Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Ho hum, spring has come in all its glory. Methinks it is time to stab the prince to death. 
Often has the debate on capital punishment raised its noggin here, but an element that is oft set aside is how it is done.
This is a little debate in itself - on what issues should be paramount in such a consideration - deterrence, humane for the audience and society, humane for the condemned individual, cost, mechanics and logistics.
What this isn't is another debate on the the death penalty as an issue in itself, but the methods of implementing it, so it would be highly appreciated if such tangents could be avoided. Whether or not ye agree with it, suspend that part of disbelief for a moment, and choose which method you regard as optimum, and why. If you find yourself unable to hold back on rhetoric on the pros and cons from either side of the argument, then feel free to go and play with a cheesegrater or something.
Some groundwork - this is not limited to the US experience, nor the British, nor any other particular experience of capital punishment, but rather looking at it in general.
Many methods have been tried throughout history. The more exotic I will leave aside for the moment, as well as those which are limited to particular cultures, such as the Iberian predilection for the garotte.
We will refine matters to 'the Big 5'.
Hanging, shooting, electrocution, gassing, lethal injection, decapitation - all have their inherent characteristics.
Hanging can be either long drop or short drop, with the latter leading often to strangulation, as compared to the almost instantaneous death bought on by the severing of the spinal cord in the former case. It is seen by some as old fashioned and paradoxically as a lengthy procedure; when carried out by skilled professionals, it takes a matter of seconds. It combines a certain nastiness to its nature with a swift, clean method.
Shooting can either be by firing squad or individual bullet to the back of the head. The latter is perhaps the swiftest and most humane means of 'saying bye-bye', and preserves the organs of the torso from any damage for possible transplant purposes. Firing squads often require a coup de grace to be delivered, which does seem rather wasteful, considering the effort just gone through.
Electrocution was introduced in the US in the latter part of the 19th century as the ultimate humane means of implementing capital punishment; history since does not suggest this is fully the case, but nor should the few accidents been seen as representative of the over 4500 uses of the electric chair. It is theoretically humane, but there is no means of finding out whether death is instantaneous, nor of asking the corpse afterwards "Now, how did that feel for you, Mr. Bundy?"
The use of lethal gas came about in the 1920s, again searching for effective and humane means. It has acquired a certain reputation for being used in other circumstances, and is lengthy, costly, and most certainly inhumane both to the subject, the staff and any witnesses. In my view, gas can be put down as a failed experiment.
Lethal injection is all the vogue, with even the Red Chinese starting to swap it for the lead headache. It is more costly, takes longer, and is often seen as a soft way out...just a little pr1ck, etc. Whether it actually is 'soft' is another matter, with the first of the three drugs administered giving a nice peaceful unconciousness and eventually paralysis to the prisoner; they are unable to show or communicate any discomfort from having their heart stopped and breathing halted, at the least. Further, it frequently takes some time to acquire the necessary vein for the catheters, and even at the optimum, takes roughly 11 minutes for death to occur. Why is it used? It looks peaceful. It looks neat. It looks humane. It is symptomatic of a world and society which looks more to semblence than substance, and eases the guilt felt by many involved. Let us not beat around the bush - when people talk about it being humane, it is for their own benefit. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that lethal injections are in any way more painless and swifter than other means.
Decapitation was never big in the Americas, but was certainly quite popular in Europe, particularly in Freedom during the 19th and 20th centuries. Swift, efficient, and certainly involves a level of horror and deterrence with the whistle and crash of the mighty knife; a thoroughly entertaining family outing of a weekend, watching the guillotinings.
Whether death is instantaneous after the severing of the head is a matter where there is some contention; there is anecdotal evidence, and some bizarre graveyard experiments which can be interpreted in either way. Overall, it is a means of middling purpose and can get a little messy.
It is the Darkshadian conclusion that, regardless of ones own position on capital punishment, one comes down on the side of long drop hanging (carried out by experts using scientific tables and tried and true methods) and shooting to the back of the head as the most effective, efficient, cheap and humane means of implementing it. 
So, have at thee.
Often has the debate on capital punishment raised its noggin here, but an element that is oft set aside is how it is done.
This is a little debate in itself - on what issues should be paramount in such a consideration - deterrence, humane for the audience and society, humane for the condemned individual, cost, mechanics and logistics.
What this isn't is another debate on the the death penalty as an issue in itself, but the methods of implementing it, so it would be highly appreciated if such tangents could be avoided. Whether or not ye agree with it, suspend that part of disbelief for a moment, and choose which method you regard as optimum, and why. If you find yourself unable to hold back on rhetoric on the pros and cons from either side of the argument, then feel free to go and play with a cheesegrater or something.
Some groundwork - this is not limited to the US experience, nor the British, nor any other particular experience of capital punishment, but rather looking at it in general.
Many methods have been tried throughout history. The more exotic I will leave aside for the moment, as well as those which are limited to particular cultures, such as the Iberian predilection for the garotte.
We will refine matters to 'the Big 5'.
Hanging, shooting, electrocution, gassing, lethal injection, decapitation - all have their inherent characteristics.
Hanging can be either long drop or short drop, with the latter leading often to strangulation, as compared to the almost instantaneous death bought on by the severing of the spinal cord in the former case. It is seen by some as old fashioned and paradoxically as a lengthy procedure; when carried out by skilled professionals, it takes a matter of seconds. It combines a certain nastiness to its nature with a swift, clean method.
Shooting can either be by firing squad or individual bullet to the back of the head. The latter is perhaps the swiftest and most humane means of 'saying bye-bye', and preserves the organs of the torso from any damage for possible transplant purposes. Firing squads often require a coup de grace to be delivered, which does seem rather wasteful, considering the effort just gone through.
Electrocution was introduced in the US in the latter part of the 19th century as the ultimate humane means of implementing capital punishment; history since does not suggest this is fully the case, but nor should the few accidents been seen as representative of the over 4500 uses of the electric chair. It is theoretically humane, but there is no means of finding out whether death is instantaneous, nor of asking the corpse afterwards "Now, how did that feel for you, Mr. Bundy?"
The use of lethal gas came about in the 1920s, again searching for effective and humane means. It has acquired a certain reputation for being used in other circumstances, and is lengthy, costly, and most certainly inhumane both to the subject, the staff and any witnesses. In my view, gas can be put down as a failed experiment.
Lethal injection is all the vogue, with even the Red Chinese starting to swap it for the lead headache. It is more costly, takes longer, and is often seen as a soft way out...just a little pr1ck, etc. Whether it actually is 'soft' is another matter, with the first of the three drugs administered giving a nice peaceful unconciousness and eventually paralysis to the prisoner; they are unable to show or communicate any discomfort from having their heart stopped and breathing halted, at the least. Further, it frequently takes some time to acquire the necessary vein for the catheters, and even at the optimum, takes roughly 11 minutes for death to occur. Why is it used? It looks peaceful. It looks neat. It looks humane. It is symptomatic of a world and society which looks more to semblence than substance, and eases the guilt felt by many involved. Let us not beat around the bush - when people talk about it being humane, it is for their own benefit. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that lethal injections are in any way more painless and swifter than other means.
Decapitation was never big in the Americas, but was certainly quite popular in Europe, particularly in Freedom during the 19th and 20th centuries. Swift, efficient, and certainly involves a level of horror and deterrence with the whistle and crash of the mighty knife; a thoroughly entertaining family outing of a weekend, watching the guillotinings.
Whether death is instantaneous after the severing of the head is a matter where there is some contention; there is anecdotal evidence, and some bizarre graveyard experiments which can be interpreted in either way. Overall, it is a means of middling purpose and can get a little messy.
It is the Darkshadian conclusion that, regardless of ones own position on capital punishment, one comes down on the side of long drop hanging (carried out by experts using scientific tables and tried and true methods) and shooting to the back of the head as the most effective, efficient, cheap and humane means of implementing it.
So, have at thee.
, that means tieing up the convicted to a bed or something, and than inject a needle automatically........
or at least used to anyways.
.
