Pain and the death penalty

TheThing!

There was a feature on the subject of capital punishment in the most recent edition of BBC Focus magazine. The article discussed the inherently cruel methods of execution used in the past and even today. It went on to examine the issue of suffering during execution. Many methods of reducing the dying party’s pain were put forward, some as outlandish as firing Patriot missiles directly into the head of the condemned individual. I believe this raises an interesting point. The death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and therefore I believe that the issue of the condemned party’s suffering shouldn’t even matter. The sentence should only be given those who truly deserve it, and if one does deserve it, so what if it causes them suffering. And even if you do care about this person's final suffering, does it matter given that it preceeds what is ultimately the end of their existence?

What do you make of this issue?

Seloth

Didint it also say that if it was painless some people may do a crime to get the death penalty which is a common accurance.In an episode of shoot out on one of the Documentary channels on sky it had a man who purposly took hostags and killed one so he could get a death penalty.He released the person he shot who he thought would die as well as two of the three other hostages.He told his negotiator that he would come out peacefully if he got the lethal injection for his death penalty.Then it turns out the guy he shot is going to live and they try to prevent the media from knowing as the guy had a tv with him and the medi would report this,causing him to loose his deth penalty.

So yes,only the most hanouse of crimes should get a death penalty and in some way it should be made painful,if not the time leading up should causing people to not wishing to get a painless death without having to cause suicide.

One thing which also carries on from this is prision it's self.They go in,stay for so long depending on what they did,maybe work a bit,given full health care and wathc tv and play sport.Prision is the last place most people want to go but allot of criminals that go in do their crime again,so what I am saying is depeding on the crime a prision sentance should be made as uncompfertable as possible.Such as robbery,Murder or Sober assault.

JoeB-

Would any (responsible) country actually execute someone who commited a crime in order to be killed?, surely it would indicate a mental illness and so the person would have diminshed responsibility and would get a reduced sentence...

Seloth

It's done all the time.A person would more than likely not admit this is there reason.

bogwalrus

I think the pain of getting a death sentence is felt before you are actually executed. being in the cell those months or weeks before your day comes is probably some serious mental pain. If i knew i was going to die in exactly two weeks on wednesday at 10:20 i would be freaking out with my thoughts all scattered judging my life so far and thinking of what i should do before i die. Try and imagine it yourself.....its kind of freaky. Then again the whole idea of one deciding the fate of another is messed up....things should not be that way. If one does something wrong it is a social problem that the society has allowed to happen through ignorance and lack of knowledge (or something along those lines).

Seloth

Well if a person Killed a dozen people of all ages,using torture methods as well as rape ect.there is something more than likly mentaliy wrong with them,but there are also people on the streets who dont kill but who's minds are like this.

People like that are not safe to have,I dislike war and genral excectuion but some special cases should have that penalty.

Manic Moran

The prohibition is on "Cruel and unusual", not "No pain at all". I've no great issue with taking reasonable steps to get it over with quickly and relatively painlessly, but I don't think it should be a be-all and end-all.

Some States used to provide a variety of options to the condemned, giving him the choice of what way to go. Which is usually more than can be said for the choices that the condemned gave their victims. As time progressed, lawsuits eventually whittled down the options, leaving only one or two in use in any State. An interesting one is that a couple of States still allow the condemned to choose firing squad. Most people don't pick it as it's more likely to hurt (and indeed, nobody has in some 10 years), but it does have the very good advantage that the organs become available for donation afterwards, obviously not an option for lethal injection. As a result, both of Gary Gilmore's corneas are still in service, 30 years after his execution. It's a nice option, I guess, for anyone who feels particularly altruistic on their death bed, but one which the anti-death-penalty folks find an easy target under the 'excess pain' concept.

NTM

davej

TheThing! wrote: »

The death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and therefore I believe that the issue of the condemned party’s suffering shouldn’t even matter.

Part of the problem with this is that the world we live in is not monocultural.
There are some major differences as to what constitutes a most "heinous" crime in say Iran, the US and Sweden. And they all deal with offenders in different ways. However pain and suffering is universal to all of humanity, no matter what the culture. There is also the issue of miscarriages of justice. We don't have to look too far afield to see that things could have turned out a lot worse if the death penality was an option as punishment for the perpetrators of mass murder bombings (eg The Guildford 4). It would be bad enough if an innocent person was executed, let alone in a way that caused a lot of pain and suffering.

davej

Seloth

Manic Morna you do live up to your name as a Fireing squad is inveatbly going to hit organs or some body part needed when a guiliteen is more usfull,The guy who invented the lethal injection suggested that if people are to worried about it bring the guiliteen back.

Manic Moran

Depends on how good your aim is, I would suggest. At 20 yards, you're going to be pretty close to the heart, leaving organs like the liver, kidneys or eyes available for re-use.

However, you do have a valid point about the guillotine, though it's awfully messy.

NTM

Seloth

and a fireing squad isint?

Besides the human body needs to be alive((brain dead)) for the organs to be fresh.A guilitine or "fireing squad" woukd not be near a surgury or have much time to remove them safly.

JoeB-

Why not anastestic (spelling?) like an operation? Then the method doesn't matter and you can reuse the organs...

Do executees get a choice in the organ donation thing?

Seloth

In the scenario or real life?

boneless

As was pointed out above, the real pain would be the wait and the "long walk" to the place of state murder. Also, who has come back from execution to let us know if it is painless or not?

I disagree totally with the death penalty. I can cite many obvious cases were innocent people were murdered in retribution in the past but I believe it comes down to one fundamental- if taking a life is so wrong, what right has the state to take life then?

I await with bated breath for the charges of bleeding heart liberal.

tmac101

People who do such crimes to be given the death sentence should be sent to prison for the rest of their lives. Its not always a mental illness that makes people want to die. If they want to die they don't need to kill someone else first!!

I also think that if some is being sentenced to death they have done something they should be killed for therefore why should they get mercy? Clearly they are there because they have shown none.
The death sentence should be reserved for truely horrific crimes.

JoeB-

Seloth wrote: »

In the scenario or real life?

That was about whether to use anastetic to render people unconcious and then to execute them using any of several methods. Surely if the people are unconcious then they can't feel pain? And the organs can be reused....

I am suggesting it for real life.... even though I'm not a fan of the death penalty simply because mistakes can be made.... and it's a problem/paradox that murder is illegal for everybody except the state. Has anastetic every been used?

People could also be executed without warning, i.e a drug in their food, or shot in their sleep... why has this never being tried?

TheThing!

JoeBallantine wrote: »

People could also be executed without warning, i.e a drug in their food, or shot in their sleep... why has this never being tried?

This has been bandied about but it is actually inhumane because it would create a climate of fear in the prison as death could literally come at any time, and also inmates in this position would be almost impossible to deal with, instances of crime within the prison itself would sky-rocket.

And to address the point of how the lethal injection could be inhumane, the drugs used each have different purposes, ie, one may result in paralysis, another stops pain and another kills the individual. It is argued that if the pain drug fails, the person could be going through agony and yet they would be unable to show it

Hivemind187

I think you have to consider the reason that the death penalty (or any penalty) exists.

Anyone with an ounce of objectivty can tell that the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent as evidenced b ythe numbers sitting on deth row. So why do we still have it?

Man is a vengeful creature. When you are wronged or feel wronged it is your natural inclination to exact revenge, to make the person who hurt you suffer some form of hurt in return.

Viewed strictly from that perspective, the level of pain should not be a concern - or if it does, it should only matter that we are bestowing the appropriate suffering upon the convict, since the objective is to satisfy the need for revenge.

However, this falls apart in practice since it is rarely thos that have been wronged that get to exact the penalty upon the perpetrator and society takes their place.

Its a toughy.

On a personal note I dont agree with the death penalty as a concept since it doesnt resolve or redress anything. However, if it must be done then the most painless way possible should be sought in order that society not diminish itself any further than it already does by engaging in such practices. This serves no tangible purpose that I can ascertain but will at least allow the masses to delude themselves that they are somehow "superior" to the perpetrator.