Controversial Execution In Ohio Uses New Lethal Drug Combination 1038
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "CNN reports that Ohio inmate Dennis McGuire appeared to gasp and convulse for roughly 10 minutes before he finally died during his execution by lethal injection using a new combination of drugs. The new drugs were used because European-based manufacturers banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions — among them, Danish-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital. The state used a combination of the drugs midazolam, a sedative, and the painkiller hydromorphone, the state corrections department told CNN. In an opinion piece written for CNN earlier this week, a law professor noted that McGuire's attorneys argued he would 'suffocate to death in agony and terror.' 'The state disagrees. But the truth is that no one knows exactly how McGuire will die, how long it will take or what he will experience in the process,' wrote Elisabeth A. Semel, clinic professor of law and director of the Death Penalty Clinic at U.C. Berkeley School of Law. According to a pool report from journalists who witnessed the execution, the whole process took more than 15 minutes, during which McGuire made 'several loud snorting or snoring sounds.' Allen Bohnert, a public defender who lead McGuire's appeal to stop his execution in federal court on the grounds that the drugs would cause undue agony and terror, called the execution process a 'failed experiment' and said his office will look into what happened. 'The people of the state of Ohio should be appalled by what took place here today in their name.'"
If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what is then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The phrasing in the 8th amendment is "cruel and unusual" FYI, and I'm pretty sure a court will find a stay of executions necessary until a new method is devised.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that because you are a torturer and murderer?
(Personally, I'd like to think that my society is better than the bad guys.)
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Funny)
There are but they're too busy doing nothing instead : P
Re: (Score:3)
There are a number of pacifists who would disagree with you on that point.
So would anyone who takes Christianity seriously. Jesus Christ said something about "turning the other cheek" in the face of aggression. Or is that not supposed to be taken literally?
Re: (Score:3)
That was advice, because what he also said was as you keep on earth so shall he keep in heaven, as well as judge not least you be judged.
Notice a pattern, he is basically saying God is going to hold you to your own standard and very likely treat you accordingly as well. So avoid hypocracy and treat others well and be quick and open to forgive, because that will timately serve you best.
OTOH - Christians don't have to just roll over and accept monstrous actions by others. There are things that most people w
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The phrasing in the 8th amendment is "cruel and unusual" FYI, and I'm pretty sure a court will find a stay of executions necessary until a new method is devised.
What is considered Cruel and Unusual changes over time.
A firing squad, beheading or hanging were considered just fine for a long time. Same goes for the Electric Chair, it was all the rage for decades. Now we're trying to put people to "sleep" with a comfy pillow and a bedtime story.
Personally, I'd like to see hanging make a comeback.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I'd like to see hanging make a comeback.
It's still acceptable in Washington. Firing Squads are acceptable in Utah.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Funny)
The rack was cruel. Crucifixion was cruel. Beheading with an axe was, well, hit or miss.
You're right. Cruelty is relative. One could even make a case that incarceration for life is cruel... but that would lead to silly (and dangerous) ideas.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Funny)
Beheading with an axe was, well, hit or miss.
My mod points don't give me an option for "worst joke ever".
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only downside i've really seen to the process is how they keep executing people who eventually turned out to be innocent
If that's not a dealbreaker in your opinion, there's something very wrong with you.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
So long as our justice system uses humans, I won't trust it to kill people.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not simply shoot them? I'm staunchly against the death penalty myself, but if you must do it then at least make it quick.
Of course, putting a bullet in someone's head might make the people invited to watch the event just a tad squeamish...
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
a fixed aim bench rifle of sufficient bore directly to the head would be a 100% effective and 100% painless execution, so long as the muzzle velocity is such that the brain is destroyed faster than a nerve impulse travels (approximately 60 mph iirc) it would be physically impossible to perceive any pain
or we could just make life without parole the top poss
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Informative)
The person you're responding to is discussing "exit bag" systems, a popular method for self-euthanasia.
Generally speaking someone using an "exit bag" (google for yourself) will leave a polite note on the door in case of leakage, since they probably won't be alive later to turn off the knob on the gas tank, but in any controlled setting, a respirator-type mask would do the trick wonderfully.
A colorant or odorant could be easily added for operant safety, but it's not any more dangerous for the operator than, say, dental gasses.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Informative)
gas chambers of all types are dangerous, if you make it totally painless/sansationless you also make it a hazard for workers if the system malfunctions.
Except that while hydrogen cyanide execution is lethal because of its presence (making it dangerous for people around if it escapes), suffocation in nitrogen is lethal because of oxygen's absence. You have to try hard to keep the oxygen out. If the 100% nitrogen escapes from the small chamber, all it does is that it mixes with the 80% of nitrogen in the large surrounding volume that is already there!
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
gas chambers of all types are dangerous,
Nitrogen doesn't need a "gas chamber". Just a mask and reservoir bag (aka non-rebreather mask). Cost: $20 for the disposable mask. A few bucks per cubic metre for high-grade nitrogen. (I'd also add a bubbler to remove any odours, and warm and humidify the gas.)
a fixed aim bench rifle of sufficient bore directly to the head
Judging from bolt-guns at slaughterhouses, there's an error rate. And the result of an error is nasty. (Whereas if the nitrogen doesn't work, it just doesn't work.)
This is the problem with all methods of execution. The guillotine sometimes wouldn't cut all the way through. The noose wouldn't break their neck (or the rope would break). The cyanide wouldn't release properly. The electric chair wouldn't make proper contact through the skin, burning them alive instead of instantly electrocuting them. And sometimes the anaesthetic doses for lethal injection go wrong, so the person wakes up as the kill-you-horribly part is injected; or they use the wrong drugs. This the advantage of nitrogen, anything less than a kill is benign.
or we could just make life without parole the top possible penalty and save a ton of money AND make errors more reversible
Or that.
Re: (Score:3)
But I'd rather prefer being properly hung.
Mustn't do it, musn't do it. Can't fight the urge. Am giving in.
All men prefer to be properly hung, so do their women.
There done. Ahhh catharsis.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it was the pregnant women that he slit her throat and left lying along the road was !
This.
I don't feel bad for him at all. I certainly hope he felt some (or more) of what his victim felt.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. He isn't worse than you after all.
At some point someone has to clean up the most violent murderers of society. Someone has to be willing to do what others won't in order to protect everyone - including those who would not make the effort to protect society from people like McGuire.
Nobody likes these things. We are not a pack blood thirsty mongrels waiting for another chance to harm someone under the guise of law and order. But at some point someone needs to make sure people like McGuire don't get a chance to practice their craft ever again.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)
So your only happy when you/your society is as bad as he was.
You cheapen all life.
This raises a point.
Is it vengeance or is that we simply want these people out of our lives permanently.
Some clearly want the convicted to get their comeuppance -- they want closure of a final variety, this convict will pay the ultimate price, at least in this mortal form, being ejected from the game.
Others see no chance of reforming the convict and do not relish them living a relatively easy life while everyone else has to work for their food and shelter. Prison life isn't really so horrible that some people are willing to return to it -- finding the outside world too much of a challenge or this is where their buddies from the street are and now they can go hang with them. Prison isn't so much a punishment as a way to segregate those convicted from society and visa-versa. Were you in a tiny town you and your neighbors may feel a need for accelerated and terminal judgement against villains, even of offences which seem of too little consequence to warrant a death sentence -- such it was in many sparsely populated communities at times in history.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's not pretend that this man didn't understand or even endorse the death penalty.
That is an interesting theory. Should the death penalty be reserved only for those who support it?
I would say that no, it should be abolished completely. While I support the concept, the risks of getting things wrong are not worth it IMO.
Kill capitol punishment! Kill it dead! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, until you get to that 100%, and never make an error, that is what you are doing. You are murdering people because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, are the wrong skin color, or cannot afford a good lawyer. At least if you screw up a life in prison sentence, you can let the person out in a decade or two when the truth comes to light.
There is a great bullshit test I came up with to give to someone who advocates capitol punishment. Ask them if our court system is 100% perfect in convicting the guilty. Then ask them if that means that means that we are murdering at least a few of the wrong people with capitol punishment. Then ask them if they would still feel that capitol punishment was fair and just if they were one of those people that was selected to die. Then ask them if they still support capitol punishment. If they say still yes, they are lying.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If we can me completely certain that there never will be an error in a capitol crime sentencing, I would advocate immediately dropping the killer in a wood chipper head first. However, being as there is always going to be some error in the legal system the question we should be asking is, "How many innocent people are we willing to murder in the name of revenge/justice?"
I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning; however, by logical extension you must also be against any sort of punishment for criminals at all. For while death is a permanent, irrevocable punishment, so is any form of wrongful incarceration. You can't undo the loss of a portion of a life wrongly spent in prison (and no, monetary compensation isn't equivalent).
Ultimately, the answer is yes, some small level of error must be acceptable in the criminal justice system, or we must otherwise let all the accused go
Re:Kill capitol punishment! Kill it dead! (Score:4, Insightful)
But what's the benefit of capital punishment? Revenge? Justice? Deterrence? Closure?
Personally I'm highly skeptical of the deterrence effect, and revenge doesn't sit right, which leaves only justice and closure.
Is execution the only deserving justice for a horrible crime, why can't life in prison be considered justice?
As for closure I can understand the desire of the victims family to want the killer gone, but the fact the family will feel better doesn't really justify killing someone.
Re: (Score:3)
(I'm not GP, btw, but I agree with him)
I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning; however, by logical extension you must also be against any sort of punishment for criminals at all. For while death is a permanent, irrevocable punishment, so is any form of wrongful incarceration. You can't undo the loss of a portion of a life wrongly spent in prison
No, not in any sense whatsoever. You could continue down the slippery slope and claim that police should not be able to question or detain anyone at all, in a
Re:Kill capitol punishment! Kill it dead! (Score:5, Informative)
The right con for the right noose (Score:4, Insightful)
well spoken. In fact you touched on another reason to do away with the death penalty: Suppose you convict and execute the wrong guy. You have just committed a double error in that an innocent is dead, and the real criminal will likely never be found and caught. Has there ever been a case where the wrong person has been executed, and then the real criminal is caught and successfully prosecuted? IANAL, but I don't think I have ever heard of such a thing....
Re:Kill capitol punishment! Kill it dead! (Score:4, Insightful)
But... Our system right now is so paranoid against executing the falsely convicted, that stays of execution are granted when there is the faintest whiff of innocence. Prisoners are kept for decades, just to avoid wrongful execution.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] : "Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States, but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases."
That's more than one person per year exonerated by DNA evidence. There are far more people on death row who have been convicted for crimes where there is no DNA evidence. There will be many people on death row now, who are innocent, and can't get that evidence to prove it. There will have been many innocent people already executed.
I'd insist (on cruelty grounds) on choosing the method of my execution, and being monitored by a pain specializing neurologist. (There are several supposedly-humane methods that haven't been sufficiently explored.)
You can insist all you like, doesn't make a difference to the justice system.
Death Penalty Paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in an odd position of believing in the death penalty, but willing to see it go.
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat. As it stands, there are so few executions in most of the states that we are getting very, very little deterrence out of it. Criminals know that it doesn't happen often. If they are convicted, they don't believe they'll be given the death penalty. Their chances are statistically 0.
Further, I don'
Re: If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Judge not, lest you be judged" is the motto of an amoral coward. An honorable man judges, first himself and then others as needed.
Those who make commandments are unfit to command. Those who follow commandments instead of using their own judgement, are unfit for living.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of criminal justice is to keep bad people from harming society. Not to make us feel better, with some feel good violence or torture.
Please keep your biblical eye for and eye type mentality out of my country. Or go move to some country like saudia arabia
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Informative)
Purpose of the Criminal Justice System (in theory):
Also to hopefully reform criminals so that they can rejoin society as productive individuals.
Also remember that biblically speaking an eye for an eye is given as a limiting example. That is to say that the punishment may not be any more severe at it's worst than the crime that was commited, and a lesser punishment should be used in most cases.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nit: "An eye for an eye" was directly repudiated by Jesus, who advocated extremes of forgiveness instead.
The superiority of restorative justice over retributive justice was a novel concept around year 30, and some Biblical authors were having trouble getting their heads around it, so you can see other quotations that seem to still have the Eye for an Eye flavor to them. But Jesus' refutation of that attitude, in Matthew, does not leave much room for interpretation. And, as if we needed clarity, his deeds (you know, like spending his last breath asking for forgiveness for all the people who had just nailed him to a cross and left him to die) back the attitude up very unambiguously.
It makes the whole doctrine of Hell seem like something of an anachronism, however. Or rather, hell as "eternal conscious torment," which not only has the retributive justice angle, but also qualifies as a punishment that is egregiously worse than the crime. Other interpretations, based on Jesus' use of the word "Gehenna" and its varied meanings at the time, attempt to re-interpret Hell as something more restorative in nature. But such ideas are not in the mainstream (and require a lot more education in Biblical history and Higher Criticism than most care to obtain).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm only half-joking when I say - let's use the guillotine.
You probably won't find anything quicker. I'll bet it's as painless as you can get, since shock would probably keep the brain from sensing pain in the last few seconds (but who can say, really).
It probably wouldn't pass the "unusual" test, but only by dint of being abandoned for so long!
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Informative)
The brain keeps functioning for a while after decapitation.
http://www.guillotine.dk/pages/30sek.html [guillotine.dk]
I think anesthesia is the least painful way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is a well-known and thoroughly debunked myth. If you look at the actual science and physiology involved, the loss of blood pressure from decapitation will induce practically instant unconsciousness in the head.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Killing an unarmed and fully secured captive has no place in a mature and civilized society. I call bullshit on any claim that the death penalty is a deterrent and somehow weighed in the minds of a person who decides to rape and kill a pregnant woman. The real aim of the death penalty is to satiate the rabid mob of townsfolk who would prefer take matters into their own hands with a rope and a tree. Heck, I'll even admit that I'd be among those first in line to get a piece of this guy if he had done this to someone I knew but that doesn't mean I don't hope that calmer minds would prevail. Even in this case it doesn't really bother me that this man suffered, but that he suffered in the name of name of supposed 'justice'.
Re: (Score:3)
You've got it wrong. The death penalty isn't about the "rabid mob of townsfolk" getting revenge. It's about getting rid of a worthless human being so we can get on with our lives. There's no need to get emotional about it.
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not. the rest of us, the people who are supporting an otherwise cruel and unsual punishment are part of society. Civilized persons don't condone torture.
>Doesn't the coverage of his slow, painful death serve as even the slightest deterrent?
no.
>Doesn't that help to keep bad people from harming society?
no.
>But at some point the actions of someone are so vile and so beyond the realm of acceptable that we must take action to guarantee that they are never given the opportunity to take those actions again against anyone.
torture doesn't do that. Your 19th century theory on policing/criminal justice belongs with the "eye for an eye" criminal justice in the dustbin of history. Its both barbaric and ineffective,
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's to make monsters feel the pain they inflicted on others
...which you do to make yourself feel better.
and to deter future monsters
Not convinced that has ever worked. I am doubtful anybody has ever sat down and thought "man, I'd blow up this school if I thought I'd go to federal pound me in the ass prison for life, or if I was humanely executed, but if there's a chance I might get tortured for ten minutes and then executed it's just not worth it".
The official 15 minutes to die (Score:4, Insightful)
*personally* I'm against the death penalty, but if you're going to do it, just make yourself a Guillotine. "Lethal injection" is quite distasteful as it dresses up a killing as some pseudo-medical procedure. Scewing this up quite so magnificently is just jaw-dropping - although I suspect you don't send your brightest off to work in the penal system.
What really shocks me though is the response of a significant number of people here, that the suffering he endured was justified as it was 'deserved'. I've tried in vain to think of how to get my point across, but can't think of any common ground to even start my pitch that the deliberate infliction of suffering upon another is simply wrong.
I'm a great big atheist - but generally feel I've got a lot in common with those of faith, at least in my views if not the underlying reason. My biblical knowledge is rusty to say the least, but I'm reasonably sure when Jesus killed sinners, he at least did it mercifully.
Re:The official 15 minutes to die (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score:5, Informative)
I know you're trolling but, I am proud. So thank you.
It took quite a lot of political pressure to get this through the EU. But it's quite worth it. Refusing to support other countries in this particular traditions is one of the better things that has happened in politics over here the last few years.
Also, correction for the summary: The EU didn't ban selling certain drugs to prisons, they banned exporting drugs to a country that would use them for killing, i.e., the prison could have used the drugs from Lundbeck, but the EU would then ban export of the drugs to the US, even to hospitals. So, if you'd like to put a negative spin on what we did you could say that we held you hostage and threatened to deny you medicine.
what i've always wondered, as a non-medical person (Score:5, Interesting)
So ignoring for a minute all the ethical questions etc, just thinking about the process. I do not have medical training, but I have always wondered why they can't just use the drugs used for general anesthetic in general surgeries? Put someone under with those, then you can stop their heart painlessly when they're unconscious. Certainly there is a large supply of those drugs around.
Hasn't this been a solved problem for a hundred years or so?
Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly this. I'm only a second year med student and even I could tell you that trying to kill someone with the mixture of drugs in the summary would be a really ugly process. I'm pretty sure we can't use propofol for the same reason we can't use the pentobarbital mentioned in the summary, but honestly a regular dose of propofol to knock someone unconscious plus a pneumatic piston like we use to humanely kill food animals would be the obvious option. Sure it makes a bigger mess, but it's WAY more humane for the person being executed, the one who were trying to protect from unnecessary cruelty and suffering. Propofol plus guillotine works well too. As it turns out medical science knows a lot more about reliably making people unconscious with drugs than about reliably killing them with drugs. Given that, if the killing is to happen, it should be done with something we know works reliably and quickly.
Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (Score:4, Insightful)
She was tortured and killed. Those are bad things. Torturing and killing are bad.
Which is why civilised people don't torture and kill.
Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that was the whole point of why they had to change the drugs:
The new drugs were used because European-based manufacturers banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions — among them, Danish-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital (pentobarbital being the "general anesthetic in general surgeries").
An old post on that exact topic was even referenced in TFA, but to provide it again
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/25/1223203/us-executions-threaten-supply-of-anaesthetic-use [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because living in constant fear of imminent death (not just potential execution at a set date, but literally ANY MINUTE NOW!) counts as cruel and psychological torture?
QA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I should be appalled, but.. the dude slaughtered a pregnant girl; I don't care how he died exactly at all.
In fact, I'm going to consider this a successful QA test and move on.
Well then you're a fucking barbarian.
What's wrong with a firing squad? (Score:4, Informative)
If we want the death penalty to be a deterrent against crime, potential criminals should have to face a death that's scary, and not expect a painless injection that lets them quietly pass away.
Though I question the value of any death penalty as a deterrent since it's so rarely applied and the criminal either thinks he's going to get away with it or isn't worried about the consequences no matter what the consequences are -- 5 years in prison and then death might be even more attractive to some than a lifetime in prison.
Re:What's wrong with a firing squad? (Score:5, Insightful)
My principle reason for wanting a painless and relatively low stress execution method is that we have an imperfect justice system. Which means we periodically commit murder in the name of executing criminals. Other than some sense of vindication we as a society gain very little from a condemned persons suffering. So in the event of an innocent person being put to death I would at the least hope that there last few minutes of life are not spent in agonizing pain.
So far as deterance goes I don't think that it really works very well because that only works when people make logical decisions about what they are doing. When murder is involved there is rarely much sound reasoning happening. Additionally I think it makes more sense for such a criminal to meet a quiet ignominous end.
Re:What's wrong with a firing squad? (Score:5, Informative)
Would someone still steal a car or shoplift if they knew they'd be executed if caught? Probably not as often...
They tried this approach in UK back in the day, with sentences of hanging handed out routinely to pickpockets (often underage) provided that the amount stolen was more than a certain rather small sum. It didn't really help deter crime. On the other hand, it does mean that someone stealing a car would be likely to murder any witnesses, since it's death for him either way if he gets caught, and so anything reducing the chance of getting caught is fair game at this point.
It's worth remembering that despite all the moral panics, we do actually live in a time where crime rates - especially violent crime rates - are at their historic lows in the Western civilization. That despite the fact that a good part of it has completely abolished death penalty, and some countries having even abolished life sentence.
How hard can it be? (Score:4, Informative)
How hard can it be to do this? Start with standard general anesthesia. One the person is out, then administer cyanide or whatever.
Or use the same thing we use for animals.
Or look at how they do assisted suicide. There are plenty of solutions there.
Re:How hard can it be? (Score:4, Interesting)
The general anesthesia that gives the most reliable results, sodium thiopental, happens to be the drug the Dutch won't export. Most general anesthetics aren't capable of guaranteeing, to the extent a court requires, that the subject is unconscious, or of working fast enough, or being administered at the levels required to induce certain unconsciousness without causing toxic side effects- vomiting, convulsions, hallucinations, agonizing pain.
Re:How hard can it be? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think Europeans would care much about American-made weapons. If you stop and consider for a moment that the US service rifle and light machine gun are both manufactured by a Belgian company, the military standard-issue sidearm is Italian, the most popular police/LEO handgun is Austrian, and the most popular SMG is German...
Why is this an issue? (Score:3)
We have complete understanding of how to knock someone so far out that you can cut into them for hours in an operating room, even to the point of removing their heart for a transplant. Why the heck to people have to go from fully conscious to dead in a single shot? Knock them out completely painlessly, and then kill them while they can feel nothing. I've never understood lethal injections at all!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why is this an issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for putting violent animals out of our misery...
An unfortunate reality. In terms Slashdot understands, it's why you don't let your PC technicians take home bad hardware -- suddenly you'd have a lot more "bad" hardware cropping up.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, did NO ONE ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE? You are like the 10th person saying the same thing that was not only answered by TFA, it was the whole point of this exercise.
They used to do exactly what you guys were saying, and use the same drugs that are used in general anesthesia. But for whatever reason US companies willing to sell them to prisons don't make them and the European countries that do have banned the sale. So they tried something they could get, and there you go...
Why are we testing drugs on humans? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought testing drugs on humans -- without their informed consent and successful prior testing -- was banned long ago.
It doesn't matter that the person is a prisoner; in fact the standards are higher for them, because they are much less able to refuse consent. It also doesn't matter that they will die soon; terminally ill patients also must give informed consent.
What kind of sick society experiments on helpless prisoners?
Re:Why are we testing drugs on humans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you rather test an intentionally lethal drug cocktail on law abiding people?
No, we should follow the same rules as any drug tests. Whether people are law-abiding or not has no bearing on whether we can do experiments on them.
I don't get it either. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since innocent people end up on death-row and are frequently exonnerated by DNA or new evidence, then how can it be logical to maintain a death penalty? If you're going to say "well, maybe .1% of the time an innocent person is put to death but it's for the greater good", then how about you line up to be the next .1%?
Re:I don't get it either. (Score:5, Informative)
Good John Adams quote relative to this point:
It's just a rewording of Blackstone's ratio, but it makes the point really clear.
Re: (Score:3)
And is it really for the greater good that we actually kill them? We sink more money into killing a person than we do keeping them alive, incarcerated.
The only real result of the death penalty seems to be deterrence and revenge catharsis.
Stupidity... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not allowed to kill, but it okay for us to kill you.
I won't get into the fiscal debate as to whether it is cheaper to lock away someone for life or to execute with multiple appeals and proceedings. It shouldn't matter. If it is wrong to take a life, then it is wrong to take it in any circumstance. End of story. Then when you factor in the fact that we are constantly finding innocent people convicted (if not for death penalty offenses). Often due to poor representation, over zealous prosecutors, or shoddy politically or financially motivated police and forensic work, it would seem to me that the ethical cost of killing one innocent person would outweigh all of it. Even if our judicial system was perfect, humans make errors.
However, as with so much else in our society, our desire for vicarious retribution, our poor ability to truly judge relative risk, and the fear peddled by those in power to keep you caged keep winning.
Nothing rights a wrong... (Score:5, Funny)
...Like another wrong!
Go for it, America, show us how it's done. You lead the world.
Personal Beliefs (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, do not believe the state has a right to take any life, regardless. Besides, if our society wasn't hell-bent on spending billions of dollars to incarcerate non-violent offenders, there would be plenty of cash in the coffers to put every sociopath away for several lifetimes, with money left over.
That's really all I have to say about this.
Lundbeck (Score:5, Informative)
Here in Denmark, Lundbeck has been under fire for their drug being used to kill people. They've tried to defend themselves in various ways, e.g. by casting it as misuse as their drug. But in the end in Denmark the American executions are viewed upon in the same light as the stories you hear of amputations and stoning people to death in the middle east. So the reaction has been as if a company sold convenient stones to be used for said stonings.
It is sad to see that the outcome is more suffering.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
we are all humans and we know what justice is. If a person did something horrible, then yes it's justice to do it back to them.
So how does your definition of justice differ from your definition of revenge?
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that she was presumably still pregnant by choice, it evidently had some value to her, and isn't it the mother's opinion that the pro-choice people are always screaming about in the first place?
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I forgot how important it is to get a second wrong to match with the first one. It's like Go Fish, if you get related pairs, they both go away, right?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes, it's much better to put the vicious murderer in prison for 60 years or so, at $75,000+ a year.
Considering the whole appeals process ends up costing more than life in prison, yes, that would be better.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
In these discussions of the value of a human life, I'm not alone in not simply defining "human" as having the required number of chromosomes.
The thing Ohio had in its custody was an animal, and was put down as such.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're an animal for saying so, and should also die.
See how easy that is?
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me that both the liberals and conservative pick and choose which humans have rights and which ones don't. The guy I am replying to is a flaming liberal (see his other posts in other stories) so therefore defends a womans right to terminate her unborn human child.
He will have a ready excuse for why a human in fetus form doesnt deserve rights: he will claim that the human in fetus form is less than human, but the "less than human" argument is the same that the conse
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It ain't just about the victim's family, asshole - it's so that he can never do the same crime again, and we don't have to bear the cost of his remaining days.
Bullshit. LWOP is cheaper than capital punishment. Fact.
It's got nothing to do with public safety and fuck all to with economics. It's about retribution, satisfying the bloodlust of an angry mob. Capital punishment is lynch-mob justice. It's expensive, ineffective, and barbaric. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
So, kill them more frequently at centralized locations, and speed the appeal process.
I'm not for debating the right and wrong of situations -- that's for women. I'm a man. I like to fix things.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet you drive a big truck too.
A Nissan Leaf.
I'm a full of delicious contradictions.
My concern in this particular line of thought isn't about the right or wrong of the situation. Once we decide to execute people, and we know it's expensive, and we do them infrequently and all over the damned place, then we should employ some sort of economy of scale in doing so.
Okay then. How about industrial-scale gas chambers with a railway line going in the front and a crematorium out the back? To ease the minds of the convicts you could just lie to them and tell them it's a work camp, and put a sign on the gate saying "work sets you free." Better build that chimney pretty high though. The locals are sure to complain about the smell of burning human flesh.
Seriously though, do you people ever listen to yourselves?
Re:It's worth noting (Score:5, Insightful)
But more unpleasant than I'd expect a civilized society to behave. There's a reason people have generally looked up to the US. This sort of thing is not exactly America's proudest achievement, and history will not look kindly upon the quantity and manner of execution.
Re:Good old morphine? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I posted this above, but...
A colorant or odorant could be easily added for operant safety, but it's not any more dangerous for the operator than, say, dental gasses.
Re: (Score:3)
People can have really bad reactions to opiates: they can aspirate into their lungs; they can be allergic; if the subject has an opiate tolerance, they could remain conscious while they die of respiratory paralysis.
The idea with the three drug protocol is that the administrator can be reasonably certain the subject is unconscious and insensate when they give the drugs that stop breathing, and the drugs are selected for their uniform effect. Opiates do all kinds of stuff and the death can be either peacefu
Re:We're doing this to ourselves (Score:4, Informative)
You're missing the point.
We need and have the drugs we use in surgery. But if we use them for executions, the european companies that make these drugs we depend on for surgery will take them away. That's the whole point of this.
We're not out of pentobarbital. We have an unlimited supply (at market price) for surgery.