emmie - "AH,
this is the method used, when not shooting, bayoneting, or shoving them in ovens, this is barbarism on a grand scale, and these people were not criminals. Their method of killing was second to none, and the victims suffered horrendously,"
I cited the waft of Nazism into my argument simply because that is what I think of when 'efficient execution' is debated - the notion is barbaric.
If a country chooses to use execution as its sanction, then surely the death is the desired outcome, not a prolonged pantomine of hoisting the criminal up for the last words, lying them down again, inserting needles, and then taking time to release a cocktail of chemicals to kill him or her.
There is no way in any civilised society that this can be seen as a humane or appropriate way of executing a human being.
If anyone wants to argue that no humanity is deserved, then why don't we save time and money and simply bludgeon the prisoner to death, or hack him to pieces, or stone him, or any of the other methods that supposedly less 'civilised' societies use?
Death is the aim and the outcome - the obscenity is not alleviated by some perceived veneer of humanity because the criminal dies on clean sheets with sterilised needles in his arms.