The Death Penalty - Simply Inhumane
Michael Portillo is investigating how to kill a human being. He is looking for a humane execution technique.
Surely a humane execution technique is a contradiction in terms? How can killing an otherwise healthy person possibly be called humane in any way?! A “humane” execution is simply not possible, whether it is conducted by a state with judicial approval or by an individual. Either way, it simply cannot be described as “humane”.
No matter how fast the death may be, it is still not “humane” - the waiting etc. in themselves make that impossible.
I can’t see how the death penalty is in any way acceptable in a modern, civilised, society. If just one innocent person is killed, the entire system is undermined. We can never be so technologically advanced as to have complete proof of guilt.
The death penalty is immoral and inhumane in itself. There is and cannot be any “humane” way of killing, either by the state or by an individual. No matter the method used. The idea of a “humane death penalty” is simply a contradiction in terms.
[And the pro-death penalty lobby in America is comprised of a bunch of nutters. It's also massively ironic that those who consider themselves "pro-life" (ie. anti-abortion) tend also to be those who are pro-death penalty. Idiots.]
This entry is filed under Death, Law and Order. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Whilst I agree with you that humane killing is an oxymoron, I’m of the view that the death penalty should be reintroduced for cases where it is proven beyond all unreasonable doubt whatsoever.
Being caught trying to explode a defective suicide bomb is a good example, although maybe that comes under mental illness.
I used to think the death penalty was a good idea, now like you I think the risk of mistakes are too high.