A Humane Execution

[quadraphonics]

When it comes to the death penalty, would you feel better about death row if you knew the death would be painless psychologically as well as physically?

? Huh? Your material there doesn't seem to address psychological pain, only physical pain. Knowing that you are going to be killed, and then being killed, is presumably the lion's share of the psychological anguish associated with the death penalty, so I don't see how lessening the physical pain really affects that.

What's the point of having a death penalty as a deterrent if it isn't horrific and uncomfortable?

Well, the punishee ends up dead, for one thing. Most people consider the prospect of death, by whatever means, to be a fairly strong deterrent.

Is it fair to the victims of violent crime if the perpetrators are allowed to smile their way to death?

What if the perpetrator allowed his victim to similarly smile their way to death?

The perp still ends up dead in this punishment, right?

If it fair to the victims of violent crime (actually, this would only be victims of murder - nobody gets executed for simple battery) that we implicate them in a process of cruelty and torture?

I have always felt uncomfortable with the means they have of executing criminals but it never once occurred to me that they use horrific means because they want the convict to experience a horrific death, I always just assumed that they couldn't find a better way of snuffing them out.

It's the latter. This stuff doesn't even rate on the scale of "horrific execution methods." They aren't burning people at the stake, or drawing and quartering them in the public square, or performing fatal medical experiments on them without anesthesia, or any of the manifold other terrifying methods that have been widely used in human history.

Would you vote for the use of hypoxia as a means of death? Or do you believe the gruesome measures employed are more appropriate considering their crimes?

This hypoxia method sounds interesting. While I agree that there are some questions as to lethal injection and other methods, and they could all undoubtedly stand improvement, it's not clear to me that they qualify as "gruesome." Nobody gets hacked to bits or set on fire or anything like that.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I'm just saying, if you murder someone you are doing the same thing that the murderer did in the first place; so who is the good guy? None, both are the same.

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but we keep on hating hoping that somewhere on the line there will be only good people in the streets. That is impossible if we keep on this "eye for an eye" justice, it will never end this way. The only way to cease this cycle of hate and vengeance is that one as an individual decides to do the right thing and forgive his transgressors.
I'm not against punishment, but I'm against punishment driven by hate. Punishment needs to be compassionate, more than satisfying feelings of revenge it has to serve as growth and rehabilitation of the evildoer, without suffering. Like a parent punishing his child, he does it out of love, and to improve behavior; not with hate.

In school they teach us to memorize the dates of wars and battles between fellow humans, but so little they teach of love.

 

[chimpkin]

I wonder if it would be better to make the murderer work for the rest of his or her life in some industrial prison and give most or all of his pay to the victims' family?

So a life sentence with restitution involved?

At lest the survivors are getting some recompense.

 

[phlogistician]

Not according to the US officials who were interviewed. They showed favor towards vengeance when they basically told Portillo that their main concern is not to keep the prisoner comfortable. In other words the attitude was 'so what?' if their deaths are painful before death since their victims had experienced a gruesome horrific death. This is why they were not open to a less painless (or more humane) execution.

Then those guys are scumbags and need sacking. Worse than the criminals they execute. Perverse, twisted, soulless and evil. Probably have an unhealthy interest in killing people themselves.

 

[Cifo]

Where's the justice in torturing a human for the rest of their lives sitting behind bars without anyone to be with in solitary confinement?

You'll find that extremely few convicts remain in solitary for a long time. A convict must actually work hard (eg, persistent violent behavior, etc) in order to remain there. You'll also find that most lifers/longtermers adjust rather well to their limited physical/social world. Everyone's lives have some sort of physical/social limitations, so it's a relative matter, and most people do adjust well to it.

Murder is actually most likely to be something committed in a moment of temporary emotional overwhelm, and the least likely crime to be recommitted.

So what does that mean?

I think Chimpkin meant that most murders/killings are not random/senseless (ie, are not like Son of Sam, etc), and that they are typically committed under extraordinary circumstances, and that the recidivism rate for murderers/killers is much lower than for other types of criminals. However, the consequences of such crimes are obviously much more serious, and they tend to make the headlines, so the reporting of them is lopsided.

 

[cosmictraveler]

You'll find that extremely few convicts remain in solitary for a long time. A convict must actually work hard (eg, persistent violent behavior, etc) in order to remain there. You'll also find that most lifers/longtermers adjust rather well to their limited physical/social world. Everyone's lives have some sort of physical/social limitations, so it's a relative matter, and most people do adjust well to it.

So then it's not so bad for the criminal as you put it then. They get to spend their time enjoying their friends, exercising, visiting with relatives and eating 3 meals a day while their victims all are dead and the families left with no one the rest of their lives. I guess you like the people to have their lives full of daily activities at the prison when the victims are dead. Sounds rather strange to me but then again I only want justice brought to those who deserve it with the death sentence.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I wonder if it would be better to make the murderer work for the rest of his or her life in some industrial prison and give most or all of his pay to the victims' family?

I think that is a better option, it actually helps the affected people and it is value adding.

 

[S.A.M.]

I wonder if it would be better to make the murderer work for the rest of his or her life in some industrial prison and give most or all of his pay to the victims' family?

So a life sentence with restitution involved?

At lest the survivors are getting some recompense.

There is an old Hindi film on this theme, called Dushman [The Enemy] where a drunken truck driver who kills a man while DUI, is placed with his family for a lifetime of service since that man was the only breadwinner with a lot of dependents.

I think the modern prison system is a failed experiment. It does nothing to discourage recividism and in fact, the physical, psychological and emotional abuse makes prisoners into permanent victims of this system. The death penalty is a sign that we have not yet evolved beyond violence to rehabilitation

 

[Stryder]

Doesn't "Humane Execution" ring like an Oxymoron? If it doesn't then you likely belong to a culture where it's rife.

Execution to me is wrong because the people that are executed have usually caused some form of suffering (e.g. being inhumane), they aren't either given the opportunity to reform for a crime that might have been emotionally and/or psychologically based, but on the other hand they haven't had a cruel envisionment of some torturous imprisonment where a torture is committed for many years on them before they are allowed back into society.

It will sound cruel, but one of the main problems that the criminals that are usually applied to death row have is the inability to "Empathize" (They wouldn't necessarily think of the consequences of their actions, or care about how people are effected, injured or tortured etc)

Empathy is pretty much the main thing that defines a civilised society, without it we'd just club people over the head we don't like or shoot people on sight.

Empathy doesn't just have to exist on a social basis, it also exists on a more egocentric basis, after all if you think you are going to suffer years of having your bones broken and reset over and over again one by one, your going to think that it's going to be extremely painful and something you are going to want to avoid. This either means a person would attempt to evade capture with deadly intent or by not doing the crime in the first place.

Of course saying this generates the same problem as an Execution method of justice, if the punishment for a crime is harsh, then the criminal will likely Elevate his commitment to conduct the crime and evade capture to the point of "deadly intent".

Evidentially the Justice system as a whole is always going to have a problem with balancing between being too lenient and costly, or being too harsh and likely to elevate the violence of the types of crime committed.

 

[John99]

I think Chimpkin meant that most murders/killings are not random/senseless (ie, are not like Son of Sam, etc), and that they are typically committed under extraordinary circumstances,

All cases are different, that is why there are different charges. Look at the different charges sometime, even for DWI and someone dies. Also, what would you say the charge should be for that? Guess it depends if you are the victim or the perpetrator. The drunk driver will say "it was a mistake" and the victim would say "thats some mistake, i am dead now".

It is unfortunate but do you want that person back driving by the weekend? And if there are no consequences for this mistake what do you recommend? A firm talking to? Take their driving privileges away?

and that the recidivism rate for murderers/killers is much lower than for other types of criminals.

So it should be higher?

If someone argues with you and kills you doesnt that mean there is some kind of problem with them that they would kill a person for an argument over say a parking space? and dont you think they would be put in similar situations? how would they react the next time? Most people wouldn't kill a person over a parking space argument. Dont you think this would say something about the type of person they are?

However, the consequences of such crimes are obviously much more serious, and they tend to make the headlines, so the reporting of them is lopsided.

I am not sure what the point is there. Reporting a crime is reporting a crime.

Still the real issue is addressed in post #37 but one side will ignore that post...and i think that is the real issue. They have no solutions.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm just saying, if you murder someone you are doing the same thing that the murderer did in the first place;

You think that murdering an innocent person is the same thing as subjecting someone to a jury trial and, if found guilty, executing them?

That's the "same thing," morally?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

You think that murdering an innocent person is the same thing as subjecting someone to a jury trial and, if found guilty, executing them?

That's the "same thing," morally?

The first one is ilegal murder, the other is legal murder.
Both are commiting the same crime towards life.

You are saying that it is moral to commit "legal murder", just because the law dictated by other people say so?

 

[John99]

You are saying that it is moral to commit "legal murder", just because the law dictated by other people say so?

How about for self defense?

For example, you would not murder someone trying to murder you?

And i mean while the crime is in progress.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

That depends on the situation, and the awareness of the people involved in that specific circumstance.
I wouldn’t say that a person who kills in self-defense on in the defense of other innocent people (as you say, when the crime is in progress) is immoral; it is a perfectly natural response.
But one who doesn’t respond violently when his life is being threatened is the incarnation of morality (a truly compassionate being).

For example: if you see that innocent people are going to be killed if you don’t act, you can kill the perpetrator out of compassion for the innocent people. It is very different from killing out of hatred towards an individual.

 

[John99]

That depends on the situation, and the awareness of the people involved in that specific circumstance.
I wouldn’t say that a person who kills in self-defense on in the defense of other innocent people (as you say, when the crime is in progress) is immoral; it is a perfectly natural response.
But one who doesn’t respond violently when his life is being threatened is the incarnation of morality (a truly compassionate being).

So not only is it moral but you say it is a natural reaction.

Before you said:

You are saying that it is moral to commit "legal murder", just because the law dictated by other people say so?

So you really cant say that a penalty of death is immoral. The victim would have done the same thing if they had the cahnce and then you say it is moral.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

So not only is it moral but you say it is a natural reaction.

Before you said:

So you really cant say that a penalty of death is immoral. The victim would have done the same thing if they had the cahnce and then you say it is moral.

The thing is John, we are talking about 2 very different situations on which the same moral standards cannot apply. Hypothetically speaking, say you have 2 kids (you love them equally), and one of them is going to kill the other because he is a psycho . You have 2 options in that moment: you can kill the psycho, and let the other live or you can do nothing and let him kill him. If you kill your son in that situation, you would not be doing it out of hate; you would be doing it out of compassion for the innocent one. Now this is a hypothetical situation on which there is no alternative.

So you tell me, what compassion is there in condemning someone to death row, or life sentence in solitary? Or let me refrain that: What good is it to anybody if you kill this man?
In that situation your motive is not to do any good to anybody, but to kill the perpetrator for the satisfying feelings of revenge; now for me, that is immoral. You would be doing it out of hate, out of unconsciousness. There are many alternatives that can be good for all people involved and for the society as well.

And about the natural “response” of defending oneself (I never said “reaction”, there is an important qualitative difference), life-preservation is a hard-coded biological response when life is threatened and that is not immoral.
Observe nature, and you will notice that animals do not go on carrying the burden of the past on their shoulders, they react to the present moment, and then that is it. See swans in the pond, if one male threatens another’s space, then there will be a fight; once the fight is over the two swans would part and go on with their lives, not carrying anything from the fight. You will never see the defeated swan sneaking on the other one for revenge.
Revenge of past actions seems to be a conditioned behavior of people, and it is driven by hate; this is immoral, unnatural, ugly, unconscious and just plain damaging. You are not really damaging the perpetrator by killing him, only be damaging yourself for the seed of hate that you planted in your heart. And continue with the cycle of hate because the action of killing him will trigger hate in others.

It is as Buddha is reported to have said: “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”.

 

[John99]

I am not hardcore death penalty but somewhere in the middle so able to see both sides.

The thing is John, we are talking about 2 very different situations on which the same moral standards cannot apply. Hypothetically speaking, say you have 2 kids (you love them equally), and one of them is going to kill the other because he is a psycho . You have 2 options in that moment: you can kill the psycho, and let the other live or you can do nothing and let him kill him.

If you kill your son in that situation, you would not be doing it out of hate; you would be doing it out of compassion for the innocent one. Now this is a hypothetical situation on which there is no alternative.

I think you are misinterpreting key concepts:

Compassion
Hate
Innocent - kind of a grey area but getting into that is not a good idea right now.

In your example above i dont think compassion is really the main motivation.

You see, as a rational party, that one son (you already determined as a psycho) is going to commit a crime. You prevent this by what you view, probably legitimately, as the only option to prevent the murder of the other son (you termed as innocent).

Otoh, you dont have to hate the other son, you may not hate him at all and why couldn't you have compassion for him and still have had to kill him in order to prevent a murder? If he is a Psycho....

So you tell me, what compassion is there in condemning someone to death row, or life sentence in solitary? Or let me refrain that: What good is it to anybody if you kill this man?

What good is it to arrest and imprison someone for stealing your car radio?

In that situation your motive is not to do any good to anybody, but to kill the perpetrator for the satisfying feelings of revenge; now for me, that is immoral. You would be doing it out of hate, out of unconsciousness. There are many alternatives that can be good for all people involved and for the society as well.

I dont necessarily see it as hate. If you look at it that way then any sentence you would impose can\should be viewed as hate, revenge etc.

As a general rule the jury doesnt hate the criminal.

And about the natural “response” of defending oneself (I never said “reaction”, there is an important qualitative difference), life-preservation is a hard-coded biological response when life is threatened and that is not immoral.
Observe nature, and you will notice that animals do not go on carrying the burden of the past on their shoulders, they react to the present moment, and then that is it. See swans in the pond, if one male threatens another’s space, then there will be a fight; once the fight is over the two swans would part and go on with their lives, not carrying anything from the fight. You will never see the defeated swan sneaking on the other one for revenge.
Revenge of past actions seems to be a conditioned behavior of people, and it is driven by hate; this is immoral, unnatural, ugly, unconscious and just plain damaging. You are not really damaging the perpetrator by killing him, only be damaging yourself for the seed of hate that you planted in your heart. And continue with the cycle of hate because the action of killing him will trigger hate in others.

Its not really a good idea to look at what animals would do. Plus they do seem to have short memories barring where to find food etc.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Otoh, you dont have to hate the other son, you may not hate him at all and why couldn't you have compassion for him and still have had to kill him in order to prevent a murder?

I meant in the hypothetical that murder is the only way of preventing the killing of the innocent one. I said psyco, because of the lack of motive; the psychopath lacks empathy and therefore may kill without provocation.
And you are right, not doing anything would be showing compassion towards the psyco and there is nothing wrong about that either; but my point is that killing to save a live out of compassion is not condemnable or immoral.
It is easier to identify with the emotion of compassion when you talk about kids. We have been up-rooted from our nature so much that normally wouldn’t identify when talking about people we don’t know.

What good is it to arrest and imprison someone for stealing your car radio?

No good

I dont necessarily see it as hate. If you look at it that way then any sentence you would impose can\should be viewed as hate, revenge etc.

And what is the motive of the accuser (if not that) then?

As a general rule the jury doesnt hate the criminal.

I would certainly hope so, but most people can’t deal with the subtle feelings of anger or hate that come with judging other people.

Its not really a good idea to look at what animals would do. Plus they do seem to have short memories barring where to find food etc.

Agreed, but there is much that we can learn from them also.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the bottlenecks in the debate over capital punishment, is subjective and is connected to how elapsed time can alter perception of the past, causing many to lose touch with the reality of the original event.

For example, someone breaks into your house and is threatening to kill you after already killing someone you know. The police come in and shoot him dead. This is the death penality in real time. Under the real time stresses and circumstances it would be a righteous kill even if shooting exceeds lethal injection.

In the next scenario, the killer has just killed your friend and is about to get you. The police charge in, but now the killer puts down his machete. This surrender will allow time to pass, before we can deal with justice. The final result will come out different, for the same action, because the human brain will average the murder, with whatever illlusion the defense will try to create over many years. Now, the same thing the police did in the first scenario (shooting) would be called excessive if it was done after the time delay and the subjective modification.

An analogy for this special effect of the mind is having a toothache. While it occurs one will be highly attuned to the pain. But six months down the line, one's attitude will change, due to water under the bridge. One might be able to recite what happened , when the tooth throbbed, but the emotion becomes more abstract, since the real time pain is no longer there. It is no big deal now. You might now remember being brave instead of whimpering like a baby in real time; selective conclusion.

The ancients figured out how this special effect works; brain will attempt to repress the original real time data and average over time; water under the bridge. The standard they decided to use was, as you do to others, so it shall be done to you. This keeps justice in real time and truncates the illusion effect of the time average which takes way from the pain of the victim and takes away the atrocity of the criminal.

In that case, justice would require that the killer be killed by the same method he used on his victim. If this meant hacking him up with a machete, so be it. What we do via capital punishment is actaully very humaine, since it waters down the machete hacking punishment into lethal injection. This watering down is due to time averaging, but it least it tries to keep its eye on the ball; real time without dilution illusion.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Why is it that some people want to be "humane" to the murderers but those murderers weren't humane to their victims? It seems that those wanting a humane treatment of convicted murderers and others that commit capital crimes forget all to soon as to the victims and what they went through when they were being tortured or mutilated when they were killed. Why is there no sympathy for the victims but only for the murderers? :shrug: