Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

If we've come to the conclusion that a given individual is so dangerous and/or evil that he must be put down, why do we *care* whether he suffers in the process? And if we care so damn much, why is a bullet to the brain not acceptable solution? I doubt the executee would have time to feel much pain as his brain was being blown out.

Posted by Jason Bontrager at August 10, 2007 09:29 AM

Rand,

I agree with you, but after the horror of the NAZI gas chambers I don't think the idea would fly. We already have enough people comparing the US to NAZI Germany (says a lot about our educational system doesn't it), could you image the field day they would have with what looked like a gas chamber for executing criminals.

Posted by jah at August 10, 2007 09:40 AM

If we've come to the conclusion that a given individual is so dangerous and/or evil that he must be put down, why do we *care* whether he suffers in the process?

That's a separate issue. Societally, we do seem to care. I suspect that the people who care are looking for non-violent means (and even a bullet to the head can be screwed up by a government employee).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 10, 2007 09:40 AM

Jason: Well, in the US, we have to care at least a little, because of the "Cruel" part of the "Cruel and Unusual punishment" prohibition.

Jah: There are already gas chambers in the US, and honestly the people comparing the US to Nazi Germany aren't very concerned with facts anyway, so why pander to them?

There's no truth in any comparison of US execution to Nazi death-camps, so let them babble all they want.

Posted by Sigivald at August 10, 2007 10:19 AM

sigwald,

Do we still have gas chambers? I thought they had all been phased out in favor of injection or other forms. Hmm, learn something new everyday. Which prisons still have them?

I do agree that those doing the comparisons are not really concerned with facts. My concern is that history education is so deficient any more that when these idiotic comparisons are made, most people do not have a basis of comparison.

I recently saw an article about a young English boy whose hero was Hilter becasue of all the good things he did. When asked the boys mother said that they were not being taught about the atrocities, just that he got Germany back on its feet after WWI. SCARY!!!

Posted by jah at August 10, 2007 10:28 AM

According to Wikipedia, fives states, Wyoming, California, Maryland, Missouri, and Arizona still use gas chambers.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 10, 2007 11:15 AM

I am with Jason, as long as the execution process isn't intentionally cruel and lengthy I don't care at all that the prisoner may be in pain for a minute or two. Any effort expended on finding anything quicker, easier than the electric chair or other already developed methods is a wasted effort better spent on other things, as far as I am concerned.

But I do agree Rand; it does seem that those who care so much about the issue are overlooking some simple solutions.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 10, 2007 11:53 AM

My wife is an anesthesiologist and the first two drugs they use are old-school drugs used for major surgeries. The first (sodium thiopental) is an anesthetic and sedative. There are other drugs that might be better, such as Versed. The second (pancuronium bromide) is a muscle relaxant that will depress respriation as well as prevent voluntary movement. The last, potassium chloride, stops the heart.

I looked over some of her journals and came to the conclusion that they need to update their drug choices - there are other drugs that might be better, such as Versed as the sedative. Versed is a super short acting drug, similar to Valium, but it also induces amensia in most patients. There are also newer and better muscle relaxants alss, such as Vencuron. (As the name implies, it is similar to curare, BTW.)

One factor that the executioners may be neglecting to take into account is that a history of drug use or taking of some prescription drugs can require higher than normal doses of sedatives.

So, they may just need to jack up the dosages. Me, I'd use doses at the LD50 of the first two drugs, then a whopping big dose of KCl.

Posted by ech at August 10, 2007 02:53 PM

Guillotine's seem pretty efficient... well perhaps a bit messy?

Personally, I've always thought they got it right in the movies... send all the bad guys to an island outside the country (revoking citizenship of course) if they survive they might reform themselves.

Then it's just a borders an immigration issue (which we do such a good job of, don't we?)

Any chance of getting Attila the Hun to run for president... what, too much? Michael Savage? Yeah, that's the ticket!

Posted by ken anthony at August 10, 2007 02:59 PM

ech, they use as much as 5 grams of sodium thiopental, which is totally lethal in itself, about 500 times the normal dose.

As I understand it, the problems with lethal injection have mostly to do with random prison employees not being particularly skilled at starting IVs. Not to mention they're in a hurry and under a lot of stress. Hard to start an IV with care and consideration and attention when you know it's for the purpose of killing a man, and he's watching you do it.

I think the practical mistake made in going to lethal injection was in overlooking the question of the skill your executioner needs to do the job right. No method of execution is painless if done sloppily, and almost any will be if done expertly. (Interestingly, I believe one of the arguments for electrocution in the 1920s was that it alleviated the problem with hanging, which is that you need an expert executioner to make it quick and painless. The idea was that anyone can pull a switch. And anyone can -- where they went wrong is failing to realize that the exact combination of voltage and duration that snuffs a person without cooking them partially, or otherwise putting on a hideous show, varies from person to person, and is difficult to know in advance.)

Anyway, this suggests the correct execution protocol is the one that can be done correctly and reliably by trained apes wearing thick gloves, or the human equivalent.

However, by me, the larger mistake is in thinking that the primary goal should be an apearance of gentleness. That's nuts, utterly ghoulish. You're killing a man, and nothing can hide that fact. I'd be much happier if we at least treated him with dignity, as a man, and not like some lab rat to be snuffed with "gentleness" only so his little organs aren't dislocated and the dissection ruined. Blech.

Bring a condemned man out in front of a huge crowd, dress him in black, let him make some final statement with a megaphone, let him smell fresh air and see the sun one last time, cry out to his God for salvation, and then put his head under a guillotine with a giant silver blade decorated with skulls and crosses, and let it come down with a huge crash of drums and a hideous thump. Let there be drama and horror, so we all go home impressed with the magnitude of the act, determined that it be used, and only used, in the most enormous crimes.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 10, 2007 03:15 PM

People who have a "problem" with the way death penalties are performed, have a hidden agenda with the penalty of death in the first place.

The "cruel and unusual" phrase is sooooo abused. Of course it's cruel to kill someone, but it's crueler (is that a word?) to leave them to rot in prison forever. It is NOT unusual to kill someone, in that as long as the legislature and executive make a choice of method and stick with it. The problem is when activist judges and spineless politicians get involved and abuse the phrase to further their own agenda's, rather than standing up for society in general, and victim's rights in particular.

Put 'em down, anyway you want. Noose, bullet, gas, drugs, doesn't matter. They're all effective. They just have to be administered consistently.

Posted by Dave G at August 10, 2007 03:21 PM

Dave, I think it's the other way around. People who have a problem with judicial execution often have it because they are unable to get past the horror of the event itself, they have no longer perspective from which to view it as a necessary evil, the way they would regard the pain of vaccination or surgery, or of denying yourself tasty ice cream when you need to lose weight.

It's also possible to favor a death penalty in theory but oppose one in practise among fallible humans, which comes very close to how I feel about it.

In a perfect world, I'd authorize the police -- or citizen vigilantes -- to execute the perpetrator of a hideous crime on the spot.

Say some fellow rapes and murders a young girl, and a crowd including her friends and family runs the man to ground twenty minutes later, cowering in a barn. In theory I have no problem with allowing them in their righteous rage to kill him on the spot, so long as they do it promptly and do not torture him. Why not? Justice is served, and I doubt anyone involved would feel long-lasting remorse, guilt, or horror at the act. Indeed, most likely they would feel "closure," as they say, and be less likely to have the rest of their lives distorted by fear, anger, distrust of their fellow men, and so forth. Purging oneself of poison feels good, and so does purging the community of poisonous individuals.

But that's not the way it works. You might be allowed to chase the rapist, but you're encouraged not to, to leave it to the "professionals," the police, who of course have no particular reason to care about catching this criminal -- not the way the victims friends and family do. And then if he's caught, he's judged by people who the law says must not know victim or defendant, who have never experienced or committed a crime even remotely related, and who, ideally, are so distant from the crime, the community, and the accused that they could hardly care less about what happened. (They're supposed to judge coolly, with just their intellect. Ignored by the law in its porcine majesty is the question of motivation -- why would someone judge carefully and coolly if he doesn't give a rat's ass about the outcome?)

Then, if the fellow is condemned, we first lock him in a cage in seriously degrading conditions, treat him like a subhuman whose life is nevertheless valuable for some reason. His will is ignored, his privacy is nonexistent, we do not hear or see him -- but his physical health, the least important aspect of being alive, is preserved carefully.

Finally, decades later, after all emotion has congealed, and the scars become permanent on everyone -- after there is no way anyone can have "closure" -- after so much time has passed that the man being executed bears no serious resemblance to the man who committed the crime -- only then do we kill him, and the executioners are again people who have no particular reason to want the man to die, who are expected to put aside their natural and human horror at murder, and cut the throat of a human tied and bound like a hog, because a piece of paper says to do so.

In a word, ugh. I've no problem with killing people who are defective and evil, in the righteously hot rage that follows their awful actions. But the bloodless, soulless, inhuman and machine-like way we do it under the ideals of nation-state law is hideous. As long as that's the only choice we get, yes, I would probably reluctantly vote against the death penalty.

Although, as a good libertarian, what I would actually say is this: let those who prefer such a system live under it, and let those of us who value human dignity higher than human life live under some alternative. Won't happen in this life, of course.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 10, 2007 04:40 PM

I've often thought about this one. Why do people think that a murderer should be executed in as painless a way as possible? After all, such courtesy is rarely afforded to the original victim.

Two scenarios suggest themselves. One is where the victim has close family; perhaps in that case the appropriate response is to tie the perpetrator to a nice solid chair and let in the family, having supplied them with a nice solid baseball bat. Mercy or otherwise is then their decision.

If this doesn't apply, then hanging would seem appropriate - and none of this namby-pamby long drop stuff either. A rope and a support to kick away, and let the perp strangle slowly. Preferably in public, per encourager les autres.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 10, 2007 07:42 PM

It's also possible to favor a death penalty in theory but oppose one in practise among fallible humans, which comes very close to how I feel about it.

I'm in favour of death by entropy.

Posted by Adrasteia at August 10, 2007 10:04 PM

>>>>>>>>Finally, decades later, after all emotion has congealed, and the scars become permanent on everyone -- after there is no way anyone can have "closure" -- after so much time has passed that the man being executed bears no serious resemblance to the man who committed the crime -- only then do we kill him, and the executioners are again people who have no particular reason to want the man to die, who are expected to put aside their natural and human horror at murder, and cut the throat of a human tied and bound like a hog, because a piece of paper says to do so.

One thing I can't seem to get past. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in this process on someone determined to be of no possible use to society? The annual cost of keeping a prisoner times how many years?

Many people suggest working the prisoners to recover the costs. Slave labor is not cost effective, which makes that a bad joke. I don't want people executed for shoplifting or speeding. I do resent the multibillion dollar industry incarceration has become.

I don't have solutions in mind on this one.

Posted by john hare at August 11, 2007 03:59 AM

Here's a suggestion for how to get from here to there: start with animals. Vets euthanize animals all the time, generally by lethal injection. There shouldn't be as much controversy or legal complication about introducing nitrogen asphyxiation in that context. Once it's widely understood and accepted as the most painless, non-invasive way of killing an animal, adopting it for capital punishment will become a natural step.

Posted by Mark at August 11, 2007 06:35 AM

I don't think there's actually a foolproof way to kill people. Things can always go wrong. And nothing is more embarrasing than telling the victim's family "We're sorry, we've gassed him with nitrogen 4 times, he's still alive and we're out of nitrogen...."

Posted by Tom at August 11, 2007 09:26 PM

I have also thought about this one a lot.
I worry about the death penalty being used without being absolutely sure the condemned is guilty.
However, if we as a society use the death penalty to exact redress for certain crimes; so be it. If we change all that and outlaw the death penalty; so be it.
I can't live in a world where you hold up a picture of a perfect world and make constant comparisons to the one we live in.
We live here, now, with the death penalty. This is the world as it is. I think that trying to make sure that the condemned doesn't suffer while dying is a noble thought.

All that aside, let's say we have a guy, and we are as certain as we can possibly be that he's guilty. Next problem: how to dispose of the condemned man in a way that assuages our collective guilt for killing him by making him suffer the least? I for one think that knowing you are going to die at a set time and place for your crime(s) is punishment enough.
The most 'humane' way I can think of killing a man is to strap the condemned into a chair, with his head in a vise-like contraption open to the back. This should hold his head completely still. Sedate him so he doesn't try to wiggle around.
Next, use a computer aimed 20mm cannon that can put fifty rounds through the same 20mm hole at fifty feet. Use an electronic trigger so you can use the same three button method used in other executions. Put a round through the back of his head.
A 20mm round at fifty feet will effectively obliterate the brain. No brain, no pain.
One second he's here on earth, the next, he's gone.

Posted by Lazlo at August 12, 2007 06:25 AM

I've had the same thought about the death penalty, reflecting on the same NASA tragedy, for the last 20 years. You're the first person I've ever read to bring up the idea in print.

Posted by Dean at August 12, 2007 08:43 AM

Nitrogen Asphyxiation has been championed for a lot of reasons, one of which is that it will allow the condemned to perform one small act of redemption in their death by being allowed to donate organs.

As for the reaction, I imagine it is the same reaction I had when I got a little overzelous while screwing around with helium. on second I'm making funny noises, the next I'm out like a light.

Posted by Wickedpinto at August 12, 2007 12:24 PM

Why do people think that a murderer should be executed in as painless a way as possible? After all, such courtesy is rarely afforded to the original victim.

Just because the original criminal has lost his humanity, the rest of us should surrender our own humanity for him? That's the whole "I they jumped off a clifff, would you?" argument.

One is where the victim has close family; perhaps in that case the appropriate response is to tie the perpetrator to a nice solid chair and let in the family, having supplied them with a nice solid baseball bat. Mercy or otherwise is then their decision.

Thus, the wounded family is allowed a brief exposure to animalistic violence. Thereby, they get closure by involving themselves in the same subhuman activity that claimed the criminal. We execute criminals as painlessly as possible to retain our own humanity. We recognize the necessity of execution, but more importantly, we should recognize the need to administer the punishment in such a way that we ourselves do not lose sight of what humanity is. I wouldn't expect you to understand Fletcher, since you also advocate killing everyone in the Miidle East and starting over. Perhaps if you live longer than the thirteen year-old attitude you profess, you might gain wisdom.

Posted by Mac at August 13, 2007 07:07 AM

Just because the original criminal has lost his humanity, the rest of us should surrender our own humanity for him?

Oh come on, Mac, there's a whole lot more to humanity than mercy. There's justice and morality, for one thing, which we generally think way more important in terms of governing individual behaviour than mere mercy.

After all, we do expect people to kill others, even innocent others, when justice and morality demands it, right? A soldier in warfare is supposed to distinguish between doing his job and committing murder, right? We don't condemn the guy who kills to protect his family, right?

When someone kills another and we call it murder, it's not his lack of empathy and mercy we condemn so much as his lack of morals and good judgment. It's not that he killed so much as that he killed without good reason. That's why we don't punish him as harshly if he did it accidentally, or through some understandable motive, like panic when threatened, or in a sudden jealous rage, et cetera.

So if we, in turn, kill the murderer, we may not be showing mercy, but we can't necessarily be accused of not showing good moral judgment. I hardly see how we can be accused of "losing our humanity," unless you want to define "humanity" as only one of its important aspects.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 13, 2007 07:21 PM

Mac:

Using a similar argument, much of the Western world has abolished the death penalty altogether. We all know where that has ended up - although, admittedly, the insistence on being non-judgemental about other people's lifestyles has an influence there, too.

Recent news in the UK: A 45-year-old father of two, the elder 12 years old, has been beaten to death by a gang of "youths" for the terrible crime of objecting to their vandalism. The ones that are actually being charged are 15, 15 and 16. What't going to happen to them? Maybe 5 years in "youth custody".

If murderers were not only executed, but suffered horribly in the process, then the total amount of suffering would decrease. Take the example above; a man is beaten to death (how painful is that?) and lingers for a day or so, some of it in great pain, before finally succumbing. He leaves behind a widow and two fatherless children. And the scum that did it will probably laugh at their sentences.

There is only one thing to say to a murderer:

"You are sentenced to be taken hence to the prison in which you were last confined and from there to a place of execution where you will be hanged by the neck until dead and thereafter your body buried within the precincts of the prison and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul."

And if the murderer's mother suffers? Tough. She should have done a better job of bringing him up.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 14, 2007 02:23 AM

I pointed out losing our humanity as a point to HOW we execute. We do not allow our victims of crimes to have revenge, where we as a humane society execute when necessary by "as painless as possible" means. That we execute is not a problem for me at all, its a distasteful necessity.

Oh come on, Mac, there's a whole lot more to humanity than mercy.

Of course there is, but in the case of the quoted post, it is in essence what we are discussing. Why do we not allow the family to bash in the criminal's head with a bat? Humane society.

Posted by Mac at August 14, 2007 05:42 AM

If murderers were not only executed, but suffered horribly in the process, then the total amount of suffering would decrease.

Assumption. One of the arguments FOR execution is that it is an effective deterrent to crime. I'm not so sure that's true. Is it necessary? Yes, unfortunately. Do we we to make these people suffer before they die? No, because it accomplishes nothing constructive and might lead to a "slippery slope" of ghastly displays of torture, for the supposed sake of punishment.

Take the example above; a man is beaten to death (how painful is that?) and lingers for a day or so, some of it in great pain, before finally succumbing. He leaves behind a widow and two fatherless children. And the scum that did it will probably laugh at their sentences.

They might, but that is a problem with the court system, not the punishment system. If someone murders another, with intent to do so, and not in self defense, I'm all for execution, even at younger ages. But to execute them painfully serves no purpose and sends a message that the justice system is just as bloodthirsty and sick as the criminals.

There is only one thing to say to a murderer:

Convicted murderer

And if the murderer's mother suffers? Tough. She should have done a better job of bringing him up.

Again, that's a problem with the courts, not the punishment. Look, I understand that victims want revenge as much as they want justice, but that's why we have the system we do, so we're better than the barbarians at the gate and in our cities. We can think up tons of horrific things to do to those who murder, rape, etc. But to actually enact those options, we ourselves become not only victims, but perpetrators ourselves. Understand that execution is, unfortunately, a necessary byproduct of our society's justice system, but don't ever come to like it. God stated that man shall have dominion over governing themselves. Execution is part of that dominion, however distasteful it is.

Posted by Mac at August 14, 2007 05:55 AM

Mac, two things more on this subject: First of all, I'm 47. Second, I had my facts slightly wrong; the man in question left behind three kids, not two.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 14, 2007 11:22 AM

First of all, I'm 47. Second, I had my facts slightly wrong; the man in question left behind three kids, not two.

I'm 40. I also feel deeply for the kids left behind and the event was tragic. But, to allow the victim's family to bash in the murderer's brains won't heal them at all. To even think that action would help with grief is unbelievable. One must overcome grief, not submit to revenge. Remember the legacies, don't create more atrocities.

Posted by Mac at August 14, 2007 11:41 AM

Updates on UK violence upsurge:

Another man killed, this time for objecting to garbage being thrown into his car. And in the news today, a company making good money from a service lining school uniforms with Kevlar.

Mac, still think that harsh punishment for violent crime is unacceptable?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 15, 2007 11:19 AM

Post a comment