Burning at the stake would surely make people think twice about commiting capital crimes, one of the most painful ways to go.
Depending on the state in the US you could be given a choice of execution. I agree with this, let the condemned choose. Some of the options (liking stoning) I would be against as we have to consider the conscious of the executioner(s).
Most humane method: Double-barrel shotgun blast to both sides of the head. Only way to do it humanely.
Plenty of evidence to show significant deterrence effects, from Ehrlich's original analysis to multiple papers from the likes of Shepherd
I've always been partial to throwing the condemned off the roof of a 20 story building, but your idea is very creative.
I'm on the fence about capital punishment. That said, if you're going to do it, the electric chair is about a good a method as any. That or a cattle gun.
The method used to execute a criminal should be the same or comparable to the one that caused the sentence. In the case of multiple crimes, then the criminal should be executed and medically revived for as many times as the number of crimes. Actually he should be revived one less. And if the people who survive the crimes wish his sentence to be commuted to life, the so be it. Execution should be about justice and revenge, so, it should only be done, if the survivors want it done.
I'm in transition on my views on the death penalty but if it is going to be done basic double tap. One shot to the heart, one to the head. Quick and painless.
Other" Drawing and quartering Impalement Any method that was used by the individual being executed. Any method that anyone can think of, if it satisfies the survivors of the criminal action.
I'm against the death penalty, but believe if it is to be done, it should be done in the least cruel way possible: carbon monoxide poisoning. Lethal injection is bizarre, because it seeks to be less painful for the executor rather than the executed (it causes severe pain but the person cannot react to it). Carbon monoxide would be both. I don't understand how the electric chair ever passed the cruel and unusual test. It's both cruel and unusual. Hanging can actually be quite humane if done properly.
In the first place, if as some say, the death penalty is to be used for a deterrent, then it needs to be done in a painful and humiliating way. To deter others from doing something and get the same thing. However I personally believe in the Death Penalty (not capital punishment) because it completely stops the criminal from ever committing another crime, against anyone. I also believe that a person should only be executed if the survivors of the criminal action wish it to happen, and in that case, the survivors should be able to choose the method. Oh, and I do not consider anything cruel when used on people who deserve the death sentence, and mankind has used any and everything you can think of to kill his fellows, so nothing is unusual. Oh, there are drugs that kill painlessly. Any anesthetic can kill in a large enough dose.
I don't have a problem with the death penalty but I do have a problem with torture. We should removing the type of person who is capable of doing such from society not employing them. There have been many absurdly grotesque forms of executions invented. The guy who tortures some innocent kid or whomever to death is no worse the the executioner that tortures him, they are cut from the same cloth.
We do not agree--if you legally torture a person sentenced to be legally tortured, that is not the same as ILLEGALLY torturing someone. One is legal, the other is not. One is done by a psychopath the other by a law-abiding citizen. Humans are killers, we are cruel, mean, violent and if left to our own resources produce quite violent ways of treating people we do not like. I see no problem with applying the violent nature of humans to legally treating of criminals.
Do you want Justice or Reveange? To everybody that defends the Death Penalty I say to them that. And also the death penalty is a failure as a deterrant. People won't be afraid to commit new crimes. That is a fact. The only useful deterrant against the crime is Education. Well, but I agree that if death penalty was used has to be the most human possible, although it isn't. It is the minimium painful for the victim. And if you want to mention just for history a cruel method and used until the 70s in Spain is the "garrote vil". I don't know the translation in English, if it has.
It isn't legal, but even if it was something being lawful does not make it right, and calling a wolf a lamb does not make it so. Not all humans are cruel, mean, and violent. Not saying that I am not capable of violence under certain situations, but I quite sure I would never be able to torture someone.
Ok. In that logic the atrocities committed by the Nazis were fine, because under Nazi law they were perfectly legal and those who took part in them were law-abiding citizens.
The one not acceptable to me is old age. A man was recently executed after waiting on death row for 33 years.
I don't believe that is a true statement. I have never heard of a law in Nazi Germany that said Jews, Gays, Gypsies, and developmentally disabled people could be killed.
I have no problem with Justice or Revenge. I think that legal execution should be as painful, time consuming, humiliating and done in public. When a person is executed they NO LONGER can commit a crime. A life sentence, or any other punishment does NOT do that, only Execution prevents any more crime from that individual. Oh, Actually, I believe impalement should be used unless the victims survivors have another choice.
The fact that you can say that "I would never be able to torture someone", proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt that you do not have a clue about what any human is capable of. With the correct "incitement" you would certainly torture someone. Actually I was saying IF it were legal, but that is OK. I for one do not believe in torture to gain information. But, I have no problem with cruel, painful and humiliating treatment as a punishment for criminal actions performed.
The holoucaust and other atrocities of the Nazis were done "under cover" because they were ILLEGAL. None of the atrocities done by the Nazis were ever legal under German law, so, you are mistaken. By the way, there is a HUGE difference in legally assigned punishment for criminal action, and the illegal murder of people you do not like.
