February 12, 2007

• Well, "cruel and unusual" will always be subject to the mores of the day (and I'm pretty sure that it was intentionally vague enough to accommodate such shifts), but ever since the guillotine people have put much thought and effort into making the process of execution as quick and painless as possible. The cocktail for lethal injection potentially fails the "painless" portion of the goal of execution, because the barbiturate may work incompletely (or not at all) where the paralytic works, subjecting the convict to incredible pain -- pain which is rendered basically invisible to others due to the action of the paralytic. The cocktail of lethal injection as it stands clearly leans toward the "quick" end of "quick and painless" while it is certain that in some cases that it is not painless at all. Though I don't have a strong opinion of the death penalty personally (I believe that rather than retribution, the death penalty's motivation should be permanent and irrevocable removal from the wronged society), I have long been a proponent of the method of execution should be a MASSIVE overdose of barbiturates and narcotics. Of course, this is not nearly as fast, but is just as certain, and I think it would be quite a stretch to say that a massive narcotic/barbiturate overdose is a painful experience.
• Unlike China, which methodically tested lethal-injection protocols on humans and now has a suite of hyperefficient lethal-injection vans that drive around the provinces carrying trained teams that execute the condemned, the federal government has never convened a panel to study the practicalities of killing death-row inmates. Well, there you go - we could outsource our executions, like everything else.
• I stipulate to being both a layman and a moron. However, I can't see why this should be so difficult. On those tragic occurences when I have had a pet put to sleep, the procedure took less than a minute and was seemingly painless. So, increase the dosage and "put to sleep" the human. Why isn't it that easy? (Not that I favor the death penalty, let's not veer off onto that debate, please).
• I have had to take two cats to the veterinarian for euthanasia, and while one did indeed "go down" very quickly and apparently without suffering, the same cannot be said for the second one. I was not prepared for the anguish, to say the least. Finally, the vet insisted that we leave the room so he could finish without upsetting us any further. You cannot predict individual reactions to some medications. I think there is very little doubt that lethal injection is, at best, a questionable method of execution.
• I am pretty sure that the worst thing about any method of execution would be the part where the person dies. Therefore, if dying is cruel and unusual, then it all cruel and unusual. If death is not cruel and unusual, then none of it (other than intentional torturing) would be deemed cruel and unusual. It strikes me as silly to suggest that we "humanely" kill, or do so in a way that is not "cruel." It is the killing of another person. It is, by its very nature, inhumane and cruel. It may be warranted, but that is an entirely different argument. Thinking that we are a better society by killing people is really just a way to make ourselves feel better about the whole affair. Who can better choose what is cruel and unusual than the person being executed? Why not give them a menu of choices? Would that make us all feel better?
• a menu of choices I'll have the salmon mousse.
• Ever notice how it was Graham Chapman who answered the door? Spooky.
• This man is about to die. In a few moments, now, he will be killed, for Arthur Jarrett is a convicted criminal who has been allowed to choose the manner of his own execution. A couple pics NSFW
• is it cruel and unusual punishment? Yes. (Not that I favor the death penalty, let's not veer off onto that debate, please). Pfft. How fun is that?
• A culture or society can't use itself as a metric for what is cruel and unusual. Any thing it does would be justified and/or acceptable since itself is the metric to determine what is justified and/or acceptable. The society must use it's peer societies as a metric. It look at societies that it considers it's equal (well, near equal, since all societies consider themselves to be the top dog), and look to see what the consider cruel and unusual. For US, it's peer societies would be places like the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and maybe Russia and Brazil. If the America's peers find it to be cruel and unusual, then America needs to recognize that it IS cruel and unusual.
• Anyway, I agree with bernockle. One might argue that if we have to resort to capital punishment, it should be as clean and painless as possible, because we are not barbarians. But we're kidding ourselves. An overdose of narcotics probably would be the most pleasant way to go, but a) no taxpayer is going to want to pay to get murderers high, and b) it would be too humane. There should be some suffering, no? I mean, we're not barbarians, but still ... /sarcasm
• Sadly, Koko's right. There must be some motivation at work here for not making sure that the executions are carried out humanely. As others have pointed out and I've lived through myself, pets are humanely euthanized every day (although there are surely exceptions; I accompanied a friend when his cat's time came and after seeing that vet at work I was glad I took my cats to another clinic). Final Exit and other Hemlock publicaions provide advice for those among the terminally ill who choose to end their lives with a minimum of pain and indignity. Although they can't do so openly in most places, compassionate doctors ease the way for terminal patients all the time. So, what is the motivation for not doing so with prisoners? I can think of two. 1.) The people carrying out the execution at best just don't care enough about the dying prisoner to make the effort and at worst think he deserves to suffer, or 2.) The professionals who would be skilled and compassionate enough to make death quick and clean aren't willing to participate.
• Then again, sentencing a convict to repeated gang rape for a 3rd DUI, as tacitly supported by the prison system, is pretty damned cruel and unusual...
• The NYTimes article was a great/fascinating/disturbing read, but even in the Times I still managed to find two obvious typos. Where's the dang wiki "Edit" button when you need it?
• That gangrape problem LordSludge mentioned explains why I'm not a convicted felon — and why if I were to commit a prison-worthy felony I might as well go whole-hog. I hear Death Row is safe, clean enough and usually quiet, so I'd have plenty of time to read the novels of Thomas Hardy and Henry James before those automatic appeals ran out. As for lethal injection, I find reading about the way they do it here to be another deterrent to comitting major felonies. Being put to sleep like at the vet's office seems humane enough though, though of course Society would get no vicarious kicks from anything like the euthanasia chamber in "Soylent Green". Really, as State- sanctioned killing goes we're lucky they've been persuaded to cease drawing and quartering.
• An overdose of a recreational drug is nowhere near a pleasant experience. It seems like it would be, but it's not. Your body knows it's too much, and it tells you. You get a painful, stressful experience, and you are way too far out of your gourd to deal with it.
• At the other end of the spectrum there is a case for the lethal injection on non-felons ie. those with terminal illnesses. In the UK "assisted suicide" is illegal. Yet there many for and many against its legaility. This is has strong parallels to capital punishament in as much it is hotly debated and of momentus ethical considerations. Perhaps we may see a decline of lethal injections for the criminal and an increase for the terminally ill?
• Better link Here
• For those societies with a death penalty, why don't they just flood the condemned's cell with carbon monoxide while they're sleeping?
• Shot through the head seems OK to me. You could probably arrange to pick 'em off without their ever knowing anything about it. Zaphod, I believe that doctors already finish terminal cases off quite often: I reckon it's not wise to give them any more encouragement.
• "why don't they just flood the condemned's cell with carbon monoxide while they're sleeping?" Isnt that one step from the Nazi Death trucks?? "I believe that doctors already finish terminal cases off quite often" Exactly my point. Two ends of spectrum, innocent lives wanting to die versus convicted lives not wanting to. In between, the medical profession ("to do no harm"). The dichotmy of the two is equally un-ethical, apart from the obvious result, the factor which binds them together is the publicity that these cases receive.
• Shot through the head seems OK to me. You could probably arrange to pick 'em off without their ever knowing anything about it. Lots of deaths seem humane in theory. Lethal injection SOUNDS perfectly OK. But the same system that arranges for the poorly-executed injections would be arranging the shootings. If they can't be bothered hiring people skilled at administering lethal drugs, why would they be bothered hiring people good at shooting guns? I guess the condmened man could petition the King to hire a skilled French swordsman...
• let us not forget the execution of Mary Queen of Scots. She was beheaded, but the executioner didn't aim very well on the first swing. He chopped her in the back of the head, after which she was heard by a number of witnesses TO SPEAK, clearly indicating she was still alive, and conscious! with an axe in the back of her head.
• The death penalty is cruel, unusual and expensive. Is our thirst for revenge and punishment so strong that the innocent must die when we err? Life imprisonment is better for both the State and the prisoner. It's cheaper, allows redress of error, and allows for personal redemption. Aside from that, there are much better ways to kill a person, humanely and quickly. Asphyxiation with a gas that contains no carbon dioxide, like pure nitrogen or pure argon brings very rapid unconsciousness without "air hunger" (for this reason, carbon dioxide is included as a safety measure in many gasses that are sold to the public). Another advantage is that it does not have to be administered by someone who has sworn to "do no harm". One disadvantage of "humane asphyxiation" is that it is not cruel enough for the purposes for which the State uses the death penalty (and the prison system, for that matter).
• Either that was a poem or it was typed on a VIC-20.
• Also the electric chair was an Edison marketing ploy that's truly horrendous in actual application. Also, Thomas Edison is a sick arrogant f*ing bastard.
• First petebest, now rocket88. I'm just peculiar when It comes to line breaks.
• I'm all in favor of making the death penalty as fast and painless as possible. But then again, I don't stay awake worrying about the brief, painful death of a killer that took the life of an innocent victim.
• Lethal injection creator: Maybe it's time to change formula
• Yeah, carbon monoxide or guillotine? Maybe it's time to change more than that.