Morality and other issues of death penalty aside. We hear about botched executions quite often, even to the point that it has to be stopped and administered again. There are so many types of executions and all have trouble. Lethal injection death has about 7% botched rate.
In my mind, how hard is it to kill a person? For example people die of overdose all the time, or from breathing gasses. Dying from a carbon dioxide inhalation is described as falling asleed. People go into anesthesia where thy don`t feel a thing all the time when in surgery.
Its seems like there should be fairly easy painless and efficient method to do it, but there are still so many issues. Why?
EDIT: Carbon monoxide is what was meant, I just suck at chemistry
In: Biology
I wonder what failure rate the good old guillotine had?
Aside from just fucking up? It’s harder to kill someone than you would think. The body has all kinds of last ditch biological survival mechanisms.
If your method works for 95% of the population without issue, there’s still the remaining 5% that’ll thrash around in pain for 5-30 minutes as everyone is forced to watch in discomfort. Still trying to gind something that immediately works 99.99% of the time without causing ptsd for onlookers
seems like a .45 to the back of the head would be the quickest, most reliable method unless you want to do the old guillotine.
Because Corrections Departments hire Wile E. Coyote and Acme Industries to keep engaging in this barbarity to satisfy regressive blood lust? Just spitballin’…
Because uncivilized barbarians still think murdering people in custody is justice so they keep trying to do it; and everything you do has a failure rate from people fucking up.
Part of the problem is that we are limited by the ways it can be done. Any existing method is approved. Any new method or a slight change to an existing method, and it is labeled as ‘untried’ or ‘experimental’ or ‘unusual’ in trying to get that method abolished. If the state’s latest plan is unconstitutional, then the condemned lives longer. That makes it more difficult to refine the process over time.
Personally, I think we should just drown them. No drugs, just strap them to a metal frame and tilt their head into warm water for an hour.
You actually have a good point about gas asphyxiation. It has been discussed for a long time. Just this past week, [Alabama used nitrogen asphyxiation to execute a man for the first time. ](https://apnews.com/article/nitrogen-execution-death-penalty-alabama-699896815486f019f804a8afb7032900#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Alabama%20executed%20a,called%20it%20cruel%20and%20experimental.)
Because painless execution may be the *stated* goal, but it isn’t really. Executing someone is about revenge, and if it was truly painless that visceral need wouldn’t be satisfied. But the public keeps having less and less of a stomach for executions, so they claim they are trying to find “better” ways to do it. If the really wanted it to be painless, they’d give someone NyQuil or the equivalent to knock them out, and then kill them in their sleep. But no, the person needs to start awake and be aware of the fact that they are dying because they can’t just die, they have to be **killed**.
Frankly, its harder to kill someone that people think. In Hollywood, a single gunshot wound = go on without me! Save yourself!
Meanwhile, some soldiers survive a dozen high-velocity rounds to the torso and miraculously live. That’s a rare case, but it proves my point I think. Hell, 50 cent got shot 9 times.
Basically, unless you actually kill the brain with a bullet, it has a good chance of surviving. That’s why I say if we’re going to have a death penalty, do what we do to cattle and use a .22 to push a thin metal rod into their brain at high velocity.
Do it twice, for twice the humanity. We ironically created probably the most humane way to end a life for farm animals before we figured it out for humans. We almost had it right with firing squads.
Latest Answers