The Death Penalty And Methods of Execution

So Texas is off to the races again this year with its first execution.

I don't want to duscuss whether we are for it against it.


I would like to explore the value and ethics of the various methods used to execute criminals.

Why do we use lethal injection, gas chambers, and electricution instead of a bullet to the brain or even a captive bolt pistol?

We talk about humane methods and cruel and unusual punishment. If the government is going to kill, why does the method matter as long as it doesn't torture the person? The injection takes time as does gas and electricution. A bullet is instant.

What I'd really like to see?

Remember in Return of the Jedi where they smash that "walker" between two big tree trucks?

..."PRISONER... stand on the mark.... (WHOOOOSH! SPLAT!)

What I'd really like to see?

Remember in Return of the Jedi where they smash that "walker" between two big tree trucks?

..."PRISONER... stand on the mark.... (WHOOOOSH! SPLAT!) Originally Posted by Scribe

Serve up justice and entertain, nice!

Why do we use lethal injection, gas chambers, and electricution instead of a bullet to the brain or even a captive bolt pistol? ........ It is a compromise with liberal minded people.
My take is that it should not be a production....just quick, swift and matter of factly. Add economical in there too. Just flipping off a light switch.

My opinion is that the convicted should die the exact same way their victim did. For example, if they shot their victim then they should be shot, if they stabbed their victim then stabbing is their way to die. If it is a sub-human that beats a baby to death then a slow painful beating should be inflicted upon them.
None of this "humane" execution BS, as their victims did not receive a humane death.

Beheading in the town squire

Why do we use lethal injection, Originally Posted by grean

The reason lethal injection was first adopted -- in Oklahoma, and later in other States -- was that after the Furman moratorium and before Gregg v. Georgia, States were scrambling to try to make the death penalty more palatable politically. Lots of folks on both sides of the issue thought that Furman was a prelude to abolishing the death penalty. So supporters wanted to do everything they could to bring it back, including more seemingly humane methods of execution.

Beheading in the town squire Originally Posted by rexdutchman

George Carlin favored beheading. He thought it would a good revenue generating activity for the government. Have several holes at the bottom of a small hill and the public could bet on which hole the head rolled.

I an absolutely opposed to the death penalty as we apply it.

It's exponentially cheaper to keep some motherfucker locked up in wretched conditions than the cost of appeals as mandated by the federal courts.

Think Gitmo, or the hole in the ground left over from the Supercollider.

The value and ethics of the method will depend on whether its meant to be a punishment or a deterrent.

Personally, I think the victims and/or relatives should get to choose the method. I can't really imagine what it would be like to be in the situation, but I think they should also be allowed/have the choice to administer the penalty as well. I'm in favor of supporting the victims/relatives over the "rights" of the criminal (they lost ALL rights when they committed the crime).

Also, any politician, judge or lawyer should have to take accountability for the criminal's future crimes if they let them of the hook. If they kill/injure anyone else (even other prisoners) then the politician, judge or lawyer also gets the punishment. There is no down side to this. If they one of the VERY few that are really innocent, there's no/little chance they will commit the crime they were wrongfully accused of, so the politician, judge, lawyer has nothing to worry about. If they are guilty and do it again ... well it might just make the politicians and judges think about it more carefully.

I an absolutely opposed to the death penalty as we apply it.

It's exponentially cheaper to keep some motherfucker locked up in wretched conditions than the cost of appeals as mandated by the federal courts.

Think Gitmo, or the hole in the ground left over from the Supercollider. Originally Posted by Poppa_Viagra

Agree. Plus, death ends their suffering.

If we tortured them to death that would be one thing. However, as it is, they are sentenced and after too much money is spent on appeals, we then kill them.

99 years of hard time sounds much worse than dying. Everyone dies. They may be afraid but then they die. It's over. They get peace.

The families of the victims don't have anyone to hate anymore; they don't ever get peace. They will never be whole because of what was taken. Killing the killer won't mend their broken souls. The hate they keep by knowing the criminal is suffering behind bars can keep them going. They can rejoice each time they hear he is in the infirmary beaten half to death.

I believe there are 2 reasons a bullet isnt used anymore.
1. Its messy to cleanup, and messier if they were partially missed.
2. Its easier to think someone is sleeping and died peacefully than shooting someone and seeing their brains all over.

Firing squads are still legal under certain circumstances in Oklahoma and Utah. Here's a link to the methods used in different states:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution

George Carlin favored beheading. He thought it would a good revenue generating activity for the government. Have several holes at the bottom of a small hill and the public could bet on which hole the head rolled. Originally Posted by pyramider

I sense a crossover with the Price is Right.

Plinko!!!

I believe there are 2 reasons a bullet isnt used anymore.
1. Its messy to cleanup, and messier if they were partially missed.
2. Its easier to think someone is sleeping and died peacefully than shooting someone and seeing their brains all over. Originally Posted by mediavolume

Well, you're right. Certainly, that seems more humane.
The guillotine gets the job done more instantly than a bullet but I'm sure it's a lot messier.
I doubt the bullet is instant unless fired into the brain stem.
Hitting the chest cavity and even the heart would still be several minutes. The pure hydro-shock of a bullet can make something motionless but still not quite dead. I've never had a heart attack but I hear they are very painful and I imagine getting shot in the heart would feel even worse.