If We Use The Death Penalty We Should Use the Guillotine

"The guillotine…conclusively…execution" Notice the word "conclusively". This doesn't mean that it isn't painless just that it has not been proven to be. Even if there's pain this doesn't show that the guillotine isn't the best method. The person's alive for 13-30 more seconds but consciousness is lost in 2-3 seconds per Con's own sources[1]. This limits the possible length of pain to 2-3 seconds. Since "pain" is a brain function that'd also decrease as brain cells die so it's not necessarily true that pain is felt for the entire 2-3 seconds. We can't be sure pain is felt at all. It could be the case that damage is done faster than pain can be felt. But even if there's pain other forms of execution can be conclusively proven to cause worse pain. Let's compare the possible pain from the guillotine to the known pain caused by other methods of execution. =Electrocution= There're major problems with this. For starters even if it kills the first time the inmate will feel a painful shock through their body before it reaches the brain. But there are worse problems. It has proven hard to guarantee death from the first jolt[2]. People who don't die at first are shocked over and over until they die. In one case after a failed electrocution, that of Willie Francis there was an appeal before putting him through it again[3]. The machine was set up wrong by an intoxicated prison guard. Unlike electric chairs guillotines don't need to be "set up". All that needs to be done is lift the blade up, put the person's head in the hole and drop the blade. Electric chairs have been mostly replaced by lethal injection. Nebraska even ruled them unconstitutional[4]. In Florida an inmate's head caught fire during the procedure [5]. Since Nebraska's ruling there's no state where inmates must be executed by electric chair, only states where this is an option where inmates can choose their execution method[6]. =Lethal Injection= Lethal Injection has many problems. Sometimes it takes over an hour poking the inmate over and over to find a vein[7]. In one case they missed the vein, going into soft tissue. This failed to kill the inmate and he was injected again[8]. A big problem is the AMA discourages physicians from participating in the death of an inmate[9], so the people administering the lethal injection often don't have professional training. But operating a guillotine is simple and would hardly require any training at all as all you're doing is raising a blade and dropping it[10]. If the guillotine's cruel just because it causes pain for 2-3 seconds then other methods must be cruel too. Since this debate concerns "if we have the death penalty" it makes sense to use the guillotine to minimize cruelty and potential constitutional challenges. "Even…democracy." It doesn't have to be performed publicly. People knowing its going on will be enough. "Additionally…criminal." There are many reasons for the death penalty not just one "primary objective". Between "Justice/Retribution" and "Deterrence" deterrence is the more compelling justification. "Deterrence" if it works prevents death if the death penalty is used against murderers. While justice is important what is even more important is saving lives. Since beheaded is more frightening than other methods it increases the deterrence the death penalty may have making it more useful for that purpose than other methods. In the end regardless of which function of the death penalty is more important there's no reason to think that the "guillotine" would deliver "justice" any less than other methods. "Whether… failure." And whether or not someone will be imprisoned after committing a crime shouldn't be a potential criminal's motivation to refrain. The motive should be because it's wrong. But unfortunately a few people feel no moral compulsion against committing crimes. That's why there's laws. If people just did the right thing we wouldn't need laws, police or sentences. That a few must be persuaded not to commit crime by threat of punishment doesn't prove society is a moral failure. "Here…donors." Now Con is putting words in my mouth. I never implied forced retrieval. My point was this form of execution gives inmates the choice of donating. This could not only save lives but help give convicts a chance at redemption, a way to make amends for their crimes if they choose. "Execution…more." Execution by firing squad does NOT kill instantly[11]. It causes hemorrhage and shock which would not be instant from a shot to the chest and would be painful. That's if it's done right. In some cases an additional shot to the head is necessary to kill the inmate. Besides this if done right the bullet will kill by destroying the heart and lungs, ruining the organs and preventing transplant. On the other hand execution by guillotine if done right would leave the person aware at worst 2-3 seconds after the beheading and it preserves everything. Since it severs the neck it doesn't go through any organs leaving all intact for donation if the inmate consents. "It's…chemicals." Electric chairs take electricity, which is costly, leading to a higher electric bill for the prisons where the sentence is carried out. And in prisons that get their electricity from fossil fuels this leads to more more pollutants in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming. As for guns, bullets aren't reusable and so firing squad executions require new bullets be bought, and are even more expensive considering that it's done by a squad instead of one person. Chemicals cost a great deal of money to develop, produce and distribute, are also not reusable and so must be replaced. The guillotine on the other hand only requires that a single instrument be built. This may be used over and over again. There's no element of the execution that requires constant replacement. "The cost…methods." It wouldn't be that expensive. It's not hard to build a guillotine. The only important thing is making sure the blade's sharp enough and will cut all the way through. We already have designs that work well from when the French used it. If we use the same design it should be fine. And once built it's not necessary to rebuild for the same place. One per jurisdiction would be enough. Also old equipment can be recycled. Metals, plastics, and other materials could be extracted from the old equipment, or alternatively the old methods of execution could be placed in a museum and money could be made from people coming to see things like the "electric chair" once they become historical artifacts. This could lead to more commerce. When someone's executed by electrocution or lethal injection it isn't usually that news worthy. People are used to it. Imagine how many newspapers would be sold when the guillotine is back and then during the first couple executions and even the trials leading up to it. Just the speculation that a person might eventually face the guillotine would sell papers. That means more people buying papers, more money in our economy and more jobs. It'd also increase jobs for people who build guillotines and people paid to disassemble old equipment like electric chairs. 1.http://aintnowaytogo.com... 2.http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org... 3.http://www.jstor.org... 4.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org... 5.http://www.nydailynews.com... 6.http://en.wikipedia.org... 7.http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk... 8.http://www.newsdaily.com... 9.http://www.ama-assn.org... 10.http://en.wikipedia.org... 11.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...