Painless Capital Punishment

[torcher]

this vid shows a guy and his quest to find a painless form of capital punshment.
so in your opinion, should capital punishment hurt the prisoner? or should it be painless?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8672745777809394637&hl=undefined

[Th0r]

You hear all these 'liberals' talking about humane capital punishment.

Humane capital punishment would be not to utilise it in the first place.

[odin_dax]

I think painless punishment is stupid. I'm sure the murderer's victim(s) didn't get the same "humane" treatment.

[lcnostra]

You hear all these 'liberals' talking about humane capital punishment.

Humane capital punishment would be not to utilise it in the first place.

Eh, I would consider myself a liberal and I believe in capital punishment. In the case of irrefutable evidence of a heinous crime, it's fully justified. If you take somebody's life, you relinquish your own right to live.

[Pimpin4Life30]

Whats that sayin two wrongs dont make a right? Everyone seems to forget that when the government kills someone.

[Twist]

What a waste of time, gun to the head would be the simple solution. Quick, painless, excellent fear factor for aspiring criminals.

[torcher]

Whats that sayin two wrongs dont make a right? Everyone seems to forget that when the government kills someone.

our government has been killing thousands of people a year for almost 250 years.

What a waste of time, gun to the head would be the simple solution. Quick, painless, excellent fear factor for aspiring criminals.

good point. they didnt cover firing squad in the documentary

[odin_dax]

Whats that sayin two wrongs dont make a right? Everyone seems to forget that when the government kills someone.

Killing isn't murder. Even the Bible makes that distinction, and makes it clear when society can remove a murderer from society. I can't argue with that.

Bible or not, religion or not, no one can justify to me the life of luxury a murderer can get. Why should someone waste taxpayer money, get free room and food, clothes, laundry, even internet and a gym for years upon years, sometimes even life, after they have horribly killed someone, and probably over nothing?

What about the rights of the victims? Is it not wrong to place a higher value on the life of the murderer than that of the victim? To me, that is injustice.

Twist has it right... bullet to the brain, end of story.

[Th0r]

Eh, I would consider myself a liberal and I believe in capital punishment. In the case of irrefutable evidence of a heinous crime, it's fully justified. If you take somebody's life, you relinquish your own right to live.

Note the inverted commas, an implicit remark regarding societies perception of liberals, particularly what is a liberal.

[Day_N_Night]

If a person is going to be murdered by the state (capital punishment), i think it ought to be public and and painful. If it was public then it would be a good deterrent. Take Pedophiles for example. If pedophiles were publicly humiliated or executed i'm pretty sure that would cause them to think twice before touching little kids.

[bankraped]

That would drive them further underground. Like what happened with To Catch A Predator. Only the stupid pedos got caught.

[savage_beauty]

The criminals didn't think about someone else’s human rights when they committed their crime. Why should someone care about his or hers rights for his or hers death?

I think it should be public and painful to set an example to others and to discourage others from committing those sorts of crimes (e.g. murder, paedophilia, rape ect)

[Day_N_Night]

That would drive them further underground. Like what happened with To Catch A Predator. Only the stupid pedos got caught.

You dont get it. If a few of them are made an example of, ie be publicly humiliated infront of thousands and then brutally/painfully killed that woud no doubt deter others from committing the same crime.

[thief]

be publicly humiliated infront of thousands and then brutally/painfully killed that woud no doubt deter others from committing the same crime.

Sounds like Africa or Iraq etc

[Raverous]

There is no black and white imo.. the punishment should match the crime. If execution is warranted I think a gunshot to the head is fine, a lot cheaper too. One .45acp vs 10+ years on death row, on the tax payers dime.. then either the chair or an injection which is rumored to be quite painful... and expensive..

hmmm....

I also think we should bring back public executions.. of course it would probably be automated.. have a robot bring down the axe so the guy doesn't end up being chopped 10 times before finally being beheaded. Also let the guy sit in a stockade for a few days before hand.. encourage people to throw rotten fruit at him if such is warranted, example.. a rapist or a brutal serial killer.

[odin_dax]

Since public execution hasn't prevented crime, I don't think we need it. Most political scientists speculate that public executions would end capital punishment.

[7eleven mafia]

Killing isn't murder. Even the Bible makes that distinction, and makes it clear when society can remove a murderer from society. I can't argue with that.

Bible or not, religion or not, no one can justify to me the life of luxury a murderer can get. Why should someone waste taxpayer money, get free room and food, clothes, laundry, even internet and a gym for years upon years, sometimes even life, after they have horribly killed someone, and probably over nothing?

What about the rights of the victims? Is it not wrong to place a higher value on the life of the murderer than that of the victim? To me, that is injustice.

Twist has it right... bullet to the brain, end of story.



As far as capital punishment, legal fees for a convict to go through costs a great deal of money and time and it actually ends up being more than housing, and feeding a criminal, that is the problem with the bureaucratic shit, because by the time the criminal got capital punishment there would have been so many fees with legal aspects and the ability to appeal X amount of times, so really if the bureaucratic shit wasn't there it would be a lot better, and this is the way you have to realize it even if it was painful in the slightest how would they even realize it after they are dead, there is no waiting period for a death, who cares if it was painful they are dying anyways, and a gun to the head is quick, painless, cheap, and effective, but most wouldn't go for it

[torcher]

of course it would probably be automated.. have a robot bring down the axe so the guy doesn't end up being chopped 10 times before finally being beheaded.

you wouldn't need a robot...they perfected a machine just for this task in the 17th century called the guillotine.

[Raverous]

you wouldn't need a robot...they perfected a machine just for this task in the 17th century called the guillotine.

true, I forgot about those. :biggthump

[DangerousLuck]

I'm still new here, but I already have a post relating to this. Essentially, I don't completely subscribe to the notion that humans should be dealing out the concept of "punishment" anyway. At first thought, I'm against capital punishment for that reason and for the phenomenal amount of mistakes we've made in the process.

But when it comes to issues like this, I tend to side with the economical side of things. Just as I'm pro-choice because of the economics involved rather than try and appeal to the moral dilemma of either side, I believe in a quick and inexpensive execution. Theoretically, it'd be nice (if we simply must use capital punishment) to render the verdict, bang the gavel, and send a single bullet into the head of the condemned.

Pretty painless, but more important than petty revenge or punishment, it's economical. A single bullet, eventual minimal firearm upkeep, some cleaning supplies and a few moments of crematory fires burning vs years on death row and expensive electrical and/or chemical equipment.

[need2knowbases]

I'm still new here, but I already have a post relating to this. Essentially, I don't completely subscribe to the notion that humans should be dealing out the concept of "punishment" anyway.

Then who should?

[DangerousLuck]

Then who should?

No one, I believe no human or human construct is more valid than any other.

[need2knowbases]

No one, I believe no human or human construct is more valid than any other.

So, if I interpret this correctly, you think that the criminal (or the criminal's actions) are no better / worse then the prosecutor or the sentence handed out to them? By that logic, you are saying that no one should be punished for their actions?

[DangerousLuck]

By my logic, I suggest that it is never assured that the punisher is any more right or justified than the punished. Sure, I have my own moral code and humans as a species tend to agree on very, very few abstract principles, but it's the institutionalization of crime and punishment that I take issue with.

[davey_crockshit]

The reason they use lethal injection a lot is not to make things easier on the victim, but rather to spare the feelings of those performing the execution. It makes it easier for them, in some subconscious way, to deny the reality of what they are doing.

"On Killing' might give some further insight into this subject.

[Th0r]

"On Killing' might give some further insight into this subject.

Are you referring to the book by Dave Grossman?

If you are it can be found in my 4Shared folder.