Why not hanging for carrying out the death penalty?

I said it before but on a purely mechanical level killing someone isn't hard.

Killing someone and making it look clean and sterile is hard and that's what "we" (obviously throughout this post I'm using "we" in the non-directed sense) really want but won't admit it.

If we want to have the Death Penalty and our "concern" is that the executed is killed quickly with no chance for it to "go wrong" then... that's not that hard execution wise, no pun.

The example I used previously. Just drop a huge weight on their head. Like a big block of concrete or metal or whatever. Boom. Instantaneous destruction of the entire brain, instant total death. No chance of a few minutes of lingering consciousness like was a concern with the guillotine. No chance of missing like with firing squad. No chance of screwing up the dosage or the body have some weird counter-reaction the medicine as bodies sometimes do. No being at the mercy of pharmacological supply chains. No having to do the math right on the length of the rope so the neck snaps and you don't just slowly choke to death. No special training needed to operate it. The entire device could be built from scrap from any junk yard in a high school shop class and would fit on the back of flatbed. And the only maintance would be to hose to down, probably disinfect it after every use.

You could build it in an afternoon, put it in one of those thousand dollar pop up steel buildings on the prison grounds, do a couple of test runs with like a watermelon or something. Bring in the prisoner, do the deed, have a guy run a high pressure hose over it, spray it down with bleach, bring the next one in.

Cheap, perfectly humane (as in the manner of death), nothing to go wrong. Everything "we" say we want in executions.

But we don't do that. Or anything like it. Because it's would look and feel and sound just... horrible. Brutal, medieval, barbaric. It would be unpleasant for us.

Lethal injection? Cold, sterile, medical. "We" like that. That makes us feel better about it. Which is what it's always been about.

And that says something. Something we should take to heart.
 
Nitrogen suffocation would be my preferred method, if I had to choose, since the body apparently doesn't react to the lack of oxygen and you just go to sleep.

With an experienced hangman, the measured drop is quick and efficient, at least according to the accounts from the hangmen themselves; I don't know if it ever went wrong but they didn't report it.

The current methods used by the the various US states are all generally several degrees more barbaric than hanging, in my opinion. Lethal injection is very hit and miss, and I understand that there isn't a reliable formulation in use (what they use to put animals to sleep would probably work, but I seem to recall there are reasons that can't be used, and I think qualified doctors refuse to assist), and pain and distress are often caused.
 
theprestige said:
I think it's more a matter of "new for the sake of the perfect being the enemy of the good".

The state keeps having to come up with new methods because there's always someone who thinks the current methods are unconscionable. There's no process by which the state can say, "this is as good as it gets, for any method, stop complaining, we're not going to change it just because you keep imagining there must be a better way."

ETA: And I'm pretty sure that in some cases, the objections are being raised by people who want to abolish the death penalty, but can't convince voters to do so. Thus they resort to blocking the executions themselves on procedural or regulatory grounds. This puts the state in the awkward position of having to keep executing convicts according to the will of the voters, but also keep trying new methods in an attempt to appease the objectors.

It's not a simple case of Americans just wanting to try new things for no reason. It's a complex case of Americans trying to do the right thing, both in terms of justice served and in terms of humane treatment of convicts.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is compounded by a religious note, and the idea of what constitutes "punishment."

I have seen arguments against more humane execution, such as full anaesthesia and euthanasia such as is practiced on pets, both on the grounds that it would be undignified to treat a person like a dog, and also the grounds that for punishment to be meaningful to all concerned, the person must be conscious at the ceremony of being killed. Which is at least partly based on the presumption of an afterlife. But at the same time, not subjected to what is considered cruelty, because, you know, it's not cruel to kill someone.

Finding a balance that results in what might be thought a humane execution is, I think, a task so inherently paradoxical that it is essentially impossible, especially if, as you said earlier, the requirement is that it be foolproof every time.

Given the cost of carrying all this through and the delay and bureaucratic hassle, plus the non insignificant issue of wrongful conviction, even if you're not against the idea of execution itself, and still somehow believe it's a useful deterrent, I think there is a good weight of argument for simply not doing it at all.

As for the will of the voters, I think it might depend on who is doing the argument. I'm thinking now of a recent visit to Bismarck, North Dakota, during an ice storm. Except perhaps for the main highway, and often even including that, when it snows or sleets, the streets are not plowed or even sanded. From the window of one house I saw at least two cars actually crash with consequential damage. The reason is that the taxpayers do not want to spend the small amount extra it would cost. The people who didn't crash will continue to play Russian roulette, betting that they won't suffer damage that dwarfs the few bucks a year they save on taxes. Those who did will always be a minority, and the majority will forever mistake randomness for immunity until it's too late.

I have not bothered to figure out the statistics, but it's generally considered more expensive to maintain people on death row, go through the lengthy judicial process, and then execute them, than it would be simply to imprison them and throw away the key. Not to mention the potentially large payouts when mistakes are made. If the taxpayers were told "if you vote against execution there will be enough left over to plow your streets" Of course some will just want another tax cut, but either way, the opinion of the taxpayers on cost versus benefit might change.
 
bruto said:
I have not bothered to figure out the statistics, but it's generally considered more expensive to maintain people on death row, go through the lengthy judicial process, and then execute them, than it would be simply to imprison them and throw away the key. Not to mention the potentially large payouts when mistakes are made.
Click to expand...

I know you're not making the cost argument here, but I've never liked the cost argument.

If one's sense of justice calls for execution in certain cases, then one should pay for execution, not forgo justice to save money.
 
I think the condemned should be given the choice of scaphing, being fed through a wood chipper (feet first of course), or tank of piranhas. If you're going to execute someone, don't pussyfoot around!

Or, better, do like most of the world's allegedly civilized countries and abolish the death penalty.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Electrocution was a ****-show from the start, and yet it was kept because it's so COOL!

Causing pain is the point.
Click to expand...

Death by electrocution was created as business tactic. Title of the headline the next day was that he was Westinghoused!
 
theprestige said:
I know you're not making the cost argument here, but I've never liked the cost argument.

If one's sense of justice calls for execution in certain cases, then one should pay for execution, not forgo justice to save money.
Click to expand...
I agree that cost should not be the only, or even the primary, argument, but I don't think it irrelevant. No matter how worthy you might find an execution, I suspect you'd find a point at which "do it at any cost" would break down. It may not be at or near the tipping point as it now stands, but there certainly in theory could be one. Life and justice are complicated. If it cost a billion dollars to execute a mass murderer, at the expense of the needy, would justice still be served?

Anyway, I was not previously making the economic argument against execution, because I believe it's a bad idea anyway. But I think the economic argument might have teeth when presented to people (like those of Bismarck) who are penny wise and pound foolish.

I think I probably mentioned in some previous thread that this whole argument reminds me of a practice at a school I once went to, in which various infractions were recorded and tallied each week, and those who had more than a certain number were assigned to the "penalty squad," in which they were made to walk in circles in the tennis court for a period of time during what for others was a free afternoon. The members of the penalty squad were announced at morning assembly. The marching was in public view. But out of concern for their dignity, one was forbidden to watch them, and doing so would condemn the watcher to instant membership in the squad.

The whole thing was bizarre, but it reminds me of the conflict involved here. The mechanism of execution is the result of minds whose irreconcilable notions are at perpetual war: the dignification of indignity.
 
zooterkin said:
Nitrogen suffocation would be my preferred method, if I had to choose, since the body apparently doesn't react to the lack of oxygen and you just go to sleep.
Click to expand...

Seems among the more humane ways to go.

BTW, for those who didn't already know, the reason that the body doesn't react is because we don't have oxygen sensors in our bodies. Instead, we basically have CO2 sensors. If you hold your breath, what you start to react to isn't the lack of oxygen but the buildup of CO2. In a pure N2 environment, your body can still exhale CO2 but you just don't replace that with O2. You will pass out and die, but because there's never a CO2 buildup, your body doesn't experience the normal suffocation reaction.

And that CO2 buildup reaction is really primal, and hardwired in at a very, very low level. Apparently even people who don't have properly functioning amygdalas and so don't normally experience fear reactions to threats can still experience fear reactions from too much CO2.
 
I'm the only one who read the thread title and thought it was proposing hanging the executioners?
 
I think the U.S. should stay true to its core principles and execute convicted criminals by drone strike.

Other countries could just tell us who their convicted criminals are and we can take care of them too. Or if you prefer, we can convict them for you.
 
Last edited:
Can't see the downside likelihood in nitrogen... it's gonna work, even on gingers. [emoji54]

But given a choice, thanks to this thread, I'm thinking a Baumgartner... without the soft landing.
I'd like the couple of minutes for insane tumbles and twists, and a bit of just flying around.
Wouldn't even cost much... weather balloon and an oxygen system/mask. Jump out or wait and ride it down. I'd take the leap. [emoji1]

Eta: silly selfish me wasn't thinking of the other people. OK... do it over an ocean. Eliminate both the mess and the clean-up.
[emoji16]
 
Last edited:
Jim_MDP said:
Can't see the downside likelihood in nitrogen... it's gonna work, even on gingers. [emoji54]

But given a choice, thanks to this thread, I'm thinking a Baumgartner... without the soft landing.
I'd like the couple of minutes for insane tumbles and twists, and a bit of just flying around.
Wouldn't even cost much... weather balloon and an oxygen system/mask. Jump out or wait and ride it down. I'd take the leap. [emoji1]

Eta: silly selfish me wasn't thinking of the other people. OK... do it over an ocean. Eliminate both the mess and the clean-up.
[emoji16]
Click to expand...



Hey now... we don't want people committing murder for balloon rides, or some crazy roller coaster where the g's cause you to black out and die*.

*Not sure thats what you were referring to. But such a thing was in a TV show I watched.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Hey now... we don't want people committing murder for balloon rides, or some crazy roller coaster where the g's cause you to black out and die*.



*Not sure thats what you were referring to. But such a thing was in a TV show I watched.
Click to expand...
No, I was a would be diver for many years as a youth, or ute as Pesci would say.
I'd honestly love the fall.
 
Ziggurat said:
BTW, for those who didn't already know, the reason that the body doesn't react is because we don't have oxygen sensors in our bodies. Instead, we basically have CO2 sensors. If you hold your breath, what you start to react to isn't the lack of oxygen but the buildup of CO2. In a pure N2 environment, your body can still exhale CO2 but you just don't replace that with O2. You will pass out and die, but because there's never a CO2 buildup, your body doesn't experience the normal suffocation reaction.[/URL].
Click to expand...


There was an episode of "Murder She Wrote" in which the victim was killed by pumping nitrogen into his study, and the security camera footage showed him just seemingly falling asleep without acting in any way unusual beforehand. The clue was that the footage also showed that his cigar kept going out and needing to be relit before he died.
 
When I heard the Lesser Prez Bush exclaim, "'N Ah'd even th'ow the leever mahself!" I thought, Sure you would, after a prison's worth of guards had rendered the victim safely helpless for you. But what if it was just you and the condemned man alone and bare handed in some quiet place? How would the death penalty look to you then?

Alone and bare handed? Hell, why not? Or maybe early Hunger Games, where both players are issued a spiked mace?
 
sackett said:
When I heard the Lesser Prez Bush exclaim, "'N Ah'd even th'ow the leever mahself!" I thought, Sure you would, after a prison's worth of guards had rendered the victim safely helpless for you. But what if it was just you and the condemned man alone and bare handed in some quiet place? How would the death penalty look to you then?

Alone and bare handed? Hell, why not? Or maybe early Hunger Games, where both players are issued a spiked mace?
Click to expand...

Hell lets just turn it into gladiator games. The condemned versus the American Gladiators, tonight at 9/8 central on NBC! If the condemned wins against a trained AMERICAN Gladiator, its surely gods will that he go free!
 
Maybe they can re-purpose the set from Thunderdome.

Addressing this as an atheist with no belief in an afterlife, I find the whole thing kind of silly. Of course we don't want to cause a bunch of unnecessary torture, pain and anguish, but if it's of very short duration, it's soon enough forgotten. A humane execution is an oxymoron. You can kill softly only in song.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom