Best way to kill a person.

[fli]

Weird topic... but something that's been around in news.
Death row. Injectins. Cruelty. Hangings (people are saying Saddam's hanging is too cruel.)Etc.... etc...

So then,
what's the best way to kill a person in the least cruel way?

I thought about it and my first thought is make the person unconcious...
So the last meal should have some sedative.

Then take the person to the guillitine which will ensure 1.) Instant death and 2.) relatively "painless."

[Jose]

At 11/6/06 10:24 PM, fli wrote:
Then take the person to the guillitine which will ensure 1.) Instant death and 2.) relatively "painless."

And if the guillitine doesn't make a clean cut and the person wakes up screaming, then what?

The best way to kill someone is to shoot them in their brainstem, ensuring an instant death.

[DrBrainTrust]

I suggest carbon monoxide poisoning. It's basically like taking a nap that you don't wake up from.

[Empanado]

Before it being abolished a couple of years ago, death penalty over here was enforced via firing squad.
It's neither the most delicate nor the least cruel/painful of ways, but it gets you a cigarrette and a blindfold, which is totally pimp.

[fli]

At 11/6/06 10:29 PM, Jose wrote:

At 11/6/06 10:24 PM, fli wrote:
Then take the person to the guillitine which will ensure 1.) Instant death and 2.) relatively "painless."

And if the guillitine doesn't make a clean cut and the person wakes up screaming, then what?

The best way to kill someone is to shoot them in their brainstem, ensuring an instant death.

But I'm sure guillotine would be better than those from the French Revolution... It would probably make a cleaner cut than those from 3 to 5 centuries ago.

I mean, not all people with a bullet to the brain die.

But monoxide poisoning... that seems better I guess.
A nice sleep and never waking up.

[WentForAScrew]

The best way to die isn't necessarily a painless/uncruel method.

Personally, I'd like to die by cyanide poisoning while nailing a french prostitute who has the clap (and about 29 other std's).

Then again, you're not asking about the best wat to die, you're asking about the best way to kill.

Here's my opinion on that though:
If someone commited a crime so grave that it warrants the death penalty, why not let them live a long, laborous, institutionalized life? Free labor.

Same goes for lifers too, instead of having them do nothing, why not have them contribute to our country with hard manual labor?

Let them die a painful, back-breaking death.

Keep in mind, we're talking about serial killers, rapists, cannibals, terrorists and the like.

With the death penalties as it is, however, I'd say gas chamber (which they don't do anymore, I don't think), because it suffocates the restrained criminal, providing a very uncomfortablely slow death.

[DrBrainTrust]

Well I was suggesting the most humane way to execute somebody. As far as retribution, I would suggest rendering them comatose by way of severe trauma to the fore brain or perhaps a drug cocktail of sorts, then harvesting their organs and donating them to people who need them. At least then their death will give life to others

[Jose]

At 11/6/06 10:36 PM, fli wrote:

At 11/6/06 10:29 PM, Jose wrote:

At 11/6/06 10:24 PM, fli wrote:
Then take the person to the guillitine which will ensure 1.) Instant death and 2.) relatively "painless."

And if the guillitine doesn't make a clean cut and the person wakes up screaming, then what?

The best way to kill someone is to shoot them in their brainstem, ensuring an instant death.

But I'm sure guillotine would be better than those from the French Revolution... It would probably make a cleaner cut than those from 3 to 5 centuries ago.

Keyword: probably.
The guillotine hits a bone, and doesn't go all the way through, that person is in for a fuckload of pain.

I mean, not all people with a bullet to the brain die.

A slug shot to the brainstem would kill a person. The person's lungs and heart would cease to function, and boom, dead.

But monoxide poisoning... that seems better I guess.
A nice sleep and never waking up.

Eh, not efficient enough.

[EternalRabbit]

what if the bullet doesn't kill you? didn't you ever see the world is not enough? yes, i know it's just a movie, but it can happen!

[EternalRabbit]

what if the bullet doesn't kill you? didn't you ever see the world is not enough? yes, i know it's just a movie, but it can happen!

[cellardoor6]

At 11/6/06 10:55 PM, Jose wrote:

A slug shot to the brainstem would kill a person. The person's lungs and heart would cease to function, and boom, dead.

I love it how you practically quote me from what I've said in other threads.

[Jose]

At 11/6/06 11:48 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/6/06 10:55 PM, Jose wrote:

A slug shot to the brainstem would kill a person. The person's lungs and heart would cease to function, and boom, dead.

I love it how you practically quote me from what I've said in other threads.

You can have a good idea. But get over yourself.

[shrtstff69]

my idea to the best way to kill is probably would be explosives or a shot to the heart and lungs. but the shot to heart and lungs would take a little to die and sometimes if your lucky you will survive a shot like that. if not those two then a would definitly pick a shock from a tazer and injections.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/7/06 12:00 AM, Jose wrote:

At 11/6/06 11:48 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/6/06 10:55 PM, Jose wrote:

A slug shot to the brainstem would kill a person. The person's lungs and heart would cease to function, and boom, dead.

I love it how you practically quote me from what I've said in other threads.

You can have a good idea. But get over yourself.

I bet you were unaware of the details of the brain-stem gun shot wound method of execution before I mentioned it in the other thread. I'm not full of myself, its just this has been about the 5th time you have copied something that I said and only worded it slightly different. I haven't noticed anyone else doing that other than you. Either you know you've copied some things that I've said, or you happen to have the exact knowledge of things that I do, and express them about the same time I do on BBS by some odd coincidence.

[WentForAScrew]

At 11/7/06 12:08 AM, shrtstff69 wrote: but the shot to heart and lungs would take a little to die and sometimes if your lucky you will survive a shot like that

Lucky to survive a bullet in the heart and lungs?
Do you have any clue how severe that pain would be?
You would be lucky only if by some miracle you died instantly.

Sheesh, I thought I was empathy-challenged.

[Jose]

At 11/7/06 12:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Either you know you've copied some things that I've said, or you happen to have the exact knowledge of things that I do, and express them about the same time I do on BBS by some odd coincidence.

And yet when I disagree with you on policy, you go on rants on how wrong I am. You can't have it both ways.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/7/06 12:25 AM, Jose wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Either you know you've copied some things that I've said, or you happen to have the exact knowledge of things that I do, and express them about the same time I do on BBS by some odd coincidence.

And yet when I disagree with you on policy, you go on rants on how wrong I am. You can't have it both ways.

When you give your OPINION I think you are usually wrong. But when what you are saying isn't really a matter of political opinion, you tend to quote me if you can't think of something good to say.

You must admire me.

[fahrenheit]

At 11/6/06 10:55 PM, Jose wrote: Keyword: probably.

Uh, no.
The guillotine, if properly built, would have no problem seperating your head from your shoulder. The only inhumane thing would be if it missed your neck (hit your back or something), which would be difficult, considering the openings were made to fit only a neck, and if the rumours are true about still being alive after the seperation. Which wouldnt matter anyway because you would be unconcious.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/7/06 01:35 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 11/6/06 10:55 PM, Jose wrote: Keyword: probably.

Uh, no.
The guillotine, if properly built, would have no problem seperating your head from your shoulder. The only inhumane thing would be if it missed your neck (hit your back or something), which would be difficult, considering the openings were made to fit only a neck

That is true.

and if the rumours are true about still being alive after the seperation. Which wouldnt matter anyway because you would be unconcious.

Thats not true. Because people don't lose consciousness instantly when they are beheaded. They are conscious for 10 seconds to a minute until oxygen in the blood that is already in the brain is absorbed, or when the oxygen-enriched blood loses pressure or drains from the head.

One person who was sentenced to face the guillotine, I don't remember where or when, decided to conduct a test to see if a human head was conscious after decapitation. The person planned on blinking as many times as he could before losing consciousness. The severed head was lifted up for everyone to see and it blinked over 100 times.

The only way to ensure that the person would lose consciousness would be to severely damage the brain stem, this would be very difficult with a guillitine and would have to go through skull.

[WentForAScrew]

At 11/7/06 02:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Thats not true. Because people don't lose consciousness instantly when they are beheaded.

Read the method of death proposed by the topic starter again...

At 11/6/06 10:24 PM, fli wrote: I thought about it and my first thought is make the person unconcious...
Then take the person to the guillitine

By this method, the inmate would [somehow] be unconcious prior to being beheaded.

[MagnusTheRed]

Why should they be killed in a humane way? If they're given death, they have done something terrible, and thus surely don't deserve a quick, mercifull death.

But if you really want to be nice, just slip a large amound of crushed up sleeping pills in their food. Never know what hit 'em.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/7/06 02:49 AM, WentForAScrew wrote:

At 11/7/06 02:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Thats not true. Because people don't lose consciousness instantly when they are beheaded.

Read the method of death proposed by the topic starter again...

I wasn't replying to the topic starter though.

At 11/6/06 10:24 PM, fli wrote: I thought about it and my first thought is make the person unconcious...
Then take the person to the guillitine

By this method, the inmate would [somehow] be unconcious prior to being beheaded.

I see, But if they were already unconscious, why use a method of execution that dismembers their body?

Why not just use intravenous poison to stop their heart if they are already unconscious? Why go through the effort of creating a quick and crude death after they are already in a state where they feel no discomfort? Especially when the few extra minutes required for the poison to take effect wouldn't be experienced by the unconscious executee?

Then this just brings us to the current form of execution which is lethal injection! This kind of makes the topic starters idea pointless.

[wwwyzzerdd]

Is there really a such thing as a "humane" way of killing a person? End result regardless is you're justifying murder for murder.

[fli]

At 11/7/06 03:53 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Is there really a such thing as a "humane" way of killing a person? End result regardless is you're justifying murder for murder.

I'm not giving my opinion on capital punishment,
just talking about the method of execution because of news on lethal ejection and Saddam's hanging.

Of course there are less cruel methods of killing (or murder if you want to call it like that.) I mean, there's long and painful versus quick and relatively painless.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/7/06 03:53 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Is there really a such thing as a "humane" way of killing a person? End result regardless is you're justifying murder for murder.

Executing a murderer doesn't make someone a murderer.

Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person for other than moral purposes. JUSTICE is not immoral, therefore executing someone who DID murder is just balancing Karma, and ridding the world of someone who doesn't deserve to live because they intentionally, meticulously, and pointlessly committed atrocities that took away the lives of people who DESERVED to live.

So according to your logic: arresting and imprisoning a kidnapper is just "kidnapping a kidnapper" and therefore unjustified?

You have to think of the sheer justice of the matter. Eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth. Intentional death of a murderer in retribution for the intentional death of innocents, its simple really.

It's an awful thing, but it is nature. Humans have been doing this since our introduction into the chaos that is existence. Life feeds on life, and evil people prey on weaker people. Fortunately, the concept of the rule of law has been adopted by some humans and therefore justice can be excercised without malice or passion, just simple punishments that fit the crime and so forth.

If people didn't commit murder, there would be no need for the state-issued death. But in order to have atleast some sort of order, ugly things must happen. But life is ugly, and humans are ugly, selfish, evil creatures by nature.

So deal with it. There is no place for irrational mercy in a society that hopes to maintain a shred of law and order. When mercy is given, mercy should be received. When mercilessness is given, mercilessness should be received.

(end of rant)

[YoungFrankenstein]

Actually the way I feel about the death penalty is an eye for an eye. You want to go on and on about murder fopr murder but what about the original person that was murdered. We put doin animals who have tasked human blood so why not do the same with people. In my firm opinion they should be killed in a manner equally as brutal as the death they brought about to the person they killed. Only problem with that though, is where do we get someone sick enough to kill these people in such a way? Actually if I were granted leadership the form of death I would grant them would either involve impalement or have something to do with a wall a catapult and a bullseye. It would be like human darts. On the other hand I think someone mentioned an explosion and that's always fun, lets strap a stick of dynamite to their head. That would be fairly quick, possibly too messy though. Well I was pushing human darts and that would probably be fairly messy too. Well there is no question that those who have killed should in turn be killed themselves if only to honor the memory of the dead. God knows that if I were to die at the hands of a brutal killer I would want him to get his in return. Lot's of people go on and on about how they don't want the death penalty but what about if the victim were someone YOU loved? Would you not want justice. Another idea I've had is to take take the killers put them on a deserted island and let them fight for their lives. We could place giant electric fences on all sideds of the island so they can't escape and hidden cameras everywhere to televise it. We could call it ultimate survivor where the winner get's jack shit and the loser is the one who dies of starvation first. We could give them a bow and arrow, survivor knife and a flint for fire. I'm sure people would watch and it would please everyone. The people wanting the death penalty would be pleased because these people would probably kill each other over the same space and the anti death penanlty group would quit pissing and moaning because at least the killers have the chance for survival and they would be getting great TV in the process without having to cost some producer a million dollars every season. I can see it now, the survivor channel, hundreds of thousands check in and when they do....ZAP!!!(electric fence sound because invariably some of them would try to climb it.)

[Numenos]

i think the most humane way is to release him into the wild with the clothespin still attatched... that way if he ever needs to wash anything he can hang it up without worrying about mould or insects or whatever...

wait... what were we talking about?

[JudgeDredd]

At 11/6/06 11:26 PM, mofomojo wrote: Death by Patience..

Personality Death by Lobotomy: Never can have too many pliable human worker drones.

Donor Death by Living Organ Transplants: All the while you can grow useable tissues we try to keep you alive, yeah, but no promises.

Eye for an Eye Death: Whatever you did to someone, their family or friends get to do to you. This could also be broadcast live on Cable TV with revenues going to victims charities.

.

[Me-Patch]

I subscribe to the soviet school of thought on the issue, shoot em in the head and then charge the bullet to the family. Cheap and quick enough to allow for massive genocide.

[BeFell]

I'm kind of fond of this method,

http://www.rotten.com/library/death/execution /plastic-shredder/