Voices
in
Japan

have your say

If a country has to have the death penalty, what is the most humane way of carrying it out?

35 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

Guillotine.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I agree. Quick and to the point, no suffering.

That said, for particularly heinous crimes, they should make them face upwards.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

A nice way to kill somebody?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

A country does not 'have to have the death penalty'.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

'Guillotine'

'I agree. Quick and to the point, no suffering.

That said, for particularly heinous crimes, they should make them face upwards'

Interesting idea. How about reintroducing burning for witchcraft?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Why should it be a "humane" way?

The victim(s) of people who receive the death penalty usually die horrible deaths, why should their killer not suffer?

People linger in pain from horrible diseases because a "country" doesn't allow them to end their life willingly and in dignity. Oh no, let's make them suffer, but make sure a murderer dies without pain and "humanely."

1 ( +6 / -5 )

'Why should it be a "humane" way?'

What method would you advocate? A trip to the museum could help to remind people of how sick and twisted the human imagination can be in devising methods of torture and execution. We could use modern technology as in the Bond movie with Sean Connery tied to a table waiting for a laser to cut him in half starting at the genital area. Perhaps we can gather those very civilised nations with wonderful human rights records who most enjoy executions ( China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia ) and brainstorm ideas.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Big rock, splat, no pain.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Uday Hussein preferred using a wood chipper. Being put in head-first of feet-first depended on the seriousness of the supposed offense. It's certainly not humane, but neither is murder.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Humane death penalty? Oxymoron.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Chaining the prisoner down and giving the victim's family a loaded gun. No one else should be allowed to murder for them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Should we not ask the question: what is a suitable way to carry out a murder?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The majority of countries have rejected the death penalty but the ones still carrying it out the most are America, China, Iran. Out of the developed countries only America and Japan have the death penalty but 18 American states have also rejected it. Time for abolishment across the entire globe. Murder by state is still murder.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

To answer the question, Carbon monoxide chamber, they fall asleep and don't wake up. Without going too off topic. Which is more 'humane'

option A: sentencing someone to die after they have exhausted all their legal options, something that takes about 10-15 years in the US

Option: B Life imprisonment where the state must maintain an inmates life no matter what illness they may suffer from or will suffer from in the future.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

isoducky

Option: B Life imprisonment where the state must maintain an inmates life no matter what illness they may suffer from or will suffer from in the future.

In California, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate on death row and with 887 inmates, that's $63.3 million, Turns out, its cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them. So the money argument about the death penalty is dead in the water.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.U9ShdlYvd74 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What a horrible question.

Humane?

Give me a break!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Dr. Louis Guillotine had the right idea: use the guillotine. Although such a device was used before he suggested its use, the device got his name. While looking up information on the guillotine, I came across this statement: "There is some evidence to suggest that the head retained some life for a moment after the head was severed and so the death might not be as quick as has been supposed." Despite this and the messiness involved, if something must be used, the guillotine must be the quickest way to get rid of someone ....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Firing squad. That is what weapons are for. I always found the notion of using medical doctors to carry out executions obscene. What about their oath? Doctors and executioners are completely different occupations.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No one 'has to have' the death penalty, period. And there is no such thing as a humane way of killing. It is only by comparison you can call one method of murder quicker and perhaps more painless (how could we know?) than another. The people who carry out the punishment are just as guilty as any murderer who suffers it.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

zichi:

" Out of the developed countries only America and Japan have the death penalty "

That is not correct. All signatories of the EU constitution (the Lisbon treaty) have it. The individual countries do not have it in their laws, but it has been introduced by the back door viat EU constitution. Read it. (Admittedly, hardly anybody knows it... but it is there, for "crimes against the state", meaning crimes against the EU superstate).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'd be curious to see a link to that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a ridiculous question; no country HAS to have a death penalty.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

WillB

That is not correct. All signatories of the EU constitution (the Lisbon treaty) have it.

I don't know about that and I couldn't find anything on it, but

Article 2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that no one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. All European Union member states are fully committed to these provisions and implement them in practice. <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/10015.en08.pdf

also

The European Union holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty. http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/adp/docs/death_penalty_background_en.pdf

I did find this on EU death penalty in times of war and also times of riots and insurrection. http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=866

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:

"A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

Your original comment BTW, the EU is not a country, its a union?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

zichi:

You have to read explanation of article 2, clause 2 of the Charter, which was incorporated into the treaty to find. It is there, but hidden in plain sight --- on purpose, apparently, but you can speculate about the background as you wish.

I was only pointing out that that your statement is incorrect. The death penalty has been re-introduced in the EU via the the EU constitution; while it is not practised at the moment, the EU can revive at any time it wishes.

And you can splitting hairs about the meaning of "union" and country all day long.... the more power individual countries cede to the EU, the more this supra-national body turns into a "country"; which is of course what the EU politicians want. The USSR, for that matter, also was only a "union"....

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I was only pointing out that that your statement is incorrect. The death penalty has been re-introduced in the EU via the the EU constitution; while it is not practised at the moment, the EU can revive at any time it wishes.

You say that, but haven't actually shown anything to back it up. Zichi on the other hand showed evidence that you are wrong.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If a country has to have the death penalty, what is the most humane way of carrying it out?

Kill them as they killed their victims.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Illogical question.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Do not worry, the US has plenty of guillotines on stock. Read at the below link:

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/06/29/why-does-the-government-need-guillotines/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that so many people convicted of capital crimes have subsequently been shown to have been convicted on false evidence. A prompt and speedy trial should not equate to a rush to justice. We do not need to be in a hurry to execute someone, once they are safely behind bars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WillB I was grateful for your info on the EU and the death penalty but first you didn't respond that it has limitations and secondly there are other EU laws stating that the death penalty is illegal?

Actually, in the UK, the law is still on the books that you can still be hung for treason even though the last person executed was in the mid 1950's and there's no official executioner?

Again, I say the EU is a union not a country.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

On the issue of the necessity for the death penalty the answer is purely economic. If someone is genuinely incapable of rehabilitation then they need to be imprisoned for life, which will in most cases be 20+ years. That means society has to foot the bill for 20+ years of supervision, food, accommodation, medical care, etc. for someone who will never be of any value to society in any way. In an economy where resources are limited and money spent on a criminal means money NOT spent on caring for those with disabilities the choice is clear and simple, spend the money where it can do the most good for society.

Once you accept the "most good with limited resources" hypothesis the means of execution becomes obvious. Place the convicted criminal in a sealed room with no food or water and an overdose of sleeping tablets (massive overdose). It is their choice when to take the tablets, or even if to take the tablets, however no food, water or oxygen will be provided, they have had everything society is prepared to spend on them. In 1 month the room is flushed out and the remains buried. How they die is entirely up to them.

This method is humane to those who deserve it most, as there is no executioner to be traumatised, the criminal has a choice (admittedly a limited choice, but more than their victims got), and the method consumes minimal resources.

Of course it would require much stricter criteria for the death penalty, namely that the criminal is (in the unanimous opinion of a panel of psychologists and psychiatrists) impossible to rehabilitate using current methods. If there is any reasonable hope of rehabilitation then this must be exhausted first. Under the current system the death penalty seems to be decided purely on body count, which has nothing to do with how likely rehabilitation is.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

'If a country has to have the death penalty, what is the most humane way of carrying it out?

Kill them as they killed their victims.'

Who would you ask to carry out the execution on those psychopaths who murdered in particularly gruesome fashion? Another psychopath?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Guillotine, or gunshot to the head tend to be the quickest way. That said, I've heard of some people surviving a headshot, particularly when low calibre rounds are ued. You could always try the Ancient Greek method: a metal stake hammered into the brain stem. They'll be dead before they even hear the hammer fall. I've also heard that there are some venoms that can kill you before you even feel the bite/sting. Those are perhaps the best methods. I don't condone cruel or unusual punishments, but I understand the sentiment. I definitely don't support having the victims carry out the execution. They'll be suffering from enough emotional trauma without having to add ending someone's life to that list. Besides, you shouldn't try to drop the victims down to the level of the criminal.

To those saying that no country needs the Death Penalty, while I agree, the titular question was a hypothetical question. The author isn't saying that countries must have the Death Penalty. They are just asking for the most humane execution method in the hypothetical situation that a country, for whatever reason (overwhelming public or political pressure perhaps?), has to have the Death Penalty. I won't get into an argument about the pros and cons of the Death Penalty, or about the alternatives to it. That's an argument people have had for decades, and will continue to have for decades more.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Guillotine with the head crushing attachment.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bullet in the back of the head.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites