ridiculous sophistries

[fpb]

Am I the only person to be wholly underwhelmed by the agitation taking place in a couple of US states over the mechanics of the death penalty? As long as you are going to kill a man, unless of course you have them crucified or impaled or broken on the wheel or whipped to death, what difference does it make if it takes two or twenty minutes to kill

Comments

[patchworkmind]

You are not alone.

Sort of off the topic

[super_pan]

When I was younger I used to have a recurring nightmare about watching tv, and they were about to show a man being executed by electrocution, and the man was all strapped in and terrified, and I did not want to watch it, and I would jump to turn off the tv, but as soon as I touched the knob (yes, the tvs had knobs back then!), the man would be electrocuted. I hated that dream so much, and I was so young, and I have no idea where it came from. Then I was watching some documentary about the first man to be executed when they reinstated the death penalty, which I think was about the time period of my dreams, and I thought, maybe that's why I had the dreams. But I don't think he was electrocuted.

Anyway, they're all frightening ways to die, and they all put the burden of killing on the rest of society, and on certain individuals, and it will never be perfectly sure of only executing guilty men, so I don't agree with it either.

Re: Sort of off the topic

[starshipcat]

I think you're touching on at least some of the concern about slow or painful forms of execution -- the effect they have not upon the criminal, but upon those who witness the execution, and upon society at large. Ideally, executions should do two things: 1. provide a sense of closure for the victim's family and society at large, a sense that justice has indeed prevailed and 2. function as a deterrent to potential criminals, a warning of "this is what will happen to you if you do this crime." However, if the mode of execution is particularly slow or agonizing, it can be so disturbing that the horror overwhelms any sense of closure. Also, some people can actually end up enjoying seeing the criminal suffer, in a way that is not healthy (in the old days when executions were public spectacles, there was a lot of this, and one can make a good argument that it encouraged a general coarsening and brutalization of society that actually led to more crime).

Re: Sort of off the topic

[fpb]

A sense of closure is provided just as easily by a life sentence. What the death penalty is, one, satisfy the lust for vengeance of private individuals, and, two, bury mistakes. Once a man is dead, even if he was innocent, nobody has to make the painful effort to go up to him and say, sorry, we were wrong. Instead, people can strike poses about repentance and regret, without once having to really face the one person to whom they have done wrong.

[bufo_viridis]

But I am not too concerned with the specifics.
Crocodiles?
1. Natural.
2. Ecological and envoronment-friendly.
3. Economical (lowers zoo's butcher's bill)
4. Contains the element of fair play (if the man manages to strangle half a dozen of crocodiles, despite having legs and hands tied, and escape, we may safely judge him under protection of the Upper Authority and release).

To continue in the mood, old story from the gallows:
A woman (according to the custom to claim the convict as a husband): drops the white veil on the man's had ans shouts "He's mine, mine!"
The convict: (upon lifting the veil and looking at his female rescuer, to the hangman): "Master, fulfill your duty!"

[fpb]

LOL

[redcoast]

Well ... imagine you were in favor of the death penalty. You'd probably only be in favor of lethal injection so as not to seem barbaric.

Have you ever read Michelle Foucalt's book on crime and punishment? Far too sophisticated for me, but you might understand it.

[rfachir]

Sorry to hear you're upset, but very glad to hear from you. I missed you terribly.