Posted by Stephen! on October 20, 2011, 9:36 pm
d129735af912@g16g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> However, I think, personally, that the guillotine is a more humane
> way of killing someone.
I prefer the death penalty to be as inhumane as possible.
Skinned alive? You bet... Evisceration? Sure... Buried to the neck in
a nest of fire ants? Where do I buy a ticket?
Making the death penalty "more humane" is moving in the wrong direction.
--
RCOS #7
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
Posted by Vito on October 20, 2011, 10:06 pm
| Making the death penalty "more humane" is moving in the wrong direction.
|
I agree, preferring the Roman system.
Posted by Bob Myers on October 21, 2011, 2:57 pm
On 10/20/2011 8:06 PM, Vito wrote:
> | Making the death penalty "more humane" is moving in the wrong direction.
> |
> I agree, preferring the Roman system.
Sorry, I just gotta ask - why? They're dead either way - making the
death "inhumane" would have no conceivable benefit except for those who
would seem to derive some pleasure from that (and frankly, I think that
says more about *you* than anything else). I'm certainly not some
bleeding-heart who would argue against the death penalty in any and all
cases, but if the state is going to be in the job of execution, said
execution should always be as impersonal, quick, and simple as possible.
And let's keep in mind that no system is ever going to be perfect.
Regrettable as it is, the fact remains that any system which includes
the death penalty WILL wind up executing some number of people who are
innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. Intentionally
making the execution "inhumane" would place a cruel and unnecessary
additional penalty on whatever number that might be. What would justify
this?
Bob M.
Posted by krusty kritter on October 21, 2011, 3:59 pm
Intentionally
> making the execution "inhumane" would place a cruel and unnecessary
> additional penalty on whatever number that might be. What would justify
> this?
Mong or numpty?
Reekyites have never needed any justification for expressing their
pusilanimous
opinions.
Posted by Vito on October 21, 2011, 5:49 pm
Vito wrote:
| > I agree, preferring the Roman system.
| >
| >
| Sorry, I just gotta ask - why? They're dead either way - making the
| death "inhumane" would have no conceivable benefit except for those who
| would seem to derive some pleasure from that (and frankly, I think that
| says more about *you* than anything else).
Deterrent.
Properly done, a Roman execution was a horrible thing. The condemned was
first whipped with a special whip that literally tore their flesh off. Then
their wounds were flushed with salt water and rubbed with salt. Next, they
were tied/nailed to the Patibulum and made to carry it some distance to the
upright whilst a crier announced their crime so all knew why this was
happening. Finally, the patibulum was put atop the upright and their ankles
nailed to it so they could "stand" on the nails to breathe. They were left
to die, while birds picked at them, which usually took days. I don't think
I would ever commit a crime that resulted in that punishment.
Of course, like lethal injection, it does waste otherwise useable organs ...
> way of killing someone.