Rajl, read what was wrote. They didn't say a shot to the heart and watch them die. They said a shot to the chest creating a sucking chest wound where the person could not breathe, then before they lost consciousness, slipped into a coma, and eventually died from lack of oxygen they would shoot them in the head.rajl said:Rammstein,
From a practical standpoint, shooting someone in the chest and watching them gargle for breath is not cruel. A bullet to the chest, if it hits the aorta will end a man in less than 6 seconds, which is the amount of time it will take your heart to pump out enough blood to make you lose consciousness. This hardly a long, suffering, tortuous death.
Personally, I think too much time and effort is being spent on humane executions. Isn't an execution, by default, rather inhumane? So why bother trying to figure out if you're administering the right anesthetic dosage before you administer the lethal injection?
I can say this in no plainer terms: that is torture.
We put people to death not because we enjoy watching it, but because the criminal broke a law to warrant that punishment. It isn't about making sure the person suffers. If we torture the worst of the worst, then we open the door to torture anyone because we are saying that torture is morally acceptable.