Because in those states and among those that support and are involved those executions, the suffering is the whole point, at least to some degree. Anything that makes it more humane lessens the punishment and nobody wants to be seen doing that, because in those minds that means you’re defending murderers and pedo’s and whatever
(I suspect this is largely untrue; this is clearly bad for the politicians and management over the executions, and afaict it has never been politically wise to botch an execution. No faster way to seem incompetent to your ‘law&order’ constituents. Note that inhumane execution methods have been rejected by the courts before, and are a real fast way to get yourself sued.)
Well technically yes, but defending them from what. IMO I don’t get the point of gratuitous punishment.
IE I see 2 possibilities.
Someone can be rehabilitated. IE we think it’s reasonable that after the punishment we consider them able to be low enough risk that more or less they can contribute to society and function as a normal person again.
Someone can’t be rehabilitated. In which case punishment is completely meaningless, and we need to keep them away from any potential victims for the rest of their lives. Of which I do understand but not agree with the concept of shortening it.
But in the case of 2, I flat out don’t get the concept of intentionally adding suffering in that point for any purpose other than keeping them from getting near innocents. If we’ve given up on changing them, then we’ve negated any potential purpose to the suffering, and thus it’s just gratuitous and… makes those involved in it’s execution the monsters.
Because in those states and among those that support and are involved those executions, the suffering is the whole point, at least to some degree. Anything that makes it more humane lessens the punishment and nobody wants to be seen doing that, because in those minds that means you’re defending murderers and pedo’s and whatever
(I suspect this is largely untrue; this is clearly bad for the politicians and management over the executions, and afaict it has never been politically wise to botch an execution. No faster way to seem incompetent to your ‘law&order’ constituents. Note that inhumane execution methods have been rejected by the courts before, and are a real fast way to get yourself sued.)
But they literally are.
Well technically yes, but defending them from what. IMO I don’t get the point of gratuitous punishment.
IE I see 2 possibilities.
Someone can be rehabilitated. IE we think it’s reasonable that after the punishment we consider them able to be low enough risk that more or less they can contribute to society and function as a normal person again.
Someone can’t be rehabilitated. In which case punishment is completely meaningless, and we need to keep them away from any potential victims for the rest of their lives. Of which I do understand but not agree with the concept of shortening it.
But in the case of 2, I flat out don’t get the concept of intentionally adding suffering in that point for any purpose other than keeping them from getting near innocents. If we’ve given up on changing them, then we’ve negated any potential purpose to the suffering, and thus it’s just gratuitous and… makes those involved in it’s execution the monsters.
And anyone who plants a tree is providing aid and comfort to them.