Slashdot Mirror


Botched Executions Put Lethal Injections Under New Scrutiny

carmendrahl writes: "Lethal injections are typically regarded as far more humane methods for execution compared to predecessors such as hanging and firing squads. But the truth about the procedure's humane-ness is unclear. Major medical associations have declared involvement of their member physicians in executions to be unethical, so that means that relatively inexperienced people administer the injections. Mounting supply challenges for the lethal drug cocktails involved are forcing execution teams to change procedures on the fly. This and other problems have contributed to recent crises in Oklahoma and Missouri. As a new story and interactive graphic explains, states are turning to a number of compound cocktails to get around the supply problems."

69 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Use confiscated drugs by jpvlsmv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I still don't understand why the lethal injection isn't just a bunch of heroin that's been confiscated in the latest raid. People OD on heroin without being horribly uncomfortable.

    1. Re:Use confiscated drugs by freeze128 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While there are so many things that can kill a human, I find it hard to believe that they are having a hard time killing humans!

      Veterinarians have to euthanize animals comfortably all the time. Why not use the same drug?

    2. Re:Use confiscated drugs by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      ...or your basic "Exit Bag" system, with a colorant or odorant to safeguard against the administering staff being harmed.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    3. Re:Use confiscated drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was a discussion on this topic on another site I was visiting, about a week ago.

      The consensus was that the problem with using nitrogen asphyxiation was that it didn't cause enough suffering.

    4. Re:Use confiscated drugs by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I still don't understand why the lethal injection isn't just a bunch of heroin that's been confiscated in the latest raid. People OD on heroin without being horribly uncomfortable.

      Because the association with drugs might serve to bring the legitimacy of the institution of death penalty into question. Like all institutions, it too is primarily concerned with its own continuation, and does whatever it takes to ensure a steady stream of victims. Not out of any malice, mind you, but simply because it can't exist otherwise.

      And it's not like it takes heroin to kill people painlessly. Nitrogen is a major industrual hazard precisely because it's a stealthy, quick killer. But it's too quick - there's no complex ritual involved, which would again threaten to delegitimaze the institution by showing it as what it is: a state murdering its own citizens.

      tl;dr you can't expect rational behaviour from a fundamentally irrational institution.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Use confiscated drugs by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      if the inmate has a tolerance to heroin from long periods of addiction/abuse, it won't be effective.

      That tolerance only occurs when using it continually. It decreases after periods of not using heroin. That's why many addicts OD after being clean for a while. They think they can use as much as the always did. But it can take months to build up that tolerance. Since most, if not all death row inmates are locked up of years, if not decades before they are executed, tolerance to heroine is not going to be an issue.

    6. Re:Use confiscated drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do know that that sort of isolation invariably leads to insanity right? I'm not really sure how "roll-back-able" insanity is.

    7. Re:Use confiscated drugs by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then just give them more. There's a lethal dose of heroin for everyone.

      With the possible exception of Keith Richards.

    8. Re:Use confiscated drugs by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [...]no tv, no internet, no magazines, no books, no human contact at all

      That's a pretty severe punishment, but it's roll-back-able - no one's been deprived of life.

      No. No it cannot be rolled back. What you are describing is probably among the most severe and permanently damaging forms of torture known to man. The human mind is not evolved to maintain stability without outside contact. I'd rather die than spend a decade (or 2 or 3 or 4) locked in a box the way you describe. I'm actually horrified that you think it's an acceptable form of justice.

    9. Re:Use confiscated drugs by sethradio · · Score: 2

      If not that, how about the guillotine?

      Heads usually stay alive for a few seconds after decapitation because they have not run out of blood.

      --
      "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
    10. Re:Use confiscated drugs by sethradio · · Score: 2

      It really is cruel and unusual punishment. Unconstitutional.

      --
      "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
    11. Re:Use confiscated drugs by preaction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't have a justice system, we have a revenge system. It continues because we will always want revenge on those that damage us, society. We already know we're murdering people, these people "deserve" to be murdered.

    12. Re:Use confiscated drugs by Jmc23 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Volunteers from corrections officers? Yes, let's feed someones desire to kill people.

      If you want to have the death penalty in your state then there should be a random drawing of all adults in the state and the lucky winner is the one who gets to pull the trigger..

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    13. Re:Use confiscated drugs by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So then instead of dropping a blade across the neck, drop a massive anvil directly on the head. Wile E. Coyote style. I'm being serious.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    14. Re:Use confiscated drugs by jythie · · Score: 2

      And, if you are the type who gets happy feelings from other people's suffering but do not want the moral pangs of being a 'bad person', having a population of people that it is ok to kill is desirable. And since we can not do it with blacks, gays, hispanics, prostitutes, or any of the other historical 'it is not really murder, they are bad people' groups, I guess this is one of the new outlets.

      Someone should just get these people a whole pile of video games.

    15. Re:Use confiscated drugs by WhiteZook · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that the sudden loss of blood pressure to the brain would normally cause immediate loss of consciousness. Of course, the fact that the decapitated people can't really tell what's happening makes it hard to tell exactly if/what they are experiencing.

    16. Re:Use confiscated drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hanging is not simple. It takes skill and practice, even with a table of weights and drop lengths. The last hangman with any real practice was Darshan Singh, the sole executioner in Singapore for over 40 years. Before he retired sometime after 2005, he personally killed (and by personally, I mean he built the platform, prepared the noose, placed the noose, and pulled the lever) over 850 people. I read recently that Singapore was thinking about using lethal injection now, so whoever they got to replace Singh probably sucks at his job. Singh had a nearly perfect record. He tried to train new people, but none could handle being an executioner.

      The last French executioner died in 1951. It would be hard to find a modern citizen without psychological problems who could stomach a guillotine.

      If you want a spectacle your best bet is firing squad. Utah used a firing squad in 2010. But even those guys said it made them very uncomfortable and they wouldn't want to do it again.

      That's why lethal injection is so popular. On the surface it seems like a medical procedure--clean and precise. Of course, in reality it's anything but. We should be using pentobarbital, which is what we use to humanely euthanize animals. But we don't, for a bunch of stupid reasons.

    17. Re:Use confiscated drugs by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not about meddling with sovereignty, it's about PR. None of the European countries are trying to turn the US into a colony. That's idiotic. You're drinking way too much of the far-right wing conspiracy koolaid if you can type that out.

      Europeans see the death penalty as barbaric. Which, given our fellow executors, is accurate. Companies who make drugs obviously don't care about criminals dying versus the profit they'd make directly, they just don't want to face an outrcry from their European customers by being associated with that.

      In the same way, liberals opposed to the death penalty aren't really concerned with stealing red state power. It's more that we don't want to be associated with people who insist that beheading is justice.

    18. Re:Use confiscated drugs by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2

      I got an idea.
      Use volunteers from convicted murderers to kill people.
      That way, no one has to suffer from psychological effects except the already deranged who chose to do that.
      Sounds perfect to me.

    19. Re:Use confiscated drugs by James+McGuigan · · Score: 2

      The irony is that the US is a nation that can easily kill an armed "suspected terrorist" from half way round the world, with just a touch of a button from a drone, yet still has trouble killing a man strapped to a chair.

    20. Re:Use confiscated drugs by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 2

      Imprisonment has three purposes:

      - rehabilitation

      NO. People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. If you believe that using or selling drugs should be legal, no amount of prison time should ever be used in a "well if you confess to believing X we'll go easy on you". This is the shit that the catholic church did to Galileo. We don't need to be repeating it, no matter how holy you think US law might be.

      - protection of society

      NO. The only person responsible for your protection is you. No jury should ever feel like "well he might not be guilty, but I'm going to vote guilty anyway just to protect society". The juror should be thinking "he might not be guilty, and if I'm wrong then it's not the court's responsibility anyway".

      - the punishment aspect

      NO. We do not enact "eye for an eye law".

      The ideal purpose for prisons, as much as you might not like it, is to protect prisoners from the wrath of those who have been hurt. Rather than a mob hanging someone for stealing a horse, we insist on them having a trial and an appropriate "time out" long enough for everyone to stop wanting to kill the offender. There can always be other reasons, and a mix of pros and cons, but this is the main reason. Prisons create order in society by creating equal responses for equal crimes, rather than random mob anger.

    21. Re:Use confiscated drugs by Evtim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Too bloody.

      The hypocrisy is mind boggling. On one hand it should not be too disturbing for the observers, on the other nitrogen is "too easy" as a poster mentioned above [I for one am for the nitrogen; if I ever want to kill myself I'd use it].

      The injection is particularly evil IMO. Just imagine being suddenly awake during surgery and noone notices the monitors [for the sake of argument] - you can't move, you can't scream. I cannot imagine worst than this. No matter how badly it hurts, being able to squirm and scream helps. Total madness!

      The world is in the hands of the worst part of humanity. We build our system this way......

  2. Frosty by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people don't want to die a a horrid painful death they should choose their parents better - that way they'd be able to afford a better lawyer.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Frosty by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe they should simply not rape and murder that 9 year old girl.

    2. Re:Frosty by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If people don't want to die a a horrid painful death they should choose their parents better

      If people don't want to die a horrid painful death, they should avoid being born in the first place. What do you think most of us have to look forward to in the last couple years of our lives?

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    3. Re:Frosty by danlip · · Score: 4, Informative

      You assume all the people put to death are actually guilty of the crime. This is certainly not true. Also, as the GP implied, plenty of people who are guilty of the crime don't get put to death. When was the last time you heard of a wealthy well-connected person sentenced to death?

    4. Re:Frosty by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they didn't. A not-insignificant number of death row inmates aren't even guilty.

      And the point about wealth and having a better lawyer is quite valid too.

      Personally, I'm not against the idea of the death penalty, but I can't support it in practice knowing that we kill the innocent sometimes along with the guilty.

    5. Re:Frosty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      IAAL (several hundred FL criminal defense cases including felony jury trials, etc)

      It has almost nothing to do with the quality of lawyering involved. A significant portion of criminal defense cases have essentially pre-ordained outcomes due to the weight of evidence against the accused.

      Lawyers are really only useful in the few close cases- ie, ones where evidence supporting reasonable doubt can be found. A lot of the big cases in the media (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, Zimmerman) were actually extremely weak cases that were brought mainly because of media attention. It's easy for a defense attorney to look awesome when the state has brought a horribly weak case against your client.

      Conversely, in the more typical case, there's not much for a defense attorney to do when 10 witnesses and 6 different security cameras all say your client did the exact same thing. You're essentially just fighting for a decent plea so the judge doesn't get the discretion to send your client to prison forever after he sits through a trial listening to what your client did. And in cases involving raping and murdering babies, there's not going to be a plea offer unless it's a weak case.

    6. Re:Frosty by mspohr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So... what's an acceptable error rate? If "only" 10% of the people we kill are innocent, is that OK?
      It is well established that innocent people have been killed and that innocent people who are on death row are regularly found out and released.
      So... how many innocent people are you comfortable in killing?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re:Frosty by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So... what's an acceptable error rate? If "only" 10% of the people we kill are innocent, is that OK?

      If you think it's anywhere near 10%, you are deluding yourself. But as I said, even one is too many. Most of the cases we know about occurred in the days before the current level of sophistication of CSI, what with DNA and other techniques.

      I agree with you that the Death Penalty is morally wrong, but suggesting huge numbers of the many people on Death Row are innocent is unrealistic and detrimental you your argument.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:Frosty by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to this study the rate is about 4.1%. The rate of people currently being found innocent after being sentenced to death is 1.6%.

    9. Re:Frosty by jythie · · Score: 2

      Well, simple solution, if a person who has been sentenced to death is found innocent, then the prosecutor, witnesses, jury, and judge are all charged with attempted murder. We could also charge the voters who were responsible for the specific local laws and makeup of the court system with accessory to murder since prosecutions have a significant political component to them and pleasing the electorate is one of the primary motivations for aggressive prosecution. So if we find innocent people on death row, then voters should bare the punishment.

    10. Re:Frosty by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Per the Constitution, the acceptable error rate is 0% false positives and any amount of false negatives.

      However, the issue here is that the error rate applies to the conviction, not the punishment. People who oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it kills innocent people are making the implicit claim that it's somehow not just as bad for those innocent people to rot in prison forever, which is a horrifically barbaric ideology in and of itself.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:Frosty by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      wow... where can I buy on of your tin foil hats?

      You should never wear someone else's tinfoil hat. It is unique the to wearer, and has adapted itself to your own personal brainwaves.

      If you use someone else's tinfoil hat, the government mind control beams will be able to triangulate you, and will be used to inform the aliens. They'll then just have to do a little recalibration, and your thoughts will be in the clear.

      You have to make your own tinfoil hat.

      At least, that's what I hear. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Frosty by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Probably not even a few percent

      A few percent is a HUGE number in this context.

      For example, that means if you select an executed prisoner at random, the odds he was innocent is several times HIGHER than the odds he shares your birthday. (0.027%) Its HIGHER than the odds he shares your 'birth-week'. (1.9%)

      A recent peer reviewed study puts the innocence rate at LEAST 4% as a conservative. If we executed one inmate a week (which is fairly close to actuality), we'd kill at least 2 innocents every year on average, and almost surely more.

      Surely that's far too high for you to swallow as acceptable? It is for me.

    13. Re:Frosty by mspohr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except... Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty has no effect on crime so no consequences for not killing people.
      So... best to join the rest of the civilized countries in the world and abolish the death penalty.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    14. Re:Frosty by marsu_k · · Score: 2

      Or perhaps they should not run over four people while drunk. But oh wait, no harm done, guilty as rich!

    15. Re:Frosty by mspohr · · Score: 2

      I don't accept killing innocent people.
      I don't even accept the idea of killing guilty people.
      To me, killing is just a brutal revenge. I think killing a guilty person is actually the easy way out for the guilty. I think it is a much more severe punishment to have a guilty person rot in jail for the rest of their life without the possibility of release.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  3. Lots of alternatives.. by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Guillotine, Hanging, Firing Squad and the Electric Chair.

    You could also take standard drugs like Sodium Thiopental that are used in countries that allow euthanasia

    Sodium thiopental is used intravenously for the purposes of euthanasia. In both Belgium and the Netherlands, where active euthanasia is allowed by law, the standard protocol recommends sodium thiopental as the ideal agent to induce coma, followed by pancuronium bromide.

    Intravenous administration is the most reliable and rapid way to accomplish euthanasia. A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg thiopental sodium (Nesdonal) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then, a triple dose of a non-depolarizing skeletal muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should be given intravenously to ensure optimal availability but pancuronium bromide may be administered intramuscular at an increased dosage level of 40 mg.

    It's also cheap too.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Lots of alternatives.. by danlip · · Score: 2

      Except we can't get sodium thiopental in the US. We don't make it, and the EU won't sell it to us because we use it for executions.

    2. Re:Lots of alternatives.. by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      It boggles my mind how anyone can think the electric chair is, or even could be, in any way humane.

      Apart from anything else the victim takes time to die, partly from it boiling their blood and brain enough that their eyes can literally pop out of their sockets.

      The only reason the electric chair made it at all is because it was Thomas Edison who was pushing it heavily for his own political and business gain, and another way to promote DC over AC. None of his actual reasons have anything to do with efficient or humane death.

    3. Re:Lots of alternatives.. by Brad_McBad · · Score: 2

      It's more the deal that if you're a large drugs company why would you make one of these drugs when it's going to be such small batches as it's not used therapeutically? Your drug companies are too big to bother, and probably don't want the negative press of making drugs exclusively used to kill people.

  4. I'll choose ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Snu-snu.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. Nitrogen asphyxiation, if you must execute by MrKevvy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    - It's completely painless and humane; one's physiology doesn't notice the lack of oxygen so the person just goes to sleep and then dies. People who were revived from asphyxia like this reported they had no idea until they woke up

    - It's practically free of charge as nitrogen is 80% of our atmosphere; there will never be a shortage of it

    - Because it's universally available and free worldwide it can't be banned or restricted

    - It's much safer (ie nitrogen leaks are harmless assuming the area is ventilated.)

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
  6. Nitrogen by WhiteZook · · Score: 2

    Give them a small mouth/nose mask attached to a nitrogen supply. Quick, painless, and you don't have blood everywhere.

  7. Lots of alternatives.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Export of Sodium Thiopental and similar drugs to countries that allow executions are banned throughout the EU. That's why the USA is now looking for shitty homegrown replacements.

  8. Surprised they haven't made in a profit center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm surprised the state of Oklahoma hasn't tried to make carrying out death sentences a profit center. There's no shortage of people in that state who wouldn't actually pay to be on a firing squad. And plenty of them would pay even more to get to do it up close and personal with a handgun.

    They could even open it up to the residents of Texas and add in an out of state surcharge for the privilege.

  9. Only by idiots. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In this case 'more humane' basically just means 'doesn't make the audience as squeamish'. As it turns out, this is a very poor indicator. Especially since the usual injection cocktail contains Pancuronium, or another curare-like muscle relaxant. Not an anaesthetic, or toxic in itself; but causes nice, peaceful-looking flaccid paralysis. Unless one of the other ingredients fully sedates you, or kills you, you just suffocate; but no unseemly twitching or spasms, no grimacing, gasping, any of that ugly stuff; because with the complete loss of muscle control, how could you?

    The 'barbaric' methods, by contrast, don't look all nice and clean and medical; but they also don't involve deputy Cletus playing amateur phlebotomist with a dodgy, failure-prone, three-step injection process (compare to, say, how we put domestic animals to sleep, if you want to see somebody who knows their stuff handle a lethal injection...), they involve a lot of gore; potentially some peripheral nervous activity causing creepy corpse twitch; but they depend either on simple mechanical principles(as with the guillotine) or skills that prison staff likely have in more than adequate amounts (as with firing squads).

    Personally, I'm not against the notion of capital punishment in principle; but the way we do it in the US is like a grimly parodic example of what not to do, and how not to do it. Despite the availability of trivially better procedures, we insist on using a variety of ass-backwards Mad-Libs protocols with a history of unreliability and no obvious merits. Our irrational, emotionally misguided, approach carries over to the selection of victims as well: (even aside from the documented cases where the whole trial was a frame-up, with gross prosecutorial, judicial, and sometimes even defense attorney, misconduct) we execute largely on the basis of emotional salience, rather than actual danger. Kill somebody, up close and personal, nice and gruesome? Potential death penalty in jurisdictions that conduct it. Kill a large number of people, by some polite, white-collar, epidemiological chicanery? Probably just a civil matter, you might even get to settle without admitting wrongdoing.

    Nobody likes violent criminals, and they are notably unsympathetic characters; but (precisely for those reasons) their influence tends to be self-limiting. The really dangerous ones are smart enough to make it to a position of power and influence, where the rewards are better and the penalties oh so much smaller. If we were serious about rationally applying capital punishment, it'd be a lot easier to be taken out and shot for various flavors of fraud and corruption, rather than effectively impossible, as now.

  10. Re:Stupid question by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because if you use those drugs for executions, the (European) manufacturers of them then get prohibited from selling them to the USA and you no longer have them for medical uses.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  11. Re:Stupid question by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    As someone who recently had to put my cat to sleep because of cancer, the vet told me they were using an overdose of barbiturates, not gas.

    I felt my best bud of 12 years go limp in my hands within a second or two of the injection and he was gone a second or two later.

    Maybe my vet was different, but I've known other vets who do the same.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  12. Stop messing around by OSULugan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we're going to do executions, then the whole "pain-free" premise should go right out the door. We're killing the criminal in retaliation for a crime. Why does it need to be so painless? I mean, don't torture the criminal by starvation or dehydration or anything like that. But hanging, guillotine, firing squad, etc. are all effective means. You could even give some local to ease the pain on some of these methods.

    Otherwise, all you're really doing is admitting that execution isn't right, but trying to get away with it anyway.

    1. Re:Stop messing around by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you've hit on the point of lethal injection. The real appeal of the elaborate pseudo-medical procedure is that it masks the nature of what is being done to the condemned, makes it seem nicer than it really is.

      If being humane toward the condemned were the highest priority, firing squad or guillotine would be the best choices among the traditional execution methods. In fact, and ironically, the traditional method of *extrajudicial* execution would be most reliably humane: a shot in the back of the head.

      The reason we don't use these methods is that they're embarrassingly messy, and leave an ugly residue. We'd prefer to have a nicely intact body as if the condemned died peacefully, but in fact the catastrophic destruction of the condemned bodies is what makes the uglier methods more humane. Instant oblivion is is clearly preferable to an elaborately drawn out psuedo-medical procedure, especially an untried one carried out by inexperienced hands.

      The reason we carry out lethal injections isn't humane, it's political.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. Sickening by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it is illegal to kill, it should be for the state as well. Anything else is hypocritical. Period. It is not about justice, nor does having capital punishment provide a deterrent that significantly affects violent crime rates.
    I heard on the radio just this morning that due to the supply difficulties, Tennessee is passing/has passed a law to bring back the electric chair. Now that's humane!
    Capital punishment is largely about one thing. One thing that politicians tend to do very well to keep their constituents in line. Fear-mongering. See.. I am tough on those rapin, theiving, murderin (insert carefully chosen group that panders to your audience here).

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Sickening by Minwee · · Score: 2

      Should state-run prisons be entirely abandoned?

      Yes. Do you have any other questions which answer themselves?

  14. Re:Why is it so hard? by compro01 · · Score: 2

    Yes, but if you use those for executions, the European companies that make them won't be allowed to sell them to the USA, period, so you won't have them for surgeries either.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  15. Re:Stupid question by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Phenobarbitol (barbiturate) is what they use to kill people. The only manufacturer is in Europe and refuses to sell it to the US to kill people. Hence, the secrecy, mad scramble and botched executions.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  16. Human's a very good at not dying by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    despite all the jokes you've heard we're pretty damn resilient and it takes a surprising amount of effort to kill us. The trouble is once you start killing someone our bodies will rebel (trying to get us to get away from whatever it is that's killing us). That's pain in a nutshell.

    There aren't a lot of ways to kill a man without significant pain. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or ignorant.

    Now, a better question is why are we still killing people when at least 4% of ppl killed are verifiable innocent? I guess it's cheaper than dealing with the lawsuits for false imprisonment.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Human's a very good at not dying by Wookact · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no evidence that it is a deterrent though. In fact in some places there is more crime. Criminals are real bad about thinking of long term consequences, so if there is no deterrent you save no lives, and jet still kill at least 4% innocent.

    2. Re:Human's a very good at not dying by M1FCJ · · Score: 2

      Having a death penalty leads to less crime? Europe vs. US proves that theory is bollocks.

    3. Re:Human's a very good at not dying by Plunky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many young women and girls were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and eventually killed by Ted Bundy after the state of Florida lit him up like a Christmas tree?

      That's what I thought. It seems he was pretty thoroughly deterred.

      Except, that is not what a deterrent is.

      The question is, how many young women and girls did Ted Bundy not kidnap, rape, torture or kill because he was worried about being executed? I'd say none, but its difficult to say for sure..

      Then, you can ask how many young women and girls were not kidnapped, raped, tortured or killed by other people because of the fear that they would be executed for this, as Ted Bundy was, rather than just being imprisoned for life, or a long time.. this one is harder, but I'd say that people who are prone to kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing young women and girls are not really the kind of people who care about the consequences of their actions, or they think they won't get caught anyway.

  17. Re:I dont understand by azadrozny · · Score: 2

    This has become a problem because doctors are generally refusing to involve themselves in the process. From what I have heard from professionals, it can be difficult to properly insert a needle into a person. It becomes easier with practice, but the people administering this are only doing this a few times per year so there is little experience with the technique. Plus some drug companies are refusing to provide the tried and true cocktails, so states are having to find different drugs, again with little or no help from medical professionals.

  18. Re:What is wrong the the Soviet & China style by cHALiTO · · Score: 2

    What I don't get is this talk about a "more humane" way of killing people. Some might be more gruesome than others, but I find none of them to be 'humane' in the least, simply because I don't consider willfully killing someone to be 'humane'.

    But that's just MHO.

    --
    "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
  19. Uhm, just dont kill people? by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 2

    Because you know, maybe one day the US might actually want to become a first-world-country...

  20. Re:What is wrong the the Soviet & China style by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the idea is that lethal injection is more humane for the witnesses, not the condemned. When lethal injection goes right, the person simply looks like they fall asleep. With gas, they choke for air. With electrocution, they jerk around (or take several tries, catch fire, etc). Firing squad comes with blood. Hanging, if done wrong, can decapitate a person or leave them wriggling around as they asphyxiate-there's also the violent nature of the drop and the body hanging there. As executions get easier for those watching them, it is easier to garner support for executions. I am pro death penalty, but I also feel that if the form of death was more graphic (and made it clear the person was dying and not just falling asleep) it would make people less willing to sentence someone to death and reserve it solely for the most severe of cases. I also think that the attorney that prosecutes an individual, the judge that sentences that individual, and the governor that denies clemency should all be present when the execution takes place. If you can order someone's death, you should have to courage to at least be there when they die.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  21. No such thing as a good execution by macinnisrr · · Score: 2

    How about abolishing execution, period. If even one person is killed because of a wrongful conviction (which of course is realistically a very low number), then the state is no better than the murderers.

  22. Re:How is that? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    spoken as a true idiot. I have personally visited the camps in dachau. Get at me when you have seen more of the world than what you see behind your monitor

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  23. Decapitation. by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There were some 'experiments' back in the day with asking the condemned to blink certain codes after their head was removed. Results were inconclusive.

    I still think that most executed prisoners have an easier death, pain wise, than normal people, who generally die of a painful heart attack, long cancer, illness, etc...

    My vote's for nitrogen asphixiation.
    1. No need for injections. Just give them some anti-anxiety medication to swallow.
    2. No need for drugs obtained from secret sources in order to protect supply lines. Any welding supply store should do. Heck, they can purchase a machine to produce the necesssary nitrogen, or even carbon monoxide. I'd suggest a couple canisters just to 'keep it simple'.
    3. Still doesn't mess up the body.
    4. All evidence is that it's a fast, painless, and peaceful death.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Decapitation. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't understand, a lot of the people who are pro-executions don't want a painless peaceful death; not even when the statistics show that about 1 in 20 people are innocent.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  24. Re:Let he help you from your ignorance by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

    Well, we're a Christian Nation, aren't we? Shouldn't we respect life, forgive and what not?"

    Well, according to progressives, we're not...

    You aren't, because there's no such thing. There's no mention of a concept of a Christian Nation in the Bible, the collective is a "church". The Old Testament has a nation (of a sort) which is Israel but they aren't bound by the political structure centering around the judges and later, kings, but around a common identity based on Abraham as the recipient of God's covenantal promises - promises which extended explicitly to Abraham's physical descendants, which is the common identity of Israel.

    As for whether Christians ought to support the death penalty, the idea is absurd. For on thing, the vast majority of Christians understand that any punishment devised will ultimately apply to them, since on average the daily experience of Christians is one of persecution, loss and hazard because of their faith. To promote the death penalty, knowing that it is applied to Christians in other places and times merely on account of their faith, is repugnant to a thinking and faithful Christian.

    For another, when Jesus speaks he doesn't speak in a code that allows Americans to continue doing or believing whatever they want. You've simply excused your inherited ethical code by eisegesis, instead of exegesis.