In my opinion, only three methods of execution are humane:

- Shooting
- Hanging
- Poisoning (lethal injection or gasssing)


Since shooting is somewhat honorable amongst soldiers and spies that's why war criminals are hung. Shooting in the chest or head usually results in a painless and quick death. The same also applies to beheading, although that's considered barbaric in the modern day.

Humane
adj.

1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: a humane judge.
2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education.


[Middle English humain, human. See human.]hu·manely adv.
hu·maneness n.

Synonyms: humane, compassionate, humanitarian, merciful
These adjectives mean marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering: a humane physician; compassionate toward impoverished people; released the prisoner for humanitarian reasons; is merciful to the repentant.

No method of execution is humane. Fuck dude. Go gas yourself and tell me how humane it was.

Considering the current situation with hostages and possible excution do you really think this topic is suitable.

FUCK YOU FAGGOT, AND FUCK OFF, NO ONE LIKES YOU

Given the recent singapore execution. Yes. Stop making a mountain out of mole hills.

They can be humane when compared against each other.

I am going to kill you compassionately. It's a complete misuse of the word given the situation. If death is a given, which in situations of execution it does not have to be, then you can compare the lack of humaneness of methods of death. To call killing someone who does not have to die humane in any form whatsoever is utterly ridiculous.

This is tasteless Chiang, even by your low standards. And you other guys shouldn't rise to the bait.

Personally I would feel execution to be more humane than a life in prison, of course, this is a matter of opinion.

My preferred system would be to give prisoners who are going to be in prison for the rest of their lives the option of execution (or 'assisted suicide' if you prefer). Possibly this would need to go through the approval of a psychiatric counsellor to ensure that the prisoner is in a rational state of mind when they make this decision. This also solves the problem of executing the wrong man, as if a man knows he is innocent, he would (presumably) not opt for execution.

Tasteless discussions and humour are what the internet is all about!

I wouldn't be calling this discussion tasteless. Due to the dispute of the word 'humane', perhaps I should have rephrased it as "less brutal".

Exactly!

Depends on the gas. Cyanide was relatively painless, like most cases of lethal injection.

I have doubts about whether their killings shall proceed, given that the deadline has been expanded.

I don't want you to talk about it. I want you to do it.

I'd love to be this country's executioner, it's a pity that the death sentence had been abolished. If I 'execute' someone, that's murder.

Not if it's you.

Once again, your enthusiasm disturbs me.

If you were the country's executioner, it would still be murder if you executed them.

Ahmed is the plan still on?

Which is the most ridiculous statement in this thread.

Execution should not be humane, it should be a prolonged, bloody spectacle so as to maximize the deterrence value of the sentence. A few people left to rot on crosses creates far more fear than a hundred backroom leathal injections.
Regardless of the 'humanity' of the method, the subject is still dead. His death should advise others not to follow the same course of action in the most unambiguous way possible.

the problem is deterent dont work, because people think it will not happen to them and that they wont get caught. doesnt matter how high you put the price. i dont know the stats but its a pretty high percentage of death row inmates are mentally sick and no amount of deterant would have stopped the crime.

Yeah, I think the people who actually get killed are the ones society is no longer able to deal with, and that is the most ridiculous thing to kill people as a deterrent. That is like saying "Oh well, this guy doesn't actually deserve to die, but let's kill him anyway, because by us killing him, we strike fear into other peoples hearts" and thus the murdered man's life is entirely worthless.

Think about that a little more, Tony, because it led to the downfall of one drug baron in Miami in a coke-fuelled slaughter, by killing one too many people, by steppin' on one too fuckin' many dealers toes...

My 'downfall' was due to lack of ruthlessness-had I been willing to kill the familly of Alex Sosa's enemy I would have never gone to war with him. Being high on coke 24-7 doesn't help either-had I been sober I could have annihilated him in a pre-emptive strike. But hey, them's the breaks.

You are wrong to say that deterrence does not work. It does, very well. Untill Sir Robert Peel's creation of a permanent British Police force in 1828 public order was maintained by liberal use of the death penalty for crimes like theft etc. While the chances of getting caught were far less, that minute, yet still perceptible, threat of the gallows kept the people in their place. The public nature of these executions was paramount to their effects as a deterrent, as was the carefully constructed legality and majesty of the process.

If a man is a criminal, a lowlife, a parasite to society, what duty does society owe to him to keep him alive when it can profit from his demise? In the week surrounding the 'Rumble in the Jungle' (27 Oct- 3 Nov 1974) There was not a single instance of crime in Zaire. Why? Because on the 26th of October Zaire's 'President' Lt-General Mobutu executed 10 random prisoners in an effort to ensure that the nationally important tour went off without a hitch.

And you know that Mobutu had a torture chamber beneath the ring where the Rumble in the Jungle was held, right?

And I actually am not inclined to believe there was no crime throughout the entire country, as after Lumumba was overthrown by the fuckhead Mobutu the public service and police force went into total corruption-fuelled rot. As a result, they would've just said there was no crime. Big deal.

And Tony, you really need to reconsider what crime exactly is. 'Crime' is the delegitimisation of actions that are deemed to be socially incorrect, and thus in itself lies a societal judgement, not a universal human one.

If someone is really terrible, do what Cuba did: empty the prisons, and send the people overseas. That is how Tony got to the United States.

Crime is an infringement of the decrees of the sovereign. That is what crime is. The issue was whether the death penalty prevents crime via deterrence. It does.

But killing people for failed socialisation measures is ridiculous. Expell them from a society, definitely, but don't kill the fuckers.

It's certainly cheaper than keeping them in prison for the rest of their life. Unless you want them to work while in prison but I'd doubt they would be able to cover their costs that way.

Suspecting someone will reply (or would have) to this with the 'total court costs > cost of keeping a prisoner in prison for life' fact which I often hear touted, is this the case in any death penalty country besides the U.S?

Why? Why should we pass our waste onto others/let the taxpayer pick up the bill for permanent incarceration? Unless we need large amount of unskilled labour for something it is far easier to simply destroy recidivist criminals etc.

I find Chiang one of the most amusing posters here.

Did either Tony or Mrt read what I said? I said EXPELL THEM if they are causing recurring problems, which is what Cuba has done hugely successfully.

And Oob has brought up something that is very interesting. Incidentally, the fact that people are on deathrow for such a long time in the United States effectively invalidates the economic value of actually killing them (as you have already spent so much on prisons for these people).

And let me note again: I think the proof is in the pudding. The United States is the last country in the Western world to use the death sentence in the non-chalant manner it does.

And Tony, you bring up a very valid argument for prisoner rehabilitation! A surprise hit from left-field from you mate.

Expell them where? Somewhere in the country still obviously, so really there wouldn't be much reason to live anymore. Of course, we could always try an Escape from Absolom, or Fortress 2.

The actual prison is a fixed cost, bar a few maintenance issues. Prison staffing is variable to the number of inmates.

Plus if an approach was taken to shorten the amount of time spent waiting in death row then it would be more economically viable.

Expell them to Asia, perhaps? Have you never heard of Customs Officials turning a blind eye?

Such an approach to improve the 'efficiency' of deathrow wouldn't even be politically acceptable in the USA, where the popularity of the death sentence isn't exactly great. You missed the point about the cost being fixed (and I think that's somewhat false, because I'm sure prisons have to constantly upgrade and as time goes on they've had to improve their facilities somewhat).

I remember hearing the figure that it costs 50,000 a year in NZ to keep someone in a prison. You guys see that as meaning we should kill people; I see that as meaning we should try harder to actually fix people.

We start turning a blind eye and our trading partners are going to get pissed off. Last thing you want is an economic or military conflict from expelling our criminals to another country.

Just get better evidence: more use of DNA and survelliance equipment. Sure there will be screw ups, but there are screw ups in the existing system, and I'd imagine that there would be less screw ups if we used DNA evidence as a requirement before death penalty is considered.

Those costs are still humble in comparison to staffing costs.

2 Yrs in Prison followed by excution = 150k (50k for execution maybe?).

2 Yrs in Prison followed by therapy = well, shitloads more. Do you have any idea how much shrinks cost? How much relocation costs are? As well as the physical/emotional effects of shrinks/social workers/etc... having to work with such people?

It doesn't need to be on a large scale, and we can do it to countries that don't matter. Force the guy into North Korea or something.

That's not what I meant. You are totally missing my ethical points, as well as the fact I thought you were referring to the efficiency i.e. speed at how they killed people in terms of having them stay in prison for as short a time as possible. I don't think even DNA can prove someone should should die.

Your last point I believe is incorrect. People stay on deathrow for a very, very long time. And yes, I have seen Silence of the Lambs, but I do think that a lot of criminals are totally rehabilitatable if you have a system that doesn't work against them ever returning to a normal life like it does now.

We'd either a) Have to get permission from NK = They want money or B) Try sneak him in = get caught and we're fucked by a pseudo-nuclear power.

Ethical concerns can be mitigated through appropriate legislation and technology.

DNA helps prove that they were responsible for the crime. Punishment is as normal.

You need to think outside of the current way of how deathrow works. We can speed up death row by reducing the appeals process by providing solid undeniable evidence in the first place. This also reduces the amount of money wasted on lawyers.

Tell that to the group of christchurch residents that torched the grass of the sister of a convicted pedophile on news that he would be staying there. It's not just the system working against them but the general population (BTW we have a very generous system in terms of rehabilitation.).

I think the issue here is not whether we have proof of their guilt, but whether their crime is deserving of death. We have to draw the line somewhere. Some people draw it at serial murder, some people say there is no crime that deservs death. I mean if we wanted to be really cheap, we could just shoot all criminals who recieve a prison sentance. Think of all the money that would save :naughty:

The death penalty, given that it cannot be reversed, should require not only 'no reasonable doubt' but also 'no plausible scenario of innocence'.

Regardless of where we cut the line, once the death penalty has been decided as the form of punishment, it should be performed quickly rather than stumbling through years of appeals and delays.

I don't think we particularly do. That's just one lie spread by the far right wingers who are currently in opposition to Labour who try and perpetuate the fact that our justice system is apparently 'failing'.

:eww:

The point of the matter is the DNA proves the person is guilty, it does not prove the person is worthy of death, yes?

Which again forces supporters of state-distributed murder (AKA the death penalty) to fundamentally reconsider whether having solid undeniable evidence in a child rape case, for example, actually is grounds for killing someone.

Your treasured capitalism is the reason why so much money is wasted on lawyers and if someone in the law profession (which is dominated by free marketeers of course) realised the justice system is commercialised to a sickening degree. In the Soviet Union they didn't spend very much on lawyers.

or doctors...

What! In Soviet Union, patient heal doctor!

In Soviet Russia, internet surfs you!