Guillotines look fucking brutal and have a kind of messy aftermath (no one who isn’t a psychopath wants to handle a severed head), but they’re actually one of the most humane execution methods.
I think the whole concept is overly reliant on a belief of justice in the after life. As long a there is no proof of a post mortem judiciary system (eg. Heaven/hell) we should see to it that the punishment is dealt on the current plane of existence.
We should put people in a most boring place where they have nothing but their own thoughts and general ennui to occupy them. They shall have zero control of their life and be always observed, zero privacy. Maybe we could think of an institution that could hold these people.
Then we shall do everything we can to prolong their existence giving them no respite. The merciless prolonging of their misery shall be exacted with all the ferocity of pro life ‘love’.
There shall be no merciful ending of their suffering. The death penalty is way too kind, all things considered.
Death penalty is a punishment in itself. Who even fucking knows what any hypothetical other planes of existence are even like, but the point is that these people aren’t your problem anymore and never will be, even if the current regime is overthrown.
I mean I’m arguing to people who seem intent to see justice as a maximization of suffering. So yes the argument is a bit disingenuous.
I’m just pointing out that even if that would be your point in administering justice that they are going about it the wrong way.
if killing people is your way of not having to deal with them ever again you should look into the concept of martyrdom. For instance thee this ancient Jewish person who is frightfully persistent even though the Roman government inflicted the death penalty upon him.
Meh, I think the purpose of the death penalty is to remove an aberration from the human population so it doesn’t cause further harm. It’s feelings are irrelevant and society shouldn’t concern itself any further or spend money on housing, feeding, or otherwise supporting its existence. Just get rid of it (after due process, of course) and move on.
There’s rather a lot of reports of heads remaining concious for up to 30 seconds or so after being separated from their body. Whilst it’s not a long time, I imagine it’s a pretty unpleasant one.
A shotgun to the back of the head doesn’t have that issue, although it does make a bit more of a mess.
There’s rather a lot of reports of heads remaining concious for up to 30 seconds or so after being separated from their body.
Given the rather precipitous drop in blood pressure going to the brain, this claim seems pretty dubious. Twitching and motion would certainly be possible as autonomic functions go haywire, but actual consciousness seems far fetched.
At the same time
A shotgun to the back of the head doesn’t have that issue, although it does make a bit more of a mess.
If I had to choose, I’d probably pick this over the guillotine as well. Seems like a lot less setup time and general anticipation.
Overall, inert gas axphixiation might be the better choice (assuming one is forced into it).
This is a fairly high level overview of some of the claims. Whilst none of them seem to be recorded with the rigour we’d expect of scientific observation now-a-days, the case of Languille, in particular, strikes me as at leadt somewhat persuasive. They conclude with a note which says:
neuroscientists now believe that it is possible for severed heads to experience a short period of consciousness – perhaps as much as 15 seconds – before death.
Whilst there’s no source provided for that, and that’s not 30 seconds, I think it suggests that the stories of heads remaining consious and reacting are, at least, plausible.
If I had to choose, I’d probably pick this over the guillotine as well.
If someone is making me choose how they kill me, you’d better believe I’m going to pick the quickest way that leaves them with the most clean up possible!
If you want to humanely kill someone, an overdose of morphine or similar will do it. The problem is that it’s too pleasant a way to go out to qualify as capital punishment; no society with the death penalty will give its traitors and child-murderers the kind of death reserved for a beloved old dog.
If you’re in the business of executing those condemned on the direst charges, you’d typically want it to be as unpleasant as your values still count as civilised rather than barbaric. Of course, values drift, and as we have seen large parts of the world reject capital punishment altogether, it’s conceivable that societies that currently execute criminals by, say, lethal injection or something similarly clinical are an episode of mass psychosis away from bringing back medieval ordeals.
If you are sentenced to death, they just install a chip that at any point could randomly give you an aneurysm. I’d imagine the continuous anxiety of when it might happen would be a reasonable punishment.
Best part is that it doesn’t actually do anything.
Easy, just hire a psychopath to randomly shoot them in the back of the head with a shotgun when they’re not looking. You could even say the chip explodes to cause that affect.
I’d assume that issue applies to most other common execution methods as well, though. Don’t most executions via gun target the body, rather than the head? And execution via gas or intravenous poison is just a complete mess.
Yes, most shooting type executions target the heart, which likely leaves an even linger period of consiousness. As far as I can tell, the reasoning has as much to do with squeamishness as logic. I belueve sone places use a sedative, then a single shot to the back if the neck, but I’m not certain.
Frankly just administering a massive dose of an anesthetic before any of these methods would address the main problem. Then you only have to work out how to administer it without that being a torture of it’s own.
Then you only have to work out how to administer it without that being a torture of it’s own.
Not much to work out! I’ve been knocked out a few times at the hospital and it was never uncomfortable. The worst part is thinking “I hope I don’t say anything stupid when I’m waking up”
The problem is that medical professionals (rightly) won’t perform executions so it’s left to incompetent people that can’t administer it without causing harm.
Guillotines look fucking brutal and have a kind of messy aftermath (no one who isn’t a psychopath wants to handle a severed head), but they’re actually one of the most humane execution methods.
The more money they have then the blunter the guillotine blade should be.
Meh, why would we use a guillotine if we want to make it messy and painful?
Correct. The 1% should be drawn & quartered.
As a staunch opponent of the death penalty:
I think the whole concept is overly reliant on a belief of justice in the after life. As long a there is no proof of a post mortem judiciary system (eg. Heaven/hell) we should see to it that the punishment is dealt on the current plane of existence.
We should put people in a most boring place where they have nothing but their own thoughts and general ennui to occupy them. They shall have zero control of their life and be always observed, zero privacy. Maybe we could think of an institution that could hold these people.
Then we shall do everything we can to prolong their existence giving them no respite. The merciless prolonging of their misery shall be exacted with all the ferocity of pro life ‘love’.
There shall be no merciful ending of their suffering. The death penalty is way too kind, all things considered.
So a zoo?
Unless it’s a farm
Death penalty is a punishment in itself. Who even fucking knows what any hypothetical other planes of existence are even like, but the point is that these people aren’t your problem anymore and never will be, even if the current regime is overthrown.
I mean I’m arguing to people who seem intent to see justice as a maximization of suffering. So yes the argument is a bit disingenuous.
I’m just pointing out that even if that would be your point in administering justice that they are going about it the wrong way.
if killing people is your way of not having to deal with them ever again you should look into the concept of martyrdom. For instance thee this ancient Jewish person who is frightfully persistent even though the Roman government inflicted the death penalty upon him.
Meh, I think the purpose of the death penalty is to remove an aberration from the human population so it doesn’t cause further harm. It’s feelings are irrelevant and society shouldn’t concern itself any further or spend money on housing, feeding, or otherwise supporting its existence. Just get rid of it (after due process, of course) and move on.
There’s rather a lot of reports of heads remaining concious for up to 30 seconds or so after being separated from their body. Whilst it’s not a long time, I imagine it’s a pretty unpleasant one.
A shotgun to the back of the head doesn’t have that issue, although it does make a bit more of a mess.
Given the rather precipitous drop in blood pressure going to the brain, this claim seems pretty dubious. Twitching and motion would certainly be possible as autonomic functions go haywire, but actual consciousness seems far fetched.
At the same time
If I had to choose, I’d probably pick this over the guillotine as well. Seems like a lot less setup time and general anticipation.
Overall, inert gas axphixiation might be the better choice (assuming one is forced into it).
This is a fairly high level overview of some of the claims. Whilst none of them seem to be recorded with the rigour we’d expect of scientific observation now-a-days, the case of Languille, in particular, strikes me as at leadt somewhat persuasive. They conclude with a note which says:
Whilst there’s no source provided for that, and that’s not 30 seconds, I think it suggests that the stories of heads remaining consious and reacting are, at least, plausible.
If someone is making me choose how they kill me, you’d better believe I’m going to pick the quickest way that leaves them with the most clean up possible!
I find it funny that we refer to them as severed heads. As if they were no longer people.
If you want to humanely kill someone, an overdose of morphine or similar will do it. The problem is that it’s too pleasant a way to go out to qualify as capital punishment; no society with the death penalty will give its traitors and child-murderers the kind of death reserved for a beloved old dog.
If you’re in the business of executing those condemned on the direst charges, you’d typically want it to be as unpleasant as your values still count as civilised rather than barbaric. Of course, values drift, and as we have seen large parts of the world reject capital punishment altogether, it’s conceivable that societies that currently execute criminals by, say, lethal injection or something similarly clinical are an episode of mass psychosis away from bringing back medieval ordeals.
rule of thumb, destroy the brain faster than nerve signals can travel.
although I wonder if the philosophical horror of not having any awareness of your own passing. your consciousness just suddenly blips out,
If you are sentenced to death, they just install a chip that at any point could randomly give you an aneurysm. I’d imagine the continuous anxiety of when it might happen would be a reasonable punishment.
Best part is that it doesn’t actually do anything.
Solid Black Mirror episode pitch
Franticaly leafs through the law books, “cruel and unusual punishment”, “cruel and unusual punishment”… I’m sure I saw something about it in here…
That’s pretty devious, but you’d have to report they’d been executed eventually, or everyone would realise it did nothing.
Easy, just hire a psychopath to randomly shoot them in the back of the head with a shotgun when they’re not looking. You could even say the chip explodes to cause that affect.
I’d assume that issue applies to most other common execution methods as well, though. Don’t most executions via gun target the body, rather than the head? And execution via gas or intravenous poison is just a complete mess.
Yes, most shooting type executions target the heart, which likely leaves an even linger period of consiousness. As far as I can tell, the reasoning has as much to do with squeamishness as logic. I belueve sone places use a sedative, then a single shot to the back if the neck, but I’m not certain.
Frankly just administering a massive dose of an anesthetic before any of these methods would address the main problem. Then you only have to work out how to administer it without that being a torture of it’s own.
Not much to work out! I’ve been knocked out a few times at the hospital and it was never uncomfortable. The worst part is thinking “I hope I don’t say anything stupid when I’m waking up”
Every time, I’ve sang to whoever I’ve woken up next to.
I am not a good singer.
But you bet your ass I can belt out “TAKE ME HOOOOME, COUNTRY ROOOOAD” even through a fading anesthetic haze
The problem is that medical professionals (rightly) won’t perform executions so it’s left to incompetent people that can’t administer it without causing harm.
Humane execution. Now there’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
Truly a weapon for a more civilized age.
Or a talented comedian/director/voice artist
https://youtu.be/rqYdxXfBKeY
It’s great TV, but they did stipulate no psychopaths.
Also, no need for a trained professional to get that nice, clean cut. Much cheaper!