South Carolina can execute death row inmates by firing squad, lethal injection or the electric chair, the state's high court ruled Wednesday, opening the door to restart executions after more than a decade.
All five justices agreed with at least part of the ruling. But two of the justices said...
All five justices agreed with at least part of the ruling. But two of the justices said they felt the firing squad was not a legal way to kill an inmate and one of them felt the electric chair is a cruel and unusual punishment.
Lethal injection has serious downsides. It turns out the drugs simply keep you from moving about as you slowly asphyxiate.
The electric chair it truly cruel. Yes, it fries your system, but it does it relatively slowly.
The firing squad has the issue of the marksman’s aim. If it’s off, you die slowly. Even if it’s dead on, pun intended, you realize what’s happening.
I’ve always wondered if, perhaps, the fastest method would be the guillotine.
Many years ago, in OMNI magazine, there was a story about a future where it was deemed inhumane to even let someone know they were going to be executed. They were kept in a small apartment awaiting the verdict. When the verdict was announced, no matter what it was, they were told they were free to go. Upon grabbing the doorknob, a neurotoxin was injected into the guilty with almost instantaneous effect.
As to discussions of the death penalty itself, I feel if someone was in their right mind, understood the consequences of their actions, and, if placed in the same situation, would commit the crime again, yes, they need to be removed from society permanently. Those who are deemed mentally fit, but bent like serial killers, should lose all their freedom and be placed at the disposal of mental health professionals to study.
What are your thoughts on ways of killing that would be humane?
I say the death penalty is itself inhumane, focusing on the technical problem misses the point. Killing people you have a high degree of confidence committed murder means on a long enough time span, you’re virtually guaranteed to kill innocents. The process required to minimize these false positive killings makes the death penalty more expensive than life in prison, on average. As far as I can tell, there’s no upside to the death penalty, unless you’re firmly convinced that the criminal justice system needs to focus on retribution.
The only humane option I see is to let them live out their lives in a context where they won’t reoffend.
on a long enough time span, you’re virtually guaranteed to kill innocents
On a long enough time span, you’re also virtually guaranteed to lock innocents in prison for the rest of their natural lives. (My guess is that this happens more often than killing innocents because death-penalty cases attract much more attention.) Is killing people so much worse than putting them up in a cage and never letting them out that one is inhumane and the other isn’t?
I don’t disagree with your main point, the carceral system is itself fundamentally broken, and fixing one thing won’t suddenly make the system humane. The goal of a criminal justice system should be to reduce recidivism, to empower people through education to leave ready to have a more constructive and fulfilling life than when they arrived. We should respect the humanity of inmates, overturn wrongful convictions, eviscerate minimum sentencing guidelines, abolish stupid crimes that don’t even represent a threat to society like prostitution, and apply state and federal minimum wages to inmates, among so many other changes.
There’s so much inhumanity in the system, to your point. We can and should revisit convictions, and try to make amends if we got it wrong. And it should really never look anything like putting people in a cage for life.
But that’s kind of my point, the only humane method is not to kill people. Asking “but how do we do it” is like asking how to square a circle; there may be a couple of interesting things to learn along the way, but you won’t find any satisfying answers to the question.
While, for the most part, I agree with you, there are cases that are simply a textbook example of needing the death penalty. If somebody, in their right mind, decides to kill simply because they want to know what it’s like, they need to be removed from the herd.
Look at inmates who continue to present a danger not only to staff, but to other inmates. If, as far as medical science is able to, they are in their right mind, what do you do with them?
I get what you’re saying, it’s certainly a hard situation, and a rare one, but I think “truly nothing we can do” is an exceptionally rare situation.
But why is that person acting the way they are? People do things for reasons, even if they aren’t good ones. Maybe the only way they can safely interact with people is via video chat, and respecting the humanity of the others around them means that’s all they get. There are ways for them to get access to food, water, shelter, sunlight, even socialization, without physical access to others, and access to somebody to talk to who might be able to help them, even if the DSM doesn’t have a specific diagnosis that describes them.
I think any system that deals with people who have done what society has labelled crime should seek to minimize harm, and maximize opportunities to grow for those who wish to take them. I don’t think your “textbook” case for the death penalty achieves either of these aims.
Nitrogen gas, hands down. Plenty of others gases, except CO2, would work but NO2 is cheap. We don’t have “low O2” sensors, we have “high CO2” sensors. I remember a teen couple making love in a helium filled store balloon/display. They died clueless.
The reason for the very publicized failure last time it was tried was using a mask. Simply put the condemned in a small room and flood it, just like astronaut’s hypoxia trainings. Going out silly and stoned would be about as nice as it gets. And having said that, I have no idea why we don’t OD prisoners on opiates. Seems like a no-brainer.
As to the firing squad, I feel that’s fairly “humane”, would be my third choice if it was me. The condemned just slump and die. Hollywood doesn’t do the nature of gunshot wounds justice. People mostly just drop, strings cut. The lack of drama is far more horrifying than getting knocked through a window. Unfortunately, I saw a video of Mexican police shotgunning a protesting student at 1-2’. The victim looked a little stunned and fell like a sack potatoes. Original cowboy movies showed death like that, but audiences didn’t feel it was realistic.
Rifle rounds setup a shock wave that rearranges your chest cavity. And they’re not using some wimpy bullet such as an AR-15 chambers. Something like a 30.06 or .308 is a monster round. Add up 4-5 hits like that, you won’t know what hit you.
As to the firing squad, I feel that’s fairly “humane”, would be my third choice if it was me.
It seems like our modern execution methods are concerned more about the comfort of society than the comfort of the condemned. Shooting someone feels more like killing than the bloodless alternatives. Or am I making things up? I wonder if there has been any research into this.
And having said that, I have no idea why we don’t OD prisoners on opiates. Seems like a no-brainer.
The same reason lethal injection is so difficult. We know exactly what drugs to use. They are used on pets and animals all the time. The trouble is procuring them for the death penalty. Companies don’t want the stigma of supplying this drugs for that purpose.
Also really amazed there’s only 2 comments about nitrogen. The sensor thing is spot on. Very humane.
I oppose the death penalty, but not because I think it’s wrong to kill some criminals. I am perfectly fine with ending people like Tim McVeigh or Susan Smith. My problem is that I don’t have confidence courts can reliably tell who deserves and who doesn’t.
They always say the death penalty is for the “worst of the worst”, but many arbitrary factors can make the difference. The race /social class of the criminal/ victim. The ambition of the prosecutor. The location of the crime.
Steven Fry interviewed people involved with execution in different parts of the South. It turns out that they think that the executee deserves to suffer
Thank you for the reference. Having read most of it so far, I came across this passage:
Having disqualified Sue’s argument, Cabanis turns to Sömmerring’s thesis on the post-decapitation persistence of an active, conscious sensorium commune. Several facts argue against this. What is commonly known as a “rabbit punch” shows that a violent blow to the neck leads to an immediate loss of consciousness. Furthermore, a rapid hemorrhage deprives the brain of the blood it needs to function. Each of the individual circumstances brought together by the guillotine is enough to produce a true syncope. Cabanis concludes from this that the head and body of a man who has been guillotined endure no suffering and that death is as fast as the stroke of the blade.
I was trying to find the specifics, but there was a doctor who did some experiments during the terror. there was one head whose eyes popped open and looked right at him when he shouted his name, and another head that went into the same basket as his rival that bit the other head on the cheek and couldn’t be loosened for 2 hours.
if the guillotine blade went slightly higher, actually impacting the brain stem, it might be different, although I admit that we are all guessing. personally, if I were going to be guillotine’d, I would request that they replace the blade with a large weight and drop it directly on my head.
Lethal injection has serious downsides. It turns out the drugs simply keep you from moving about as you slowly asphyxiate.
The electric chair it truly cruel. Yes, it fries your system, but it does it relatively slowly.
The firing squad has the issue of the marksman’s aim. If it’s off, you die slowly. Even if it’s dead on, pun intended, you realize what’s happening.
I’ve always wondered if, perhaps, the fastest method would be the guillotine.
Many years ago, in OMNI magazine, there was a story about a future where it was deemed inhumane to even let someone know they were going to be executed. They were kept in a small apartment awaiting the verdict. When the verdict was announced, no matter what it was, they were told they were free to go. Upon grabbing the doorknob, a neurotoxin was injected into the guilty with almost instantaneous effect.
As to discussions of the death penalty itself, I feel if someone was in their right mind, understood the consequences of their actions, and, if placed in the same situation, would commit the crime again, yes, they need to be removed from society permanently. Those who are deemed mentally fit, but bent like serial killers, should lose all their freedom and be placed at the disposal of mental health professionals to study.
What are your thoughts on ways of killing that would be humane?
I say the death penalty is itself inhumane, focusing on the technical problem misses the point. Killing people you have a high degree of confidence committed murder means on a long enough time span, you’re virtually guaranteed to kill innocents. The process required to minimize these false positive killings makes the death penalty more expensive than life in prison, on average. As far as I can tell, there’s no upside to the death penalty, unless you’re firmly convinced that the criminal justice system needs to focus on retribution.
The only humane option I see is to let them live out their lives in a context where they won’t reoffend.
On a long enough time span, you’re also virtually guaranteed to lock innocents in prison for the rest of their natural lives. (My guess is that this happens more often than killing innocents because death-penalty cases attract much more attention.) Is killing people so much worse than putting them up in a cage and never letting them out that one is inhumane and the other isn’t?
I don’t disagree with your main point, the carceral system is itself fundamentally broken, and fixing one thing won’t suddenly make the system humane. The goal of a criminal justice system should be to reduce recidivism, to empower people through education to leave ready to have a more constructive and fulfilling life than when they arrived. We should respect the humanity of inmates, overturn wrongful convictions, eviscerate minimum sentencing guidelines, abolish stupid crimes that don’t even represent a threat to society like prostitution, and apply state and federal minimum wages to inmates, among so many other changes.
There’s so much inhumanity in the system, to your point. We can and should revisit convictions, and try to make amends if we got it wrong. And it should really never look anything like putting people in a cage for life.
If they are innocent they still have the rest of their lives for that to be determined.
Once you kill an innocent, they don’t get the rest of their natural life for that to be determined.
Most of us agree, but the discussion is about methods vs. morality.
But that’s kind of my point, the only humane method is not to kill people. Asking “but how do we do it” is like asking how to square a circle; there may be a couple of interesting things to learn along the way, but you won’t find any satisfying answers to the question.
While, for the most part, I agree with you, there are cases that are simply a textbook example of needing the death penalty. If somebody, in their right mind, decides to kill simply because they want to know what it’s like, they need to be removed from the herd.
Look at inmates who continue to present a danger not only to staff, but to other inmates. If, as far as medical science is able to, they are in their right mind, what do you do with them?
I get what you’re saying, it’s certainly a hard situation, and a rare one, but I think “truly nothing we can do” is an exceptionally rare situation.
But why is that person acting the way they are? People do things for reasons, even if they aren’t good ones. Maybe the only way they can safely interact with people is via video chat, and respecting the humanity of the others around them means that’s all they get. There are ways for them to get access to food, water, shelter, sunlight, even socialization, without physical access to others, and access to somebody to talk to who might be able to help them, even if the DSM doesn’t have a specific diagnosis that describes them.
I think any system that deals with people who have done what society has labelled crime should seek to minimize harm, and maximize opportunities to grow for those who wish to take them. I don’t think your “textbook” case for the death penalty achieves either of these aims.
Nitrogen gas, hands down. Plenty of others gases, except CO2, would work but NO2 is cheap. We don’t have “low O2” sensors, we have “high CO2” sensors. I remember a teen couple making love in a helium filled store balloon/display. They died clueless.
The reason for the very publicized failure last time it was tried was using a mask. Simply put the condemned in a small room and flood it, just like astronaut’s hypoxia trainings. Going out silly and stoned would be about as nice as it gets. And having said that, I have no idea why we don’t OD prisoners on opiates. Seems like a no-brainer.
As to the firing squad, I feel that’s fairly “humane”, would be my third choice if it was me. The condemned just slump and die. Hollywood doesn’t do the nature of gunshot wounds justice. People mostly just drop, strings cut. The lack of drama is far more horrifying than getting knocked through a window. Unfortunately, I saw a video of Mexican police shotgunning a protesting student at 1-2’. The victim looked a little stunned and fell like a sack potatoes. Original cowboy movies showed death like that, but audiences didn’t feel it was realistic.
Rifle rounds setup a shock wave that rearranges your chest cavity. And they’re not using some wimpy bullet such as an AR-15 chambers. Something like a 30.06 or .308 is a monster round. Add up 4-5 hits like that, you won’t know what hit you.
It seems like our modern execution methods are concerned more about the comfort of society than the comfort of the condemned. Shooting someone feels more like killing than the bloodless alternatives. Or am I making things up? I wonder if there has been any research into this.
The same reason lethal injection is so difficult. We know exactly what drugs to use. They are used on pets and animals all the time. The trouble is procuring them for the death penalty. Companies don’t want the stigma of supplying this drugs for that purpose.
Also really amazed there’s only 2 comments about nitrogen. The sensor thing is spot on. Very humane.
I oppose the death penalty, but not because I think it’s wrong to kill some criminals. I am perfectly fine with ending people like Tim McVeigh or Susan Smith. My problem is that I don’t have confidence courts can reliably tell who deserves and who doesn’t.
They always say the death penalty is for the “worst of the worst”, but many arbitrary factors can make the difference. The race /social class of the criminal/ victim. The ambition of the prosecutor. The location of the crime.
Just the fact that multiple people have been exonerated, sometimes posthumously, shows that the whole thing is highly flawed.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/database/innocence
200 cases at least.
You only need to look at the imbalance in death penalties by skin color to know something is wrong.
Steven Fry interviewed people involved with execution in different parts of the South. It turns out that they think that the executee deserves to suffer
Thus highlighting the difference between justice and revenge.
Pure nitrogen, assuming they don’t fuck it up like one of the states did recently
Edit: It’s called an exit bag. You want ethical euthanasia? Talk to suicidal people, we have ideas.
the guillotine might actually be a really bad way to go. scroll down to “History of the Debate”
Thank you for the reference. Having read most of it so far, I came across this passage:
I was trying to find the specifics, but there was a doctor who did some experiments during the terror. there was one head whose eyes popped open and looked right at him when he shouted his name, and another head that went into the same basket as his rival that bit the other head on the cheek and couldn’t be loosened for 2 hours.
if the guillotine blade went slightly higher, actually impacting the brain stem, it might be different, although I admit that we are all guessing. personally, if I were going to be guillotine’d, I would request that they replace the blade with a large weight and drop it directly on my head.
deleted by creator
I think hanging w/ long noose is probably one of the more humane ways. Instant CNS damage.