If We Use The Death Penalty We Should Use the Guillotine

"Notice...pain." The word "conclusively" was NOT included in my previous argument as a way for Pro to suggest that the guillotine might be acceptable because "we really can't say we 'know' either way". If, in fact, our knowledge concerning the guillotine's pain causing capabilities is as questionable as Pro says, my argument is furthered. Do we REALLY want to execute people and call it humane if we really don't know whether or not they're conscious long enough to experience pain? I think not. Furthermore, "Con's own sources" were not given in their full context during Pro's use of them for his argument. He says that they say people are only aware for 2-3 seconds. This is true. But here is the context in which this is said: "Guillotining was considered more humane because the blade was sharper and execution was more rapid than accomplished with an axe. Death occurs due to separation of the brain and spinal cord, after transection of the surrounding tissues. This must cause acute and possibly severe pain. Consciousness is probably lost within 2-3 seconds, due to a rapid fall of intracranial perfusion of blood." (1) So it's more humane than an ax because it's faster, but they still experience vast amounts of pain. The guillotine is an artifact of the 18th century. It has been discontinued in modern, enlightened nations for a reason. "Electrocution...challenges." I never said that the electric chair or lethal injection were good alternatives to the guillotine. I merely said that continuing such methods would be more cost effective than introducing the guillotine as a new method of execution. As such, I feel no obligation to discuss the merits of lethal injection or the electric chair in modern society. Furthermore, to suggest that we're either stuck with switching to the guillotine or staying with the modern methods to which Pro is opposed is a false dilemma. As I said in my last argument, "we do not need to choose between the guillotine and organ preservation or electrocution/injection and damaged organs. There are alternatives." "But operating..dropping it." 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. "If the guillotine's cruel...challenges." Here, again, Pro poses a false dilemma. He essentially says that if the guillotine is cruel because it causes pain for 2-3 seconds, then other methods are cruel as well. This is not the case. There are alternatives to both lethal injection, the electric chair, and the guillotine that DO kill instantly and are not shrouded in debate. "If we have the death penalty" does not, therefore, constitute use of the guillotine. 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". "It doesn't...other methods." 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. (2) "And whether...moral failure." No, it doesn't prove that society is a moral failure, but it certainly doesn't make it morally justifiable for those with "moral compulsion" to enact scare tactics. Furthermore, the guillotine, and, in fact, the death penalty in general, are not effective deterrents to crime. See the above. "Now Con...choose." 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. "Execution by firing squad...transplant." I'll agree that the current firing squad system is flawed. This is why squad's should shoot the head, not the heart, providing instant death and preservation of organs. "Electric chairs...replacement." The electricity will be produced regardless of whether or not it is used for the execution by the electric chair. Furthermore, uses of the electric chair are are few and far between, making any use of the electric chair completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. 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 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. It is somewhat apparent that Pro does not fully understand the concept of supply and demand, at least not inasmuch as it applies to this case. Each of the modern methods of execution Pro listed, if discontinued, would not have ANY effect on overall demand for the supplies needed in each case. "It wouldn't...old equipment like electric chairs." 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. 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. Recycling old equipment, as Pro suggests is feasible, would likely be rejected as foolish by anyone concerned with the specifications of the proposed guillotine. 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. Finally, Michael Radelet, chairman of UF's sociology department and a longtime researcher of death penalty issues, has said "the cost of executing a prisoner in Florida averages about $3.2 million, mostly in trial costs. Keeping that same person in prison for life costs only about $600,000, and the millions of dollars spent on executing prisoners could be put to much better use."(2) To suggest the guillotine is a good idea because it'll sell papers and provide more money for the "uncondemned" is ludicrous. There were only 52 cases of capital punishment in the United States in all of 2009. (3) This is about the average each year. Do you recognize even 3 names on the list of people provided in source (3)? Even one? Likely not. This fact alone attests to the "massive" press coverage death penalties get. There may be some press hype over the guillotine after its introduction, but this would soon wear down. People would get used to it and press sales would return to normal, just like after every Presidential speech. To suggest that the execution of 52 people and the associated jobs and sales, even if they were all done by guillotine, will have any impact on the population or economy of the United States is absurd to the highest degree. Sources: 1. http://aintnowaytogo.com... 2. http://news.ufl.edu... 3. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...