How to Kill a Human Being
7.41
Ratings: 7.41/10 from 70 users.
Former Conservative MP Michael Portillo pushes his body to the brink of death in an investigation into the science of execution.
As the American Supreme Court examines whether the lethal injection is causing prisoners to die in unnecessary pain, Michael sets out to find a solution which is fundamentally humane.
Armed with startling new evidence, Michael considers a completely new approach.
Will it be the answer? There is only one way to find out - to experience it himself.
I should also say that while I am technically in favor of capital punishment, practically I am against it, meaning that while I believe someone who has committed murder, rape and/or child sexual abuse deserve to be executed, the reality is that far too many people have been wrongfully convicted and at times executed. Unless and until we can 100% guarantee that no person is ever convicted of a crime, particularly a capital offense, then there should be no executions. It is impossible to do anything to correct the execution of an innocent person.
In my opinion, capital punishment is a misnomer. Anything is only punishment insomuch as the person subjected to it feels punished. I very much doubt a career criminal is much concerned about anything other than being caught, being convicted and actually dying. Everything else, to the criminal, is just another day in prison. It is my belief that the real point of capital punishment is to ensure the convicted criminal is never again able to commit a crime in the outside world, and for the victim survivors and some portion of society to have a sense of vengeance, revenge or retribution. As for Mr. Portillo's "perfect" method, I do see it as the best possible method of execution because those in favor of capital punishment, in many states, will only have capital punishment supported by enough fence sitters if those who are currently undecided believe it is a humane and painless method of execution. Would capital punishment advocates rather have a form that is potentially painful but not supported by enough of the community so that it is never carried out, or a completely painless method that gains enough support that execution becomes law and is carried out?
As a side note, I would also add that this method of execution is likely seen by anyone considering suicide as practically a recommendation for how to go about committing suicide. Even without this documentary, it seems that enough people had been using noble gas hypoxia as a method of suicide that manufacturers of helium tanks sold in party stores started adding a percentage of air to the helium tanks so that is was no longer able to be used in that way.
Someone wrote "In areas where the death penalty is still a possible sentence, crime still occurs.". To this person and all other brainless people. Death penalty is not scary at all! Scary is to be caught. Do you understand this SIMPLE THING? Criminals are not scared of the punishment. Never have been and never will. They will be scared only if punishment is inevitable!!!!!! That is the key. To make sure the criminal is going to be caught and punish!!!! But not after 40 years.
Bro is this some wikihow article?
The "inhumane" killing techniques are to scare the **** out of the people who cumit crimes ,so that no-one ever again tries to do the same, HUMANE killing doesn't lead in anyway to a safe and better society. STOP being idiots of the new present
It is theoretically a good deterrent, but in areas where the death penalty is still a possible sentence, crime still occurs. In 2010 an inmate had to wait approximately 15 years on death row. This is very inhumane and it does matter as subjecting a person to wait such a significant time for their execution gives them time to create worry and anxiety, mentally torturing them. If countries who still for some disgusting reason still allow the death penalty, then they should at least make an effort to make it painless and easy so an inmate does not have to wait such a long period of time. This is why Michael's research and finding are so important. We shouldn't be trying to strike fear into other people as it simply does not work, we need to use a method of execution like this so the worst of the worst are removed from society, as quickly as possible.
Whether you are for or against execution, there are some people who are simply too dangerous to ever live among us. The problem is, they are often released from prison or mental institutions after a period of time. An example would be Lawrence Singleton. In 1978, he raped a 14 year old girl, then cut off both her forearms for the pleasure of it, and left her to die. She lived, he was caught, and imprisoned in California, which did not have the death penalty - then released after 8 years. In 1996, he raped and murdered another woman in Florida, was caught, imprisoned, and sentenced to death. He died of natural causes in prison in 2001.
im sorry but i say that those comment above is from the people did not know what is the meaning of being human..
My objections to capital punishment don't come from any necessarily empathic feelings for the true murderers and serial rapist/killers who are sentenced to death. They come instead from the fact that there have been errors in the justice system--egregious errors, and deliberate, corrupt ones--which sent completely innocent people to Death Row (which seems to be a prison within a prison, no matter which capital punishment state you are talking about) for years of torment before murdering them in the hideous ways this documentary talked about.
If only a single innocent person suffers this torture, ending with the extinguishing of their one and only life on this earth, the system has failed. Once certain projects (like Barry Scheck's Innocence Project) began to turn up case after case wherein innocent people sentenced to death were saved by DNA evidence, my mind was made up: the death penalty is not applied in a foolproof manner.
Not only that, but it is not even applied fairly. What earns you a death sentence in one state earns you only a prison sentence one foot over the next state line. How can this be? How can we justify taking a person's life because some state law varied from one jurisdiction to the next? This is LIFE we are talking about, not slaps on the wrist. If there is no consistency in the death penalty--if Connecticut will kill me while New Jersey will imprison me for the same crime--then where is the overwhelming rationale for the death penalty? If it's supposed to "deter" residents in one state, why doesn't the next state apply it as a "deterrent"? (And incidentally, I've never heard of a single case wherein a killer was stopped by the thought of impending execution. The desperation that leads to murder is rarely susceptible to arguments like: Gee, they have the death penalty here.) And so there can be no humanity, no "humane" construction, in its application. To know that you are going to die on such-and-such date, at such-and-such time, is a horror I can't imagine facing day after day. The torment of stays of execution, filing for new trials, appeals to governors to grant clemency--all while being confined to a cell the size of a bathroom, wherein there is no privacy or personal interaction--is a death before death. It is punishment enough if you are guilty. But what if you are innocent? Or guilty of a crime that would have earned you a life sentence if you committed it twenty miles away?
That thought haunts me, and so I cannot endorse anyone's search for a "better" method of state-sanctioned murder.
I think life in the roughest jail is worse than being put to death. But I believe that after they do most of there life in jail, like once they get to about 70 to 80 years old, I think they should be killed the way they had killed there victims. If they raped someone, then they should be raped by the most painful instrument. If they stabbed someone, then they should be stabbed. And so on. And to the family members, I believe they should be asked if they would like to take part in the killing of the bad guy.
No...if one if pro capital punishment then of course dying in a state of eurphoria is not going to win for so many reasons. That few die this way, that is, in a state of euphoria, of course this would go against just about everyone, including ME, who is ANTI capital punishment. I mean, sure if all of us got to die this way...great...but for those who have committed some awful crime to be able to look forward to dying in ecstasy...this is silly. As i said before..murdering murderers is WRONG to begin with so the whole pt is moot so far as i am concerned.
"Rather a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one who is innocent of the charges". I can't remember who said that quote, but it's the very essence of the greatest conundrum of the criminal justice system. Statistics show that capital punishment doesn't deter the extreme offenders, therefore it's use as a deterrent, is unjustified. Strange as it seems, there have been people who, for whatever reason, have confessed to committing serious crimes, for which they were found guilty, and incarcerated. In those cases, however, it was eventually discovered that the accused were, in fact, not even remotely involved with their said crime. Capital punishment would have doomed those innocent (albeit head-messed) people to death in those cases and in turn, the guilty party would have most likely gone free. Hence, the basis of the eternal debate which has haunted the scholars who seek effective social
"justice" for the rest of us. Reform versus punishment. We can't "fix" them all via reform,
and punishment doesn't always deter recidivism. If u r into provocatively deep
"mind candy" movies, check out Stanley Kubric's, 'A Clockwork Orange',
as it explores this very conundrum. A warning though, it is rather
haunting experience and not for the faint of heart, but definitely worth
the watch! Reactively, i am all for elimination of the Bundys, the Dahmers and etc, ideally by using the same methods that they themselves used on their victims. Morally tho, i know that whoever administered that punishment, would in fact, have to be as deranged as the offender, and THAT thought leaves a nasty taste in my mouth!
Why not go the Dr. Harold Shipman way, and just give them an OD of heroin for f--ks sake??? Or and OD of morphine or some cocktail of benzos and opiates and barbiturates, and there you have it - blissful death. I don't understand why people haven't thought of that. I'm gonna go to the people responsible for this **** and propose my heroin OD idea.
i think Oregon assisted suicide is done using an OD of Seconal (i think), and those people just go to sleep and that's it. didn't Dr. Kevorkian use humane methods? i don't understand the mindset of the people involved in this issue; they might as well use a guillotine.
As the presenter said " the subject of execution is entirely subjective". Why not try using Scopolamine? After that, any method would be fine.
whats the point of killing criminals in most humane way lol? they should be killed as slow and painfull as possible
The death penalty is wrong, period. The state does not have the right to decide who lives and dies. That is the ultimate power.
Hey, Ferdia. Got a question for you. You say (quote) "The state does not have the right to decide who lives and who dies".(Unquote).Well, I've got news for you. You're saying that a person who purposely kills one or more people has the right to decide that his / her victims had to die and that, if caught, the state does not have the right to kill him / her. He / she had the right to make the decision of death or life for the victim/s, but the state can't do the same. You are obviously about as bright as a box full of blown light bulbs. Do us all a favour, A.S.A.P. go to your local meat market, buy yourself a set of sheep brains, take them to your local hospital and beg them to remove the faeces you have between your ears and install the brains. Even sheep brains would provide you with more intelligence than what you clearly have now. If the state does not have the right to remove a killer from this planet, what makes you think a killer has the right to remove innocent victims from this planet?
what ferdia meant is that neither have the right to take a life. as soon as someone writes the word faeces in a reply to someone else, it's because they're running out of genuinely useful words.
accumulated state power (going so far as to include the right to kill citizens) is a far greater and scarier evil than serial killers my man.
The most sad and affecting thing was when I saw those poor innocent animals being experimented on and killed.
The guy at the en only showed what people really are when it comes to it, a bloodthirsty mob, the worst kind of animals.
Personaly the guy at the end deserves to die as same as the criminal he wants to see dying in pain.
execution, no matter how humane is wrong. There have been a number of cases where it has later been proven that an innocent person has been put to death. This is always a possibility.
An eye for an eye is a childish way to view crime and punishment,
Ur point about innocent people being put to death is completely reasonable, but at the same time, what about those people who there is no doubt? the ones that have admitted and gloated about the murders they have committed? Should those people be allowed to live, while their survival is paid for by the taxes of the families of those they've killed? I don't think so.
I have to agree with previous posts when I say that I do not care if executions are done using the most "humane" technique. The victims of these murderers were not given humane deaths. Those seeking the most humane death are either anti-death penalty advocates that are looking to dismantle capital punishment but "proving" than none of the methods are humane or they are death penalty apologists who feel guilty about executing people but publicly support it.
"Those seeking the most humane death are either ... [this or that]."
Charlieb1488, do you believe that you are all-knowing and can tell what everyone else thinks or feels?
You tried to categorize people who have concerns over the nature of executions into two groups - (1) those who oppose capital punishment; and (2) those who support capital punishment but who feel guilty about their position.
What about people who believe in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution (and other laws around the civilized world) which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment?
You may not care if executions are done as humanely as possible, but I suspect that there are more compassionate people who are in favor of the death penalty and who are not ashamed of their support for it, but who nevertheless want executions to be as quick and painless as possible.
Let's ask:
Is there anyone in this forum who does not fit into Charlieb1488's two categories – that is, is there anyone who supports the death penalty without shame and yet believes that the government should ensure executions are as painless as possible?
Please let us know.
The trouble is most criminals have a chemical imbalance in their brain or lack emotions , this is why a psychopathic person can watch some one suffer and feel no remorse.
Until we find out how the Brain work we will have this problem.
Bernie Madoff is one he felt no remorse for the damage he has done just like out politicians.
who cares about criminals having the least painful execution... they are scums of the earth.. i have no pity for them.. they shouldn't even have a last meal before they die...
Guys, i am a sml time farmer with a normal job. I raise pigs, chooks and cattle. Not a big deal, no money made, kill to feed family only.
all bullshit aside a bullet well placed is as humane as you can get. Do it quick clean and respectfully.
I feel most sorry for the animals that they are using(and have used- that poor elephant), who were innocent and have done nothing to deserve this treatment
I feel most sorry for the pig.
and yeah, go on!!! do your research how to kill humanly bloody inocent prisoners on guilty little bunnies! shame!!! ;(
You cannot be to sad for the exacutions because they have done something very wrong
Do you realy want to execute a prisoner who brutaly raped, tortured, or killed your teen daughter, your child, your gilfriend, husband, mother or father.... someone who didnt give a monkey about their human rights... Do you realy want someone like this to die painless and human death... ????
Me personaly, I would torture them , cut and burn them slowly!! make them suffer!!! they deserve it!! they made their choice when they chosen to kill or commit crime! are they mentaly unstable? doesnt matter..
surely, i think the best way for criminal to understand what he ve done, to punish him is to let him alive, in very strict prison for life with minimal contact with other people !!! but unfortunately in this case that would be the taxpayer who would pay for his stay in prison. so, Kill them !!! i dont care.
First, what to do if you actually gave the wrong person a death sentence? What if your, teen daughter, child etc. did get blamed for a murder he/she did not commit, get tortured and then killed. A year later they find out it was the wrong person? No turning back aye? This leads us to my second question; If we as a society give a death sentence, even if its to the correct person, are we better our selves? If he is not allowed kill a person, who are we to do the same?
(Ofc. not saying it should be allowed at all, just pointing out)
Ohh, and taxpayers paying for prison stay, how much is a human life worth, can you set a price on that?
how bout we reform them not kill them ?
I'm a fine upstanding gentleman and the Guillotine is a French invention.. ugh.. so let's just not talk about that shall we..
Too rediculous. Giving us a bit of car-crash curiosity fodder in guise of a 'respectable' doc then out of respect for our high 'sensibilities' and 'taste' dear saintly viewer, sparing you any gory old decapitations.
Whining hipocrisy.
The pro capital punishment guy at the end put the hipocrites right in their place. Let's not be coy, capital punishment is about revenge -- he's right out there saying it. If he had his way there would be rack and hot pincers on every death row in 24/7 use. And he'd be damned right. In the interests of honesty you either make the death sentence a torture to fit what was inflicted by the criminal, true to the need for revenge expressed in its continuance as a social norm or you totally do away with it. It''s that simple. This search for the 'perfect painless method' is creepy and horrible even beyond any torture and stinks of even worse duplicity (measured out through the oh-so-concerned teeth of some white neoliberal creeping jesus) than what a criminal is accused of when he breaks the social contract. Social hipcrisy is the killer here, more than the convicted even.
i just came for the title muhahaha...
*oh.. the humanity!*
One word: guillotine.
I suppose if dignity matters, then hypoxia is a surefire route, but if it were me that was about to be executed I'd take the French standard over the others in a heartbeat.
I find it the height of absurdity that, without exception, those who claim any form of execution is painless are still among the living.
naive
I'm staunchly against the death penalty because I believe that the legal system, on a fundamental level, should be for removing dangers from society rather than punishing offenders. Otherwise we're a society based on revenge. By killing someone, we're removing the possibility of correcting mistakes and imprisonment for life still achieves the same goal while leaving that option open.
That being said, I don't understand why executions don't just use carbon monoxide. It's quick, painless, and doesn't produce gore or unpleasant reactions.
The pig didn't seem to like it very much. I trust his instincts.
The pig didn't experience carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide makes you feel tired and you pretty much just go to sleep and never wake up.
Also the guy at the end was sort of correct in my view.
Although i think the sentences should be carried out much quicker rather than letting them wait years before they are executed.... then again that is also part of the punishment too i think... the torment of not knowing.
If the method of execution was so painless and euphoric than it is possible that more people would be on death row.
The "Chair" and the "Chamber" are also there to entice fear into the populace, it makes normal people think twice about killing.
Hypoxia looked okay. How about heroin overdosing? or Alcohol poisoning?
Id prefer those 3 than hydrogen cyanide... at least there would be some kind of a "buzz".
Assuming i was in the position of being executed and choosing the method that is.
The guy in the end is sooo wrong. he says "punishment at its root should be painful"
death => punishment
pain => another punishment
so he is saying they should be punished twice?... thats not justice
get it?
cause when the prisoner is given the death sentence...thats his punishment!...DEATH
when u make it a PAINFUL death then its...two punishments
what about the guy in switzerland that offers the "legal euthanasia". Watching the doco on him made me feel he had the process down painlessly and humanely. Drink two solutions....BAM dead in the chair?
Great documentary! The expert at the end surprised me with his opinion, he spoke with such conviction. He truly believed that people sentenced to death should experience some form of pain in their last minutes of life--it's justice.
It's shocking to think that a man of such education and expertise would have such an opinion. Makes you think about how deluded other people in power really are.
Anyways, i think Michael's response, that the gov't should make a death sentence look as little like murder as possible, be as human as possible, should be the standard for any country using the death penalty. But like Mike said, it's all subjective.
better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
So 10 child molestors go free and touch up your children, you still going to feel the same?
Would you feel the same if you were the innocent person strapped to the chair waiting to die?
Good point...
Better that 1 innocent persons dies than let 10 monsters escape and create more innocent victims.
In terms of idealism, sure, but in practice, is that a concrete statement you're really prepared to make???
Beyond a reasonable doubt is, I think, a key issue here, however, this means a great deal of debate over points of law and I am certainly not qualified to enter that argument, however, I have to disagree regarding revenge killing.
It can be extremely hard to get closure on the death of a loved one if you must also live with the fact the murderer/torturer/rapist/etc will some day go free. This is tantamount to torture in itself.
Knowing that the perpetrator at least will be unable to ever harm another can mean a great deal to those who have lost everything.
Very interesting doc. Not sure what all my thoughts are on the subject. I could be persuaded either way I think. I try to put myself in the victim's family's position. Like they said on the end, a painless execution may NOT be the best form of execution. Opinions?
very good documentary. Personally I am against the death penalty, but if society is insistent on keeping it, the best execution would be a painless one. Revenge for a victim will quite honestly not make them feel better. Your loved ones are still dead the only difference is that the killer is dead too. Honestly its just barbaric in every sense.
Have to say, I'm in awe of the utter barbarity and thoughtlessness of people who, in this day and age, cannot get past the idea of killing criminals in cold blood for revenge. You can give these people all the stats you like, they will say it makes us safer, not true, it makes you less safe b/c hundreds of millions are spent on essential legal costs for only a handful of crimes. Most murderers do not get the death penalty, only for capital crimes. Then there's serial killers like the Green River killer who got life, so it is done in an arbitrary way. How does that make you safer? If you are capable of rational thought, then you would prefer PREVENTION to revenge killing.
Spend that money on better policing which has the effect of preventing ALL crimes, not just capital crimes, making everyone safer. That's the reason that wherever the death penalty has been abolished, murderers and crime in general has gone down.
But people continue to be emotional about this issue, instead of looking at the facts, it's as if they are so blinded by emotion, anger and lust for revenge that they cannot think rationally. The truth is, it becomes plainly obvious that those who are all for killing prisoners in cold blood, really do not have a clear understanding of the issues, or if they are given these facts, they cling to their knee jerk reactions anyway. Which is a shame. This is a blight on any country that continues to live in medieval times, but especially the only Western nation who still practices it, while everyone else has modernised. The US, and even there not every state has it and it is slowly being phased out, state by state.
I think there is a true story of a senitor in the U.S. who was opposed to the death penalty for many years until his own family (wife and kids) were butchered by a home invasion robbery and torture. He changed his mind. Would you still be opposed to the death penalty if your family had been the one murdered after being raped and/or tortured? What would you personally do in that situation? Just curious.
I would "possibly" contemplate killing myself, no killing of an inmate would make me feel better knowing that the killer was once a child who got cheated by life itself.
Not an easy scenario for sure!
az
Az, you're right. There'd be no "satisfaction" in the killing of the criminal, I think, if that was all you were living for. Not sure, however, that I wouldn't still want to see them put to death. It just seems "just" in some cases. I hope I never have to be faced with such a situation either. I don't want to even think about it. . . . . perhaps in this case your heart is bigger than mine.
Sorry it has taken so long, but the reply ended up in my junk mail which I was cleaning out! I thought I would reply to this, as it is an interesting subject and I see this question very often.
My answer is obvious and without hesitation. Nothing would change and if you are someone who believes in the death penalty AFTER such a situation, then you probably were not really convinced beforehand of the reasons why you took that view. Alternatively, you may understandably be clouded by emotion, but out justice system does not use that as it's basis.
I do not believe in killing people for their crimes, anymore than you might believe in burning someone at the stake. No matter what that person has done, it is the act of killing or torturing them that I do not agree with, so why would that change just because they have killed my family? That doesn't mean I condone what they did & believe that society should be protected (something a civilized society can achieve without resorting to killing), but it isn't going to bring my family back so why would I change anything? Do I get a kick out of killing for revenge? Nope.
It makes no sense to me. It only makes sense to someone who has not reached a level of belief that killing for crimes is wrong and out of the question. I do not live in a society that agrees to kill as some kind of 'punishment' for a crime. It is not justice, it is killing.
For what reason do we no longer burn people at the stake? How about the rack? The iron maiden? Dismembering them in public? Drawing and quartering?
We have become more civilized. If you saw that being done to people in Europe, what would you think of them? If you disagreed with say, public dismemberment, would you think it's ok as long as their family member was the victim? That's pretty much how the United States is viewed by others over this topic. Barbaric and uncivilized.
GOOD ! I hope they do feel the pain and as much as their victm's. No one even considers what their victm's have went through. Usually they do give Phenobarb or a sedative 1st. We use the pancuronium prior to intubation in the hospital. Actually a bullet 2 the head would be the most affordable and it would be painless ! Not much 2 it ! I say line up all the VIOLENT prisoners and shoot every other one, but then again that ruin the revenue and decrease the size of prisons wouldnt it? If they get an innocent one once in awhile so be it. If it was me I'd accept it in order to create a safe society !
Well, I would't want to be falsely accused and executed, but you're right, a bullet to the head is the fastest and most painless I think. They still use firing squads in Utah if you want to die that way!
at the end of the day, capital punishment is still a form of revenge, dictated by a random group of people with no knowledge of what that person was really like.
It just all still seems abit primitive to me.
Excuse me, "no knowledge of what that person was really like"? The question of capital punishment is not "did this person donate to goodwill and are the other 'good' things enough to balance this all out?". It is, "what act did they commit, and how awful was it?". We dont need to know what that person was like in life (good or bad) or how environmental issues may have pushed them into crime. Every one of us could possibly have some reason for a whole slew of commitable crimes, the difference is free will. All things being equal, accounting for past life should not (and thankfully does not) have any bearing on capital punishment. We are talking about fit sentence for crime, not revenge. An eye for an eye if you will.
I don't understand for the life of me why they just don't give them an injection of pentobarbital or nembutal. I mean really, its used for the purposes of euthanasia in Europe. If you can find a way to humanely put to death a terminally ill patient then why is it so damn hard to find a human way to put to death a criminal?
outstanding documentary
I'm a recovering heroin addict, and in 2010 i actually overdosed and was clinicaly dead for 8min until the paramedics arived and injected me with narcan. and to tell you the truth it was exactly like falling asleep. i dont like sharing it, but since i cleaned up in november im not embarresed to say. i really dont remember anything past injecting and puting my belt back on, everything after that is blank until the narcan hit me, and i propped up like the exorcist wondering why im so cold! lol. but on some real shit, that would be the solution to a pain free death, and if their worried about not having docs around to inject, russia has developed an aresol analouge of fentanyl thats 1000 times more potent that heroin and 100 times more potent that fentenyl. they actually used it on the opera house terrorist hostage crisis in checheya. look it up.
Thanks a lot. It's nice to know that it's not painful.
I guess I never really thought that capital punishment should exist ... I think those prisoners should rot in jail, and be punished for their actions. Then again, I guess we pay a lot of money to keep these guys in jail. I'm not too sure if they should get off so easy with a painless death.
That was very informative and it showed all the ways that the United States kills the death row inmates and it was found out by Mr. Michael that their are better ways to kill the people that deserve the death penalty Great Job!! sir but the person that you interviewed last said it all the victims of these monsters deserve to die but not to die without some sort of pain if the person that is going to die killed a member of your family mother, sister, wife, daughter by means of suffering then it would give your heart joy to know that that person is suffering as well besides everybody who went through something like that would want that person to die by their own hand instead of the local government the person may not be suffering to the degree that your love one suffered but they are in some sort of pain as they are dying in other words an eye for an eye think about it your love one was raped tortured and then murdered by this sick animal and I don't like the fact that people refer those monsters as animals because animals kill for a reason to protect to eat and to survive the people that commit those kinds of crimes are not animals but monsters we come up with new words everyday we need to find words to describe them I think the word monsters is to good for the likes of them but with that said a Great Job!! sir I really enjoyed your commentary you keep my attention from the start to finish I will tell all my friends and post this on my facebook page Thank You again yours truly Mr. Richard Parker
The last interchange was the most revealing. I believe those working in the prisons doing the executions also share that attitude. I think they botch executions deliberately in order to cause pain. I think they are pretty messed up. A painless death penalty is what the public needs and desires. Collectively we are not like the killers who want to inflict pain and suffering. We want a just and humane execution if there is to be an execution at all. I can't believe the thinking of some people.
If you want an 'execution' at all, you are no different to any other killer.
I dare say, you are making sweeping assumptions about crime, society, and pertinent statistics. I feel this topic is utterly dependent on things such as: crime rates, sociological causes, statistics and the capacity of society to manage criminals, the ability (or inability) to reform a given criminal.... It's an issue we really like to judge with our sentiments, ignoring the true complexity of the problem, as well as what realistically constitutes pragmatism, or at the other extreme a very poor use of resources..
Those elements of complexity are true, so could you please explain why you wouldn't burn someone at the stake over such 'complexity'?
In war the object is to make the other side give in by the use of overwhelming force. Killing and destruction of property is a byproduct. No soldier really wants to go over and kills someone he does not; or will ever know as a person. A soldier's job is to go where he or she is told to go and fight whom he or she is told to fight. This all couldn't be possible provided both sides made nice and just got along with each other.... maybe even tried to show more compasion with the weak minded people who committed the most unspeakable crimes and; at the same time punish them in a way that's just but does not violate the enalienable right to life even though; a court, witnesses and evidence proves beyond any doubt; and even then, did the person him or her self openly and honestly confess to the crime; but the death penalty is not the answer. If it could bring back the ijured party to fully restoration of what they lost, I would say line em up and turn on every execution method the United States has and start frying them. However the people this person has harmed, do have a right to some restitution. this person can spend the rest of his life in prison and work to earn money, however, 80% should be made available to the victims family and their heirs for the remainder of that criminals life.
@Eugler
Your arguments became quite obviously petty, I imagine as a result of your realisation as to their weaknesses and your inability to produce a sound counter argument to Reasons Voice. Also your attempts to undermine Reasons Voice is unnecessary when clearly no reference to the Nazis was intended, and just for future sometimes to appreciate a metaphor it should not be taken so literally.
Humane & kill can never go together in the same sentence.
Wait until one of your relatives dies at the hand of some idiot with an over-inflated ego and who is somehow protected by a legal loophole... and I bet your opinion will change. But I hope it will never happen to you.
Really? The word "humane" literally means "to be human", and the first human skeleton has a spear head stuck in his rib cage so....you know...killing is totally humane.
murderers dont give their victims any mercy!
why would we need a more humane way of killing a murderer?! its ridiculous!!! waste of time and money.
people! people! take some acid!!!!
@Eugler; I see what you are saying. I think you are perhapse taking to litteral a view of the analogy. I don't intend to infer that these crimonals are dead pieces of meat, just that they are harmfull to the whole. That they are not susseptable to anytype of rehabilitation and as such always a danger and a burden uppon us as a society. I am not addressing organized crime here or gangs those are more socio-economic motivated criminalities and therefore different altogether. I am only refering to the mentally deranged sociopath.
Your fear of giving power to a governmental body to decide who lives and who dies is a valid one but does not apply here. It is the jury of citizens that determins guilt and aplicability of capitol punishment not representatives of the state. If you have concern about the states ability to condemn someone look to both the health care bill and it's assigning governmental staff to determin appropriate care and or if any care is given, And the ability of the state to condemn based uppon "Traitor" status.
@ Reasons Voice
There's no need to apologize, I didn't think you meant it in this way and I certainly didn't want to imply it. I really don't want to nail you on this but you have to think this through. The point is that this analogy has a certain purpose. While we probably can compare society to a living organism in some ways, in this way we cannot. We probably all agree that amputating a limb to save a life is the right thing to do. After all you sacrifice a dead piece of meat like a leg to save human being. But society is not a person and what is even more important the persons to be "severed" are not dead pieces of meat. They are persons themselves. So the analogy tries to transport the situation of a grave but clear moral choice to other situations like this one. But it only works if you see the people it refers to as dead flesh and not human beings. And remember eventually it's up to anyone to "define" who's just a chunk of meat and who is not.
Concerning the fact that other inmates learn antisocial behaviour from sociopaths I'm not sure I'm getting it. Of course the best way to make a small time criminal into a professional with connections is sending him to jail. Big problem no doubt. But if you apply this argument to the death sentence then we are again at the point where you have to kill a significant number of inmates to reach even a minor advantage if any at all. And moreover you would have to do that not on the basis of what they have done but on the basis of how much of a bad influence they are. To propose one of the imaginable paradoxes this produces you would have to kill each and every member of organised crime but there would be no reason to kill pedophiles no matter what they have done to their victims because pedophilia is nothing you learn from other pedophiles. (Sociopathy in its medical meaning is not learnable from others either by the way.)
The story you are telling is terrible. I can absolutely understand that you think they should die. If I would listen to my heart exclsivly I couldn't help to agree with you. But there is more to us than the heart, there is reason and usually reason is a better adviser in the long term.
The strongest argument(but far from the only one) against the death penalty is simple. We cannot grant the state or any of its inhabitants the authorisation to kill. We cannot give this authority to institutions of our countries. There will be people abusing the democracy that is meant to protect us and there will be times when democracy itself is in danger. If it is already acceptable for institutions to kill for certain reasons then all there is to change is the reasons. You don't have to convince anyone that some people are just dead chunks of meat, that has been agreed on before, all you have to do is fiddle around with exactly which people are refered to by that. And that's much easier than we usually imagine.
When I was 4 years old, my father was murdered by two cops in north west Indiana for no othe reason other than the fact he was a black man at the wrong place at the wrong time. It was known who the two cops were that were involved in the murder, but nothing was done about it. Whereis my justice. I don't want them to be executed for what they did however, it would be nice to have them locked up in solitary confinement for the reat of their lives if either or both of them are still alive. Further they should never be allowed to have visitation with their loved one once it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they commited this brutal act. that for me is punishment. the days and nights of never having any type of human contact let alone with family or frinds will make them wish they were executed instead of being locked in a cell and neve being able to go out for even one hour of fresh air for the rest of their lives. But death would only be a mere spectacle that last for afew moments and then it's over. Some say the state decides who lives and who dies because the state was offended by a person's actions. I say the state was not offended I was.
Like I said I was unaware of those associations and apologise for the affect of association it may have caused. While the words may be the same I do feel that my use of them is much more constrained. I look to absolute unquestionable guilt in a criminal of sigular malice as subject to my metaphore not simply a political opposition nor a scapegoat in a ruthless regiem of teror.
@Eugler; Thank you for pointing out the association between my statment and the Nazis. I was unaware of their use of that slogan and am ashamed of the connection it invoked. To explain what it is I meant; A diseased limb is not the same as a non-functioning limb. In example gangreen, It is an infection that causes direct harm to whe whole. Unlike say a paralized limb, which is in essence harmless. A society or community is not unlike a living organism in that it has individuals who serve differing function all toward the ultimate survival of the whole. A sociopathic individual who actually gains a sense of happiness or contentment from causing pain and death to others is not only counter to that ultimate goal but destructive to it. And while removing that person from society, ie incarceration, is the more "humane" option it is not truely a removal. They are incarcerated alongside of other individuals who may indeed be rehabilitatable. For instance a youn offender who is jailed for dealing drugs. He may have engaged in that criminality not out of malice but by necessity. Now he is in prison and his social network includes these sociopatic individuals. During the 3-5 year sentance that youth becomes indoctrinated into the criminal mind set and thus the system ment to rehabilitate becomes a training ground for more heartless criminals. In that way the sociopath continues to harm even the outside society. The other option would be solitary confinement and that in its' self is a topic of heated debate as to it's inhumanity. I am not gung ho capitol punishment but I do without doubt believe it is aplicable in some cases. There was a recent case in Connecticut State that i feel defines my belief. Two men entered a home where they proceded to beat the father unconcious, repeatedly rape and then kill the mother (in front of her children) then murdered her. The two men then sexually assaulted the two daughters and ultimately tied them both to their beds surrounded by their belongings (in the yougere girls case teddy bears) and set them on fire to burn alive. DnA evidence as well as the testimony of the father, who survived to crawl to a neighbors home and phone police, have been presented. The two men were aprehended and the first one was just convicted in past weeks. Neither man has shown the slightes remorse for their actions and neither show any sign of rhehabilitative promise. Those men given their nature, their actions, and undoubtable overwealming evidence of guilt should in my opinion be put to death. You mention the prolonged suffering mentally of the condemned. I see your point here and to an extent agree. I feel that a sentance of death, once reached, should be carried out within 24 hours of verdict. To my resoning 24 hours of waiting for death is no more inhumane a suffering than what was endured by the victims and is therefore justifiable. I don't expect everyone to agree with me quite the contrary. And yes emotion does play a role in my opinion and I do not feel that fact makes it flawed. Emotion is a part of what it is to be human and when ballanced with reason is a great aspect to have.
Since I'm already arguing with history I need to ad that it was also one of the main slogans which communist regimes used to justify eradicating the bourgeoisie. To save the people (which are essentially the working class) one should eradicate these parasites like one severes the limb of an infected body to preserve and amend the whole. Always keep in mind to what end certain trails of thought can lead.
@ Reasons Voice
I see the point you are making. Of course a criminal is not rendered harmless when he is caught. I should have formulated the sentence in a less missunderstandable way. I was trying to differentiate between killing someone who poses a direct threat and someone that is secured and under control to an extend where you can announce to him the date of his death, let him wait for it for months/years and calmly walk him into a room where he knows he is not getting out of alive. So if you allow me I will reformulate to prevent further misunderstanding and say "from whom no immediate threat can emanate".
I was joking around with the voice of reason because your arguments sound rather emotional than rational. Could you for instance tell me in what logical way killing people parallels severing the limb of an infected body? Didn't you just say that because it sounds good? I've got to warn you though because this was also one of the more popular slogans the Nazis used to justify the "eutanasia" of handicaped people to purify the race of those "flawed subjects".
Apparently it sounded good back then as well.
I'm not accusing you of being a fascist or something but to put it in your words: "I don’t fault you in your opinion as I have little doubt that it arises from an innocent ignorance of certain realities".
And yes Eugler ballance is reason. Reason is not always pretty nor kind, but always objective and fair. I try to remain so in my opinions, at times more successful than others. I do feel that looking at each individual for their crimes and possible rehabilitation AS an INDIVIDUAL is quite reasonable.
@Eugler; "It doesn’t change the fact that none of us have the right to kill someone from whom no further threat can emanate." If I am wrong in my interpretation of "no further threat can emenate" I stand corrected. What happened to my friend was an oversite by staff that is true however let my point out why this happened. One, the prisoner had been in for regular therapy with her on a weekly basis for over one year and never acted inapropriately prior to this day. That is why he was trusted as a priosoner "on good faith" to have private unrestrained visits. Also I am uninformed on German prison reform and conitions however here in the US if the prisoners were all restrained and guarded during therapy sessions certain members of the public and political movements would raise he11 about the "inhumane treatment". I am not condoning mass extermination of all criminals that would be madness. I am saying that in some cases when a disease in beyond cure one must remove the afflicted limb to save the whole.
@ Reasons Voice
Indeed there are pretty similar stories. Something very similar happened in Germany last year. Although that is a horrible story I can't help but pointing out that apparently your friend made an error of judgement when she sat herself inside a room without any help with an unrestrained rapist. This of course doesn't justify anything that happened to her and I have no intention of implying that. But nobody said these people are harmless as you are implying, they are dangerous and they have be handled accordingly. Don't you think it is a pretty fishy argument to say that the errors made inside the prison regime justify preventivly killing inmates?
Of course you could easily prevent them from killing and raping each other by killing them first. Still this somehow doesn't sound like the voice of reason to me.
@Eugler; Where you make a mistake in your argument here is when you say "from whom no further threat can eminate". How so? Not only have prisoners killed eachother, raped eachother, and assaulted eachother. They have also killed guards and other prison staff. Many have continued to run gangs and organized crime from behind bars. I had a friend who believed in rehabilitation and felt empathy for those criminals. She became a therapist and worked in a state prison in New Jersey. One day while at work she was talking with a multiple rapist murderer in a therapy session. She had worked with him many times over a year and a half. But this day he baricaded the door and while brandishing a homemade knife proceded to have a stand off with athorities for over six hours. During those six hours he raped her repeatedly. Yes indeed quite harmless. I don't fault you in your opinion as I have little doubt that it arises from an inocent ignorance of certain realities. If you fully imersed yourself into the mind and behaviors of many of these criminals your opinion would undoubtedly change as your eyes opened. If you don't believe my story look it up it happened in 2002 I believe, In northern New Jersey. I am sure you could easily find more similar stories as well.
@ bambi
I find what your wiriting dangerously misguided. There is no such thing as "pure justice", never was, never will be. It's far from being that simple. Furthermore you are writing that justice is not a matter of opinion. Well, obviously it is otherwise people wouldn't discuss it. There are not many things that are more a matter of opinion and perspective as the question of what is just and what not.
This doc was interessting as much as it was disgusting. Since we are human it is us who determine what the term humane means. I find it dreadful to imply that murdering someone is a humane thing to do and only depends on who is giving you the authority to do so. It is furthermore ridiulous to imply that institutionalising the killing of prisoners is a way of making it less of a murder. There are plenty of simple and cheap ways to kill someone. A single bullet between the eyes or in the neck, a knife to the heart or a club over the head are some of the simplest I could come up with. But apparently that's a too honest way to put into practise. Somehow it seems to be something different if someone flicks a switch. It's not. It's just a way to lessen the feeling of the executioner (and his supporters) getting his hands dirty and it is naiv in a horrible way.
What we call morals is entirely ours for the making. It isn't some fundamental law of nature or given to us by a deity. It is us who create the concept of morals as well as their shape. And it seems obvious that part of creating decent morals is the confession that no human being (let alone a state) has the right to take another human beings life except in self defence.
Some people argue that by doing horrific deeds some criminals have forfeited their right to live. While I think that is a very arguable argument it doesn't have any relevance. It doesn't change the fact that none of us have the right to kill someone from whom no further threat can emanate. To do so would be utter hypocrisy.
I see now reason for someone to murder others to obtain a method of death they could easily administer themselves with a tank of nitrogen.
We do 'have to punish peopel.' But not punishment alone. Discipline must be administered in order to correct someone's bad behavior. People need to be rehabilitiated as they are punished. Some peope would say that isolation in prison is both, but that's not true. We have a created a prison culture which promotes more criminal behavior. The recidivism rate is around 75%, and our prisons are overcrowded. Sending more people to jail only teaches them how be a better criminal. There is no logic behind life sentences. Either you rehabilitate them for reentrence into society or you remove them permanently from society. Death by hypoxia is cheap and merciless way to remove a person from society. We have only two logical choices in how to punish a life-taking criminal. Either you have mercy on them and attempt to rehabiliated them, so they don't murder again. Or you don't take that risk, and you make it known to everyone that if they murder, they will be murdered by the state. The death penalty can be a deterrent if we restructure how its carried out. No more years of appeal, no more reverse desicions years of they were sentenced. (unless they actually are found innocent) No more racist judges sending more blacks to jail than whites for the same crime. We can fix this, we can make it work.
Wow, the guy at the end gave me chills. What a sicko. 'You have to punish people'. Why should it give you pleasure, knowing another human being is suffering pain no matter WHAT they've done. It shouldn't.
I do see a possible problem to hypoxia... which is that people might want the death penalty if they're suicidal. Suicidal people might gun for the death penalty because it seems (to me) like a lovely way, relaxing way to die... that could cause problems.
Anyway, I love the idea of making a humane and quick way to mass kill farm animals like that. Wonderful.
Any discrimination and cost problems of the death penalty can be solved.
The death penalty is racist at it's heart when 41% of the people on death row are black folks when we only make up 13% of the population. Additionally black folks are more likely to be murdered by our own kind in this country. in most of those cases non of them received the death penalty. Right now in our prisons we have people who have admittedly performed mass murder that have not been sentenced to death. "the worst of the worst" I guess some get better deals than others. Further, It has been proven that a black person is 14 times more likely to be sentenced to death in this country for killing a white person than a white person killing a black. does that make white persons more better than blacks? Considering the fact that Some whites are being sentenced to die for crimes committed against black folks must be telling. My belief is that a person who comits violent act against others must have had a bad childhood or lived in poverty and were not equiped to deal with the hardships this society sometimes causes. in this case, The most culpable people who should be held accountable are the greedy businessmen who start businesses in this country and then sell out to hire people in other countries for cheap and almost foced labor. And to all you white necon racist pigs out there who say if you don't like it, go back to africa, let me tell you some thing; If it wasn't for the many technilogical things we black folks invented, because you sick little neanderthals failed to invent, you wouldn't have things to minimize the risk of car accidents at intersections, storage facilities for plasma, or even open heart surgery just to name a few. the death penalty has no place in a civilized society.
The death penalty is a barbaric form of punishment. Actually, it's not punishment; it's murder. the most premeditated murder. Here in the United States we have some evidence that some of our countrymen who have been put to death are really factually innocent of the crimes that cost them their lives. And in one case it may be proven that no crime was committed. The problem with th blood thirsty of our population is that they feel if a person on trial for any crime is already guilty. However, When the prosecution is proven wrong they will not admit to it. A man was released from death row in louisiana and sued the prosecutor for civil rights violations. He won and the jury awarded him 14 million dollars. On appeal however it will be up to the U.S. Supreme court if this man desrves the award because in most cases the prosecution cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution. In this case however, it was poven that the prosecution withheld evidence that wolud have proven this man was innocent all along. In a system so corrupt as our current criminal justice system, we should not be putting any one to death whether they are guilty or not. some fo you ask would you rather pay to keep a person locked up for life at tax payer expence. I ask you; isn't that parcially what paying taxes is about. I'd rather pay taxes to keep a person locked up than to risk the posiblity of killing one who is innocent or in one case no crime was comitted at all. To all of you who support state sanction murder of even the guilty, I ask you one question; If it is later found out if a person who was executed is factually innocent, would you be willing to be strapped to an apparatus and killed yourselves?
absolute justice is to afflict the offender with a totally equal burden the offended afflicted the victim with.
If a man kills his brothers son, absolute justice is to murder the son his own son.
I don't advocate such punishment. my heart could not bear to commit such an act, as does the heart the vast majority of people on this earth.
In addition, it's not practical. The man who murders his brothers son has the chance of not loving or valuing his own son as much as his brother had valued his son.
murder may value his son 1% less than his brother does, and the justice would not be absolute and equal.
I used the phrase "child for a child" on purpose to express how equal absolute justice must be.
In place of substituting a child's life for the father's sin, he reaps the consequences of his own sin with is life. I am of the opinion that is fair and is in a practical sense justice.
I agree with your statement, "Someone who is not responsible in any way should not suffer for the crimes of another."
Within our justice system, that is how it should be.
Let me note that in reality, everyone suffers the consequences of actions the generations before them, as well as we suffer the consequence of each others actions.
We should be happy we can devise a justice system that leaves people accountable for their own actions.
@Bambi,
I agree with most of what you are saying, but you lost me at "a child for a child". It's not justice to kill or harm a baby or child because their parents are child murderers, sadists or pedophiles.
Someone who is not responsible in any way should not suffer for the crimes of another. They should be judged separately, and treated as individuals.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I envision a sweet and somber room, with a soft chair, natural lighting, and a clean white mask. allow the offender to sit in comfort and confront their sins.
its an elegant way to kill.
beautiful.
what's insane and wicked is to prohibit justice from our most sick brothers and sisters.
to let evil and danger live in a costly non-rehabilitative race divided, gang ruled, hate fed correctional facility is cruel and wicked.
the merciful thing to do is remove them from our society and complete the circle of justice. a merciful justice.
justice is beautiful.
@ bambi
for you to think that ..killing this way is a beautiful method...,
i think you are either insane or extremely wicked.
you're not doing the criminal (innocent or guilty) any favors by letting him live prison life for the rest of his life.
this is a beautiful method of calmly letting a sick human being wrought what their sins have brought.
with this cheap painless execution there are not negative aspects. only the foolishly indoctrinated would oppose the execution of evil men.
we can fix our justice system, this is a significant step in our progress towards true justice.
justice is not a matter of opinion. an eye for an eye, and hand for hand, a house for a house, a child for child, all of these are pure justice.
if your hearts cannot abide by pure justice, then we must use death, a painless death as a substitute for pure justice.
death, the uncertainly and fear it holds is punishment enough, let us bring sweet death to the doorstep our a sick brethren, the atrocious criminal.
death will come to the innocent and to the guilty. for the guilty it is the nation's and her people's moral duty to bring swift death upon those value life so little enough to bring it swiftly upon the innocent.
whether they lose their temper for mere moments or plan for years, both have forfeited their lives the moment they robbed it from their brother.
let it not become our responsibility or our sin to execute our brothers. let it become our brothers responsibility to keep their own life by preserving the lives of everyone.
if a human chooses to kill another human. we MUST give them what they deserve. to remove their life. not in anger or revenge, but for our humanity, for justice.
Just glad I'm Canadian
Morphine en mass and a cianide capsule inbetwwen the teeth of victim, the press the jaw to crack the capsule... done...
thats how frau Göebles killed her kids after Hitler killed himself... its sleeping and no pain and quick death...
why does it have t be so advanced?
Hello, I have found this documentary very interesting because not many tough such topics. Through reading some of the comments I realize that you people like give pain as much as people what have killed with cold blood. In fact most people that have killed are one way or another toughed by sociological disorders and/or have been victims of abuse while they were children. By saying you want them to die as brutally as it's possibly can be done, is like saying that all mentally ill people should be slaughtered. I think that least painful death isn't much different as any other form of death, spare their souls and let them die the most humanly death.
I am still confused about capital punishment, sometimes I am so against it, and some times I am screaming for the condemned to be killed, revived and killed again, over and over for the heinous crime. What I found out is that, I am for the death penalty when it is proven without doubt that the condemned is indeed guilty, and that the crime committed had to do with children and the sick.
I think it's horrible that he rejected this method in the end. I do believe death penalty is the best option in some chases. But not through torture. The nitrogen gas seemed like a great method of execution (and farm animal slaughter).
If a country is going to torture criminals to death, they should at least be honest about it. The USA is lying to it's people (and the rest of the world) by providing ways of execution that seem painless, but are actually excruciating. I previously believed it was out of ignorance that these methods were still in use. But this documentary proved that the people in charge have no problem with torturing their inmates to death.
I don't believe in execution as a way of revenge. But as a way of getting rid of those that cannot function in society. It's no use keeping them alive forever in a prison cell. If you are not going to rehabilitate them, or put them to any good use, then put them down. In my mind, it's the most humane and practical thing to do.
If you kill in cold blood you should die painfully and slowly.
The pro-CP are just retar*s.
OK Malestrom
NOW say that same *&^% to the murderer... does it sound the same?
Guillotine.
How can murder least resemble murder? A dead corpse in front of you that you killed, resembles murder. What if a murderer has a gas chamber in his home and brings his victims there and just likes to watch the expressions on their faces as they 'painlessly' die? In a court of law will he be excused because it least resembled murder? Get a grip. Don't try to placate your conscience like 'Royals' at a dinner party sipping tea, oblivious of their armies on either shore, slaughtering millions as something out of site out of mind and your conscience is clear of due to that kind of psychosis. If they're dead, you killed them.
Yea Sox. Pumping blood to vital organs is voluntary.
Why not.... given the convict is really a murderer, simply hurt him for his crimes against humanity. hurt him until he no longer wishes to pump blood to his vital organs. no death intended, just the inevitable result.
Capital punishment is for the living, so that the aggreived can go some way to getting justice. It is about retribution, and I think is justified.
Those that suffer the effect of the crime, should have recourse to capital punishment, eye for an eye. I don't believe that capital punishment should be humane. The weak willed, do gooding element in society have watered down our laws, and have exposed society to crime without severe consequence. That in itself is a crime, and the do gooder should be tried and executed for crimes against humanity.
Why keep human refuse alive in prison at the expense of everybody, including the victims. Despatch them immediately, or use prisoners for medical experiments and leave the poor innocent animals alone.
@Cyrax, So your solution is to execute about a quarter million people? Or maybe the whole 400,000 inmates and start from a clean slate? Yea that sounds like a completely normal thing to do... For a psychopath like you.
I think the whole legal system needs to be thrown in the garbage and burned. It is extremely outdated, corrupted and just makes no sense for the modern world.
Ahh yes. @Alkem you must be the representative from Utopia.
It's people like the pro-death penalty fellow that are destroying the reputation of America. He is apparently no respecter of life and seems to strongly believe that his position is noble. The demons tat are plaguing his life are making him do their works. Shame on him that he has the audacity to appear on television with his ideas from hell. You are so cruel that you will pay a high price for disrespecting life that you do not create. God hears and sees you with your hateful and vengeful spirit. You are the garbage of America with Bush, Obama and other bloodthirsty killers.
@Aid That system sounds great. Also seems like people in general there are more disciplined than here in the states. For the most part if we had open door prison like that the inmates would just take off.
@Justwatch Well you know, sweden have prison in classes. Like Class A is where all the most dangerous people are.
Class B is basicly the same.
Class C and D look more like rehabs and so on.
However I know a friend that'd been in a Class D prison.
He told me that there'd been a guy in "his" prison that killed his wife and her lover. So you know, he got a chance to be in a rehab-like prison to fix his education and function in a somewhat normal society.
They used to have civilian clothes on, no fence, no gps no nothing.
Like being in a campus.
That changed after he came out though. They started to wear prison clothes, still alot like civilian clothes, and wear gps. But still no fence.
And barely anybody broke the rules.
So you can see the power of freedom here.
If theyre not treated like criminals, they wont act like criminals.
Alot of the prisoners studied there.
@Aid Sweden must be a nice place with a different class of criminal. Many of those in prison here in the US have no interest at all in school etc. Education is made available to them they would rather stab each other to gain "street cred" than get educated. There are some who can be rehabilitated and yes they should have that chance but sadly here in the US the majority are criminals for life.
@Justwatch I think that any prisoner should have the rights to live like any human being.
Cable TV and a gym is the smallest problem we have.
Here in Sweden, prisoners even have the right to study using computers, and sometimes they can even use internet for educational purpose.
Some citizens even think that criminals shouldnt be educated using taxpayers money, which seems kind of odd because a prisoner cannot pay for his/her education by himself/herself.
Sometimes prisoners come out being A-grade students with the ability to study as engineers on the outside.
Is this a bad thing or a good thing?
I think its good because now the prisoner have a higher chance to fit society rather than ending up in trouble again.
Prison should be a rehab not a torture center.
@Normal "live by the sword die by the sword" They killed first now they pay with their lives. also supported by "do unto others as you would have done unto you"
I understand the argument of many here that even one innocent man condemned to death is a travesty. Simple solution is that death penalty be limited to those cases proven beyond any doubt by DNA evidence. The same science that you support so much when it sets a man free can also be applied to putting an end to the life of a violent pariah on society. To those from other countries. Your glass house is full of stone chips. The general penal system in the US is far more lenient than in most nations. There in lies one problem. Cable TV and a full gym is often more than some have on the outside. If prison was actually punitive like it is elsewhere maybe it would actually work.
Thou shalt not kill
Interesting.
"We have to choose a killing method which least resembles murder." <- Ironic.
"Death penalty seeks revenge, not justice." (-lee evans) <- How true.
Justice, according to the Merriam-Webster online, is "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair". That, I think, would mean that the method of execution should be "parallel" to the crime the prisoner committed.
The same people who oppose abortion tend to be pro capital punishment, which tells us everything we need to know about who they are and what they stand for.
The same people who oppose capital punishment tend to be pro abortion, which tells us everything we need to know about who they are and what they stand for.
I dont understand why they try these 'humane' ways to kill people. Why don't they just shoot them in the head and be done with it. One bullet and completely painless and 100% effective. Jeez.
I have no respect for a country where killing is legal.
but why would you want one to be killed? you would learn more about their behaviour by analyzing them right?
I don't like cold blooded murdurers being out in public but that doesnt mean we can't learn more about their behaviour.
Information is the most powerful thing we have.
Without information we would be nowhere!
I'm only 5 minutes into this and I already have a solution. I don't understand why it's so hard to figure out a painless way to kill people.
1) Give them a general anaesthetic.
2) Kill them in any way you see fit.
If there 100% guilty Guillotine CHOP THERE HEADS OFF, INSTANT! OVER AND DONE WITH
BUT ITS MESSY so what do you want?
I'll spare everyone the contradiction of life being so sacred that killing is the answer. In America our justice system used to kill women for being witches. What is punishable today may be deemed nonsense tomorrow. Also technology alone has proven the AJS has killed innocent people who have been accused of murder. NO... I do not believe in being "nice" to murderers of children. But the AJS is NOT fair. Money and power are immune to the death penalty. O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Ted Kennedy... nuff' said.
@jmk:
Yeah I know. ALOT of abuse. But hey, where don't we see abuse nowdays? Corruption is everywhere. I think its better to do psychological experiments rather than killing them. You can learn from what you have, not from what you don't have.
i actually like that idea. psychological experiments could also help us understand criminals better. that has the potential to attract a lot of abuse though so you would have to be careful.
So people are looking for a humane way of killing people? I thought _killing_ people was inhumane?!?!? what a paradox right there! I dont think executions should exist, better off letting them live in prison. Or better off using them in unharmful experiments. Like psychology etc for science.
Prevention and correction is what we should concern more. Punishment is indeed a crime too.
threat of the death penalty as punishment does not deter crime. so whats the point?
@allisson
That's a horrible plan. The punishment for rape and murder first of all would be economically unfeasible and offer no chance what so ever for rehabilitation. It would make the violent even more violent and you would have a hard time finding personal to be the guards based on the dangers of the situation.
Herion
Again very unfeasible, easily exploitable and unnecessary. This wouldn't take away the demand of the drug, and let's not forget that your federal government sells opiates.
@SEBG where are you from? please tell me its not a violent place with a dictator telling you america is scum. yea we suck but its out of the general populations hands. take all complaints to the federal reserve. trust me.
Cant there be a punishment to fit most crimes? say someone rapes and murders, send them to a pow camp. torture. for life. someone sells heroine, send them to utah.jk.jk. permanent halfway house for life. war crimes? simply put them through what they did everyday, until they die. and thats my idea. just a few examples.
ah american, youll never understand, try to find a way to kill human whit humanity instead of finding method to resolve the real problem at the base which is poverty, racism, and old crappy capitalist philosophy, pfff, should kill the governer instead cause they are not doing their job right and make people suffer of that, that is the real crime
two wrongs don't make a right. Right ?
“Hatred is never ended by hatred but by love” a Quote by Buddha.
We are desensitized by our media, our war, our absolute chaos in what we are.
If a human kills a human it does not give government the right to kill. The US is paged as a Democracy yet with this brutal and backward policy it is no better in its treatment of a prisoner than, Iraq, Iran. It is it's very people in the US who need to be ashamed of themselves.
Nice to meet you,
Ivan the terrible?
Triad
"SOME VIGILANTE SCUM".
Nice to meet you.
@ Jmk
"the death penality is just an excuse for sociopaths to legally murder people"
HaHa brilliant..
There really are some sick twisted people In this world,
And thanks to this documentary, some of them are exposed.
Did you see that pro capital punishment guy at the end??
I really wonder are Americans proud of him,
I really do. How could anyone that speaks with such total hatred, have an ounce of Intelligence. He cant see clearly, he Is completly blinded by hatred.
Anyone should realise this much, the law states that a serious criminals punishment Is death..
Death Is the punishment, full stop.
NOT SUFFERING, DEATH.
Someone above asked the question, what would you do If your daughter was raped and murdered.
A stupid question. If that happens to someone and they lose their ability to think rationally, they should have no say In what happens. Thats why Its up to a court of law to decide, NOT SOME VIGILANTE SCUM.
People who are against capital punishment are extremely deluded!.
They don't even have a basic understanding of the implications of their so called humane stand, for the criminals who deserve
death for the crimes they have committed.
I would like recommend a documentary for those who are against capital punishment, to see for themselves, what are the social repercussions of letting the criminals live.
Prison Nation (National Geographic Channel):
* With 2.2 million inmates, America has more prisoners behind bars than any other country on earth. We now have 25 percent of the world's incarcerated, with just five percent of the population.
* America’s population behind bars has gone up 1,000 percent in the last three decades. Get-tough-on-crime legislation and minimum sentencing laws are blamed for the explosion of inmates. Of all prisoners, 95 percent will be released. Half of them are currently serving a term of two years or less.
* According to correctional officers, drugs find their way inside even the most secure facilities, but the more secure a facility, the higher the price. Drugs regularly go for up to twenty times their street value behind bars.
* Among prisoners, 35 percent are drug addicts; 80 percent are drug users. One study found that 34 percent of drug users return to state prison within a year.
* Since many correction departments have outlawed tobacco in prisons, the going rate for cigarettes in some prisons has skyrocketed from pocket change to $5 per cigarette. A thimbleful of tobacco goes for as much as $50.
* There are as many as 5,000 prisons or jails in the U.S., employing at least 430,000 people as staff or correctional officers.
* In 2001, the average cost per inmate in state prisons is $22,650 per year or $62.05 a day. The taxpayer price tag is twice as much as just 15 years ago.
* The number of female inmates is increasing almost twice as fast as the men’s incarceration rate, tripling in the last decade. At least 40 percent of jailed women have minor children.
* Inmates in America’s prisons and jails aren’t evenly divided by race; African Americans make up just 13 percent of the U.S. population but 41 percent of the overall prison population. And Hispanics have 2.5 times the rate of imprisonment of non-Hispanic whites.
* More than half of male inmates and roughly two-thirds of female inmates have symptoms of a serious mental illness.
* The largest population of the mentally ill in America isn’t housed in a hospital… It’s in Los Angeles County Jail, followed by New York’s Rikers Island. In all, one-fourth of all state prison beds are occupied by the mentally ill.
* "Solitary confinement" has a new name in prison systems: segregation. Single-celled, 23-hour lock-up units in some of these prisons are designed to limit inmates’ movement and contact with other staff or inmates. Officers can care for inmates electronically — from opening an inmate’s door, to shutting off his water, to turning off his lights.
* More than 80,000 inmates are kept in isolation nationwide. The average stay in some states is now years.
jmk
what about killing people at wars? Is there any
difference? So called "War against the terror",
isn't it in line with "eye for eye" concept?
And NATO's killings of human beings in Afganistan?
I don't see violent demonstrations in Europe against such wars but everybody seem to be against
the capital punishment. What about hypocrisy?
You would just be 'unhappy' that you were going to be murdered for no reason?
I'm going to assume you forgot to type the word 'answer', and no, i would not support the murder of a rapist who killed my child, because that would make me as bad as they were.
an eye for an eye, etc.
the death penality is just an excuse for sociopaths to legally murder people.
"An eye for an eye and the whole world would go blind".
Ghandi
I disagree.
jmk
I would feel very unhappy. And you, what would your be to my question to Pipo?
Ivan
I would like to know what you would say if you ended up on death row by mistake.
Pipo
I would like to know what you would say if your
little daughter was raped and murdered.
It really doesnt matter how the state kills, its not humane by any standard. And all you people saying capital punishment is ok should be executed!
Oh yes, "revenge." (The word didn't come to mind before)
But at heart, revenge seeks cruelty against the living; their suffering is the punch-line, or focus of desire.
The knowledge of immanent death in itself might be intended to invoke distress as an expression of this desire.
But the actual killing removes the subject from ongoing concern - whether it's a suffering patient, enemy combatant, or object of hatred, dead is dead.
The death penalty ends up as a social mechanism for satisfying desires it won't discuss openly while also imposing limitations on them.
(This video more or less explicitly excludes the issues of what counts as "justice" or what the role of state should be in order to focus on its main question.)
Leave it to the pro capital punishment guy at the end to get it right: a painless death and humanity aren't equated. It should not be a function of any state to perform such tasks; the death penalty seeks revenge, not justice.
so say i take this painless gas, and i suffocate people with it in their sleep, without them even realizing it. According to this guys logic, that wouldn't be murder.
what this documentary ignores is that it is fundamentally monstrous to take a life, and killing people for killing people is completely hypocritical.
i dont understand why people want to be sensitive and humane to a person that killed another humane being and MOST LIKELY wasnt humane to his/her victim. I mean common seriously when they die its not like there gonna remeber there death they will be DEAD i mean they wont get to the after life (whatever after life is) and think "that was a painfull death" If they did something that made other people think that he/she deserves to die then they dont deserve any sympathy.....were becoming weak and afraid we need to be strong and full of courage
What fails to be discussed at the end, when there is a supposed conflict about what counts as 'perfect' execution, is that killing and punishment are completely distinct concepts.
Punishment is for the living, even if death ends it.
One connects with society's attention and interest, the other disconnects.
If you want punishment, design it as such.
Disguising punitive intentions as side-effects, rather than being explicit about them, suggests psychological censorship of other desires.
Kill the bastardso