Surviving an Execution | Hacker News Reader

Surviving an Execution

legalhistorymiscellany.com

29 pointsmagnifique49 comments

Not a fan of the death penalty in general, for multiple reasons, but anesthesia administered by gas, as before surgery, seems way more certain than searching for a vein. After that, no method of execution is going to be cruel, assuming the criminal doesn't wake up.

I believe that is wasn't unheard of in England for relatives of a condemned person to pay off the hangman to either (a) make sure the death went well (ie, they were killed by their neck being broken instead of strangulation) or (b) to cut them down early so they would survive.

I thought of the story of wenseslau moguel who was "executed" by firing squad, (including a shot to the head) but survived and crawled away from the carnage after dark.

Execution is barbaric, whether the condemned deserve it or not. A civilized society should not engage in it.

I always thought that the movie, Capote, had the most visceral depiction of execution I've seen in film. The idea of being led to your death, the hood, the waiting for the platform to drop. Oof, makes my heart race a bit. The hanging or shooting may be quick, but the moments leading up to it certainly are not. And imagine if you were innocent!

This is one reason why, when the UK had capital punishment, a premium was placed on speed. The condemned cell was set up a few yards from the scaffold and the idea was that the time from the executioner entering the cell to the trap being dropped could be well under one minute.

The movie 'Pierrepoint' shows this pretty well (and has a very good performance by Timothy Spall as the eponymous professional but slightly conflicted hangman).

Yes, but that didn't seem always to be the case when the British were hanging people overseas. George Orwell wrote an essay, A Hanging [1], about an execution that he witnessed while serving in Burma. The prisoner, and escort, have a walk of several minutes from the cell to the gallows outdoors. At one point, with 40 yards to go to the gallows, the party is disrupted by a large playful dog. He notes that after the disturbance, the prisoner steps to one side to avoid a puddle on the ground. Orwell writes:

"It is curious, but till that moment I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide. This man was not dying, he was alive just as we were alive. All the organs of his body were working — bowels digesting food, skin renewing itself, nails growing, tissues forming — all toiling away in solemn foolery. His nails would still be growing when he stood on the drop, when he was falling through the air with a tenth of a second to live. His eyes saw the yellow gravel and the grey walls, and his brain still remembered, foresaw, reasoned — reasoned even about puddles. He and we were a party of men walking together, seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding the same world; and in two minutes, with a sudden snap, one of us would be gone — one mind less, one world less.

It's powerful stuff, whatever your thoughts on capital punishment.

[1] https://orwell.ru/library/articles/hanging/english/e_hanging

that is astounding! Makes me think of not smothering out a smoldering wick let alone a vibrant living man. Written in 1931, wow.

> Written in 1931, wow.

Indeed. I always assumed that people did not have sophisticated thoughts until at least 1960!

Sophistication and rich thought goes back much further than the 20th century for sure.

In Japan, those condemned to death are not informed of their execution date until the day it happens, and can languish in jail for decades until that day.

Imagine spending 32 years in solitary confinement, under the knowledge that the next knock on your door could be last:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan

Paths of Glory would like to have a word with you.

This might sound hyperbolic, but it's not only the the most visceral depiction of execution I've seen - it's simply one of the most intense moments of all cinema. It's the film that made Stanley Kubrick famous, and for a good reason. That said, I also liked Capote.

Kieslowski's "A Short Film About Killing" is also very powerful.

Leaving aside the moral question of the death penalty, the use of lethal injection seems insane to me. Why don't they just use nitrogen suffocation?

Or carbon monoxide?

Or you know, literally, just a gun to the head. Out of all possible execution methods that were tried in the last century, the lethal injection seems to be one of the most horrific ones, possibly beaten by the electric chair.

Lethal injection designed and administered by a competent anesthesiologist who had a goal of making the process as painless and peaceful as possible seems like one of the better ways to die. It was a good idea in principle. But in practice, the nonsensical protocols designed by non-experts who don't care about the experience being pleasant and administered by incompetents hasn't gone well.

I suspect there's very few competent anesthesiologist who would be willing to do lethal injections. Even if they believe in the death penalty the risk to their careers seems not worth the non-existent reward.

Many doctors believe participating in executions is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. I suspect that you're right.

> Even if they believe in the death penalty the risk to their careers seems not worth the non-existent reward.

I would presume they pay fairly handsomely, if there are few doctors willing to participate. Even if they payed them $10,000 to do it, there aren't enough executions a year for it to dent the budget. I wonder if that info is public.

The median anesthesiologist in the US earns a little under $400,000/yr. $10,000 is probably not enough to get one risk their career to carry out an execution.

Plenty of people have survived execution by gunshot - especially in wartime, when shooting prisoners is commonplace. See for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenceslao_Moguel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Dumini

I think certain French revolutionaries found a more clear-cut solution a long time ago.

(Personally, I find the death sentence in any form barbaric, given how it nullifies any form of recourse in cases of wrongful conviction. It might however be an agreeable option to offer "voluntary execution" of some form: allow inmates convicted for life an alternative to using bedsheets in ways they weren't intended for. What a depressing topic, this.)

Now I’m curious; is there any account of a botched execution with a guillotine?

Yes: https://www.quora.com/Has-the-guillotine-ever-failed-since-1...

Cheers!

Why the electric chair? My father was accidentally electrocuted (and fortunately survived). He says that he felt nothing.

Accidental electrocutions are brief.

In the chair you are looking at a minimum of about 90 seconds of agony, which some taking in excess of 10 minutes.

My father lost consciousness immediately. So how is it agony?

Carbon monoxide is an awful way to die, as it triggers the hypercapnic alarm response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnic_alarm_response

Inert gas asphyxiation would be a more "humane" way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation

You confuse CO with CO2, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning....

As someone who came very close to dying when a refrigerant relief valve on an industrial AC unit lifted in an enclosed space I can attest that it is a very peaceful and painless way to go.

Not that I agree with the practice but the people pro death are also pro retribution; to them the suffering is a feature :/

If you want to make that generalization, you should have some good sources to back it up. Do you have some stats saying that e.g. 99% of pro-death-penalty people want the accused to "suffer"?

Otherwise you're just throwing shade on people you disagree with, and that doesn't make you look good.

I would say this is one of those very rare examples where sufficient social activity suffices where a study is absent. I have not met a single human being who believes in execution but only humanely. I have met in excess of 50 people who simply conflate suffering and death and simplify the justification

You're relying on anecdotes, and the reliability of anecdotes isn't increased just because the subject matter is harder to get good information on.

> I have not met a single human being who believes in execution but only humanely. I have met in excess of 50 people who simply conflate suffering and death and simplify the justification

The very best this statement can say is that inside your bubble, this is how your memory represents the aggregate opinions you've encountered w.r.t. the death penalty.

Hey, nice to meet you. I believe there are crimes where a death penalty is warranted, but only humanely. AMA?

I also believe that there are crimes where a death penalty is warranted, but I also do not believe it should be executed because I do not believe any organized entity exists that could follow through on those penalties without being provably uncorrupt or infallible, and therefor it should not be considered an option in any civilized community.

Death is by definition suffering. By that, I mean the removal of free will and free thought is suffering. Prison removes free will, and death removes free thought.

I saw a documentary on the subject where that was acknowledged in this particular case, the suffering being an important factor.

I can't remember the documentary title, but the example was given of humane, even pleasurable, similar method to use instead of injection etc and it was dismissed angrily by pro campaigners for those honest and believable reasons.

That's not to say it's a majority opinion - so I agree with your objection to that generalisation, but it's definitely a reaction of some who are pro-death penalty.

Yeah, I'm not saying there aren't some people who think that way. I'm specifically taking issue with the generalization.

It seems fairly common these days to throw shade on people we disagree with, and it bothers me.

PR concerns, they're worried about being compared to the Nazis if they use gases for executions.

You've, umm, never heard of "the gas chamber" being used for executions in the U. S.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber#United_States

I have, yes.

Because there are existing court rulings declaring that lethal injection (with a particular cocktail of drugs) is not considered cruel and unusual punishment. If any other method were tried the accused would appeal on the grounds that the method was excessively cruel and the court process would take many years to complete.

Opioid overdose?

Just use anesthesia before the execution. If they can do surgery on you without even a passing sense of time, why not use it in this case?

Why not a firing squad? I’ve never understood why we are so concerned with the pain and suffering of a condemned murderer. I get that the 8th amendment is there and we shouldn’t want to make anyone suffer but some criminals are alive simply because it’s illegal to kill them.

Firing squads can still be used in Utah if the prisoner was sentenced before May 2004 and chooses for that method over lethal injection. They can also be used if lethal injection drugs aren't available.

For federal executions, the Trump DOJ changed the rules effective December 24, 2020 to allow federal executions to use any method that the state in which the prisoner was sentenced allows so federal prisoners sentenced in Utah could now be executed via firing squad.

Some prisoners choose the firing squad (possibly to protest it).

> For federal executions, the Trump DOJ changed the rules effective December 24, 2020 to allow federal executions to use any method that the state in which the prisoner was sentenced allows

What a legacy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com