7 ms·

Hanging can be pretty gruesome. In an "ideal" hanging the condemned is dropped from a height that snaps their neck and kills them fairly quickly. Drop too far a

Hanging can be pretty gruesome. In an "ideal" hanging the condemned is dropped from a height that snaps their neck and kills them fairly quickly. Drop too far and they can be decapitated, drop too short and they strangle to death. It is certainly not a humane way to die.

tyingq 7y ago
Decapitation is certainly gruesome, but I don't know if it's humane or not. Is death instant?
- michaelt 7y ago
  Given that a decapitation includes a broken neck, it'd be surprising if it was any slower than a broken neck.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Gallows are higher impact than a guillotine (the body is accelerated by gravity, then rapidly decelerated by the rope.) So I don't think it's totally inconceivable that gallows might render somebody unconscious faster than a guillotine. However in practice I don't believe it actually plays out that way.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Decapitation and gallows with a proper drop height were both designed to be fair, in the sense that everybody killed would get the standard execution experience. It was meant to be an improvement to the status quo of plebian criminals getting tortured to death while aristocrats were given swift deaths. Both systems are humane compared to the earlier status quo, but an even more humane system could certainly be devised. To answer your question, in the case of decapitation there is reason to believe death is not instant but rather that the severed head may remain aware for a few seconds. This is faster than hanging, but still not instantaneous. A shotgun slug straight to the skull would be pretty damn close to instantaneous, but that's got a few problems. In addition to the psychological damage inflicted on any witnesses to the execution, it will have more inconsistent results. What happens if the shot is poorly aimed and 'merely' removes somebody's jaw bone? Done correctly, a shotgun slug would provide a more instantaneous death. However it's a less foolproof system. That's just an example though, it's easy to conceive of systems that are simultaneously more instantaneous than a guillotine but are simultaneously are more reliable. Edit: re inert gas: Yes, though again there is the matter of reliability. An inert atmosphere will kill a human reliably, but the apparatus used may fail to provide an adequately inert atmosphere. This probably wouldn't happen with a mechanism designed specifically for execution, but it does happen a lot in cases of attempted suicide. Inert gas suicides will sometimes be botched, with the victim receiving just enough fresh air to survive the experience (typically with severe brain damage caused by the oxygen deprivation.) Ultimately I think the whole matter is about risk tolerance. How much risk of executing an innocent man do you tolerate? How much risk of a botched execution do you tolerate? How much risk of releasing a guilty man do you tolerate? These are questions with subjective answers, and for many people their answer will be to tolerate no risk, e.g. abolish the death penalty. Other people are willing to tolerate more risk, so for them the answer might be "bring back execution but modernize the methods". Generally people on one side view the thought processes of people on the other side as alien or obviously defective, but I think that's generally not the case.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Killing humanely and painlessly is a solved problem: simply replace the atmosphere with an inert gas and the victim will fall unconscious and die.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      The former UK politician Michael Portillo did a documentary on that very subject and came to just that conclusion: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/jan/16/lastnightstvhorizonhowto https://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/jan/... There did seem to be some resistance to the idea that executions would be simply drifting off - suffering seemed to be a desired part of it :-( Edit: For the record, I'm not in favour executing anyone but if it has to be done I don't see why people have to suffer.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      It's a solved problem scientifically. It's nowhere close to being a solved problem politically. Many proponents of the death penalty want to see pain and suffering. They aren't remotely interested in humane execution.
      - camjohnson26 7y ago
        That’s a strong assertion to make without backing it up with anything
      - tyingq 7y ago
        Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi all authorized nitrogen for executions in 2018, though I don't know if any have actually done one this way.
  - godshatter 7y ago
    I don't understand why they don't anesthetize them before their execution. Put them under as if they are going in for surgery and then issues of inhumane treatment go away, and opens the way for far easier and less gruesome types of execution.
- maskros 7y ago
  Not instant, but there is not enough research to say conclusively just how long a decapitated head stays conscious. http://www.drlindseyfitzharris.com/2012/08/13/losing-ones-head-a-frustrating-search-for-the-truth-about-decapitation/ http://www.drlindseyfitzharris.com/2012/08/13/losing-ones-he...

tyingq 7y ago

Decapitation is certainly gruesome, but I don't know if it's humane or not. Is death instant?

michaelt 7y ago
Given that a decapitation includes a broken neck, it'd be surprising if it was any slower than a broken neck.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Gallows are higher impact than a guillotine (the body is accelerated by gravity, then rapidly decelerated by the rope.) So I don't think it's totally inconceivable that gallows might render somebody unconscious faster than a guillotine. However in practice I don't believe it actually plays out that way.
darkpuma 7y ago
Decapitation and gallows with a proper drop height were both designed to be fair, in the sense that everybody killed would get the standard execution experience. It was meant to be an improvement to the status quo of plebian criminals getting tortured to death while aristocrats were given swift deaths. Both systems are humane compared to the earlier status quo, but an even more humane system could certainly be devised. To answer your question, in the case of decapitation there is reason to believe death is not instant but rather that the severed head may remain aware for a few seconds. This is faster than hanging, but still not instantaneous. A shotgun slug straight to the skull would be pretty damn close to instantaneous, but that's got a few problems. In addition to the psychological damage inflicted on any witnesses to the execution, it will have more inconsistent results. What happens if the shot is poorly aimed and 'merely' removes somebody's jaw bone? Done correctly, a shotgun slug would provide a more instantaneous death. However it's a less foolproof system. That's just an example though, it's easy to conceive of systems that are simultaneously more instantaneous than a guillotine but are simultaneously are more reliable. Edit: re inert gas: Yes, though again there is the matter of reliability. An inert atmosphere will kill a human reliably, but the apparatus used may fail to provide an adequately inert atmosphere. This probably wouldn't happen with a mechanism designed specifically for execution, but it does happen a lot in cases of attempted suicide. Inert gas suicides will sometimes be botched, with the victim receiving just enough fresh air to survive the experience (typically with severe brain damage caused by the oxygen deprivation.) Ultimately I think the whole matter is about risk tolerance. How much risk of executing an innocent man do you tolerate? How much risk of a botched execution do you tolerate? How much risk of releasing a guilty man do you tolerate? These are questions with subjective answers, and for many people their answer will be to tolerate no risk, e.g. abolish the death penalty. Other people are willing to tolerate more risk, so for them the answer might be "bring back execution but modernize the methods". Generally people on one side view the thought processes of people on the other side as alien or obviously defective, but I think that's generally not the case.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Killing humanely and painlessly is a solved problem: simply replace the atmosphere with an inert gas and the victim will fall unconscious and die.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    The former UK politician Michael Portillo did a documentary on that very subject and came to just that conclusion: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/jan/16/lastnightstvhorizonhowto https://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/jan/... There did seem to be some resistance to the idea that executions would be simply drifting off - suffering seemed to be a desired part of it :-( Edit: For the record, I'm not in favour executing anyone but if it has to be done I don't see why people have to suffer.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    It's a solved problem scientifically. It's nowhere close to being a solved problem politically. Many proponents of the death penalty want to see pain and suffering. They aren't remotely interested in humane execution.
    - camjohnson26 7y ago
      That’s a strong assertion to make without backing it up with anything
    - tyingq 7y ago
      Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi all authorized nitrogen for executions in 2018, though I don't know if any have actually done one this way.
- godshatter 7y ago
  I don't understand why they don't anesthetize them before their execution. Put them under as if they are going in for surgery and then issues of inhumane treatment go away, and opens the way for far easier and less gruesome types of execution.
maskros 7y ago
Not instant, but there is not enough research to say conclusively just how long a decapitated head stays conscious. http://www.drlindseyfitzharris.com/2012/08/13/losing-ones-head-a-frustrating-search-for-the-truth-about-decapitation/ http://www.drlindseyfitzharris.com/2012/08/13/losing-ones-he...