Friday, October 9, 2009
The Guillotine. Should they have used it or not?
Is the Guillotine the right way to kill a person who has done a bad deed? Do they deserve to die because of it? I think the Guillotine, the device used to execute men and woman, was something too harsh to use. In the middle of 1932, the government decided that the guillotine was "allegedly scandalous" for the public eye. Instead of having this act be done in public they were going to move it to be somewhere more private. This place was called the prison courtyard, somewhere inside where the killings could not be seen. A guillotine was started to be used because it was a quick and easy way to kill a person. It was a tall figure that slammed down to slice the person in half. In addition, the guillotine should have only been used when it was dealing with people who had done something horrible, like murder. But the guillotine was used for all different types of punishments. Thank god they stopped using it around 35 years after they made it go into private.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I would consider any method of murder too harsh to be used on any human being, I think it is important to take some historical context into account. During the time (1780s-1790s) when the guillotine was primarily used, it was considered the most ethical, least painful method to kill someone. Nowadays we administer lethal injections, or (we used to) use the electric chair. Unfortunately, these kinds of execution methods weren't available during the revolutionary era (for obvious reasons).
ReplyDeleteSo to get back to your original question: Is the Guillotine the right way to kill a person who has done a bad deed?
I think the answer is yes; the guillotine was the quickest and least painful method of execution that was available to the French at the time. Looking back on the days of the French Revolution from the perspective of someone living in the 21st century, we sometimes overlook the obvious fact that France simply didn't have the technological means to execute their people as quickly and painlessly as we can today; nevertheless, their intentions were not to cause pain and suffering to those on 'death row'.
I agree that the guillotine is a harsh was to kill someone, but i also feel that that comes with the territory. any machine/contraption to murder someone will be pretty harsh. But in its time, the guillotine was considered a very suffer-free way to die. it was designed to make clean and quick cut through the persons body or neck, and end there lives instantly as opposed to a long painful death. Methods of execution have improved over the years though, as Cy said. today we use lethal injections which are what we see as the most pain free and peaceful way to kill someone. The guillotine was viewed in a similar way back during its peak usage, and it sent a message to the people when it was used in public. it showed citizens what the consequences of crime and disobedience were, which scared the citizens into behaving.
ReplyDeleteElle, you need to cite your information
ReplyDelete