[Mikitivity]

2005.04.15
Sac Bee covering a Los Angeles Times article

Death by lethal injection, adopted in 37 states as a painless method of execution, actually might inflict enormous suffering on the condemned because of a routine failure to use enough anesthesia, according to a study of death row autopsies.

An examination of 49 autopsies found that in 43 cases, the concentration of anesthesia in the bloodstream was less than required to numb a surgical patient before making an incision.

In 21 cases, the concentration wasn't sufficient to prevent a patient from responding to a verabl command.

Because other chemicals are used to induce paralysis, inmates do not appear to suffer during their executions.

But the data indicate that the condemned might be fully aware as they are dying, according to the study to appear Saturday in the medical journal Lancet.

[Groot Gouda]

There may be lots of stuff to complain about in my country, but at least we don't have such barbaric punishments...

[Mikitivity]

Groot GoudaApr 18 2005, 06:12 AM There may be lots of stuff to complain about in my country, but at least we don't have such barbaric punishments... [/quote]
Though I am not in favor of capital punishment, in defense of what is being said above it sounds like lethal injection was honestly believed to be painless.

It is just a hard subject to get people to agree upon, because for many people it is so very personal.

I've always thought Babylon 5's concept of telepaths and "mindwhipes" to be an interesting take. I think they called it "Death of Personality", and in the show there was still a debate Pro/Con this. It really begins to touch upon what "makes" a person a person.

[Groot Gouda]

It's a very fundamental difference of opinion. Personally, I think the justice system should be aimed at punishing and re-socializing criminals (as in: allow them to function normally in society). A death penalty would mean someone won't ever get a chance to better his/her life.

Even then, not matter how "humane" they try to make it, it's still killing. The fact that it's the state doing it ordered by a judge does not change that for me. I simply don't find that acceptable, not for any reason.

[Mikitivity]

*nod*

I tend to agree ... though I'm sure that there might be *times* when I'm tempted to disagree. But for those times, I like to hope that others will be around to remind me exactly what you've stated. The idea should be to make people fit for being productive members of society.

[Keeslandia]

I used to be firmly opposed to the death penaly as well. . .however, there are individuals who so destroy the very fabric of society, that it is clear they will never be rehabed and the gravity of their crime is so weighty as to forfeit any protections afforded by society. Therefore, in extremely limited cases, I now support the measure.

Don't get me wrong - I think W's Texas is sadistic and insane. To receive a death penalty in my world, you've had to commit mass or serial murder, with premediation. One wouldl have to be found guilty of the crimes, go through a sentancing hearing and then have multiple appeals available. No "fast fry" proposals permitted. . .this is a permanent, irrevokable punishment. However, for a handful of individuals in a lifetime, I do find in warrented in extreme cases.

[Sober Thought]

I'm with my northern neighbour Keeslandia. I have wavered on this issue throughout my life (ususual for many people, since it seems to be a deeply ingrained and most emotionally decided issue). I am now very narrowly in favour, with Keeslandia's caveats and conditions.

Now that lethal injection has got a bad reputation, there will be another more "humane" method chosen. Remember, the neck-breaking hanging (opposed to the strangulation hanging), the guillotine, the electric chair and other methods were also supposed to be the humane answer to executions. However, as Groot Gouda notes, no matter how you do it, it's still taking a life. Any supporter of the death penalty has to face up to that, and few are willing to do so, insisting that with the proper technology that all will be well.

(This entirely discounts the issue of wrongful convictions and innocent people being executed, which happens far more often than commonly realized.)

Death penalty opponents rarely admit that not executing people also causes death. Murderers with no conscience can and do kill again. Check out several gruesome British examples on the regular Wikipedia, notably John Straffen and Rober Maudsley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_life_tariff

Or try Allan Legere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Legere


So you have to weigh the lives of the executed guilty murders and the executed innocents against the lives of prison inmates, prison guards and people unluckly enought to be around when murderers escape. It's not an easy decision to make, but it is one that we should consciously make. So how many innocent people executed are innocent people not murdered worth? That's the question.

[Groot Gouda]

Sober ThoughtApr 27 2005, 02:40 PM Death penalty opponents rarely admit that not executing people also causes death. Murderers with no conscience can and do kill again. [/quote]
But you can rarely say beforehand who that will be.

Even then, I disagree with the death penalty. Even in extreme cases, where you know freedom is not an option, I vastly prefer a life sentence. Because first of all, you never know how someone will turn out, and secondly, a government condemning killing should never kill itself.

There's tons more arguments, such as innocent people getting convicted, and the death penalty not preventing crime.

[Duechlander]

Of course, the death penilty should be ONLY for serial killing, or premeditated murder. this is the only way the Death penilty is acceptible.