States consider reviving old-fashioned executions

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

States consider reviving old-fashioned executions
By JIM SALTER, Associated Press | January 28, 2014 | Updated: January 28, 2014 3:06am

ST. LOUIS (AP) — With lethal-injection drugs in short supply and new questions looming about their effectiveness, lawmakers in some death penalty states are considering bringing back relics of a more gruesome past: firing squads, electrocutions and gas chambers.

Most states abandoned those execution methods more than a generation ago in a bid to make capital punishment more palatable to the public and to a judicial system worried about inflicting cruel and unusual punishments that violate the Constitution.

But to some elected officials, the drug shortages and recent legal challenges are beginning to make lethal injection seem too vulnerable to complications.

"This isn't an attempt to time-warp back into the 1850s or the wild, wild West or anything like that," said Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin, who this month proposed making firing squads an option for executions. "It's just that I foresee a problem, and I'm trying to come up with a solution that will be the most humane yet most economical for our state."


Read more: http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/States-consider-reviving-old-fashioned-executions-5180903.php

---

[center][/center]

[JackInGreen]

1. Ye know,really

if we're going to go back to old forms of execution and punishment for those condemned, can we at least get some gladiatorial combat out of it? Last man standing goes on Letterman before the live firing squad.

[jakeXT]

7. Hard time or show time

[wercal]

102. That reminds me

Isn't the Hunger Games just a copy of Running Man?

[jakeXT]

107. I haven't seen Hunger Games, but I believe Battle Royale inspired it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale

In 2012, Roy Lee stated a remake would no longer be possible due to the release of the film adaptation of The Hunger Games, which has been criticized for its similarities to Battle Royale, stating that "Audiences would see it as just a copy of Games — most of them wouldn't know that Battle Royale came first. It's unfair, but that's reality." However, he stated that he might return to the film in ten years to "develop a Battle Royale movie for the next generation."[7]

The full film is on youtube

[zonkers]

104. I agree. Lets do it with a little style.

[Demeter]

2. We COULD just outlaw the death penalty

and save a whole lot of money, regain some of our lost reputation in the world, and become a more just nation....

[sakabatou]

15. Except that cut into the pockets of the producers of said chemicals

and we can't have that, can we?

[former9thward]

33. Now that is a stretch.

The tiny amount of chemicals used in executions would mean nothing to any company. More of a nuisance than anything.

[sakabatou]

34. I should add a sarcasm tag...

[Psephos]

44. The problem is actually that almost no companies want to supply those drugs. n/t

[jmowreader]

73. The producers of said chemicals don't want them used in executions

This is the crux of the problem: lethal injection requires they use drugs intended to heal to kill, and the drug companies have had enough.

[Scootaloo]

76. Hell of a thing when chemical and drug companies take an ethical stance!

[Springslips]

87. Sorry to sound cynical

But I think the problem is if the Chem companies sell the chemical for the death penalty the governments of Europe are self-banned from buying their products.

So it is a monetary concern, not ethics.

[Solly Mack]

95. +1

[Journeyman]

3. Cue the story of Robert Pierce, killed in San Quentin in 1956. . .

I'll let Evan S. Connell explain:

Robert Pierce, awaiting execution at San Quentin prison,
contrived to slash his throat with a shard of glass,
precipitating a frantic quarrel among the authorities:
some insisted that he be executed before he bled to death
while others thought he should be taken to the hospital.
Presently, with gouts of blood bubbling from his neck,
he was carried into the gas chamber. Witnesses screamed,
vomited and several fainted. The decision had been reached,
officials later explained, because at the time of death
the prisoner probably would still be alive and therefore
conscious not only of his crime but of the retributions
justly demanded by the Sovereign State of California.

Evan S. Connell, Points for a Compass Rose, 1973

[Judi Lynn]

59. So sad that it's really so easy to believe, after all.

I would imagine those involved felt so proud they had gotten him into the room before he could intercept their will to kill him first.

Hope their moment of "heroism" visited them over and over again as they struggled to sleep after that.

[trusty elf]

4. firing squads, electrocutions and gas chambers?

That's not old-fashioned!

[IMG][/IMG]

[jsr]

18. An option involving no animals:

[GreenEyedLefty]

5. Screw it... let's just draw and quarter people.

As illustrated above...

[Nanjing to Seoul]

8. keel haul and boiling in oil. that's the ticket.

[sakabatou]

17. Tar and feather

or just cover in tar until boiled.

[Sognefjord]

89. Flogging round the Fleet. That was always a good one.

[ReRe]

6. Reality TV

The execution Channel.

[jmowreader]

74. Hold your sarcasm

In Saudi Arabia, crowds gather at Deera Square every day before 9 am in hopes someone will be beheaded that day. They no longer announce the date a beheading will be performed.

[ReRe]

75. Oh yeah...

... "cheering as someone dies" goes way back, not just in Saudi Arabia today. They did the same thing here in Colonial America. Think witch trials, hangings, probably lynchings in the south, vigilante groups who took the law into their own hands after the Civil War. It's a sign of digression in civilization. We're going backwards, my friend, in more ways than one. They want to take us ALL the way back to before Magna Carta times.

[jmowreader]

93. Something like this?

[Scootaloo]

78. Actually they gather because it's a public space

the police clear out gawkers before executions.

[onehandle]

9. The dark, twisted visions of gun nuts' minds are spilling out into reality. nt

[PeteSelman]

10. Firing squad, hanging, headsman are all faster and easier than lethal injection.

Lethal injection was supposed to be the kinder, gentler version of capital punishment and apparently there are a lot of unnecessary complications that belie that description. If we're going to continue executing people it should probably be done the quickest, most efficient way possible. The gas chamber and old sparky can be drawn out too. Of course, there are those who think drawn out is appropriate for certain people.

[MillennialDem]

50. Probably the kindest (albeit gruesome) method is beheading

[SorellaLaBefana]

11. "...old-fashioned executions" A tautology, surely

Most of the world has moved beyond such a primitive lex talionis view of justice.

I wish that our society would as well.

Not that I do not think that there are people who are beyond any hope but God's of saving, but because historically in our country it is the poor and non-white who are more likely to be executed.

My thought is that the problem is not with capital punishment per se, but with its execution.

[Psephos]

45. execution is everywhere

The news is full of it.

Whether it's done by governments or not is almost beside the point.

That said, half or more of global governments either practice it openly or covertly.

BTW, I am against capital punishment.

[Jesus Malverde]

12. Euthanasia Coaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster

[xocet]

48. That's twisted. n/t

[another_liberal]

13. Firing squads?

Seriously?

[RC]

16. Of course, we are a civilized country. Attacks & invasions on innocent nations,

drones on wedding parties, health care for those that can afford it, Millions for CEO's and slave wages for the workers.

BTW, when was the last time this country executed a rich person?

[another_liberal]

42. I think that happened right after . . .

When did we last execute a rich person? I think that happened right after a huge flock of flying pigs last blotted-out the sun.

[Jeff Murdoch]

24. Don't forget to charge the family

for the bullets used.

[happyslug]

63. That is what the Russian do

In Soviet Days that is how many families found out their love one had been shot, they received the bill for the bullets.

[Paladin]

25. There would never be a shortage of volunteers to be members of firing squads.

The NRA would probably create a participatory medal for such service.

[Ed Suspicious]

27. OMG they would sell it as 'your patriotic duty' to be in service to your country. It's nationalistic

, authoritarian, and you gets to statnd your ground agin proper criminals! This government program is gonna be popuulaaaaar!

[Paladin]

29. Certainly suits the times, doesn't it? (nt)

[Ed Suspicious]

31. Ask not who your country can kill for you, ask who you can kill for your country.

It sure does.

[KansDem]

49. I believe that was the case when Gary Gilmore was executed in Utah in 1977

If I recall correctly, there was a surplus of volunteers ready to take on the task.

[LongTomH]

52. A lot of people who have served on firing squads end up needing psychiatric care

[cyberswede]

92. I thought there was always one blank, and nobody knew who had it...

so every member of the squad could think they had the blank.

I thought my parents told me that when someone was executed by firing squad when I was a kid...Gary Gilmore, I think.

[sir pball]

103. A blank is immediately recognizable when you fire it.

It's nothing like shooting a live round. I've heard it said many a time as well, but it's probably not true - if you had the blank, you'd know for sure, and if you didn't you'd also know.

[Paladin]

108. I bet you don't notice it when your target is human. (nt)

[sir pball]

112. Never harbored any fantasies of shooting somebody, let alone done it, so I wouldn't know, nt.

[whopis01]

96. Amazing that is has only been 4 years

since the last firing squad execution in the US.

[trusty elf]

14. "reviving executions"

That's quite a phrase!

[bemildred]

19. Draw and quarter them. Sell tickets. Show us who you really are. nt

[heaven05]

20. yea!!!

how about the guillotine? firing squads? hanging?

[yellowcanine]

22. Guillotines? Too "clean!" How about the old fashioned broad axe?

Need some room for "error." That will "teach em."

[heaven05]

23. excellent!!

[yellowcanine]

21. What a bunch of wimpiness. Bring on the public 'angings! That will set the country straight!

[Ed Suspicious]

26. Now we Americans(myself excluded) have shown the requisite bloodlust for proper executions.

We're ready to return to our lynch-mob roots. Yay 'murica. Fuck Yeah!

[ladjf]

28. America is very sick. nt

[geek tragedy]

30. why not stoning or the guillotine? nt

[trusty elf]

36. ..........

[URL=http://imgur.com/50124i9][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Turbineguy]

32. Public executions.

Teabaggers would eat that shit up and leave the rest of us alone.

[former9thward]

35. I really don't know why firing squads were ended.

Firing squads are painless and instant. If I was facing death I would choose that method. Everything else takes time and has complications.

[Xithras]

38. Firing squads are neither painless or instant.

Firing squads aim at the chest, and not the head (for good reason). Most people executed by firing squad suffer for a few seconds and die, but there have been cases of people lingering for several minutes. Humans aren't always perfect shots, and even when they are, the body can take a few seconds to react to the fact that it no longer has a heart.

[former9thward]

40. That is speculation at best.

When a bullet hits the heart you are dead. And it certainly would be painless. You would be dead before you would be able to sense pain. It is far better than gasping in gas or being burned by electricity.

[Xithras]

43. Speculation based on medical science.

A stopped heart does not cause instant brain death, and both pain and awareness can remain until the brain has ceased functioning. Both of these are fairly well established medical facts.

Countless people have survived heart stoppages and reported not only awareness, but the sensation of pain (surviving a defibrillator to restart a heart is reported to be a very painful experience). There have also been plenty of medical studies that have firmly established the fact that the human brain can survive up to six minutes with no heart action at all.

Generally speaking, most people will lose consciousness when their blood pressure drops too far. In the case of someone getting shot in the heart, this will generally happen within a second or two. The heart instantly stops beating from the damage, blood pressure plunges, and within a couple of seconds the person is either unconscious or in a state of catatonic shock. The brain itself does not die until a lack of oxygen finally shuts it down. Depending on the health of the person, that process can take anywhere from 30 seconds to 6 minutes. During that period, while they have no pulse and may not be conscious, they are certainly "alive" as medical science defines it, and are entirely capable of experiencing pain.

The presumption that firing squads are instant and painless is based on the fact that they had no heartbeat and usually didn't move. Modern medical science now understands that the cessation of a heartbeat is not the same thing as death.

The only truly painless way to end a human life is to sever the brainstem. Not only will that instantly end brain function, but it simultaneously destroys the part of the brain that registers sensations of pain, preventing any nerve signals that do fire from being processed in the instant before their death.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

69. Tell Thailand that

They stopped shooting people because too many were surviving only to bleed to death, apparently it was very upsetting to the super manly man execution parties.

[former9thward]

70. We don't do things like Thailand does.

If you think we do then no need to discuss further.

[quakerboy]

90. You mean guns are fundamentally different here

as opposed to the guns in Thailand? Or just the Thai people dont shoot as well as US citizens?

[CreekDog]

91. yes, but it sounds like we're trying to be more like they were

it is relevant.

by the way, your usual efforts to Republican-up the thread are as obvious as usual.

[former9thward]

99. And your usual attempts to throw out strawmen are as obvious as usual.

The Democratic Party is not and has never been against the death penalty.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Crime.htm

[CreekDog]

116. it's not a strawman, look at the arguments that always follow your posts

basically you post a "concern" about a liberal or Democratic position or a conservative talking point, then numerous posters take issue with you.

this is the dynamic when you post and it's extremely obvious.

[former9thward]

117. Always happy to have stalkers and fans.

I'll take either.

[CreekDog]

121. it's not "stalking" to argue with you

especially because you've posted something conservative. get a clue.

[sir pball]

105. Hiring Jimbos with beat-up deer rifles off the street is not "good reason".

I mean, I get the theoretical logic behind heart/lung shots, it's a bigger target - but realistically, police sharpshooters are specifically trained to target the brainstem for the exact reasons you've said; in certain situations it's required to instantly stop a person from any further action and the only reliable way to do that is to sever the brain from the body.

They can hit the 1.5" target at over 100 yards, a person secured in a chair at 25 yards with four or six SWAT sharpshooters would indeed have an instant, painless death. Wouldn't even hear the rifles fire. Gonna have to be a closed casket, but I've never heard of a presentable body being a prerequisite for an execution. Not to mention, right or wrong the riflemen are trained and disciplined to take a life. Better than a yahoo that thinks it would be cool to pull the trigger on a person.

Or rig up a helmet with a .44 Magnum chamber at the back and a remote firing system.

[Paladin]

109. That's nice. Please stay out of my neighborhood. (nt)

[sir pball]

111. Because I realize that neither I nor anybody else off the street has any business executing people?

I probably should have clarified that I'm not pro-DP. But if we're talking about humane methods, can you argue that a trained marksman aiming for the head wouldn't be as instant and painless as possible?

I get that the mere mention of firearms deeply offends and repulses you, and anybody who's ever so much as cast a glance at one is perpetually tainted, always breathlessly fantasizing about how awesome killin' folk would be, but do explain, in small words for my obviously deranged mind, what exactly was so personally offensive about this one?

[Paladin]

115. I've been a firearms owner for better than 50 years.

Let's just say that you and I seem to think differently, and leave it at that. Hope these words are small enough to suit you.....

[sir pball]

119. No, actually that doesn't suit me.

Yea, I know your cute little story, youre gun owner but totally incapable of even conceptualizing how a firearm could be used in any negative fashion and anybody who even speculates about it is a psychopath who pops wood at the thought of finding their own Trayvon. You've been accusing me of latent mental sickness since DU2, "indulging in unhealthy fantasies" ad nauseaum.

I have less than no desire to shoot a man. I don't particularly like the death penalty, either. But if we have to have it, I am able to recognize that trained sharpshooters aiming for the brainstem would be arguably the most humane, if not the neatest, method. If the ability to have that thought, in a coldly analytical fashion, indicates to you some sort of personal lust for killin', do us both a favor and just put me on ignore so I won't have to creep you out anymore.

As an aside, is it as offensive to you that I mentioned nitrogen asphyxiation as an equally painless method? I clearly had to speculate about killing a person in order to weigh that as an option as well. FYI, I got about the same thrill out of it as I did with the sharpshooters...i.e. none whatsoever.

[Paladin]

122. This conversation is over. (nt)

[sir pball]

124. Humor me with an intellectually-honest, single-word, no-text answer.

Because I speculated as to the most "humane" method of executing a person with a firearm, in the context of a discussion on capital punishment methods, do you honestly believe that I am a mentally unbalanced individual who is imminently dangerous to the public at large, and should be at the very least thoroughly mentally evaluated, and most likely stripped of the privilege of owning firearms?

A simple yes or no will suffice - I don't particularly wish to carry on this discussion either, but I want you to be upfront about it.

[Paladin]

128. Possibly. (nt)

[Xithras]

113. That's not the "good reason".

The "good reason" is that firing squads typically have between 3 and 5 loaded rifles in addition to the "conscience round"...all firing at once. If they all aimed for the head, there wouldn't be a head left afterward. Functionally, you'd be talking about a decapitation. Most people (rightly) find that to be a pretty distasteful idea.

It's a bit of a morbid topic, but if you really did want to make executions quick and painless, the best option would probably be a variation of a captive-bolt pistol. If applied to the back of the head, the death would not only be instant and 100% painless, but it would also be fairly bloodless and nondestructive.

[sir pball]

114. I took the mess into account.

Like I said, you're not going to do an open-casket funeral, but that isn't legally guaranteed. Matter of fact if it were me or a loved one, I'd settle for the mess in exchange for the "humanity" of the method. Executions in general are a pretty distasteful idea to me; the details beyond that are more or less irrelevant.

Realistically, nitrogen asphyxiation would be as painless - in all seriousness, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the replacement for the needle.

[Xithras]

120. That's sort of my take on it.

I don't really have a firm stance on the death penalty. I think that nearly all death penalty cases don't actually warrant it, but there are some that do. Still, it wouldn't bother me at all to see it banned entirely.

If we are going to keep executing people, however, it needs to be done as humanely as possible.

Nitrogen asphyxiation is an interesting idea, but it's my understanding that most of the discussions about it have been theoretical and trace back to one magazine article advocating it. No government has seriously proposed, attempted, or studied it as a form of execution. Still, in theory, an N/NOx mixture would not only be a painless form of death, but a relatively pleasant one.

[sir pball]

123. I think N2 hasn't been studied b/c it hasn't been "needed"

We're the only ostensibly modern country still executing people and up until now, the needle was always considered adequate, so nobody has felt the need to seriously look at N2 as a method. But given its use in animal "processing", as well as many recorded industrial accidents that occurred with no warning or discomfort, it would seem to be, if not half-established already, at the very least an avenue worth exploring if we must. I'm anti-DP on pragmatic grounds; I'll admit I have no particular moral compunction against it specifically, but justice is not, cannot be, 100% reliable and it's not a punishment that can be undone...ergo it can't be handed down, ever. Better to spare a million Hitlers than kill one innocent man.

(The magazine article was National Review, "Killing with kindness – capital punishment by nitrogen asphyxiation", 9/11/1995)

[Dash87]

37. The most humane execution is a projectile to the brain stem.

Just have a computer do it now. The prisoner wouldn't feel anything, and would die instantly, and someone wouldn't have to kill them directly with a gun. The purpose of lethal injection seems more to give the appearance of no suffering vs. preventing suffering.

Of course, for people like the Petit murderers, a public hanging might be deserved, not that we necessarily should. Maybe they should let the victims' family choose (or carry it out, if they wish).

[marble falls]

39. People who support the death penalty should be compelled to witness a bunch of them.

[former9thward]

41. Should people who oppose the death penalty be forced to view

the autopsies of murder victims? Same logic.

[jeff47]

51. It's only the same logic if the death penalty prevented murder.

There's zero evidence the death penalty actually prevents crime.

To argue otherwise is to:
1) ignore the large percentage of crimes committed "in the heat of the moment"
2) Ignore that people planning their crimes do not expect to get caught - otherwise they wouldn't commit the crime.
3) Really believe that a criminal would think "I'll only get life in prison without parole, so I'm gonna do it!"

[former9thward]

53. Heat of the moment crimes do not get the death penalty.

Every state that has the death penalty has "aggravating factors" which get you there. The DP is applied to very few murders.

[jeff47]

54. Some do, some don't.

There's obvious overreaction crimes. But then there's less obvious situations. Like what if a planned confrontation escalated to murder?

But let's pretend you are correct and no "heat of the moment" crimes get the death penalty.

You are now arguing that people planning their crimes expect to get caught. Because that's the only way the death penalty would be a deterrent. That's not gonna happen - the entire point of planning the crime is to avoid getting caught.

Secondly, you are arguing that during their planning-to-get-caught, they would think "Life in prison without parole is acceptable. But there's no way I'd do it if I could get the death penalty." Which is utterly insane.

[former9thward]

55. We have a diffence in philosophy.

I think there are some crimes so reprehensible the people committing them have lost their right to live -- even in prison. I don't care what their motivation was.

[jeff47]

56. Why do you want to cut their punishment short?

Prison is not a pleasant place to live.

Life without parole is a death sentence that takes a very, very long time to carry out. The death penalty ends their punishment more quickly.

[former9thward]

57. I don't want to put guards or other inmates in danger.

If you are doing life without possibly of parole there are no disincentives to harming others. No, they can't be isolated. Prison rights groups and the courts have seen to that.

Prison can be enjoyable for some. Mass murderer Richard Speck enjoyed himself with cocaine that was smuggled in.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=550_1270458485

[jeff47]

58. And what's the disincentive for a death penalty convict?

Let's pretend your claim of "no isolation" or other punishment is true. What's the disincentive for a death penalty convict to harm others? Isn't that convict even more dangerous, since he has no reason to fear being shot by the guards?

[former9thward]

61. Nothing.

But I don't believe in having a death penalty that lingers for 20 years.

[jeff47]

64. It takes a while to try and prevent executing the wrong person.

So should we kill innocent people, or have it take a while to try and ensure we're killing the right person?

[former9thward]

65. We have probaby gone as far as we can go.

When strawmen start popping up it is time to move on.

[jeff47]

66. Yeah, it's not like any death row convicts have later been cleared.

[christx30]

60. This is why I am against

the execution of Nidal Hasan. He wants to die. He shouldn't be executed. He's paralyzed from the waist down. He should sit in his chair in a small cell for the rest of his life. Alone, forgotten. Keep the cell at around 54 degrees. Give him one OK meal per day. No books, even the Koran. No TV. No visitors, except for his lawyer. His mind will be his only escape. Just put him away like a sweater in the summertime until his health fades and he dies.
That would be much worse than death, I would think. That would be the better punishment than 10 years of appeals then a needle in the arm.

[Lost_Count]

94. If we could do that I'd get on board...

... But we won't.

Food, letters, friends, religious support, internet, books etc.. Etc... All his for the taking...

As it stands he is just a sick dog that needs to be put down.

[MicaelS]

118. Because as soon as the DP abolished..

And replaced by Life Without Parole, people would start advocating for the abolition of ife Without Parole on the grounds that it was inhumane. That the murderer really deserved rehabilitation, redemption and release back into society.

Evidence right here....

http://www.thenation.com/article/170852/life-without-parole-different-death-penalty

[jeff47]

126. And then they'll force the murderer to move in NEXT DOOR TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!

[MicaelS]

127. Yes, I would not doubt it one bit. n/t

[MicaelS]

125. Excellent post.

That is exactly my position also. I may quote you.

[Scootaloo]

79. Except opposing the death penalty doesn't cause murder

Don't use words like "logic" until you know what they mean, please.

[former9thward]

80. Supporting the DP doesn't cause them either.

Try again with your "logic."

[Scootaloo]

81. Yes, in fact supporting the death penalty does create executions.

Which is of course, why people who support it do so.

durr?

[former9thward]

82. You said murders, not executions.

Unless you equate the two.

[Scootaloo]

85. Try to follow along

Marble Falls posted this to the OP:

People who support the death penalty should be compelled to witness a bunch of them.

The reasoning there is pretty simple; people who support the death penalty are openly asking for executions to continue. it stands to reason that they should become acquainted with what, exactly, they are requesting. After all, advocacy for the death penalty leads to execution being preserved as a method of punishment by the state.

Your response to his / her post is this:

Should people who oppose the death penalty be forced to view the autopsies of murder victims? Same logic.

The problem is that it's not at all the same logic. Advocates of the death penalty are asking for executions, but opponents of the death penalty aren't asking for murders - which is the argument you presented in your reply.

Advocating for executions leads to executions.
Advocating against executions does not lead to murder.

It's your concept of logic that is flawed here.

[former9thward]

86. Well as long as you are jumping in to defend the post.

Every poll has shown a majority supports the DP. It goes up and down but is currently at 60%. So that means about 180 million people. So 180 million people should be "compelled to watch a bunch of them." Hmmmm. That means we will have to have millions of executions just so everyone can "watch a bunch of them." So, that is what you want? That is what you are jumping in to defend? Or is that not following "logic"?

[Scootaloo]

88. Nope, it's not following logic

181 million people can all receive Video and high-gloss photographs depicting the practice they admire. Surely there's footage and photographs. And since we're talking about firing squads and hangings and such, we can even go abroad to source from other nations that practice these methods. I'll bet North Korea kept video record of Jang Song Thaek's execution, as well as other members of his family. We know the baath under Saddam took photographs. Footage comes out of Saudi Arabia and Iran with some frequency. You don't need millions of executions to provide all the detail needed for advocates of executions. You just need records of the ones already performed.

And while every poll shows a majority, to recall that this does not make it the correct answer. A majority of Americans hold that an invisible undetectable all-powerful fairy-thing created everything in the universe on his own (yes, his, the entity is a mammal with a dick, even though he's invisible and undetectable) and continues to have a direct hand in the shaping of the universe, with a very special and particular interest in our planet. A majority by pretty much the same margin disbelieve scientific answers to the same issues mentioned.

Argumentum ad populum - argument from popularity - is one of the more basic forms of logical fallacy.

[former9thward]

98. Nope, no videos of U.S. executions.

If you think we execute people the same way Saddam and N. Korea does then there is no point to attempts at rational discussion.

[Myrina]

46. Guillotines for financial and political criminals, please.

I'm an old fashioned sort of girl.

[xocet]

47. How about burning at the stake? That would be both quite a spectacle and quite an act of vengeance!

How about each state adopt its own favorite form of execution with all executions to be carried out publicly during the summer months?

Families could then arrange vacations around what sort of American exceptionalism they would want to see.

[happyslug]

67. With or without the gunpowder around the neck?

Starting in the 1400s a bag of gunpowder was placed around the neck of the person condemned to be burned, when it caught fire it exploded killing the victim, Prior to the 1400s you just burned. When the gunpowder was added is unknown, it was a widespread practice by the 1500s but Joan of Arc, burned on May 31, 1431 was NOT offered or given such a bag.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=295

On the other hand On July 16, 1546, Anne Askew was burned at the stake WITH a bag of gunpowder around her neck:

http://voices.yahoo.com/anne-askew-burned-stake-1546-8814425.html

[xocet]

72. That is unclear. Is spectacle or vengeance more important - namely, which is more exceptional? n/t

[happyslug]

100. What a decsion, is blasting or a burning more Spectacle or Vindictive?

While, I do not think the person being burned would care if the reason for the bag of gunpowder or lack of a bag was to make the burning more a Spectacle or Vindictive, but how would the crowd around the execution view the event. Would it be more Spectacle to wait to see when the bag would go off, or would that be more vindictive? Is it meaner to have someone wait to see when and if the gunpowder would go "Boom" or wait till they die of smoke inhalation? or is such a wait more a Spectacle?

Hopefully this "Debate" remains itself speculative i.e burning does not come back, but you may never know.

[LongTomH]

62. Most European countries went directly from violent methods to abolition

A number of European countries beheaded their condemned criminals. Sweden used the headsman's axe up until 1903, when they ordered a guillotine from M. Anatole Deibler's guillotine shoppe. They used it once in 1910 and abolished capital punishment.

Lawyers in French capital punishment cases saved a lot of their clients from death on the guillotine by describing in gory detail, the process of decapitation. The last beheading in France was in 1977, with the guillotine legally abolished in 1981.

In the US, we've kept capital punishment going by adopting method after method of 'scientific' capital punishment ever since New York State decided to replace hanging with the electric chair way back in the 1880s. In each case, the public is told that the new method, electrocution, lethal gas, injection, is painless and quick; and in every case, decades later the stories of botched executions and doubt over whether the method is painless emerge.

The latest method, lethal injection was designed by an Oklahoma medical examiner, Jay Chapman, and introduced into the Oklahoma State Legislature by Bill Wiseman. Wiseman was a young, liberal, idealistic legislator who was actually opposed to the death penalty; but, since he had little chance of getting conservative Oklahoma to abolish capital punishment, he tried to make it less painful.

He regretted his decision for the rest of his life; he knew that by making execution seem less painful and violent, he made it easier for jurors and judges to hand down death sentences.

Actually, there is a lot of doubt that lethal injection is actually painless; a 2005 study, published in the medical journal The Lancet, stated that it was likely that the condemned would probably wake up during the execution, in most cases and suffer greatly.

[ck4829]

68. We just got 5 million $! Do we send it to the schools or do we pay a guy to find execution methods?

Hmm...

[blkmusclmachine]

71. Or, as the U.S. "Christian" Dominionists say: Stoning, because rocks are cheap and plentiful.

[Scootaloo]

77. Why not consider NOT performing executions?

The death Penalty was outlawed for a time in the US. We didn't fall into the fucking sea.

[Sgent]

83. Helium

Just put on a hood (or strap them down with a hospital style oxygen mask) that only has helium. The body doesn't have suffocation issues like it does with CO2 (it thinks its getting oxygen), and you fall unconscious from hypoxia.

[sir pball]

106. Nitrogen would be the theoretically ideal gas for that.

Much cheaper and just as effective. Been proposed a few times..maybe it will be implemented. God knows it's more likely than, ya know, abolishing capital punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation

[Lost_Count]

84. Quick round...

... Behind the ear.

Quick, instantaneous and painless... Meets all the requirements aside from the ick factor.

[yurbud]

97. I would support firing squad just because it's more honest

the gas chamber and electrocutions are done for the benefit of the audience to make it look clean.

if somebody get shot they sell for less but the offense suffers some by seeing the blood so they know what they have done.

and of course the most humane way of doing the firing squad is the most traumatic for the audience shooting someone in the head

[zonkers]

101. Cool. I say make everyone dress in period costume like the in The Green Mile.

[maddogesq]

110. Meet the new barbarism; just the same as the old barbarism.