Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Is there a humane way to kill a human?
The Washington Post's article "Execution Methods Examined" reports that numerous attempts to inject a man on death row failed. This case raises, once again, the issues of cruel and abusive treatment, the death penalty, and the desire for a method of painless execution.
Mankind has hung, shot, electrocuted, gassed, injected, and even cut heads off to execute a person. Each method has had it's problems. People complain that it is cruel and abusive. So, is there a humane way to kill a human? Or, is it inhumane and therefore will always be objectionable.
You can read the article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101100502.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2http://www.washingthttp://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/update
Interesting Question?
Yes (2)
No (0)
Mankind has hung, shot, electrocuted, gassed, injected, and even cut heads off to execute a person. Each method has had it's problems. People complain that it is cruel and abusive. So, is there a humane way to kill a human? Or, is it inhumane and therefore will always be objectionable.
You can read the article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101100502.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2http://www.washingthttp://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/update
- In Belief and Thought |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
October 13, 2009 07:03 AM
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Humane. Interesting concept. My understanding of why executions have been held, from time immemorial, is as a deterrent to others, a warning against behaviors which would warrant capital punishment. So, historically, it was never about the humane execution of another, it was about spectacle. Hanging and beheading were "spectacles" in times past, drawing crowds and vendors.
Now? We don't emphasize the "spectacle" part of execution so much. While a gun to the head (double tap to be sure) is pretty much as instantaneous as it gets, I still have to wonder how long the neurons try to fire. How long does it take before the color drains from the rods in the eyes? So, to me, obtaining a flat brain wave prior to terminating physical function seems like it might be more humane. But how do we know, on a spiritual level, what pain is suffered? How could we ever know?
Now? We don't emphasize the "spectacle" part of execution so much. While a gun to the head (double tap to be sure) is pretty much as instantaneous as it gets, I still have to wonder how long the neurons try to fire. How long does it take before the color drains from the rods in the eyes? So, to me, obtaining a flat brain wave prior to terminating physical function seems like it might be more humane. But how do we know, on a spiritual level, what pain is suffered? How could we ever know?
| Asker's Rating: |
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (7)
October 12, 2009 02:27 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Ugh...
Well... given reports from survivors, one option might be to have a person get so drunk that he's passed out, and then freeze him to death. Make getting drunk out of his mind part of the last dinner rite.
Or... knock the person out with so much heroin that he goes unconscious, and then freeze him to death.
But the whole idea's kinda bent, don't you think? A fundamental human right should be that the state shall not be licenced to kill its own citizens. If the person's that bad, then banish him to antarctica.
Besides... unless the convict is insane and doesn't know what he's done, don't you think it might be more punishing to keep the person alive in a penitentiary?
If it was me and I had the authority, I'd order a murderer to be put in an isolation tank with electrodes on the brain, and with various stimuli apperatus attached to the sensory input organs, and would have the convict experience and relive over and over what he'd done, until the brain electrodes showed he was feeling real remourse, at which point I'd have him ordered into community service to pay the penitence, and if penitence cannot be achieved, then I'd have him shipped to isolation on antarctica, with just enough supplies and meds for him to choose to keep going it alone or off himself.
If, however, the brain electrodes were to show no capacity for the development of remourse, then I'd order an execution.
Helpful Answer?
Well... given reports from survivors, one option might be to have a person get so drunk that he's passed out, and then freeze him to death. Make getting drunk out of his mind part of the last dinner rite.
Or... knock the person out with so much heroin that he goes unconscious, and then freeze him to death.
But the whole idea's kinda bent, don't you think? A fundamental human right should be that the state shall not be licenced to kill its own citizens. If the person's that bad, then banish him to antarctica.
Besides... unless the convict is insane and doesn't know what he's done, don't you think it might be more punishing to keep the person alive in a penitentiary?
If it was me and I had the authority, I'd order a murderer to be put in an isolation tank with electrodes on the brain, and with various stimuli apperatus attached to the sensory input organs, and would have the convict experience and relive over and over what he'd done, until the brain electrodes showed he was feeling real remourse, at which point I'd have him ordered into community service to pay the penitence, and if penitence cannot be achieved, then I'd have him shipped to isolation on antarctica, with just enough supplies and meds for him to choose to keep going it alone or off himself.
If, however, the brain electrodes were to show no capacity for the development of remourse, then I'd order an execution.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 13, 2009 03:59 AM
I wouldnt pollute Antarctica with the condemned.
I wouldnt spend too much of the tax payers money on them either, so the first two methods seem to be less expensive.
IMO, when someone commits a capital crime and proved guilty, that person loses the right to live in the society among us..
I agree with you on the third method to make the person relive the crime virtually, but I dont think it would be practical to let the person live in the society again.
Report
I wouldnt spend too much of the tax payers money on them either, so the first two methods seem to be less expensive.
IMO, when someone commits a capital crime and proved guilty, that person loses the right to live in the society among us..
I agree with you on the third method to make the person relive the crime virtually, but I dont think it would be practical to let the person live in the society again.
October 12, 2009 08:06 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Accidental deaths are rarely described as inhumane. I suppose if a covert program within the correctional system existed that allowed for executions to go on as exceptionally well disguised accidents that would be humane, at least to those who believed they were accidents. A program of this type would have to be *super top secret* and most likely a program known only to the executioner alone. A planned deception of the public involving an execution and the disguising it as an accident would be inhumane and probably illegal under current law.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 12, 2009 10:51 PM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
The guillotine was invented as a more humane method of execution and, along with a gun shot to the head, is likely perhaps the most humane method of execution.
But, people are not really looking for the most humane method of execution for the condemned. People are looking for the most humane form of execution for the people who are watching. For the people who are watching the most humane method is a hospital like setting where the condemned is quietly put to sleep. (what the condemned feels is not important). It would be upsetting for those who watched if the condemned brains were splattered against the walls.
Helpful Answer?
But, people are not really looking for the most humane method of execution for the condemned. People are looking for the most humane form of execution for the people who are watching. For the people who are watching the most humane method is a hospital like setting where the condemned is quietly put to sleep. (what the condemned feels is not important). It would be upsetting for those who watched if the condemned brains were splattered against the walls.
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 13, 2009 07:47 AM
I understand your sentiment, however "Thou shalt not kill" was the original King James English version/translation, but is more accurately rendered from Hebrew as Thou shalt not murder, where murder is defined as the "unlawful" taking of human life. Even in the old testament, maybe especially in the old testament, the concept of an eye for and eye, a life for a life was "the rule". Acts of war and acts of justice were not considered "unlawful".
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html
Report
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html
October 15, 2009 03:50 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
How about just feeding them to the lions, These would instill fear in them that whey would avoid committing crime that entails capital punishment. For there is no humane way to kill a human. In my country we have no death penalty. Because they can't find a person to hire to pulled the trigger, and also death penalty is in humane punishment.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Answer this Question
View All Belief and Thought QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
-
1991 St Helena Hwy
-
699 St Helena Hwy
-
1115 Main St
-
1321 Main St
- Twitter currently unavailable