To deal with death, you have to distance yourself from the person who's dying- emotionally and physically. You can distance yourself emotionally and mentally in many ways, for example, through dehumanisation. If the executioner views the victim as, instead of a person, a demon, an animal to be put down, something sub human, then they will not feel the same psychological trauma as someone who does not dehumanise their victim. Historically, those who were hanged wore, often black, bags over their heads, to protect both the eyes of the audience from the aftermath of hanging- but also, the executioner. To stare into someone's eyes and then hang them would be much more emotionally damaging than to simply push a lever and see a faceless, nameless, emotionless 'thing' drop. Execution is often designed to remove the victim from humanity. Electric chairs would not require the person flipping the switch to be present, they would not see the person they killed. Hanging means an executioner will see the victim, but they will not see the victim as they are killing them and therefore it will be less easy to connect the last words, emotions and thoughts that the executioner may worry about, share or have heard or seen to the dead body [1].

As I said, dehumanisation is key, both before and after death. In a society where thou shalt not kill was a key tenet of life, in Christian Medieval Europe at least, people still justified Crusades, frequent battles and wars, massacres and executions. To convince themselves that execution was the right thing to do, first the executioner had to convince themselves that the basic morals humans hold within them (eg, killing is bad) are removed from the person being executed, and that execution is the lesser of two evils [2].

The first point can be achieved through dehumanisation. Have you ever heard a psychopathic criminal described with words such as beast, animal, creature? It's commonplace. They are not human, they are sub human, below humans. They are not deserving of human rights, they are animals and therefore can be put down like a rabid dog. That is dehumanisation. Medieval executioners would look at a murderer and instead of seeing a human being who had committed a horrible act, they see an animal who had committed a horrible act. There is less emotional distress with the execution of an animal, it does not go against your religion or you deepest, innate morals and beliefs. If you would put down a dog which harried sheep, then it is not a stretch to put down a creature who kills humans- even if that creature is human in reality, they are not human in the executioner's mind.

Secondly- 'the lesser of two evils'.For those who cannot fully dehumanise them, or those who can dehumanise the victim and still believe execution is wrong, then they must see execution as good [3]. Dehumanisation doesn't mean that the executioner thinks executions are good, just that execution isn't morally wrong. Torture and execution would, in many people's minds, be justified- it removes criminals from the world, which could save innocent people's lives, torture provides necessary answers which could also save lives- surely one life sacrificed is better than sacrificing many? That's what executioners- and many modern people as well- believed and believe. It is morally justifiable because to not execute people, more deaths, suffering and crime will occur. An executioner could look upon themselves as someone doing a worthy job, a job for the benefit of society and humanity, by making it safer [4].

Gruesome methods would be even harder to deal with- and more distance would be required. If hanging, drawing and quartering someone prevents treason and therefore saves lives in the long run and, anyway, it's not like the person is human, they don't feel like you or me, it's all right, isn't it? That's how executioners justified execution in the Middle Ages, and, to some extent, how modern executioners justify execution now [5].

Sources: [1]When Death is on the Docket, the Moral Compass Wavers (New York Times).

[2] Moral Disengagement in the Execution Process (Osofsky, Bandura, Zimbardo).

[3]The Faithful Executioner: Life and Death in the Sixteenth Century (Joel Harrington).

[4]Executioner Identities: Towards Recognising the Right to Know Who is Hiding Behind the Hood (Ellyde Roko).

[5] Executioner's Current (Richard Moran).

Oh, and just in case this somehow comes across as me supporting execution, I am firmly and definitely against capital punishment!