The idea that this has not been addressed to the satisfaction of some drives me nuts. For most of the condemned their form of death is much better than what they put their victims through. Frankly I am an eye for eye type of gal. Why be compassionate for a perp who wasn't towards their victim?
I guess that does not say much of me then, so as far as the method, who said death had to be painless we have tried to find a method that will execute in a humane manner, end of story.
Frankly give them a choice, death by firing squad, death by hanging, death by electrocution, death by gas or death by lethal injection. Seems to me if we give them that, then we are actually allowing them their choice and how can that be wrong. Yep some lawyer out there will find a way but in the end, this is the law of the land where they committed the crime. In this case he admits to it, there is NO ambiguity and it is now time to carry out his punishment and allow the victims family the ability to move forward.
That is what I call inhumane what the victims families have to go through.
Personally, public hanging is not cruel nor unusual in my book..
It is punishment fitting the crime..
Injection is completely humane, and aside from a little sting from the needle, painless..
It's better than he and Nunley deserve..
Yes, the accused is now (but not in bygone years) given a choice of manner of death, albeit usually a very narrow choice. Since the penalty is death, not death by torture, society's interest is served by the most humane executions possible. It's hard to believe that lethal injection is not the most humane. That's not to say it is pleasant or painless. The human body does not yield its life force easily.