
When murderers were hanged quickly (2014) - areoform
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28688474
======
js2
_The trial of 24-year-old Evans and Allen, who was 21, began on 23 June at
Manchester Assizes. On 7 July the men were found guilty and sentenced under
the 1957 Homicide Act to suffer death "in the manner prescribed by law". Their
appeal was heard just two weeks later - and dismissed the next day. A final
appeal for clemency was rejected by the Home Secretary on 11 August. Less than
five weeks elapsed between conviction and execution._

Versus:

 _Tony Medina was convicted in 1996, aged 21, for a drive-by shooting that
killed two children at a new-year party. Since then, for 23 years, he has been
awaiting execution._ [In solitary confinement.]

[https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/06/06/what-
its-...](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/06/06/what-its-like-to-
spend-half-a-life-in-solitary-confinement)

------
jillesvangurp
This seems a divisive topic. I have few moral objections against executing
people that are impractical to release back into society because of stuff they
did. But there are too many practical ones to ever be sure and the price of
getting it wrong is obviously too high. You can't un-execute someone.

The way it is practiced in the US is both inefficient, incompetent, often
unjust (racism, poor legal representation, biased judges/juries, evidence
tampering, unreliable witnesses, dna evidence, etc), often controversial,
needlessly cruel, and obviously not working in terms of its supposed
preventive function. It's a mess.

That's the reason why an increasing number of states are opting not to. It's
just too controversial of a topic and the political price of getting it wrong
is too high. It's a PR nightmare and it's one of those things that is only
getting harder because of all the recent problems failing to get it right. At
this point all executions are highly political and typically only pursued in
states where this is relatively uncontroversial. All opponents have to do is
point all of the above out. Which of course they do.

The hypocrisy around trying to humanize what is basically state sanctioned
murder has resulted in weird practices around multiple executioners pushing a
button to avoid knowing for sure whether or not you killed the person, weird
rituals around selecting the means to kill where the result is neither humane,
particularly efficient, or cheap. The whole thing is a weird guilt trip gone
wrong. Ironically this has made it more controversial, not less.

From what I understand, killing people swiftly and painlessly is not
technically hard. Any vet or butcher knows how to put down an animal humanely.
This is done routinely every day. E.g. a bit of N2, N2O, CO, or similar is all
you need for what is pretty guaranteed fatal and painless. Hypoxia followed by
unconsciousness in seconds and death in minutes, typically. The main objection
against this particular method seems to be that it is too humane (make up your
mind already). The key point of that is that the death penalty is primarily
about revenge and not about prevention. Stating this further de legitimizes
the death penalty and is in itself controversial. State sanctioned torture is
even more controversial than the state sanctioned executions.

At least the Brits were efficient and competent about hanging people. It's the
systemic incompetence around the death penalty that is killing it in the US.
Either way, I'd suggest fixing that level of incompetence and getting that off
the table at least. I'd say the Brits were wise to get away from that.

~~~
zeveb
> You can't un-execute someone.

You also can't un-imprison someone. Sure, you can release him, but he'll never
get those years back; his relationships will never be the same again; the
trauma of imprisonment will never leave him.

I think the thing which needs to be done is to fix the judicial system: if we
can't rely on it to correctly impose death, then we can't rely on it to
correctly impose imprisonment. Maybe we need to incentivise prosecutors
differently; maybe we need to conduct investigations differently; maybe we
need to adjust the jury system.

Some people are against capital punishment in any case even if it is 100%
painless and the judicial process is completely correct. I don't really have
anything to say to them: it's obvious to me that there are certain crimes
which absolutely merit that punishment and that to refrain from killing the
guilty in that case is a profound injustice.

~~~
sysbin
> refrain from killing the guilty in that case is a profound injustice.

That's only the case if you believe in free will ideology. The injustice is
"society" villainizing a person who had no control over their fate if you
understand free will is an illusion because of determinism and how the brain
functions.

~~~
pluto9
By that logic there's no guilt on society's part, either. In fact, there's no
such thing as injustice. Only fate.

~~~
sysbin
Idk, injustice is a human expression and shared between one another as a word.
Maybe it doesn't exist or maybe people can still find injustice towards their
existence. The meaning of a lot of words can sure take a different shape with
understanding fate. Guilt would even shape differently into an expression
denoting misbelief & shame with society not wanting to fix the system of
punishment to something else. We're all part of the existence for one another
after all.

~~~
pluto9
Yeah, I don't want to get bogged down with irrelevant semantics. My point is
that you're saying no moral judgement can be placed on human behavior because
humans don't have free will, but such a judgement can be placed on society.
How do you square this? Are you saying a society has free will, but the humans
it's composed of don't?

~~~
sysbin
I think my previous message isn't just semantics or irrelevant to what you
wrote.

Free will doesn't exist in society and similar to humans. The will of society
is a summation of all the preceding forces upon generations and without any
real control. The result being what we experience today as our society we live
in.

This all is important to understand because hidden in it is the knowledge of
why we have what we have now. Also the fact of how important the majority
operates, behaves and thinks.

Currently, the majority thinks contrary to the fundamental truth of how their
life will play out. I hypothesis if this wasn't the case, our society would
adapt and because there is something similar to moral judgement.

Basically, the collective unconscious of society. The objective is made with
effort of being positive, fair and right. That's assumed with how the majority
believes the justice system we experience today is right and without
understanding the true knowledge making it neither positive, fair or right.

The incorrect perspectives of how reality is,.. collectively prevents
evolution of society and because the collective unconscious is still fixed
upon incorrect beliefs. Thus, I think I'm sort of answering your question.

------
ddxxdd
>"But David Cameron went into the 2010 election with a manifesto commitment to
repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act. A lack of an overall majority prevented him
from doing so. But Home Secretary Theresa May reiterated the promise to scrap
the act at the party conference last year."

This gives me a flashback to when statisticians found that the number one
issue that predicted whether or not a Brit voted for Brexit was their opinion
on the death penalty:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36803544](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36803544)

~~~
J-dawg
Assuming the predictive link goes the other way, does this mean that a
referendum on the death penalty would be somewhat likely to go in favour of
reinstating it?

~~~
DonaldFisk
There was an opinion poll in 2015 with a slim majority against reintroduction:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822)
, original report [http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/archived-press-
rele...](http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/archived-press-
releases/bsa-32-support-for-death-penalty.aspx)

Shortly before the EU Referendum, support for remaining commanded a similarly
small majority but then lost. Those supporting Leave ran a more effective
campaign, including making use of data gathered online, targeted advertising
via Facebook, and mostly emotional arguments. So I would be very concerned if
a referendum were to be held on capital punishment.

MPs of all parties are overwhelmingly against reintroduction and there is no
chance of it passing in a free vote in the House of Commons.

~~~
whatshisface
I remember that at the time, people were saying that leave and remain were
running equally distasteful and underhanded campaigns. Now they're saying that
Remain was worse. I think the memory might be getting socially Orwell'd.

~~~
pjc50
The "remain" campaign operated the same playbook as during the Scottish
Indyref: talking up the economic disadvantages, threatening a hard border
between England and Scotland, and so on. This was successful in that campaign
- but at the same time it got labelled "Project Fear". So in the Brexit
referendum any suggestion that car plants would close etc got dismissed as
"Project Fear".

Remain was nowhere near as dishonest as Leave, especially if you look at what
the Electoral Commission said. Not to mention the _two_ contradictory Leave
campaigns.

------
arethuza
One thing that I learned recently that I wish I hadn't is that it's not
entirely clear when someone actually dies from hanging - even the long drop
execution style used in the UK - apparently it can take up to 15 minutes
before hearts actually stop beating - which is why bodies were left hanging
for an hour before being taken down.

~~~
MrMember
Hanging can be pretty gruesome. In an "ideal" hanging the condemned is dropped
from a height that snaps their neck and kills them fairly quickly. Drop too
far and they can be decapitated, drop too short and they strangle to death. It
is certainly not a humane way to die.

~~~
tyingq
Decapitation is certainly gruesome, but I don't know if it's humane or not. Is
death instant?

~~~
darkpuma
Decapitation and gallows with a proper drop height were both designed to be
fair, in the sense that everybody killed would get the standard execution
experience. It was meant to be an improvement to the status quo of plebian
criminals getting tortured to death while aristocrats were given swift deaths.

Both systems are humane _compared to the earlier status quo_ , but an even
more humane system could certainly be devised. To answer your question, in the
case of decapitation there is reason to believe death is not instant but
rather that the severed head may remain aware for a few seconds. This is
faster than hanging, but still not instantaneous.

A shotgun slug straight to the skull would be pretty damn close to
instantaneous, but that's got a few problems. In addition to the psychological
damage inflicted on any witnesses to the execution, it will have more
inconsistent results. What happens if the shot is poorly aimed and 'merely'
removes somebody's jaw bone? Done correctly, a shotgun slug would provide a
more instantaneous death. However it's a less foolproof system. That's just an
example though, it's easy to conceive of systems that are simultaneously more
instantaneous than a guillotine but are simultaneously are more reliable.

Edit: re inert gas: Yes, though again there is the matter of reliability. An
inert atmosphere will kill a human reliably, but the apparatus used may fail
to provide an adequately inert atmosphere. This probably wouldn't happen with
a mechanism designed specifically for execution, but it does happen a lot in
cases of attempted suicide. Inert gas suicides will sometimes be botched, with
the victim receiving just enough fresh air to survive the experience
(typically with severe brain damage caused by the oxygen deprivation.)

Ultimately I think the whole matter is about risk tolerance. How much risk of
executing an innocent man do you tolerate? How much risk of a botched
execution do you tolerate? How much risk of releasing a guilty man do you
tolerate? These are questions with subjective answers, and for many people
their answer will be to tolerate no risk, e.g. abolish the death penalty.
Other people are willing to tolerate more risk, so for them the answer might
be "bring back execution but modernize the methods". Generally people on one
side view the thought processes of people on the other side as alien or
obviously defective, but I think that's generally not the case.

~~~
godshatter
I don't understand why they don't anesthetize them before their execution. Put
them under as if they are going in for surgery and then issues of inhumane
treatment go away, and opens the way for far easier and less gruesome types of
execution.

~~~
jandrese
Turns out that proper anesthetization is more difficult than most people
realize, especially since the competent medical professionals won't help for
ethical and moral reasons. Also, drug companies won't sell the drugs if they
are going to be used in an execution.

------
nvahalik
The US constitution (amendment 6) ostensibly provides the right to a speedy
trial. Amendment 8 forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment.

What I don't understand is how people can be against the death penalty but yet
be totally OK with locking people up for the rest of their lives. I personally
know someone who, if they live to be 75, will ultimately end up being in
prison for over 5 decades. How is that not "cruel and unusual"?

~~~
gambiting
>>What I don't understand is how people can be against the death penalty but
yet be totally OK with locking people up for the rest of their lives.

So I'm one of those people. It's simple really - death penalty is permanent,
while life imprisonment isn't. Yes it sucks that sometimes we might have to
release someone who spent 30 years falsely imprisoned - but it's sure a hell
lot better than finding out that there is no one to release because the person
was executed a decade ago. And secondly, I just don't see any need to execute
people, the risk vs reward is not worth it.

~~~
gzu
Someone consciously chose to permanently end another’s life. There has to be
decisions made.

~~~
cobbzilla
In theory, if applied flawlessly, maybe nothing is wrong with the permanence
of the death penalty.

In practice, mistakes _are_ made, regularly, and these mistakes are
distributed unevenly, such that the poor and minorities suffer the most.

The many wrongful deaths at the hands of the government is a good reason to be
skeptical of arguments which assume the death penalty can be applied
perfectly. It can’t.

------
sysbin
Both cases are handled by a punishment modal that assumes humans have free
will. I wish we lived in a society that handled these cases with a
rehabilitation modal and understanding free will is an illusion by determinism
& how the brain functions.

~~~
orbifold
I guess you’ve never interacted with a large fraction of people that are
typically committing violent crimes. A lot of them are these brutish unhinged
characters, with low IQ. They are mentally defective, you can either lock them
away for the rest or their life (more humane) or kill them (generally frowned
upon). There is no way to rehabilitate them.

~~~
sysbin
My perspective is people committing crimes are similar to persons suffering an
illness. We as a society should be approaching both situations the same
because that's how we obtain cures and not with the mindset of the current
justice system. The justice system is slowing progress similar to if we
approached illnesses with the mindset of the justice system.

------
stirfrykitty
I'm wholly in favor for the death penalty. I've heard all of the arguments.
Some people just need to be dealt with with finality.

Having said this, I'm for the death penalty for the following crimes, if they
are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (video evidence, bodily fluid DNA match,
plethora of independent witnesses):

\- Forcible rape (either sex) \- Paedophilia \- Aggravated armed robbery
(which is terrorism) \- Premeditated aggravated assault leading to injury
(which is terrorism) \- Kidnapping at gun/knifepoint \- Intentional illicit
drug sales to a minor child \- Sex slave trafficking (adults and minors)

* Please note that "terrorism" doesn't have to be political. Many states have laws against "terroristic threats" and "terrorism" (personal); sadly they are not often used.

I know almost everyone here will disagree, but let's be honest here. Saudi
Arabia, Singapore, Thailand and many other countries have these laws, and
while I disagree with them on many points, they deal harshly and swiftly with
the dregs of society.

My British uncle has personally witnessed several hangings in England before
the death penalty was rescinded. As a senior police officer at the time, he
made it a point to witness the hangings of those people whom he brought to
justice who received the death penalty. Closure. Let's be honest: If I took
months of my life to bring a child rapist/paedophile/killer to justice, I'd
want to watch, too. People like that deserve it.

I disagree with lethal injection, firing squad, and gas chamber. They are too
expensive and require too much oversight (chemists, European reluctance to
sell drugs, doctors, etc.). Hanging is quick and cheap. The Singaporeans do it
best.

The state has a right to execute heinous crimes. I think the Saudis have it
right when the cut off hands for theft. Note, though, that theft of food,
items to help one's family is not given that punishment. Car theft, bank
theft, ID theft all warrant something like this in my mind. The West has, in
my mind, grown soft. A serious crimes serial thief will continue to steal. A
rapist will continue to rape. Paedophiles have the highest repeat rate. Why
should I, a law-abiding tax payer have to pay for three hots and a cot for
those who deserve the death penalty.

For those crimes warranting the death penalty, and for which there is ZERO
doubt, the sentence should be carried out within 24 hours. No family
visitation, no last words, nothing. If you are a terrorist, rapist, murderer,
sex trafficker, drug dealer, or paedophile, you should receive zero
consideration once convicted.

Considering the seriousness of ending someone's life, these cases would need
to be 100% airtight. Video evidence, plethora or independent witnesses, DNA
evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. If these things are in place, and they
are verified by say three agencies: police, FBI, independent lab, then go
ahead.

~~~
saagarjha
> let's be honest here. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand and many other
> countries have these laws, and while I disagree with them on many points,
> they deal harshly and swiftly with the dregs of society.

How do you know they're dealing with the "dregs of society", and not "here's
someone we accidentally caught and killed"?

> I think the Saudis have it right when the cut off hands for theft.

!!

> Why should I, a law-abiding tax payer have to pay for three hots and a cot
> for those who deserve the death penalty.

Because many do not agree with your views on who deserves the death penalty:
note there are many criminals who have done things on your list and not become
repeat offenders.

~~~
stirfrykitty
That's a very liberal view inconsistent with justice. If you rape, murder,
engage in paedophilia, sex trafficking, etc., just once, that's once too many
times. You've broken the social compact to the point where you need to pay
dearly.

I don't feel sorry for the evil in our society. These people cost us dearly by
dint of housing them, feeding them, providing medical care, entertainment. All
the while, their dead victims, their raped and permanently-violated victims
get no justice other than knowing that the evil person is behind bars. That's
not justice. That's sweeping it under the rug and calling it good. It's
intellectually dishonest to say the death penalty should not be used for
heinous crimes. It breaks the social compact with the victims and society at
large.

~~~
llamathrowaway
It’s not

> If you <do bad things>

It’s actually:

> If you _are convicted_ of <doing bad things>

You have made many very emotionally charged posts in this thread. Take a rest.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
One of the limitations of the justice system: we cannot punish all people who
do bad things, only those who have been caught and we can obtain the evidence
against.

------
RickJWagner
"On the stroke of 8am they would enter the condemned cell, strap the
prisoner's arms behind his back and lead him to the gallows. The whole
procedure often took less than 10 seconds from the hangmen entering the cell
to the prisoner dropping to his death,"

10 seconds? Seems pretty improbable. 10 minutes maybe.

------
thrower123
Alas, even in smoking gun cases, it takes decades of wrangling to put the dogs
down, imprisoning them in hellhole prisons at enormous expense, fattening the
lawyers with endless rounds of appeals based on flimsy technicalities.

I wonder if many cases of officer-involved shootings aren't a side-effect of
this, a short-circuiting of the justice system. For instance, I find it
nothing short of miraculous that the Tsarnaev brother was taken alive, rather
than winding up with a few bullets "resisting arrest."

~~~
zimpenfish
> I find it nothing short of miraculous that the Tsarnaev brother was taken
> alive

I mean, there is an obvious reason.

~~~
tyingq
Now I'm curious. They did shoot quite a lot of rounds[1] into the boat he was
hiding in. I can't think of any reason other than luck.

[1][https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/...](https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/22-watertown-
boat.w700.h700.jpg)

~~~
credit_guy
To me the obvious reason is the null hypothesis: in the US law enforcement
officers don't actually have the standard operating procedure of "putting a
few bullets" in people for "resisting arrest". The alternative hypothesis is a
double conspiracy theory, that they are generally cold blooded killers, but in
this case for some whatever reasons, they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but
rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him? I don't know, this
doesn't pass any type of smell test to me.

~~~
tyingq
_" they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make
an example out of him"_

Yeah, doesn't pass the smell test for me either. 110+ bullets in that boat,
and the guy wasn't far from dead when they brought him to the hospital.

