Most humane form of execution

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Kosher slaughter is supposed to be one of the most humane types of animal slaughters; beheading a human is sort of on the same general principle.

That is absolutely ridiculous. A well performed captive bolt pistol shot to the brain stem of an animal is an infinitely more humane way to kill it than cutting its throat and letting it bleed out.

[MercenaryChef]

.

Let's stay focused here. And do go ahead and start that anti-death penalty thread. Most civilized people are against it, as it happens, so you'll be preaching to the choir, which is easier than what I'm doing.

easier?

just discussing the methods of execution is totally without challenge for intellect or reason.

and how death penalty threads go is not at all like you think they go. this board is good for one every year or so.

and your analogy falls pretty flat. if we cannot stop it may as well make it as safe and efficient as possible. good luck though revolutionizing executions. good luck putting together a brain trust that will ban together to come up with the most efficient, humane and cost effective way to end a prisoner's life ever! i can only see a nobel peace prize for this brilliant work.

meanwhile i will instead debate the validity and usefulness of the death penalty among a truly civilized society. i will continue worrying that it is not being used on only truly guilty parties.

[Khal Pono]

That is absolutely ridiculous. A well performed captive bolt pistol shot to the brain stem of an animal is an infinitely more humane way to kill it than cutting its throat and letting it bleed out.

I think they keyword in the post you quoted is "Kosher slaughter is SUPPOSED to be one most humane types of animal slaughter". It was designed in the ancient world to spare the animal unneeded suffering as well as allow for a cleaner corpse; of course they didn't have the Anton Chighurr style captive bolt guns back then.

Now whether it was, in reality, a truly humane way of killing animal is far more debatable.

[Khal Pono]

meanwhile i will instead debate the validity and usefulness of the death penalty among a truly civilized society. i will continue worrying that it is not being used on only truly guilty parties.

I wish you luck in your endeavor. Because most of us already agree with you.

[Verboten]

That is absolutely ridiculous. A well performed captive bolt pistol shot to the brain stem of an animal is an infinitely more humane way to kill it than cutting its throat and letting it bleed out.

That's the crux of the issue isn't it? It's rather like seal killing, it's very difficult to tell if you've truly killed the animal or merely stunned it and very few workers have the time to actually check the eyes for signs of life. It's not one hundred percent foolproof.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Ever heard of Temple Grandin?

She was an autistic lady who fought *hard* and *successfully* for big industrial farms to come up with more HUMANE ways to slaughter cattle, and she made a difference.

Now a vegan or an animal rights activist can say WHY DIDNT SHE EXPEND HER BRAINPOWER TRYING TO OUTLAW MEAT ALTOGETHER BECAUSE KILLING ANIMALS IS WRONG.... but that would be goofy. Maybe she didn't have any good ideas that would ban the killing of animals. Maybe she doesn't even believe that meat is murder. Maybe sometimes you have to choose your battles.

Baby steps, baby steps.

Oh and by the way I'm not saying that killing humans is THE SAME as killing animals. It's just an analogy.

Let's stay focused here. And do go ahead and start that anti-death penalty thread. Most civilized people are against it, as it happens, so you'll be preaching to the choir, which is easier than what I'm doing.

In theory that argument makes sense. In reality, it's far more likely the federal government will ultimately step in and force less enlightened states like Texas to join the rest of the civilized world and prohibit the use of the death penalty than any other organization will convince those states with reasoned argumentation to use a more humane method of murder.

The most important part of "picking your battles" is, you know, actually knowing whether the battle you're picking is a better one than the alternatives. In this case, it's not.

[MercenaryChef]

I wish you luck in your endeavor. Because most of us already agree with you.

if you agree what is even the merit in a discussion about methods of execution other than for the sake of morbidity?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

That's the crux of the issue isn't it? It's rather like seal killing, it's very difficult to tell if you've truly killed the animal or merely stunned it and very few workers have the time to actually check the eyes for signs of life. It's not one hundred percent foolproof.

Well, yes and no. The problem of poorly-performed animal slaughter is endemic to large-scale industrial agriculture. I actually had a few sentences in my original post addressing this point and ultimately removed them. Silly me. The problem is, a well-performed kosher slaughter is supposed to result in the animal losing consciousness within seconds as the trachea, esophagus and carotid arteries are near-simultaneously cut. A poorly-performed kosher slaughter just results in the animal hanging upside down, kicking and thrashing, as it slowly bleeds out, conscious the entire time. Arguably, a poorly-performed captive bolt stunning is still better than that.

[Khal Pono]

In reality, it's far more likely the federal government will ultimately step in and force less enlightened states like Texas to join the rest of the civilized world and prohibit the use of the death penalty than any other organization will convince those states with reasoned argumentation to use a more humane method of murder.

Meh, they tried that in the 60s or 70s, I think. It didn't work. The right-wingers always come back just when you think they're gone, I've been all around this great country and can assure you average people are NOT becoming more enlightened in this regard (though I think they're becoming slightly more progressive about other social issues, like gay rights/gay marriage).

[Khal Pono]

if you agree what is even the merit in a discussion about methods of execution other than for the sake of morbidity?

Imagine a GRRM fan being interested in morbid, disgusting topics. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I think they keyword in the post you quoted is "Kosher slaughter is SUPPOSED to be one most humane types of animal slaughter". It was designed in the ancient world to spare the animal unneeded suffering as well as allow for a cleaner corpse; of course they didn't have the Anton Chighurr style captive bolt guns back then.

Now whether it was, in reality, a truly humane way of killing animal is far more debatable.

If you're going to make the argument, as RiL did, that beheading is the second most humane way to kill a human by analogy to the supposed humanity of kosher slaughter, you better damn well be right about the latter.

[Khal Pono]

If you're going to make the argument, as RiL did, that beheading is the second most humane way to kill a human by analogy to the supposed humanity of kosher slaughter, you better damn well be right about the latter.

Well I'm not sure he/she was wrong about the latter. 3000 years ago in the Levant, was there a more humane way available to kill cattle and sheep and such?

And I'm not convinced that the people who operate the captive bolt pistols are doing a careful job either. But, on the balance, I'm sure it's definitely a quicker death that bleeding out. I just doubt there was an equivalent option available to the Jews of old.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Meh, they tried that in the 60s or 70s, I think. It didn't work. The right-wingers always come back just when you think they're gone, I've been all around this great country and can assure you average people are NOT becoming more enlightened in this regard (though I think they're becoming slightly more progressive about other social issues, like gay rights/gay marriage).

The success of the anti-death penalty movement in the United States has been to outlaw completely the death penalty in about 1/3 of the states, and to effectively end executions in another 1/3. Last year, only 13 states actually executed inmates.

The success of the "more humane death penalty movement" has been ... what? That our methods for execution have actually, in some cases, gotten WORSE?

I know which train I'm on.

[Khal Pono]

The success of the "more humane death penalty movement" has been ... what? That our methods for execution have actually, in some cases, gotten WORSE.

Well I'm about to change that.... one fantasy novel fan bulletin board post at a time.

[Castel]

This is a slight tangent, but aren't firing squads the dumbest way to kill someone? You have a gun. You have a person tied to a pole. Why the fuck do you need to be X amount of paces away when you can walk up and blow their brains out? Target practice? Ceremony?

ETA: Which is interesting because I don't think it's crazy that people would wrap such a thing in tradition and ceremony to make it have less impact.

[Howdyphillip]

Screw a new thread...

You have decided to open a thread about how to humanely kill someone, and I have said that you are full of shit. If you do not want to discuss the topic of killing, I would highly encourage you not to open a thread about it. Telling people that they can not hold an opinion that may be counter to yours is juvenile.

So, my answer to the most humane way of killing someone is that there is none. You can either discuss this, or ignore this, but don't fucking tell me that I have no right to express my opinion about it.

[The Marquis de Leech]

(Preamble: I'm opposed to the death penalty)

The various options:

(1) Hanging. There are several types: short-drop, standard-drop, and long-drop. Short drop is the variety you see in ASOIAF, is the oldest form, and easily the nastiest: it is designed to strangle you, and as such is little more than torture. Standard-drop (used at Nuremberg, I believe) is simply letting you drop a pre-determined distance, which may or may not break your neck. Long-drop (adopted by the UK from the 1870s) involves giving you enough rope for your body weight to break your neck. There were tables you could look up to determine length (too short a rope and you strangle, too long, and the head flies off). Long-drop hanging is easily the least nasty.

(2) Beheading. Can go horribly wrong if your axeman is incompetent, so...

(2)(a): The Guillotine. Promoted as the most humane way of executing someone, it was used in France up until Francois Mitterand abolished it in 1981 (the last guillotining in France was 1977). Of course, it is so quick there have been endless debates about consciousness remaining afterwards, or whether it is painful. For obvious reasons, no-one knows.

(3) Lethal Injection: Can also go horribly wrong if the anasthetic wears off before the other chemicals have taken effect, in which case you essentially suffer a massive heart-attack while being unable to move or scream out.

(4) Firing squad. In the US they customarily gave one person firing the actual bullet, and the rest blanks to create uncertainty about who did the actual killing. Of course, there has always been the problem of inaccurate marksmanship, which can be messy and painful; traditionally you had situations of one of the executioners having to finish you off at close range afterwards, which leads to...

(4)(a) A bullet in the back of the head was the favoured method in the old Eastern bloc, though wasn't as common as is generally thought (the last execution in East Germany was by this method in 1981 of a child murderer apparently).

(5) Electric Chair: Uses electricity to induce massive heart attack. If it goes wrong, can lead to the person essentially burning to death (there is a story of one murderer who had stuck pins into himself - he short circuited the thing and smoke came out of his ears.

(6) Gas chamber: still a form of execution in California, I believe. The person is always told to breath deeply to minimise pain, but always end up holding their breath. Must be a terrifying way to go.

(7) Burning/garroting/crucifiction/stepped-on-by-elephant: Humans are endlessly creative. The nasty thing about crucifiction is that it was exposure to the elements that frequently did you in - if the executioners were feeling nice, they broke your legs to induce suffocation.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Since, the OP's request has been thoroughly ignored, I'll put my two cents. What conceivable purpose does keeping a murder alive, serve? There is no benefit to society and society should not have to bear the cost of keeping these bastards housed and fed for the rest of their lives.

Maybe one of these bleeding hearts can tell me what possible benefit to society there is in keeping murderers alive.

[Aemon Stark]

Since, the OP's request has been thoroughly ignored, I'll put my two cents. What conceivable purpose does keeping a murder alive, serve? There is no benefit to society and society should not have to bear the cost of keeping these bastards housed and fed for the rest of their lives.

Maybe one of these bleeding hearts can tell me what possible benefit to society there is in keeping murderers alive.

Maybe you should start a new thread. :rolleyes:

[The Marquis de Leech]

Since, the OP's request has been thoroughly ignored, I'll put my two cents. What conceivable purpose does keeping a murder alive, serve? There is no benefit to society and society should not have to bear the cost of keeping these bastards housed and fed for the rest of their lives.

Maybe one of these bleeding hearts can tell me what possible benefit to society there is in keeping murderers alive.

1. Because the key purpose of the justice system is to prevent a repeat of the crime: if a prisoner is locked away, they are no harm to anyone.

2. Because capital punishment is horribly final, and does lead to the state killing innocent people.

3. Because capital punishment isn't cheap (endless appeals drag on for years, even decades).

4. Because the state doesn't have the right to take lives.