Suse,

I can't comment on the use of Nembutal (or other drugs), but you are mistaken about the inert-gas-filled plastic bag. I am surprised you may not be aware of Shallow Water Blackout - where a diver who has undertaken lengthy hyperventilation in order to saturate their blood with oxygen (to extend the length of their dive), concurrently expelling most of the CO2 from their blood-stream, simply runs out of oxygen before the CO2 level in their blood can trigger the brain's breathing centre - they simply black-out when the oxygen supply to the brain becomes inadequate to maintain brain function, and they then may drown (if they start to breathe automatically whilst still underwater without regaining consciousness), or they just die from anoxia (brain-death).

Unfortunately death from shallow water blackout is not rare, and those who succumb do so without feeling a thing - they simply fall into unconsciousness without warning, and never wake up.
(You will have noted that it is CO2 concentration in the blood which triggers the brain's breathing centre, and not any lack of oxygen.)

The same effect could be obtained by placement of an individual in a sealed room filled only with nitrogen or carbon monoxide (both colourless and odourless gases), and without any hyperventilation being necessary to induce blackout and subsequent death. Not too brilliant maybe, but it would be entirely painless.
This would be a similar death to those who fall asleep in a carbon monoxide atmosphere (as can be and has been occasioned by a leak in a natural gas supply in the home from a gas heater or stove), or from the use of a combustion heater or portable generator or other combustion engine in an enclosed space (such as a closed bedroom or lounge room during winter, or down a mine shaft), or in motor vehicle which leaks exhaust carbon monoxide into the cab.
(As you will be aware, the blood's haemoglobin takes up CO more readily than it does oxygen.)

To Mr O Sung Wu

Australia is still fundamentally a Christian country who's underlying culture believes in the redemption of sinners who are contrite about their sins. For over 100 years there were many programs in jail calculated by well meaning Christians to confront very violent criminals with their crimes, in order to rehabilitate them. Whereas this idea had a great deal of merit, it could not apply to that very small percentage of very violent criminals who are genetically prone to very violent behaviour, who are almost completely unreformable, (without psychiatric care and the use powerful drugs like Prozac) who are the ones who never stop offending, and who are responsible for significant distortions in crime and homicide rates.

I do not understand the economics of keeping people like that in maximum security the term of their natural lives at $80.000 dollars pa, when our welfare budgets are unsupportable, our hospitals at Code Red for most of the day, our infrastructure crumbling, and our scientific research almost non existent for lack of funds.

Surely the Chinese method of a 25 cent bullet in the back of the head is far more cost effective, especially if the organs of the Enemy of the State can be harvested and sold to keep alive people who are worthy of life?

As for "humanely" killing people like Ivan Milat, or that dog in WA who broke into a sleeping woman's home,axe murdered her, then raped her corpse and then raped and axed her two toddler daughters, I really don't care if they were burned at the stake.

You talk of what factors create a civilised society? I would have thought that it would include the will to use its power to protect it's own people, instead of crying over those who have declared war on their own community, and who should be genetically eradicated, preferably before they can breed.

Other societies have removed unsocial traits from their populations through genetics. The Catholic Church has been removing religious fanaticism from its order for generations, by its policy of sexual abstinence by its own clergy.

There is no doubt it would be quite possible to turn someones lights out without inflicting pain or suffering. Whether or not the yanks choose to employ barbaric termination methods isn't the point, if a majority of Australians decided the death penalty should be applied in specific cases, the question of pain & suffering isn't a real issue. When its all said and done, zillions of animals are put down with nary a squeak of protest from do-gooders. Whats more relevant are the theological / religious / humanitarian implications for those who consider such, and the very real risk of miscarriage of justice, not that there is anything like justice in this country given the bottom-feeding legal / judicial / political establishment we have.

to be continued

continued

All that aside, everyone on the planet has a price beyond which principles are irrelevant, if / when a sufficiently horrific crime gets close enough to home, the attitude toward death penalty will change. Most people readily accept application of death penalty in war zones and with dangerous dogs ... there isn't a quantum change involved in extending it to serial murderers, kiddyfiddlers etc. Is it reasonable to regard some our more colourful mass murderers as more 'human' than a pit bull which has chewed up a bunch of people ?? I suggest that those who claim said 'human' deserves better than the dog will change their mind very quickly when their spouse & kids are the victims. As I've noted previously, one only had to follow the media circus surrounding the late Denis Ferguson to get a good indication where public opinion lies in extreme situations. For the record, I was one of very few who didn't clamour for extermination of Ferguson. Whilst I'd oppose the death penalty in most cases, I'd change the rules to require any elected officials who want to send out troops to war personally lead them into battle, maybe its even worth considering sending the mass murderers into battle alongside the red-headed witch and / or the RAbbott. Mind you I don't believe Australia would get involved in many yankee wars in that situation. In conclusion, its hypocritical arguing against the death penalty for court sanctioned criminals when we not only encourage it but demand it of military personnel in a war zone.

Dear Lego,

“Australia is still fundamentally a Christian country” … “I really don't care if they were burned at the stake.”

Good one, both topical and historical.

Not another sneery one liner, csteel? Cmon, you can do better than that. Go for that 350 word limit. Show us you have thought out your position, can cross connect lines of thought, and are confident enough to submit a reasoned argument.

As for what I wrote, I am not a Christian, and although I have much respect for Christian concepts such as forgiveness, compassion and redemption, I am no pacifist. A I think that some people are so dangerous and cruel, that giving them a taste of what they gave to innocent (usually) women and children, looks like poetic justice to me.

Perhaps you can blame my army training? It is perfectly all right for soldiers to shoot, blow up, stab, or burn to death enemy soldiers. Why should the worst kinds of criminals be exempt from what soldiers dish out to other soldiers?