Lethal Injection

[Peter]

Today, Hill v. McDonaugh was decided - the actual issue decided was highly technical and not really worthy of deep discussion.

Hill's allegation surrounding the lethal injection method was summarised in Kennedy's opinion and is reproduced below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(citations omitted)

[© tweed]

I'm not sure.  I was always under the impression that lethal injection was painless.  If it isn't, we need to look at alternate methods of execution, or more wisely we could stop executing people.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The only thing wrong with lethal injection is that its not painful enough.

[adam]

Lethal injection is to expensive and to passive. Bring back the firing squad and the old fashioned beating to death. Perhaps burning at the stake, but only if we can find a way to control the smell.

[© tweed]

Lethal injection is to expensive and to passive. Bring back the firing squad and the old fashioned beating to death. Perhaps burning at the stake, but only if we can find a way to control the smell.

You have no problem with the government burning people at the stake?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Lethal injection is to expensive and to passive. Bring back the firing squad and the old fashioned beating to death. Perhaps burning at the stake, but only if we can find a way to control the smell.

Why not?

[WoosterLibertarian]

We could just inject air into their blood stream. How does that sound?

[nclib]

Any type of capital punishment is unconstitutional, especially methods that are painful, as lethal injection apparently is.

[Emsworth]

Any type of capital punishment is unconstitutional...

How so? The Constitution recognizes the validity of capital punishment in no fewer than four clauses: the grand jury clause ("capital, or otherwise infamous crime"), the double jeopardy clause ("put in jeopardy of life"), the Fifth Amendment's due process clause ("be deprived of life"), and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause ("deprive any person of life").

[MasterJedi]

Any type of capital punishment is unconstitutional, especially methods that are painful, as lethal injection apparently is.

Nobody can tell you that it's painful, they're dead.

[© tweed]

Any type of capital punishment is unconstitutional, especially methods that are painful, as lethal injection apparently is.

Nobody can tell you that it's painful, they're dead.

I'm sure scientists can use some kind of method to tell if pain is being inflicted or not.  Of course, many scientists are politically motivated, which hurts their accuracy when measuring an issue like this.  Look how they botched the truth on issues like marijuana and masturbation for decades upon centuries!

[adam]

Lethal injection is to expensive and to passive. Bring back the firing squad and the old fashioned beating to death. Perhaps burning at the stake, but only if we can find a way to control the smell.

You have no problem with the government burning people at the stake?

No.

Why not?

Exactly, why not?

[Peter]

Whilst I'm quite sure that if one had an unanaesthetised heart attack, it would hurt quite a bit (this is basically what Hill alleges would happen), the suggestion that actually dying wouldn't hurt is in my opinion a bit silly. We have no way of knowing how much pain is involved in the actual termination of one's existence (as opposed to the events that lead up to it).

The Constitution clearly embraces the possibility of a death penalty, and I don't think it would categorically only allow its use when it wouldn't hurt because I would think all forms of dying hurt.

The Constitution's sole prohibition is on cruel and unusual punishment as opposed to painful punishment. Whilst certainly the two are not mutually exclusive, provided the execution is suitably swift, I don't believe a constitutional violation occurs.

Burning at the stake or beating to death often takes a while, and I think the specter of any form of public execution would also be a violation as it has been unpractised for so long.

Death by firing squad poses some problems because death is not necessarily that swift. Provided somebody shoots into the head from point blank range within a minute, I would probably let it pass.

Obviously there is a good argument for making sure

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Constitutional--there's no completely painful/uncruel way of killing somebody.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Constitutional--there's no completely painful/uncruel way of killing somebody.

Sometimes you want pain/cruelty to serve as an example. I'd use it for sex offenders, telemarketers, TV preachers and health nuts.

[??????????]

The firing squad is the most humane way to execute someone Peter Bell. One bullet into the brainstem and you are done.

[Peter]

Absolutely, but it depends what sort of firing squad. If its about 10 soldiers from several metres away, then there is no guarantee that you kill him with the first volley, hence it is problematic. If you put a gun to his temple and fire, thats almost bound to be instantaneous and is fine.

Unlike the guilotine, lethal injection, the gas chamber or the chair, there is no guarantee regarding consistency.

[adam]

I'll say it again, an execution is only botched if they live. I for one see no need to be humane in the way we terminate the wastes of mass. If we unleash the firing squad on them and they survive the first salvo, than that's karma kicking them in the ass for their crime.