Humane Executions

In today's news, Utah is considering bringing back firing squads as a more humane method of execution. There has been much recent controversy about lethal injections. Are they really humane, or do they cause prolonged suffering? Setting aside the question of whether we should be executing people at all, most would say that executions should be as quick and painless as possible. Yet the electric chair, the gas chamber, and the noose are still the methods that haunt us. What to do?

I've had surgery under general anesthesia on three occasions. The anesthetic is given via mask or needle, and then you wake up after the operation. There is no pain, no bad memory, no fear. You become unconscious almost instantly. The same anesthetics used for surgery would kill people if used in significantly higher doses. It seems obvious to me that if we really want quick painless executions, that would be how to do it. So I wonder why we go through all this head-scratching and legal contortion. When lethal injections were the preferred method, most people assumed they would work like surgical anesthesia.

I can think of only two explanations. Either people want cruel painful executions, no matter what they say, or capital punishment opponents prefer cruel methods so that they can make a stronger case for ending execution. If so, this seems unconscionably indifferent to today's prisoners. Or is it just that no one has thought of the obvious?

Do others agree that if there is to be capital punishment, the best way to do it is with overdoses of anesthetics?

 

never heard anyone complain afterword about being shot threw the heart with 3, 30 caliber rounds .. you cant miss with the bullside so theres no mistakes

 

there is no such thing as a humane execution. That being said, if a person is to be executed for a heinous crime, then there should be no doubt to the verdict or sentence. Furthermore, whether by lethal injection, firing squad or electric chair, the process should be done expeditiously as possible without any delay to the condemned or to the people who have to carry out the execution.

 

my bad its 5 guys with 4 bullets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad

only 25 feet away

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/justice/utah-firing-squad/

 

heres the utah setup so they dont have to build another one its still there intact

 

Will you concede that there's an important difference between being overdosed with anesthetic and being burned at the stake? For the person being executed, the pain, time, and fear involved make a great difference.

 

The question is whether all the bullets actually penetrate the heart. It's at least possible that someone could be badly wounded without dying immediately.

What I don't understand is why executions need to be in some way "special" - rituals that kill people in abnormal ways. Why even shoot someone, with all the blood and bullets and mess, with the need for a special facility, when a simple gas mask or injection would kill someone in seconds without pain?

 

The Firing Squad is one of the most humane when one considers in an instant there is a gaping hole
where the heart once beat.

Remember Gary Gilmore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gilmore

" He was strapped to a chair, with a wall of sandbags placed behind him to trap the bullets. Five gunmen, local police officers, stood concealed behind a curtain with five small holes, through which they aimed their rifles. "

and then there is this would be Gary Gilmore
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27303555
Convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner chose the firing squad as his method of execution.
On 17 June 2010 his arms, legs and head were strapped to a metal chair and four bullets - from five sharpshooters, one whose gun was loaded with blanks - ripped through a target pinned over his heart.
It was a swift execution, but critics called it barbaric.

Until the Medical community allows trained personnel to deliver the medicines, Firing Squad is probably the most humane.



Moi

No ​

 

Yes, there is a difference which is why I said "expeditiously as possible for both the condemned and the executioner"

 

it happen in 1879 rare the guards where probably drunk and they didnt strap him in good either because note {He leapt off the chair}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Wilkerson

 

utah learn from the 1879 mistake and as you can see, they strap them in better to a chair and pole 1894 sketch here so they wouldnt move

 

firing squad recorded , 1938 15.4 seconds it was documented the heart of this guy stoped , not bad he must of be unconscious in a seconds
http://www.madsciencemuseum.com/msm/pl/heartbeat_at_death

 

Execution is for uncivilised countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and the USA.

 

no its called git r done , put them in the twilight your out of here zone

 

I have never understood how execution is somehow "uncivilized".

Also, am I the only person that's surprised that it took 13 posts before someone said something like this?

 

You forgot South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia as "uncivilized" societies.

 

Right. That was my point. The fastest and most certain is still anesthetics.

- - - Updated - - -

If the point is to kill someone, why does it have to be trained personnel? Just let anyone deliver a dose certain to be enough.

- - - Updated - - -

OK. But why shooting? Aren't anesthetics easier and cleaner?

 

We can debate that. The question is, if we assume people are to be executed, what's the best way to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Human nature - whatever "we" do is the best; whatever others do is "uncivilized."

 

The SteadyPie conjecture: "the most compassionate method of execution is always the one which compresses the brain from fully operational to entirely destroyed in the smallest amount of time".

Drop a huge block of lead on his head. Let him use all the drugs he wants prior - it's not like heroin will have a chance to harm him, we're dropping a giant block on his head lol.

 

We are talking about the most despicable, repugnant animals posing as human beings here.

I don't give a rat's ass if it's humane or not. Kill the son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and do it quickly.

 

You are right of course.
High velocity frangible bullets to the brain is fastest. Getting knocked out with drugs should work also

 

People on occasion survive bullets to the head - plus a 1 tonne block of lead costs $2000, and can be used again and again. All you need is a small crane to lift the block, and a solid concrete floor. Line up the edge of the block with the lead, and drop it from a height of like 3 meters. You could have it on rails for extra accuracy. Like a blunt force guillotine.

The drugs thing is based off the assumption that drug law is to prevent harm rather than craft moralistic legislation to force society's values on the individual - so it's a bit of a flawed proposal. Conservatives would probably oppose it. I don't see why - he's in chains, he can't harm anyone else, and it doesn't matter if he gets (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up himself. Rather than incinerating drugs from the evidence locker, we should let death row inmates take as much as they want an hour prior to the execution. Even the Romans offered Jesus some wine before they nailed him up. Let's be more like the Romans

[hr][/hr]

The problem with the less painful ways to kill a death row inmate is that they create this imagery that politicians can't deal with. It makes them look like barbarians. Dropping a big chuck of metal on someone's head shows the death penalty for what it is, and we're forced to stop these fantasies that it's some scientific, medical procedure. The lethal injection is a propaganda tool more than an effective method - it places the state's seal of approval on it. You have to make the process as inhuman and sterile as possible for it to get any support.

The death penalty as it stands is a failure of government as much as any market failure is a failure of the market. It fails to adequately reflect the preferences of society.

 

Correction, people sometimes survive poorly aimed inadequate bullets to the brain. And usually just one. That need not be the case in executions.

As for the validity of execution we'll need to disagree. There are some animals that do not deserve to live.

 

I just feel like completely annihilating the brain is a more surefire way than destroying it by shredding the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of it. Preference I guess, they amount to the same thing.

Huh? I'm not opposed to killing those who use force against you.

 

Ok maybe I read your posts wrong.

4 frangible bullets at 4000 fps will vaporize the human brain. Agree it's too messy to garner political support.