Electric Chair = T.S.O.= Death

Electric Chair = T.S.O.= Death  9-12-2016

OLINDO CASAZZA©

Limited Edition 1/100

New Media on paper professional Format S/M/L

Electric Chair = T.S.O.= Death It is an analogical and metaphorical representation of the theme in question. The electric chair is a tool used in various states to kill those sentenced to death. Invented by Thomas Edison, it was introduced to the United States in 1888.
In the United States itself, the main users of this instrument of death, it has been progressively replaced by lethal injection. All this is very similar to T.S.O practiced by the pseudo science that is psychiatry with the illusion of healing. person - patient or condemned is treated chemically in his mind and body causing atrocious suffering and pain, and many irreversible diseases; and condemning him to an early death from brain damage. The man have a mask of symbolic and attribute of rappresentation.

Electric Chair: George Stinney was executed at the Central Correctional Institution in Columbia on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, on which he then sat once in the electric chair. This was because his height (155 cm) and weight (40 kg) made it difficult to attach the electrodes to the frame.[16] Furthermore, the size of the face mask did not fit the facial proportions of a minor of that age; in fact, as he was hit by the first shock of 2,400 V, the mask covering his face slipped off, "revealing his wide, tear-filled eyes and the foam at his mouth. Two more shocks caused Stinney's death. During the execution, his hands freed themselves from the straps that bound him to the chair due to spasms."[17] Stinney was pronounced dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From his arrest to his execution, only 83 days passed. On December 17, 2014, Circuit Court Judge Carmen Mullen overturned Stinney's conviction. She stated that he did not receive a fair trial because he was not effectively defended and because his Sixth Amendment rights were violated.The case has been characterized as a rare example of error coram nobis. Judge Mullen ruled that his confession was likely coerced and therefore inadmissible. She also ruled that the execution of a 14-year-old constituted "cruel and unusual punishment," and that his attorney "failed to call witnesses on his behalf or exercise his right of appeal."[10] Mullen limited her judgment to the prosecution's trial, noting that Stinney "may have committed this crime." Referring to the legal process, Mullen wrote, "No one can justify a 14-year-old boy being charged, tried, convicted, and executed in 80 days," concluding, "In essence, not much was done for this boy when his life hung in the balance."