- Hanging--very quick and very painless (the neck is snapped, and consciousness vanishes)
Actually it was only relatively recently that this became the case, I believe it was either William Calcraft or one of the Pierrepont family who perfected the drop calculation method of hanging (both families were British executioners, Calcraft at Newgate prison and the Pierreponts at various places over a long period of time), before that it was quite common for the condemned to either choke to death if the drop was too short, or to be beheaded if it was too long. Newgate prison is incidentally the same place where as late as 1789 people were burnt to death for witchcraft, sophisticated England huh? ;-)...
- Electrocution--originally designed to render subject unconscious almost immediately. Whether it does this merits discussion, but the original intent was surely for a "scientific" fast death (just as the guillotine was similarly designed)
I don`t know the exact figure but I seem to remember a US execution using the electric chair which took over 40 minutes to complete? I believe a typical time from current on to unconsciousness is around 2 minutes?
I can see the point of view which accepts serving of sentence as being the end of punishment, and I do not accept a ban on firearms as being implicit in the commision of a felony, but if a court explicitly states that part of the punishment should be a X year or lifetime ban I can accept that.
Does this mean that you would "accept" a wording which took away a released convict's ability to speak freely, or to practice the religion of his choice?
No, speech or practice of religion are not of the same ilk as the right to own firearms, I am definitely on thin ice here, and I admit I am not entirely certain of my own perspective, BUT I cannot see how someone convicted of armed robbery should be allowed the right to own firearms again. A person convicted of a violent armed crime is just not in the same league as an innocent citizen, and should not have the same rights.
("Upon completion of your 6-month sentence for public blasphemy, you must renounce Baalism and accept the religion so ordered by the court.")
Why is this any different from taking away Second Amendment rights?
See the above, I refer you to the danger of a person who has already proven their disregard for the rights of others being allowed to own weapons.
But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands of claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life to someone convicted of fraud or money laundering?
Tim, you are either taking me out of context or overgeneralising my statement, as I know you are not of the second persuation I will assume the first and re-iterate that I do not believe in the restriction of second ammendment rights for people convicted of felonies in general, only for those convicted of serious violent crimes. And I do not believe in a lifetime blanket ban, ie. "All convicted armed robbers shall never be allowed to posess firearms again", I believe a court should be able to use its own discretion to decide a fitting punishment, ie. "You shall be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a 10 year ban on ownership of firearms".
The compelling need appears to be related to the general trend of disarming as many of the marks as possible, as soon as possible. (I understand, Paul, that you are not a U.S. citizen, but this is the framework for the current discussion.)
This is an evident trend in most of the world, with the UK following the path of the US. For many years it has been the case that on the commision of any crime, even for example drink-driving, or common assult (a UK offence classification for the most trivial of assult cases, ie. hitting someone), the right to own guns is immediately removed and never returned, even when the offence is spent under the rehabilitation act. I recall my own father having trouble obtaining a firearms licence some years ago because of a drink-drive conviction some 20 years earlier... I will state once more though, and attempt not to post again on this thread as I don`t want a flame war, that I do not support or condone general loss of 2nd ammendment rights for any and all felonies in general, only for serious violent crimes and then at the discretion of a court and not as some pre-set standard penalty. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"