Yeah... you're right. Only glanced at it quickly... And it was a pretty shoddy argument anyway... ^^; I'll not edit it out so your comment still makes sense. Don't let my stupid non-argument mistake bother you though about the concept of hanging, which I personally find amongst the most cruel of all capital punishments. Suffocation is probably the worst death you can imagine. If you're going to kill someone anyway, why not do it in a humane way?
I may be wrong, but hanging if done correctly (a drop snapping the neck) is near instant. Its only if its done wrong or done without a drop (lynch style) that it is a particularly nasty way to go. The drop method was used in the UK al least.
In the majority of cases you are correct. Gas is probably the least humane way to execute somebody (and has rightly been dropped as a method in virtually every state these days), there are lots of documented cases of people lasting up to 15minutes and actually dying from smashing their head to a pulp while convulsing. terrible. Regardless the death penalty is never warranted. We believe in a system of rehabilitation not punishment for punishment's sake. granted our system of rehabilitation needs a complete overhaul because it's crap, but the principle is still correct. Also let's not forget the rarely thought of point you're actually asking somebody to carry out that sentence and a hell of a lot of people to be involved with it (guards, wardens, doctors), it's a terrible burden to ask anybody to do such a thing as part of their 'job'.
That's something I've wondered about when it comes to the death penalty. What is the ethical way to kill someone?
As it happens I feel the death penalty is something we should avoid and have outgrown. The bolt gun used to kill animals for slaughter is meant to be painless due to the speed at which the brain is destroyed. Perhaps this is a good candidate for most ethical. As an interesting side note, in a lecture at work I learnt that the 5.56 round (NATO standard bullet) is specificaly designed to wound not kill. Do people feel this is a good thong or worse than a round built for a solid kill (7.62). Il start another thread if this is too off topic!
It's not for humane reasons that they chose that round . It's meant to wound so that the enemy is busy dealing with wounded screaming soldiers, rather than just moving on.
^that a really interesting way of looking at it. Our instructor looked at it from the angle of incapsitate not kill. One thing worth noting is if we come across a injured enemy we are obligated to treat them as well
I did 9 months Greek national service (obligatory, and unpaid bs, may as well have been boarding school). That's what one of the officers suggested, either way, and I can see why you'd be better off wounding the enemy rather than killing. Oh, and to add my 2c to the thread, I'm FOR he death penalty, for crimes such as serial rapists, murderers etc. Don't see why people who haven't committed crimes should pay for someone who's committed vicious crimes repeatedly, to get a bed and three square meals a day.
If I remember correctly; some US general once said about the 5.56 NATO round that "When one of our men shoots an enemy with the round; it takes out three guys. The guy that got shot and the two guys that have to carry him to the rear for medical attention.?
1.) If accident, Let them live with the grief of their actions till suicide, as I can't imagine any other outcome from a parent. 2.) If purposeful, I want to be the person to choke the life out of them, my hands clenched around the neck, squeezing tighter and tighter till I feel the crack of the hyoid bone. watching the eyes as the life leaves the body, then spit on the heaps. 3.) If murderous, same as above, Just piss on the lifeless bodies when done. 4.) If innocent, would accept no less than them using the rage inside to work to hunt the F'n B'stards down and do #3 above, couldn't understand a parent feeling any other way. I do not believe in state sponsored death penalties, the thought of a innocent person mistakenly being put to death is abhorrent. I'm angry like that.
I prefer Tolkien (no surprise) The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring; Chapter 2 - The Shadow of the Past. "But this is terrible!" cried Frodo. "Far worse than the worst that I imagined from your hints and warnings. O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!" "Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity." "I am sorry," said Frodo, "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum." "You have not seen him," Gandalf broke in. "No, and I don't want to," said Frodo. "I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death." "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or for ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many--yours not least. In any case we did not kill him: he is very old and very wretched. The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts." I value Tolkien's words here because in this passage, Gandalf is essentially making the case against the death penalty for Gollum - despite the fact that Gollum's actions lead directly to Sauron discovering: 1) that the One Ring had been found; and 2) that the Ring was in possession of a Baggins in the Shire. Despite all that Gollum had done, despite the fact that he lead the worst enemy of all right to the Shire, Gandalf still argued that it was entirely possible for some good to come of Gollum's life. This is how I feel about people found guilty beyond all doubt. We can choose to imprison them, but we can still treat them with compassion within the framework of prison. Some of the arguments against prison sound very much like the arguments we when talking about all those people living the high life on benefits. It's too soft. All they do is work out and get free TV all day. It's like a holiday in there. Sounds like a nice place; I think I'll go rob a bank and check it out.
FMJ's are mandated by treaty in a Nations Armies for this reason in general, better chance of a clean through and through wound, more humane. That's why "dumdum" (hollow point/soft point) bullets were banned by the Hague Convention of 1899. Fact is .223/NATO 5.56mm and Soviet 5.45mm bullets have a greater tendency to curve and tumble, keyholing through flesh, creation catastrophic wound channels that have a better chance of dropping a adversary at close range. .308/NATO 7.62x51mm has a further reach (800+ yards) with plenty of energy to do its job. Talk to any soldier who's operated in the 'stan. 5.56x45 blows for its inability to reach out and touch the enemy. It sucks when the taliban can spray a team with 7.62x54 PK machine gun fire from beyond the operating distance 5.56x45 provides. This is why the MoD purchased £1.5 million worth of Lewis Machine & Tool's LM308MWS rifles in 2010. Lessons learned. Will contribute to other thread if started.
With you on lotr, I grew up reading Tolkien, much as I like Rowling, there is no comparison. There really is no justice served by capital punishment. I abhorr it as it is simply an eye for an eye mentality which we as a race should have grown out of long ago. Say I was the kids who died dad and got proven guilty and given life, doesn't matter that there are other murderers in there, I killed a kid which means that it's probably solitary as the rest of the prisoners would literally tear me to shreds. So I'm stuck indefinitely in a room, stewing in my thoughts, in a place where everyone inside wants my blood as does everyone outside. Say I wasn't driven mad with that, and got let out after 20. I will then have to live with the stigma surrounding it. Even if it's a largely forgotten incident, I'm sure the likes of the Sun will stir up a torch and pitchfork wielding gang. I'd rather die than deal with the repercussions.
Hmmm, I was thinking more along the lines of ****ed up, and ever so slightly pathetic. I presume you've been made to feel pretty small at some point in the past and it's left you with some issues to work through. Go speak to someone.
I actually see the death penalty as the easy way out for the criminal - a quick death, and they don't have to think about what they did anymore. Lock them up for decades, and they'll have the rest of their life to contemplate the consequences of their actions.
