Lethal injection

[footpad]

What?

I don’t particularly agree with judicial execution, but for the purposes of this post I’m going to assume that certain US states will continue to execute criminals, and therefore that it’s worthwhile considering how best to do it.

Comments

[megadog]

TBH execution-wise I can't see whats wrong with the traditional .MIL approach of firing-squad.

Guillotine is pretty unambiguously effective too, provided the blade's truly sharp.

[footpad]

Where do firing-squads shoot people?-in the head, or in the torso?

I believe that all painless execution methods have to target the brain, and that would rule out the guillotine. The charity I mentioned cites research showing that brain activity persists for a long time in chickens with their neck broken-on the order of a minute. Of course that begs the question of whether it's conscious brain activity-let alone what 'conscious' means in the context of chickens-but I think it gives grounds to believe that the guillotine doesn't kill instantly or painlessly. Unless you use it in a really messy way, of course.

[dresen]

Unless you use it in a really messy way, of course.

It would seem best, from the victim's perspective, to replace the guillotine blade with a very large and heavy metal block. Splat!

Or a piano. That would highlight the absurdity of the act nicely.

[alexf0x]

I know this is a morbid subject, but I have to say this.

Firing squad is a terrible method of execution, it doesn’t always kill instantly and a coup de grace from a pistol to the back of the neck (not the head) is sometimes needed.

Also I belive firing squads where told to aim at the heart, not the head. It’s a more easy shot, and the vital organ isn’t as well protected (the brain is in cased in bone after all and bullets can bounce off bone).

Also bullets with the exception of very high calibres will more likely result in serious wounding. FYI the 5.56mm (.223) round used in most if not all NATO rifles is used on the grounds that it’s most likely to cause injury rather than death.

As for the ACLU I can see their point. I did look up the process and chemicals used in lethal injection, and being fair the process doesn’t seem like this one simple injection and he’s gone. No it’s a three or four stage process that seems rather torturous process where parts of your body are slowly shut off

[hyperx]

The death Debate is a very touchy subject. The problem is noone has figured out a full proof humane way to KILL someone. Lethal Injection when done correctly is the most humane. Though as you said executions are typically done by the incompotent. Those willing to just do the task *usually on the cheap*. This has resulted in many painful / Messy executions. God I still remember the Electric Chair and Gassing. Talk about some really shitty ways to go ;\ Hanging would be better.

[footpad]

Physiologically, I have no problem with gassing: it could be perfectly painless and extremely reliable. For small food animals, I believe it's now the preferred method (typically by asphyxiation in a high-nitrogen atmosphere). It'd easily win over lethal injection if only it didn't carry such horrible associations.

[gerald_duck]

I suspect the ACLU is playing politics, taking a gamble that people will be less prepared to accept the death penalty if it's seen as inhumane.

I fear they may have underestimated the barbarity of the average American.

[crashworks]

Or the magnitude of our contempt for the criminal.

I really wish the ACLU would focus more of its resources on preventing the incarceration of innocent people and less on trying to invent civil debates around how we dispose of irredeemably guilty ones. It's not quite enough to make send back my membership card, but it doesn't really put me in a giving mood either.

[mtbc100]

I suspect gerald_duck's right in that the ACLU's partly playing politics.

Part of the issue, which the news story doesn't really mention, is the particular mandated lethal injection cocktail, which was chosen decades ago before we knew a lot more. My vague impression from talking with anesthetists and whatnot is that, for being sure of no suffering, they'd devise the cocktail rather differently these days. (Don't ask me to back that up with actual facts. (-:)

But, yes, a high-calibre shot to the brainstem would also work nicely, though I suppose you're looking at a closed-casket funeral then. I think there are combinations of drugs or gases that are rather more sure of no-suffering, too, although I am not sure of the details.

Annoyingly, part of the issue is reducing distress for onlookers, so you don't want the guy pooping and convulsing and the like as he goes out. I am not sure that should be such a concern so long as they're unconscious by that time. You're killing them, after all, a bit of extra stuff pales in comparison.

[thewerewolf]

I'm still of the opinion that if you must have capital punishment - then why make it so wasteful?

Something either causes these people to commit capital crimes - or they're missing something that stops them from doing it. The VAST majority of us either have no desire or have the self-control to NOT do it.

Ergo, declare them legally dead and use them for humane research to find out what's gone wrong and perhaps one day, we won't have to kill anyone in the name of 'justice'.

Mind you - I consider death far, far worse than any kind of punishment since I don't believe in a life after death and I happen to like being alive (most of the time), so to me, this sounds much more humane than capital punishment.

I know that to most people, they have it the other way around.

Very irrational. :)

[canid_anubis]

Humane research, to be sure. Those curiousities that have a uique mental state are well worth being kept around and studied, IMHO.

[thewerewolf]

Since I cannot be sure of your tone and intent (I csn read your post all sorts of different and contradictory ways) - I will assume you're criticising my 'view'. If you are not, then I apologise in advance if I sound critical

[canid_anubis]

Rushing out the door for work, so I'll read all of what you said when I return, but I was being serious in stating that I think that special cases ought to be kept and studied as in depth as we can to figure out what made them tick and what triggered their behaviour, etc. But more when I return...