9 ms·
Interesting read OP!! The guillotine was probably the most humane way of execution your aim is to simply erase someone from this earth before they spread their
by greggarious 4y ago
Interesting read OP!!
The guillotine was probably the most humane way of execution your aim is to simply erase someone from this earth before they spread their ideas any further, rather than to inflict pain. The latter is not OK. Violence should be minimized and only used in reaction to a deadly threat.
On the other hand... while capital punishment is cruel, some people are so antisocial that they must be removed from civil society lest they attempt further genocide.
To give a specific example from history, I was a fan when I learned Norway abolished the death penalty YEARS before the 1988 European Convention on Human Rights, but briefly brought it back to kill some Nazis[1]:
>Norway abolished the death penalty for civilian crimes in 1905, but was retained for certain military crimes in wartime.[1] During the Nazi occupation of Norway (1940–1945), capital punishment was introduced by Vidkun Quisling's regime in September 1942, and the first of a total of nineteen executions was carried out on 16 August 1943, when police officer Gunnar Eilifsen was executed for disobedience. Before this, German law had applied, and four hundred Norwegians had already been executed. In 1941, the Nygaardsvold's Cabinet exiled in London allowed for the death penalty after the war, and expanded its scope in 1942 to cover torture and murder. The legal purge that followed the occupation resulted in several death sentences, of which 37 people: 25 Norwegians, 11 Germans, and one Dane, were executed.[7] The last execution took place on 27 August 1948, when Ragnar Skancke was put before a firing squad at Akershus Fortresss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Norway#Modern_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Norway#M...
- qsort 4y agoDr. Guillotin's invention still is the most humane execution method. People only like lethal injections because they don't spill any blood. Once you see blood you know what you have done.
- senderista 4y agoA well-placed shot in the back of the head is pretty humane as well.
- naikrovek 4y agoand very bloody.
- rootusrootus 4y agoI'd wager less bloody than decapitation, however.
- kmonsen 4y agoNitrogen gas is painless and very quick.
- rootusrootus 4y agoA few places have approved nitrogen hypoxia now, though I don't believe it has been used yet. That has a reasonable shot at being the most human method invented. Not that we should actually condone the state killing its citizens for any reason, but I digress.
- chasil 4y agoI actually propose we rethink, and remove the ability of the state to inflict capital punishment. However, I also think that prisoners serving life sentences should have the right of euthenasia, after speedy judicial review (maybe six months). The applicants should trigger the nitrogen flood themselves. The state should not have the power to do this.
- swayvil 4y agoThe point of these really heinous execution methods (wheel, fire...) is to wreck the victim's "honor". I think it's because you go totally batshit when you are being smashed up on the wheel. After a public display like that it does something to what people think of you, your associates, your religion... It mentally scars the audience. And all memory of you will be strongly associated with that scar. It's a kind of social damage. Yes, a lesson to those who might be inclined to do what you did. But also a kind of theater, recasting you as something demoniacal.
- kmonsen 4y agoHistorically speaking death penalty had been used mostly to keep powerful people in power more then keeping society safe.
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoSource? Because that sounds utterly preposterous.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoWhen one group has the legal maxium "rex non potest peccare," it separates people into a class that can act with impunity and one over which hangs the threat of death, those being sovereignty and everyone else. There isn't going to be a series of royal journal entries that state, "We insist on the death penalty to keep us in power," so this is going to be one of those conversations where one side will claim that there is evidence of the implication and one who says, "that's not enough evidence to support that claim." So, I'm not too sure if you'ld still like to continue, but it's a legitimate discussion to have even if one side can't definitively win because it can help us critique instances of sovereign immunity or things that approach sovereign immunity today.
- kmonsen 4y agoLets first look at the Romans, one of the first articles from Google is: https://owlcation.com/humanities/roman-executions-why-the-romans-executed-people https://owlcation.com/humanities/roman-executions-why-the-ro... As you can see there were two types of crimes that got brutal death penalty, the main one being rising up against the state which got crucifixion. This is what allegedly happened to Jesus as he called himself king of the Jews. Second major crime was standing up to your family head, which got you thrown into a river in a sack with some animals. Your father however could kill you or a slave without penalty. Same in England, the main penalties were high treason (rising up against the king/queen) and little treason (rising up against father/husband). I was going to link to a hardcore history but it is behind a paywall now and not exactly scholarly science.
- GuB-42 4y agoInteresting that the example given for restoring death penalty is killing Nazis. It is the opposite of "a reaction to a deadly threat". Defeated Nazis were mostly harmless once stripped of their power, they were only dangerous with a system to support them. I am not aware of any ex-Nazi leader (they were not all executed) who ended up committing a major crime, let alone genocide. You can argue that a death sentence was justified as a form of punishment, but as a way to protect society from a deadly threat, I am not sure. The ones I think would be more likely candidates for the death penalty would be more like psychopathic killers. Violence is simply part of them, like rabid dogs, no matter where you put them, they will be a threat to their surroundings, and it includes prisons. They don't need a system to support their crimes: leave a sharp object, a few seconds of inattention, and an innocent may die, that's what makes them so dangerous that putting them in prison (or in a mental institution) for life may not be sufficient.
- feet 4y agoAre the ideas they spread harmless?
- GuB-42 4y agoFirst of all, there is something called freedom of thought. In countries that respect human rights, you generally can't convict let alone kill people for ideas, including harmful ones. What Nazis were tried for are the actual crimes they committed, the people they killed or ordered to be killed. And what justice needs to do, in addition to the punishment aspect is no make sure they don't kill any more people, and this can be achieved by surveillance in or out of prison. Nazis don't have wololo powers, they can't instantly turn people into Nazis like a psychopath can stab you. And ex-Nazis are burnt anyways people will not follow them like they did when they were in power. We all have seen what they done. In fact, extremists who want to push genocidal idea will do everything they can to avoid ex-Nazis if they expect any kind of influence. I still don't see why we should execute ex-Nazis if the only reason is a last resort to protect society from danger.
- feet 4y ago
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoOpposition to capital punishment is rooted in modern sentiment rather than actual moral reasoning. We are opposed to it despite the moral justification for it. Justice has three ends, namely, retribution, correction, and deterrence[0], and in order for these to be just, they must be proportionate to the crime. Obviously, death is proportionate to murder and therefore a proportionate penalty for murder. [0] https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033/ https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033/
- rstuart4133 4y ago> modern sentiment rather than actual moral reasoning To me, the phrases "modern sentiment" and "moral reasoning" describe the very similar things. That follows from the observation that beyond a certain point, deterrence has very little effect. That point is remarkably low. For most of us a traffic fine is enough. The additional deterrence provided by jail time is not that large. If you reason about it with the rigour your "moral reasoning" phrase suggests, a holiday at her majesties expense might even be welcome. (Actually, we know for a fact it is - people commit crimes to get into jail to be fed and housed.) For the rest of us it looks to me like it's not the jail time that's the deterrence, its the public record of the transgression and the resulting ostracism. The additional deterrence over minor stints in jail and a criminal record, for punishments like longer terms, barbed wire instead of jail farms, small cells, isolation and capital punishment are so small, they could well be a net negative cost to society. Their only positive contribution is to keep a possible repeat offender off the streets, but they also create repeat offenders by robbing of their ability to survive outside of jail. The evidence that Scandinavian like emphasis on rehabilitation over retribution reduces both crime and the cost of law enforcement is so strong, I consider irrefutable. Given all that, you have to wonder what is this thing you call "moral reasoning" that leads to the conclusion that strong deterrents are justified in some sense. It doesn't lead to maximising any Utilitarian measure. About the only thing it does seem to maximise is some individuals sentiment about what is morally right - modern or otherwise.