Why can't prisoners sentenced to death chose how they want to die?

Some states still allow the prisoner to chose how they would like their punishment carried out. However, they have to chose from a pre-approved list of options, it's not anything goes.

Plain and simply the prisoner's right is already curtained he or she cannot set terms with his or her own death sentence. Once you are convicted all your rights are out of the window. So when the States tell you to sit in the corner you do it otherwise a different consequences might happen or arise. The States own the person already. So it a lesson that if you cannot do the time don't do the crime.

Would throwning someone off the plane is more humane than lethal injection? What do you think? The States has 3 death sentences to impose, the electric chair, gas chamber, and the lethal injection. Even the prisoner cannot impose of choosing one of them. The State has the sole rights of placing it. If for example in Connecticut, it is by electric chair, the prisoner cannot say 'judge I am afraid of electric' are you kidding me?

He or she cannot chose which of them, what is these a game or food order in a restaurant? Whatever the State impose he or she will definitely get it. It is different in China, and the US. You cannot compare an orange to a grape fruit can you?

In China the method of execution is the bullet in the head. After that they bill the immediate family of the payment of the bullet to the government. That they have to pay that one bullet that killed their brother or father for the crime. I am for the death penalty just for the record. The judge is not the one deciding for the death to be impose it is the State not the judge. If the State of New Orleans has hanging for example then who is the judge to impose lethal injection, the judge has no authority or power to change the death penalty he is there to implement it not change it.

I'm not sure of the lawful explanation for your Q, but I would like to imagine this to be the reason: Most death penalty sentences are given to those who have murdered or killed another human being or several for that matter. And a death penalty sentence (US), isn't given to someone that accidentally killed somebody. These are serious offenders that more than likely did not give their victims a choice to their fate, It was chosen without consideration for anything. And they were innocent. A person facing the death penalty, is already by far, given way more chances then their victim was. So wouldn't it be legitimate to assume since the criminal gets to try his case, extending his life and chances in process of the decision for his life to be taken, then when it is decided a date is set for the execution. So, unlike their victims, they know when the end is. And depending on the state, they know how. But to let them choose wouldn't be fair at all. If it was up to me, I would have the choice of death be left up to friends and family of the victims and be kept secret until sentence is carried out. That would be fair.

I can see both sides of this issue clearly so I can answer your question without too much bias: * There is a always a possibility of condemning a person to death, even if they are innocent. While our justice system is among the best in the world, it is imperfect and wrongly convicted people are released all the time * Some people believe (though I do not) that killing the person who committed the crime is just as bad as what they did, as in how Jesus condemns an eye for an eye justice as being wrong * It costs more to put a person to death by death penalty than it does to keep them alive in jail for life, because of the drugs, flying out the families, and most importantly, the very lengthy appeals process that is required by courts of law Hope this helps you see both sides of the issue. Its fine to have an opinion, but be open to what others believe too.

I think it has to do with the government wanting it to be done quickly and effectively. There's also that little thing in the constitution against "cruel and unusual punishment."

I don't have a problem with prisoners choosing their mode of death. Heck, I'd choose firing squad!

But then again, I kinda like the idea of the criminal dying the same way he killed, whether it be drowning, shooting, stabbing, etc.

Because the courts don't want to drive this guy all the way to the nearest electric chair when there is only a lethal injection chamber in his current prison. They choose out of convenience. What if he wanted to leap to his death from a plane? the fuel isn't free, and you can't have guards standing there waiting to see if he survives.

yeah they should get to pick,but only from standard points,

maybe death by gunshots,lethal injection and electricial chair,like the first guy said the fuel isnt free and they dont have time for guards to watch if he's really dead

but then again,they dont give prisoners much freedom,or choice...to them they're just prisoners who die how they tell them

You're missing something here!

It has to do with dominance!

It has to do with degradation!

Punishment!

Pretense of free will, while not allowing any!!!

It has to do with torture, (although it may not appear so,) because it has to do with not allowing a person to have any rights except what you choose to allow them, meaning, no rights whatsoever!!!

Because, you have the option of allowing them or not, they're not rights!!!

But, what else do you expect from the government that wants to conquer the world against their will?

Certainly not honesty!

Certainly not rights!

It's a demonstration of ownership and God has no claim at all!

If prisoners are sentenced to death, then why should they have any rights any more to choose how they want to die!!

If they killed someone to get the death sentence, did they ask the victim how they wanted to die?