Execution - Humane or Not??

I watched Michael Portillo last night exploring all apsects of execution. In the USA all executions are currently on-hold as execution may be too painful and thus impinge on the human rights of the condemmed person. It was Portillos brief to try and find a more humane method of execution that was "painless" to the prisoner and led to a swift death.

The thing is, should human rights be involved in execution. By the act of murder, and assuming that the conviction is solid, has the prisoner not waived any human rights that may have been held? Did the murderer ask his (or her) victim if their imminent death was causing them distress and thus not within the human rights brief? Was the victims death swift and painless or was it actually a long drawn out affair?

So what is the real question being asked, I believe it is more one as to whether the death penalty is viable in a modern world?

What is the death penalty in reality, it is a means of ending the life of an aggrivator as retribution for an action they have performed. Is this termination actually a very old method of sentencing that goes back to biblical times. Surely the act of applying the death penalty is the same as the old addage of "an eye for an eye".

Does this method of punishment provide an element of satisfaction or retribution for the family of a victim though. Whilst the death penalty is potentially a less expensive method of justice than incarseration, does it satisfy the suffering of the victim or their family.

Let's be honest, and bring things down to an analagy that is understandable -

A child is murdered (God forbid mine or anyone elses) the criminal has openly admitted the crime and a cast iron conviction has been the result of the prosecution. The sentence is still left open to be decided, what would I choose, if it was my call -

1. The criminal is executed, end of story a few months on death row and then a lethal injection. Human rights would argue this method (or any other method) was a painful cruel death, often taking as long as a few minutes to die. After the child had been murdered and probably suffered longer than this would we care? would I actually state that this was too swift a death?
2. Imprisonment forever, lock the criminal up and throw away the key. Does this mean the person will suffer whenever the loved one is thought of, everytime the incarserated person looks at the sky and thinks of the free world beyond the prison walls. Or will the criminal just get on with life, make new friends and make the most of the situation safe in prison, fed, watered and making new friends. Will this person over time feel remorse?
3. The criminal is subjected to a slow and painful death in the same vein as the family member has. the criminal at least is made to suffer at least for a while and forget the human rights people.
4. Give the criminal to the family, and their friends and family, and let us invoke their own form of justice up him. Let's really see the providing of "eye for eye" justice. Look away if you are squeamish and don't like to see suffering because there is a serious amount of upset to get out of the system. Then the friends and family have their anger to vent. Suffering, I would suggest that my feelings of this emotion might be fairly fired up here, as will my friends and families, and we might just provide real suffering and not over just a few minutes!!

Now the question is actually what is the real justice here. Unless we experience anything so vile we can only speculate. I would say as a father "give me the criminal, a swift execution is going to seem the easy way out when I have finished". I know this is irrational and not in the spirit of a modern world and proper justice, but, I can't help that.

Others might suggest the cruelty is actually locking up someone forever and letting them rot.

It might be that a slow, but controlled death is justice, but then what is a slow death and when does this actually become a form of torture not death?

What about a plain and simple execution, convict the criminal, lock them up and then kill them in whatever method is currently vogue. Is this actually a method of suffering. Let's forget the actual execution. Death in any form can actually only be a swift process, one breath alive and then nothing. However the build up to death and therefore execution can be made significantly horrific.

A criminal is convicted, a date for execution is set for 6 months time. How will the criminal react and suffer as this date draws closer. In the last 24 hours will the person dwell upon issues, will they suffer knowing that they are having the last meal, the last sleep, the last toilet trip or last view of sun, moon, rain or snow. Will the criminal care about this or are they hardened to not care. Is this the true difference between a murderer and a normal person. We care and think about things like this and they don't.

Do their familes suffer as we will, knowing their loved one, because regardless that is what they are, will die and they will not see them in this world again. Does saying goodbye hurt, it could be argued that at least they can say goodbye, or anything else, whilst the victims family were not given this chance. Is the potential suffering of the family some sort of consilation, or will the victims family actually feel some sort of sorrow for them as well?

Questions this has raised can probably, and hopefully, never be answered by most people. however I am intrigued by the feelings of others, please comment on your true feelings.

It can be said that regardless of what we feel of Michael Portillo, his documentary has raised a large number of questions, in me at least, I have found the whole experience thought provoking and for that I thank the BBC and Michael Portillo.

I ask all to post on this and maybe we can find an answer to a very old problem........