Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV  Quote: |
BUt today, when we do not have the prophets nor the audible voice of God, why would a civil society choose stoning over hanging?
| The guillotine was developed to be a more humane form of execution than hanging, and it is, by far. What's your thing about hanging? Why do you stop there, as most civilized people (world wide) think it's barbaric?
Once you leave the standard by claiming it is too harsh, then you can't stop. "Why would a civil society choose the death penalty when a person can be put in jail" "Why should a person be put away for life" ? |
I am not advocating that we disband the death penalty. That slippery slope is not that slippery and just because one does not want to see someone die in needlessly painful way does not mean to say that that someone does not want to see the death penalty enacted at all.
But, affirming the death penalty, it seems that we do have an obligation not to make the convicted suffer needlessly.
We could starve prisoners to death too without water or food for the space of a week as captial punishment, but we choose to try to minimize what we commonly call human cruelty.
Maybe the guillotine is a better way than hanging. I use hanging as n example because - if done right - it kills quickly and perhaps with a minimum of pain.
So, does society have an obligation now to kill the convcited in the most humane way that they can think of?