If you're going to have capital punishment, why not a Guillotine?

[goaded]

The US still has capital punishment, since it still needs to evolve a civilisation, but the states that have it seem to screw it up and have the victims suffer. Or maybe that's the point.

There's no way a 100% efficient Guillotine could not be manufactured these days, and people without heads are 100% dead. And quickly.

I'm against capital punishment, especially in countries where innocent people are regularly incarcerated.

No anonymous opinions: say it, own it.

[dustybiker2]

The guillotine would be considered painful (thus less humane) even if assumed faster means to an end. The brain is still actively firing off electric impulses and computing, activity. Recording everything from pain to surroundings. This would be (and unfortunately has been in the past) traumatic to the extreme, to not only the victim. Lethal injection is supposed to be administered after the convict is asleep. Sure the process is screwed up. State budgets and all.


I am for capitol punishment. In the cases with rock hard solid proof. Some people do not deserve to live and be housed after crimes of certain magnitudes committed.

[goaded]

OK, so put the victim to sleep first. I'm against it because it's final and barbaric.

[dustybiker2]

I do not disagree. Terrorists use such for that shock value.

[dustybiker2]

Thank you for MHO, sir 😎

[goaded]

Thank you for a helpful opinion!

[dustybiker2]

It was a risk. I thought I might get thrown under the bus.

[goaded]

I don't have to agree with someone to find their opinion helpful. Often a reasonable discussion is preferable.

I can really understand, for example, wanting the mass murderer in Norway to be executed, as he killed dozens of young people with absolutely no doubt, but I can also appreciate that he'll have to spend his whole life in prison, albeit a nice one, which is lifetimes (he was about 30 when he killed 77 people, and he'll be aware of every second of his incarceration).

""He has been isolated for about 12 years... He lives in a completely locked world," his lawyer, Oeystein Storrvik, told a court hearing on Monday.

"He does not wish to be alive anymore," he added."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67914614

Oh dear. What a pity. Never mind. (To quote a certain TV sergeant from the 1980s.)

If they let a mass murderer out of prison because he "does not wish to be alive anymore", they'd be asking for him to die killing people.

[goaded]

I misremembered...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo

[dustybiker2]

I'm really more eye for an eye so this is mellow for me. But I get your perspective, too. I might have felt that way before coming face to face with what some people are capable of. Those experiences changed my views completely. But that is living.

[goaded]

The trouble is that you can't kill him 77 times. But you can keep him in prison for 77 years.

[dustybiker2]

For me knowing they would go through something of what their victims did, feel their stark fear, is justice. Locked away in a small room is too easy. Even for 77 years.

[goaded]

Try it. Knowing it's the only room you'll ever know.

[goaded]

Or, worse, hoping this year is the year they'll let you out.

[dustybiker2]

It's not a fitting punishment in my eyes.

[laly520]

oh yes a question of ethics

risk of executing innocent individuals is a significant factor in such debate yk wrongful convictions can n do occur always n the irreversible nature of the death penalty means that there is no opportunity for exoneration or rectification if errors r discovered posthumously

all in all im against it as well

[goaded]

There's no need for it, and it's more expensive!

[laly520]

n pretty sure they will start using it to take down their enemies

[goaded]

Well, Trump is talking openly about retribution.

[laly520]

trump being trump

[DarkWinterNights]

I might be okay with it, but only for the most heinous of crimes (like mass killers, serial killers, and horrible crimes against children) and they would have to be proven guilty well beyond a shadow of a doubt. Main problem being, no way of really preventing that from morphing into something unintentional down the road.

[goaded]

Exactly. It should be abolished altogether.

[msc545]

We won't use it because it horrifies onlookers and severely traumatizes even the executioners.

[msc545]

Capital punishment is barbaric and always unwarranted.

[goaded]

How pleasant is it to watch someone be lethally injected? Frankly, how sure are you that they're really dead and not just unconscious? It is unwarranted; life in prison is a worse punishment, and can be revoked.

[msc545]

Horrible. But keep in mind that most of this country is hell bent on vengeance. Politicians know that and then they pander to those people.

[Drewtate]

Seen as too brutal. Maybe a cattle bolt gun would be much more humane and efficient.

https://youtu.be/HW_EhBVDDdg?si=5UTlC3hjGh8ESDFo

[SamA_nold]

So your argument is, that to “evolve as a civilization,” we need to move towards violence?

[goaded]

No, it's to stop killing people. Even if they're convicted of crimes (nearly one in 20 executed were innocent, apparently). Just, if the state's going to kill people, make it efficient.

[Juxtapose]

The government should not have the authority to kill citizens they already subdued and locked in cages. That is an overreach of government authority in the extreme. Only authoritarians believe the government has the right to fucking kill you.

[exitseven]

We should burn them at the stake.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/v9mdcKzlQgw

[DarkLegacy]

It baffles me how the Americans can't get a simple procedure right, hanging works perfectly.