An executioner explains

[Karlos]

CannonFodder wrote:
@Karlos

Mr resident Muslim sir, is death by sword the only allowed way to execute a criminal according to the Quran/Hadith?

No, that's just the one prescribed by Saudi. There are worse ways, especially historically. I think stoning is the worst, it's in no way different from being beaten to death and was used as a serious deterrent for many crimes.

However, where the penalty for a crime is death, there is nothing of which I am aware that specifically insists one method or another must be used. For many years, death by firing squad was used in Saudi, beheadding was (re)introduced more recently. I am not aware of any fatwah that would preclude the use of more humane methods of execution*

*if you can regard execution as humane in the first place.

I'm not a pro-death penalty supporter per se, but I don't think the option should be totally forbidden either as there  are certain criminals (guilty on multiple counts of the most horrific types of crime) who are perhaps beyond rehabilitation and classes of crime (eg genocide etc) for which the example of zero tolerance applies**. I guess that's about as "on the fence" as you can get in a subject as polarised as this one...

**yes, I am well aware of the irony in this statement; after all, genocide -> state sanctioned murder of many; death penalty for those guilty of it -> state sanctioned murder of one.

[GadgetMaster]

Karlos wrote:

**yes, I am well aware of the irony in this statement; after all, genocide -> state sanctioned murder of many; death penalty for those guilty of it -> state sanctioned murder of one.

Corrupt regimes tend to misuse the penalty anyway and do not care to follow the prescribed regulations.

The rich ones with "contacts" get away scott free wheras some peasant that was forced to steal for food gets his hands chopped off. Where is the justice in that?

The ones carrying out the ultimate execution penalties tend to forget that the Death penalty in Islam can only be administered in a purely, shariah following, Islamic state and even then only when there is a free and willing admission from the murderer of his crime -- THREE times at different intervals and under no duress!! -- Each time a cooling off period is allowed for the accused to withdraw the admission. During this period if the admission is retracted then the death penalty cannot be administered. Full stop.

Sharia has a humane and just legal system as opposed to the misinformed and distorted crap we hear about it in the media. Its probably because nobody is really practicing it properly anywhere at this time. Those that purport to do so twist it and modify it to suit their own goals.

The torturing that goes on in Saudi to extract admissions is  a known fact. They are not practising Sharia or any other kind of law there. They are a brutal Monarchy that are supported by the west for political reasons unfortunately . :-(

[Karlos]

@Cannonfodder

CannonFodder wrote:

metalman wrote:
...
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads.  The English used an axe or a sword to behead.

None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".

That's as maybe, but "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?"

I think he said yes.

[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

[NoFastMem]

JaXanim wrote:
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.

Interesting thoughts, though you've discounted the stress of waiting on death row. Ultimately, civilisation has made executions a private, mysterious, though supposedly more humane affair, but brought with it the modern legal system, appeals, etc. Were I a guilty man on death row, I think I'd want it over with.

On the question of lethal injections: I've been put under general anaesthetic before and there was literally enough time to utter "Be gentle!" after it was administered before I blacked out. I had very little time to worry about what lay ahead. Why a lethal injection should take minutes before rendering the recipient unconscious (never mind half an hour) is a mystery to me.

[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

[metalman]

Karlos wrote:
@Cannonfodder

CannonFodder wrote:

metalman wrote:
...
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads.  The English used an axe or a sword to behead.

None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".

That's as maybe, but "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?"

I think he said yes.

one word answers not allowed!

;-)

[KThunder]

that we discuss these things makes us civilized
that we care about cruel and unusual punishments makes us civilized.

personally i think locking a person away in a cell and telling them they will never see freedom again is cruel, but not unusual.

any method of dispatching a criminal that is not too messy and is not used for the entertainment of onlookers is ok. in many countries (us included) executions were public specticles. that i dont beleive was civilized and it drove many to realize that and change it. in france there was emootional effects on many especially children from seeing beheadings. (i printed a book on it once)

[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

[nadoom]

The torturing that goes on in Saudi to extract admissions is a known fact. They are not practising Sharia or any other kind of law there. They are a brutal Monarchy that are supported by the west for political reasons unfortunately .  

You are so correct, the saudi version of 'shariah law' is perverse as it does not apply to everyone especially the dictator and his numerous family members. This regime which stifiles economic development by its mere existence is supported by the west whilst the taliban are labeled as bunch of scum bags! (didnt stop the US trying to make an oil pipeline deal with them back in the day)

This guy who is doing the executions, beleives he is doing his duty, its better that he is very astute at his work than sloppy.

In islam when some one is executed for murder for example and admits it and takes his punishement in this life, it means that in the hereafter his punishment will be reduced - in the executioners eyes he is doing them a favour, if u see my point.


Supermax prisons:
In the states i imagine rotting in a supermax prison is a worse fate than death, that is what i call cruel and unusual punishment. Imagine no contact with any human being ever again, no death to spare your mind while you go slowly insane, how can that be allowed? some things are worse much worse than death, its really quite horrible the level to which humans can stoop.

[CannonFodder]

metalman wrote:

Karlos wrote:
@Cannonfodder

CannonFodder wrote:

metalman wrote:
...
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads.  The English used an axe or a sword to behead.

None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".

That's as maybe, but "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?"

I think he said yes.

one word answers not allowed!

;-)

In your own words "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?" (No more than 200wds)

[KThunder]

you are pushing to see if there is some type of double standard arent you. do you dislike americans?

i think most of us are on the same page here. beheadings are quick, clean, and painless (there were lots of debates for years and the best scientists could say was that there was likely no pain)

parading the head or headless body around afterwards would not be civilized. but i think the term civilized has been thrown around a bit without definition. why dont you define it for us cannonfodder

[CannonFodder]

KThunder wrote:
you are pushing to see if there is some type of double standard arent you. do you dislike americans?

i think most of us are on the same page here. beheadings are quick, clean, and painless (there were lots of debates for years and the best scientists could say was that there was likely no pain)

parading the head or headless body around afterwards would not be civilized. but i think the term civilized has been thrown around a bit without definition. why dont you define it for us cannonfodder

To me, "Civilized" is sitting down with a nice cup tea, a plate of Hobnobs and watching a good Attenborough documentary on the Beeb.

Anyone who says otherwise is just a common pleb.

[Wilse]

To me, "Civilized" is sitting down with a nice cup tea, a plate of Hobnobs and watching a good Attenborough documentary on the Beeb.

Hehehe.... I'm with you mate.
:pint:

[nadoom]

earl grey or darjeeling old boy?

[KThunder]

CannonFodder wrote:

To me, "Civilized" is sitting down with a nice cup tea, a plate of Hobnobs and watching a good Attenborough documentary on the Beeb.

Anyone who says otherwise is just a common pleb.[/quote]

ok so when you ask if beheading would be civilized if done in america we all have to say no because it has nothing to do with tea and telly?

i like tea, but i dont know quite what hobnobs are and i dont like most documentaries. so am i partly civilized?

hobnobs hmmmm dont sound particularly appetizing, anything like spotted dick?