A Humane Execution

wellwisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some people would consider that wait time you are talking about to be inhumane (many years on death row). If I was on death row, I would much rather just get it over with. Also, think what it does to the revenge crazed loved ones of the victim. They can't put the whole thing behind them and move on, but have to take an agonizing emotional roller coaster ride of appeals and last minute stays and what not, wondering if it will ever end. Then just think of the disappointment if for some reason the execution doesn't happen?
 
cosmictraveler said:
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:
Click to expand...

I'm all for justice in this sense, but one cannot always be sure of someone's guilt. If you want to be inhumane to someone you are sure is a killer or worse, then do it yourself and be prepared to accept the consequences. I don't think revenge should be a task of the justice system.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
The death penalty has come under scrutiny lately since the lethal injection cocktail (typically a barbiturate, paralytic, and potassium solution) has come under attack as being inhumane. Evidently the first injection which is meant to render the patient unconscious can wear off when the second paralytic is being administered and its supposed to be painful as hell (burning sensation).

Anyway, former Conservative MP Michael Portillo who once supported the death penalty went on a journey to find a humane way of killing convicts on death row. You can see his journey here: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/kill-human-being/
Click to expand...
Quote from the link:
As the American Supreme Court examines whether the lethal injection is causing prisoners to die in unnecessary pain, Michael sets out to find a solution which is fundamentally humane.
Click to expand...
I wonder if I'll reach at times, when killing a human by the human will be considered to be inhumane? :(
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
The first one is ilegal murder, the other is legal murder.
Both are commiting the same crime towards life.
Click to expand...

Then you must feel the same way about prison, no?

If I lock someone in a cage in my basement, I'm kidnapping them. But after a trial, is the government still "kidnapping" them? Is taking taxes out of my paycheck "steeling", since if I took someone else's money, I'd be steeling?

See, all this forgets the point that government is a super-human entity. Governments have the right to do things individual or groups of citizens cannot do. THAT is the very definition of a "republic" (a soverign nation wherein the citizens cede certain "mob powers" to a larger government, who acts with the consent of the governed, and to carry them out on behalf of the public. These powers are typically divided into their theoretical branches and checked so that one cannot exercise more than is absolutely necessary). Incumbent in these powers is the ability to send you to kill another person (war), to deny you of freedom and lock you in a cage (prison), to take money that you don't want to give (taxes), to force you off your land when you don't want to give it up (eminent domain) and--of course--to kill you if necessary (capital punishment).

These are all things that--should an individual person undertake on their own--would be crimes of treason and subterfuge, but when the government does it, it's called "a republic".

~String
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
The first one is ilegal murder, the other is legal murder.
Click to expand...

Please cite your definition of "murder," and how such is differentiated from "homicide" more generally, or categories such as manslaughter. Where does self-defense fit in?

Wisdom_Seeker said:
Both are commiting the same crime towards life.
Click to expand...

"Murder" is commonly understood as a crime against a person, not "life" in the abstract. Hence my request for clarified definitions.

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

What I implied was that there is some moral distinction between a regular murder, and an execution following a jury trial or whatever legal process. Do you disagree, or are you just going to respond by assigning false dichotomies to me?

And, at least where I live, laws are created through a democratic process that I am represented in. And not simply "dictated by other people say so." If we were talking about a totalitarian dictatorship the story might be different - although I'd suggest that laws against stuff like murder are so universally recognized as valid as to be non-problematic even in that context. Many would probably argue that there is something like a natural law against such, absent any invocation of a specific legal system recognizing such.
 
chimpkin said:
Murder is actually most likely to be something committed in a moment of temporary emotional overwhelm, and the least likely crime to be recommitted.
Click to expand...
That sounds more like manslaughter. First degree murder requires premeditation.

The only fair and just penalty for murder is death. Anything less is a slap on the wrist and an insult to the victim.
 
madanthonywayne said:
That sounds more like manslaughter. First degree murder requires premeditation.
Click to expand...

Murder means "with intent to kill" right? Then 1st degree would be the premeditation part, right?

madanthonywayne said:
The only fair and just penalty for murder is death. Anything less is a slap on the wrist and an insult to the victim.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the only "fair and just", but it certainly should not be dispensed with.

~String
 
quadraphonics said:
The usual phrase is something like "killing with malice aforethought."
Click to expand...

How would you categorize this scenario, a man tells his girlfriend if he finds out she's sleeping with anyone else he will kill her. A month later he comes home early and catches her in bed with someone else and kills her.

In a court he will say it was a crime of passion and not premeditated. But in reality he threatened her and then carried out the threat, which to my way of thinking is premeditated 1st degree murder.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
How would you categorize this scenario, a man tells his girlfriend if he finds out she's sleeping with anyone else he will kill her. A month later he comes home early and catches her in bed with someone else and kills her.

In a court he will say it was a crime of passion and not premeditated. But in reality he threatened her and then carried out the threat, which to my way of thinking is premeditated 1st degree murder.
Click to expand...

I would categorize that scenario as a good example of what juries are for.
 
quadraphonics said:
I would categorize that scenario as a good example of what juries are for.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately juries convict innocent people and let criminals go free. Quite frequently having the money to afford the best lawyers and a staff of investigators is what makes the difference between innocent or guilty. So the law is not equal for everybody. I'm sure most people have tried to imagine what it would be like to be accused of a crime you didn't commit. Sitting in court listening to a prosecutor spin lies about you in front of a jury and your thinking if I was on that jury the person the prosecutor was talking about would be guilty for sure. OMG! Help!
 
Quite frequently having the money to afford the best lawyers and a staff of investigators is what makes the difference between innocent or guilty. So the law is not equal for everybody.
Click to expand...


Regarding public legal defense:

In 2001, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that 20% of the 84 people who faced execution in that state during the past 20 years were represented by lawyers who were disbarred, suspended or arrested at some point in their careers. The state’s disbarment rate for attorneys is less than 1%.... In Texas, Carl Johnson’s lawyer, who was court-appointed, slept on the job. Johnson was executed in 1995.
Click to expand...

http://www.misacor-usa.org/index.php/wrongful-convictions-and-legal-representation
 
The real victims of corporal punishment are the ones that have to administer it. In an ideal society the death penalty will be administered by a sensor inside a sealed room. A group of soldiers lead the perpetrator to the room. Once inside the sensor senses his presence, the door shuts, and the chamber is filled with gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top