Methods of Capital Punishment

[Simon Darkshade]

It can be very cool when the judge does it themselves, or Clint Eastwood does, or even the dictatorial head of state...

And impalement does not necessarily imply use of orifices; it depends whether you are doing them horizontal or vertical. Vlad used a nice combo of both, as you can see in the woodcuts of the era.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I was just sarcastic!
I just thought about the most painful yet reasonable methods

When I saw the topic I thought about Ripley's. lol.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by IceBlaze
I was just sarcastic!

Oh!
I was of course completely serious about everything I said.

Simon, why Clint Eastwood, can't you think of someone who will attract more young people?

 

[CivMonger]

I don't believe what I am reading. Those of you who say shoot the ciminals must be totally messed in the head or something. I say use lethal injection as that seems the most humane, if it doesn't screw up, and save the bullets for the real scourges of society. No, I'm not talking about crappy musicians (maybe I should be though), I'm refering to the 2 true evils that plague our beloved society. Lawyers and politicians. The only problem with this though, is that the new method of dealing with them would have to go through government and courts, so we would need them for this (OMG! they have a purpose now) but we can solve this problem easily enough. Give them money, and they'll do anything. Sorta like making a house outta gingerbread to eat little kiddies eh?

 

[EdwardTking]

Oh no - no - no

Is it:

DEATH by BOREDOM?

or

DEATH by LAUGHTER?

on reading Simon Darkshade's absurd views.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Oh no - no - no

Is it:

DEATH by BOREDOM?

or

DEATH by LAUGHTER?

on reading Simon Darkshade's absurd views.

Tell me, what is so absurd about them, my precious poppet?
If you cannot detect the sarcasm and deliberate absurdity/sillyness, and the serious message behind them, then that is your loss.


"Those of you who say shoot the ciminals must be totally messed in the head or something. I say use lethal injection as that seems the most humane, if it doesn't screw up, and save the bullets for the real scourges of society. "

Unfortunately for you, CivMonger, you are manifestly incorrect.
Lethal injection does take a while, and has screwed up on many occasions. It is also unknown as to the pain the subject is suffering, as the second drug in the cocktail paralyses them.
If we are talking humanity, a heavy calibre bullet to the head ends life instantaneously and with far more humanity than an eleven minute process whilst strapped to a gurney.
There aren't that many recorded cases of people surviving a bullet to the back of the head at point blank range. It works.
It is not "messed in the head" to put this option forth; it is a valid and serious solution to the question of how to put people to death.

Lethal injection is humane for the observer, and their sensibilities; a bullet in the head is humane for the target.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The only problem I have with capital punishment is that the executioners could be de-humanised by the process, so I offer this method.

Take an empty cell, place in cell a bottle of poison.
Lock criminal in cell. No food, no water.
Open cell 2 weeks later and remove body.

The beauty of the idea is that the painlessness of the execution is up to the condemed man, he can accept his fate and die cleanly, or try to fight justice and have a slow, lingering death. It's entirely up to him.

 

[damunzy]

Please keep the discussion from getting too graphic. Most of you have read Ice's post and know what I mean by this, the others, try to use some restrained and remember there are under 13 year olds on here. No graphic torturing methods!

 

[MrPresident]

Does no-one else find this discussion on the best way to kill criminals slightly familar? Also what happens if the criminal turns out to be innocent?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Does no-one else find this discussion on the best way to kill criminals slightly familar? Also what happens if the criminal turns out to be innocent?

I reiterate what I have said at several points earlier on in this thread:

KEEP THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DEBATE OUT OF THIS THREAD!!!!

Is that so excessive and unreasonable a request? The issue has been done to death in previous threads, and starting it up here would completely ruin the purpose of the thread, and would be a clear case of premeditated thread jacking!
In short, if you aren't going to contribute to the discussion on the matters set, but are rather going to seek to subvert and destroy the thread, then kindly stop spamming it. Just a request.

And as PH said, we are not looking for graphic torture descriptions here; even more so, that was not one's intention. The issue can be discussed maturely with a bit of gallows humour thrown in, without needing to go into X rated detail, or throw it into the gutter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you vote "other", how can you express your views without some sort of description? IceBlaZe's remarks were rather inflammatory I admit, but where do you draw the line here?

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by SunTzu
Eye for an Eye
kill murderers and castrate rapist

The justice system is there to ensure justice, not revenge, rather surprisingly.

Also, you would have to, as has been said, sodomize all rapists if you were to folow exact retribution.

I abstained.

My country has rid itself of captial punishment, thankfully.

 

[Sixchan]

Can't you still be executed for High Treason and Espionage?

I also abstained due to the non-presence of Hung, Drawn and Quartered in the list.

I like Crazy Eddie's idea, though.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Sixchan
Can't you still be executed for High Treason and Espionage?

Nope. The 1998 Human Rights act abolished all capital offences.

 

[monkeyman116]

I thought there was a clause in the British legal system meaning that Capital Punishment cannot be overridden by any other law; all that can be done is collapsing the list of offences for which Capital Punishment is an option. By law, a British judge could order an execution for:
1)Treason
2)Genocide against eh British people
3)Impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner
4)Graffitiing London Bridge

 

[allan2]

"The justice system is there to ensure justice, not revenge, rather surprisingly."

Interesting... what IS justice? I'll agree it is not revenge necessarily (although an act of vengeance can be construed as just in some cases). But a lot of people think that "perfect" justice is making the punishment fit the crime. I too have a tendency to think along those lines. PURE justice is making the person suffer exactly the way his victim suffered.

You're confusing JUSTICE with MERCY. To the extent a society metes out LESS punishment than what the criminal made the victim to suffer, society is giving MERCY, not justice. Now the Bible and many other philosophical works that help shape the values of our society, generally say that balancing justice with SOME mercy is generally a good thing. I tend to agree with that too, but mercy isn't something that should automatically be given in abundance. Give too much, and the legal system loses the respect of would-be lawbreakers.

So the question is, how MUCH mercy should be given? Which is, of course, for another thread, as Simon expressly asked that we not discuss such issues here....

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by allan2
I too have a tendency to think along those lines. PURE justice is making the person suffer exactly the way his victim suffered.

I think that's more a philosophical illusion. The thing is, that even if you would do the same to the perpetrator as he did to the victim, that's probably still not pure justice.
People (individuals) are feeling and thinking different, so it is impossible (I think) to inflict exactly the same amount of 'damage' on two different individuals.

 

[allan2]

"I think that's more a philosophical illusion. The thing is, that even if you would do the same to the perpetrator as he did to the victim, that's probably still not pure justice.
People (individuals) are feeling and thinking different, so it is impossible (I think) to inflict exactly the same amount of 'damage' on two different individuals."

True enough, you may have a suicidal person killing someone, or a masochist torturing someone.... But if we are to define "justice", I still say it is the above given definition. The idea that someone "gets what they deserve", i.e. the Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") acted upon.... As imperfect as it may be in light of these exceptions you imply, it is still a good working definition given that MOST criminals DON'T want their acts "done unto them." They may feel less pain losing an eye than their victim, but they still will find it painful....

And the element of restraint in making the criminal NOT suffer as much as the suffering he inflicted, is accurately called "mercy"--i.e. he's getting less than what is karmaically coming to him, so to speak. See the distinction? But not to worry, I (like most people) DO believe in some mercy to balance the harshness of justice, so long as it is meted out appropriately, and not too much so that criminals laugh at the consequences of their acts.

 

[Globber]

I say impalement Vlad style...through the navel, heart, or... Upside down through the skull...ouch... no chance of failure whatsoever..... just let the body sit around... A impaled skull will surely scare off some would-be murderers

But really, I think that what happens to the criminal should be WORSE than what happened to his victim...Punishment isn't a good one if it isn't cruel or unusual. The point of punishment is to prevent crime through showing criminals what will happen to them if they commit that crime... If criminals get off easy, there will be nothing to stop repeat offenders.

 

[santo67]

I had to go with 'other', myself. I say, we send our worst criminals to work camps in Alaska and let them pay off their debt to society until they die of exposure and/or starvation.

Why does this country of mine have so much crime? Because we have this little thing that prevents Cruel and Unusual punishment. And, thus, all the criminals claim that every little discomfort in their lives is 'cruel and unusual', such as not having air conditioning or a TV. As a result, our prisons end up being built like freakin' Holiday Inns at the Tax Payer's expense.

Put fear into their lives! Let those about to commit a crime know that the punishment will be very Cruel and most Unusual. As President, I would create a new Cabinet department, devoted to thinking up interesting new ways to punish people. There would be specific punishments for every crime. For felony theft, you get your thumbs cut off. For dealing in child pornography, you get your eyes ripped out.

Repeal the 8th Amendment!