Lethal Injection for Execution: Chemical Asphyxiation?

[Skybird]

The flawed logic of understanding the killing of a man as a penalty, while a penalty in modern understanding is not to rebalance a cosmic scales by a principle of "an eye for an eye", but is understood as a sanction by which the behavior of the deliquent is to be influenced and changed (for which it is a precondition that he continues to live), would be a topic for itself. Also where longterm jail sentence fit into this description.

However, let's ignore that debate. This is the story:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0040156

We were able to analyze only a limited number of executions. However, our findings suggest that current lethal injection protocols may not reliably effect death through the mechanisms intended, indicating a failure of design and implementation. If thiopental and potassium chloride fail to cause anesthesia and cardiac arrest, potentially aware inmates could die through pancuronium-induced asphyxiation. Thus the conventional view of lethal injection leading to an invariably peaceful and painless death is questionable.

Now what the the eigth amendment has to say on cruel punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_...s_Constitution

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

• The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
• "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
• "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
• "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.

[Dowly]

Just bring back the 'chair', will do the job. (And no, it's not inhumane, the murderer had the change to whether to kill or dont. He/she made the choice, now bear the results.)

[SUBMAN1]

Deterrence is not flawed logic. It very well could have influenced your hell thread earlier in that the perpetrators thought their may be consequences for their actions. Right now, they know if they get caught, not much will happen to them. If the threat of the chair exists, maybe they would have changed their minds.

And you wonder why we have crimes like this today in society. All the positive crap the phych guys dish out is garbage.

-S

PS. The thought of death is a much worse thing in my mind than worry about sitting in jail for the rest of my life. No one can ever tell me any different. Its a natural instinct to want to do everything possible to avoid it. I can can guarantee that they think the same way.

[Tchocky]

This deterrent effect doesnt seem to be there click

Topic : If chem injection is as nasty as it seems, then there should be an alternative. If you're already going to kill the guy, at least let him go out quiet. I was under the impression that criminal justice wasn't about causing physical pain to the guilty. That should hold up even under capital punishment

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

This deterrent effect doesnt seem to be there click

Topic : If chem injection is as nasty as it seems, then there should be an alternative. If you're already going to kill the guy, at least let him go out quiet. I was under the impression that criminal justice wasn't about causing physical pain to the guilty. That should hold up even under capital punishment

Oh but it is! As it should be. My one big gripe - every last bit of evidence up until the day of execution must be looked at by the courts to help avoid a mistake. DNA evidence for example. I hate the idea of excuting an innocent man, but thing its a very good idea to execute someone who commited a horrendous crime.

-S

[Tchocky]

Any backup for that? The deterrent effect, that is.

In keeping with Skybirds request not to debate the efficacy/moral standing of the death penalty, I will avoid it, and state;

If lethal injection is not working, hanging, firing squad, or my favorite the guillotine.
All tried and true methods.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Any backup for that? The deterrent effect, that is.

Try your own mind for starters! Google the rest. It is not rocket science.

-S

[Tchocky]

I understand the intuition; I will not kill someone because I will be killed for it, etc. But I've found that the idea of deterrence isn't borne out in fact. Reports and statistical analysis from criminologists show that there is no discernible deterrent effect, and many of the studies that did show one used flawed methods. This is all in the link I posted.
not rocket science at all :hmm:

[Skybird]

The deterring effect of death sentences is questionable and debated until today. Statistically, most crimes with killings happen to be killings "im Affekt" (= in the heat of the moment), as a result of situational variables that are not calculated in advance, and are not preplanned. The deterring effect of executions concerning other potential perpetrators also is highly quetionable, the quick look I had at Google, indicates that even US crime statistics do not indicate a correlation between falling capital crime rates, and death penalty. If anything, it indicates exactly the opposite: that states with death penalty even have a higher capital crime rate by tendency. Finally, death penalty can even motivate additonal killings - to get rid of witnesses, for example. The increasing brutalizing effect even is pointed out in concerned socio-psychological literature.

But all that is not the thread's focus, as I said in the opening. It is about the possible cruelty of a special way of killing a person that is to be executed, and that by ruling of the 8th amendement, "cruel punishment" is illegal in the US.

[Tchocky]

Skybird, posting your opinion in such terms, then saying "lets ignore that", sounds to me like "the dog ate my homework".
Looks like you want it both ways here, one opinion, then no more.

[Skybird]

Read the first posting that I started it with, the first paragraph. Especially where it reads: "Let'S ignore that debate."

Subman said what was his, you said what was yours, I said what was mine on that side-issue. I can understand that this side-discussion would be showing up in this thread - the temptation is close when you say something about a method of execution - but I don't want it to continue hijacking this thread.

the issue of this thread is that chemical execution does not seem to work reliable and may cause a considerable ammount of pain and cruelty to the deliquent, and that this should be changed, since it is not in congruence with american legal standards. Else we will end up sooner or later with not just killing prisoners, but by an argument of "an eye for an eye" torturing them to death.

and then we are on the same level with those who still commit stoning-to-death.

If this topic continues to change into a discussion on how un-/justified death penalty is, i will ask a moderator to lock this thread. You can start a new one focussing on just this issue. We also had some of these in the past. But it is not the theme of this thread.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Skybird, posting your opinion in such terms, then saying "lets ignore that", sounds to me like "the dog ate my homework".
Looks like you want it both ways here, one opinion, then no more.

That about sums it up. Don't bring it up if you don't want a discussion Skybird. By the way, I am not done here yet, just trying to finish up some work before I continue this discussion, so you better get the thread locked.

-S

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Any backup for that? The deterrent effect, that is.

Well, obviously the criminal will not be able to repeat the crime...

[Heibges]

Isn't the United States the only Western Country that has the death penalty?

Is the death penalty a deterrant?

I don't want the right to take a life in the hands of the government. I don't think they should even be able to levy an income tax, much less execute folks.

The death penalty is not compatible with a Christian Society. Jesus pretty much lays it all out for us.