Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    <should Dodd be allowed to waive his rights>
    
    shure

    He should be executed immediately, but not by hanging.  Why should scum
    like him get to pick how he dies?
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Hey -  Grant him the wish.... save the general public from the chance
    of the offense happening again, and save the tax payers some $$$$$
    
    Lenny
    

    re .3
    
    Lorna, he wants to die by hanging because that is how he killed is last
    victim.  I guess he wants to know how it felt or some sick thing.
    
    Karen

  When I read that he wanted hanging cause that's the way he killed the last
  child... Well, my thoughts are not printable.

  Yes, let him have his wish (to die) that is, however, don't use the hanging
  stuff (that's totally reprehensible...).

  Even in the animal kingdom, when another becomes dangerous, they are killed.

  m�chelle �ϫ

    I think he should be allowed to die if that's what he wants, but don't
    stretch him, shorten him.  The guillotine is the only known method of
    execution that is absolutely known not to cause pain.  The point of
    execution should not be retribution but rather service to the
    community.  Don't punish the victim, just eliminate him or her.
    
    -dick

 Firing squad is supposed to be pretty painless.

    Being decapitated gives me the willies Dick.  It may be painless, but
    how long does the brain remain conscious after the head is severed? 
    Just asking that gives me the shivers.  Blech, no, certainly not my
    choice for him.  I also wouldn't want a bunch of bullets slamming into
    me.  What about lethal injection?
    
    Karen

    I agree with Lorna.
    
    CK

  Dick,

  Good point. The purpose of capital punishment is to remove the problem.

  As far as methods, I have heard that cyanide is supposed to be painless, yet
  I know of one women who, after taking a cyanide capsule pleaded for people to
  save her. It appeared to be quite painful after all.

  I guess my point is, that I'm not sure if there are any methods that are void
  of pain. And, personally speaking, decapitation seems quite morbid to me too.

  m�chelle �ϫ

    
    There was a story about Dodd on NPR this morning.  I only caught bits 
    of it, but my understanding is that Dodd feels that death by hanging 
    is fitting (perhaps along the lines of "an eye for an eye" reasoning).  
    I don't believe there is any "sicko reason" behind his request for the 
    noose; quite frankly, I can't even imagine what is meant by that.  (I 
    don't remember the reply number or the noter who said it.)  I think I 
    felt some small bit of compassion for Dodd when I heard that.  
    
    Cq

    I feel quite strongly that there are individuals who have committed
    crimes they deserve to die for.  Unfortunately, the system put in place
    to sort out who is guilty of such crimes is subject to human error. 
    The death penalty is too absolute a punishment for a system subject to
    human error to consider.  
    
    - M

    Re his choice of methods: I think it's irrelevant, unless he's in Utah
    (the only state that I know of that offers a choice: hanging vs.
    firing squad). Doesn't hurt to ask, I suppose, but if I were in charge
    I doubt I'd alter the standard procedure for the sake of the criminal.
    
    Re my choice: I've always been fond of guillotines. I realize the
    thought of decapitation gives some folks the heebie-jeebies, but I
    don't see it as any worse than shooting or hanging, and considerably
    better than frying or gas. (Hmmm. Why am I thinking of pheasants?) 
    
    And lethal injection is out; needles give me the creeps. ;-)
    
    -b

What method does Washington law provide?

>>>What method does Washington law provide?

It's unique in the nation - you get filibustered to death by Orrin Hatch.

    I think that may fall under the "cruel and unusual" category.
    
    - M

    If he wants to die - sure, let him.
    
    I don't support capital punishment, but if a convicted criminal
    asks under his/her own free will to be put to death rather than
    serve a life sentence, then I can't object...
    
    /Greg

    sure he should be allowed to waive his appeal rights - having a right
    doesn't mean he has a mandate to exercise it, assuming he's legally
    competent to make the decision 
    
    

    re. 12
    
    The reason Dodd wants to die by hanging is because that is how he
    killed his last victim, a 3-year-old boy.  Even though Dodd said in his
    letter to the Supreme Court that he doesn't feel remorse over his
    crimes, there is a side of him that does and he has admitted that in past
    interviews.  I think that "healthy"(?) side of him doesn't ever want to
    do what he did again.  He has admitted that he still has the fantasies
    and that when the fantasies start he is powerless over his behavior,
    it's like an addiction for him.  He has to act out the fantasies.
    
    re (I forget the note number)
    
    Washington has death by hanging, lethal injection and electrocution.  
    
    Karen

    
    re: .20 Yes, I know that that is how he killed his last little victim;
    and knowing that, then requesting that method for his own death is
    "fitting" - he is requesting that what he did to the boy, be done to 
    him.  (Yes, I know that there was torture, too.  No, he is not asking
    to be tortured.)
    
    Cq

    I'm with Mike on this one.  I don't believe in capital punishment, and
    I certainly don't believe in letting the doomed pick their poison.  Of
    course, sending him to prison might be cruel and unusual if not
    terminal considering what will likely happen to him there.  The boys don't
    like child murderers.
    						- Vick

    If he wants to die, let him be executed without delay, it saves $$ and 
keeps one more child molestor/killer off the streets forever. I believe 
there are reasons for capital punishment and that it can be done painlessly 
and quickly. I had my las dog put to sleep. It was a quick, heavy injection 
of anesthetic. She just dropped into a sitting position, slipped to the 
table, and was gone instantly. No pain that I could see, no wimpers, no 
more Luekemia to cause her (and us!) pain and sorrow......

    I don't know how much anesthesia a human would need, but it is an 
overdose of what you get for surgery, so we know it is not painful, but 
just makes you sleepy and you slip away....No mess, no fuss. I do not 
believe lethal injection uses anesthesia, but some sort of drug to stop 
your body functions like breathing and heart rate. I am open to corrections 
on this point.... 8^)

    	Vic

    The reason it is such a issue, is not so much his wanting to die, but
    the state getting involved in what some folks are looking at it to be
    'legal suicide'.  In fact, one news station here was comparing it to
    the Dr. Death who assisted the terminally ill die earlier.
    
    He has already been given his death sentence, he just doesn't want the
    appeals that are automatic, and not by choice.
    
    Shilah

    Thank you Shi, for the clarification.
    
    Karen

    Re .24: I still think it's pretty ironic that society/the state/The
    System, whatever, having gone to all that trouble to catch, convict,
    and sentence the guy, are now all a-twitter because he doesn't want to
    appeal. Sheesh. Isn't there room anymore for someone to admit guilt and
    accept the penalty? It's not un-Constitutional, is it?
    
    Sigh.
    
    -b

    re: .26
    
    �Isn't there room anymore for someone to admit guilt and accept the
    �penalty? It's not un-Constitutional, is it?
                    
    That is the EXACT issue.
    
    Shilah

    Cyanide by capsule is much slower than cyanide in the gas chamber.  The
    dose in the gas chamber is MASSIVE.  IMO based on reading about the
    various methods lethal injection is no more painful than being put
    under for an operation.... because that is what is done... the person
    is knocked out with an anesthetic before the heart is stopped with
    potassium chloride.  The other methods seem to be slow, or messy.
    

    Hanging as a method of execution in modern times is about as quick,
    certain and painless a death as one could suffer. It is far removed
    from the older (English) method of placing a noose around someones neck
    and kicking a block out from under their feet. Called "stretching" this
    method slowly choked the victim and could take a long time to cause
    death.
    
    Modern hangings are accomplished by dropping the victim through a
    trapdoor, ensuring a long fall that results in a broken neck and near
    instantaneous death.
    
    

    Elucidation of the various methods of execution.  If you are squeamish,
    don't read this note.  I've put in a formfeed and 30 linefeeds to help
    you avoid the gruesome details.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Lethal injection is very mildly painful, briefly, as the soporific is
    administered.  The substance used is generally a mixture of Valium and
    sodium pentothal; Valium burns like fury, as I know from personal
    experience.  The burn passes up the arm into the heart and then to the
    brain, and this passage requires some 7 or 8 seconds.  The procedure is
    also intensely painful emotionally, briefly, as the victim realizes
    that s/he is DEAD but has not yet ceased to think.  They've run EEGs on
    it, and the waves show it.
    
    Potassium cyanide has a very unpleasant taste but little odor (the
    famous bitter-almonds aroma).  It is not instantaneous either as a
    capsule or as gas, as someone earlier indicated.  Like lethal
    injection, it causes a brief "I'm dead, oh NOOOO!" reaction.
    
    Hanging, when done by the proper method, is very quick, almost as quick
    as decapitation (of which more anon).  The proper method is to use a
    pair of metal bars positioned like uneven parallel bars beside the
    victim's head and neck.  Simultaneously with the dropping of the trap,
    the bars snap together horizontally to deliver a tremendous twist to
    the head, severing the spinal cord.  It's quick, but EEGs show it's not
    instantaneous.  Improperly done, with a poorly-positioned rope, hanging
    can throttle the victim, and people have taken as long as 20 minutes to
    die.  The death dance is not amusing; I've seen it on film.  There is a
    record of one famous highwayman in England who, just before the trap
    was to be pulled, leapt into the air and balled himself up like a baby. 
    His fall broke his neck so effectively that he didn't dance.  The large
    crowd (at Newgate) were terribly disappointed.
    
    Electrocution is not 100% reliable; victims have survived the entire
    first sequence of shocks, remaining semiconscious and in great agony,
    and had to be reshocked.  If it were instantaneous and reliable, the
    procedure would not require alternating jolts of DC and AC for a period
    of some minutes.
    
    Firing squad is only as reliable as the people who hold the rifles. 
    Gary Gilmore lived for over two minutes; there is no record that I have
    been able to find stating whether he was conscious at any time during
    that period.  EEGs have shown, however, that firing-squad victims do
    not lose consciousness instaneously; they do suffer.
    
    Decapitation, when done properly, is utterly reliable and
    instantaneous.  A sword or axe is not a proper instrument; tales of
    executioners' clumsiness were rampant in earlier centuries.  The way to
    get a clean beheading was to bribe the executioner.  Since beheading
    was reserved for people of quality (the poor being hanged) and they
    were imprisoned without having their money taken from them, bribing was
    an easy matter except for the occasional penurious individual...  The
    guillotine is reliable.  EEGs (on animals) have shown that the effect
    is instantaneous; no abnormal nervous activity occurs before all
    activity ceases.  This happens because of the tremendous shock to the
    system that is delivered as the blade passes through the neck.  it's
    ugly, but it WORKS.  There is no death dance, there is no spurting of
    the blood from the carotid arteries, everything just STOPS.
    
    -dick

    Re .29: Just a quibble - I believe it was in England that the art of
    hanging was "perfected" from the long, slow dance to the quick drop, so
    if they have to take the blame for the more savage technique, they
    should get credit for making it more efficient. I've read some
    fascinating accounts of the care that the professional hangmen would
    take in preparing the ropes, calculating the length of drop needed
    according to the weight of the victim, etc. 
    
    <Squeamish warning...>
    
    
    (A miscalculation would either leave the victim to strangle slowly, or
    would decapitate the victim; neither of these results was acceptable to
    the professional hangman, though the latter was certainly as swift and
    merciful a death as is possible at the end of a rope.)
    
    Re .30: Very nice summary. You left out garrotting, which, if it's done
    correctly, shuts off the blood supply to the brain almost at once,
    rendering the victim unconscious. This makes it quicker and more
    painless than short-drop hanging, though still not as fast as the
    broken-neck method.
    
    As for "no blood shooting from the carotid arteries" after a
    guillotining, are you sure about that? The "after" photos I've seen of
    executions by guillotine reveal a generous amount of blood (and that's
    from a single execution, not the orgies of beheadings during the
    revolution). Blood may not continue to pump out, but it certainly gets
    spilled in some considerable quantity.
    
    Even at its best, decapitation would have to be an unsanitary affair;
    any method that quickly and completely severed the neck, bone and all,
    would take enough force to spray some amount of blood around. And,
    these days especially, one wouldn't want to do that. However, if proper
    precautions were taken... say, how about using a laser? Quick,
    effective, and instant cauterization!
    
    -b

    Thank you for the *enlightening* note Dick!  :-}  Decapitation still
    gives me the willies and always will I suspect.
    
    Karen

    Last few:......

    Jeesh!!! Guys! I'm surprised that no one has suggested tying the 
executee to a small tactical nuclear weapon and detonating it! It would be 
very quick and the EEG monitor would be vaporized as well.... 8^)

    	Vic H

    Re: .31
    
    Squeamish warning.  Seriously.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Beth, there is unquestionably a lot of blood from a guillotining.  But
    it's partly the impact splatter and partly just the sloppy flow that
    will leak from any body for a while after the heart stops.  The
    accounts I've read were clear in saying that heart action ceases
    forthwith when the knife falls.  A beheaded chicken, on the other hand,
    dances, and that pumps most of the blood out of the body.
    
    There is also a moderate flow of lymph; there is usually more actual
    quantity of lymph because it does not coagulate and because it is a
    thinner fluid to begin with, but blood looks messier due to its vivid
    color.  (A quart of water spilled on a floor doesn't look like nearly
    so much fluid as a pint of blood.  I saw one of the old glass blood
    bottles dropped once, and it was a horrifying amount of blood.)
    
    Included in the impact splatter is a small quantity of most of the
    tissues in the neck.
    
    Actually, things would not be too difficult to clean up if the device
    were made of cast aluminum with the welds ground to leave no sharp
    corners or crevices and placed in a small room that could be sprayed
    down to wash away the ichor.
    
    -dick

> EEGs have shown, however, that firing-squad victims do
>    not lose consciousness instaneously; they do suffer.

 EEG's do not show suffering. EEG's show brain activity.

 I have never been shot.I have, however, suffered several injuries which
on the face of them would seem to cause an awful lot of pain. And indeed,
once I got out of shock, I was in significant pain. The human body tends
to attentuate signals that are too strong for the brain to handle. This
is how people who have been shot describe the experience almost universally
like this: "I felt a rough shaking, like somebody pulled on my shoulder
really hard. Only after I saw the blood did I realize what had happened."
There is a disconnect between a serious injury and the onset of pain.
You know that something is wrong, but you can't figure out what it is
right away. I posit that by the time a firing squad victim would be capable
of "figuring out what was wrong," he'd be dead. The existence of brain
waves, even those of significant amplitude, does not definitively equate
to suffering. 

 The Doctah

    Re .34: Hee, hee - I can just see the advertisements now.
    "Slice-o-matic - simple, quick, and easy to clean, too!"
    
    [Apologies to the non-gory-detail fans, but I just love this stuff.]
    
    Actually, the form of execution might have considerable effect on the
    way capital punishment is perceived. If the idea is to punish, or "an
    eye for an eye," we really ought to provide that a murderer's execution
    method should match as closely as possible the method that murderer
    used. [This is, I hope, clearly a bad idea.] If the idea is to make an
    example, I should think that the execution ought to be public - but
    we have a lot of historical evidence that public executions appeared to
    provide as much or more entertainment value to The Public than they did
    moral lessons. [Side note: part of the "entertainment value" was the
    idea of a "good death"; a condemned person who marched bravely up the
    gallows stairs and left life with a quip on his or her lips was greatly
    admired. If public executions were done very calmly and quietly, via
    lethal injection perhaps, such that the condemned had no opportunity
    for either bravado or panic, it might convince some people that there's
    nothing glorious in being a criminal. On the other hand, it might
    convince others that if the execution is that easy and painless, why be
    scared of it...]
    
    And, finally, if capital punishment is meant to be a way of dealing
    with someone who is deemed so dangerous and so unredeemable that
    incarceration would do the condemned no good and would only create more
    risk for the guards and the other prisoners, then the method chosen
    should be as quick, effective, and businesslike as possible. The more
    dramatic, sensational, or "romantic" methods [hanging or a firing squad 
    could be seen as "romantic," from their long connection in fiction as
    well as fact with highwaymen or captured revolutionaries] wouldn't do
    here, so I think lethal injection would be about it.
    
    All of this presumes that the legal system can be trusted to apply the
    death penalty appropriately and fairly, which is a whopping big
    presumption. However, to go back to the case of The Man Who Isn't
    Appealing, I think I'd suggest that he be executed by lethal injection,
    that he be told this ahead of time, and if he _really_ wants to die by
    hanging he can figure out how to do it himself. [It would probably be
    the slow-strangulation method, since it's nearly impossible to rig a
    proper drop in a typical jail cell, but if he wants to suffer he
    shouldn't quibble at that. Although I just remembered that there's
    supposed to be a certain auto-erotic quality to strangulation...]
    
    Oh, well. Too tough for me. Everybody just quit committing crimes, and
    we won't have to worry about capital punishment anymore.
    
    -b

re .20:

>    Washington has death by hanging, lethal injection and electrocution.  

That should be "or", not "and", right?

Is the choice up to the felon?  If so, why's everybody making a big deal?
He's made his choice as the law allows.

Well VALKYR::RUST, you seem to be having a lot of fun with this topic...

Any thoughts on before performing the Capital Punishment phase of the sentence
that these people be given the opportunity to die for something that may benefit
society, i.e., acting as guinea pigs for medical experimentation or just pump
out their blood while they are being "warehoused"?  Would this be cruel and
unusual punishment?  Would the members of this file find this "solution"
morally feasible?

    Re .38: Hmmmm. "Given the opportunity," as in, "volunteers only,"
    perhaps - but it's not straightforward. Volunteering for donation of
    blood or organs would affect the method of execution, for one thing.
    Lethal injection would render the blood unusable, I believe, and the
    more destructive methods such as electrocution would probably render
    most organs unsuitable for transplant. If a criminal were offered the
    chance to die by slow exsanguination (which, I believe, is relatively
    painless), some might choose it - but it doesn't offer any advantages
    over simply donating blood after death. [There's also the question of
    whether the blood is usable; isn't the incidence of hepatitis and HIV
    fairly high in the prison population?]
    
    Guinea-pig-hood has several problems, one being that, if the
    experiments did not kill the subject, the disposition of the criminal
    would still be an issue. Should the person be released? Sentence
    commuted to life in prison? Or would experiments continue until the
    person died? In addition, what, if anything, would control the
    laboratory conditions to which the subject could be exposed? And how
    would one determine "informed consent" vs. "do anything to avoid The
    Chair"?
    
    TV movies are fond of plots featuring death-row criminals being offered
    such choices in exchange for - if they survive - their freedom, but I
    don't know whether it's been done in real life. [I think some convicts
    got paroled to join the army during WWII, but I doubt many of them were
    death-row people, "The Dirty Dozen" to the contrary. If anybody knows
    more about this I'd be interested to hear it.]
    
    One of the arguments against capital punishment even for the most
    heinous, sociopathic criminals is that, if they're locked up for life
    instead, they could be studied, theoretically to help provide ways to
    prevent or cure the problem in future. However, it's next to impossible
    to force someone to cooperate in a psychiatric analysis against their
    will, I would think, so I don't know how useful this would be.
    
    -b

    
    re -.1
    
    The biggest problem with life in prison without the possibility of
    parole is the fact that so many criminals DO get paroled.  Even Manson
    and his followers have been up for parole several times.  Obviously
    they haven't gotten parole, but just the fact that the CHANCE is there,
    is too much of a risk, IMHO.
    
    In cases like Ted Bundy, he was a master at playing the system. 
    Psychiatric help, again IMHO, would have done little or nothing for
    him, he was too good of a con.  It was only on the eve of his execution
    that he finally admitted to his crimes.  And that was (IMHO again) was
    a ploy to get a stay of execution.  Dodd (I'm making an assumption
    here, I haven't actually heard him say this) doesn't feel that
    psychiatric care would help him either.  He feels the only way to stop
    him is by execution.
    
    Karen

Beth,

I think the technicalities you have offered in .39 are easily surmountable...

A sentence of "Death" or "Life in prison without the possibly of parole" means
the felon has forfeited his/her life in the eyes of society.  Should society 
have the right to extract something that could be positive for society out of 
the situation?  What would the implications be?

Regards, Don

    "Should society have the right..." - I believe the definition of
    "rights" is being argued elsewhere, and I don't want to start another
    version of same. The right to freedom from cruel or unusual punishment
    is guaranteed - but a loose definition of "cruel" could (and possibly
    should) make most current prison systems, as well as the judicial
    system itself (and the I.R.S.!) unconstitutional... Still, if "society"
    decides that it could just as well sentence someone to be a medical
    experimentee as to sentence them to hang, why, it would probably
    happen, but it would require one heck of a change in existing
    interpretations of the Constitution as well as public attitudes.
    
    As for what the implications would be... nothing good, and a lot bad, I
    think. Since current threats of prison time or even death don't seem to
    deter crime, I doubt that the threat of guinea-pig-hood would, either;
    it certainly wouldn't deter the Dahmers and the Bundys and the groups
    of teens out "wilding". And unless the judicial system got changed
    along with the definition of "cruel" punishment, I foresee even more
    layers of appeals being filed. Benefits? I don't think there are very
    many areas where a possibly-unwilling human subject, selected by a
    crime instead of by any scientific criteria, would be of much use in a
    valid experiment.
    
    As for the organ-donor question... Personally, I wouldn't see much
    wrong with a policy that automatically made a condemned convict's
    organs available for donation after death; heck, if s/he's dead,
    s/he won't need them. I wouldn't support such a law, however, since
    this is a highly-charged issue to a lot of people. A policy of asking
    the condemned whether they'd like to donate organs, on the other hand,
    seems like a very good idea - although, as I mentioned before, many of
    'em may not be the best candidates as donors.
    
    This is getting too serious, though. I'd rather talk about methods. How
    about stoning? Nobody's mentioned stoning, yet, but historically it was
    a very popular method...
    
    -b

.42> This is getting too serious, though. I'd rather talk about methods. How
.42> about stoning? Nobody's mentioned stoning, yet, but historically it was
.42> a very popular method...
    
     Ah, society's method for getting it's "rocks off"...

    Organ donation and letal injection are not so far apart in practicality
    because lethal injextion is actually a two step process. First the
    inmate is knocked out by drug 1 and then he's killed by drug 2. After
    drug I, the convict feels nothing, so its a moot point what's done with
    the organs after that step.
    
    Eric

  If you inject a person with a poison, then how can you donate the organs?
  After all, wouldn't they be contaminated with the poison?

  Just wondering...

  m�chelle �ϫ

    RE: .45, see my reply in .44. The first injection knocks the convict
    out, not unlike having surgery. At this point, the organs can be
    harvested. The poison isn't injected until after this point.
    
    Eric

  RE: .46 (Eric)

  Oh. So what you're saying is... inject, remove, then kill?

  hmmmm...

  So, let's say, someone needs a heart. Given the fact (don't know if this is
  a fact) that heart transplants need a 'fresh' heart, then, this would mean
  that the doner 'could be' someone like Dodd??? Of course, in this case
  (silly me) there would be no need to kill him afterwards, eh?

  Which means... If we put people who are on death row in comas, then we
  could 'harvest' their organs when we need them, then kill them, if necessary,
  see previous paragraph...

  Isn't there kind of a moral problem here (at least if they don't want to
  donate their organs)?

  Forgive me for my over-morbid imagination...

  Plus, this is Saturday and I'm bored...

  m�chelle �ϫ

.47>  Oh. So what you're saying is... inject, remove, then kill?

.47>  Which means... If we put people who are on death row in comas, then we
.47>  could 'harvest' their organs when we need them, then kill them, if 
.47>  necessary,

Actually, we need to carry this thought a little further...  In order to 
implement such an idea we would need to look at present prison conditions to
see if this is feasible.  Prisons are already overcrowded and from a few replies
back there seems to be a tendency on the part of the inmate to return after
release.  Prisoners in comas would take up much more space it seems and it 
would be much better if they were ambulatory but controllable.  The solution,
it would seem, is that these inmates be "zombified".  As I understand it, the
operation to the frontal lobes is quite simple/routine.  This "living death" may
even make some of the inmates think twice about returning...

.47>  Isn't there kind of a moral problem here (at least if they don't want to
.47>  donate their organs)?

Do you think the people they killed wanted to die?

.47>  m�chelle �ϫ

      That O+ wouldn't happen to be your blood type, would it?

    Re .48: Oh, the space is no problem. Ever seen "Coma"? ;-)
    
    I'm opposed to the organ-harvesting theory for several reasons, one
    being its tendency to put even more pressure on the legal system than
    exists now. Organs for sale, anyone? And even without a bribery factor,
    how would it affect the decisions of police, jurors, judges... The
    temptation would be to err on the side of "the greater good," which I
    suspect would usually involve the organ-donor penalty. "Even if we're
    wrong, at least it's doing *some* good," might be the rationale.
    
    No, I don't think this would be a good plan. [Not that execution *or*
    imprisonment as currently practiced are such great ideas, either.
    Prevention, early intervention, alternative sentencing, and heaven
    knows what else, would be needed to even begin to deal with the problem
    of crime.]
    
    -b

    For the sinister side of organ harvesting, read Larry Niven's book
    entitled _The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton_ - it's three science-fiction
    novellas in which the bootlegging of organs (called "organlegging")
    looms large.  Ordinary people just sort of disappear into illegal organ
    banks that operate in parallel with the legal ones.  Great black market
    potential in transplantable organs, you see.  Suppose you're getting a
    little old and would like a new heart but aren't medically a critical
    candidate.  You just buy one on the black market.
    
    About two weeks ago I saw on the CBS Evening News a piece discussing a
    case - happening now, today, in 1992 - of (you guessed it)
    organlegging.  The commentator uset that exact word.  Larry Niven's
    science-fiction scare scenario is real.
    
    As much good as I think could come of organ banks using capital
    ocnvicts, I'm scared spitless of the possibilities for abuse of the
    system.
    
    -dick

 Larry Niven has written extensive science fiction based on the premise that
the organs of condemned criminals be available for transplant. Given that the 
demand for organs far exceeds the supply, one of the results is that the 
death penalty is applied to more and more trivial offences, including 
(eventually) for exceeding the legal posted speed limit!  
 Couldn't happen here?? yeah, right.  



						Nigel

Notes clash!  between two students of literature!!

			Nigel

    Yeah, and it's great literature, too.
    
    -dick
    

    Why all the concern about the most humane way of eliminating this type
    of scum? A little taste of pain would be most appropriate when you
    consider the pain that he inflicted on his victims & the pain of his
    victims families for the rest of their lives.

    
    
    I think that the term "capital punishment" is all wrong. It implies
    that death is punishment for your crimes.
    
    Society needs to take the attitude that the death penalty is NOT a
    form of punishment, but that it is instead necessary to insure the
    removal of a dangerous member of society.
    
    As I've said before, you do NOT punish a dog who has rabies, you
    instead put him to death to remove the possibility of his hurting
    anyone else.
    Not alot of differance between the rabid dog and Manson, Ted Bundy and
    the like.
    
    Cat
     

How about crucifixion?

Would the Supreme Court disallow this due to "cruel and unusual punishment" or
due to "separation of Church and State"?

    Definitely cruel, not all that unusual though - the Romans used it a
    _lot_. (As a standard penalty, not a religious one, so *I* wouldn't try
    to argue it using separation of Church and State, but I can believe
    that some would.) However, the theory that one could deter crime by
    putting criminals to an incredibly slow, painful, and public death and
    leaving their decaying corpses on display, does not seem to have been
    borne out historically, neither by the mass crucifixions of the Romans,
    nor by the hanging-in-irons of the British. People who have little or
    nothing to lose can't be deterred; people who live for the moment won't
    stop to think of possible risks; and people who are young and/or
    reckless and/or under the influence simply won't believe it could
    happen to them.
    
    If one simply wanted to cause the criminal the most painful possible
    end, crucifixion is a moderately good choice, but there are plenty of
    better (or worse, depending on your perspective) options here. 
    
    (I'm not a member of the "torture the criminal" school, despite what I
    think is a natural tendency to want revenge. If I could do it, I would
    certainly inflict upon criminals the mental and emotional pain and fear
    they caused their victims - but what I'd want is to make them regret
    their actions, to teach them empathy... Not that that would necessarily
    rehabilitate anybody, but in some cases it might - and (to return to
    the vengeance factor) it's probably the closest one could get to "an
    eye for an eye".)
    
    -b

    After touring a local Department of Corrections;  Which my brother
    works in...All you nice people really don't want to hear/read what I 
    think..(rather sadistic and realistic).  But, if the guy wants to die;
    Then the state should GO out of its way to ensure that this person
    gets what he is asking for.  
    
    As far as to what methods;  I feel that some of the more heinous
    midevil methods should be addressed.
    
    Jeff

    If we (Society) are truely trying to provide the criminal as fast and
    painless a death as possible then a method which QUICKLY destroys the
    brain would seem to me about as painless as possible.  "Every" method
    in this file described allows the brain a few seconds of reserve supply
    oxygen and fuel thus making consciousness possible, (yes, even the
    guillotine) because of the trapped blood in the head. The best argument
    for the guillotine is the cutting of the neck and the shock to the
    brain and system 'numbing things'.  A method which 'instantly'
    destroyed the brain would seem the most foolproof to me... such as
    crushing the head... fast... or multiple gunshot hits to the head.
     
    To me after the above... lethal injection would seem the best because
    the person could be rendered unconscious with an anesthetic BEFORE the
    lethal drugs are given... or how about just a MASSIVE overdose of
    sodium pentathol?
    
    Jeff
    

>"Every" method
>    in this file described allows the brain a few seconds of reserve supply
>    oxygen and fuel thus making consciousness possible,

 I think this issue is being overblown. While a humane execution is a
resonable objective, there is no need to go to great lengths to ensure
there is no consciousness in the moments leading up to death. I can
see taking steps to eliminate unnecessary suffering, but we don't have
to put ourselves through the ringer on this. We aren't talking about
someone's aged grandmother being put out of their misery. We are talking
about societal menaces being put out of OUR misery.

    Elizabeth,

    I never got around to telling you how much I enjoyed your style/elucidation
    in this note.  I got the feeling that in a past life you probably wore a 
    black hood!  Hey, you don't babysit, do you?  

    Regards, Don

    Gee, thanks - but I suspect that if previous lives were involved, I'd
    be the one tied to the stake. (Or else the urchin in the front row
    going, "Lumme! Lookit it splatter!")
    
    Haven't babysat in decades, but I'm looking forward to being my
    nephew's favorite weird aunt...
    
    -b

    The term 'harvest' is such an euphimism.  If we are talking about
    putting people to death for their crimes the least we could do is
    call a spade a spade as most of us have been doing in this string.
    How about take the organs or remove them... harvest them? Perhaps
    we should 'put the criminals to sleep', instead of killing them?
    
    There are two things that make me against capitol punishment.
    
    1. The possibility of putting an innocent person to death is always
       present.
    
    2. By killing a person on purpose against his/her will isn't it a
       cheapening life?  Or perhaps it makes the reverse statement, that
       by killing you, legally, we are 'proving' the value of the person(s)
       live(s) you took.  
    
    The best argument for capitol punishment is simple... end of problem.
    
    I think that the suffering which the criminal goes through BEFORE the
    execution is significant... the months of waiting.... dreading etc.  
    Many of the victims had seconds (or less) fearing death.
    
    I am not trying to belittle capitol offenses, just bring up the
    pre-death suffering many of them go through.  Does that help society?
    Or maybe its a moot point.
    
    Jeff

 I think that to be executed prisoners ought to have the option of donating
organs, but that organs ought not be forcefully removed. Not sure what sort
of logical justification for this I could come up with; it just feels right
to me.

    Seems like an awful waste of 'good parts'.  I would think that if a
    prisioner wanted to donate any parts VOLUNTARILY that it might be one
    way to 'go out' on a positive note.  I know I would consider leaving
    parts if I was convinced that they would be handled with respect and
    would be used to help somebody else live.
    
    Jeff