Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybermat47
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  |
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.