Cruel and Unusual

[digitaldiscipline]

Am I alone in thinking that, if the state has already made up its mind that someone is such a blight on society that they must be put to death that it's more than a little academic whether or not it hurts when they die?

They're being killed. They probably inflicted a lot of pain on someone (or several someones) to earn their sentence. I don't see any value in commuting a few moments' agony just to appease an already justification-riddled sense of fairness.

This is one more illustration of a basically OK idea that's been fucked up by bureaucrats, lawyers, and do-gooders getting their noses bent out of shape after sticking them where they have no business being.

Was there something -wrong- with shooting them? Other than it being messy and mediapathic? Hell, that might be a lot more effective as a deterrent. Most folks understand what a bullet is, whereas a three-drug cocktail is a much less concrete notion.

And, really - we've got some very good chemists in this country. How fucking hard can it be to whip up a one-drop solution?

Comments

[razerwolfe.livejournal.com]

I'm all for punishment fitting the crime. If the guilty party has inflicted pain during his acts, then let him feel lots of crunchy pain on is way out of this world.

I've envisioned a room where the guilty party is placed unfettered opposite a door. Between him and this goal are the family members of the victim(s) wielding weapons of their choosing. If he can make it out alive, he can go free; otherwise ... :-D