Why can't we just use the same drugs we use to put down dogs and cats?

Ah, the firs one to reply with a "classic" logical phallacy (apply to emotion...)

But NO.
I would not feel the same. I would want to kill that guy with my own hands, most likely and sure would like to see him suffer... and you know why?
Cause I am human and controlled/influenced by my emotions.

That doesn't make it right though!

So: :03: right back at you.

:/\\!!

If a member of my family were involved, my opinion would be subjective and emotional. Which is why we want objective people to make these decisions. We don't want people who are emotionally subjective to make these decisions.

That's the only way we should do things in our society.

They already do:

pentobarbital. Called Nembutal.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-execution-hearn-animal-583/

https://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=68249

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/imag...nfographic.jpg

We should make it pay for view to cover the cost and maybe get a message across..

Which message would that be?

That paying to watch is fun.:hmmm:

If the death penalty has to be administered, make sure that the person is guilty, and make the execution as humane as possible. Just because the criminal is a cruel bastard doesn't mean we have to be :down:

"Killing is wrong. Now watch us kill this guy!"

Guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with this thread.
Like Oberon, you are debating the wrong point here.

We are led to believe by the op's article that the crim was rightfully convicted and tried to be executed, as per that state's law.
Let's treat this as a guilty verdict and not debate the possibilities and implications of wrongful convictions in this thread.
Which doesn't address the point of this thread at all.


It's clear the op posted the thread to discuss the morality or in his opinion the lack of morality in the treatment of lethal injection.

The conviction or wrongful conviction is a entirely different debate which isn't the point of this thread.

Are lethal injections barbaric?
No.
A normal time line of administration and the time of death is mostly 5 to 18 minutes.
Admittedly, the administration of barbituates is not necessary, as has been admitted by medical staff and also veternarians. I use vets because 2 drug(s) that i know of are used to put down animals has and is being used to execute humans.

A 1 drug injection has been introduced in most states, but not all.
The 3 drug injection is still being used by some states, and 2 of these drugs are barbituates.
The 3rd is the 1 that kills you.


As with everything in life, mistakes are and can be made.
You (as in general) cannot tell me that the state has the simple goal in mind that when executing someone that the primary objective is to make that person suffer.
Seems some people are arguing that that may be the case.
There are of course restrictions on drugs to any organisation in place that practices executions.
These organisations often then purchase the drug or drugs from underground or obscure non-reputable pharmacies to administer the execution.
Hence where some of these botched executions take place.


If the people are purely debating the moral implications of a lethal injections based on botched reports, which have been sensationalized by the media, (see my post further down to highlight the latimes article), then that needs to be looked at and revised.
Rather than just bleating and making a uneducated often and ill-informed opinion.
Or at least a more solid and reasonable debate needs to be put forward to counter the administration of lethal injections, to persuade the victim's families and also the state and us on the side of 'why in the hell are we debating what drug was used and how it was administered, considering the often violent crime(s) committed by the accused which sort of puts that debate into a revision area.

Purely debating that lethal injections are barbaric is a weak argument.

Yet you have already provided enough proof that they are.
If it wasn't barbaric then there wouldn't be any problem sourcing the materials from open and reputable manufacturers.
Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.
Well my dear, that sounds like a textbook definition of barbaric behaviour.

You and i seem to have a different view on the term barbaric then.

And if you think that posting the latimes article and the quotes i pulled from that article prove that i agree that i think lethal injections are barbaric then i'm sorry my dear, but you may be putting words in my mouth.

The use of drugs that are used for our furry friends to execute humans also doesn't prove that lethal injections are barbaric.

Me posting the fact that because of supply issues and costs associated with obtaining drugs to execute criminals from drug suppliers also doesn't prove that lethal injections are barbaric.
You may say that the drug companies stopped because they think it's unconstitutional and inhumane.
That is their viewpoint.
A viewpoint doesn't make it fact.
Especially when you consider that most executions are carried out peacefully and quite normally.


The only reason i see so far bandied about by the antis is that because a clenched fist, wheezing up to 600 times (all allegedly), breathing, and being alive longer than the normal duration of anywhere btw 5 and 18 minutes is barbaric, then well, we have a difference of opinion.
And a different definition of barbaric.
Which can happen.

Barbaric-exceedingly brutal, savage, vicious, heinous, murderous,
inhumane.

Lots of things come to mind when looking at those definitions.

Lethal injections aren't one of them.

If there were no botched executions via lethal injection, would we be debating this thread? Would this thread even exist?
Doubt it very much.

For a 'normal society' to function there has to be some form of 'limits and control'.

If you just stand back and say I'm not going to be a savage (I'm like too above that) while savage's are killing you off - you are going to be killed sooner than later.

The concept of the Death Penalty and other forms of punishment didn't just appear out of thin air - it became a necessity for society to function in a peaceful way.

Read HG Wells' Time Traveller.. it explains the pacifist scenario very aptly.
:arrgh!:

This affirmation is most intresting:
What about states in which "death penalty" is not part of the "forms of punishment"? Are these states not functioning in a "peaceful way"?

Are, instead, the states in which death penalty is used as a form of punishment, functioning in a "peaceful way"?

Another one: are states with death penalty functioning in a *more* "paeceful way" than states without death penalty?

Finally: is death penalty *necessary* for a state to make it "functioning in a peaceful way"?

Yes, mine fits the definition.:yep:

I don't think they prove that you agree, they simply prove that you are wrong.

Horses for courses old boy.
If you wish to equate humans with guinea pigs then it says a lot about you and your views


Since their viewpoint would be considered an expert viewpoint by specialists in the business then it is based on fact unless you can prove that the experts are wrong.

But since there are and we are what is your point?

I think you do not understand what you are talking about.
Let me repeat it.....

Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.