"Humane" methods of execution was never about being humane to the victim. It was always about protecting the perpetrators from having to face the reality of their actions, enabling them to still feel good about themselves.
I disagree. The psychological trauma of killing somebody doesn't go away regardless of how desensitized a normal person becomes.
The difference of the frantic killing in self-defense, or from being trained to do so from muscle memory vs the intimate act of executing someone face to face that has done you no personal wrong is the difference of spur of the moment decisions vs making a deliberate choice.
It can be easy to kill somebody in the split second when you realize "it's either them or me", which is not to trivialize the damage to your psyche from it, but staring eye to eye with somebody that you may murder with your firearm breaks you in a different way that has no comparison.
Which is why even the Nazis switched from firing squad executions to their non-direct execution methods, those soldiers kept breaking down to the point they could no longer function as normal people.
Only genuine psychopaths, like the Dirlewanger battalion, can draw any pleasure from such acts.
Actually, I'd argue against it even for war criminals. The death penalty is monstrous and goes against basic human rights. Just wanted to point out that if these assholes really cared about finding a "humane" way for the victim, it exists.
I doubt we’d argue much if Kissinger got murked on a vacation to Cambodia though
Oh, I'd definitely get out the Champaign; but that doesn't mean I agree with an actual legal system that includes murder as a punishment. Deaths during social upheavals / revolutions is different.
Kissinger and Mussolini are different, as their crimes are both on a larger scale than what any normal criminal is capable of perpetrating due to the sheer power differential between some random bloke with a gun and somebody able to comfortably delegate their murders to millions of random blokes with guns; because they committed their crimes so openly it's absolutely clear they're guilty; and because they are so protected by the system that getting your hands on them is only possible after a political collapse that creates a lawless transitional period. The upper echelons of imperialist regimes are just entirely outside of the scale of what a criminal justice system should be designed for. Exceptional cases always make bad law. Discussions of the death penalty should be centered on somebody accused of shooting a cashier while robbing a gas station, not on somebody publicly setting entire nations on fire.
deleted by creator
"Humane" methods of execution was never about being humane to the victim. It was always about protecting the perpetrators from having to face the reality of their actions, enabling them to still feel good about themselves.
I disagree. The psychological trauma of killing somebody doesn't go away regardless of how desensitized a normal person becomes.
The difference of the frantic killing in self-defense, or from being trained to do so from muscle memory vs the intimate act of executing someone face to face that has done you no personal wrong is the difference of spur of the moment decisions vs making a deliberate choice.
It can be easy to kill somebody in the split second when you realize "it's either them or me", which is not to trivialize the damage to your psyche from it, but staring eye to eye with somebody that you may murder with your firearm breaks you in a different way that has no comparison.
Which is why even the Nazis switched from firing squad executions to their non-direct execution methods, those soldiers kept breaking down to the point they could no longer function as normal people.
Only genuine psychopaths, like the Dirlewanger battalion, can draw any pleasure from such acts.
Lets not trivialize death and the act of killing.
Nitrogen canister + mask.
deleted by creator
Actually, I'd argue against it even for war criminals. The death penalty is monstrous and goes against basic human rights. Just wanted to point out that if these assholes really cared about finding a "humane" way for the victim, it exists.
deleted by creator
Oh, I'd definitely get out the Champaign; but that doesn't mean I agree with an actual legal system that includes murder as a punishment. Deaths during social upheavals / revolutions is different.
Kissinger and Mussolini are different, as their crimes are both on a larger scale than what any normal criminal is capable of perpetrating due to the sheer power differential between some random bloke with a gun and somebody able to comfortably delegate their murders to millions of random blokes with guns; because they committed their crimes so openly it's absolutely clear they're guilty; and because they are so protected by the system that getting your hands on them is only possible after a political collapse that creates a lawless transitional period. The upper echelons of imperialist regimes are just entirely outside of the scale of what a criminal justice system should be designed for. Exceptional cases always make bad law. Discussions of the death penalty should be centered on somebody accused of shooting a cashier while robbing a gas station, not on somebody publicly setting entire nations on fire.
deleted by creator