On Executions

[DanaC]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but figured Politics as best bet.

Most of you know I'm against capital punishment, in any form. We no longer have the death penalty in the UK. But when we did - this is how we did it:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...?commentpage=1

One thing that strikes me about the process of execution in 1960s Britain is the speed at which it was carried out - and the way the guards and executioners did everything they could to minimise the stress of the condemned. Now - I daresay that the rationale behind this was less some great weight of humanity and sentiment, and more a practical approach to not having to deal with panicked prisoners in the midst of a fight or flight response. But the end result was something relatively humane.

I wouldn't want capital punishment brought back in this country, but if it was, I would rather it happen like this than the slow drawn out process of strapping the prisoner to the gurney (or chair) raising them up for the witnesses to see, allowing time for last words, and the several minutes of the process before death is inflicted.

From leaving the cell to dropping through the doors, 14 seconds have passed.

It's an interesting read. Chilling in places. Fascinating stuff though.

[sexobon]

An opposing viewpoint:

Appeals Judge Says Guillotine 'Probably Best' for Executions

... "Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and peaceful — like something any one of us might experience in our final moments," Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.

"But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf."

Kozinski went on to suggest that states that want to continue executing prisoners "return to more primitive — and foolproof — methods of execution."

"The guillotine is probably best but seems inconsistent with our national ethos. And the electric chair, hanging and the gas chamber are each subject to occasional mishaps," he continued. "The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or ten large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time." ...

[xoxoxoBruce]

This bullshit about states not being able to get the drugs and that guy in AZ taking two hours to die, is ridiculous. I've had general anesthesia several times. I was out in seconds, and I know damn well the Anesthesiologist/Anesthetist could have offed me at will.

Hanging, electrocution, and the gas chamber, seem clumsy compared to injection. Of course the guillotine or bullet in the head are quick, but we seem to want a pristine body for some reason. Perhaps to head off the anti-execution people claiming barbarism. The months or years delay awaiting execution seem harsher than the execution itself.

Why do they sterilize the needles for lethal injections?

[sexobon]

Drug selection is important. Old SF saying for euthanizing a mortally wounded team member who can't be carried out; yet, can't be left behind alive for the enemy: Be sure to use Morphine and not Nubain.

The needles are sterile to avoid frivolous retaliatory malpractice lawsuits since the condemned is still alive when they're inserted. There's also a remote possibility the execution won't occur due to a stay or act of God.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Be sure to use Morphine... [/i]

Yes, it works.

[DanaC]

"But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf."

Good point.