No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.
I understand what they did is horrible but we should not be going down to their level. Our Constitution requires no cruel punishment. I'm pretty sure that would include the potential of people being set on fire by the electric chair. A bullet to the back of the head would work very well for a quick and painless death. But it's messy and few people would want to do it.
I would! I don't buy this "we should not be going down to their level" argument. Executing a murderer is not stooping to the murderer's level, because the murderer infringed on an innocent person's right to life and the execution is done to someone who is guilty of a serious crime. Just because both involve taking life doesn't mean they are both on the same level; they are taking life for different reasons. I don't consider any rights, including the very right to life, to be absolute, but to go hand in hand with whether you respect other people's rights. If you do not respect other people's rights, then I would consider that you forefit your own rights by default and society shouldn't be expected to respect your rights in the extent in which you have infringed on the rights of another.
If you kill innocent people or commit crimes against human dignity, I don't see why we should be so mindful of your rights. Mine is a victim-centred philosophy and I believe the criminal justice system should include an element of retribution. That is not to say that we should do so wantonly - I'm not in favor of a justice system that goes overboard and punishes trifling crimes severely, but really, I don't see why many people today are so concerned about some mass murderer's right to life or right to a humane, as-painless-as-possible execution - that monster is getting a comeuppance and you're thinking about how society should be taking some moral high ground whereas the person being liquidated has left behind major victims.
The Constitution of the United States does not merely ban "cruel" punishment; it uses the expression "cruel and unusual". Currently, the death penalty is not unusual there, even if some people think it's cruel. One way or another, I think someone who rapes and murders someone deserves nothing better than the electric chair; in fact, maybe they deserve something worse.
Were it not for the issue of miscarriage of justice, I would be a 100% backer of the death penalty and would carry out executions in a way that would make the convict suffer at least somewhat. I see absolutely nothing morally reprehensible about taking the lives of brutal murderers or of people who commit serious crimes against liberty and human dignity. In fact, I consider it to be very moral. Speaking for myself, I would love to be an executioner if I had the chance to (I don't - Canada, like all but two countries in the Western sphere of influence, does not have the death penalty), assuming I would only be in charge of executing people who have committed serious evils (not, for example, political prisoners in a totalitarian regime). It's not because I'm sadistic or like death or anything but because I believe in doing justice. I don't think I would feel bad about taking the lives of such people. While obviously my claim remains academic, as it cannot be tested, I feel quite confident in these assertions. For what it's worth, I laughed when e.g. I saw the pictures of Oday and Qsay Hussein's dead bodies in the newspaper. I am totally bereft of pity for murderers, dictators, abusers, etc. The chances that I could do the job of an executioner are therefore high, even if I can't prove to you that I would still be so comfortable doing it unless I were actually to do it.