Gas for Executions Amid Turmoil Over Lethal Injection

Remember - From 1890 to 2010, the rate of botched lethal injections in the USA was 7.1%, higher than any other form of execution, with firing squads at 0%, the electric chair at 1.9%, hanging at 3.1%, and the gas chamber at 5.4%.

 

I do think it's a bit more humane to give them the option to choose which way they want to die. Obviously none of them are pleasant, but giving them the choice is at least something. But I still think there could be a more humane way. I mean, we have anesthesia that can knock people out completely, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't use that? Of course if you knock someone out and then strangle them, they'll probably wake up due to the stress. But if you, say, knock them out and then stab them in the brain, they probably wouldn't have any chance to even feel that.

I think this question is an interesting one, and people will have very different opinions that will differ due to their opinions on the death penalty as a whole. Like for me, while I would prefer the death penalty not exist at all, if it's going to be there, I see it as an unfortunate thing that we must do to put someone down so that they can't hurt any more people. Therefore, I think it's important to do that as humanely as possible, if we have to do it at all. But for those who support the death penalty as a punishment for the criminal, they probably wouldn't prefer a more humane, painless option, because that defeats the purpose.

 

I would favour them being shot in the head. It seems impossible to botch unlike the others methods. See here.

It is strange that a country that loves its guns would not have this cheap and effective method of capital punishment.

 

Well that is what happens with lethal injection (when it is not botched). The first drug administered is an anaesthetic. The controversial one is Midazolam. It seems that it does not always put the person into a deep enough sleep. Therefore, when the second, and perhaps third, drug(s) are added to collapse their lungs and/or stop their heart, they should feel nothing.

 

There's something about a gunshot that seems really gruesome to me. I think it's visually less pleasant to look at than a hanging or lethal injection, which is probably why it hasn't been done. I think people, whether consciously or subconsciously, want a form of death that they can detatch themselves from. Watching someone's blood and brains get blown all over the wall is hard to ignore, but watching someone seemingly just fall asleep, via injection or hanging, is easier for people to stomach and convince themselves that it's not morally wrong.

That would be best, I think, if they did it properly. In the fictional show I referenced earlier, it was a lethal injection, and it seemed like they just administered all of the drugs at nearly the same time, and it wasn't portrayed as just falling asleep. He was clearly in pain. So Idk, perhaps they aren't waiting long enough for the first drug to kick in.

 

Yeah, I am surprised the NRA haven't stepped in to offer their product at a discount

 

I really appreciate everyone's contribution to this discussion. There are so many factors to be carefully weighed.

 

I know someone who used to say “The death penalty isn’t a deterrent, but it does cut down on repeat offenders”.

 

That's true, of course. But it also cuts down on contributing members of society who have made a mistake that landed them in prison, done their time, learned from their mistakes, and came out the other side choosing to make better use of their second chance in life.

 

Well I should think so... because they haven't suffered any consequences for their decisions. But I don't think we are talking about only those two options, one being death and the other being released on a technicality. There's a valid third option, which is prison.

 

The kind of crime you can be executed for is the most extreme form of murder. Typically pre-meditated, planned out, and very deliberate. They don’t allow the death penalty for other forms. I dont really agree that this kind of act can really be categorized as a “mistake”.
The flaw lies in if you get wrongfully convicted.
This is a tragedy of course.
The choice is between making the mistake of letting a murder get a chance to repeat his crime and take another life OR making the mistake of killing an innocent.
Neither option is good. But society has to decide which is worse.
(Prison is the option where they get paroled and end up killing again because they weren’t really changed)
Staying in prison for life is not much different from death IMO.
For example- what difference would it gave made if Charles Manson had been executed at the time of his crime versus him dying in prison as he did?
Other than the cost to the state of keeping him alive, I don’t think it made any difference to society at all.

 

Key question: is the death penalty imposed to punish the convict, or merely as the most efficient way to permanently remove an irreparably dangerous person from society

If the latter, then humane and cheap are what you want. Bullet to the head, even guillotine perhaps. Lethal injection seems great, but leads to a large number of botched executions which seem to leave the prisoner in agony. Interestingly, this seems to be because anaethetists and other doctors refuse to participate in executions because it violates their ethics.

If the goal is to punish, well then go where your imagination takes you.

In both cases, though, you have to ask what the maximum acceptable probability that you execute an innocent man is. The more horrible the punishment, the naturally lower this is. Personally, my opposition to the death penalty is based around a position that society should not take any risk that it takes the life of an innocent civilian.

 

Hmm. I honestly do not think we are talking about crimes that were "mistakes". I do not claim to understand USA law (and it seems to differ from one area to another anyway). But death row prisoners are those that would NEVER be at liberty in society as far as I understand it. So, they cannot do their time for a "mistake" and then have a second chance. A jury has already decided that they should NEVER walk the streets again. That is why the appeals against the death penalty are not to walk free per se. The appeal is often to commute their sentence to life without the possibility of parole.

EDIT: Thor already said it, lol!

​

 

Actually, I had already been thinking about that. When you think of the years (anything from 5 - 20+) from sentencing to someone exhausting their legal challenges to the death sentence it is instructive. As far as almost all death row prisoners are concerned, they will do almost anything to delay or avoid their execution. Evidently, there is a massive gulf between (1) life in prison without the chance of parole and (2) being murdered by the state (as the prisoners often refer to it).

 

I agree that neither option is good. Therefore, I err on the side of not killing someone.

Not to keep bringing God into this, but aren't you a Christian, Thor? I might be mistaken on that. But death is very different than life in prison. One might find Jesus in prison, find redemption from their sins and attain salvation, which completely changes the future of their eternity. Putting them to death robs them of that opportunity. I realize most people won't care about that, because they just think the person is a murdered and therefore doesn't deserve any opportunities, but I just disagree.

Ah, see, that's the difference in our views. I'm not talking about the difference it makes to society, I'm talking about the difference it makes to the human being who is being killed. You're right, it doesn't make much of a difference to you or to me or anyone else who doesnt have to think about it or do the killing. But I don't think it's right to make decisions just based on how it effects us. It's effecting someone very very deeply, the person being killed. We just apparently disagree that that's something that matters. I don't believe that murderers are scum who no longer deserve the basic human right to not be killed, just because they killed someone else. Obviously most people here disagree with me on that, and that's fine.

Okay, okay, I phrased that wrong. I was trying to appeal to other people's perspectives who only care about the effect on society and don't care about the human being killed. But perhaps y'all are right, it doesn't effect society much either way. But I don't think that's a good enough reason to decide it's an okay thing to do. If I went and slapped my sister in the face, that wouldn't effect society either. But it still wouldn't be a right thing to do.