Why is Electrocution still used in the U.S.?

Post Reply New Topic

I’m not defending anything. Defending something implies that you think something is wrong with it. Legal defense, otoh, is not the same as a philosophical defense. The only thing wrong with the d.p. is that there’s even a need for it. Murder by definition cannot be committed by force and coercion. To philosophically DEFEND the dp would be similar to defending murder, and I have no interest in doing so.

What I AM doing is challenging the idea that the death penalty is an inappropriate penalty for murder. I’m also challenging the idea that ANY method of execution should be taken off the table. I do not see sufficient reason why electrocution is a problem. All that matters is that the murderer ends up dead, right? So who cares how we get there? And why should anyone care?

Prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment do not necessarily apply to the death penalty because methods used are either not unusual or, if they are new, are expected to reduce the cruelty involved. SCOTUS has repeatedly held that many various methods are not cruel nor unusual, though they HAVE found some punishment methods outside the d.p. to be cruel and unusual, such as cadena temporal. I’m a firm believer in labor as an option for criminals, but to justify labor means something has to be produced out of that labor and that such labor is nothing out of the ordinary—picking up garbage, fixing potholes, or even manufacturing. But cadena temporal is painful by design and includes loss of civil rights even after the sentence is completed. The USA Constitution 8th amendment itself doesn’t explicitly speak to the death penalty but rather has informed courts how the d.p. can be carried out. Some methods are expressly forbidden in SCOTUS opinions, like drawing and quartering. The intent of the 8th amendment is to prevent punishments that are bizarre and arbitrary. It was inspired by the British Titus Oates case. Further SCOTUS decisions have held, for example, that someone sentenced to death may opt for whatever method they like if they can prove that their method actually exists and is less painful.

Now, when it pertains to the mentally disabled, both Penry trials SCOTUS held that execution of m.d. was not unconstitutional; however, the jury was not given sufficient instructions regarding mitigating evidence which might have resulted in a different sentence. The only reason why Atkins reversed Penry I was because SCOTUS precedent took national consensus into account, something that is believed to have changed dramatically since the late 1980s. Atkins himself did not escape the death penalty due to the SCOTUS decision in his case, but later on had his sentence commuted to life in prison. The problem there was there was that there was overwhelming evidence that he committed murder, so a retrial was inappropriate, yet at the same time his original conviction and sentence owed to prosecutorial misconduct.

The main problem with ALL of it, hence why I’m not entirely convinced, is that every decision that has favored the m.d. has been subjective, influenced by public opinion (states passing legislation to limit the d.p. in cases of m.d.), rather than considering whether m.d. persons pose an ongoing danger to individuals and whether m.d. persons can actually commit murder. There is no objective distinction. But there IS an objective penalty for murder realized in the d.p. I do not understand how denying murder survivors (primarily families) justice by withholding the d.p. under ANY circumstances can possibly do Western society any real good. I don’t think we’re being honest with ourselves.

In any case, as I’ve repeatedly said, it’s a practical non-issue because in order for a m.d. person to avoid the d.p. based on m.d., the m.d. person must already be established as m.d. This has been found in Moore v. Texas and Hall v. Florida. The problem for YOU is you have to show that the execution of m.d. persons is an ongoing thing when legal precedent shows that it is NOT. Quite simply, m.d. persons are not out there committing murder, and extremely rare exceptions like Lanza and Rodger more often than not seem to end up dead before the cops can get to them. Unless you have frequent cases of m.d. going on murdering rampages, there’s not much point in arguing whether or not they can get the chair. Lanza and Rodger had a medical history that would have kept them out of the d.p.

But you have another potential problem: Luke Woodham’s insanity defense failed to keep him out of prison for the rest of his life. The circumstances and nature of the crime DID, however, prevent him from facing the d.p. Capital murder wasn’t ever really an option. As I said before, Mississippi passed a law making murder on a school campus a capital crime in response to the Pearl shooting. If circumstances were different and more m.d. persons like Lanza and Rodger did NOT take their own lives, if more m.d. were influenced to commit murder without d.p. as a deterrent or retribution, then somehow I believe society would revert to demanding the d.p. regardless of m.d. Because of the rarity of that kind of thing happening, well...let’s just hope that it STAYS that way. Objectively, it would be best if someone is known to be dangerous that they get help or treatment before someone gets killed. If you care about m.d. persons being sentenced to death, then you should do everything you can to make sure they don’t become violent and commit murder in the first place. It’s too late when someone dies. Merely asserting that murderers don’t know what they’re doing and are thus excused from responsibility will not undo the crime.

Merely asserting that death penalty to the mentally disabled murderers is somehow "right" because the crime has been done, will not undo the crime either, nor bring back the victims and neither will it act as a deterrent, because they did not know what they were doing, and other people not knowing what they were doing will do the same thing, because deterrence doesn't work in such situations.

Now, in the case of cold-blooded calculated murder, where the crime has been planned, that's an entirely different thing altogether.

But I'm not talking about psychopathic killers, but of mentally disabled people seeing no other way than to kill, ie. because they hear voices or somehow get commands inside their heads, commanding and forcing them to commit murder.

Then the answer is to do everything possible to prevent the dangerous m.d. from killing people in the first place. The main complication is not a logical one, so don’t bother with any red herring labels or validity tests. The problem is the rarity of these kinds of things actually happening. IDK, maybe it was more common in the past? There’s little purpose in discussing it, at least not in any Western context I’m aware of, because in a broad, general sense, people with m.d. simply do not commit the kinds of crimes that would warrant the d.p. And even when they DO and survive long enough to make it to trial, EVEN IF they are found guilty, they still don’t get the d.p. If you want to construct an argument in such a way that you’ll win by default, you’re free to do so, but you end up with straw men and red herrings yourself. If putting m.d. people to death was more commonplace, you’d have a meaningful argument. But I do stand behind judicial equivalence as the only objective means to justice. There really are only two reasonable directions you can go: Either the homicide in question was unjustified and deliberate, or it was, in effect, an accident. You can’t have it both ways. If it was an accident, then you protect the accused from mob justice. If it was murder, let him fry, metaphorically speaking, of course.

It seems to me tha the guilotine would be the quickest and fastest execution method, but I guess they don't want to use that in the US for some reason?

Too French.

Exactly! In the USA, we’ve never felt the need for a mass purge after a revolution or civil war. The Reign of Terror was not good for France, and I think the US could do without that image. The gas chamber has strong associations with NAZI Germany even though we’ve had it since the 1920’s.

Well just because something is French doesn't mean it needs to be associated with a mass purge. That's like saying the French horn shouldn't belong in an American orchestra because it's associated with the french, or that French vanillia should not be an ice cream flavor in America, etc.

I don't see how just because it's french means it will associated with a mass purge.

Well when I saw her tonight, she said she wants a relationship now, but she couldn't say it before, and was nervous. So I said I want one too, and we agreed to be exclusive now. But this makes me feel even more guilty about the other woman, now, should I bring it up?

So ...you're saying that the US does not use the guillotine because the guillotine is associated with the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, but that the US DOES use the gas chamber - which is associated with the Nazi Holocaust- which was even worse!

As dumb as that theory sounds that may well be part of it. American states probably did start using the gas chamber around 1900- which was after the French Revolution, but before the rise of the Third Reich. So the guillotine may have been stigmatized already, and the chamber may have became common use in the US for a long time before it got stigmatized.

The French still used the guillotine up until 1939, but it had evolved into something that looked like a CAT scan, or an Xray machine. Very clinical looking. No longer that tall wooden frame thing with the blade glinting in the sun in the public square. But try not thinking about it if you have to get a CAT scan.

Well I watched the movie The Battle of Algiers, and in the movie, France was still using the guilotine in 50s, when the events took place, unless that is factually inaccurate of the movie? Or is it that new CAT scan looking guilotine in the movie perhaps?

Retro was just making a joke about how Americans are Francophobes.

Angle was being serious: his point being that the guillotine was USED in the Reign of Terror to execute hundreds, including the king and queen of France when things got nasty in the French Revolution.

I dunno. Ive read that the last use was 1940 or 39, and my highschool history teacher guy described how modern guillotines dont look like they do in the movies anymore.

The French might have been still using them (and using the old fashioned kind) in their colonies to terrorized the brown folks they were oppressing for a period of time after they stopped using them in the mother country. I dunno. Good question.

The last guillotine execution was, I think, back in the 1970’s. American gas chamber was last used back in...1999? In the US, the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment extending to the death penalty. The 8th has been interpreted dynamically over the years to account for changes in public attitudes. The 8th doesn’t prohibit the d.p., but neither does it prevent the d.p. from being outlawed entirely. Beheading and hanging might be seen as barbaric, whereas lethal injection and gas could be viewed as humane. Getting a little dizzy with at worst a mild headache isn’t such a bad way to go, and neither is going to sleep. A botched hanging will literally rip your head off if it doesn’t slowly strangle you, and botched electrocution will have your head erupt in flames. There’s no way you don’t feel the blade of the guillotine, plus the indignity of a minute or two of being conscious after. Snapping your neck at the end of the rope isn’t going to be much different, but somehow I don’t imagine it to be quite as painful as completely severed skin and muscle. And I don’t even want to think of one or more jolts of electricity turning into a full-body spasm that you HOPE stops your heart the first time.

How about this? Just don’t commit a capital crime! Ok...so I am aware that punishment hasn’t always fit the crime and the d.p. might be excessive in some cases. But when a nation’s laws make the d.p. the exception rather than the rule, avoiding the d.p. isn’t all that difficult for people who don’t commit crime. When you do commit a crime, things have to be very, very, very BAD to earn a death sentence. I’m not picky about the method used since murderers do not DESERVE humane treatment. But in the US, humane treatment is effectively demanded by SCOTUS precedent because the 8th amendment was designed to prevent bizarre and arbitrary punishment. In other words, you ARE allowed to punish criminals; you just don’t get to be a d!ck about how you punish them.

You're correct but I feel that making jokes is a serious business so I admire AngelRho for taking the joke seriously.

Nah, I actually did get the joke, hence why I said “Exactly!” I probably should have included emojis and started a new paragraph.

But yeah...jokes are nothing to laugh about.

I'm glad you're treating this with the appropriate gravity.