Of a sample of 49 people being executed by lethal injection, 43 had less anaesthetic than required for surgery. As they were also administered a drug to stop them moving at all, any signs of distress as they suffocated or suffered a heart attack would have been absent.
See also
“Murderers executed by lethal injection in the United States may have suffered excruciating pain because they were not properly anaesthetised, researchers said yesterday.
A study published in the Lancet analysed information from Texas and Virginia, where about 45% of executions take place, and found executioners had no training in anaesthesia and administered the drugs remotely from behind a screen without monitoring for anaesthesia.”
BBC news mentioned last night that there are stricter controls in Texas on the methods of humane killing of domestic pets than there are on the judicial murder of convicts.
Can lethal injections as currently governed be seen as anything other than Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
I’ve read horror stories about the lethal injection before. Its apparently quite common for the subject to suffer pain especially if the injection does not find the artery.
I think those that condone executions actually think that they should be painful. They consider that the subject should be made to suffer a horrible death for whatever crime they have committed.
Certainly it would be possible to painlessly execute people if they really wanted to do it humanely.
Really the main issues with properly executing someone (so far as I can tell it) are the goals of:
Killing people in a manner that sounds less cruel (“Oh we just give him a little shot and he goes to sleep.”)
Splitting up steps of the execution so that no one person is the executioner.
I mean, if you just put the person in a room with a roof made out of a rock slab weighing 10 tons held up by a length of cord and a quick release system–death is guaranteed and pain will not be felt. Similarly there are probably a thousand more methods that would be simple and 100% effective, just no one will give the okay for them. People want the 20 step, maybe it will work maybe it won’t Rube Goldberg machine, as it sounds less grim and more like the person isn’t really going to die at the end. And if the best you can get people to approve is an uncertain device, the results you will get will be just as uncertain.
Not that I advocate smashing people with 10 ton slabs of rock or any other method, I am just pointing out where the problem is.
Point 1 is necessary in the USA because of the constitutional ban on ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. I believe that this finding will lead to the legal application for a further moratorium on lethal injection killings by people who are against judicial killing.
Point 2 is obviously necessary, but is no excuse to use non-skilled personnel who mess up the procesure.
Unfortunately for them the Constitution is against them because of the strictures on Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
However, it does seem that in the current atmosphere the Constitution is likely to be interpreted in a manner which suits such people- we shall just have to wait and see. Off course, if Bush gets to appoint neo-cons in place of moderates and liberals on SCOTUS, then such illiberal and inhumane decisions may last for a generation. "hang on in there, only three years to go before you can resign or die! Only one if there is a change in Congress next year. )
Are they suppose to be insensate? While I certainly don’t think we should torture people to death I don’t think it’s cruel or unusual for the last few moments of life to painful. Is there any form of execution that doesn’t involve some sort of pain?
Hanging, I suppose if the hangman doesn’t screw up the death should be very very quick and relatively painless.
Gas? Christ, I’d sure hate to be sitting in that little chair straining not to breath for fear of dying.
Firing Squad? Sure hope they get a good hit on my heart or brain pan.
Electric Chair? Maybe, having never been electrocuted with that many amps I couldn’t say.
The amendment should be read as “cruel and/or unusual”. Unusual means well out of proportion for the nature of the crime. An example would be if a law were passed making spitting on the sidewalk punishable by death.
I have read the article (I don’t subscribe to The Lancet, but the article is available through my health sciences library online service). Actually reading the article is an excellent idea for anyone who wants to make sweeping conclusions based on it.
Several things are noteworthy. The authors of the article state that " In view of these data, we suggest that it is possible that some of these inmates were fully aware during their executions. We certainly cannot conclude that these inmates were unconscious and insensate." (italics added).
What the data should lead unbiased investigators to conclude is that a) anesthesia levels may be inadequate, b) further studies should be done to resolve the issue, and c) consideration should be given to requiring additional training for individuals conducting anesthesia and/or the use of higher levels of anesthesia to ensure that there is no chance for undue suffering during execution.
Instead, we get a final indignant statement from the authors about “cruel and unusual punishment” and a blast about the “atrocity” of the death penalty from the journal’s editorial section.
It’s noteworthy that one of the authors of the paper is an American attorney representing inmates in death penalty cases. It is claimed that none of the other authors have a “conflict of interest”. It is not revealed whether they, or the authors of the overheated editorial in The Lancet which rants about “medical collusion” and “atrocity” are members of or contribute to any group (i.e. Amnesty International) that opposes the death penalty.
This is not the first time that The Lancet has gotten embroiled in controversy involving a supposedly scientific paper whose conclusions benefit particular attorneys. Just a few years ago, the journal had to step back in embarassment from an article involving Andrew Wakefield which suggested a link between the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and the development of autism in children. (the co-authors retracted their positions after it was discovered that Wakefield had ties to a legal group seeking to file lawsuits over vaccine administration).
I highly doubt that the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who apparently had no serious objections to hanging as a means of execution, would consider lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment.
It is also hard to tell what “neocons” have to do with this issue, but I’m sure it’s all tied neatly together in Pjen’s mind. :rolleyes:
But why is point two necessary? What’s wrong with having just one person be the executioner? I mean, if he can’t handle the idea that he is the one who killed the prisoner, then I’d say he’s probably in the wrong line of work.
How’s this?: We inject the prisoner with something to knock him out, then shoot him in the heart or head.
Actually, the guillotine might not be a bad idea. On one hand, it’s painless enough (or so I’ve heard) to be considered humane, but on the other, messy enough to satisfy the bloodlust of those bent on revenge.
IIRC, the guillotine was supposed to be painless, as ostensibly the sudden trauma of the blade hitting the neck would cause short-term amnesia to prevent the victim from feeling the actual “cut.” On the other hand, I imagine a convicted criminal walking into the execution chamber and seeing that big ol’ honkin’ blade ten feet over their head could argue about cruel psychological punishment…
Eh, wait until the guy falls asleep, and the put a bullet in his head.
The drugs intended to cause death do so by causing a heart attack- the heart stops.
When the heart stops the body goes into crisis and is robbed of oxygen. The brain remains conscious for several minutes while the muscles and internal organs are starved of blood and oxygen to try to maintain brain function. The body writhes and contorts and the face grimaces repeatedly.
To make the process more acceptable to onlookers and members of the public who might go into the anti judicial killing camp if they saw this, straps and muscle relaxant are used.
This ensures that this form of judiccial killing looks more ‘humane’ but may result in people suffocating to death as in the gas chamber and suffering extreme bodily pain as in the electric chair.
The muscle relaxant is only given for the benefit of everyone else involved in the process, not for the person being killed.
If muscle relaxant was not used, judicial killing by drugs would seems as barbaric as more overt physical methods. The move to judicial killing by drugs was made because of increased legal and public concern about the possibility of other methods becoming either illegal or unpopular. Hence muscle relaxants merely provide ‘cover’ for this possibly cruel and unusual punishment.
As far as neo-cons are concerned, if the present bunch get to nominate to SCOTUS, the appointees will be more likely to support judicial killing than those coming from the other side- that’s the connection. There is a gradual move to judicial killing becoming unpopular and then illegal in the USA. When this happens, then the USA can join the rest of the civilized world in giving up this barbaric practice. Until then it can keep company with Iran, Saudi Arabia and China- those beacons of human rights and humanity.
The death penalty is not “cruel and unusual” within the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically provides for a death penalty for certain crimes, and as Jackmannii correctly observes, if hanging did not violate the stricture against cruel and unusual punishment, then surely lethal injections do not.
However, the death penalty is simply wrong. While the Constitution permits it, it does not mandate it. We do not HAVE to kill our prisoners. Nor should we. We have the realistic capability of securing even the most dangerous prisoners for life, with due regard for their own safety as well as those guarding them.
And given the number of people sentenced to death whose convictions have later been overturned after a “Whoops, look what the DNA test says!” incident, I believe it’s utterly depraved to insist that we should have the level of certainty in death penalty convictions necessary to take the life of a convicted person.
I’m not sure why this is a difficult issue. If it is established legally that we are to execute with a minimum of pain, and there’s a chance that the standard amount an anaesthetic might not be enough, then increase the dose. Or simply OD the person with the anaesthetic itself. Problem solved.
There are a lot of excellent arguements against the death penalty but this isn’t one of them. We also have prisoners just like Suadi Arabia, China, Iran, and even <GASP>, Europe!! When will we become civilized and remove ourselves from the company of those human rights violaters and get rid of our prisons? Of course not, there’s a difference between how European nations handle sentencing and prisons then Saudis or the Chinese.
You might disagree with the death penalty, and as I said there are plenty of good reasons to do so, but it isn’t like we’re executing people for disagreeing with state policy, adultury, or being disrespectful.
All countries have prisons of some sort. No country whether civilized or not has managed to dispense with prisons. Of course, many European countries use prison sparingly rather than expansively as the US and, to a lesser extent, the UK do. Confining someone who is a danger to others is a safe way to keep society secure.
All western countries save the USA and Japan have stopped killing people as a punishment. It’s a bit like slavery, repression of women, child labor, child imprisonment, torture, imprisonment without trial, amputations or branding etc.- civilized countries at this date have decided to dispense with medieval and early industrial inhumane practice. You have to note that the USA and, to a lesser extent, Japan are the only western nations who still judicially kill prisoners. This sets them apart from civilized standards- note that other western countries won’t extradite to the USA if there is the possibility of judicial killing.
Off course, recently, the USA has made several steps back towards olden times with the reintroduction of torture, imprisonment without trial and imprisoning children.
We’ll welcome you into the civilized fold when you mend your ways.
I think you mean westernized, if one were to put the US and Japan in the same geography-based category.
In any case, why not shoot the condemned full of heroin so his final moments are awash with orgasmic pleasure, then a bullet to the back of the head while the Trainspotting is well underway?
Mom: If all the other kids jumped off a bridge would you?
What I’m getting at is the fact that other nations have abandoned the death penalty is not a valid reason for the United States to do so. As I said, there are plenty of good arguements against the death penalty. Appeals to “join the club” aren’t one of them.
)