The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword

I would like to begin this debate by explaining a fundamental misunderstanding by Pro on how desensitization works.The first thing to note is that desensitization was actually a very good thing and the concept of it originated in psychology as a cure to phobias.[1][2] Desensitization therapy works by gradually exposing the individual more and more to what they fear or feel disgust towards and over time they begin to lose the effect it has on them. This is a good thing for martial artists such as Kyokushin Karate (also known as Kyokushin kumite) who beat brick walls, but begin with punching into a bucket of rice as the knuckles are not ready for something like brick at first, just to become less prone to feeling pain.[3] On the other hand, it has been seen that the more people are shown things they should have phobias or disgust towards, such as murder and rape, the less bad it begins to seem. This has been seen both with hard porn addicts[4] and fighting game addicts.[5] This is also why the more you take a drug, the more you need of it to get the same rush, dubbed 'drug tolerance'.[6]Now, if one takes the reality of desensitization and observes Pro's argument they find a flaw in the logic. Pro argues that the separation between the judge and the execution itself cause the judge to be desensitized to it but, if anything, this is the best way of preventing that occurring. By forcing the judge to be the one to carry out the executions you will slowly desensitize them to murder itself (something a judge must abhor) and to the concept of execution overall being that severe as a punishment. Therefore, desensitization cannot possibly occur if the person is barely being exposed to the thing. Judges know exactly what killing is and are all fully verse din laws regarding the criminality of murder and the sanctity of human life. If they weren't,they wouldn't be a judge in any nation that isn't corrupt to the core. The issue isn't that the judge doesn't know about killing and how severe execution is but rather that they know how severe it is and only sentence it as and when is necessary.What would actually happen if judges and executioners became a merged job description is a helluva lot less employed people in either line of work and a resultant deficit of both judges and executioners. The potential judges who were not ready to consent to killing for either moral or plain emotional reasons would opt out of that line of work and potential executioners, which are currently simply a branch of prison wardens that works prisons exclusive to prisoners on death row, would have to get all of the qualifications and expertise that a judge has to have. This is not just bad for the economy (with less employment) but a terrifying disaster for the judicial system in more ways than one...First of all, the psychological mindset of a judge should be one able to fully grasp the emotional gravity of any situation and action while being highly intellectual and rational enough to follow a case to its conclusion. No-one wants a psychopath deciding whether someone is guilty or not and while judges are not the ones to truly decide it in cases with a jury they are still the ones to decide when someone has said enough or has the right to speak as well as the length of the case before they demand the jury to give a verdict; all having major influence son both the jury's opinion and the case's outcome. Judges tend to be the polar opposite to the mindset required for a good executioner. A good executioner would be someone simple minded, far too dull minded to follow a high-level cases and perhaps even a psychopath (oh, the irony). I am aware that psychopaths make the most notorious criminals but they also make the best executioners. An empathetic person may do one of two things; they may either be too gentle to criminals and help them escape on a whim or they may take all their anger and agony out on each criminal they kill and avoid making the sponge wet enough on an execution or use a painful chemical for someone's death as opposed to the real one. Examples of the latter are seen in The Green Mile[7] (albeit a fictional movie but still a realistic psychological analysis of prisoners on death row and their executioners). A psychopath-leaning individual would neither be too kind or too harsh to the victims. They'd feel nothing towards the criminal on death row and would carry out the procedure correctly each and every time as it's a passionate hobby to them that they couldn't legally get in any other way than perhaps joining the military or Navy SEALs. The final point to consider is that if we merge the job of executioner and judge into one, the majority people who would opt into such a profession would more likely be people who studied law just for the sake of having a legal way to kill people rather than passionate judges who accept executing as a bad part of the job. The reasoning behind this is simple; people don't want to hate the job they're going to do for the rest of their life, especially not one as tough to become as a judge. The reason people feel so proud of being a judge is it's such a prestigious and respected job to have in society; that's why people painstakingly put their blood, sweat and tears into both affording as well as successfully attaining a master's degree in Law. If this occurred, you'd have many psychopathic judges hell bent on their bloodlust convicting people to death penalty over and over. That's why the current system works; the type of people who love to kill can do executing while those who have a genuine passion for law do the judging.Sources:[1] http://www.simplypsychology.org...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://yourbrainonporn.com...[5] http://www.sciencedirect.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://www.imdb.com...