die, as it turns out.
Magic-evil-fire-land is just as imaginary as the men and women in red body-suits with pitchforks. Even were the PLACE real, why would someone who rebelled against "god" punish people for DEFYING him? Wouldn't "the devil" reward people rather, making Hell a cool, hip, happening place to spend eternity, rather than a boring, sordid "heaven" where all you get to do is tell "god" what an awesome, amazing, wonderful creature he is? Also, remember he created everything, including evil... so yeah, there are so many logic holes in the narrative to which Magic-evil-fire-land belongs that it's not worth the time to continue to examine this point. The place is fake, the punishment nonsensical and its occupants are imaginary.
7. The people you punish are the friends and family of the people you kill, who often had nothing to do with the crime, even when you DO have the right person.
8. If you DO have the right person, consider the very real possibility that he or she is performing suicide-by-court-system and that you are playing right into a would-be suicides hands, by allowing, condoning, or supporting this stupid, counterproductive, barbaric practice.
9. The executioner is morally and ethically no better than the person being executed; the "state" saying it's okay to kill the person being executed, which is often for killing someone, cannot be done without it saying, PERFORCE, that SOME killing is okay. The state sanctions the exact thing, ironically, that it's punishing. You'd have to hire someone to kill the executioner after the deed is done if you're really interested in justice.
10. The idea that it's a punishment of the guilty having been thoroughly debunked, now let's briefly examine vengeance. You don't get, as an individual, or as a society, revenge on or against a person you've killed, or else, the act of conceiving a child is VENGEANCE exacted upon that child as by conceiving him or her, again, you're condemning an innocent person to DIE. In fact, the individual concerned is ESCAPING justice, since the DEAD don't suffer AFTER they're dead. Executing a criminal is like asking people for tickets to prove they've paid for something after that something is done, and if a person turns out not to have a ticket, ejecting the individual from the thing, when he or she was GOING TO LEAVE ANYWAYS!
11. It's a cowardly act to execute someone using someone else's hand. If you're going to have the death penalty, the person passing sentence should be obliged to execute the person, and in as grueling and gruesome a fashion as possible. Maybe if the judge had to take the condemned's life with HIS OR HER OWN
Most humane way to execute someone:
Bullet (or bolt gun) to the head, followed by organ donation to more worthy human beings. This may be ugly, but it is very humane.
Least humane way to execute someone:
Put them in a box till they die, funded by money that could have been spent saving lives.
I'm opposed to the death penalty, but my opposition starts at the most common method -- putting them in a box until they die because someone was too afraid of the automatic appeals process required for a faster death penalty.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Every example I've seen of someone executed "who was innocent" has been scum otherwise. Certainly, they may have been innocent of that specific crime, but they've generally been worthless wastes of human flesh causing misery to the people around them for their entire lives.
And even IF they were perfectly innocent people, so what, really? This world is infested with 7 billion people. They're not precious snowflakes, they're utterly, completely, expendable. We cheerfully will cut out healthy tissue to excise a tumor; if we occasionally sweep up a non-scum person, really, so what as long as the bulk of bad guys are correctly executed.
Oh, and to the original point? Gravity's free. Put them in a cement 100' silo with a stair to the top. Either they starve to death, or jump off the top. Either way, it's toxin-free, zero-cost, energy-efficient, and afterwards crows get to eat, so it's green too.
-Styopa
The death penalty should only be used when there is absolutely no doubt of guilt.
What about the mentally ill?
Horrific things happen with the mentally ill (bus passenger decapitates another, for example). Do they deserve the death penalty?
1. It gets the deranged out of our society.
2. Their life to that point is effectively over.
3. We avoid all the problems with execution.
4. Considering that the only countries that would take them would probably enslave them, they'll die anyway.
> you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
I have no doubt you actually believe that horseshit. That statement makes some of the more hilarious proclaimations Christians are so fond of saying seem rational and reasonable in comparison.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Execution is not a deterrent because they take place behind walls and virtually no one sees them. Out of sight, out of mind. If they are going to execute people, then do it in the public square in a way that shocks people (hanging, guillotine, etc). Couple that with executing prosecutors and cops who through malice or complete incompetence cause an innocent person to be executed. Like as not, the latter will reduce to an absolute minimum the former. And when an execution does happen, people will be shown the consequences if they murder in no uncertain terms.
If you don't do it in public, then don't execute people. Without being a real deterrent it serves no purpose and is more merciful than keeping them in a cage (but for fuck's sake, stop giving them TVs and other shit that makes the time go fast).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
The death penalty is not vengeance in the least. It is a possible penalty for very serious crimes. Generally it's only reserved for the worst of the worst. It's not something taken lightly, but it is one alternative. This is very different from ISIS kidnapping innocent people, touring them and finally publically murdering them. Don't think ISIS is "honest" or have any other redeeming qualities. They are the Nazis of this century and are deserving of being wiped from this planet as quickly as possible.
In my country, these crimes happened quite recently (and got a lot of media attention), the criminals were caught and convicted, but not all got life in prison. Maybe they should move to where you live after getting out of prison.
1. Two school students murdered a 17 year old girl (using an axe, a hammer and a metal bar) then cut her body up into very small pieces and threw those pieces outside, while keeping one piece i the fridge for eating later. During trial one of the murders said that what they did was not cruel because they killed the victim before cutting her up. They got 20 years, hopefully they are not released sooner for good behavior.
2. A girl (17 years old) was waiting for a bus when a car stopped and the two guys in the car offered a ride. The girl refused (smart), bu then thee guys just forced her into the car, raped her then put her (still alive) in the trunk and lit the car on fire. The ciminals were previously convicted on multiple lesser crimes. At least these guys got life in prison. And they probably will have a "great" time while in prison.
In both cases a noose or a bullet would have been more appropriate.
Or at least the prison should be how it was when my country was part of the USSR - no TV, no complaining that you do not like the conditions there and also hard work for some. When people got out of prison they did not want to return there at all, unlike some criminals now who get out of prison, start committing crimes again and go back to prison shortly after.
you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
That is categorically not what the "social contract" means. The "social contract" is an expression that one must suspend some "natural rights" (i.e. the freedom to "do whatever you want") in order to obtain the benefits of living in a society (i.e. to protect rights that need social defense). Like any contract, it's one that must be entered into consciously, not by birth or decree; the perversion of such a "contract" to mean one inherits it by birth is a road to domination and stagnation. Being born conveys only liberties, not responsibilities. Being a member of a community conveys both. It is up to a person to choose the latter, and it is up to a child's guardians to convey the benefits and consequences of such a contract. And it is up to every person to negotiate the social fluidity of all of these.
Society's rules are also not static, and they typically only change through rebellion. This process can be peaceful or bloody, just or unjust, depending on the rules and the rebellion. The most just and peaceful evolution comes from a confluence of evolving "social contract" that challenges outdated or unwarranted rules; the least comes from the collision of an unflinching status quo with an unflinching reality. Wars are often fought, in either case, and often the "social contract" is discarded wholly in the process.
The people you listed above, had they been freed, elderly and in a different world? They would have little purchase to do any further harm. That isn't to say there is no reason to guard against a resurgence of past monstrosity, and it isn't even to say that the world isn't better absent some of the worst monsters. But the world changes—nay, people change the world—and tossing monsters into a world that was once their own but isn't any longer... doesn't give them a lot of leeway.
There are a lot of posts here and elsewhere saying that we should "just stop," that capital punishment is immoral and should be abolished forever.
Is ANY kind of punishment moral and justified?
Is it logical that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the offense?
How do you decide what is the most severe form of punishment that is moral and justified, if punishment of any kind is moral and justified?
Showing zero remorse for doing it is despicable.
I completely agree...but isn't this what you are also doing too? Wanting to kill someone while showing zero remorse about doing so? If you are going to argue for the death penalty a far better argument is to say that it removes any possibility that the person can ever re-offend and thus protects society. The problem is that, as practiced in the US, this is very hard to argue. Those convicted are held in prison for a decade or longer and even then there are a shockingly high percentage whose convictions are quashed when carefully examined.
If you want to argue for the death penalty then you need to restrict it to cases where the evidence is overwhelming and you need to make it rapid. Even then mistakes will be made which is why I have so much trouble with the concept. About the only time I would think that it is justified is when you have someone whom you cannot safely imprison e.g. the IRA terrorists in the 1980/90s who used their contacts with the terror organization to threaten guards' families unless they got special treatment while in prison: something which almost lead to their escape. In these cases I would argue that the need to protect society from extremely dangerous criminals might make it justifiable but I'd still have concerns.
Killing is not for punishment. No one who says that legal system is about punishment knows what they are talking about. Legals systems are about civil obedience. When the victims, the populous, cry out for blood you need to give it to them or face civil unrest. It is about making an example out of people to discourage other lawbreaking.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The first time Hitler tried to seize power in Germany via a coup, he was arrested and used his trial to gain publicity, and rallied a lot of people towards his cause while he was in prison.
Which by the way, 20 people died in his coup attempt, something that would probably have made him eligible for the death penalty in the US (felony-murder doctrine) which had he been executed, it would have averted his eventual reign which itself lead to WWII.
Prior combat arms military INTJ with an IQ > 140 with a background in engineering mathematics.
I'm as cold as they get; I've been compared to Mr Spock.
You're fucked in the head, as are people who believe as you do.
The death penalty is a light switch to shut down a possible future threat, along with being an ineffective deterrent. If you want to believe your barbaric thoughts on the subject are the norm, that's fine.. just please dox yourself so that normal people can avoid you.