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

Post Reply New Topic

Electrocution in recent years has actually been at the request of the executed.

And there’s little point in getting overly emotional about opposing it. It changes nothing. If you are a violent offender and cause someone’s death specifically in a murderous context, there’s no prison sentence long enough to pay back that debt to society. And life imprisonment? There’s no mercy in that. A murderer getting a quick end to his worthless life is much better than what he deserves. But justice untempered by mercy is not justice at all. So let them go and give justice and mercy to the victims as well as the condemned. Gas ‘em, light ‘em up, throw the switch, give them the noose, make an appointment with Doc Guillotine, give them lead poisoning, stone ‘em, quench their thirst with a cup of hemlock, or a 1 or 2-drug combo through an IV...it really matters not. If you want to give them the option of how to go, then fine.

The chair wouldn’t be my first choice, tbh. I think popular opinion against the chair was swayed more by horror stories, some that may have been and some that were definitely NOT true. Or movies like The Green Mile. I just can’t imagine the point of shock as being quick enough to render me totally unconscious so that I don’t even know that I’m dead before death occurs. Guillotine or sword would just be...awkward. But electric shock is known to cause death QUICKLY when done properly.

I also think that any time an execution fails, it should result in a full pardon of the prisoner. If it consistently fails, the state should review criminal trial and sentencing procedures first and then find a different method.

A murderer can be a perfectly good person, despite his/her crime.
And a boss of a company can be a really bad person, despite never having committed a single crime in his/her life.

You cannot and you should not judge a person on his/her actions alone, what REALLY matters is their political opinions and their empathy (or learned/simulated empathy in case of mental disability, that causes empathy troubles).

In other words, judge not a person on the deeds, judge the motives.

Also, the law and justice are two very different things. The law is not always just, and what is just is not always the law.

Nope. You judge actions. Periodt. An evil person who doesn’t do evil, how do you know they’re evil?

Actually, as part of regular training I had to have to teach in a Catholic School, there was an emphasis on letting anyone who had access to children know that there were eyes on them at all times. If you noticed someone getting suspiciously close to a child, all you had to do was very subtly put them on notice. The argument was made that this meant that teachers who had an unhealthy attraction to students would still be teaching them. HOWEVER, it was also pointed out that Catholics aren’t in the business of destroying coworkers. If you stop something from happening, it decreases the possibility that the would-be offender would ever try again. That kind of thing spares kids from becoming victims and adults from having their careers and lives ruined. The spirit of our training was to prevent bad things from happening in the first place and providing spiritual support for Catholic employees struggling with sin.

That’s one perspective from a religious institution, but that’s the same spirit of justice you seem to be implying, which I do agree with in principle. But in order to truly help someone with violent tendencies, something must be done to support the would-be criminal BEFORE someone gets hurt or dies. Once someone DIES, it’s too late. It is the obligation of the state, it’s right and proper role, to protect its citizens from harm, pursue blind justice, and provide restoration and restitution for crimes committed against victims. There is no equivalent value on taking a life as there is “eye for an eye,” etc. If you steal something, even if you desperately needed it, then have the common decency to return it, fess up, and pay a reasonable extra in acknowledgment of damages, and move on with life. That doesn’t even need to go to court. But people will have disputes, accidents and negligence happen, and we have “eye for an eye” laws that settle up how criminals can repay their debts to society and even be restored to society themselves. That’s what justice is. And life cannot be repaid without life itself being taken.

Bear in mind there is a distinction between cold, calculated, planned murder and accidents, negligence, self-defense, and other things that result in homicide. If a fire fighter dies trying to rescue someone from a burning building, his family doesn’t get to sue the owner for murder and put him to death over it. People who are guilty of negligence must pay for their crimes, even when it’s unintentional, but they shouldn’t get the death penalty. Someone who knowingly creates a dangerous environment to get rid of someone, though, is not negligent. That is deliberate, and he should be put to death. And if you frame someone for murder, even if you’re unsuccessful and nobody dies, I personally think you should STILL be put to death.

Someone could always have motives for murder and never actually kill anyone. Maybe someone intervenes, or maybe someone is paying attention and the murderous person gives up or rethinks it. But you don’t kill someone over their motives. You kill them when they’ve already killed someone themselves. That is no a person who can possibly be rehabilitated and accepted back into society. The death penalty is actually the most empathetic and compassionate mercy one could offer these people.

Incidentally, you mentioned that one’s political views mattered. So...maybe it’s ok to lock someone up for life if they are a Republican...or a Democrat...or a Conservative/Liberal/Libertarian/Communist? If your political views differ from mine, it only means I won’t allow you to discuss your views in my house where I live.. It doesn’t mean I want to kill you. It doesn’t mean I don’t respect your right to think and believe and speak as you like in your home with your family. Doesn’t mean I’m coming after you if you don’t vote the way I think you should. Be careful, because if actions don’t matter but political beliefs DO matter, then, heck, we can justify all kinds of nasty, destructive things against each other. I don’t think that’s what you really meant, so please be sure to stay clear on what you mean when you say things like that.

This thread is not an objection to the death penalty as such - that's for another topic, rather it is more an objection against the methods used.

I fail to see how the electric chair, gas chamber or even lethal injection can be humane methods.

I'm sure one can come up with less painful methods. It doesn't have to be that complicated.

I can't imagine the electric chair or gassing to be in any way pleasant.

Some basic knowledge of pharmacology and you can give an easy and painfree death through lethal injection.
Traditionally it was Thiopentone to induce unconsciousness, Pancuronium which is a long acting paralysing agent and then Potassium Chloride which when given rapidly stops the heart.

Thiopentone has largely been replaced by Propofol in general anaesthesia in most circumstances. Either drug on it's own can be dosed for appropriate induction of unconsciousness, I would hazard a guess that giving Propofol at 3 times it's dose would cause extremely rapid unconsciousness followed by hypoperfusion due to a plumeting blood pressure.

If it was me I would ask for a huge whack of Midazolam so that I am not aware of anything, say 20mg or so, followed a few seconds later by 600mg (60ml) of Propofol. I would almost certainly die within 20-30 seconds. After that toss in the Panc and potassium just for good measure.

I saw a cat being euthenaised last year. The vet gave 10ml (100mg) of Propofol and it lost consciousness instantly, he then put in 3ml of Lethobarb. I was surprised by the Propofol but it was actually very kind in that he used such a high dose. We use about 20ml (200mg) for induction of anaesthesia in an adult male of normal body weight, so the dose was absolutely huge for a cat.

Yeah. We need to get the community involved. Bring back stoning.

Is it really not an objection, though? There’s no method that can’t be argued against, of course. I get that we’re talking about electrocution specifically, but you’ve listed the quickest, most effective, and least painful methods currently available as, in your view, inhumane.

My view is that there is no such thing, but criminals who have brought their fate on themselves through certain non-violent and violent crimes (certain forms of rape, as an example) and murder where the net effect is either a person’s death or the intention to cause death do not deserve humane treatment. There’s nothing humane about capital punishment. All you can do is eliminate as much pain as you can and keep it as private as you can, but there is no objectively moral directive to make it quick, painless, or private. In other words, from a moral or ethical perspective, all that matters is that the condemned person dies. Methods and levels of comfort and dignity are entirely irrelevant. Bring back stoning for all it really matters. Get a general, O.R. surgical-grade anesthetic to knock ‘em out, secure a mask on their faces, hit ‘em with pure nitrogen for about 4-5 minutes. When people have been exposed to pure nitrogen by accident, hypoxia hit FAST. Unlike CO2 or CO exposure, there were fewer signs that anything was wrong. If you want quick, pain-free, and no spectacle, that’s a good, strong option for you.

It’s fascinating to me that death penalty methods are never about the condemned. It’s always about either satisfying the public’s need for blood or for easing the public conscience as though the criminal is the victim and WE have somehow gone wrong. Look...sometimes people are just evil and their presence in the world alone is a threat to society. Charles Manson’s incarceration happened at a point in history when the death penalty argument was at its most contentious level. While “serving” his life sentence, he actually managed to attract fans. FANS. Let that sink in. He had admirers. On the other hand, Susan Atkins in many ways showed that she was a rehabilitated woman who could be paroled. She was left in prison to almost literally rot, and basically she was kept in prison on the principles that she was “too dangerous” and that she couldn’t be shown mercy because she had shown no mercy to her victims. It didn’t help her case in the end because she was married twice in prison and was allowed conjugal visits. Well, heck...the guillotine or even stoning right in front of LA city hall in the street selling tickets, hot dogs, and cotton candy for the little ones would have saved her the indignity of long term illness and the humiliation of being wheeled into the courtroom on a gurney just to be denied compassionate release since she was near death, anyway.

My point is not for anyone to feel sorry for Susan Atkins, nor am I leading the charge for the death penalty in any form. But I do want to point out that the way you’ve framed your position against electrocution AND other methods has put you in opposition to the death penalty as a whole. I’m not sure you can be objective about this issue, and it might help if we’re all honest about it. The death penalty is NEVER about humane treatment of the condemned because their crimes themselves are inhumane. You also cannot bring the victim back by killing someone else, not even the guilty. And survivors never get closure, not even through the d.p. So what are we REALLY arguing here? The best mercy, compassion, justice, and retribution this side of eternity. It’s preferable to terminate a worthless life QUICKLY than to give them a full life in prison with all the suffering that goes with that, EVEN IF they deserve worse than they get either way (why not torture, for example? Forced, difficult labor? Selling into prostitution, or dark web red rooms?). It’s preferable to give victims justice if you can afford nothing else, and minimizing the consequences by sparing the d.p. is neither just nor compassionate.

Electrocution, as long as executioners understand things like voltage, conduction, and how those things work to stop the heart, is quick and effective. The condemned barely has a fraction of a second to comprehend what is happening before life ends. If we’re going to stop making and selling life-ending drugs over silliness about philosophical problems over the d.p., and I suspect it’s much more political than even philosophical, then bring back the chair or even the blade.

How electrocution is supposed to work. When the electricity hits your body, it is supposed to knock you out and stop your heart and you feel nothing because it happens so fast. The issue here is it may not always work as intended if electrodes are not put on correctly, the correct sponge isn't used and if the person is too heavy.

How hanging is supposed to work, it breaks your neck after the fall and you feel nothing. What can go wrong, they use the wrong length of rope, they didn't do the math correctly to take your weight and size of rope to use and your neck doesn't break so you choke to death.

How gas chamber is supposed to work. You are supposed to get knocked out and feel nothing when you die. What goes wrong. Inmates tend to hold their breath so it causes them pain due to the chemicals in the gas getting inside their skin and attacking their cells so it's a painful death and they feel they are being choked too and not only they feel that, their whole body is in pain from the gas and it burns. I'd say the only time this execution had ever worked as intended was when it was used on a guy named Joe Arridy. Thanks to his very low IQ, he didn't know he was going to die so he didn't do what most inmates do, hold their breath.

How lethal injection works, if done correctly, you are supposed to fall asleep and then when you are a sleep the next drug paralyzes your muscles and the next drug stops your heart. What goes wrong, they don't use the correct amount of drugs due to no medical professionals so the inmates feels their body burning.

What's the problem with adopting the standard method of execution by one bullet in the brain - when the inmate has been put to sleep through anaesthetic drugs?

Is torturing the offender going to undo the crime and bring back the victims?

- Or is torturing the offender only going to hurt yet more people - I'm thinking about the family and relatives of the offender.

I've always found it hippocritical that a society that says it is wrong to kill some one practices the death penalty.

Also, why don't anyone ever want to ask the question WHAT made the inmate become a murderer in the first place?

If the murderer genuinly could not see any other option than to kill, how then can it be justified to put him/her to death?

Ie. psychosis, mental retardation, dementia - the list goes on.

I can't see how punishing someone for a crime that might not have happened had the offender not had these difficulties, can be justified in any way.

I'm not saying they should walk around freely. There are other ways to keep them incarcerated - like in psychiatric hospitals, for example, with guards. It works in a lot of other countries - especially in many countries in Europe.

Well, I don't think anyone on this planet thinks it is wrong to kill. It would be suicide.

How then would you get food?

Wage a war? Defend your country?

Or how is the police supposed to stop a bank robbery with hostages?

Killing is not the issue. It is who you kill, and when to kill - in which situations to kill, that matters.

You’re not going to get any argument from me on methods. Death is death, and I don’t even care if it IS torture or a spectacle. From a Biblical POV, even, where mercy over the law is a thing, there’s no discussion on what it means to be inhumane, cruel, or unusual. God burned down two cities, presumably even their women and “innocent” children. The way I see it, directives concerning “cruel and unusual” are just constructs of Western society people use to make punishing evil difficult.

The one bullet idea is effective, but people survive bullet wounds to the head, too. It’s also potentially very messy, dangerous to onlookers, and might appear offensively to survivors or those close to the condemned. A better question might be, “Is there any way to win this?” Frankly, no. It’s all very simple: find an effective method and don’t look back.

I’ve already answered your other question, and no, torture doesn’t undo anything. Western justice approximates Judeo-Christian eye-for-an-eye justice in which the object of punishment is to even the score. They didn’t believe in LITERALLY cutting out someone’s eye. It was basically similar to workman’s comp or dismemberment insurance and civil courts. The idea was that anyone who causes harm could compensate victims for their loss caused by his actions. Easy for rich people who have so much money to repay victims, rough for poor people who might end up working off their debts for 7 years. The Western approach is complex and sophisticated, but essentially drives a deep wedge between criminals and victims. Most of the time this works out well for all involved.

But you cannot bring back victims from the dead, nor undo what’s been done. The d.p. is necessary for a host of things, not the least of which is the best restorative justice to survivors we have to offer by eliminating those who commit murder. Even if the perp is remorseful, his life is worthless and forfeit. Death is the greatest mercy to offer the repentant murderer, since otherwise would be to condemn him either to a world full of people out for blood or to a lifetime of slow decay in prison. Words like “cruel and unusual” and “inhumane” are just buzz words part of a larger argument people on one side or the other of the debate that help them sleep at night.

I get what you’re saying and I do feel badly about it, but at the end of the day it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Let’s throw mental retardation out there as an example. Everyone has a mom or dad, right? And, presumably, moms and dads love their kids, right? You wouldn’t expect that a mom or dad would want their kids getting killed. You expect the opposite. So parents, relatives, teachers, other caregivers in whatever capacity will do what it takes to steer a child, any child, even the m.r. in a direction that avoids violent tendencies. If a m.r. adult known to be violent kills someone, it is the fault of the parents for not having done what it takes to keep the m.r. person alive. You cannot punish the parents for that, no, but if they care about their child, then the atrocities the child commits along with the child facing the d.p. is punishment enough. You have to let that go. Or if the parents find that they cannot prevent their m.r. child from becoming violent and ending up dead himself, then the parents can have him made a ward of the state, committed to a psych hospital, 5150’d, Baker acted, given the Britney Spears treatment, or whatever it takes to protect the m.r. from himself and/or from society, or protect society from the child.

I mean...we pretty much agree here on everything else except the part that excuses murder. I’m aware that we aspies tend to be black and white thinkers and that can be problematic, but this really is a black and white issue. Circumstances are irrelevant. Yes, you want to prevent things from happening. No, you won’t always succeed. But there’s never an excuse for murder.

And I specifically reference murder. War, self defense, even abortion to save the mother’s life when the baby cannot be saved, accidents when one must choose himself or a perfect stranger...homicide can at times be justifiable. Murder is by definition willful, deliberate, planned, unjustifiable homicide. Circumstances and motive are NEVER excuses for it. If killing is justified, involuntary, accidental, or due to circumstances beyond one’s control, then it does not qualify as murder. Those incidents do not warrant the d.p. Now, if this is what you mean, then understand that we aren’t talking about the same things. In the West, laws already define and distinguish murder from other acts that result in loss of life—some deliberate or justified and some not. But because you aren’t going to put someone to death for accidentally running someone down with the car who was actually about to commit suicide, the problem of the d.p. and assessment of whether the d.p. is appropriate is moot.

It’s not hypocritical. Only if ALL forms of killing are punishable and killing is NEVER justified. Western society doesn’t ordinarily work that way. Accidents happen, and that’s no reason to give someone the d.p. But any person who DOES commit murder, which is not the same thing as self defense or accidental death, has forfeited his own life. If murder goes unpunished, then society by default has the right to go after the murderer on its own and execute mob justice.

And yes...I do count abortion in the event that carrying a baby to term does not threaten the life of the mother as murder. The doctor who performs a frivolous abortion should be put to death along with the mother for conspiring. If the child was conceived through rape, I’d say it’s justified...but the rapist should be executed. Life must always, without exception, be repaid with life when taken deliberately and without justification.