View Full Forums : Study Finds Lethal Injection Inhumane, Cannot Be Improved Upon


Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 05:10 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/23/BAGN8PDVG16.DTL(04-23) 17:10 PDT -- Inmates executed by lethal injection may in some cases die by "chemical asphyxiation" while unable to move, but still conscious, according to a new analysis of California and North Carolina executions released today.

The study appearing in the on-line edition of PLoS Medicine -- a San Francisco-based medical journal that makes its articles freely available to the public -- was authored by the same team of doctors and death penalty opponents who raised similar concerns about the procedure in the British medical journal The Lancet in 2005. That earlier study, which said sub-potent amounts of the anesthetic sodium pentothal were found in the corpses of executed inmates, helped to propel the current debate as to whether lethal injection is more humane or another form of "cruel and unusual punishment."

Dr. Leonidas Koniaris, a surgeon at the University of Miami in Florida and lead author of both papers, said that the amount of sodium pentothal used in executions -- particularly the 3 grams employed in North Carolina -- may not be sufficient to knock-out the condemned inmates while the two other chemicals that stop the heart and halt breathing do their lethal work. California's protocol required 5 grams.

"The dose may not be associated with the induction of anesthesia, particularly in bigger men,'' he said. As a consequence, during the course of the execution, the condemned man or woman may experience severe pain when the second dose of chemicals -- potassium chloride -- is infused to stop the heart. "It would cause a burning sensation that would be extremely painful,'' Koniaris said.

Data from California suggest, he said, that inmates died two to nine minutes after that drug was administered, which raises the prospect that the death may ultimately come from administration of the third chemical, pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the lungs. "In such cases death by suffocation would occur in a paralyzed inmate fully aware of the progressive suffocation and the potassium-induced sensation of burning,'' the authors concluded.

On May 15, California Department of Corrections is scheduled to present a new proposal for lethal injection procedures to U.S. District Court judge Jeremy Fogel, who has held up executions in the state since February 2006, declaring that the existing protocols were "intolerable under the constitution,'' but could be repaired. His decision held up the execution of Michael Morales, a Stockton man convicted of the murder of 17 year-old Terri Winchell, who was raped and beaten to death in 1981.

Koniaris said his latest study shows that, even if the procedures are carried out properly, they may not provide the humane sort of ending envisaged by the public. "The conventional view of lethal injection leading to an invariably peaceful and painless death is questionable,'' the authors concluded.

Koniaris and his colleagues maintain that the three-drug regimen specified in the 37 states that permit executions was developed up by Oklahoma legislators with minimal consultation from medical experts. The idea was that each drug would in itself represent a lethal dose, and the combination would "provide redundancy.''

In states such as Virginia, that specify two grams of sodium pentothal, the amounts may be within the range deemed acceptable for anesthesia in surgery for some patients -- "clearly not a dose designed to be fatal,'' the authors note.

Based on the latest research, however, the editors of PLoS medicine declared in an accompanying opinion piece that lethal injection is not humane and cannot be improved upon. "There is no ethical way to establish the humaneness of procedures for killing people who do not wish to die,'' they wrote

The editors wrote that "Execution by lethal injection...has the same relationship to medicine that an executioner's axe has to surgery.''No matter how much you try to sugar coat and euphemize this barbaric procedure, it's still fundamentally wrong.

I hope this study ties up California's death chamber indefinitely. Who knows, maybe someday even the execution factory in Texas will take notice.

Anka
04-24-2007, 07:57 AM
That study provides little evidence of anything. It says that inmates may die while conscious of pain but give no examples and do not say what likelihood there is. They seem to ignore the redundancy from the 3 drugs.

Many who support the death penalty will also accept the most humane method possible of execution, rather than an absolutely humane method.

Aidon
04-24-2007, 09:47 AM
Most humane does not fulfill the constitutional obligations. There can be no cruel or unusual punishment.

We could always anesthetise people and then drop them into an active volcano...that has to be pretty instantaneous.

Granted, until we devise a means of 100% certainy of guilt (rather than our current trend of finding hundreds of people innocent after conviction based on DNA evidence etc.), we shouldn't be executing anyone.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 02:42 PM
That study provides little evidence of anything. It says that inmates may die while conscious of pain but give no examples and do not say what likelihood there is.Obviously you didn't read the study. It tabulates specific data from execution procedures from several states, citing numerous examples, and explains why the procedures cannot ensure a painless death.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/4/4/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0040156-L.pdf They seem to ignore the redundancy from the 3 drugs.That is the whole point of the study. Read it. It shows how the anesthetic cannot work reliably, meaning that in many cases the prisoner will die a very painful death from asphyxiation.

That is their central thesis, there is no real redundancy here, or medical evidence that the injection combination is effective.

oddjob1244
04-24-2007, 04:56 PM
...particularly the 3 grams employed in North Carolina -- may not be sufficient to knock-out the condemned inmates...

So if the problem is that they're not getting knocked out from 3 grams why not up the dose to like 50 grams? Not like you're gonna do more harm then they're about to receive...

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 06:24 PM
So if the problem is that they're not getting knocked out from 3 grams why not up the dose to like 50 grams? Not like you're gonna do more harm then they're about to receive...According to the study, thiopental is too short-acting to be a predictable anesthetic. And it causes respiratory arrest on its own, so an even higher dose might make the process even more painful.

Read the study. The conclusion is that there is no combination of these drugs can reliably lead to a painless death, and thus the entire procedure is fundamentally flawed.

Klath
04-24-2007, 06:33 PM
According to the study, thiopental is too short-acting to be a predictable anesthetic.
Why don't they use sodium pentobarbital like they do when they euthanize animals?

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 06:48 PM
Why don't they use sodium pentobarbital like they do when they euthanize animals?And if they did? It goes back the study authors' point: there has been no real study as to how to perform this procedure properly and humanely. It has all been guesswork, as you're guessing now, and the constitutionality of our harshest punishment should not rest on guesswork (my view, not theirs).

Anka
04-24-2007, 06:55 PM
You're right I didn't read the study.

Most humane does not fulfill the constitutional obligations. There can be no cruel or unusual punishment.

How can the most humane punishment be cruel? How can a cocktail of lethal injections be anything other than unusual? If capital punishment has less pain than twenty years in prison then how can it be cruel on that basis?

I agree that capital punishment shouldn't be used as there is too great a risk of executing innocent people. I don't see why the pain issue has taken undue legal prominence when the executioners are attempting to make it the least painful execution ever in human history.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 07:06 PM
How can the most humane punishment be cruel?What makes you think this is the most humane punishment? I'd imagine that being shot in the head could be a lot less painful than suffocating to death over the course of several minutes.

Furthermore, even if it were the most humane execution method, that does not necessarily mean it isn't cruel. The notion of what is cruel evolves over time, and just because our country's founders would not have considered it cruel, doesn't mean that we must also not.

MadroneDorf
04-24-2007, 08:38 PM
nm

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 10:39 PM
That is the whole point of the study. Read it. It shows how the anesthetic cannot work reliably, meaning that in many cases the prisoner will die a very painful death from asphyxiation.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The quote and unquote study was not even a study.

And there are dozens of medications which can lower consciousness and relieve ALL pain prior to administration of the KCl. Many(most) of which themselves will cause death(you don't even need the KCl).

The so called study was working with only one drug for sedation, thiopental. I have never given this drug, and don't know why it is even in the regimen/cocktail.

Your title is absolutely wrong, btw.

It can be improved upon immensely. And I would be glad to improve it, as well as administer it as a medical professional.

Your article is the opinion of like 6 people. And their study is based on like 4 prisoners.. It is not science.

It definitely is getting good media coverage though.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 10:43 PM
How can the most humane punishment be cruel? How can a cocktail of lethal injections be anything other than unusual?

Because the meaning of cruel and unusual as written was in respect to torture, as in the rack, or Iron Maidens, or being branded to death.

It was not meant to mean no pain at all. That is absurd.

Death is painful, natural death has pain, the writers of the Constitution knew that. And wanted the process to be less painful than natural, not by torture.

Your interpretation is absurd, for even at its worse, lethal injection is no more painful than a natural death.

You anti-death penalty'ers have changed the context and the meaning without any notice or objection. I notice and I object.

You people are wrong.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 10:46 PM
The so called study was working with only one drug for sedation, thiopental. I have never given this drug, and don't know why it is even in the regimen/cocktail.Ask the 37 states that use it, or the Oklahoman anesthesiologist who "improvised" the protocol (per the study). That is the whole point of this study (which, by the way, involves far more than 4 cases): the current regimen cannot work humanely.

That does not mean there is no chemical combination in the Universe that cannot work humanely. Perhaps you should drop the CO<sub>2</sub> reclamation business, and become a death penalty consultant, finding humane ways to kill people who shouldn't be killed in the first place.And there are dozens of medications which can lower consciousness and relieve ALL pain prior to administration of the KCl. Many(most) of which themselves will cause death(you don't even need the KCl).Curious. How do you know how much pain a patient suffers from a LETHAL dose of sedative?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 10:47 PM
Why don't they use sodium pentobarbital like they do when they euthanize animals?

I can think of at least 2 dozen meds, just off the top of my head, which would reduce consciousness and relieve all pain. Most of which would induce heart stoppage as well, depending on the dosage.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 10:48 PM
That is the whole point of this study (which, by the way, involves far more than 4 cases): the current regimen cannot work humanely.

No that was not the point of the study, at all.

The point of the study was to help change public opinion against the Death Penalty in general, and to have the it stopped, in general.

That was the point of the study, and those who did it.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 10:54 PM
That does not mean there is no chemical combination in the Universe that cannot work humanely.
Of COURSE NOT!

There are many, and they are all commonly given to patients in hospitals. I gave them today, I will give them on Friday, I gave them last week. It is just the dosage and administration which needs to be changed.


Perhaps you should drop the CO<sub>2</sub> reclamation business,
That I will do for money.

and become a death penalty consultant,
I will do this for free.

finding humane ways to kill people who shouldn't be killed in the first place.
That is implying that people should not be killed. I don't know where you come up with this premise. Magic, gods, spirits, angels, voodoo hoodoo, fugu poisoning? I don't know.

Curious. How do you know how much pain a patient suffers from a LETHAL dose of sedative?
Not just sedatives.

I could kill you with O2, and you would laugh all the way to the grave. Of course I am just being an ass here. But its true.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 10:56 PM
Because the meaning of cruel and unusual as written was in respect to torture, as in the rack, or Iron Maidens, or being branded to death.And, implicit in your argument, is that our sense of morality must therefore remain fixed in the mid 18th century. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>Your interpretation is absurd, for even at its worse, lethal injection is no more painful than a natural death.I can think of many natural deaths that would be far less painful than suffocating to death.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 10:57 PM
There are many, and they are all commonly given to patients in hospitals. I gave them today, I will give them on Friday, I gave them last week. It is just the dosage and administration which needs to be changed.How do you know what the patient feels from a LETHAL dose of these drugs?

Are you regularly killing your patients with sedatives, then talking to Jesus afterwards to see how it went?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:08 PM
And, implicit in your argument, is that our sense of morality must therefore remain fixed in the mid 18th century.
Well if the First Amendment can apply to TV and Radio....

I mean, how did the Founding Fathers know that we could invent a way to kill people with very little pain, compared to what they were use to, and that their decendants would consider those ways painful. I mean an IV stick causes pain, is it reasonable to consider that cruel and unusual. The Founding Fathers would not have, even though they probably did imagine a device to be inserted into the veins at the time to administer chemicals, drugs, and medicines.

But we put in IVs all the time. I put in a couple today. Of course my patients today were sedated, and did not feel the pinprick stick.

The context of the argument, even YOUR context of the argument, comes from the 18th century, are you sure that you want to discount the foundation it?

I can think of many natural deaths that would be far less painful than suffocating to death.
If you can't feel pain, you don't feel pain.

How do YOU know that suffocating to death is even painful, have you ever tried it?

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 11:12 PM
How do YOU know that suffocating to death is even painful, have you ever tried it?Because people who are suffocating to death are visibly distressed. Also, if I hold my breath until I pass out, it is extremely painful, and suffocation goes beyond that.

Now, sedatives in high doses can cause all sorts of side effects other than easing pain (as you said, many can kill on their own). How do you know that those side effects aren't causing extreme pain, which the patient can't convey because he's under the effect of the drug?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:12 PM
How do you know what the patient feels from a LETHAL dose of these drugs?
Are you saying that pain medications and sedatives do not relieve pain?

Are you just trying to be obtuse, rhetorical, or do you have a real point?

Are you regularly killing your patients with sedatives, then talking to Jesus afterwards to see how it went?
I stopped a woman's heart for 8 seconds, last week.

I did not see Jesus.

And it was coool.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 11:13 PM
Well if the First Amendment can apply to TV and Radio....Using your "if it wasn't exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind, it doesn't apply" rationale, the First Amendment wouldn't apply to television and radio.

You're even crazier than Scalia, and Thomas. And they are both nutjobs.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:16 PM
Because people who are suffocating to death are visibly distressed.
Not if they are sedated.

There you answered your own question, in part.

Also, if I hold my breath until I pass out, it is extremely painful, and suffocation goes beyond that.
Anxiety kicks in, but is was it really painful to you, like when you have cut yourself or stubbed your baby toe on furniture in the dark.

Was it the same kind of pain, or was it different?

Now, sedatives in high doses can cause all sorts of side effects other than easing pain (as you said, many can kill on their own).
I am not just talking about sedatives, I have said that.

Sedatives are great, of course. I use them all the time.

How do you know that those side effects aren't causing extreme pain, which the patient can't convey because he's under the effect of the drug?
Because of physiology. There are natural responses to pain, and they can be observed and monitored.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:17 PM
You're even crazier than Scalia, and Thomas. And they are both nutjobs.

I like the orgy thing about Scalia, that is for sure.

I still think it is a hoax though.

MadroneDorf
04-24-2007, 11:20 PM
Since when did it become cruel to be visable distressed.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 11:24 PM
Not if they are sedated.

There you answered your own question, in part.Let me put it to you differently.

How do you know if they are feeling pain, if they cannot use their muscles to tell you?Anxiety kicks in, but is was it really painful to you, like when you have cut yourself or stubbed your baby toe on furniture in the dark.

Was it the same kind of pain, or was it different?Does it matter? It is extremely unpleasant, however you want to classify it medically.

That type of sensation would not be a humane death, in my opinion. It is not the sort of thing most people would envision in a lethal injection, which is touted as a painless procedure where you just go to sleep and your heart/lungs stop without you ever realizing it.

You probably don't care if execution is humane, but many other people do -- enough people to override you and the Christian zealots and make the death penalty unpopular. And when they find out that lethal injection is inhumane, their opinions while change, and the barbaric death penalty will cease to plague our society.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 11:27 PM
Since when did it become cruel to be visable distressed.That's why we got rid of the gas chamber in the 90s.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:34 PM
Let me put it to you differently.

How do you know if they are feeling pain, if they cannot use their muscles to tell you?
Because of physiology.

If your brain in induced to feel no pain... And your neurotransmitters are flooded with opioids you will feel no pain.

Does it matter? It is extremely unpleasant, however you want to classify it medically.
Death is unpleasant generally. But it happens and is suppose to happen.

Are you arguing that Death itself is UnConstitutional? In the end, I think that is what you are arguing. Get me a Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

That type of sensation would not be a humane death, in my opinion.
I have meds which relieve all anxiety at my disposal too. And you won't feel a bit of anxiety, either.

It is not the sort of thing most people would envision in a lethal injection, which is touted as a painless procedure where you just go to sleep and your heart/lungs stop without you ever realizing it.
I can DEFINITELY do that.

You probably don't care if execution is humane, but many other people do -- enough people to override you
Death itself is not humane or inhumane. Even though you believe so.

and the Christian zealots and make the death penalty unpopular.
I don't care about them.

And when they find out that lethal injection is inhumane, their opinions while change,
Or my regimen of humane lethal injection will take place.

and the barbaric death penalty will cease to plague our society.
Death itself is not barbaric. Neither is dying.

And like I said, the point of the article written by 6 people, who had preformed opinions going into it, is not scientific, though it is being touted as such. And its only purposes was to help you anti-death penalty'ers out, in your absurd argument that we as a society should not speed the death of people who no longer need to be alive.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:37 PM
Since when did it become cruel to be visable distressed.

Cruel, in the context of the Constitution was to be obviously tortured to death.

Eviscerated alive.

Racked.

Impaled on a pole.

Placed in an Iron Maiden.

That was the intent of the Right.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:38 PM
I could bleed you out, without a single medication, and you would fell less pain than a stubbed toe.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-24-2007, 11:42 PM
Using your "if it wasn't exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind, it doesn't apply" rationale, the First Amendment wouldn't apply to television and radio.

Of course Tom and Jim, and especially Ben would have applied TV and Radio to the First Amendment.

What, have you not read any of their stuff?


I don't know if they would have approved of p0rn on public airwaves, but I do know that Tom, at least, would have checked out the Black Chicks on White Dicks channel if it were available to him.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 11:47 PM
Death itself is not barbaric. Neither is dying.Obviously. But death as punishment is, particularly when it involves any suffering.If your brain in induced to feel no pain... And your neurotransmitters are flooded with opioids you will feel no pain.I could bleed you out, without a single medication, and you would fell less pain than a stubbed toe.How would you go about proving that?And like I said, the point of the article written by 6 people, who had preformed opinions going into it, is not scientific, though it is being touted as such.Bias (if it exists) doesn't make it unscientific.

And people such as these six, whom you so easily dismiss, are the reason Michael Morales is alive today, and will likely remain alive for a long time to come.

MadroneDorf
04-25-2007, 12:25 AM
WHen is suffering the same as Cruel and/or unusual either?

The constitution isnt against suffering, its against punishments that are cruel, and unusual.

Hell, isnt the constitution against cruel AND unusual punishments? Not cruel or unusual punishments?

I mean, isn't punishment, of any sort, to some degree cruel?

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 12:32 AM
WHen is suffering the same as Cruel and/or unusual either?Intentional infliction of suffering is the definition of cruel.

Generally, people with morals (and who don't have an emotional investment in the case) will oppose cruelty. Perhaps you fall in Fyyr's camp, those without, and who don't.Hell, isnt the constitution against cruel AND unusual punishments? Not cruel or unusual punishments?Obviously the last clause of the Eighth Amendment was meant in the disjunctive, not conjunctive sense. Torture was not at all unusual in the 18th century, yet the Eighth Amendment was designed to forbid it, because it was cruel.

The Supreme Court cases have largely found the "unusual" label meaningless, and have applied a different test altogether, derived from the cruelty aspect.

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 12:47 AM
I mean, isn't punishment, of any sort, to some degree cruel?Only if it's intended solely as retribution. E.g., execution.

MadroneDorf
04-25-2007, 01:29 AM
i dunno about that, whenever I see stuff about death penalty and the court its about whether something is cruel and unusual. if it was disjunctive, one would say it violates the 8th amendment because it is cruel; but instead its said that its "cruel and unusual"

If it was disjunctive, then it would mean that unusual punishments are unconstitutional - but that hardly seems the case, i've seen more then a few creative punishments doled out by the court, which certainly arnt usual; they are unusual.

I dont think the disjunctive nature of the 8th amenment is clear - if it was meant to be disjunctive - it would have explicably said "or" but it says "and" which to me at least, lends itself to conjunctive.

most of the death pen cases that come to the court seem to be about who you can punish, and why (IE not being able to do it for rape, or mental retardation); generally it seems to be the individual.

Methodwise - I havnt seen much go past individual state courts, IE california federal court has said that gas chamber is cruel and unusual - but not the country - many states legally can still do gas chambers - they just dont.

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 02:36 AM
i dunno about that, whenever I see stuff about death penalty and the court its about whether something is cruel and unusual. if it was disjunctive, one would say it violates the 8th amendment because it is cruel; but instead its said that its "cruel and unusual"You're talking about the technical meaning. I'm talking about the plain meaning.

Technically, the Supreme Court analyzes the Eighth Amendment in terms of "cruel and unusual," together. And the Supreme Court has devised its own series of tests, which aren't related to the literal words. So technically, the words mean just about nothing today.

Realistically, though, they don't actually ask whether the crime is (1) cruel, and (2) unusual, in the sense of the plain meaning of the words. The Eighth Amendment was intended to prevent tortures that, though cruel, were not unusual at the time. And the Supreme Court has struck down rather commonplace, but cruel punishments.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 04:08 AM
Obviously. But death as punishment is, particularly when it involves any suffering.
The obvious part is that you don't like the moral, religious, or ethical ramifications of the State putting people to death. No matter what. And no death is going to suit you, no matter how pain free. So this whole thing is just a red herring for you folks, and you don't mind the lies it entails.
Michael Morales is alive today, and will likely remain alive for a long time to come.
Mike Morales drove a cute cheerleader out to a deserted vineyard. Hit her in the head 26 times with a hammer. FVcked her vaginally and anally with the hammer and his penis. Then cut her breasts off.

He did it.

He does not deserve to live. If I met him on a dirt road, I would slit his throat. Regardless of how much pain that would cause him. I would kill him, just as I would kill a dog who killed my cat. And for no other reason, than he is a subhuman, and can not control his actions, and does not abide by the Social Contract, and deserves to die.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 04:16 AM
Realistically, though, they don't actually ask whether the crime is (1) cruel, and (2) unusual, in the sense of the plain meaning of the words.

Well, when there are those like Anka, who state that sticking an IV into a person, then administering meds would have been construed as 'unusual' to our Founding Fathers....

I kinda have to agree with him.

They would have found that at least interesting, if not unusual. For it was not usual at the time, of course. By definition it was not usual, they could not do such things.

But we today, stick IVs into people usually. And administer meds to people through those meds usually, for it is the purpose of usually sticking IVs.

I usually stick IVs into people. Usually. And it is not unusual.

And I swear to you, I do not stick IVs in cruelly(is that a word). I do so with the utmost concern to be without cruelty.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 04:25 AM
i dunno about that,...they just dont.

Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Our Founding Fathers had no problem with the Death Penalty, nor removing limbs as punishment.

Removing a life or a limb was neither cruel or unusual to the writers of the 'cruel and unusual' part of the Constitution. For they accounted for such in the Fifth Amendment.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 04:36 AM
Bias (if it exists) doesn't make it unscientific.

Bias makes it unscientific from the start.

The N makes it unscientific from the end.



Complete BULLSH!TT is what it is.

It is just 6 people with an opinion, and look at the play that they have gotten with it.

For every reader of my posts, who have discounted how MUCH opinions matter, here is my PROOF.

Opinions matter. When you can get 6 people together with PhDs(not hard) to write a blog post, **** happens. This thing is headline news on my local newspapers now.

Facts don't matter. Opinions matter. And they change how you live.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 04:40 AM
And the Supreme Court has struck down rather commonplace, but cruel punishments.

As much as I would kill Mike Morales, and have him suffer pain.

I could just as blithely, and clinically, kill him without pain.

He would suffer no cruelty, no pain at all. Just as you wish it.

He would die a painfree death. Well, besides the IV stick, of course. But anyone can endure that amount of pain, unless he or she is a pussy.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 04:43 AM
Oh, ohhhhh, the IV hurts me....

Stop hurting me, I'm a big pussy. Putting an IV in my arm hurts me too much, because I'm a big pussy. The IV is cruel and it definitely is unusual.

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 05:08 AM
Bias makes it unscientific from the start.I can't recall the last totally UNbiased study I've read. The authors generally have an agenda, or something they'd like to prove. This is OK, so long as we're aware of it, and their data collection and analysis methods are scientific.The N makes it unscientific from the end.There were about 40 North Carolina executions and 9 California executions studied. On top of that, they highlighted the details of specific executions which supports their conclusion. Why is this insufficient?He would suffer no cruelty, no pain at all. Just as you wish it.

He would die a painfree death.Prove it.

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 05:09 AM
Our Founding Fathers had no problem with the Death Penalty, nor removing limbs as punishment.They also had no problem with enslaving dark skinned people, and raping them to make more slaves.

So what.

Our morality need not mirror their morality.

oddjob1244
04-25-2007, 11:19 AM
So I've never heard of anyone being in pain while being knocked out for heart surgery. Some of which stop your heart. I didn't feel a thing until I woke up after having my wisdom teeth pulled. Knocking someone seems to be a non-issue.

Erianaiel
04-25-2007, 01:17 PM
Cruel, in the context of the Constitution was to be obviously tortured to death.

Eviscerated alive.

Racked.

Impaled on a pole.

Placed in an Iron Maiden.

That was the intent of the Right.

I guess the strangling pole (popular in Franco's Spain) would also qualify as cruel. Or hanging somebody. It does not really matter if it is mechanically or chemically induced.

If you do away with all rhetoric in the article it boils down to the scientist having found evidence that the sedative component in the lethal injection not always doing its job of sedating the victim. Said victim is then paralysed but still able to feel the effects of the second component, which has been reported as extremely painful.
I do not entirely follow the reasoning why the lethal injection can not be improved on, but then this is not my field of expertise (thankfully) and I am forced to rely on their judgement.

And Tuda, no need to derail your own thread by dragging christianity into the debate when the subject has nothing at all to do with religion


Eri



Eri

Erianaiel
04-25-2007, 01:24 PM
So I've never heard of anyone being in pain while being knocked out for heart surgery. Some of which stop your heart. I didn't feel a thing until I woke up after having my wisdom teeth pulled. Knocking someone seems to be a non-issue.

But it is a very big issue. There is a specialist in the operations room whose only job it is to keep you properly sedated. And even then mistakes happen. A tiny bit too much sedation and the result can be (brain) damage or even death. A tiny bit too little and the patient regains some degree of awareness. Plenty of surgeons have been freaked out by patients who could, post surgery, repeat what they told during the operation. Some reported they could actually feel pain though usually in a detached kind of way of feeling.
Sedating somebody is not easy and there is no hard and fast rule how much sedative is needed and how quickly it takes effect (and how quickly the effect wears off again).


Eri

ToKu
04-25-2007, 02:43 PM
Just shoot em in the head, heck if it can take out a zombie no chance a human would survive!

Panamah
04-25-2007, 03:49 PM
Being awake during surgery happens a lot. It's horrible. You're paralyzed so you can't move, talk, etc. But you're awake and can't communicate and you feel all the pain. Lots of news stories about it, Google "awake during surgery".

Although I never understood why it'd be an issue with lethal injection. If you overdose the sedative... then you kill them. Isn't that sort of the goal?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 03:56 PM
I do not entirely follow the reasoning why the lethal injection can not be improved on, but then this is not my field of expertise (thankfully) and I am forced to rely on their judgement.

Or you could use common sense, and apply common anesthesia procedures that we use for surgeries thousands upon thousand times each day....

You could use a cardiac monitor, and perhaps a BIS, just like we use in the OR(and ICU) to know if the murderer is not feeling any pain.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 03:57 PM
Being awake during surgery happens a lot.

Does not.

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 05:05 PM
Although I never understood why it'd be an issue with lethal injection. If you overdose the sedative... then you kill them.Potentially, very painfully. And no, that isn't the goal.

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 05:07 PM
Or you could use common sense, and apply common anesthesia procedures that we use for surgeries thousands upon thousand times each day....It is unethical for doctors to assist in executions.

You have still not answered my question, how can you prove that a person is not suffering pain from a lethal procedure, if they are unable to use their muscles to convey it to you?

Eridalafar
04-25-2007, 05:48 PM
If you realy want to kill in a painless way, just let do an heroine overdose.

The old greeks was doing to same with the hemlock, the history say that Socrate was put to dead with that and some opium mixt.

more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conium

But probably that the holier personnes will find it a bad thing, what killing while he die fully happy, and dying via illegal reacreational drug (but deadly one)!!! Nah it will never happen.

But the death sentence can be give to a wrong person so easely, that doing it is a bad thing in my book.

Eridalafar

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 07:13 PM
It is unethical for doctors to assist in executions.
No it's not.

Some opinionated people just say that it is.

Nor is it for Registered Nurses.

You have still not answered my question, how can you prove that a person is not suffering pain from a lethal procedure, if they are unable to use their muscles to convey it to you?
You are just being obtuse here.

If your brain can not feel pain. And your neurons can't transmit pain. Then there is no pain.

The body and brain react physiologically when they experience pain, even in an unconscious person. If those reactions are not occurring, then there is no pain. Those reactions are easily monitored for, I do it every day at work.

If you mean muscles, as in your mouth and vocal cords, that is one thing. If you mean muscle as in cardiac tissue, it is one muscle which will show very readily signs and symptoms of pain. And it is easily monitored for, in a sedated or unconscious, or even comatose person.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 07:17 PM
Potentially, very painfully.
Is your ignorance in the way of your opinion, or is your opinion in the way of your ignorance here? I can't tell.

And no, that isn't the goal.
To kill the person is the goal.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-25-2007, 07:26 PM
Or hanging somebody. It does not really matter if it is mechanically or chemically induced.

Why would anyone consider hanging as cruel?

It is instantaneous.

Death occurs faster than signals can travel along your neurotransmitters, in most cases.

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 09:52 PM
If your brain can not feel pain. . . .Prove your premise, before you go any further.If you mean muscles, as in your mouth and vocal cords, that is one thing. If you mean muscle as in cardiac tissue, it is one muscle which will show very readily signs and symptoms of pain. And it is easily monitored for, in a sedated or unconscious, or even comatose person.If all of the muscles are paralyzed, and the person is suffocating or his heart is being stopped, how do you measure pain?

Tudamorf
04-25-2007, 09:58 PM
Why would anyone consider hanging as cruel?

It is instantaneous.

Death occurs faster than signals can travel along your neurotransmitters, in most cases.No. Hanging can cause death in various ways, and is not necessarily instantaneous, or even fast, depending on the exact cause of death. Hell, even guillotine victims show signs of life for some seconds after the execution.

oddjob1244
04-26-2007, 12:06 AM
Lots of news stories about it, Google "awake during surgery".

So I googled exactly that and got this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5003469/

She felt no pain from the cutting, because the painkilling portion of the anesthesia was effective.

Which made me laugh.

A tiny bit too much sedation and the result can be (brain) damage or even death.

I just umm... don't know what to say. That's the point?

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 12:51 AM
I just umm... don't know what to say. That's the point?The point is a death without suffering. Not just death.

We already know how to do the death part quite well, that is not the issue.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 02:30 PM
No. Hanging can cause death in various ways, and is not necessarily instantaneous, or even fast, depending on the exact cause of death. Hell, even guillotine victims show signs of life for some seconds after the execution.

So, you didn't see the Saddam video, then?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 02:33 PM
The point is a death without suffering. Not just death.


The point is death without torture.

Not death without suffering.

Death itself has pain, there is suffering definitional in death itself.


The preservation of ability to call ourselves civilized is not endogenous to no pain or no suffering in death, it is that we do not go out of our way to inflict extra pain or suffering in death intentionally.

It is a nuance that you antis do not understand or that you ignore.

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 02:43 PM
So, you didn't see the Saddam video, then?Yes, let's base our entire medical understanding of a method of execution based on a crappy cell phone video of one particular incident. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging#Medical_effectsThe point is death without torture.

Not death without suffering.YOUR point is death without torture. My (our) point is death without suffering.

The reason we agree to lethal injection, and not gas chambers, gallows, firing squads, and the other traditional methods of execution, is that it is billed as a procedure that causes death without suffering.

This study shows that the belief, and the advertising, is false. It will now change opinions, and may place lethal injection in the same category as gas chambers, gallows, and firing squads, methods we don't like.

Since we don't have another method available that is established and proven to be humane, this will mean that even more governments will reconsider execution. California in particular is already on the fence and studies such as this could push us over the line. It's not as if the death penalty doesn't have a host of other problems which militate against its use.

Michael Morales may die. Of old age, though.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 02:47 PM
Prove your premise, before you go any further.
What?

It sounds like you are making a philosophical argument akin to "If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"


If all of the muscles are paralyzed, and the person is suffocating or his heart is being stopped, how do you measure pain?
All muscles do not stop working equally when you are paralyzed.

And we, well cardiac surgeons and anesthesiologists, routinely stop people hearts for surgery. For hours at a time, with KCl, btw. I myself, personally, have stopped a woman's heart for about 8 seconds(with a different chemical).

If you know someone who has had bypass surgery or a valve replacement, odds are they had their heart, for hours, stopped during that procedure. Ask them if they felt any pain; most assuredly they will say no, except for the sternum(which was cracked down the middle and needs to heal post surgery).

We also routinely measure brain wave activity with EEGs and BIS.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 02:56 PM
Yes, let's base our entire medical understanding of a method of execution based on a crappy cell phone video of one particular incident. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
rolleyes

YOUR point is death without torture. My (our) point is death without suffering.
Well this is a Constitutional issue. It is how Mike has escaped his fate. We must discuss this from its Constitutional basis, of course.

The reason we agree to lethal injection, and not gas chambers, gallows, firing squads, and the other traditional methods of execution, is that it is billed as a procedure that causes death without suffering.
Well, we could always go back to hanging or gas chambers and firing squads if prisoners don't like the idea of lethal injections.

I don't care about what it is billed as, that is just PR for the mob mentality masses like yourself.

This study shows that the belief, and the advertising, is false. It will now change opinions, and may place lethal injection in the same category as gas chambers, gallows, and firing squads, methods we don't like.
Op Ed piece. Quit calling it a study. It was 6 researchers, with a known bias, looking at a very very very small sample size, like N=4. There is nothing scientific about this, to even remotely label it a study.

Since we don't have another method available that is established and proven to be humane, this will mean that even more governments will reconsider execution.
A bullet in the head is humane. I have shot animals in the head, and they die immediately, they died humanely.

California in particular is already on the fence and studies such as this could push us over the line. It's not as if the death penalty doesn't have a host of other problems which militate against its use.
Cool, new word for me, thanks.

Michael Morales may die. Of old age, though.
I still will do him for free. I am a licensed medical professional now, no excuses(that is what the intervening judge said he wanted). I will send the warden of San Quentin an email today, offering my services.

Watch me make a liar out of the judge.

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 03:40 PM
If you know someone who has had bypass surgery or a valve replacement, odds are they had their heart, for hours, stopped during that procedure. Ask them if they felt any pain;That's different. They have a device that takes over the function of the heart, pumping blood to all the cells.

The question is, what does it feel like when your heart stops and you DON'T have a backup, and your cells slowly starve.

That is a difficult (though, I'd imagine, not impossible) question to answer. It needs to be answered and proven with studies, though, before any other execution protocol is devised.

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 03:44 PM
Op Ed piece. Quit calling it a study. It was 6 researchers, with a known bias, looking at a very very very small sample size, like N=4. There is nothing scientific about this, to even remotely label it a study.N=42. Read the study, please, before commenting on it.A bullet in the head is humane. I have shot animals in the head, and they die immediately, they died humanely.And your proof is what, your gut feeling?

That is the whole problem with the current lethal injection protocol, as explained in the study. It was just some improvisation by an Oklahoman anesthesiologist, and was never carefully studied.

The idea is to correct the mistake, Fyyr, not to repeat it.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 03:48 PM
That's different. They have a device that takes over the function of the heart, pumping blood to all the cells.
Ok, I misunderstood you than.

I thought you were saying that the pain of administering KCl to stop the heart was too painful for you.

I am telling you that we do it all the time, thousands of times per day.

We stop the hearts of thousands of people each day with KCl.

The question is, what does it feel like when your heart stops and you DON'T have a backup, and your cells slowly starve.
What do you mean by slowly?

If you are sedated, and your heart stops, you don't feel any pain. And your cells die quickly. No perfusion, cells die almost immediately.

As to your question, I have given you the answer. Go ask people who have had open heart surgery if it hurt them during the surgery.

They are your best sample group, for they were killed, then brought back to life(if you define heart stoppage as death).

That is a difficult (though, I'd imagine, not impossible) question to answer. It needs to be answered and proven with studies, though, before any other execution protocol is devised.
What are you going to do, interview dead people, and ask them if they felt any pain while they died?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 03:57 PM
N=42. Read the study, please, before commenting on it.And your proof is what, your gut feeling?
N=42 is just as worthless scientifically as N=4. Get me a thousand, and then we can maybe, maybe, discuss the scientific questions. Until then, it is just the opinion of 6 researchers who had a predisposed bias, and their op ed piece.

That is the whole problem with the current lethal injection protocol, as explained in the study. It was just some improvisation by an Oklahoman anesthesiologist, and was never carefully studied.
Well, 20 years ago, thiopental was probably the sedative of choice. I would not put anyone under with that, we have so much much better sedatives that we give.

I could put you down with propofol, by itself, so that you feel nothing, and it will brady your ass down. And you would feel nothing while you are going to see the light.


The idea is to correct the mistake, Fyyr, not to repeat it.
I could just as easy put a bullet in your cranium. You would not feel anything. It would be too fast.

And you are welcome to ask anyone who has ever taken a hollow point to the brain, if they felt any pain from the shooting.

We could always ask Terri Winchell what it was like to have a hammer cave in her skull 26 times. We could ask her how much pain she felt when Mike cut off her breasts and raped her with a hammer. She might be able to tell us how much pain is involved in dying.

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 06:35 PM
If you are sedated, and your heart stops, you don't feel any pain. And your cells die quickly. No perfusion, cells die almost immediately.Prove it.As to your question, I have given you the answer. Go ask people who have had open heart surgery if it hurt them during the surgery.Their cells are being fed by a device that bypasses the heart. They are an invalid test group.What are you going to do, interview dead people, and ask them if they felt any pain while they died?As I said, it's difficult, but not necessarily impossible. For example, there are people who die in similar ways (suffocation or cardiac arrest), and are revived some minutes later, who can be studied empirically.

In case of doubt, we should assume that the procedure isn't humane, not take your attitude that it's humane unless definitively proven otherwise.

Anka
04-26-2007, 06:52 PM
In case of doubt, we should assume that the procedure isn't humane, not take your attitude that it's humane unless definitively proven otherwise.

So how can you prove an execution procedure is humane given that you obviously won't allow anyone to test it until it's been proven?

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 06:57 PM
N=42 is just as worthless scientifically as N=4. Get me a thousand, and then we can maybe, maybe, discuss the scientific questions.Even ONE example of a prisoner who is visibly suffering from the procedure is enough to cast it into doubt. We don't need thousands of examples of suffering before we act.

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 07:06 PM
So how can you prove an execution procedure is humane given that you obviously won't allow anyone to test it until it's been proven?I don't know; I'm not an expert in the area. But I would be surprised if there weren't experimental ways to test new procedures, and their effect on the brain, without having to kill live patients. Also, I imagine for many of the drugs under consideration there would be medical evidence regarding accidental overdoses.

We do need something better studied than the improvised "hey these drugs sound good, let's pump them up with the stuff" procedure that we have today.

In the end, though, if we cannot prove with a reasonable certainty that execution is humane, we should not be doing it at all where alternative punishments will suffice.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 09:35 PM
For example, there are people who die in similar ways (suffocation or cardiac arrest), and are revived some minutes later, who can be studied empirically.

Exactly.

Virtually every person who has undergone open heart surgery has their respirations and heart stopped during the procedure.

Thousands upon thousands of cases.

I guarantee you that all of them will report no pain from the actual stoppage.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 09:37 PM
We do need something better studied than the improvised "hey these drugs sound good, let's pump them up with the stuff" procedure that we have today.

Who's we?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 09:59 PM
Exactly.

Virtually every person who has undergone open heart surgery has their respirations and heart stopped during the procedure.Since you're purposely evading the issue, let me state it more plainly:

For example, there are people who die in similar ways (suffocation or cardiac arrest), and do not receive any artificial flow of oxygen and nutrients to their cells, and are revived some minutes later, who can be studied empirically.

It makes no sense to compare heart surgery patients, who have their bodily functions precisely taken over by machines, to execution victims, who don't.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 10:06 PM
It makes no sense to compare heart surgery patients, who have their bodily functions precisely taken over by machines, to execution victims, who don't.

When you have stated that the act of stopping the heart is painful, then rebutting that in all the cases where we stop the heart for surgery routinely, then restart it routinely, that the patients routinely report no procedural pain...it makes perfect sense.

You set up the argument. I knocked it down. It was flawed from the beginning, and easy to do.

This is not some mystical black box that you, the poor ignorant layperson, is being shielded from knowledge about.

So continually pretending that you are some poor ignorant layperson is insulting. And if you ARE(as ignorant as you seem), then I am done discussing this issue with you until you first educate yourself. I have a couple of books to recommend, if you like.

Your pathetic pathos and feigned ignorance may work on your peers in SF, they do not work on me(and I doubt any of the other readers here).

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 10:33 PM
When you have stated that the act of stopping the heart is painful,I have not stated that.

However, you have stated that, because it creates a nice straw man for you to knock down.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 10:52 PM
So what part are you saying is painful again?

Ok, I have ruled out, you are not talking about the brain not being able to feel pain when it can not feel pain(sedated to coma).

...every neurotransmitter filled with opioids and can not transmit pain.

Now you are no longer saying that the act of the heart stopping from KCl is painful.



Where exactly is this supposed pain that you imagine originating from?


I will give you the pain of the IV stick, that is pain that they will feel. And even numbing the region with lidocaine is going to require the insertion of a 28 gauge needle.

You are now going to have to argue that a pin prick is cruel and inhumane, or unusual though.

I don't know if you are going to win that argument though. I have stuck 12 IVs in in one day, usually 1 per day. But only a pussy is really going to whine about the IV stick, videotape the IV insertion and the prisoner crying like a baby, and broadcast it on Prison TV for all the other inmates to see.

You know, if a man can stick a hammer into a little girls head 26 times, and stick it in her pussy and a$$, he really should be man enough to take a small 20 gauge IV needle going into his vein.

I guess I could rub some EMLA cream on the site, we do that for babies and newborns. That would be rich wouldn't. Some big musclely dude, with prison tats up and down is body, scars all over...And I have to give him a topical painkiller to stick him with an IV,,,,

/pouty baby talk on

jus wike a widdle bay-bee.

/pouty baby talk off

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 11:08 PM
So what part are you saying is painful again?

Ok, I have ruled out, you are not talking about the brain not being able to feel pain when it can not feel pain(sedated to coma).

...every neurotransmitter filled with opioids and can not transmit pain.That part. Can you prove that the effect of the sedative is such that the prisoner never feels pain (or any other unpleasant sensation), even while dying? In every case, and for every prisoner?

That is what this study is all about. With the current drug protocol, the study authors believe it is impossible. Perhaps with some other drug protocol it's possible, but, as the authors point out, that has to be experimentally proven to be true, not simply improvised or assumed to be true.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-26-2007, 11:18 PM
That part. Can you prove that the effect of the sedative is such that the prisoner never feels pain
No, we are not discussing NEVER feels pain. We are discussing cruel and unusual. Pain is relative.

I have had a patient who has been run over by a semi, his insides were outside, and his pain was 5 out of 10. I have had a patient with gout, who had 11 out of 10 pain.

Your predication for NO pain, is unreasonable. You might as well outlaw all injury, surgeries, and death as being UnConstitutional.

(or any other unpleasant sensation), even while dying? In every case, and for every prisoner?
ANY other unpleasant sensation? You are being a fool now.

That is what this study is all about. With the current drug protocol, the study authors believe it is impossible.
I have never given thiopental. And would probably not give it.

Perhaps with some other drug protocol it's possible, but, as the authors point out,

What is this disclaimer planet you are on,,,,PERHAPS.??? perhaps???

How about you change that to OF COURSE or CERTAINLY. This is not a black box man. You can go down to Barnes and Nobel and buy a friggen book if you want.

I have dozens of single component drugs with which to kill you, without you feeling any pain, my good friend. Dozens.

When worked in combinations, endless combinations of effective painless killers.

that has to be experimentally proven to be true, not simply improvised or assumed to be true.
We call that 'evidence based'.

Anesthesia is evidence based.

You look at the evidence, then you make your assessments. Then you may change your protocols to fit the evidence. It is not hard, and not written in alabaster or marble.

Tudamorf
04-26-2007, 11:43 PM
No, we are not discussing NEVER feels pain.You're not, but "we" are.

Lethal injection is accepted by the people because it was advertised as being painless in all instances. That is the primary reason the people have rejected all the other forms of execution. Otherwise we would still have firing squads, gallows, and electric chairs.

This study exposes lethal injection as NOT being painless in all instances. It will change the opinion of the people, and cause lethal injection to be lumped into the other forms of execution that we have rejected.

And, I hope, the people will reject it, too. Furthermore, realizing that we really have no humane method of execution, they will wonder why we go through all the time, trouble, and expense of executing people at all.Your predication for NO pain, is unreasonable.Why is that?

(And please, spare me the trite comments about the pain of inserting an IV. You know full well that that's not what "we" are talking about. De minimis pain doesn't count.)You might as well outlaw all injury, surgeries, and death as being UnConstitutional.Other injuries, surgeries, and death are not mandated by the State.I have dozens of single component drugs with which to kill you, without you feeling any pain, my good friend. Dozens.Prove it.You look at the evidence, then you make your assessments. Then you may change your protocols to fit the evidence.The study has looked at the evidence. The current protocol does NOT work. Do you have EVIDENCE that another protocol WILL work, in all instances, causing no pain?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-27-2007, 02:29 AM
You're not, but "we" are.

Who's that?

The Pansy Care Bears FVcking Fairy Force?

Tudamorf
04-27-2007, 02:35 AM
Who's that?The People (minus bloodthirsty Christian zealots and a few crazy libertarians).

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-27-2007, 02:49 AM
It is not a study.

It is an Op Ed piece.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-27-2007, 03:03 AM
a few crazy libertarians).
One.

All the other Libertarians I know are antis.

And I am sure glad that you feel confident that you are able to speak for The People. Be their representative, if you will. Most of The People are ignorant mush head fools, who can find their way around town with a map, or their asses without a GPS.

Tudamorf
04-27-2007, 04:12 AM
And I am sure glad that you feel confident that you are able to speak for The People.Of course I do. We use lethal injection today on the premise that it's the most humane method, not because it's better than the other methods or because we got bored with them.

That premise is false. It is not humane.

Amped
04-27-2007, 10:26 AM
So a mass murderer deserves to NOT feel pain, even while being put to death? Does this really make sense to you? Serial rapists, and other such people who actually receive the death penalty.... deserve to experience ZERO pain, even though their death is a consequence of the heinous acts that they have commited? What about the people that they have harmed / tortured / raped / killed? Didn't THEY deserve to not go through that? I say that if you think the death penalty should be 100 % painless, you may need to re-think your position. Lethal injection IS humane, there is no torture involved. There is no mess, and it is quick.

Erianaiel
04-27-2007, 02:06 PM
So a mass murderer deserves to NOT feel pain, even while being put to death? Does this really make sense to you? Serial rapists, and other such people who actually receive the death penalty.... deserve to experience ZERO pain, even though their death is a consequence of the heinous acts that they have commited?

Yes.

The principle of 'an eye for an eye' has long ceased to be the guiding principle of justice and punishment.
They are being punished because what they did was unacceptable. Doing the same to them in retribution does show that apparently their behaviour was not unacceptable after all (or why else would it be fine for one group to torture somebody to death but not for another?) And if it is not unacceptable then why is the person being punished for it to begin with?

In short, you do not torture even the worst murderer to death because you are not him.

Lethal injection IS humane, there is no torture involved. There is no mess, and it is quick.

Obviously this research casts doubts on the first and second, and also on the fourth claim.
It may well be that the researchers are biased and that their study is flawed, but the burden of that proof is on those who disagree with the conclusions. The researchers presented their study, methodology and findings openly. Anybody who wants to discredit the conclusions will have to show where either the data was flawed or the methodology was wrong or how the conclusion does not follow from the collected facts. (since this is an empirical study there is not much in the way of theory to question).
Until the conclusion can be scientifically shown to be incorrect there is indeed ample reason not to execute anybody with this method of three different lethal injections.


Eri

Tudamorf
04-27-2007, 02:47 PM
So a mass murderer deserves to NOT feel pain, even while being put to death?Yes.What about the people that they have harmed / tortured / raped / killed? Didn't THEY deserve to not go through that?They didn't deserve it, but they're already dead, and there's nothing we can do about that.

The State should not be in the vengeance business.Lethal injection IS humane, there is no torture involved. There is no mess, and it is quick.Well there's no mess, I'll grant you that. But the other things you mentioned are all in question. (And I doubt the prisoner cares very much about the mess; he's not the one that's going to have to clean it up.)

Suva
04-27-2007, 05:57 PM
IV sticks can hurt though if the person doing it does it poorly though. I've had several before and had them not bother me. I had one put in my hand and had so much swelling and bruising from it that I could not use my hand for 3 days. Considering the IV sticks are for during my spinal taps though, I'd take a botched IV stick over the spinal tap any day.

Anka
04-27-2007, 06:45 PM
(And I doubt the prisoner cares very much about the mess; he's not the one that's going to have to clean it up.)

Death with dignity can be important, especially to relatives and friends.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-27-2007, 11:06 PM
Death with dignity can be important, especially to relatives and friends.
You're kidding right?