If We Use The Death Penalty We Should Use the Guillotine

"So it's more humane than an ax because it's faster, but they still experience vast amounts of pain. " For at most 2-3 seconds. This does not disprove that as a method of execution it is superior to other possible methods. "Do you really think that if the government's and the people's goal is to make execution more humane that they'll still used untrained people to "do the deed"? Even if the process is as simple as lifting a blade and dropping it, I find it highly unlikely that the government or the people will consent to random people doing it if they honestly want to reform the death penalty. " I'm sure the person would have to undergo some training, but this also goes for operators of current methods, especially the rarely used firing squad method. It would take even more training and therefore more money to get the shot precise. "One method of execution that may be more humane are firing squad to the HEAD, though there may be others. The point is that we do not need to resign ourselves to the guillotine because it "might be more humane". " This would NOT kill instantly any more than the guillotine would kill instantly. There would have to be at least a short amount of time between when the bullet penetrates the skin, goes through the skull, and enters the brain causing death. In fact shooting a person in the head does not guarantee death. There are many instances of people surviving being shot in the head. One woman was shot through her head by her husband and lived[1]. One man shot himself five times in the head and still survived[2]. Though they lived it must have been excruciatingly painful. The same thing could happen in the context of an execution. The inmate would go through excruciating pain before having to be shot again. With the guillotine death is a guarantee, because the head is completely severed from the body and therefore any vital organs such as the heart and lungs. "You'd think the electric chair, or even death in general, would act as a deterrent, but it doesn't. The death penalty is still dealt. There is no reason the guillotine would be any better. Anyone deterred by the death penalty would have already been deterred by the prospect of life in prison. People who are not deterred by that cannot be deterred by any punishment. " There is substantial evidence showing the death penalty does have a deterrent value[3]. A 1973 study showed that for every executed inmate 7 lives were saved because others were deterred from committing murder. Other studies might not be conclusive, because the amount of time due to appeals limits the deterrent value of the death penalty. Using the guillotine would lower the number of appeals. With current methods there are too many factors the inmates can complain about, and the very real risk of a failed execution attempt. With the guillotine there is no risk of a failed execution attempt so the inmate can't complain that he is likely to face extra pain due to having to go through it more than once. "I'm glad to see that Pro doesn't intend to violate an inmate's choice of organ donation, despite his willingness to decapitate them. However, his argument here fails on the grounds that the guillotine is the only method of execution which preserves organs. Firing squad using shots to the head would preserve the organs just as effectively, and there are certainly other methods which could be concocted to do the same, provided a societal moral decision to find one. " And what if the squad misses? Also Con has brought up the cost of training people to run the guillotines. Switching to firing squad would produce the same costs, since there are few states that use it and training people to be perfect shots would take more effort than training someone to use a guillotine. "The electricity will be produced regardless of whether or not it is used for the execution by the electric chair. " It would only knock a little off the prison's electric bill but over enough time it would mean real savings for the prison and therefore taxpayers. "Bullets are manufactured en masse regardless of their ultimate usage. The cost of production of bullets will not decrease if the guillotine is used instead of firing squad" I don't expect they would go straight to the factory to ask them to produce the bullets. They would go and buy them at a store. It is a very small expense, but an expense nonetheless and one that piles up over time. Over the course of a few centuries savings could be huge for not having to buy bullets. "The chemicals used in lethal injection are usually just excessive doses of medical anesthetic or easily obtainable toxins. In the case of the former, they'll be manufactured anyway, and the amount used for lethal injection is insignificant in the overall scheme. " Again the point isn't whether they will be manufactured but whether the government will have to spend tax payer money to buy them. And yes chemicals produced in labs are fairly expensive. Again this might be a drop in the bucket for one execution, but over time the amount would add up. "Institution of the guillotine would also require that far more than "a single instrument be built". It would be necessary to have them at convenient locations all over the country in order to carry out execution. " There are many states that have only one execution instrument and it is enough because not that many people are sentenced to death. The condemned are all shipped to the same prison to await sentence. I don't see why we would have to change this if we started using the guillotine. "Getting federal and state governments to approve the guillotine in the first place would be tedious, let alone the process of getting a standardized, humane design approved. " We already have a design. Just use the old French one. There was never a case where the French guillotine failed to decapitate the first time or slowed down in the middle. "Recycling old equipment, as Pro suggests is feasible, would likely be rejected as foolish by anyone concerned with the specifications of the proposed guillotine. " Exactly what is foolish about recycling old parts that used to be electric chairs and such? "Even if the blade is "the only important thing", it is unlikely that the politicians of modern bureaucracy would see it that way. Achieving widespread acceptance of the guillotine would be nigh impossible. " There would undoubtedly be some red tape, but to suggest it is "nigh impossible" is ridiculous. Other forms of execution passed fine, and many pro-death penalty people might be easily persuaded when reminded that the currently used methods are being challenged all the time and are easier to rule "cruel" and therefore "unconstitutional" than the guillotine. "To suggest the …highest degree. " Just because interest in "guillotine executions" might die down does not mean there will not be a lasting impact on newspaper sales and therefore the economy as a whole. This might bring people new habits. People who buy newspapers to read about the executions might keep buying newspapers into the future. Sources: 1. . http://www.politicalwrinkles.com... 2. . http://thepirata.com... 3. . http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...