If only psychology as practiced in 1960s spy movies actually worked. Prison wardens could use spinning spirals or colored flashing lights or weird noises or however they did it back then, to induce asphyx fetish in death row prisoners. Then the condemned could choose their own favorite means (hanging, garrote, drowning, quicksand...) and eagerly get to it.
Why not hanging for carrying out the death penalty?
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
One other weird little tidbit.
When the Supreme Court made the landmark decision in Furhman Vs Georgia that lead to capital punishment in the US being Unconstitutional from 1972 to 1976 one of the core arguments, ironically and it's very weird to look it with modern eyes, was that capital punishment was cruel and unusual BECAUSE it was used to rarely. In the ruling the death penalty ITSELF was not deemed "cruel and unusual" under the Constitution but it being applied so rarely that it was, in the Court's own words "A random bolt of lightning" was.
It could be argued (again only and completely within the confines of the discussion as to humane executions) that it is cruel to someone to be executed for a crime while in the exact same jurisdiction countless people get life in prison for the exact same crime.
When the Supreme Court made the landmark decision in Furhman Vs Georgia that lead to capital punishment in the US being Unconstitutional from 1972 to 1976 one of the core arguments, ironically and it's very weird to look it with modern eyes, was that capital punishment was cruel and unusual BECAUSE it was used to rarely. In the ruling the death penalty ITSELF was not deemed "cruel and unusual" under the Constitution but it being applied so rarely that it was, in the Court's own words "A random bolt of lightning" was.
It could be argued (again only and completely within the confines of the discussion as to humane executions) that it is cruel to someone to be executed for a crime while in the exact same jurisdiction countless people get life in prison for the exact same crime.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Or, if you think it's necessary, try to do it as un-squeamishly as possible. Cleaning a cat's litterbox makes me squeamish, but seeing as how cats are necessary in my life, I make do.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
That's actually a great point.
Not all people are alike, and I don't know if we can actually say, "This here is the very best of all methods of dying." I suppose the most humane way to do this, if do this one must, is to have a whole array of methods, and the guy on his way out gets fully informed in full detail about each method, and then makes his considered choice.
That's probably the most humane option, to give the guy that choice.
eta: Yeah, it's bizarre actually, to on one hand allow for killing people like this, and on the other hand to think of being humane about it. But still, within those bizarre parameters, I suppose this is the most humane solution, to offer the guy a whole array of options, and leave him to make the choice.
etaa: Absolutely, including even grisly but sureshot methods, like that weight dropping on the head thing of Joe's, as well as the decapitation thing those weirdos in Japan apparently used to go in for, or maybe the guillotine, make it a nice big menu. Including hanging as well, sure.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The most humane option would be to give the executioner that choice, I think.
The one condemned has been judged by his community to be such an irredeemably anti-social creature that he should be summarily and permanently removed from existence. This is not someone who has earned the privilege of his choice of exit strategies.
Plus, he had the same opportunity as everyone else, to influence the selection of his manner of death. We all vote. We all exercise our freedom of speech to advocate for what's important to us. His input into the choice of execution method has already been registered, alongside the input of everyone else in the community.
Why should the existential enemy of our community have the final say in how we conduct our business? He lost that privilege when he raised his hand against us. If anyone should have that privilege, it should be the executioner. Let them choose which method they can carry out, with the least moral and psychological burden.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Even those condemned to death still have human rights. No need to froth at the mouth at the notion that maybe some of them might derive a tiny bit less torture out of the process if they were able to choose the method.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,684
To reduce the amount of final struggle he puts up against his fate, which reduces the burden on the executioner.
And the proposal wasn't to let them choose an arbitrary method, but to choose one of a selection of approved methods. And you can even have different executioners for different methods, so that no executioner would need to use a method they didn't feel comfortable using, and thus they too are exercising their choice.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That makes sense.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Fine, as long as the list includes scaphism!
Thermal
August Member
"We have determined that your one and only existence must be ended at our hands, because you tortured and dismembered your victims. Oh, but we will make sure you are not uncomfortable in those last few seconds, because that's important. Optics, you see."
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
But "optics" is a proper reason to make the execution as clean as possible. "Personal preference of the convict" is not.
Thermal
August Member
I can see not being deliberately sadistic about it as proper "optics", but beyond that I think the last-minute discomfort is the least of the convicted dude's problems.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Not the case though. The respiratory distress that we feel is caused by a build-up of CO2 above the "normal" level, not by the reduction of oxygen. In this case, we're talking about the nitrogen (or helium or other non-reactive gas) displacing the oxygen. It doesn't get taken up by the blood, so the body asphyxiates from lack of oxygen - but neither the brain nor the body even recognize it, because the CO2 content doesn't rise.
This is actually a fairly well documented phenomenon.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It might be high on the the executioner's list of problems. And the overseer's list of problems. And the observers' lists of problems.
I keep saying that ultimately the method of execution must sit well with the community that prescribes it. You keep replying to me as if I'm saying that ultimately it must sit well with the convict. I'm not saying that. I don't believe it. Please stop replying as if I do.
I said earlier that using a mask invites a lot of things going wrong. Including, but not limited to, insufficient gas flow to the mask so it ends up being a de facto obstructive suffocation, or the mask allowing re-inhalation of exhaled breath which would both draw out the process (since exhaled breath still has quite a bit of oxygen in it) and allow CO2 to build up. I wonder if either of those possibilities actually contributed to what was observed and reported.
A chamber has unfortunate associations and guarantees a lot of extra preparation and fuss, but a clear hood something like what used to be called an "oxygen tent" in hospitals, flooded with a high flow of nitrogen, should be sufficient. Let the executioner wear an oxygen mask of his own, if he's afraid of "escaped nitrogen."
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
See the OP.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
I suspect any executioner charged with the use of nitrogen in the conduct of their business would be well versed in the amount of nitrogen they safely inhale with every breath.