A carpenter is only as good as his tools, and the state’s toolbox looks increasingly unreliable for capital punishment. From botched lethal injections to malfunctioning electric chairs, the modern death penalty has been marred by gruesome failures. If the goal is swift and certain justice, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the execution methods.
South Carolina recently turned to a firing squad after struggling to get lethal injection drugs. But why stop there? History offers no shortage of execution methods, some far more effective—and arguably more humane—than those currently in use. The guillotine, for instance, was designed for one purpose: a swift, clean death. Could it be the answer to the modern death penalty’s problems? Or does it belong in the past alongside the scaffold, the noose, and the iron maiden?
Looking Back at Three Historical Execution Methods
Throughout history, societies have devised many ways to end a life in the name of justice. Here are three of the most notable methods, each with its legacy of efficiency and brutality:
The Guillotine
Perhaps the most infamous execution device, the guillotine, was a symbol of the French Revolution. Designed to deliver instantaneous death by decapitation, it was favored for its precision and lack of suffering. Its last recorded use in France was in 1977.
The guillotine’s effectiveness was extremely reliable. A single pull of the lever ensured near-instantaneous death. However, people argued that brief moments of post-decapitation consciousness could occur, though this remains speculative.
Hanging
A staple of executions worldwide for centuries, hanging was once the go-to method for public executions. The technique evolved, with the British developing the “long drop” method to ensure a swift death by neck fracture rather than slow strangulation.
Hanging’s effectiveness depended on precise calculations. When done correctly, it is quick; when done poorly, it leads to prolonged agony. Botched hangings, however, resulted in decapitations or slow asphyxiation, raising ethical concerns.
The Gas Chamber
Popular in the U.S. in the early-to-mid-20th century, the gas chamber used lethal hydrogen cyanide or other toxins to suffocate inmates. The last major use was in the 1990s, and it has since been largely abandoned because of concerns over suffering.
The effectiveness of the gas chamber was inconsistent at best. Some inmates died quickly, but others endured prolonged, excruciating deaths. Watching people die from this method was described as brutal. The spectacle of gasping and convulsing inmates led to public outcry, and the technique was widely viewed as cruel and unusual.
Bring Back the Guillotine?
Capital punishment should be a deterrent to prevent horrific crimes. Unfortunately, many states replaced executions with life sentences. Instead of doling out punishment, the convicted would look forward to “three hots and a cot.”
With lethal injection proving increasingly unreliable, states are scrambling for alternatives. Could a modern, pneumatically operated guillotine be the answer?
Why Should We Bring Guillotine Back?
The speed of the guillotine means death is instantaneous with a properly functioning guillotine, unlike lethal injection, which cases of prolonged suffering have plagued. Execution drugs are increasingly difficult to get as pharmaceutical companies refuse to provide them for capital punishment. The guillotine eliminates this issue.
Unlike the electric chair or lethal injection, which can fail because of mechanical or biological factors, a guillotine’s function is straightforward—when the blade falls, death is immediate. Additionally, lethal injection takes place behind closed curtains and relies on chemical reactions inside the body, and the guillotine leaves no room for doubt about the execution’s effectiveness.
Why leave the Guillotine in the Past?
The sheer graphic nature of beheading is a major deterrent to its use. Even though it is quick, the sight of a severed head could be deemed too barbaric for modern society.
However, this method takes a psychological toll on the executioners. Lethal injection allows for detachment, but the guillotine would force executioners to confront the brutality of their actions to be psychologically damaging.
Capital punishment is already controversial, and bringing back the guillotine would likely be met with massive resistance from human rights groups and the public. Courts could deem beheading a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, effectively banning its use before it even begins.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The victims of such horrific crimes do not have a chance to express their opinions, so it is our responsibility to ensure they are heard.
The modern death penalty is at a crossroads. States struggle with flawed execution methods, raising serious ethical and legal concerns. The guillotine, despite its efficiency, remains a relic of the past—too gruesome for contemporary sensibilities. Yet, its fundamental purpose—delivering swift and certain death—should prompt a reevaluation of the current methods.
If capital punishment is to remain a legal option, the conversation shouldn’t be about preserving outdated, unreliable methods but about whether a more effective, humane approach exists. Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of history, wielding tools unfit for the job at hand.
Because, as any carpenter will tell you, if your tools keep failing, maybe it’s time to put them down altogether.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA