On being a hangman
 

Im not sure where this even belongs, but it was something I was thinking about the other day.

I have read a couple of biographies of Albert Pierrepoint (who was the UK's most well known executioner) and I find him a fascinating man. In many ways he was very hard to like - pompous, self important, a man who spent his life dedicated to a sense of discretion and then sold his story to the newspapers, a pedant...

He was also incredibly precise and efficient at the job of hanging a man (when he took part in the executions following the Nurembourg trials he was horrified by the standard of work he saw from some of the other countries executioners) - who would normally kill a man within 20 seconds of walking into the execution room.

I thought about what kind of man could be an executioner... certainly he was not a murderer, and he did not seem to feel any sense of power over life or death or see himself as Godlike, he rationalised what he did by his obsession in doing the job as quickly and painlessly as was possible.

He walked around his whole life with blood on his hands, and the carried that blood so that the politicians that made the law, the judges that passed the sentence, the society that demanded it, didnt have to wear it on there's.

Such a man was necessary in that society. He wasnt evil or brutal or violent, but he physically pulled the trap and killed 100's of men and even some women.

I know I couldnt have done what he did, and I think the majority of people who support the death penalty could not... but it does make you wonder what sort of a man is required for such work.

Have you seen the Timothy Spall movie?

He probably either blocked it out of his mind or somehow rationalized his job by associating it with the addage "someone had to do it."

Yeah. He's such a good actor I think its hard to dislike any performance of his but I dont know if he really captured Pierrepoint's soul.

Well... What sort of man is required to fly a bomber over cities full of civilian men, women, and children, and to drop bombs that brutally kills masses of them and horribly wounds and traumatizes many, many more?

Because, back in WWII, there were lots of British and American men who did that very thing. You know, members of the "Greatest Generation" (according to Tom Brokaw's popular book).

well, more WWII that WWI for bombing city's... my grandfather flew many many missions in the war, he was a navigator. And I can say certainly that he wasnt a violent man.

But pressing a button that releases a bomb that falls on someone or not... thats something sure, I cant help feel that hanging a man by the neck until he is dead is something else.

Oops. I meant to type "WWII", not "WWI". :o

(Now going back to correct my post... )

In many ways, dropping bombs on civilians is worse. Far worse. At least as a hangman, you're assured that you're killing only persons who are convicted of a capital crime.

I can accept that point certainly , but hanging a man has a sense of intimatacy (if that is the right term) that i dont think any military action could have.

Killing a man up close is a whole different thing to _potentially_ killing a mass of people who may or may not be 'down there'. Bombing and shelling provide and awful lot of plausible deniability and get-out clauses to hang your psychological well-being on.

It's harder to assassinate someone that shoot blindly into a crowd.

Executioners must have some incredible sense of duty, or total disregard for human life.

Hero or psycho...

Sigh, I don't think it takes a special sort of man at all. We are all capable of this, sadly.

Going on signature right efing now ....

Although Im not sure either is true?

Does doing a job that is too dirty for most people to take make you a hero? And while I dont think that a hangman can be entirely pyschologically normal I also do not think they are usually pyschopaths.

It's grim work certainly.