1–1011–2021–3031–36

ja ja

From: Stoo31 Dec 2006 19:39
To: Bryan (TWISTER) 14 of 36
31598.14 In reply to 31598.6
I'm not watching it until a High Definition Special Edition gets released with full DTS soundtrack. >:-(
Reply
0/0
From: Bryan (TWISTER)31 Dec 2006 20:01
To: spinning_plates 15 of 36
31598.15 In reply to 31598.13
quote:
If someone is hung correctly it should snap their neck and kill them immediately.


I don't know the technicalities of how someone dies when they are hung, but I still think that video is of insufficient quality to catergorically prove he is dead.

We can live in hope I suppose.
Reply
0/0
From: Stoo31 Dec 2006 20:07
To: Bryan (TWISTER) 16 of 36
31598.16 In reply to 31598.15
He's dead. A fall of that height would have damn near decapitated him considering his rough body mass.

Hanging, if done right, snaps the neck and severs the spinal cord from the base of the brain - there is no way on earth he could have possibly survived that and, based on the lack of any struggling, it was instantaneous.
Reply
0/0
From: Username31 Dec 2006 21:59
To: Bryan (TWISTER) 17 of 36
31598.17 In reply to 31598.11

look, i watched it once, i paused it once
i never want to watch it again
he wasnt in the floor he was hanging
did you not see the steps they climbed?
i paused it right at the end when it was pitch black and someone to a flash photograph

 

thats the first and last time im wathcing that

Reply
0/0
From: Username31 Dec 2006 21:59
To: JonCooper 18 of 36
31598.18 In reply to 31598.12
your right i dont
Reply
0/0
From: Username31 Dec 2006 22:00
To: spinning_plates 19 of 36
31598.19 In reply to 31598.13
right and your the expert on how to hang people????
Reply
0/0
From: Username31 Dec 2006 22:00
To: Stoo 20 of 36
31598.20 In reply to 31598.14
happy new stu
Reply
0/0
From: spinning_plates31 Dec 2006 23:48
To: Stoo 21 of 36
31598.21 In reply to 31598.16

Yeah it's not like Robin Hood Price of Thieves where he's dangling for ages, although it might be, it's not if it's done "right". Not that I agree with it anyway.

 

Oh and yeah I meant hanged, not hung, obviously.

Reply
0/0
From: spinning_plates31 Dec 2006 23:49
To: Username 22 of 36
31598.22 In reply to 31598.19

Hardly an expert, no, but I have heard that somewhere and it sounds about right.

 

It seems that it would depend on what method was used and it didn't seem like a long drop so based on

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging

 

I would have to wonder how effective it would be.

 

I reiterate that I am not in favour of using the death penalty anyway.

EDITED: 31 Dec 2006 23:53 by SPINNING_PLATES
Reply
0/0
From: JonCooper31 Dec 2006 23:53
To: Username 23 of 36
31598.23 In reply to 31598.18
:D

quote: Ant
... I wasn't sure ...


quote: Trig
i hate cunts like you that dont believe anything


quote: Me
I don't belive you hate cunts like him.


quote: Trig
your right i dont


:D - nice one Trig - :D
Reply
0/0
From: koswix 2 Jan 2007 13:41
To: spinning_plates 24 of 36
31598.24 In reply to 31598.22
Isn't the reason the guilotine (sp) was invented because hanging is not quick and painless and was reserved, in France, for the poor, the rich being beheaded by axe instead.
Reply
0/0
From: spinning_plates 2 Jan 2007 20:16
To: koswix 25 of 36
31598.25 In reply to 31598.24
quote:
The device derives its name from Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a French doctor and member of the Revolutionary National Assembly, on whose suggestion it was introduced. Dr. Guillotin proposed the use of a mechanical device to carry out the death penalty. The basis for his recommendation is believed to have been his perception that it was a humane form of execution, contrasting with the methods used in pre-revolutionary, ancien régime (old regime) France. In France, before the guillotine, members of the nobility were beheaded with a sword or axe, while commoners were usually hanged, or more gruesome methods of executions were used (the wheel, burning at the stake, etc.). In the case of decapitation, it sometimes took repeated blows to sever the head completely. The condemned or the family of the condemned would sometimes pay the executioner to ensure that the blade was sharp in order to provide for a quick and relatively painless death. The guillotine was thus perceived to deliver an immediate death without risk of misses. Furthermore, having only one method of execution was seen as an expression of equality among citizens. The guillotine was adopted as the official means of execution on 20 March 1792. The guillotine was from then on the only legal execution method in France until the abolition of the death penalty in 1981, apart from certain crimes against the security of the state, which entailed execution by firing squad.


So I guess you're right, although it doesn't say much about hanging. I still say though that if it's done according to the book then hanging should be near instantaneous.
Reply
0/0
From: koswix 2 Jan 2007 21:41
To: spinning_plates 26 of 36
31598.26 In reply to 31598.25

<quote >because it was intended to be sufficient to break the person's neck, causing immediate paralysis and immobilization (and perhaps immediate unconsciousness--though this matter is questioned).</quote>
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging#Methods_of_judicial_hanging

 


Although it also says it's considered the most humane form of capital punishment by medical people. Although that's a bit like being the best if the worst.

Reply
0/0
From: JonCooper 2 Jan 2007 22:20
To: ALL27 of 36
31598.27
at least the guy was dead in under a minute

I was stunned to find out recently that the lethal injection takes at least 15 minutes, often closer to 30 minutes!
Reply
0/0
From: Radio 3 Jan 2007 10:09
To: JonCooper 28 of 36
31598.28 In reply to 31598.27

But is there any pain or other sensory feedback to tell you that you're dying(sp?)?
I thought lethal injection basically put you to sleep, and then you died in your sleep.

Reply
0/0
From: JonCooper 3 Jan 2007 10:21
To: Radio 29 of 36
31598.29 In reply to 31598.28
I don't know about pain etc, but I assume you know what you're there for and what the injection is all about

it seems a bit barbaric to me to do something to someone and basically say "this'll kill you, in a while, won't be long now, ect"
Reply
0/0
From: Radio 3 Jan 2007 10:48
To: JonCooper 30 of 36
31598.30 In reply to 31598.29

That's assuming that when you say it takes half an hour, they're conscious for all that time.
Isn't it just as bad as the walk to the noose though, or even sitting in the cell for days/weeks beforehand - knowing that you're to be put to death, but having to wait for the prearranged time?

Reply
0/0
From: Rowan 3 Jan 2007 15:40
To: Radio 31 of 36
31598.31 In reply to 31598.30

It's a divided issue.

 

Opponents of lethal injection reckon that the chemical used to knock you out is actually only very short acting (which is why you're not allowed to use it for surgery, or for putting animals down), whilst the paralytic effects of the other drugs are not. So, basically, you get knocked out for a minute or two, wake up in paralysis and have to endure 30 mins of excruciating pain as you die.

 

Proponents disagree.

Reply
0/0
From: Mouse 3 Jan 2007 16:09
To: Rowan 32 of 36
31598.32 In reply to 31598.31
Well why don't they use the same chemicals to knock you out wot they use for surgery and that?
EDITED: 3 Jan 2007 16:13 by MOUSE
Reply
0/0
From: Rowan 3 Jan 2007 16:56
To: Mouse 33 of 36
31598.33 In reply to 31598.32
I'm not reet sure. Perhaps it's something to do with how they'd react with the kill-you chemicals, or perhaps it's expense. Opponents to the injection suggest an alternative, I think, but proponents are following an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" path.
Reply
0/0