You can regard it as inhumane and that's fine, but my point is that there's degrees to such a thing. If the state has decided that they're going to kill prisoners for certain classes of crimes, the voters can figure out if they want to change that or not. BUT UNTIL THEN, there's ways to do it that are more humane (or less inhumane if you insist) than others.
Do you think that the feelings of the condemned's family don't matter? Or his friends? The feelings of the victim's family and friends? That of the prosecutor, whose job it is to obtain a conviction and whose actions sent this person here? I don't know about you, but I would be far more disturbed by a state execution that seemed cruel and sadistic than one that showed some degree of sensitivity.
America's founding fathers recognized the importance of humane punishment, enough to import England's prohibition against such things when they drafted the Constitution. The United Nations felt it important enough to include in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now if you want to come back and say "well it also declares a right to life", that's fine, but that's sidestepping the point that I made. Read more on this topic here.
If it makes you feel better to try and throw words back at me, you go right ahead and try. I hope it makes you feel better.
thoughtful