Peter Charles wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:32:49 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:


On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:25:40 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:


Ya, we did the execution bizness way better. What rw was trying to
say -- hang 'em but haul 'em down before they lose consciousness.
then while they're still squirming, slice their bellies open,....

I wondered how the whole thing was put together:
I read the sentences but they weren't specific
enough, especially w/respect to the fire. Wouldn't
burning them alive, or dipping them in some hot
oil, been a lot simpler and just as painful ?



Ya but not half as much fun. This was the punishment for treason so
it had to have good spectator appeal. If your executioner liked you
or if you tipped him (in advance, of course) then he left you hanging
a tad too long so you didn't get to feel the rest of the proceedings.

This is the ultimate logic behind capital punishment. On the one hand,
if it's to be the most effective deterrent, it should be as painful and
humiliating and public as possible. Lethal injection? Give me a break!
That's for squeamish, liberal bleeding hearts.

The other argument behind capital pushishment doesn't involve
deterrence, but rather retribution and "justice." Well, don't serial
killers and child rapers deserve worse than a quick, painless death?

BTW, I'm against captial punishment, so read the above as a reductio ad
absurdam.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.