An executioner explains

[JaXanim]

I can recommend The Last Hangman starring Timothy Spall as Albert Pierrepoint. Pierrepoint was the executioner who saw Ruth Ellis on her way and gained a dubious honour for dispatching people in remarkably quick time. He was commissioned to deal with dozens of Nazi criminals after the war and had to set up a conveyor belt system to handle the job. Contrary to popular images, Pierrpointe was a religious man who treated his charges with a quite remarkable respect.

JaX

[JaXanim]

I found the whole thing utterly barbaric. That this was televised is revolting enough, but the questions asked by the interviewers were equally sick and voyeuristic. That this so-called 'man' could surround himself with children and utter such words over them left me numbed. I know nothing, nor do I wish to learn anything of that culture, but what I witnessed was not, in my opinion, anything related to civilisation.

JaX

[JaXanim]

CannonFodder wrote:
Is the custom of beheading murderers anyless "civilised" than electrocuting them to death via the cranuim?

No. But you seem to have missed my point entirely.

JaX

[JaXanim]

CannonFodder wrote:
Which is?

That the interview was considered worthy television. That the producers considered any audience would wish to experience it. That the executioner should display the tools of his trade with such pride. That the interviewers, for whatever purpose and with seeming relish, ensured every detail was elicited. That children, for whatever reason, should form part of it. I found the experience inconscionable of civilised society. It was disquieting that I wasn't watching a grusome blood-letting movie but a story of someone's actual daily life. There's surely an argument that any section of humanity which kills its criminals, by whatever procedure, for the purpose of extracting revenge can never be truly 'civilised'.

JaX

[JaXanim]

As societies become more 'civilised' their death penalty becomes less brutal/painful/protracted/etc so one wonders what it actually achieves for these societies. In the past, the death penalty was purposely brutal/painful/protracted/etc in order that the recipient suffered dearly for this crimes and so his soul could be purged. That is the perception Western societies had at the time. The principle of cause and effect. Today, in our 'more civilised' societies, we try to dispatch the recipient in ways which minimise his suffering at all costs. In recent times, hanging was considered quick, the only suffering being in the preliminaries of binding, hooding and noosing. In the UK, these stages were refined into a matter of seconds by Pierrepoint, who I mentioned earlier. Florida's recent fiasco may actually bring a cessation of the death penalty because it's still not painless or quick enough. Clearly the motivation for and the 'value' in killing have changed. Today, the motivation seems to involve mainly revenge/deterance/economics/protection of society rather than 'penalty'. A penalty has to involve suffering by definition and if we mitigate against that the term 'death penalty' is meaningless. Perhaps the words 'final solution' come to mind.

TC

[JaXanim]

NoFastMem wrote:

Interesting thoughts, though you've discounted the stress of waiting on death row.

Yes, I purposely discounted that aspect. As evidenced by the Florida case, typical death row waits are decades long during/after which time I suspect any suffering has long past. It could be argued that the 'long wait for death' is the actual penalty. If so, it's clearly not considered as brutal or painful as death itself.
[EDIT: Were death row waits prespecified without recourse, the 'penalty' would clearly be more effective. In the case of Saddam Hussein for example. I believe the rules state his execution must take place within/after 30 days of sentence being confirmed.]

JaX

[JaXanim]

KThunder wrote:
- - - in france there was emootional effects on many especially children from seeing beheadings. (i printed a book on it once)

Which brings us back to the executioner and his 'explanations'.

JaX

[JaXanim]

As I understand it, Hobnobs are an American concept, formulated as they are with large stick-in-the-teeth pieces of oat husks. As you know, America has always been partial to its husks. The purportedly more civilised British, on the other hand, were far more content, from the historical perspective, with the smoother, rounder textures of Rich Tea and Crawfords Digestive.

It seems then, that the question of who is the more civilised nation has been blurred, perhaps irrevocably, by the very priciples the British extoll to define themselves. What a dilemma this is.

JaX