So How Should We Execute Them?
//EDIT//
I’ve received far too many comments with the silly argument that we can’t allow the goverment to kill, since that too would be murder, so I’ll answer them all here:
The argument is, as I said, silly and illogical. If executions of criminals are indeed murder, then imprisonment of criminals is kidnapping, and fines are theft or robbery. So if we go by that logic, we must close all prisons, stop all fines, and pretty much shut down the entire criminal justice system.
There are plenty of good arguments against the death penalty. Saying it is the same as murder isn’t one of them.
//END EDIT//
People opposed to the death penalty know they can’t win an open debate regarding morals. They are, after all, standing up for the right of the worst murderers to live. As such, they find different methods of slowing down the process, making the death penalty as inefficient and expensive as possible. In an article in SvD, as usual written with the intent of proving the faults of the death penalty despite Sweden not even having it, the main complaint is that executing a murderer using a lethal injection is cruel and too painful.
First off, one should ask if the murderers took special care to make sure their victims weren’t in any pain. But even ignoring that, the question posed to all opponents of the death penalty is this:
Assuming we are going to execute these people, which method would you actually subscribe to without all this whining and bitching?
Just asking!
On a small side note, it is really ridiculous to see this endless anti-death penalty, pro-criminal propaganda in Swedish newspapers from left to right. It is banned in Sweden, it is banned in the EU. Who really gives a damn if murderers are killed on the other side of the planet?
Escaping Perdition 
Can you provide evidence that the death penalty is actually helping to reduce crime? Are the courts 100% certain that they will never execute an innocent person? Is an execution currently cheaper than life-time inprisonment? I argue that the answer to thses questions are “no” and as such I cannot support the implementation of the death penalty.
What are your reasons for wanting to revert to a view of justice found during the middle ages?
Now for your question:
Drag them out into the street and let the one who judged them cut their head off with an axe. If they can´t do it then they really should´t want them dead. An axe is really cheap and with a clean strike death will be quick and painless.
The death penalty is an abomination created by the “mob-mentality” and has no place in civilized society.
I don’t agree with the logic of making the judges execute the murderers themselves. It would be like asking the judges to imprison criminals in their basements rather than send them to jail.
I likewise disagree, obviously, with your take on the death penalty. It’s the epitome of morals. The opposite, just forgiving a murderer for snuffing out a life and everything it could have been, seems barbaric and uncivilized to me.
Finally, it still strikes me as funny how the issue of the death penalty so enrages people. It is banned in the Swedish constitution, and likewise the EU’s constitution. We’re not getting it back. So why does it matter what the Americans do?
“So why does it matter what the Americans do?”. That´s your argument for justifying state sanctioned murder (especially regarding those poor sods who are actually later found to have been innocent!)? I bet the Nazis were saying the same about killing Jews, gypsies and other politically undesirables. I bet pedophiles say this daily to justify their behavior. Of course everyone must have the right to an opinion. But if USA is so set on being on the same level as a bunch of 3rd world dictatorships, and if a majority of Americans support this, then I guess you have the right to continue. Just as we Europeans have the right to think its very barbaric… Remember George W Bush…. You Americans thought he was great – we Europeans didn´t. You Americans were so upset with us about that you tried to boycott french products. Now I think its fair to say that most Americans have realized that we Europeans were right all along – though it might be hard to admit it. I am sure the difference of opinion about capital punishment will turn out the same way.
any killing of any human being is of course moraly wrong and indefensable. And it is not helpful in any way. To anyone.
i am swedish, but i’m ambivalent about the death penalty. whereas I agree some peope simply do not deserve to live (in which case i don’t really care how they die), there are a few problems. What if they’re wrong? what if this person did in fact NOT commit the crime in question? you can’t exactly go back on it afterwards, which makes the execution just as bad as any murder. this is the core problem for me. so to sum up, to me, the death penalty is only bad if you turn out to be wrong about who is in fact guilty.
but back to the question on the exacution method. first off, no means of execution can be 100% painless in every single way, every single time it is performed. It can always go wrong. with this in mind, the whining will probably never end. the answer would probably just be “don’t execute people”.
1. The moral issue is by far a non-brainier, because there are many of us who believe that the State should not kill as a punishment for crimes committed. And we usually believe that this is immoral.
2. Name any other country that still has the death penalty, and uses it, who is a developed country? The mental hospitals are full of people who believe only they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe you are right and the rest of the developed world is wrong? Are you that conceded that you think you are incapable of being wrong?
3. Last a practical matter – if, as has happened, an innocent person is executed by the State, how do you deal with that?
a) How do you say “sorry we were wrong, here is your life back” to a dead person?
b) If moral justice is your goal, then who should be punished for executing that innocent person? I assume that morally we would have to execute the Judge, Jury, Governor and perhaps the prosecutor – or why not the executioner? Someone has to pay also when the State com mitts murder (as because if the State takes the life of an innocent person., that just can´t go unpunished, can it? Imagine if it was you, innocently accused, convicted and executed?)
Executing an innocent person would be a terrible, terrible mistake that couldn’t be made right with money or apologies. You’re right. It is the one big issue facing the death penalty’s proponents.
As such, any system that employs the death penalty needs to be of a far higher standard than a system that doesn’t.
Just a thought. If it’s criminal to take another persons life, who will execute the executioner and the judge? They both take another persons life.
The US produces their own criminals due to low social standards and poor education. Every living human being can do horrible things in desperate times. We are only animals, and we need to acknowledge that.
But anyhow, if you’re gonna kill people – why not do it the like the US military does abroad? “One shot, one kill.”
And if anyone has any complaint about the way US does its foregin affairs, well, I think it’s ignorant to ever think that the US would spend billions of dollars every year to “rid the world of evil”.
It’s totally obvious that they only protect their own national interests and businesses. One important factor here is that the US is dependent on importing energy, and without that supply it cannot sustain its society as it is.
Let them work themself to death.
Det är klart att vi som är emot dödsstraff kan vinna en öppen moralisk diskussion om ämnet: Vi väljer det samhälle vi vill bo i, och vi kan välja ett samhälle som inte är mördar sina medborgare. Vi kan välja att inte vara kollektiva mördare.
Vem ska dödsstraffa personen som utför dödstraffet? Den personen är ju då också en mördare.
If the murderer did WRONG by killing, HOW can we make it RIGHT by killing again?
The murderer doesn’t deserve to live, that I agree with. But our society does NOT deserve to be a part of murder.
Do You think it’s ok to execute people for example stealing? In some countries, stealing is a really serious thing. Is it ok just because it’s “on the other side of the world”? Or is it ok just because the citizens think stealing should be punished with death?
The state should never kill since that, by default, is an approval of the act it self.
Jag är så jävla trött på svennarnas idiotkommentarer. Författaren av detta har helt rätt: om avrättning är mord är fängelse kidnapping or böter är rån. SKALL VI STÄNGA NED ALLA FÄNGELSER, OCH STOPPA ALLA BÖTER, OCH SKALL VI FUCKING LÄGGA NED HELA RÄTTSSYSTEMET!!!!!!!!!!??????????????? HUR I HELVETE SKALL DET GÖRA SAKEN BÄTTRE!!!!!!!!!??????????? Utan dödsstraff skulle det vara 100 gånger fler mördare än idag.
I’m guessing you would approve of the judge in question to be killed, if it was found that the person executed was innocent? Only fair, right? She took a life, she gets to die? Amirite?
I’ve got nothing to add on the matter. As has been argued already, 1) it’s undoable, which is a problem for those poor bastard later proven innocent, and 2) the state should not engage in killing it’s citizens – there must be limits to what a state is allowed do to it’s citizens.
Now, to the more delicate question: what method would I prefer, assuming we are going to implement the death penalty? I do like this kind of morbid talk, so… 🙂 Answer: guillotine. Having heads rolling on the streets is kinda symbolic, isn’t it? Cheers.
As long as mistakes are made and innocent people are being put to death, capital punishment is wrong.
The trouble is that the U.S.A. has been “murdering” innocent people for years (mostly blacks) — and shall continue, no doubt, to do so. [And then there is “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Constitution, but nobody reads that since Bush & Cheney burned it.]