Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Cruel and Unusual: Should Capital Punishment Hurt?
Painful executions would be easier and cheaper.
Executions should be administered as effectively as possible, independent of the form they take. If that involves pain, where pain isn't the end goal of the act of punishment, that doesn't seem to be unacceptable.
Hanging, shooting and electrocution are cheaper
than using lethal injections, which are perceived as the most humane way of administering capital punishment.
Due to the unavailability of the lethal drugs a
number of states
(e.g. Louisiana, Ohio) postponed executions.
Supply problems forced states to switch to more painful methods that are more easily available than lethal drugs.
There is no cost not worthy of taking care for the well-being of citizens, depraved or not, even with respect for capital punishment as a government should be responsible for the well-being of all its citizens.
Inflicting pain onto others is psychologically straining, so it would be harder for people involved in the execution.
They wouldn't be easier for the person being executed.
There are cheap methods that are also painless. For example: Guillotines are reusable and therefore cheap. Bullets are cheap and they should already have guns. Hanging, possibly painless as it breaks the neck, is cheap.
Painful methods would need to be regulated, too, to inflict pain homogeneously. This will require regulations and cause costs in itself.
The most costly part of executions is not the act itself but the
. Reducing the costs for executions is marginal.
Painful, on the surface, does not mean cheap. If we were to follow this argument to its natural conclusion, we would end with the cheapest form of execution, not the most painful, and the two are very different.