Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma Botched an Execution With Untested Lethal Injection Drugs
Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "The state of Oklahoma had scheduled two executions for Tuesday, April 29th. This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested, and thus could violate the constitutional right to the courts, as well as the 8th Amendment: protection from cruel and unusual punishment. After much legal and political wrangling, the state proceeded with the executions anyway. It soon became clear that the critics' worst case scenarios were coming true — Oklahoma violently botched the first execution. The inmate "blew" a vein and had a heart attack. The state quickly postponed the second one. 'After weeks of Oklahoma refusing to disclose basic information about the drugs for tonight's lethal injection procedures, tonight, Clayton Lockett was tortured to death,' Madeline Cohen, the attorney of Charles Warner, the second man scheduled for execution, said in a statement. Katie Fretland at The Guardian reported from the scene of the botched attempt to execute Lockett using the untested, unvetted, and therefore potentially unconstitutional lethal injection drugs."
sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.
> 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heart attack vs. breathing dirt
False dichotomy. Everyone reading this would not be effected by either, as long as he's behind bars.
Cue the madding crowds telling me why I'm wrong to hold my opinion
Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Seems they've tested it now.
Not all heart attacks kill. Many induce absolutely tremendous levels of suffering.
The punishment should be proportional to the crime, but does not need to mirror it. An eye for an eye is a bit outdated, no? If capital punishment is to be used, it should be done in a way that is neither cruel nor unusual - that's the law, until a jurisdiction collectively decides otherwise.
Breaking our laws to punish those who broke our laws: this may be widespread and socially acceptable to some people, but that doesn't make it right. If you want someone to be tortured to death, then seek a change in the law.
Well, that's okay then. As long as you only violate due process when the mob thinks the guy really, really deserves it then there's no problem.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So you're saying a justice system shouldn't try to be any better than criminals?
I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Nitrogen. Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a hose near the top to feed in gas. When the time comes, switch the flow over from air to pure nitrogen. Simple, cheap, painless and there is a limitless supply of Nitrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation
Some people think that the justice systems' job is the arbiter of karma, rather than preventing crime. I've not discovered a way to discuss these things with the former group. I'm not sure what you can tell that kind of person.
Generally when we as a society decide that we do not torture criminals to death, it is not because we don't feel the criminals deserve it, but rather that we as a society are better then that.
Did you know that in many countries, sentences are served simultaneously, rather than consecutively?
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal?
I'm sure I will get an argument that "All the appeals that death row inmates use before being put to death cost more than just imprisoning them for life!" Maybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.
According to Robert Patton, the director of Oklahoma's department of corrections, when doctors felt that the drugs were not having the required effect on Lockett, they discovered that a vein had ruptured.
This is not a problem related to the drug(s) used but incompetent administration.
This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested ...
How does one test lethal injections?
Not that the crime is entirely relevant to whether state executions should be okay or not, but you appear to suffer from reading comprehension issues. The crime you refer to was committed by the inmate who had their execution stayed after the first botched one.
I am actually mostly against the death penalty but I agree on this one. All this concern over suffering of someone you are planning to kill. It really strikes me as silly. If you really have the moral conviction to believe killing him is the right thing to do, then fucking grow some balls and do it. Shooting him in the head is many times more humane than this whole pseudomedical procedure of dressing it up.
If the people can't handle the blood shedding then they should admit they don't have the stomac for it and stop doing it; not try to dress it up and make it appear less barbaric.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It's one thing to claim about the drugs being untested .. and you can still probably claim they're untested, because all of the reports are suggesting that it was a blown out blood vessel, so the whole thing would've been botched no matter what drugs they had actually used.
(and before you say I'm just against executions ... I actually think that prisoners who are sentanced to life without parole should be given the opportunity to be administered euthenasia ... but the costs of capital punishment as they curently exist are so high that it should only be reserved for those really, really horrible crimes (which this one would seem to be).
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
You're absolutely right. Proportional. He raped, tortured and murdered. So what is proportional to rape, tortured and murdered?
It is not justice if somebody is been given the death penalty and then gets 45 minutes of torture on top.
There is a reason torture (or cruel and unusual punishment) is not legal. If we treat criminals not better then they treated their victims we're not better than they are.
As a society we should strife to be better than our criminals and not hide our own cruelty behind words like justice and punishment.
So you think people should be able to commit two crimes for the price of one.
How are we any better if we drop down to the same level?
While funny, it distracts from several serious problems in the US.
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty? Surely there are some people with mental disorders that can not maintain a life with the rest of society, but this is what Prisons and mental health institutes are supposed to be for. We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business. The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity and nearly everyone in the US can commit several felonies every day without their knowledge. This means that we have people in prison that should probably not be there, and we lack the capacity to keep the really socially defunct people in jail.
We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later. We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world, and why we still have executions first.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Or even something simpler, like some kind of coup de grace, maybe a 12 gauge slug to the back of the head? Maybe by making executions much more visceral we'll be less inclined to make them clean and clinical and stop thinking about them as clean and clinical.
As bloody as such an execution would be, perhaps it should be so and the judge, prosecuting attorney and lead low enforcement investigators could be mandated to be in attendance and watching. It's one thing to plant evidence, withhold exculpatory information from the defense, commit gross prosecutorial misconduct and run quadrennial judicial elections on your persona as a "hangin' judge" when the convicted is executed somewhere else in a manner more consistent with outpatient surgery than an actual execution.
But when you know ahead of time that if the death penalty goes through you're going to see a human being have a good chunk of the head taken off in front of you, maybe you might not sleep so well knowing it happened because you broke the rules.
So, the standard philosophical counterargument is "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" but I suspect that despite the fact that the edgucated world as a whole had already resolved that capital punishment is immoral over a thousand years ago, you'll continue to lack empathy for those you feel "don't deserve it" so I'll argue from your point of view.
Lets make several points so you can disagree with them directly if you feel you need to:
1. Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them. They get guarenteed retrials and the evidence has to be air tight. As a result, capital punishement trials costs states many millions of dollars each.
2. Murder trials are very difficult on the victims family. In order to get a conviction the prosecution needs to present very gory details, interview the family on the stand in depth, etc...
3. Prison is worse than death.
So, if you want to save money, save the family grief, and punish the prisoner in pretty much the worst method available legally, let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. You don't even need to be an ethical person to know that it's the right thing to do from every perspective. When even the catholic church things what you're doing is too barbaric, you know you're doing something wrong.
In that case, amend your constitution to say that it's fine to torture criminals once they've been convicted. If you're going to pretend to have the rule of law, then at least make a token effort to follow your own rules.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
From my understanding, a week with Slashdot Beta should about do it.
Nitrogen hypoxia. Cheap. 100% effective. Readily available. Doesn't torture the inmate. Why don't we use it? Apparently it's not satisfying our need for justice to equal revenge.
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive.
And carrying out a death penalty also has it's costs. Take a read of costs death penalty. (I may be cherry picking a bit here but) From that article it was estimated that California could save $170 million a year by commuting al death sentences to life in prison.
So do you want to pay more or less taxes?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Yea because otherwise everyone will be evil. I mean its lucky the US has the death penalty because it has deterred so many of the evil fucking people. Oh wait, the US has one of the worse rates of violent crime. States with the death penalty don't have less of this crime. It is not a preventive nor a deterrent.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
The 'problem' is that in these United States, we want to maintain the fiction that we're civilized beings, and that translates into 'sanitizing' the process of ending the life of a violent criminal by injecting them with 'humane' substances that are lethal yet (allegedly) painless. While I'm not an advocate of bringing back hangings, or Texas' long-standing tradition of Old Sparky (electric chair, if someone actually doesn't know), an expertly-aimed round from a large-caliber rifle right between the eyes will end someone's life quickly and relatively painlessly, especially relatively-speaking in comparison to the pain and suffering some of these 'people' inflicted on their victims. Of course as previously stated that's way too much horror-show stuff for the general public to stomach, which is why we don't do it anymore. The general public just wants violent, death-row inmates to fade away, no screaming, no blood, no horror or discomfort of any kind.. really, execution by lethal injection is designed to be humane for everyone else, with it being humane to the criminal being executed just as a side benefit; it allows everyone left behind afterwards to feel like they're not as bad as the person who was just killed.
All that being said, and if they're so fucking concerned about 'being humane', then I don't know why the hell they don't just give criminals being executed a lethal dose of morphine and be done with it. Will kill them in short order, and they won't feel a damned thing on the way out.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I wonder how many of the people who are saying "What's the problem if the death penalty is horribly painful? This guy deserved it!" are also the ones who express horror over the government torturing people to get information from them or spying on everyone just on the off chance that one of those people might be planning something bad. If your government is willing to go to such lengths to get information from people, then do you really want to give that government the ability to kill any prisoner that they deem to be a "waste of taxpayer money"?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Leaving assite entirely the debate over death penalty to begin with, when we have to put down our pets, vets don't seem to have any trouble putting them to sleep, (and then inject more and more until sleep becomes permanenet.) Maybe the state just needs to fire to their medical experts and hire some country vet?
Unless they happened to fall into that 4%. Then that murderer/rapist walks free while an innocent man is tortured to death for no reason.
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal
There are approximately 3,000 people on death row. I would imagine a liberal estimate, if we never killed any, would put mayby 10,000 people that might otherwise, eventually, be executed in prison for life.
As of 2011, there were 2,300,000 people in pirson.
So to answer your question as a percentage: We could save less than 00.5% of our prison budget... assuming executations themselves add $0 cost to the process, and assuming that those executions were carried out before even the trial happened. If you have trials, and waits, and there's a cost to the execution: we save less still.
And remember: these are based on grossly liberal estimates. If I just use current numbers, the savings is closer to 00.1% before lowerign it further with execution costs.
How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?
Because, murderer or no, they are human beings? Nothing is actually gained through their suffering, besides pleasing the bloodthirsty.
For a very long time, hanging was exceptionally torturous because you essentially just waited for them to asphyxiate. It's a relatively recent advance in hanging methods to drop them from a height so the rope snaps their neck, making it quick and painless... if all goes as planned.
Oh, right, I forgot how okay pointless suffering is if an anonymous poster on the internet says they don't mind. I can be so forgetful.
There are a lot of bloodthirsty people here on Slashdot.
I think it's a good thing to try to move away from the, "He made others suffer so he should suffer," mentality. Punishment, capital or otherwise, should be about rendering the criminal incapable of commiting futher crimes to protect the populace. It's self defense, nothing more. Making sure that criminals suffer is barbaric. It turns my stomach a bit, and I liked that cinnamon roll.
That cost, even if it is correct, it is negligible in the face of: (a) the risk of murdering innocents, when other methods of containment exist; (b) the shame of being one of only developed countries in the world that still implement archaic methods of containment; and (c) the fact that this sort of person and his mental condition is ultimately a result of his own unfavorable context imposed by society.
Learn the difference between justice and vengeance.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Because the morally superior group that retains the right to judge this guy just loves suffering so much?
You know what I get out of a murderer suffering in agony? You know what amazing benefit society at large gains?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
Did you witness the rape of the girl? You base all your information on evidence that may or may not be true. Completely innocent people have been known to have been executed and/or placed in Jail. The Legal system is FAR from perfect.
Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end. Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System. Yes, even hateful, full of Rage people like you get what they deserve eventually.
I'm not sure why your personal lack of concern is even relevant.
We've got a debate here that has two sides.
1. "We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society"
2. *Comes in shouting about how little they care about the issue*
Simply design a chair with an adjustable height, single shot firearm(really just a triggering mechanism, a chamber, and a short barrel) that is placed nearly against the skull at the forehead. Have a remote trigger, so all the executioner has to do is push a button (or hell, even just have him start a mechanical timer). It's quick, almost guaranteed to be instantly or near-instantly fatal, and cheap. You could place the gun at the base of the skull so that it guarantees the brain stem is severed, but then the witnesses have to deal with the face blowing out. Through the front (or maybe side) of the forehead is a cleaner wound and allows for an open casket. Or, if they wanted cleaner and less traumatic for the witnesses, place it up against the heart. Much cleaner kill, but a little slower. Either way, much less painful than electrocution or lethal injection.
Yes, I am for capital punishment, because I see it as what it's name states: punishment. It is not a deterrent, it is the ultimate form of punishment for someone who has been shown to have committed especially heinous acts. Give them life in prison and it only gives them a more captive audience to prey on, unless you put them in solitary confinement (and that even closer to torture than lethal injection is). And yes, I understand that innocent people have been convicted and executed, but how many other innocent people have been convicted and spent their entire lives or died of health or other reasons in prison as well? The average wait on death row is over a decade, and can reach over 20 years. This includes numerous appeals, and there are a number of non-profits also working to find exculpatory evidence for people on death row. In fact, I am for a longer period between sentencing and execution(perhaps allow the person to waive extended time if they prefer), because it allows more time for the innocence of the person to come up. However, the treatment of death row inmates should be a little better: while they rightly should be excluded from other inmates, they should still be allowed regular exercise and contact with guards and visitors if only to preserve their mental health.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It is easy to be cavalier until you consider yourself, or someone you care about, being innocent.
Or beating people up because they are different Five Hasidic Jews Arrested for Williamsburg Attack on Gay Man
Or because they don't follow your rules Ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple sparks riot after telling woman to move to the back of a public bus
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It's more complex than that.
You face many concerns considering legal punishment: deterrent effect, risk of harm to innocents, and direct impact of punishment, to name three. These depend largely on the crime, the punishment, and the surrounding culture.
The deterrent effect, for example, has two major factors: perceived severity of the punishment and perceived threat of punishment. A weak punishment, colloquially a "slap on the wrist", carries little deterrent effect; a strong punishment carries high deterrent effect. A punishment lacks threat if it is unlikely to actually occur.
The strength of punishment comes from perception: jail time, pain, execution, fines, and how much the individual fear these personally. Some individuals do not fear prison; others fear it a lot. The poor fear fines more than the rich. Death almost universally incites terror. Pain is unpleasant, but imprisonment may destabilize personal security and provide greater fear.
Punishment carries threat when it is likely. The death penalty is a great example: in drug-riddled ghettos where criminal activity meets its abrupt end 99% by death and 1% by state execution, state execution carries no threat. In peaceful but armed suburbs, attacking someone may get you shot. Either way, someone will probably shoot you in the face before the state gets to you; if the police do catch you, they may simply provide a noose to save you from a bullet. In peaceful suburbs with low justifiable homicide rates, state action is the dominating outcome to murder; execution becomes a looming, subconscious threat.
Putting these together: the death penalty is a deterrent only where death is feared and state execution is a likely consequence of capital crime. In places where the criminal base is used to and does not fear death at a distance, state execution is a laughable thing; the first thing to consider is how to not get killed committing your crimes.
Once it's determined the deterrent effect, you have to consider other consequences. Fines and jail time can destroy lives. Executions kill people. If 4% of the executed are innocent, but executions provide such a deterrent effect as to stave off a hundred murders for each innocent executed, then that is unfortunate. If 4% of the executed are innocent, and executions provide no deterrent, then that is unacceptable.
And of course there are other considerations. I mentioned direct impact of punishment. You will want a punishment which rehabilitates criminals if repeat offense represents a larger proportion of the crime than the additional general deterrent from the next best method. Putting together further conditions, you can increase the severity of punishment as the risk of punishing innocents decreases (it's null if the punishments to innocents is dismissed on appeal 100% of the time before the time is served--increase punishment as much as you like). It gets extremely complex.
Justice is like sex: it feels good, but that doesn't make it wrong. Executing a man who stalks, rapes, and murders a woman feels immensely liberating to some; it is anxiolytic to a society who can distance themselves from the act of killing yet feel that they have participated in punishment. At the same time, such a man has earned his punishment. We may look down on people for enjoying vengeance, but we should not thus assume punishment is wrong.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Death row, appeals, and execution, are far more expensive for the taxpayer than lifetime imprisonment.
At this point, the real question is: Why anyway?
And no, I definitely refuse any notion that at some point a conviction is final. It is always preliminary, as it is always possible that new evidence pops up.
I was recently assigned to a jury panel in a murder case. The state I live in has capital punishment.
I went into the courtroom with a fairly solid conviction against the death penalty (excluding military cases, i.e. fratricide, where soldiers should be held to a higher standard and capital punishment could be considered a necessary component of discipline).
As the evidence was presented, I started to question my beliefs. The defendant was accused of murdering and raping a 12 year old boy, and was a twice-convicted sex offender (why he wasn't already in prison is an entirely different question). This person showed no remorse for the crime, and if given life imprisonment, would still be able to see his friends and family....something his victim could no longer do. It really made me question my thoughts on capital punishment.
In the end I wasn't chosen for the jury, and the guy was found guilty. I still believe that capital punishment is wrong and doesn't solve anything, but life imprisonment, although no cake walk, doesn't necessarily equate to justice or punishment...because let's face it, this criminal won't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be given the chance.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
all of the reports are suggesting that it was a blown out blood vessel, so the whole thing would've been botched no matter what drugs they had actually used.
The reports all come from the same source: the team that botched the execution. It is essential that there be an independent autopsy,
Because you are better then that? Don't stoop to their level. Do your dirty work and move on. Getting enjoyment out of it is macab, and disturbing.
Something of value is lost: we don't want executioners to get psychological rewards from executioning people. By turning death penalty into a circus, we entice psychopaths and sadists to apply for this job. As a society, we don't want to train the next generation of serial killers by giving them these kind of jobs. We want people that don't enjoy executions as executioners, hence why executions should be clean, fast and as boring as possible.
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?
.
Some people, you can't "rehabilitate". Some people (like Lockett), you don't even want to try. You just want them out of the picture. And put bluntly, life in prison costs too much - Scum like this doesn't deserve room, board, and free cable on the taxpayers' dime for life. They deserve...
Well, they deserve worse than he got, but we compromise with our squeamishness about actually giving his victims justice by trying to put them down more-or-less peacefully. Kinda ironic, actually, that Europe's refusal to sell us thiopental unintentionally caused Lockett to taste a tiny slice of actual justice
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business
Entirely separate issue. Yes, we have waaay too damned many people in a cage for nonviolent victimless offenses. Gleefully raping and murdering people doesn't compare well to getting high on the "wrong" intoxicants, however.
We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
Where does any moral dilemma come into the picture? Yes, Virginia, you can do things so bad that you effectively forfeit your right to basic human dignity, much less your life and comfort. Lockett did so.
Oklahoma killed a monster today. No moral issues apply.
Your Constitutional Rights have freed you from morality.
Oklahoma didn't realize anything wouldn't pass muster. They were shocked and horrified by a gruesome sight. They are afraid to face the reality of what they do; lethal injection is a long, slow, terrifying process which appears peaceful to the observer so that he may absolve himself of the commission of murder.
An execution should be quick and gruesome. It should be visible death, not peaceful rest. A hanging, a beheading, shooting, a beating to death. A thing that shows us what we do so that we may face it and understand it is terrible but it is just. The more zeal a people have for a punishment, the more visible and terrible it should be so that the people are shocked and sickened back into the understanding of what it is they do.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
How exactly does one 'test' lethal injection drugs?
Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end.
You can only mean death, since that's the only certainty.
Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System.
In which case, we'll all eventually get what a murderer/rapist deserves.
I'm sorry to say it, but there are probably myriad rapists and murderers living happily into their 90s and passing away peacefully, surrounded by loving friends and family.
"Nature" doesn't give a shit.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Of course I do consider that. I repeat, no system is perfect. There is far far more chance that someone who murders me or my family is brought to justice and put to death than the chance I or someone I love is wrongfully punished as you describe. Far greater.
Yes, I can live with that.
People do not want to face what they do. They want an execution to appear peaceful so that they can say justice was served, but so that they do not have to concern themselves with what that justice is.
Sometimes, a man deserves to die. This is unfortunate; people do not wish to feel this, instead opting to feel just. A good hanging, or injection with a burning poison to a slow, screaming, retching death, this makes the people recoil in disgust. It is good to look upon the horror of what you have done, understand why it needed to be done, and regret that it had to be.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I've read that in Switzerland their suicide kit comprises a helium bottle and a plastic bag.
Also when I give 0,5 litre of my blood, I know that I may faint if I don't drink enough and then stand up suddenly.
I guess making someone give all of it would be fatal with no pain.
(again I want to state that I'm against death penalty, I don't suggest anything to carry on those punishments, just wondering why they still use drugs)
Of course, the defining characteristic of his depravity was his lack of empathy for others, his willingness to see them die horribly. It's what made him less than acceptable as a human. Go feel self-righteous all you want, history's got a long, long track record on people and cultures who punish brutally. Vengeance or justice, the motive doesn't lessen the act's effect. Doing things like that turns people into beasts. Your rage should worry you.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
China, Malaysia, vietnam, Uganda, Indonesia, Gambia, Thailand, India, pakistan, Bahrain, Botswana, Equitorial guinea, Bangla desh, UAE, North Korea, Kuwait, afghanistan, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Sudan North and South, Ethiopia, Somalia.
Nice crowd.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Yeah, yeah. Pretending I'm endorsing the murder of one person because I don't support the torture of another.
Great. That's extraordinarily dishonest and you should feel bad.
I prefer people rot slowly in a concrete box for the rest of their lives... death is too easy, even a horrifically painful one.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
tell that to those who order drone strikes on their own citizens with out so much as a grand jury inditement.
Agreed. The entire process was sort of surreal. The DA ask you to rate your beliefs' on a scale from 1-5; 1 being in favor of the death penalty %100, 5 being against. Turns out that if rate yourself a 1, you're automatically excused from the jury.
There are many cases of prosecutors withholding evidence in these types of cases, but I can say without a doubt that this wasn't one of them. There was so much evidence that you basically caught the defendant with his hand in the cookie jar; DNA evidence on the victim's body, verified by two independent labs.....text messages on the defendant's phone luring the boy out of his house, security cameras showing the defendants vehicle near the crime scene, etc etc.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
But... we don't execute people who aren't emotional targets(anymore). That debate will not happen. We got past the era of executing bread thieves. We just haven't gotten past the era of executing murderers.
I disagree. It's very easy and intellectually lazy to say 'we should give the state the right to torture people to death, because look how bad this person is! Surely they'd only use it on someone that bad'. It's the same line of reasoning that says that the state should be granted warrantless wiretapping rights, because surely they'd only use them to go after terrorists. And maybe pedophiles.
If you're not okay with the state having a license to torture, then it doesn't matter how bad the person they're torturing is. If you are... then I hope I don't live somewhere where you're allowed to vote.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The problem is that a lot of us don't think our justice system should be a purely retributive system seeking vengeance upon those we consider "wastes of oxygen." (And no, the death penalty is not a deterrent.) Maybe this guy did deserve to die. But if so, then what about the next guy who not-quite-fatally shoots the girlfriend only once? Or the one who doesn't bury her alive, but just leaves her for dead? Or the one who just rapes her, and leaves her for dead, but didn't actually shoot her? Or the one who just rapes her?
Where do you draw the line between "he deserves to die" and "he's scum, but we'll just give him life in prison"? There's a demonstrable racial bias in which "wastes of oxygen" get put to death and which have better lawyers that can get them life in prison, or eventually paroled. Given that there will likely always be such biases and imbalances in our justice system, don't you think it's a bit on the callous side to sanction the ultimate punishment on an inequitable basis like this?
Complicating matters is the fact that sometimes the justice system just plain gets things wrong. Eyewitnesses are never 100% dependable. Confessions can and have been coerced. "Wastes of oxygen" that we were absolutely certain at the time "did it" turned out to be exonerated by later evidence. As the submitter referred to in his or her summary, we know that this is costing innocent people's lives.
Personally, I would rather have the guy locked safely away where he cannot harm anyone else, but still around in case we find later that there were mitigating circumstances or the jury just plain blew a verdict. Plus, although YOU consider him a "waste of oxygen," people like me consider the fact that even locked away, he can still contribute to society in discouraging others from following his path or, if nothing else, in helping researchers study the criminal mind. There's absolutely no harm in sentencing people to life in prison instead of death, other than the mob's blood lust for revenge doesn't get satisfied. Sorry, but that's just not compelling enough to me to kill someone who poses no threat.
And food for thought, once we give the state the right to determine who it is okay to kill who poses no threat, what's to stop the state from abusing that power? Do you honestly think that the government and the media have never colluded to present a narrative to The People to justify (and get away with) truly horrible things? What if it were YOU being railroaded through the system, with only one side (hint: not your side) of the story being presented for public consumption, and sentenced to death for something that you either did not do or that you did, but with extenuating circumstances that should be a mitigating factor in your trial, but that was suppressed for political expedience so that important people can be seen as "tough on crime"? How is it that you, who I am guessing were not on the jury or legal teams, or who otherwise has no first-hand knowledge of this case, are able to determine with 100% certainty that these guys are the "wastes of oxygen" that you believe them to be?
Well, as it turns out quite a few people are not any better than the murderers they try to elevate themselves above.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The parent poster may or may not have intended it this way, but he actually brings up a good point.
If you commit a capital crime in the US, are tried and convicted for it, and your skin is black, you have a MUCH higher chance of actually being executed for it.
Frankly that fact alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Easy: Those here that do not care how he died are _not_ any better. Still a lot of animals in the human race, and at times it shows.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I oppose the death penalty in practice. I also support the idea of the death penalty, in theory.
So the question is, how can this be? Well, there are people so evil that they deserve to be removed from this planet. However, because of the wickedness of the state, we cannot assure that everyone put to death actually is deserving the death penalty gets it, nor everyone deserving it gets it, it is wholly arbitrary in the net results. This makes it completely unsuitable for actual use.
Or as my dad used to say, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Two wrongs do not make a right. A fundamental moral principle. You just satisfied your sadistic lust for revenge.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Or having executions at all. Civilised countries don't execute people, no matter their crimes.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
"We shouldn't kill people"
"That's baseless!"
How do you even respond to the assertion that "not killing" is baseless?
Want to know the difference between a murderer and a rabid dog? A rabid dog can never be rehabilitated because it's suffering from a degenerative neurological condition that is both incurable and dangerous that leads to suffering not just of its victims but also itself. Putting it down is a mercy. Whereas you're talking about a human being who made a terrible decision, but can reform, can be put through completely unnecessary suffering, and doesn't magically becoming incurably evil the moment of a crime.
You want to go back in time and shoot them before they kill someone? That's super duper okay. Pretending killing them after the fact somehow does something beneficial? That's just a revenge centered monkey-brain talking.
Honestly, I think that is only the tip of the iceburg. The whole idea of punishing criminals seems pointless to me. How about rehabilitating them? If somebody is innocent, then we rehabilitate them and in theory that should go pretty quickly since they weren't particularly prone to committing crimes in the first place. If somebody is a likely criminal, then rehabilitation should involve whatever it takes to make them no longer a likely criminal. That doesn't necessarily mean locking them up at all, unless they're so prone to criminal behavior that having them out on the streets is a danger to society.
Getting rid of the death penalty is like arguing that it is better for an innocent person to be raped in prison for the rest of their life instead of being executed. It kind of misses the point, and I don't think the way we run prisons in the US is appropriate for even the guilty, let alone the innocent.
If you think the US is anywhere close to being like North Korea then you obviously know nothing about North Korea.
Snu snu.
Have gnu, will travel.
Ironically, putting an inmate on death row and going through the process is far, far more expensive than simply incarcerating them for life. Since they usually have a public defender as a lawyer and it has to go through the appeals process many times, a criminal who is ultimately executed usually costs the state several million dollars. Whereas the cost of keeping them incarcerated is 20-50K a year depending on the state.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
I mentioned this in another comment in this thread, but death row costs a state more than incarceration for life, due to all the automatic appeals.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
revenge is a deadly sin (as in: "cannot be forgiven") for a reason.
While I agree that what happened is wrong, basing ones argument on religious reasons will never work. Because seven simple words will completely deconstruct your argument.
"My religion does not have that concept."
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned.
You can't "undo" an execution or imprisonment. The guilty still have a chance at getting theirs.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Why are they experimenting with 3-drug combinations when they could just use sedatives? They work just fine for putting pets "to sleep".
That's exactly the same standard we're supposed to be using in non-capital cases too!
It is not valid for death sentences to cost more than life sentences. The real problem is that people aren't getting competent and thorough defenses in the initial trial. I would argue it's even more of an injustice for those receiving life sentences because, without the permanence of execution, the public sees it as less of a problem worth fixing.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Why does the US still even have fines? Why does the US still even have imprisonment?
Answer any of these questions, and you'll have answered them all. Show the foolishness of any of them, and you'll have shown the foolishness of them all.
I think the most popular answer, is that we have these things to punish criminals. HTH.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
As opposed to "knowing" that 4% of executed criminals were innocent?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Besides that: I don't think the death penalty makes sense at all. It is no penalty, as it doesn't influence the future behaviour of the perpetrator. It is just codified revenge.
Okay, took some digging on the proceedings of the national academy of sciences.
Essentially they applied comparative statistical methods on exoneration rates of those on death row(but not yet executed), those not on death row, and found that while the latter mapped to a Poisson distribution for exoneration occurrences, the former fell off sharply at the time of execution(but until then fitting the same model).
They then extrapolated that curve forward past the point of execution, concluding that if they had been continuing to fight for exoneration 4.1% would have gotten it. This includes the very small dataset of those who actually were exonerated after death. They call those conclusion a conservative estimate because it's entirely possible that exoneration rates don't actually cover the full set of unjustly punished.
From my understanding, a week with Slashdot Beta should about do it.
Too cruel and unusual. No one deserves that.
>The alternative says to the criminal that he is free to commit all manner of mayhem.
Legal punishment as a deterrent has been proven not to work.
On what data are you basing your statement? I thought it was interesting, but wanted to verify. Google search: "statistics death row executions race"
First result:
Race of death row inmates executed since 1976 (US).
Comparing the percentage of executions by race to the population data shown lower on the page, I don't think your statement is correct. More whites are executed, but more blacks have pending executions.
sig: sauer
"You're assuming that, statistically, African Americans statistically commit the same kinds of murders as others"
No, I am not. That is explicitly controlled for by only counting capital murder cases.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I think you are the exception. Most people can't abide the thought of a loved one being killed and there being a 100% chance that justice will not be served. They'll take the 4% chance (most likely much less) of getting the wrong guy than the certainty of zero justice.
This is an interesting point, but it does lead to another problem/cost. If you don't have the threat of a death sentance, then you can't get evil people to take a life without parole sentence without a trial. No one take a Life-WO-parole sentence, no matter how guilty they are, unless there is something worse on the table.
Take this case for instance:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-14-3535475282_x.htm
There is no way this dude doesn't take Life-WO-parole sentence without a trial if the death penalty was an option (he got something like 500 years after trial). Those no-death sentence cases cost taxpayer money as well.
How about rehabilitating them?
Well, I am all in favor of that, but how do you actually DO that? What if they don't want to be rehabilitated? What if they like raping and killing babies (that is what one of these guys did)? What if they pretend they were rehabilitated so that you would let them re-enter society and then they did it again? The crime that eventually got these guys on death row was only the last on their rap sheet. Some people are deemed fit to re-enter society and then go back to the prison several times over.
I'm sure everybody would be happy to rehab instead of incarcerate if only somebody could come up with a rehab plan that actually worked.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
But do you weight the two equally? Do you think the killing of a murderer makes up for the murder of an innocent?
I do not.
The state should not have the power to sentence an individual to death, but death should be available to those who would choose it.
Our government should not kill. A maximum sentence of life in prison is all the force that it should be able to employ against any individual.
If a person sentenced to life does not wish to continue the sentence, then they should have the option to request an end to it. After suitable mental evaluation, and assuming they are resolute, they should have what they seek.
This brings morality and transparency into the process. This is the right thing to do.
Read that page again. The strongest documented discrimination is over the race of the victim:
White Defendant / Black Victim (20)
Black Defendant / White Victim (270)
A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.
And that's probably one of the types of criminals which are most likely to weigh the consequences and probabilities of getting caught against the gained benefits from the crime. The type where harsh punishments actually can make a difference on the probability of a person going through with said crime.
Unfortunately, I would be suprised if not this type is a minority compared to crimes caused by badly planned robberies, crimes of passion, intoxication, and just general stupidity.
IIRC, it has been posited by the Innocence Project that 50% of persons convicted using eye witness accounts are not guilty of the crime of which they were convicted. Take a look at the number of people released over the past few years after dozens of years in prison who were found not to have committed the crime that put them there. One of the problems for the many innocent folks in prison is that there aren't many people willing to put in the effort to research their situation since there's little profit in doing so. And once an innocent has been put to death it's even less likely that the case will be reconsidered. So, what's the percentage of executions done on innocent prisoners? Who knows, but it's likely much more than 4%.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
I support capital punishment but believe a higher standard of proof should be required to impose it.
Perhaps something like "Beyond all rational doubt" rather than "Beyond reasonable doubt" should be required to impose the death sentence. As well, esp. in capital cases, the jury should be instructed about particularly unreliable types of evidence (notably eyewitness identification of those not well known to the witness or in any but ideal lighting conditions) and be instructed not to rely on such evidence unless there is substantial "reliable" evidence to corroborate it.
Many guilty people would be spared the death sentence (instead subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole) with this higher standard of proof but it would partially address the problem that you can't "undo" an innocent person being executed but, with advancements in science and delayed discovery of evidence or prosecutor misconduct, someone can be released and at least live their remaining life as a free person.
However, I believe we should provide a painless "death" option for anyone sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole" who requests it. This system should include safeguards to prevent rash decisions (such as requiring the request be made once a week for eight consecutive weeks, not considering requests made in the first year or two of incarceration, examination by a shrink or board of shrinks, and allowing the decision to be rescinded at any time but doing so would start a new two year window in which a request would not be considered). Those who are truly guilty and know they are almost certain to never be released might elect this option and it would save them pain and us money.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
When TFA includes this little gem of a statistic the problem becomes much more obvious. sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.
So we not only have a messed up legal and prison system that can get innocent people imprisoned for felonies, we have a messed up legal system that can sentence 4 out 100 people to die for crimes they never committed.
The argument you are making (look at his crime) is simply an appeal to emotion which lacks logical merit. And look, I fully agree that certain people can not be rehabilitated. Should any people be legally killed while we have severe problems with both our legal and penal systems? Hell no. Should we be convicting people of felonies when society does not offer them any other option? (think of narcotics) Again hell no. Prison terms and real rehabilitation where possible? I absolutely agree with this approach.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Okay, and what are the total number of convictions for each of those specific types of crimes over the same time period? Those numbers need to be normalized to be comparable. That same page lists a much higher number of white victims than black ones, so it isn't clear whether the data supports your claim.
This site indicates that the rate of Black Defendant / White Victim homicides is ~3-4x of the reverse while the executions are >10x. That does seem to point to a racial bias in executions. Although, that covers all the way back to 1976 (and even earlier convictions). I wonder if those rates would tend to converge if we exclude older data?
Knowledge Brings Fear
How about rehabilitating them?
Well, I am all in favor of that, but how do you actually DO that?
I don't have all the answers, though I suspect we could make a lot more progress on that front for far less money than we spend locking up some significant percentage of the population. I think admitting that we're doing it wrong is half the battle.
What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?
Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate. That would be indefinite in duration, even if all you did was shoplift. If a way can be devised to rehabilitate people against their will that would be another solution.
What if they like raping and killing babies (that is what one of these guys did)?
You'd need to treat them until they no longer like these sorts of things, however long that takes.
What if they pretend they were rehabilitated so that you would let them re-enter society and then they did it again? The crime that eventually got these guys on death row was only the last on their rap sheet. Some people are deemed fit to re-enter society and then go back to the prison several times over.
Clearly such an approach necessitates a need for a way to determine whether somebody is actually rehabilitated.
I'm sure the system won't be foolproof. Some people will be let out and re-offend, but that happens in probably the majority of cases today already, so we could hardly make things worse.
Today rehabilitation is viewed as a voluntary activity for minor offenders as an alternative to prison. I think we need to look at it as either an involuntary process, or if you're allowed to opt-out you're basically agreeing to life in prison for committing even a misdemeanor.
In such a system, somebody who likes to kill kids might be forced to undergo rehabilitation until an fMRI shows the right parts of their brain lighting up when they are shown pictures of dead kids, or whatever. This wouldn't be just a matter of answering some questions correctly in an interview. Rehabilitating criminals requires understanding the root cause of their criminality, and correcting it. Certainly we don't have the technology to do this today in all cases, but I suspect we could do far more once society accepts that involuntarily changing people's personalities is preferable to locking them up forever or executing them.
None of you would survive in an open debate with me
Of course not. It's mathematically proven that it's impossible to win a debate with a troll since the troll just keeps trolling any argument and evidence given by the other part.
What is gained is justice and a deterrence to future criminals.
Of course that the fact that all statistical evidence points that an harsher penalty is not a deterrent to violent crimes, was simply put aside by you in order to present your flawed argument.
I too would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned to death. This has nothing to do with the crime, but rather the punishment. I would rather imprison every convicted murderer for life rather than execute one innocent person.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, The Lord of The Rings
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Baldus and Woodworth answered a lot of your questions. Case-controlled studies are never perfect, but they're the best evidence we have.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes....
Another measure of race's impact on the death penalty is the combined effect of the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. In the Philadelphia study, the racial combination which was most likely to result in a death sentence was a black defendant with a nonblack victim, regardless of how severe the murder committed. Black-on-black crimes were less likely to receive a death sentence, followed by crimes by other defendants, regardless of the race of their victims.
Are you five years old or just mentally that fucking stupid?
Lets add another step to your basic flowchart:
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? Yes -- then you've conceded the argument
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? No -- then you need to go away, do some research and learn about why you're both wrong, and a total fuckwit.
]
The message could be that if you commit a horrible rape and murder then you may be killed in a horrible way
It could, but it isn't. Try a couple of variants
- The message could be that if you are found guilty of committing a horrible murder and rape then you deserve to be tortured to death, whether you actually committed the crime or not
- The message could be that Oklahoma believes in retribution not justice
- The message could be that officials in Oklahoma think the bribes they receive from the drug company are more important than the constitution or the rights of fellow men
- The message could be as simple as Stay the fuck out of Oklahoma
I'd rather see justice.
There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing.
With life imprisonment, it is at least possible for the system to realize a mistake has been made and partially rectify it. It actually happens shockingly often.
Once an execution has been carried out, however, we can no longer even partially rectify the error.
Absolutely we should support fixing the system more generally. But that should not stop us from also declaring a moratorium on capital punishment until that goal is accomplished.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
A problem is that seeking the death penalty is up to prosecutors discretion most of the time. Thus one murder will result in a death penalty whereas another almost identical murder will not (and not even get life). Very often the difference depends upon some extra circumstance, such as whether a cop was killed rather than a civilian. The death penalty is absolutely not reserved for crimes that are so horrendous that they exceed the pale. Statistics show that a black person who kills a white victim is vastly more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who kills a black victim (and unless we're being racist, both situations should be treated identically under the law).
Eye for an eye is an old testament guideline (actually intended to limit the punishment), whereas new testament explicitly turns away from that and counsels forgiveness and mercy (gah, that Jesus was such a bleeding heart liberal!). So it is somewhat ironic that the death penalty remains in force in some states with a high number of protestant voters, which to me implies this is a much more cultural or political issue than a religious one.
I wonder a lot of the amount of effort expended in order to avoid reviewing cases and evidence is done in order to avoid the guilt that may occur if the person is innocent. Though there is another cause, in that most prosecutors seem inherently predisposed to assume a defendant is guilty and they fight very strenuously even when there is overwhelming evidence against guilt. (just want the news coverage following a prisoner being released after new evidence comes to light, and it is rare that the prosecutor will agree and admit that a mistake was made)
"Justice was served" is a pretext for those that are too dishonest or too cowardly to admit to liking revenge.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Except last i looked blacks are 12% of the population, which means the incidence is 4 times what we would expect all else bein equal.
Of course I do consider that. I repeat, no system is perfect. There is far far more chance that someone who murders me or my family is brought to justice and put to death than the chance I or someone I love is wrongfully punished as you describe. Far greater.
Yes, I can live with that.
Killing is a moral outrage, particularly killing an innocent. If an individual murders an innocent member of your family than that one person is guilty of the crime, if the state murders an innocent member of your family than the entire justice system, and by extension society, is guilty of the crime.
The guilt is obviously much more dispersed, but I think it's an important point regardless. A government that commits unjust acts is a government that loses moral authority and destabilizes the underlying society. Don't you think a lot of African Americans realize that the government is executing a lot of innocent black people? Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police.
What about the message executions send to society? "Killing is wrong" becomes "killing is good if the person really deserves it", murderers aren't bizarre aliens, they're the tail end of a normal distribution of violence. Anytime you shift the mean you're going to see an effect at the tails.
I stole this Sig
I could accept the death penalty if certain conditions are met. I'd have to be convinced that (1) The person was really guilty (2) He had a fair trial (3) Other people who committed the same crime also get the death penalty.
The problem here is (3). Black people are more likely to be executed when they kill a white person. I don't know if there's any current research. You'd need large numbers to break down an association by time series, and they may not have them. I doubt that the country is significantly less racist than it was 30 years ago.
I think that once we've established that there's so much discrimination in the death penalty, the process is hopelessly contaminated. Whenever a black person is executed, you can never be sure that a white person would be executed for the same crime. That violates basic fairness.
If a prosecutor wants to execute somebody, then he has to resolve every possible doubt. If the prosecutor can't eliminate the possibility that the death penalty was imposed because of racism, then he won't convince me it's appropriate.
There are other unfair disparities. The Mahmudiyah killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... of the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her and her entire family, was about the worst of the worst. The soldiers most directly involved were sentenced to life terms, but none of them was executed. If we didn't execute the Mahmudiyah killers, I can't imagine how anyone could be executed.
Wealth is a disparity. Many millionaires have clearly committed murder, but no millionaire has ever been executed in the U.S.
Generally speaking, the people on death row have been convicted of horrible crimes. I do have some dostoyevskian sympathy for them, but I have much more sympathy for their victims. When I think of the crimes that Lockett and Warner in Oklahoma probably committed, their execution bothers me a lot less. When I think of the crimes the soldiers at Mahmudiyah committed, their execution would bother me a lot less too.
But you can't convince me that it's right to execute somebody because he's black when you don't execute somebody who committed an equally horrible crime because he's white. And that seems to be happening.
This guy had a girl shot and thrown into a shallow grave alive and buried alive. What about the girl he had shot and buried alive. I'm all broke up over his painful heart attack. I say bring back hangings, firing squads and beheadings. These are three methods we know work and work fast without pain.
Paul E. Bahre
"You can't use that drug cocktail on a human because they haven't been tested on a human."
This whole issue is ridiculous. Look, I'm not going to get into the moral debate over capital punishment. What's ridiculous is how people can't seem to figure out how to kill someone efficiently, humanely, and without drama.
Forget all this "lethal injection" nonsense. Just go with nitrogen suffocation. It's cheap, you get drowsy, you fall asleep, and you don't wake up. End of life, end of drama. Done. Christ, you'd think this was difficult like calculating the orbit of a mars probe or something....